Rumor: Windows 9 coming November 2014

The fact that Microsoft is working on Windows 9 is no surprise, however so far we've received very little information on the next version of Microsoft's OS as most of the attention thus far has been focused on Windows Blue. According to Win8China, who have provided a number of Windows leaks in the past, Microsoft are likely preparing Windows 9 for a tentative November 2014 product launch, with a beta to be available in January 2014.

Now of course this is just a rumor at this stage, however a release scheduled for late 2014 does fit with what we've heard in regards to a yearly OS update cycle for Windows. Windows Blue will be an upgrade to Windows 8 that will be launched this year, while a full version upgrade will come the following year, and naturally November is the perfect time ahead of the holiday season.

What will come in Windows 9? Well we're not quite sure at this stage as its release is some time away, although Win8China believes improvements to touchscreen support will be included, which wouldn't surprise us at all. The site also says that a mobile version of Windows 9 is in the works, which likely is referring to Windows Phone 9 - a product almost certainly also in the works.

Source: Win8China

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

HTC president on Galaxy S4 design: "We were pleased to see no innovation"

Next Story

Apple trashes rivals with new "Why iPhone?" page

100 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Windows 8 is bad and it's not selling. You don't have to like it but its facts just search google. Windows 9 needs to be 1000% better with a Real UI or Microsoft will be done . The haters on this site will defend the flag with there life but time will prove everything just watch.

It seems like a lot of people like to talk like they have all of the answers, yet actually have none. The very company that brought touchscreens into our lives in a big way, is also the same company that has refrained from putting a touch screen on its laptops and desktops. Why, it's the same company that Microsoft is trying to emulate. Apple brought the iPhone and iPad to market with pristine execution and design. But oddly, why no touchscreen on its other products? :0 And yet, isn't touch screen supposed to be on everything now according to the dullards? Of all people, why would it be Apple that doesn't jump on this bandwagon? They are the ones that mastered this for everyone else to follow..... While not a fan of Apple myself, one can't help but see the quality of design in what it does. It speaks volumes to some, that Apple didn't think it would be a good design choice for its laptops and desktops... Along comes Microsoft to try and cash in on this, and follow Apple. Not on its design principles, but really, just to copy them on what they have already done. But Microsoft just assumes that touch works on everything! Forget about making it work elegantly on all products, just make it work good on tablets because that is what is selling. Screw the desktop user because that market is dead, and to some lesser extent the laptop user.

The issue is not so much about what market segment is better than the other, the bigger point is to design your product so that it will "grow" that market, not further kill it. Apple created a new market in the Ipad, not only because it is the first of its kind, but more importantly, it designed a product that would grow that market, not push people away from it. This is the antithesis of what Microsoft is doing. A dying market (desktops, etc) is further damaged by poor design and execution. To watch Microsoft butcher it with Windows 8 and its further pushes down that path, is kind of odd since MS is trying to emulate Apple, but failing to grasp what that really means. They are going through the motions, but like a tin man, have no heart. Microsoft couldn't be further off the mark, and it is clear some can see that, while others are totally oblivious to it.

This does't surprise me. Wasn't they working on Windows Vista and started with Windows 7 at around about the same time...?

I hate to say it but If Linux really steps up this could be the time for desktop Linux and I'm not trolling . Microsoft made it super clear - they want you on a surface tablet. Microsoft is going touch screen tablet OS. The only real desktop OS soon will be Linux. You don't have to agree but you have to see it coming.

Time will show , it may not be such a dream , most of the World wants nothing to do with windows 8 this shows Microsoft messed up really bad . You will see in the next 2 years trust me.

TurboShrimp said,
I hate to say it but If Linux really steps up this could be the time for desktop Linux and I'm not trolling . Microsoft made it super clear - they want you on a surface tablet. Microsoft is going touch screen tablet OS. The only real desktop OS soon will be Linux. You don't have to agree but you have to see it coming.

Right. They said the same thing after XP - Didn't happen. They said the same after Vista - Didn't happen. They said the same after Windows 7 - Didn't happen.

Linux can succeed at any time, there is no need for the people to hate Windows so Linux can be instantly be successful if it gives the people something they like.

The only thing out there is Linux distributions, everyone takes a copy, changes the colors and the icons and “We are Very Proud to show you Xyz Linux 4.1, yayyy”

Every kid out there wants his own Operating System, millions of working hours are lost by tens of thousands of people customizing or trying to understand the same thing over and over and over.

For Linux to succeed it needs a company behind it, someone that will take it, severely modify it, change it everywhere, and give the people what they want, and no, Conical is not it.

Maybe Chrome OS or Android or the new Hybrid next year.

TurboShrimp said,
Time will show , it may not be such a dream , most of the World wants nothing to do with windows 8 this shows Microsoft messed up really bad . You will see in the next 2 years trust me.

really?because statcounter says there are almost as many windows 8 users as there are ios users. hmmmm who do I believe,some random commenter on the internet with his opinion with no kind of evidence,or real usage stats?

that means there are almost 1/7 of the amount of windows 7 users, in only 4 1/2 months time.

TurboShrimp said,
I hate to say it but If Linux really steps up this could be the time for desktop Linux and I'm not trolling . Microsoft made it super clear - they want you on a surface tablet. Microsoft is going touch screen tablet OS. The only real desktop OS soon will be Linux. You don't have to agree but you have to see it coming.

Then apparently you haven't seen Ubuntu's plans for tablets... the entire industry is going to copy Microsoft pretty soon. Apple may be fast-tracking their development, but they will deny it until they have something to show.

Will Windows-9 fix or compound the mess made with Windows-8? I guess we will just have to wait and see. In the meantime, alternatives to the Windows-8 mess are proliferating and getting better and better.

That is not true, it was delayed to 9/9/2019!

it is easy to start a roomer, there are a few
Office 2014 release data is : Jan 7 2014
Windows 8 SP1 / Blue release date is : July 9 2013

happy now?
I can also photoshop a dos prompt screenshot with a version number on it and posted on NeoWin

There are news, and there is stupidity, and the above is stupidity!

The Dark Knight said,
I don't work for the grammar police, but I couldn't resist this.

"Roomer"....really?!

yes, Roomer = lodger - tenant - occupant - boarder - occupier - inmate

Well, Windows Blue is more important. MS needs to improve Windows 8 ASAP. Hopefully, they've learned from their mistakes.

They need to solidify their desktop dominance and improve Modern UI and the apps. I fear the consumer tablet space is lost, and phones in questions. Phones will do OK, but they've got to get to a place where WP8 is no longer a platform where you will have to settle for less (than you can get with iOS or Android phones).

ModernMech said,

I addressed this comment from you yesterday, which you never responded to. Perpetuating this comment makes you out to be a troll.

http://www.neowin.net/news/fro...ows-8-fixes#comment-2135701

And you following me around from thread to thread moaning about Vista adoption rates make you look like a troll as well.
Your arguments are weak and heavily flawed since they are mostly based on zealot predictions and not facts.
The adoption rate for windows 8 today is far behind that of Vista during the same time frame, you can pound your fists in denial all you want, argue semantics all you want and make all of the zealot predictions that you want to make but facts are facts, windows 8 is a total failure.

Your arguments are weak and heavily flawed since they are mostly based on zealot predictions and not facts.


Plaese point me to where there are "zealot predictions" in my post and not facts. I quote several verifiable facts from statcounter, hitslink, and Microsoft's sales: Vista's initial adoption rate, vista's eventual market share, Windows 8 current market share, windows 8 license sale rate, windows vista license sale rate, and Windows 7 license sales rate. I then place the appropriate > and < symbols and draw conclusions. The only difference between my post and yours is that I present ALL the facts, not just a subset I picked to fit my agenda, as you have done.

Let me break down your fallacious argument for you, since you seem to be too obtuse to comprehend it. Your premise is that Windows Vista was a failure because it only achieved 20% market share. Then you look at Windows 8 and point out it has a lower adoption rate than Windows Vista in the first few months and conclude it is a failure as well.

But the Vista adoption rate you are using to compare to Windows 8 would have made Vista a success, resulting in 40% market share gained by 2009 when Windows 7 was released. But Vista did not continue to grow at the rate you are suggesting made it a failure; that rate was cut in half, and Vista limped to 20% instead of soaring to 40% market share. This makes your argument completely invalid, and Since you do not disclose this fact, your argument is intellectually devoid and disingenuous.

In fact, looking at sales rates and market share statistics, we can see that by 5 months in, Vista's adoption rate was already slowing. Windows 8, by comparison has not showed any signs of slowing down. Like I said in my linked post, according to statcounter it just experienced its highest per week gain since Christmas, wrapping up 13 straight weeks of growth. No other current OS can claim that, including iOS and Android.

You seem to also conveniently ignore the other hard facts I presented by glossing over and reverting to "adoption rates" which are not indicative of how many people are actually using Windows 8. Windows 8 is selling twice as fast as Windows Vista. Fact. Windows 8 is selling as fast as Windows 7. Fact. Windows 8 is installed on more computers now than at the comparable point in Windows Vista's life. Fact. And since you want to talk about adoption rates, here's another fact for you according to statcounter: Windows 8 is growing as fast as Windows 7 was in summer 2012 to Oct 26 2012.... meaning that the rate Windows 8 is growing at has more to do with the proliferation of tablets than the actual merits of the operating system.

You cannot reconcile your viewpoint with these verifiable facts, so you choose to igore them like they are not there, then go to a different thread and perpetuate your falsehoods. Sorry, but if that's how you operate, I'm going to call you out on it.

ModernMech said,


Plaese point me to where there are "zealot predictions" in my post and not facts. I quote several verifiable facts from statcounter, hitslink, and Microsoft's sales

Using "microsoft sales" automatically invalidates any and all claims that you may have since microsoft only shows [hides behind] OEM sales and not actual retail sales as most people already know.
And yes the Vista adoption rate would have made it a success if it would have continued on course however just the fact that windows 8 adoption rate during the same time frame is far behind that of Vista only shows that 8 is failing even worse than Vista did since 8 couldn't even "get out of the gate" with good sales, the only reason 8 is enjoying any sales today is due to the fact that machine with windows 7 are rarely available at retail and a consumer has no other choice if they want a windows machine other than to buy one with 8 installed on it.
God I don't even know why I am responding to this obvious humiliated troll garbage, you zealots lose thread after humiliating thread on this topic, windows 8 is a colossal failure at retail, this is a well-established fact and all of the zealot crying and semantics will never change it.

Microsoft reports sales the same now as they did in 2007. Thus we can directly compare sales from 2007 and 2012 and note that 2012 sales of Windows 8 are twice as high as Windows Vista. Thus Windows 8 "got out of the gate" with sales *better* than Vista. That's a fact.

By saying Windows 8 didn't get out of the gate with good sales, you're conflating market share adoption rate with user adoption rate. Market share adoption rate is below what Vista's was out of the gate, which was a very good rate of market adoption. But the actual number of users who are on Windows 8 today is HIGHER because the market is LARGER. Since 2007, over 1 billion PCs have been sold, and the market now also seems to include iOS and Android tablets.

You want to know what kind of statistical fraud you're trying to pull here? Remember this? http://lazytechguys.com/wp-con...pple-OSX-Adoption-Rates.jpg

Tim Cook calling Lion a bigger success than Windows 7 because it had a higher adoption rate. Yet in raw numbers, Windows 7 had more users and more sales in a comparable period. This is the exact same thing you are trying to say here with Windows 8 and Windows Vista, and it's a complete lie hiding behind a veil of purported statistics.

Windows 8 has sold more copies than Windows Vista in the same time. Windows 8 is on more computers in the same time. Windows 8 is not slowing down as Vista did in the same point in its life. In fact, its growth is holding on strong, and it's growing at the same rate Windows 7 did in 2012. And yet you stare at these facts and call it a collosal failure. That's probably the most brazen form of intellectually dishonesty, or at least self-delusion, I've had the displeasure of witnessing.

ModernMech said,
Microsoft reports sales the same now as they did in 2007. Thus we can directly compare sales from 2007 and 2012 and note that 2012 sales of Windows 8 are twice as high as Windows Vista. Thus Windows 8 "got out of the gate" with sales *better* than Vista. That's a fact.

Now you are simply trolling and have once again completely lost the argument and you lost it badly.
Microsoft only shows OEM sales, they do not show actual retail sales or adoption rates, any person who uses the OEM sales as a sign of success has automatically lost any and all arguments.

I'm not even going to bother replying to your endless zealot squabble anymore, you have already lost every argument about windows 8 being a success and your dishonest tirades have become very boring, perhaps you should apply for a job at MS? Oh wait, Ballmer would never hire someone even more dishonest and self-delusional than he is, nevermind...

Order_66 said,

Now you are simply trolling and have once again completely lost the argument and you lost it badly.
Microsoft only shows OEM sales, they do not show actual retail sales or adoption rates, any person who uses the OEM sales as a sign of success has automatically lost any and all arguments.

Trolling? Dishonest? Self-delusional? You seem to be projecting. What I've done is present a case supported by verifiable facts. You, on the other hand, are cherry picking the figures that only support your point of view.

Case in point, you categorically dismiss Microsoft license sales. This is the only figure that we have available from a first party source, which is consistent across the 6 year gap between Vista and Windows 8. And yet you dismiss it off hand. Despite the fact that it's HIGHLY correlated with actual sales of actual PC hardware to end users. That is, if you take a look at Microsoft revenue you'll see that it grows and fluctuates with sales of PCs. This is because of the simple fact that Microsoft only sells licenses when OEMs sell computers. Licenses sold is just a lagging indicator for total OEM sales, and yet you're the one plugging your ears, covering your eyes, pretending this number doesn't exist. Microsoft magically generated 5 billion dollars in Q4 2012 from no one. Sure.

I'm not even going to bother replying to your endless zealot squabble anymore, you have already lost every argument about windows 8 being a success and your dishonest tirades have become very boring, perhaps you should apply for a job at MS? Oh wait, Ballmer would never hire someone even more dishonest and self-delusional than he is, nevermind...

Oh please, I'm the dishonest one here? Look in the mirror buddy. I've presented you with fact after verifiable fact and drawn only the most simple and direct conclusions which follow from those facts. Point out my fallacies. Point out my logical inconsistencies. No, instead you run from the thread when your position is untenable, and you'll pop up again in another holding the same illogical and indefensible viewpoint.

So go ahead and run away. Hide your head in the sand. Doesn't change the facts I presented here. Doesn't change that on average, 300,000 machines are purchased per day that run Windows 8. Doesn't change the fact that Windows 8 share will continue to grow day after day, week after week. But go ahread and continue on with your little sniping one-liners and stories about how bad windows 8 is selling in the store you "manage". All this means is you're a coward uninterested in logical debate. Makes me wonder what you're actually interested in accomplishing here.

Edited by ModernMech, Mar 17 2013, 8:51pm :

Order_66 said,

And still not even come close to the adoption rate of Vista lmao

do you even know what adoption rate means? the percentage of its users that adopt the new product. Obviously when you have hundreds of millions or half a billion more users than your already billion plus user base,you are most likely not going to get the same adoption rate. You can sell to more users even if your adoption rate is lower.

4 1/2 months in, Windows 8 has almost 1/4 of what the total number of vista copies were ever sold since 8 years ago. Adoption rate becomes meaningless when numbers are put things into perspective.

You can keep repeating the same thing all you want, but even you know what the real deal is,as much as it kills you. its desperation, just like apple when they come out with these numbers about them having higher adoption rate than windows 7.

vcfan said,

just like apple when they come out with these numbers about them having higher adoption rate than windows 7.

Probably the only thing you have said that makes any sense.

I agree with you on the apple claims, they tried to make it look as if lion adoption rates were higher than windows 7, but when you look deep into their figures you quickly see they are full of it, much like when I look into "ModernMech"s claims when he uses the heavily flawed OEM sales to claim windows 8 was a success when in reality it was a colossal failure at retail.

MS sold 60 million windows 8 licenses therefor it is a success!!!1!

Wrong!

Order_66 said,

Probably the only thing you have said that makes any sense.

I agree with you on the apple claims, they tried to make it look as if lion adoption rates were higher than windows 7, but when you look deep into their figures you quickly see they are full of it, much like when I look into "ModernMech"s claims when he uses the heavily flawed OEM sales to claim windows 8 was a success when in reality it was a colossal failure at retail.

MS sold 60 million windows 8 licenses therefor it is a success!!!1!

Wrong!

just like youre telling him that the 60 million are oem sales(which they aren't,there were 4 million upgrades alone within the first 3 days),you cant say they weren't sold to the consumers. there were 90 million windows pcs sold in the last quarter of 2012,which windows 8 was available in 2 of those months. Statcounter shows there are currently almost as many windows 8 users as ios,which has over 100 million users right now. That 60 million copies of windows 8 sold is even outdated,there are many more now,probably 100 million or more. You have no other proof to refute these amounts of users. If you want to continue with your adoption rate stat,go ahead,but its meaningless because what matters is the userbase.If im a developer,what do I care if windows 8 adoption rate is lower than vista? If there are a ton more users,I will make a ton more money.

vcfan said,

just like youre telling him that the 60 million are oem sales(which they aren't,there were 4 million upgrades alone within the first 3 days),you cant say they weren't sold to the consumers. there were 90 million windows pcs sold in the last quarter of 2012,which windows 8 was available in 2 of those months. Statcounter shows there are currently almost as many windows 8 users as ios,which has over 100 million users right now. That 60 million copies of windows 8 sold is even outdated,there are many more now,probably 100 million or more. You have no other proof to refute these amounts of users. If you want to continue with your adoption rate stat,go ahead,but its meaningless because what matters is the userbase.If im a developer,what do I care if windows 8 adoption rate is lower than vista? If there are a ton more users,I will make a ton more money.

Well obviously the adoption rate is not on the side of microsoft or their zealots because it bombed so badly at retail.
This shows windows 8 as a total failure with consumers, couple that with the countless 3rd party software programs created just to make it "usable" or "tolerable" only further proves what most normal people already know, windows 8 has failed and it has failed badly.
And then you have the rushed release of Blue and 9 hot on its heals even faster than 7 was released to "fix" Vista, this more than shows that even MS and that idiot Ballmer know that 8 is a total failure.

A zealot can sit there all day long posting flawed stats and semantics but it will never change the stark, simple truth of the matter.

Order_66 said,

Well obviously the adoption rate is not on the side of microsoft or their zealots because it bombed so badly at retail.
This shows windows 8 as a total failure with consumers, couple that with the countless 3rd party software programs created just to make it "usable" or "tolerable" only further proves what most normal people already know, windows 8 has failed and it has failed badly.
And then you have the rushed release of Blue and 9 hot on its heals even faster than 7 was released to "fix" Vista, this more than shows that even MS and that idiot Ballmer know that 8 is a total failure.

A zealot can sit there all day long posting flawed stats and semantics but it will never change the stark, simple truth of the matter.

riiiiiight...your word is truth. uhh huuu. I mean real facts don't matter,what matters is that Order_66 said so. Everyone reports their sales to Order_66. If you say its a failure, damn those 100 million+ users,its a failure. All hail Order_66.

Actually win8china has taken down this blog; the news had came from a soft-forum post about 2 weeks ago about a "win9 road-map".

Remember in 2011 when MJF also said that "win8 will come in April 2012"? LOL.

I was first excited about Windows 8 but time proved that there were a silly product additions.. and now Windows 9 will focus on touch screen support ? Man I'm switching to Ubuntu.

Given that Windows 8 was released three years after Windows 7 and its development was rushed (as evidenced by the UI changes late into development, including significant changes after the Release Preview) one has to be wary of Windows 9 coming sooner, especially with Windows Blue due inbetween. Even Windows 7, which had a relatively short development period, took nearly three years.

I know Microsoft wants to bury Windows 8 as quickly as possible but releasing Windows 9 prematurely will be damaging to the brand. The only Windows version with a comparable development period is Windows ME and we all know how that turned out.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Given that Windows 8 was released three years after Windows 7 and its development was rushed (as evidenced by the UI changes late into development, including significant changes after the Release Preview) one has to be wary of Windows 9 coming sooner, especially with Windows Blue due inbetween. Even Windows 7, which had a relatively short development period, took nearly three years.

I know Microsoft wants to bury Windows 8 as quickly as possible but releasing Windows 9 prematurely will be damaging to the brand. The only Windows version with a comparable development period is Windows ME and we all know how that turned out.

I think Windows Blue will more like an XP SP2 it will bring features and enhancements to the OS as well as making it easier for devs to target 27,22,17,15,13,10,7 and 4 inch screens across Windows 8,RT and Phone 8. Windows 9 will be the OS revolution the PC market really needs. Think of Windows 8 as a step in the right direction, it provides a building block for a next gen OS. The real next gen OS will be Windows 9 and I honestly cannot wait. Sh!ts about to get real.

theyarecomingforyou said,
Given that Windows 8 was released three years after Windows 7 and its development was rushed (as evidenced by the UI changes late into development, including significant changes after the Release Preview) one has to be wary of Windows 9 coming sooner, especially with Windows Blue due inbetween. Even Windows 7, which had a relatively short development period, took nearly three years.

I know Microsoft wants to bury Windows 8 as quickly as possible but releasing Windows 9 prematurely will be damaging to the brand. The only Windows version with a comparable development period is Windows ME and we all know how that turned out.

Microsoft has shown no signs of wanting to bury Windows 8.

"What will come in Windows 9? Well we're not quite sure at this stage as its release is some time away"

...Well, given that it's been previously reported by Neowin (http://www.neowin.net/news/new...stone-preview-a-possibility) that IE11 will come with Windows Blue... so I'd hazard a guess that maybe IE12 will come with Windows 9? ...it'd be nice to see Microsoft accelerate their IE release cycle, which has never been particularly frequent compared to the release cycles of other major browsers!

should be called something like...

"Windows.8.PROPER" (since it will most likely be a fixed version of Windows 8 like how Win7 was over Vista except this time it will (hopefully) be a interface overhaul)

Start Menu will be back, all tablet-related bloatware out, improve the Windows Media Player and change desktop icons to clean, modern 2D ones. That's Windows 9; sold!

Ishanx said,
I don't want the Start Menu back. I just want the boot-to-desktop option.

Whilst I don't think it necessary I would like to see this just as a feature to make things smoother for people. BTW there are plenty of software/registry hacks to do that.

ingramator said,

Whilst I don't think it necessary I would like to see this just as a feature to make things smoother for people. BTW there are plenty of software/registry hacks to do that.

I agree completely. The Start menu needs to come back as an option. If I am using my Win8 tablet I really don't need it but it would be really great to have it on my desktop when I am trying to get real work done. Just having the option of say "Tablet Mode" vs "Desktop Mode" would make things almost perfect.

voodoo123x said,

I agree completely. The Start menu needs to come back as an option. If I am using my Win8 tablet I really don't need it but it would be really great to have it on my desktop when I am trying to get real work done. Just having the option of say "Tablet Mode" vs "Desktop Mode" would make things almost perfect.

With the right mix and tweaks between the start screen and desktop I don't think we need the start menu back at all. Think of this, I expect at least some of this to happen. First they add the third small tile option that WP has. This smaller size should match with the size of the icons you see on your taskbar. At that point they let you pin metro apps to the taskbar and also show any running apps on it. After that what if they added the option to slide in the start page partially over the desktop like how the charm menus do on the right of the screen? At that point it doesn't take up the whole screen for desktop users and only that 1/3rd or so. Toss in some scaling tweaks and changes here and there and I think you have a good middle ground for desktop users without needing to go back to the old and ditching the new.

Toss in windowed metro apps if started through the desktop and I believe we have a winner.

lomas said,
For the first time, i am not really looking forward to the next new version of Windows

Why??? Its been exciting since Windows 1.0!

I feel that a paradigm shift has happened with mobile computing being more common. Before, we had Windows and the laughably minor competitors Linux and Apple. Today, Apple has grown up, Samsung is big with Android, Google does Chromebooks, and so on.

While neither are still as big as Windows on the desktop, what _has_ happened is that Windows software is no longer a "given" to use. Companies now often expect good web platforms accompanying a software suite in order to use the tools on both iOS and Android tablets, home users often expect stuff to come with multi-platform support because they have a Windows laptop at home but an Android phone in their hands, and so on.

And in the middle of all this sits Microsoft, with a business model founded on that their platform being the only option. I often notice this when Microsoft switches API's. Suddenly there was .NET. Then there was WinFX and now WinForms was getting obsolete. Then scratch all that and go with WinRT instead. Oh, Silverlight? What Silverlight. No other company do these things because they know the competition is too fierce to force their developers through these hurdles.

After eight years of developing for the Microsoft platform, I'm getting exhausted. It's exhausting to develop for them. You simply don't develop enterprise tools for their platform and expect the API's to stick for more than three years. Sure, that was no problem before, but it is when the mentality still sticks at Redmond, all the while the competition is fiercer than ever. Sometimes I'm not even sure if they know it. Their internal culture is so incredibly strong after all these years as the undisputed software leader.

Edited by Northgrove, Mar 17 2013, 11:24am :

Northgrove said,

After eight years of developing for the Microsoft platform, I'm getting exhausted. It's exhausting to develop for them. You simply don't develop enterprise tools for their platform and expect the API's to stick for more than three years. Sure, that was no problem before, but it is when the mentality still sticks at Redmond, all the while the competition is fiercer than ever. Sometimes I'm not even sure if they know it. Their internal culture is so incredibly strong after all these years as the undisputed software leader.

Whilst I do agree that MS have dropped a hammer on Silverlight I don't think you can say WinForms has gone anywhere nor can you say WinRT has taken over or something. APIs HAVE to adapt to the computing world because if they remain stagnant so does the market. WinRT has security and mobility as the two core focuses something that MS knows will be incredibly important in the years to come. Going from C# and WPF to C# in WinRT is basically the same and going from C# WinForms to to C# WPF is pretty seamless, you can use blend to handle the XAML design and the objects are treated pretty much exactly the same. As developers we have to constantly adapt and thats part of the fun! There aren't too many jobs where you get to keep learning new stuff that evolves with the rapid rate technology is evolving.

I think Windows 9 is going to have a lot to offer this time around. Windows Vista got a bad rap when it came out and then Windows 7 made everyone cheer because they fixed what people didn't like. Hopefully the same trend will continue with Windows 9. They will release this a couple years down the road and hopefully it will build upon the idea that is Windows 8 but make it better.

On the integration fo mobile and desktop, I really like the idea of a unified operating system for both mobile and desktop platforms, but they need to have more options for the user to choose which style they want to use the OS as. An option to enable the Start menu on a desktop or disable it on a tablet, because really on a touchscreen there isn't the need for the Start menu. Swipe and go is the idea there, but does suck to not have it when trying to get real work done on your desktop.

They have a lot of options to play with and tweak. I'm looking forward to seeing what they come up with.

"Win8China believes improvements to touchscreen support will be included"

Oh yes, because what everyone has been dying for is more touchscreen support. All of my concerns about the Windows product line in the future have been put to rest.

<sigh>

No they won't, digitizers are VERY expensive. Buy a digitizer for a phone, they will almost always be more expensive than the LCD screen. The price of laptop would be £30+ more each. You won't be seeing touchscreens on laptops under £450 i'd guess.

By the time Win 9 is out pretty much every new PC sold will have a touch screen. It's the future for most consumers, why do you think tablet sales are eating in to desktop PC and laptop sales. MS have to adapt or die. Nothing is making you use touch input though, it's optional. I use Win 8 on my workstation and prefer it over 7 because of the desktop and speed improvements.

And i'd much rather have one single powerful OS that does everything, instead of using some gimmicky toy like iOS, or a desktop OS like OSX or Linux that don't support touch just incase i ever decide to use it.

torrentthief said,
No they won't, digitizers are VERY expensive. Buy a digitizer for a phone, they will almost always be more expensive than the LCD screen. The price of laptop would be £30+ more each. You won't be seeing touchscreens on laptops under £450 i'd guess.

And LCD screens are not very expensive any more... Touch screen technology has come down drastically with the popularity of smartphones and will continue to crash as more competitive hardware comes out.

they annoying aspect of touchscreen is Ergonomics,
nd thats why 80s touchscreen development were went halted,
as they still unable to conquer the "GORILLA ARM" problems.

Chugworth said,

Not everyone wants a smudged up laptop screen.

Same thing people said about mobile phones but I'm willing to bet you have a "smudged up" smartphone screen.

torrentthief said,
No they won't, digitizers are VERY expensive. Buy a digitizer for a phone, they will almost always be more expensive than the LCD screen. The price of laptop would be £30+ more each. You won't be seeing touch screens on laptops under £450 I'd guess.
Well guess again is what I say. You get a 10point touch screen on sub £350 notebooks now, in two years this will be common place and touch will be a basic feature of the screen. I own the notebook below and it's a nice little package allowing me to do anything I need while travelling.

http://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/A...893012-pdt.html?srcid=11026

W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E said,
By the time Win 9 is out pretty much every new PC sold will have a touch screen.

I doubt it, there is ZERO benefit having a touch screen on a desktop, or a laptop.

dvb2000 said,

I doubt it, there is ZERO benefit having a touch screen on a desktop, or a laptop.

You again...? Oh, and you're wrong.

The major problem with touch displays on laptops is the poor ergonomics. It's simply not usable over a few hours of computing. Those pushing such displays and compromising other aspects don't understand good design.

cyborgs said,
all notebooks will soon ship with touchscreen.

And I would say: Touch my monitor with your dirty fingers and die.

Torolol said,
they still unable to conquer the "GORILLA ARM" problems.

People won't be using touch 100% of the time.

W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E said,
I use Win 8 on my workstation and prefer it over 7 because of the desktop and speed improvements.

And i'd much rather have one single powerful OS that does everything, instead of using some gimmicky toy like iOS, or a desktop OS like OSX or Linux that don't support touch just incase i ever decide to use it.

I agree on both accounts here. Windows with touchscreen support is definitely the future but who says that you have to use it if you don't want to? The fact that they are combining both the mobile and desktop OS into one OS is a fantastic idea compared with the OSX/iOS solution. OSX is quickly becoming a mobile OS in it's own right as it seems every update is making feel more and more like iOS, which is not necessarily a good thing since it is meant to be a desktop OS. iOS, unlike a unified Win9 implementation, gives very little freedom to the user and streamlines everything for you. This is good for some, but not a healthy solution in long run.

Northgrove said,
The major problem with touch displays on laptops is the poor ergonomics. It's simply not usable over a few hours of computing. Those pushing such displays and compromising other aspects don't understand good design.

They are not if used along with keyboard and mouse. If you think of it as exclusive input method, it will be a problem. On and btw mouse and keyboard also have their own ergonomic issues yet we use them.

ingramator said,

Same thing people said about mobile phones but I'm willing to bet you have a "smudged up" smartphone screen.


But you do not hold and handle a desktop or a laptop as you handle a phone or a Tablet...

W32.Backdoor.KillAV.E said,
MS have to adapt or die.

Yeah right MS will never die lol MS obviously HATES its customers, there is no good reason to FORCE a touch os on everyone, sure if they want to integrate the capability into the os then fine but don't force your flawed vision onto everyone and then claim that MS is doing it because they have to 'adapt or die', that's just plain silly.

This whole metro/touchscreen mess is nothing more than the product of an arrogant douche named Steven Ballmer, thanks to Ballmer modern day computing is a total mess and getting worse every day and with windows 9 just around the corner with its "improvements to touchscreen support" the typical desktop user will be treated with contempt once again.

No, PCs will not all have touch screens. I can't even reach my monitors sitting here. Having to constantly reach up and tap is just stupid when I have my hand sitting on a mouse already.

dvb2000 said,

I doubt it, there is ZERO benefit having a touch screen on a desktop, or a laptop.

Northgrove said,
The major problem with touch displays on laptops is the poor ergonomics. It's simply not usable over a few hours of computing. Those pushing such displays and compromising other aspects don't understand good design.

It's easy to spot the people who have never used one.

The moment I realized laptops should have touch screens came years ago, when I'd been using an HP TouchSmart all-in-one, and I soon found myself poking the screen of my Vaio laptop. I would sit there for a couple seconds wondering why it was hung, and then it would dawn on me that it wasn't a touch screen.

It's very natural to use a mix of touch, keyboard, and mouse/trackpad. Every day I use my Surface Pro like a laptop, and use the trackpad to do a number of things, but I pretty much always use touch to scroll pages. It's just easier and more natural. With my arm resting on the table alongside the keyboard, gripping the lower side of the screen and panning with my thumb, there is absolutely no concern for fatigue. I've also never gotten "tired" from moving my fingers the 3 or 4 inches from the keyboard to the screen to tap something...

Zagadka said,
No, PCs will not all have touch screens. I can't even reach my monitors sitting here. Having to constantly reach up and tap is just stupid when I have my hand sitting on a mouse already.

False premise. Just because something is a touch screen doesn't mean you "have to" touch it at all (let alone touch it "constantly").

Further, traditional desktop computers are a shrinking minority of PCs, so not really an interesting factor in this discussion.

Looking back in the history of computing, when Desktops first appeared, the techs who ran the mainframes looked down on them as toys, considering the mainframes to be the only real computing devices. Could current day techs be of the same cut, dismissing touch from any future in computing. Just a thought.

Brandon Live said,

Further, traditional desktop computers are a shrinking minority of PCs, so not really an interesting factor in this discussion.

Then lets just get rid of them all since Microsoft seems to HATE everyone who uses a normal desktop pc.
We must all conform to the Ballmer ideology /s

Order_66 said,

Then lets just get rid of them all since Microsoft seems to HATE everyone who uses a normal desktop pc.
We must all conform to the Ballmer ideology /s

First of all, I think you're attributing way too much to Ballmer. He doesn't make product decisions like that...

But more importantly, nobody at MS "hates" desktop computers. I'm answering this on a dual-monitor desktop/workstation setup in my apartment, similar to the setup I used in my office while *writing* Windows 8.

Recognizing the reality that traditional desktop setups are not a growth market (and indeed are on the decline) doesn't mean anyone thinks they're going to go away entirely or are unimportant.

Brandon Live said,

Recognizing the reality that traditional desktop setups are not a growth market (and indeed are on the decline) doesn't mean anyone thinks they're going to go away entirely or are unimportant.

I think Dot Matrix disagrees with you...

torrentthief said,
No they won't, digitizers are VERY expensive. Buy a digitizer for a phone, they will almost always be more expensive than the LCD screen. The price of laptop would be £30+ more each. You won't be seeing touchscreens on laptops under £450 i'd guess.

Only £30 more? Microsoft just dropped the OEM pricing considerably (effective July 2013, 70+% off?) for touch devices... a price drop that may make adding touch to all laptops actually more profitable than excluding touch.

Brandon Live said,
But more importantly, nobody at MS "hates" desktop computers. I'm answering this on a dual-monitor desktop/workstation setup in my apartment, similar to the setup I used in my office while *writing* Windows 8.
And you guys writing this operating system using multiple large monitors, a keyboard and a mouse, are comfortable with being forced at least periodically into a GUI radically different from the desktop, optimised for small single touch screen form factors and casual information consumption? I don't understand how you can use this OS on a daily basis on a workstation and not feel the loss in productivity. I wonder how many at MS actually install StartIsBack or the like just to get their productivity back.

I hope in Windows 9 you'll again treat desktop users like first-class citizens of Windows and stop forcing them to juggle between two conflicting UI designs. Tablets and workstation have their users, their usage contexts, their input devices, those are radically different and Windows should serve both equally well.

Dr_Asik said,
And you guys writing this operating system using multiple large monitors, a keyboard and a mouse, are comfortable with being forced at least periodically into a GUI radically different from the desktop, optimised for small single touch screen form factors and casual information consumption?

Not sure about Brandon Live, but I do that daily, across multiple workstations and laptops.

Dr_Asik said,

I hope in Windows 9 you'll again treat desktop users like first-class citizens of Windows and stop forcing them to juggle between two conflicting UI designs. Tablets and workstation have their users, their usage contexts, their input devices, those are radically different and Windows should serve both equally well.

There is nothing in Windows 8 that makes me feel like a "second class citizen" while working on my desktop. While writing this reply, I have the Twitter app pinned to the right side of my monitor, while the desktop occupies the other pane, I have Metro Internet Explorer, Metro Mail, Metro Calendar, Evernote, and Metro Splashtop connected to my file server open as well, hiding in the background, and have no issues switching between them.

So tell me again, how my workstation running Windows 8 is treating me less? You can't hold onto the desktop only gig and expect for it to last forever. There is nothing wrong with Metro on the desktop. Give it a few years for it to evolve, and you'll forget all about the old Windows UI.

Edited by Dot Matrix, Mar 18 2013, 4:43pm :

Dot Matrix said,
So tell me again, how my workstation running Windows 8 is treating me less?
Because it forces you to use two completely different UI paradigms, one optimised for your current usage scenario, one optimised for a different usage scenario. This adds unnecessary excise and mental overhead. Meanwhile, tablet users enjoy a unified experience, and Windows 7 users enjoy a unified experience.

Windows 8 is treating you less as a desktop user because it doesn't have a coherent user experience for your usage scenario, instead forcing you to toggle back and forth between two modes.

Dr_Asik said,
Because it forces you to use two completely different UI paradigms, one optimised for your current usage scenario, one optimised for a different usage scenario. This adds unnecessary excise and mental overhead. Meanwhile, tablet users enjoy a unified experience, and Windows 7 users enjoy a unified experience.

Windows 8 is treating you less as a desktop user because it doesn't have a coherent user experience for your usage scenario, instead forcing you to toggle back and forth between two modes.

It does no such thing. Windows 8 does not at all force you to use Metro apps.

Dot Matrix said,

It does no such thing. Windows 8 does not at all force you to use Metro apps.

I didn't specifically say metro apps. There's also the charms bar, the start screen, the configuration options spread between desktop and modern control panels, and well, modern apps are still the default to open common file associations like pdfs, images, videos and music files.

That those knowledgeable enough can work around all of that doesn't change the fact that it's terrible design.

Dr_Asik said,
I didn't specifically say metro apps. There's also the charms bar, the start screen, the configuration options spread between desktop and modern control panels, and well, modern apps are still the default to open common file associations like pdfs, images, videos and music files.

That those knowledgeable enough can work around all of that doesn't change the fact that it's terrible design.

As Microsoft moves away from the traditional desktop, you'll see more of it.

Dot Matrix said,

As Microsoft moves away from the traditional desktop, you'll see more of it.

Speculation. Microsoft might also recognize their design mistakes as such and fix them; as Stardock and others are showing, it's actually quite simple. That doesn't prevent them from expanding into whatever other form factors they're currently focusing on.

Dr_Asik said,
And you guys writing this operating system using multiple large monitors, a keyboard and a mouse, are comfortable with being forced at least periodically into a GUI radically different from the desktop, optimised for small single touch screen form factors and casual information consumption? I don't understand how you can use this OS on a daily basis on a workstation and not feel the loss in productivity. I wonder how many at MS actually install StartIsBack or the like just to get their productivity back.

What loss in productivity? If anything, the multi-mon taskbar and some other changes (i.e. cloud roaming/backup of my CMD configuration, passwords, etc) gave a nice productivity improvement.

I don't know anyone who uses StartIsBack or anything like it.

You won't get anywhere with me arguing that the Windows 8 Start experience wasn't designed for keyboard+mouse users. If it weren't, I wouldn't have spent so much time with my team fine-tuning the keyboarding experience for search in Start.

I hope in Windows 9 you'll again treat desktop users like first-class citizens of Windows and stop forcing them to juggle between two conflicting UI designs. Tablets and workstation have their users, their usage contexts, their input devices, those are radically different and Windows should serve both equally well.

If you're talking about desktop apps versus modern ones, then that's a problem only time can solve. Same thing happened when going from DOS (CLI apps) to Windows (GUI). And note that while the mainstream moved exclusively to GUI apps, there's a good size chunk of people who still use CLI tools (i.e. developers, admins, etc).

Brandon Live said,
You won't get anywhere with me arguing that the Windows 8 Start experience wasn't designed for keyboard+mouse users. If it weren't, I wouldn't have spent so much time with my team fine-tuning the keyboarding experience for search in Start.
Well everything about the Start screen and Modern UI screams "small single touch screen":
- Only one or a few apps visible at a time, occupying the entire screen; the only real possibility on a small screen, a waste of space and unnecessary contrivance on large monitors
- Low information density; essential on a small screen, ideal for casual use; counter-productive on a workstation with the viewing space to see and interact with a lot of information concurrently
- Touching the corners to activate hidden panels - ideal when you're holding the screen in your hands, unintuitive with a mouse, and slow compared to a right-click for contextual menu
- Reliance on gestures to perform basic activities like hiding an application, again this is very natural with fingers on a touch screen, but slow and unintuitive with a mouse.

The loss of productivity comes from being kicked out of the desktop at every opportunity (i.e. accessing the start menu, accessing any "Modern" app), from having to perform finger-like gestures with the mouse instead of button clicks, from being forced into full-screen-only apps with very low information density and minimalistic UIs that do not make effective use of the capabilities of large monitors and high-precision input devices.

If you're talking about desktop apps versus modern ones, then that's a problem only time can solve. Same thing happened when going from DOS (CLI apps) to Windows (GUI). And note that while the mainstream moved exclusively to GUI apps, there's a good size chunk of people who still use CLI tools (i.e. developers, admins, etc).
I don't think that's a fair comparison. Anything that could be done on the CLI can be done equally well or better by a desktop application; CLI apps remain because they're very easy to program and because sometimes they're not meant to be interacted with directly (i.e. compilers).

Modern Apps, however, don't do half of what desktop apps can do; they cannot display complex UIs so they're unfit to most uses besides casual content consumption; they cannot be resized or overlayed or otherwise composited at will, they eschew use of interaction paradigms optimised for high-precision input devices in favor of touch-optimised ones, etc. Will Office be remade into a Modern App? Will Visual Studio be remade into a Modern App? It's impossible.

Here's my current usage scenario:
- I'm developing a large, Office-like, multi-monitor WPF application used by thousands of people around the world (and this app cannot and will not ever be made into a Modern app). On my secondary monitor I have two overlapping instances of VS2012 and another one on the first. I have the application being debugged on the first, two instances of Google Chrome with about 7 tabs each, three command-line prompts, Outlook and Lync, the Task Manager, Notepad++, and a few explorer windows.

I'm able to easily juggle between all of that because the Windows 7 superbar gives me an efficient, always visible representation of everything I have opened and allows me to quickly switch between these with a single click of the mouse, and because I can layout all these application in whichever way I want.

None of this is even remotely possible with "Modern" apps.

So please, please stop saying that Desktop to Metro is the same thing as CLI to Desktop. One was a definite improvement, the other one is only an improvement for users on a touch screen and who are only interested in casual content consumption.

Edited by Andre S., Mar 18 2013, 10:51pm :

Dr_Asik said,
Well everything about the Start screen and Modern UI screams "small single touch screen":
- Only one or a few apps visible at a time, occupying the entire screen; the only real possibility on a small screen, a waste of space and unnecessary contrivance on large monitors
- Low information density; essential on a small screen, ideal for casual use; counter-productive on a workstation with the viewing space to see and interact with a lot of information concurrently
- Touching the corners to activate hidden panels - ideal when you're holding the screen in your hands, unintuitive with a mouse, and slow compared to a right-click for contextual menu
- Reliance on gestures to perform basic activities like hiding an application, again this is very natural with fingers on a touch screen, but slow and unintuitive with a mouse.

The loss of productivity comes from being kicked out of the desktop at every opportunity (i.e. accessing the start menu, accessing any "Modern" app), from having to perform finger-like gestures with the mouse instead of button clicks, from being forced into full-screen-only apps with very low information density and minimalistic UIs that do not make effective use of the capabilities of large monitors and high-precision input devices.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. Anything that could be done on the CLI can be done equally well or better by a desktop application; CLI apps remain because they're very easy to program and because sometimes they're not meant to be interacted with directly (i.e. compilers).

Modern Apps, however, don't do half of what desktop apps can do; they cannot display complex UIs so they're unfit to most uses besides casual content consumption; they cannot be resized or overlayed or otherwise composited at will, they eschew use of interaction paradigms optimised for high-precision input devices in favor of touch-optimised ones, etc. Will Office be remade into a Modern App? Will Visual Studio be remade into a Modern App? It's impossible.

Here's my current usage scenario:
- I'm developing a large, Office-like, multi-monitor WPF application used by thousands of people around the world (and this app cannot and will not ever be made into a Modern app). On my secondary monitor I have two overlapping instances of VS2012 and another one on the first. I have the application being debugged on the first, two instances of Google Chrome with about 7 tabs each, three command-line prompts, Outlook and Lync, the Task Manager, Notepad++, and a few explorer windows.

I'm able to easily juggle between all of that because the Windows 7 superbar gives me an efficient, always visible representation of everything I have opened and allows me to quickly switch between these with a single click of the mouse, and because I can layout all these application in whichever way I want.

None of this is even remotely possible with "Modern" apps.

So please, please stop saying that Desktop to Metro is the same thing as CLI to Desktop. One was a definite improvement, the other one is only an improvement for users on a touch screen and who are only interested in casual content consumption.

I have yet to experience any kind of loss of productivity from using Windows 8. Why do people constantly need to be on the desktop to be productive? My apps are open, who cares where they sit? The desktop is no more than a single click away at any given time. Windows 8 also does not require any kinds of gestures to interact with Metro, unless you wish to drag down to close the apps. The mouse wheel works wonders to scroll, and the hot corners work great to keep menus out of my face until I need them. Having to move your mouse has been an essential feature of every single prior OS until this point, not sure why it's such a big issue now.

Yes, Office is coming to Metro. It was reported on Neowin a few weeks back, and have you even TRIED the OneNote app? It's hands down one of the best Windows 8 apps in the store right now. The circular menu is amazing, and I guarantee you'll see more of that. I also guarantee you'll see new improvements to the Metro UI in Windows 9. Possibly even working with apps on separate monitors. Remember, Microsoft didn't build Windows 7 in a day, the same goes with Metro, it'll be improved upon, but that will take time.

Why do people constantly need to be on the desktop to be productive?
Because that's where the productivity apps are, that's where you can see a lot of information at a time, that's where you have a mouse-efficient, always visible task switcher, that's where the file explorer, task manager, and other crucial system utilities are, that's where you can work on multiple monitors and arrange your app layout the way you want. In fact, I don't see why I would ever not want to be on the desktop, unless I'm on a touch device.

I also guarantee you'll see new improvements to the Metro UI in Windows 9. Possibly even working with apps on separate monitors.
Well, if Metro UI can one day do what the Desktop does as well as the Desktop, then we won't need the desktop anymore, granted. Until then, it's a UI designed for small touch screens and content consumption, and shouldn't be forced blindly unto every user on any form factor in any usage scenario like it currently is.

Dr_Asik said,
Well everything about the Start screen and Modern UI screams "small single touch screen":
- Only one or a few apps visible at a time, occupying the entire screen; the only real possibility on a small screen, a waste of space and unnecessary contrivance on large monitors
- Low information density; essential on a small screen, ideal for casual use; counter-productive on a workstation with the viewing space to see and interact with a lot of information concurrently

I thought we were talking about Start. On my desktop/workstation I rarely use modern apps. But their existence does not in any way impede my productivity. What you said there doesn't apply to Start.


- Touching the corners to activate hidden panels - ideal when you're holding the screen in your hands, unintuitive with a mouse, and slow compared to a right-click for contextual menu

This is the exact opposite of truth. Touching corners is horribly for touch UI. That's why on touch machines, the corners are not used for anything important. Instead, you swipe from the edges which is very touch friendly. With mouse, there is no single thing that is easier than hitting a corner. Windows has made use of this fact forever.


- Reliance on gestures to perform basic activities like hiding an application, again this is very natural with fingers on a touch screen, but slow and unintuitive with a mouse.

I wouldn't call clicking in the corner a "gesture."


The loss of productivity comes from being kicked out of the desktop at every opportunity (i.e. accessing the start menu, accessing any "Modern" app), from having to perform finger-like gestures with the mouse instead of button clicks, from being forced into full-screen-only apps with very low information density and minimalistic UIs that do not make effective use of the capabilities of large monitors and high-precision input devices.

In what way are you "forced" into a modern app? Gestures aren't used for mouse, gestures are a touch concept (other than drag and drop which I guess maybe you'd call a "gesture," but that's been around forever).

Well that's just untrue. CLI exists because it's the most effective solution so far to a particular set of problems (with a particular audience in mind).

Now I just plain have no idea what you're on about. Who says a modern app can't display a complex UI??? That's a very bizarre thing to say. OneNote already exists in modern form, and we're in the very earliest days for the platform. What could possibly stop more complex apps from arising?


Here's my current usage scenario:
- I'm developing a large, Office-like, multi-monitor WPF application used by thousands of people around the world (and this app cannot and will not ever be made into a Modern app). On my secondary monitor I have two overlapping instances of VS2012 and another one on the first. I have the application being debugged on the first, two instances of Google Chrome with about 7 tabs each, three command-line prompts, Outlook and Lync, the Task Manager, Notepad++, and a few explorer windows.

Overlapping is a cute gimmick. Sure you're used to it, but there's nothing inherently useful about it.


I'm able to easily juggle between all of that because the Windows 7 superbar gives me an efficient, always visible representation of everything I have opened and allows me to quickly switch between these with a single click of the mouse, and because I can layout all these application in whichever way I want.

And? What about the Windows 8 taskbar bothers you?


None of this is even remotely possible with "Modern" apps.

This is the same thing CLI people said about GUI apps 20 years ago.


So please, please stop saying that Desktop to Metro is the same thing as CLI to Desktop. One was a definite improvement, the other one is only an improvement for users on a touch screen and who are only interested in casual content consumption.

Clearly you weren't around when GUI was being introduced =)

Brandon Live said,
I thought we were talking about Start. On my desktop/workstation I rarely use modern apps. But their existence does not in any way impede my productivity. What you said there doesn't apply to Start.
It applies in general to everything Modern UI. The Start screen is also a full-screen only thing, that kicks you out of everything you you were doing has low information density, and behaves completely differently from the desktop. The very concept of a full-screen transient application is completely alien to the desktop, and contrary to sound UX design principles, i.e. a helper that you only briefly invoke and doesn't have a complex UI should respect the fact that you're probably busy with something more important and occupy minimal space. The Start Menu was a shining example of that.

This is the exact opposite of truth. Touching corners is horribly for touch UI. That's why on touch machines, the corners are not used for anything important. Instead, you swipe from the edges which is very touch friendly. With mouse, there is no single thing that is easier than hitting a corner. Windows has made use of this fact forever.
But it has always provided a visual indication that these corners can be interacted with: the start button, the close button on windows; and the interaction has always been, like everything designed for mouse-and-keyboard, triggered by a voluntary user action, i.e. a click; on Windows 8 95% of the time I invoke the charms panel it's by accident, and when I need it there's no indication that it's there. It's incredibly aggravating when that corner conflicts with an application making use of the corner as well; have you tried playing a borderless maximized real-time strategy game on Windows 8? As a result the first thing I do when I install this OS is to disable the hot spots.

I wouldn't call clicking in the corner a "gesture."
No, but clicking and dragging an application from the top pixel of the screen to the bottom just to close it is definitely a gesture and much less convenient than clicking a button.

In what way are you "forced" into a modern app?
1) Because they're the default programs for everything, until you manually uninstall them or at least re-associate the file extensions with desktop apps 2) Because the start screen and various configuration options in Windows 8 are in the Modern style, they all run fullscreen, hide your task bar, your work, and behave completly differently from anything else you interact with on the desktop. You don't have a choice but to learn and constantly switch between the two UX languages Windows 8 speaks.

Now I just plain have no idea what you're on about. Who says a modern app can't display a complex UI??? That's a very bizarre thing to say. OneNote already exists in modern form, and we're in the very earliest days for the platform. What could possibly stop more complex apps from arising?
But OneNote Modern has a very minimalistic, low-density, touch-optimised, fullscreen UI, that is completely different from the UI it has on desktop. Like every single Modern application that ships with Windows 8. You can't possibly deny that Modern apps target touch users and that their UX design guidelines are very different from Desktop apps. Perhaps one day we'll see Modern Apps that offer the functionality and UI complexity of Desktop ones, but given what we've seen so far, it seems unlikely, and anyway I don't base my criticism on speculation.

And? What about the Windows 8 taskbar bothers you?
That it's supposed to stay above other windows and remain visible, and yet everything "Modern" breaks that contract. That it doesn't show or allow me to switch between every app anymore, only desktop apps. There's nothing wrong with the taskbar in Windows 8, what's wrong is that everything Modern UI doesn't mesh with it or the Desktop at all, and yet Windows 8 insists that we use this UI all the time.

This is the same thing CLI people said about GUI apps 20 years ago.
Come on now. Do you really drink that cool-aid, or do you hope others will? GUI applications were a massive improvement in discoverability, in multi-tasking and pretty much every area. What do Modern apps bring to the workstation? You said it yourself, you don't use them. They bring nothing useful. There's nothing useful to a workstation about an app that doesn't register on the taskbar, presents you with a minimalistic touch-friendly UI and occupies your entire screen. These apps don't do anything more or better for a desktop; they're a lot more simple to install and run, they're touch-friendly, so they're great on a tablet, fine, you needed a new app model for tablets, but it's only an annoyance on a desktop so please keep it out. Make the default apps be desktop apps on the desktop in Windows 9. Bring back the start menu, with a button on the taskbar. Allow the user to boot on the Desktop directly; make that the default on a desktop PC.

Overlapping is a cute gimmick. Sure you're used to it, but there's nothing inherently useful about it.
It allows me to see my work, is that a gimmick? I can easily see right now that I have about 6 windows opened on my 2 monitors, I don't even need to look at the taskbar, and I can switch between them by simply clicking into them. If something is completely hidden, it's still always symbolically visible on the taskbar. I get context and visual feedback of what I'm currently using and I get to switch quickly and visually between all of that. Is that a gimmick? With the start screen there's absolutely no context. Every app takes the entire screen and all context away with it. Your brain has to do the work of remembering what else you're doing, and switching requires going back to another fullscreen window and clicking a symbol of the other app. That's a clear regression in usability and one that UX experts have pointed out. Again, it makes total sense on an iPad-like device, but not on a desktop PC. A single UI doesn't fit all purposes.

Edited by Andre S., Mar 20 2013, 5:31pm :

Dr_Asik said,
But it has always provided a visual indication that these corners can be interacted with: the start button, the close button on windows;

Visual cues help with discoverability, not usability. The choice was made to forego the former in some cases, with the understanding that there is a (small) learning curve.

and the interaction has always been, like everything designed for mouse-and-keyboard, triggered by a voluntary user action, i.e. a click; on Windows 8 95% of the time I invoke the charms panel it's by accident, and when I need it there's no indication that it's there. It's incredibly aggravating when that corner conflicts with an application making use of the corner as well; have you tried playing a borderless maximized real-time strategy game on Windows 8? As a result the first thing I do when I install this OS is to disable the hot spots.

It sounds like you haven't actually used Windows 8. The corners are only activated via clicks. Mousing to the corner only gives you a preview of the action. I've never encountered a situation where these were "in the way" and can't imagine how that could even happen (did the tooltip from the old Start button get in your way too?).

The corners are disabled when you're in full-screen desktop games.


No, but clicking and dragging an application from the top pixel of the screen to the bottom just to close it is definitely a gesture and much less convenient than clicking a button.

That's not even a thing. You're talking about an extremely rarely used action that's there mainly for developers or troubleshooting broken apps.


1) Because they're the default programs for everything, until you manually uninstall them or at least re-associate the file extensions with desktop apps 2) Because the start screen and various configuration options in Windows 8 are in the Modern style, they all run fullscreen, hide your task bar, your work, and behave completly differently from anything else you interact with on the desktop. You don't have a choice but to learn and constantly switch between the two UX languages Windows 8 speaks.

Yes, to use the new system you have to learn it. You absolutely have a choice not to learn it. Don't use it. Same complain came from a lot of DOS users when Windows was introduced. Sorry, but clinging to what's familiar is no way to achieve progress.


But OneNote Modern has a very minimalistic, low-density, touch-optimised, fullscreen UI, that is completely different from the UI it has on desktop. Like every single Modern application that ships with Windows 8. You can't possibly deny that Modern apps target touch users and that their UX design guidelines are very different from Desktop apps. Perhaps one day we'll see Modern Apps that offer the functionality and UI complexity of Desktop ones, but given what we've seen so far, it seems unlikely, and anyway I don't base my criticism on speculation.

I think you're conflating aesthetic design and friendliness to input modalities with functionality.


That it's supposed to stay above other windows and remain visible, and yet everything "Modern" breaks that contract.

Not true. In Windows 7 there are *many* things that cover the taskbar. You yourself brought up full screen games in this very comment!


That it doesn't show or allow me to switch between every app anymore, only desktop apps.

"Anymore?" How could the Windows 7 taskbar have let you switch to things that didn't exist on Windows 7?

There's nothing wrong with the taskbar in Windows 8, what's wrong is that everything Modern UI doesn't mesh with it or the Desktop at all, and yet Windows 8 insists that we use this UI all the time.

That's like saying the taskbar doesn't mesh will with DOS prompts.


Come on now. Do you really drink that cool-aid, or do you hope others will? GUI applications were a massive improvement in discoverability, in multi-tasking and pretty much every area. What do Modern apps bring to the workstation? You said it yourself, you don't use them.

I do use them. I said I use them rarely on my desktop/workstation, but I rarely use desktop apps there either aside from Visual Studio and related dev tools. I do use some, and expect to use more on my desktop/workstation as more apps are developed and the platform progresses.

They bring nothing useful. There's nothing useful to a workstation about an app that doesn't register on the taskbar, presents you with a minimalistic touch-friendly UI and occupies your entire screen. These apps don't do anything more or better for a desktop; they're a lot more simple to install and run, they're touch-friendly, so they're great on a tablet, fine, you needed a new app model for tablets, but it's only an annoyance on a desktop so please keep it out. Make the default apps be desktop apps on the desktop in Windows 9. Bring back the start menu, with a button on the taskbar. Allow the user to boot on the Desktop directly; make that the default on a desktop PC.

First of all they're not full-screen only and they're not all "minimalistic." Are they as mature as desktop apps that have been around for 20 years? Of course not. But they'll get there.

By the way, "booting to the desktop" is one of the silliest requests I see. I mean, really, how often are you rebooting and how hard is it to click on one really large hit target? (which on my workstation I keep in the lower-left of Start so it's most accessible)


It allows me to see my work, is that a gimmick? I can easily see right now that I have about 6 windows opened on my 2 monitors, I don't even need to look at the taskbar, and I can switch between them by simply clicking into them. If something is completely hidden, it's still always symbolically visible on the taskbar. I get context and visual feedback of what I'm currently using and I get to switch quickly and visually between all of that. Is that a gimmick? With the start screen there's absolutely no context. Every app takes the entire screen and all context away with it.

You're conflating multiple windows with overlapping windows. It sounds like you appreciate the desktop's capability to show several windows at once. That's great. That's something the desktop is great for and the modern/immersive experience hasn't focused on. So... What's your objection again? That you can't use Start and have multiple windows on the same screen? Why are you trying to that? Are you aware that you can pin desktop apps you use to the taskbar so you can launch them without going to Start? It sounds like maybe that's the piece you're missing...

Your brain has to do the work of remembering what else you're doing, and switching requires going back to another fullscreen window and clicking a symbol of the other app. That's a clear regression in usability and one that UX experts have pointed out. Again, it makes total sense on an iPad-like device, but not on a desktop PC. A single UI doesn't fit all purposes.

I still don't get it. Now it sounds like you're complaining that immersive experiences are immersive.

If you don't find the immersive app experience useful on your desktop, don't use it.

It sounds like you haven't actually used Windows 8. The corners are only activated via clicks. Mousing to the corner only gives you a preview of the action.
We must not be using the same OS. Here's how the charms bar works on my machine: first I move the cursor the top-right corner of the screen. Then I leave it there for half a second. Then five white glyphs slide in from the right. Then if I move the cursor again, a solid black panel appears below the glyphs, and another panel with the time of the day in huge letters appears in the other half of the screen. Then if I move the mouse cursor away from the panel completely, it disappears.

Note that all this stuff appeared on whatever else was on-screen at the time without me clicking anything. Note that this can happen anytime I happen to mouse in the top-right corner of the screen, which inconveniently enough is the corner where the close buttons of a desktop window typically is.

As for full-screen games, it depends on the game: see the two screenshots. The silent disabling of charms with full-screen is in itself problematic as well, for instance if you put Office in full-screen mode the charms are still activated, but not with Internet Explorer. The lack of a visual indication of the feature's availability makes it a guessing game.
http://imgur.com/ifJwNfZ
http://imgur.com/YL6N7K2

Yes, to use the new system you have to learn it. You absolutely have a choice not to learn it. Don't use it.
That doesn't answer my point at all. You started by saying Windows 8 doesn't force Desktop users into its “immersive” experience, and when I illustrate how it does, you retort I could simply not use Windows 8. Wtf is that kind of reply. How do you even know whether I could not use Windows 8. That's a personal question that has nothing to do with the topic.

Saying it's “progress” doesn't mean anything either. It's not progress if it's worse.

Also, saying similar complaints arose about another change in Windows, which were unfounded, is not really an argument either. “Comparison is not reason” as we say in French.

Also you keep evading my points by saying I confuse things and I don't know what I'm talking about, which is patently not the case. I suppose that from your perspective, anyone criticizing Windows 8 must do so for invalid reasons, misunderstanding how the system works and irrationally “clinging to the past”. If you cannot leave this perspective then there's not much point in discussing this with you.

Not true. In Windows 7 there are *many* things that cover the taskbar. You yourself brought up full screen games in this very comment!

How can you even compare a multimedia application that requires your entire attention for a prolonged period, like a game or a movie, with a transient helper like the start screen?

"Anymore?" How could the Windows 7 taskbar have let you switch to things that didn't exist on Windows 7?
It didn't, but the point is that the taskbar was the universal task switcher in Windows 7, whereas it's not in Windows 8. Do you make a point of misinterpreting everything I say in the most condescending way possible?

That's like saying the taskbar doesn't mesh will with DOS prompts.

Well, no, because actually DOS prompts appear on the taskbar. The same can't be said of Modern apps, or the start screen.

I think you're conflating aesthetic design and friendliness to input modalities with functionality.
If you don't think there's a link between the minimal set of functionalities of a typical “Modern” app and the fact that it's designed to be touch-friendly and to minimize the amount of controls (as per your own design guidelines), then you're simply mistaken. The two are not the same, but they clearly are directly linked. Is it possible to remake Visual Studio as an “immersive” application while retaining the same functionality set and ease of use?

You're conflating multiple windows with overlapping windows.
Well of course the two go hand in hand. It'd be very difficult to allow an arbitrary number of visible windows without allowing them to overlap. I don't think it's a coincidence that it's both impossible to overlap Modern apps and have several of them on-screen at a time.

So, again, how are overlapping windows a "gimmick"?

What's your objection again? That you can't use Start and have multiple windows on the same screen? Why are you trying to that?
No, that was not the point. The point was that Modern apps cannot be as productive as Desktop apps since you cannot efficiently work with several at a time, like you can with overlapping windows and a taskbar.

Are you aware that you can pin desktop apps you use to the taskbar so you can launch them without going to Start?

I still don't get it. Now it sounds like you're complaining that immersive experiences are immersive.
I'm illustrating how using the Start Screen breaks the workflow on the desktop. I'm not talking about your marketing lingo. If you want to talk about immersion, let me explain what breaks immersion: losing your entire visual context anytime you want to search for an application. The Start Screen is extremely effective at destroying whatever immersion you could have on your current tasks.

If you don't find the immersive app experience useful on your desktop, don't use it.
Yes! That's exactly what I want! Please make desktop apps the default to open files from the desktop, please give us back the start menu, and let us boot to desktop, and we'll all be able to not use the immersive app experience, without downgrading to a previous operating system, installing third-party crap, or moving to a competitor's OS.

By the way, "booting to the desktop" is one of the silliest requests I see. I mean, really, how often are you rebooting and how hard is it to click on one really large hit target?
It's not hard, but it's unnecessary.

Dr_Asik said,

Yes! That's exactly what I want! Please make desktop apps the default to open files from the desktop, please give us back the start menu, and let us boot to desktop, and we'll all be able to not use the immersive app experience, without downgrading to a previous operating system, installing third-party crap, or moving to a competitor's OS.

It's not hard, but it's unnecessary.

Than stick with Windows 7? Because Metro isn't going away, in fact Windows Blue will be expanding upon it, and naturally, so will Windows 9. The Start Screen is visually more appealing, and fundamentally more functional than the Star Menu ever was and ever could be. You also have the Windows-X Menu to use as well, just simply right click instead of left click at Start. Did you even know that?

There no reason for that claustrophobic little Start Menu to come back. Let that unappealing microscopic 16x16px crap die in peace.

You can change default app behavior, just as you always could in Windows 7. Just because Metro apps might be *default*, doesn't mean they're forced upon you.