win9 "Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

[trooper11]

This is true, and it's about a different version of the same product.  However many see it as Version A = good,  Version B= sucks.. so make Version C like Version A.

Yep and history tells us that you can get away with a lot just by changing a name. MS gets away with doing fairly little on Win 7 and yet its taken as being this breath of fresh air compared to Vista.

So MS in this case can make some minor changes that do not involve actually fundamentally changing the core of windows, slap a new number on it, and suddenly its a 'breath of fresh air'. Funny how the market works.

[trooper11]

Go read the article on the front page. It isn't a surprise considering how whiny P.T. can be when he doesn't get his way.

 

In fact, he said this stuff on Twitter yesterday, and didn't once answer people back as to why he said this. He ran and hid.

 

 

I follow his site and he has this weird habit of posting articles that send the complete opposite in messages.  One day, it seems like he is feeling good about what MS is working on or things to come.  Then the next day, its as bleak as you can think with articles that basically signal the end of MS and everything they do sucks.

 

Its really hard to keep up with his rollercoaster of optimism and pessimism.  

[Stoffel]

I follow his site and he has this weird habit of posting articles that send the complete opposite in messages.  One day, it seems like he is feeling good about what MS is working on or things to come.  Then the next day, its as bleak as you can think with articles that basically signal the end of MS and everything they do sucks.

 

Its really hard to keep up with his rollercoaster of optimism and pessimism.  

 

Can't it just be that he actually like the direction MS is going (the positive), but that he also acknowledges that in the eye of the consumer MS failed with Win8 (the negative)?

 

That's the way I see it at least

[Praetor]

MS going back to the classical old Start Menu would be dumping in the toilet all the research, designs and financial efforts to push Modern UI; now improving Modern UI, on the other hand, is the way to go from now.

[firey]

Yep and history tells us that you can get away with a lot just by changing a name. MS gets away with doing fairly little on Win 7 and yet its taken as being this breath of fresh air compared to Vista.

So MS in this case can make some minor changes that do not involve actually fundamentally changing the core of windows, slap a new number on it, and suddenly its a 'breath of fresh air'. Funny how the market works.

 

Yes and No.  7 cleaned up Vista a LOT and did have quite a few changes.  8 was a big change for 7 and has (in my opinion) a bad UI for desktops.  I think they need to go back to the 7 style desktop only (for desktop/laptops) ui.  I don't think they will ever surpass 7 unless they do that.

[Dot Matrix]

Yes and No.  7 cleaned up Vista a LOT and did have quite a few changes.  8 was a big change for 7 and has (in my opinion) a bad UI for desktops.  I think they need to go back to the 7 style desktop only (for desktop/laptops) ui.  I don't think they will ever surpass 7 unless they do that.

 

But, HOW? When the lines between different devices have blurred, how do you do that? It's impossible for an OS to sit there and guess as to which UI/UX to use. Not to mention, it's inefficient. An OS shouldn't be made to do that.

[firey]

But, HOW? When the lines between different devices have blurred, how do you do that? It's impossible for an OS to sit there and guess as to which UI/UX to use. Not to mention, it's inefficient. An OS shouldn't be made to do that.

 

Different OS's man.  There is no reason why the Phone team couldn't do all Mobile, and windows team could stick 100% with desktop.  Alternatively provide it as an option for the user OR allow for free downloads of programs such as Modern Mix or Start Menu Revivers.  That way there is no need to pay for a 3rd party app to add functionality that should be native.

 

Hell, to make it easy they could even do it right so that the only difference is the UI.. the underlying code would be the same.  As has been proven by the third party apps, there is no need to remove code or change code as everything that people want on 8 can be done with 3rd party programs that don't directly affect the system itself.

 

Trust me, no one would EVER mistake my desktop pc as a phone, or as a mobile device.  No one would mistake a laptop as a tablet.. so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone.  Which could be handled 100% by plugged in hardware.  If a mouse or keyboard is detected, it will default to a desktop.. if none then it checks for some other device or general display size.   It's all 100% possible, and is being done right now by other companies.

[Dot Matrix]

Different OS's man.  There is no reason why the Phone team couldn't do all Mobile, and windows team could stick 100% with desktop.  Alternatively provide it as an option for the user OR allow for free downloads of programs such as Modern Mix or Start Menu Revivers.  That way there is no need to pay for a 3rd party app to add functionality that should be native.

 

Hell, to make it easy they could even do it right so that the only difference is the UI.. the underlying code would be the same.  As has been proven by the third party apps, there is no need to remove code or change code as everything that people want on 8 can be done with 3rd party programs that don't directly affect the system itself.

 

Trust me, no one would EVER mistake my desktop pc as a phone, or as a mobile device.  No one would mistake a laptop as a tablet.. so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone.  Which could be handled 100% by plugged in hardware.  If a mouse or keyboard is detected, it will default to a desktop.. if none then it checks for some other device or general display size.   It's all 100% possible, and is being done right now by other companies.

Having different OSs too, is inefficient. It drives up support and development costs. And I'm not sure why you would think people would mistake a desktop as a tablet just because of the UI. There's no rule stating a desktop computer can't run Modern apps on a desktop. Trying to differentiate devices isn't going to work, not when A) you're unifying your services, and B) the market is driving digital convergence - and has been for the past ten years. People don't want multiple devices.

 

And no, "so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone" is a fallacy. You have touch enable all in one desktops, you have touch enabled laptops, you have laptops that can separate into tablets, you have desktops that can separate into tablets, and you also have tablets can can transform into workstations. Developing separate OSs for all these devices isn't an option. MSFT did this with Windows 7, and they all failed. You're not going to get a different outcome trying again. They'll fail each time.

[trooper11]

Can't it just be that he actually like the direction MS is going (the positive), but that he also acknowledges that in the eye of the consumer MS failed with Win8 (the negative)?

 

That's the way I see it at least

 

 

Its not just that though.  Literally he will write an article praising WP and then the next day will be an article about putting it down.  Same thing happened with Windows RT tablets.  He bashed them all he can, and then there will be an article talking it up.

 

It would be one thing if he just said that he liked the direction but not the execution, but he doesn't.  He will praise both and then put both down. 

 

He is certainly entitled to his opinions and most of the time he has plenty of facts to back up his position, its just that his position seems very flimsy.

 

 

 

Yes and No.  7 cleaned up Vista a LOT and did have quite a few changes.  8 was a big change for 7 and has (in my opinion) a bad UI for desktops.  I think they need to go back to the 7 style desktop only (for desktop/laptops) ui.  I don't think they will ever surpass 7 unless they do that.

 

7 did not fundamentally change windows compared to Vista.  The changes amounted to cosmetic ones with features tweaked and visual options altered. 

 

8 has a desktop ui and a metro ui.  I don't get why the desktop ui for 8 is so ignored as if all there is to use is the metro ui.  The metro ui is not what powers the windows 8 desktop.  The windows 8 desktop is windows 7 with tweaks to various features.  The big change is the visual integration of the metro ui.

 

If MS allowed you to disable all features that are part of the metro ui addition such as the start screen and the charms bar, the 8 desktop would be windows 7 with various small improvements.  So MS doesn't even need to go back to anything, just offer the darn option to turn things off.  8.1 added some of the options you guys want.  It allows you to boot straight to the desktop (I use that) and it allows you to disable the hot corner functions while in the desktop.  All MS has to do is pop in a classic start menu and add the option to completely disable the charms bar while in the desktop and your done. 

 

My point is, Windows 9 could be fundamentally no different from 8, but if they make some relatively small changes as I mentioned, suddenly the OS is brand new.  Now the question is, lets say they do that, will you adopt it?  Will others that have voiced their disinterest in anything Metro being on a desktop adopt it?  I don't know honestly.  People say there is this huge groundswell of customers just waiting for say the Start Menu or making Metro optional, that sales will have a huge turn around.  I have a hard time believing that personally.  But maybe if they make these changes, the internet community will get behind Win 9 and create positive buzz. 

[Andre S. Veteran]

Having different OSs too, is inefficient. It drives up support and development costs. 

I think it drives Microsoft's revenue down to produce an OS that has serious usability issues on desktop PCs, i.e. desktop PC users just don't buy it. It also drives Microsoft's support costs up to say "if you want Windows 7, just stick with Windows 7", because then Microsoft has to provide more support for Windows 7. I don't think MS wants to keep supporting 7 for as long as XP, so they'd better provide Windows 7 users with a sensible replacement pretty soon.

 

Note I'm not suggesting actually two completely separate OSes, but simply different UXes for the different form factors. Windows 8.1 is awfully close to that in fact, short of a desktop-friendly version of the Start Screen and setting file associations defaults to desktop applications.

 

In any case, as long as the two environments are supported, I don't see how it's massively more expensive to provide a seamless experience on the Desktop. Start8 didn't cost billions to make.

[Order_66]

 It's impossible for an OS to sit there and guess as to which UI/UX to use. Not to mention, it's inefficient. An OS shouldn't be made to do that.

 

Easily fixed, simply give the user a choice on which UI to use during install or have the OS auto detect if the machine has a touch screen or not.

 

Windows 8 might have actually went somewhere if ms would have just performed this simple task but arrogance got in the way.

[firey]

Having different OSs too, is inefficient. It drives up support and development costs. 

 

Not necessarily.  You can have the same code base display different things.   So your development team is simply split between a mobile and non-mobile interface.  You can have the same API Calls, you can have the same file structure, and you can have the same base.  How you display that is different.

if (useCase == UC_DESKTOP) {

    //load standard desktop shell

} else if (useCase == UC_TABLET) {

  //load standard tablet/mobile shell

}

As for support.. that's easy.  "Please tell me, do you see a bunch of rectangles, or do you see a little button in the bottom corner?"  If rectangles.. begin mobile support, otherwise desktop support.  You are thinking too complicated, you are not thinking was is actually possible (and being done). 

 

 

And I'm not sure why you would think people would mistake a desktop as a tablet just because of the UI.

 

Didn't say they would.  I was saying that code wise, you can expect components to be present on a desktop vs a tablet.  Nothing to do with the ui outside of which to display.

 

 

There's no rule stating a desktop computer can't run Modern apps on a desktop.

 

Right, so why can you only run "Modern" apps in full screen, not in windowed mode on a desktop...like every other non "Modern" app?  Why do you HAVE to be put into either a full screen, or full screen split app?

 

Trying to differentiate devices isn't going to work, not when A) you're unifying your services, and B) the market is driving digital convergence - and has been for the past ten years. People don't want multiple devices.

Unified services means using the same service across multiple devices, and systems.  That means accessing sky drive, xbox music, etc on whatever device you use.  It means being able to keep documents on all your devices.. it does not mean having all your devices look the exact same.. it means allowing them all to have access to the same things.  Not necessarily presenting them the same.  Right, but the technology isn't there yet.  And trying to force it with software isn't going to change it.  Until a tablet or mobile phone has the power of my desktop computer.. a single device will never replace all my things.  Until I can have dual monitors, with surround sound, and 1gb+ video memory.. and proper desktop.. there will always be a split.

 

And no, "so the only blur.. is between a tablet and a phone" is a fallacy. You have touch enable all in one desktops, you have touch enabled laptops, you have laptops that can separate into tablets, you have desktops that can separate into tablets, and you also have tablets can can transform into workstations. Developing separate OSs for all these devices isn't an option. MSFT did this with Windows 7, and they all failed. You're not going to get a different outcome trying again. They'll fail each time.

 

 

Having certain components does not mean a desktop is not a desktop.  I could have two touch enabled screens on my desktop.. but I would still want to use a standard desktop layout.  I'm sorry but no 8" tablet will ever replace a desktop computer with 22" + screens, TB+ of hdd, 6+gb ram, 1+GB Video cards.  The interface that works well for a desktop may not work well for a tablet or a phone.  However.. the interface for a tablet or phone isn't necessarily (in my opinion isn't) good for a desktop.  Is it useable? yes.. but same could be said in reverse.

Until tablets can support (without special adapters) the power of a desktop, they will never be the same.  There is no blur.. a tablet is a tablet.  Connecting a keyboard to the surface does not make it a laptop computer, it is a tablet with a peripheral. 

Though, I guess talking to you about this would be a lost cause, as you can't seem to see that what microsoft did with windows 8 was not the right thing to do.  

[firey]

7 did not fundamentally change windows compared to Vista.  The changes amounted to cosmetic ones with features tweaked and visual options altered. 

 

8 has a desktop ui and a metro ui.  I don't get why the desktop ui for 8 is so ignored as if all there is to use is the metro ui.  The metro ui is not what powers the windows 8 desktop.  The windows 8 desktop is windows 7 with tweaks to various features.  The big change is the visual integration of the metro ui.

 

If MS allowed you to disable all features that are part of the metro ui addition such as the start screen and the charms bar, the 8 desktop would be windows 7 with various small improvements.  So MS doesn't even need to go back to anything, just offer the darn option to turn things off.  8.1 added some of the options you guys want.  It allows you to boot straight to the desktop (I use that) and it allows you to disable the hot corner functions while in the desktop.  All MS has to do is pop in a classic start menu and add the option to completely disable the charms bar while in the desktop and your done. 

 

My point is, Windows 9 could be fundamentally no different from 8, but if they make some relatively small changes as I mentioned, suddenly the OS is brand new.  Now the question is, lets say they do that, will you adopt it?  Will others that have voiced their disinterest in anything Metro being on a desktop adopt it?  I don't know honestly.  People say there is this huge groundswell of customers just waiting for say the Start Menu or making Metro optional, that sales will have a huge turn around.  I have a hard time believing that personally.  But maybe if they make these changes, the internet community will get behind Win 9 and create positive buzz. 

 

It's a step forward yes.  But forcing things like project spark to need metro (when it really shouldn't) detracts from the OS.  There is no reason it couldn't have been offered as a standalone install (no need for store and metro).   If windows 9 fixed the issues I have with 8 (metro, and their whole mobile idea) then yes I would likely use it.

[trooper11]

It's a step forward yes.  But forcing things like project spark to need metro (when it really shouldn't) detracts from the OS.  There is no reason it couldn't have been offered as a standalone install (no need for store and metro).   If windows 9 fixed the issues I have with 8 (metro, and their whole mobile idea) then yes I would likely use it.

 

 

Project Spark does not need Metro.  Its merely offered in the Win 8 app store.  Your saying its terrible that the app is being offered there and it hurts 8 in the process?  I don't get the issue there.  You would prefer they just offer an installer via say the Microsoft website or Xbox.com?  I mean the app store is basically MS' Steam, it seems appropriate to make their own apps available in it.

 

So as long as Windows 9 got rid of the Metro parts of 8 (including the store apparently), then you would buy into it? 

 

Well that's certainly a possibility.  I think what is more likely to happen is that MS simply allows you to disable the parts you don't want, create a sort of 'classic shell'.  I doubt they will scrap Metro or the store, but maybe they find a way to make those things more palatable to you, especially the store.

[Wyn6]

I honestly don't think MS will backtrack on this. The Desktop as we know it and [some] love it is changing, and will change. We don't have to like it, and we don't have to accept it. But, we also can't stop it. It's going away. I won't everyone to ask themselves honestly... how long do we see the current desktop UIs persisting? 5 years? 10? 20? 50? When will it be acceptable to attempt to move away from the now 30+ year old paradigm?

 

Metro/Modern may not be ideal for some, but it's a start, a step in a future direction. Whether that future suits personal preference is entirely up to the individual. However, just like the command line still exist, albeit hidden away, we can be certain that grids of icons, taskbars, and resizable windows will be available to those that wish to use them well into the future (albeit hidden away).

[leesmithg]

Windows 7 is what we want, just like XP is what we want.  But 7 builds on XP and isn't totally new, yes there are changes.. yes it's different but the feel is the same.  8 was a long way away from what most (including I) expect from a desktop os.  So it's not that we aren't satisfied with 7.. we totally are.. but we are disatisfied with windows 8 and it's direction.  We don't want to be stuck with a 13 year old OS that is no longer supported just because MS decided to go mobile on the desktop.

You're right, as I said numerous times, 7 pro is the xp pro on steroids.

 

Windows 8 is for touch screen and tablets, which MS didn't advertise, well I never saw any adverts by them about this.

 

I will probably wait till 10 or even 11.

[trooper11]

But forcing things like project spark to need metro (when it really shouldn't) detracts from the OS.  There is no reason it couldn't have been offered as a standalone install (no need for store and metro).

 

 

I forgot another reason its in the app store.  The dev team talked about how one of their goals with the project was to open up access to a game development platform across a variety of devices, even talking about scenarios where you were to say work on your game via your tablet and be able to push those changes in real time to another device, like say the X1 or pc.   So obviously, the game does need to work well with tablets as well as a standard pc. 

 

You can argue that you don't care about using it with a tablet, but that is what the team wants to offer to users, so that's part of the reason its a windows 8 app and not a stand alone desktop program. 

[trooper11]

You're right, as I said numerous times, 7 pro is the xp pro on steroids.

 

Windows 8 is for touch screen and tablets, which MS didn't advertise, well I never saw any adverts by them about this.

 

I will probably wait till 10 or even 11.

 

Correction, the metro side of Windows 8 is primarily for touch screens and tablets.

 

The desktop side of Windows 8 is very much for desktop pcs.  Unfortunately, too many people gloss over that fact.

[firey]

Project Spark does not need Metro.  Its merely offered in the Win 8 app store.  Your saying its terrible that the app is being offered there and it hurts 8 in the process?  I don't get the issue there.  You would prefer they just offer an installer via say the Microsoft website or Xbox.com?  I mean the app store is basically MS' Steam, it seems appropriate to make their own apps available in it.

 

So as long as Windows 9 got rid of the Metro parts of 8 (including the store apparently), then you would buy into it? 

 

Well that's certainly a possibility.  I think what is more likely to happen is that MS simply allows you to disable the parts you don't want, create a sort of 'classic shell'.  I doubt they will scrap Metro or the store, but maybe they find a way to make those things more palatable to you, especially the store.

 

It does indeed need metro.  You cannot run it on the desktop.. trust me.. I tried.  I got into the beta and installed it at work, but it can only be started via the metro screen, and cannot be resized and can only be snapped.  Trust me.. it needs metro.

[Dot Matrix]

It's indeed a Metro app, but so what? Is Microsoft just supposed to ignore Metro because you don't want it? What part of Metro is forcing you to not develop games of your own for the desktop?

[JonnyLH]

It does indeed need metro.  You cannot run it on the desktop.. trust me.. I tried.  I got into the beta and installed it at work, but it can only be started via the metro screen, and cannot be resized and can only be snapped.  Trust me.. it needs metro.

As much as I understand your dislike of the Metro interface. You're acting like they've removed everything else from Windows which made it great.

 

They haven't. In fact in Windows 8, as you know, they've made it better.

[DConnell Member]

Will definitely be interesting to see where they go with 9.  I know it's being hopeful, but I really do hope for a Metro/Standard option.  If you pick metro.. you get all metro (akin to RT) if you pick standard, you get a windows 7 style desktop.  Any "metro" apps would run in windows removing the need for things like modern mix.  Full start menu same as 7, so no need for a full screen. 

 

Either way.. im interested to see what direction they go.

 

Why does it have to be either/or? I have no problem with others going all desktop, but why should I be forced to choose Modern or desktop?  I like the flexibility the mix gives.

 

The choice either needs to be 3fold - Modern, desktop or mix.

[firey]

As much as I understand your dislike of the Metro interface. You're acting like they've removed everything else from Windows which made it great.

 

They haven't. In fact in Windows 8, as you know, they've made it better.

That's your opinion.  Mine is that by removing what they did.. they have made it much worse than it should have been.

[firey]

Why does it have to be either/or? I have no problem with others going all desktop, but why should I be forced to choose Modern or desktop?  I like the flexibility the mix gives.

 

The choice either needs to be 3fold - Modern, desktop or mix.

Then make it 3 way.. but make it a choice to have.  I want a start MENU, Aero, no full screen unless I set the window properties to full screen, etc.  

[JonnyLH]

That's your opinion.  Mine is that by removing what they did.. they have made it much worse than it should have been.

Well its subjective opinion, but the mass majority will agree that the Task Manager, Explorer and many other smaller changes are very accepted.

 

My other fact still remains, they've not removed anything from Windows which made it great. If you wan't to live on the Desktop, you can. You can use the start screen as a start menu with improved search. I can understand why you'd dislike it, but from that to literally throwing it aside by claiming its not really Windows and they've massacred it. That's something I don't really understand.