Windows 9: The Empire's Last Hope

I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this, but some info about the upcoming Windows 9 has emerged: http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/windows-9-the-empires-last-hope-245440

I'm particularly interested in the fact that W9 is supposed to adapt to whatever type of computer/device the user is using, i.e. if they're using a normal desktop or laptop they'll get a W7-style UI whereas tablet users would get a W8-style UI. Now why couldn't they have done that with Windows 8 in the first place? :p
«13

Comments

  • Fried KickinFried Kickin Posts: 60,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I'm surprised there hasn't been a thread on this, but some info about the upcoming Windows 9 has emerged: http://www.infoworld.com/d/microsoft-windows/windows-9-the-empires-last-hope-245440

    I'm particularly interested in the fact that W9 is supposed to adapt to whatever type of computer/device the user is using, i.e. if they're using a normal desktop or laptop they'll get a W7-style UI whereas tablet users would get a W8-style UI. Now why couldn't they have done that with Windows 8 in the first place? :p
    Indeed .. To me it's just common sense to say here's our new OS it's everything you already know and are completely cool with .. oh and btw here's a little something that we thought you might like too :)
    Rather than .... Deal with it bitches!
  • RobinOfLoxleyRobinOfLoxley Posts: 27,040
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What really annoyed me about W8 was not that it had issues but that MS had plenty of feedback on pre-releases and arrogantly ignored them.
  • call100call100 Posts: 7,264
    Forum Member
    There may be some desktop users who can use the Modern UI. Hopefully they will also have a choice to keep it if they want. Otherwise they'll have to whine about it and get MS to change the OS again....!;-)
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,691
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    call100 wrote: »
    There may be some desktop users who can use the Modern UI. Hopefully they will also have a choice to keep it if they want. Otherwise they'll have to whine about it and get MS to change the OS again....!;-)

    It seems from what I have read that you can enable the Modern UI if you want to, but it will be disabled as default.
    Should have done that from the start give people a choice on setup, i can understand why MS wants the Modem UI to stay, they want to get more money from their App shop and wanted to try and make windows into a walled garden,
    I am pretty sure that if the modern UI was well received that the next version of windows would more less have got rid of the desktop as we know it.

    As for this update being windows 9, I don't anyone knows yet, it could be another windows 8 update.

    Not that bothered to be honest, I know got windows 8 the way i like it, and I have not seen the modern UI for a while.
  • late8late8 Posts: 7,175
    Forum Member
    MS should have grown balls and done a new Desktop OS that could scale down to tablet and phone. Same echosystem - but scaled back to each devices capabilities. The user experience would be the same throughout but the capabilities would tailor to each device.

    Windows 8 is still a Joke and Windows itself is old and bloated. The current approach of a Jekyll and Hide OS built on a Bloated platform has backfired.
  • StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    late8 wrote: »
    MS should have grown balls and done a new Desktop OS that could scale down to tablet and phone. Same echosystem - but scaled back to each devices capabilities. The user experience would be the same throughout but the capabilities would tailor to each device.

    Windows 8 is still a Joke and Windows itself is old and bloated. The current approach of a Jekyll and Hide OS built on a Bloated platform has backfired.

    But that's exactly what they did. They took the Metro UI from Windows Phone 7. They released Windows 8 for PC, plus Windows RT for ARM devices. They then rewrote Windows Phone 7 to create Windows Phone 8 which is based on the Windows PC kernel.

    The problem is that the UI which worked well on a phone was badly thought out on a PC. Even on a tablet it's clumsy and non-intuitive.
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    Stig wrote: »
    The problem is that the UI which worked well on a phone was badly thought out on a PC. Even on a tablet it's clumsy and non-intuitive.

    I would agree. The whole thing was a mess and badly designed. Windows 8 is an OS that doesn't seem to know what it's supposed to be. Is it a tablet OS? Is it a desktop OS? No, it's a messy mix of both tablet and desktop and it doesn't work at all. 8.1 is an improvement but it's still not perfect on a desktop or laptop without touchscreen. Hopefully Windows 9 will be a good one. It's important to remember too that every second Windows version has been bad. Windows ME and Vista anyone? :p
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,395
    Forum Member
    What really annoyed me about W8 was not that it had issues but that MS had plenty of feedback on pre-releases and arrogantly ignored them.

    ...particularly from members of the business community. Their comments were ignored and commercial enterprises have stayed away from Win 8 in their droves, so much so that Microsoft are still having to sell Win 7 Professional to business users. *rolleyes*

    The Win 8 navigation system is chaotic and disorganised and I'd never recommend it to a non-touch screen user. I don't particularly like Ubuntu's Unity interface either but at least you can get to learn your way around that one pretty quickly and it's consistent.
    macnstuff wrote:
    I was a trainer for over twenty years and during that time got a really good feel for what your average user understands and looks for in a software program, be it an OS or application. It never ceased to amaze me how wide of the mark most software was. It really is as if they lock the developers away in a room, shut off from the outside world, not allowing them to interact with normal computer users and then expect them to come up with something that people will want to use.

    Some of the videos on YouTube showing people trying to use Windows 8 are hilarious. If W8 was meant to be an entertainment title they've done quite a good job.

    ^^^ That is just so true. I still don't understand why Microsoft didn't allow users to easily one-touch toggle between the two interfaces or to permanently stick to just using one interface with a simple configuration change. Microsoft = thick illegitimates.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 8,345
    Forum Member
    XP (5.1), 7, 9...

    It is just the natural continuation of what has gone on for years.

    Odd-numbered versions of Windows are good, even numbered versions are not so good.

    Windows 3.x - as good as you could get in the day once you had left OS/2
    Windows NT 4.x - not as good as OS/2
    Windows 5.x - aka Windows 2000 & XP, the first truly good OS for everyone
    Windows 6 - aka Vista, bloated mess
    Windows 7 - everything Vista should have been
    Windows 8 - mismatched combination of interfaces
    Windows 9 - (remains to be seen, but can't be worse than Windows 8)
  • MaxatoriaMaxatoria Posts: 17,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    MS has sacked the idiots who made the win 8 decisions and is going back to a more traditional look which is good, what we really need is a dumping of a lot of the backwards support which will allow better features and it will also allow the chip makers the opportunity to redo the chips without having to support archaic instructions that probably 0.00000001 of the windows population has used in the last 10 years and if it needs supporting perhaps MS can design a retro support pack for those who still need to run windows 3.1 code from 1994
  • Zack06Zack06 Posts: 28,304
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    What "last hope"? Isn't Windows still on 85%+ marketshare on PCs worldwide? :blush:

    Microsoft is one of few companies that can afford to make big mistakes in the PC market and still recover. If they can recover from ME and Vista, they can recover from Windows 8, which was not the catastrophe that people paint it to be.
  • SambdaSambda Posts: 6,183
    Forum Member
    Zack06 wrote: »
    What "last hope"? Isn't Windows still on 85%+ marketshare on PCs worldwide? :blush:

    Microsoft is one of few companies that can afford to make big mistakes in the PC market and still recover. If they can recover from ME and Vista, they can recover from Windows 8, which was not the catastrophe that people paint it to be.

    Windows 8 was a big FU to the corporate sector. All that apps stuff / Metro view etc. has no place on business desktops. And that's where the money is. Companies do not want to spend their money on processor- and network- capacity and power so users can run stupid apps to constantly update them with what the weather's like in Abu Djabi.

    The 27.5 ways of sharing files on the modern Windows versions is too much, too. Hell.... NTFS, share-level x2, public folders, homegroups, media streaming.... computer admins/support have to secure all this crap, you know... You can even run IIS Express and turn your work PC into a web server without an admin-level logon!

    No wonder XP lasted so long in the corporate sector (and NT4 before that). The poor sods in IT support and desktop software development could actually understand those OSs.
  • TelevisionUserTelevisionUser Posts: 41,395
    Forum Member
    Sambda wrote: »
    Windows 8 was a big FU to the corporate sector. All that apps stuff / Metro view etc. has no place on business desktops. And that's where the money is. Companies do not want to spend their money on processor- and network- capacity and power so users can run stupid apps to constantly update them with what the weather's like in Abu Djabi.

    The 27.5 ways of sharing files on the modern Windows versions is too much, too. Hell.... NTFS, share-level x2, public folders, homegroups, media streaming.... computer admins/support have to secure all this crap, you know... You can even run IIS Express and turn your work PC into a web server without an admin-level logon!

    No wonder XP lasted so long in the corporate sector (and NT4 before that). The poor sods in IT support and desktop software development could actually understand those OSs.

    That is a very important point because Win 8/8.1 has been very unpopular with commercial enterprises. We're in a situation where desktop PC sales have been declining in favour of more portable, touch operated leisure devices and yet Microsoft has very successfully alienated the core business customers that they need to keep on board. It should have been Microsoft themselves who should have come up with a Classic Shell option upon first time start up so that commercial and the more conservative home users need not ever interact with the Metro interface or charms bar.

    #thickbastards
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    Zack06 wrote: »
    What "last hope"? Isn't Windows still on 85%+ marketshare on PCs worldwide? :blush:

    Microsoft is one of few companies that can afford to make big mistakes in the PC market and still recover. If they can recover from ME and Vista, they can recover from Windows 8, which was not the catastrophe that people paint it to be.

    Yes but some people are turning to alternatives like Macs and Chromebooks. The majority still use Windows though and I guess that's partly because it's all they know. Linux has a large userbase but I don't think it'll ever be a mainstream OS because you won't find it in high street computer stores. I was in PC World a couple of days ago and I was tempted to ask them if they knew anything about Linux, but I decided that there was no point as I don't think they would've even heard of it :D

    ME and Vista really were awful. It's a bit generous calling ME a Windows version :D Trouble with Windows 8 is that it's a mess of an operating system. Nobody knows whether it's supposed to be a tablet or desktop OS or a hybrid of both. It's very confusing and badly designed.
  • zx50zx50 Posts: 91,227
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    This would be a good thing. Only making one version of Windows 8/8.1 wasn't a good idea at all. There should have been a touchscreen version and a desktop/laptop version as well. Microsoft made a mistake with that. I don't know why they ever thought that that would be a good idea. Looks like they're doing things differently this time around though.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    There aim of a UI that adapts to the device it is used on sounds familiar.

    Canonical have been trying to achieve that with Ubuntu since the Unity desktop came into the world.
  • Everything GoesEverything Goes Posts: 12,972
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Personally I thought that Metro (or Modern UI) was forced on consumers as a marketing exercise. They wanted Windows Phone which was and still is struggling to have the same look as the Desktop so consumers would feel more positive about buying Windows Phone.

    Steve Ballmer was a marketing man and an arrogant one at that. Now hes gone we may see more of what consumers want?
  • Zack06Zack06 Posts: 28,304
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yes but some people are turning to alternatives like Macs and Chromebooks. The majority still use Windows though and I guess that's partly because it's all they know. Linux has a large userbase but I don't think it'll ever be a mainstream OS because you won't find it in high street computer stores. I was in PC World a couple of days ago and I was tempted to ask them if they knew anything about Linux, but I decided that there was no point as I don't think they would've even heard of it :D

    ME and Vista really were awful. It's a bit generous calling ME a Windows version :D Trouble with Windows 8 is that it's a mess of an operating system. Nobody knows whether it's supposed to be a tablet or desktop OS or a hybrid of both. It's very confusing and badly designed.

    Mac uptake is not increasing, Apple have to give away their updates for free to drive interest in the platform and Chrome OS has yet to take off.

    ME was dreadful, but Vista and 8 were not bad releases at all. Vista was blown out of proportion by the media, but it was more Microsoft rush releasing it after the Longhorn mess that caused all the problems. OEMs had no time to adapt to the kernel change from NT5.2 to NT6.0 resulting in pretty much every driver breaking and failing in Vista. Couple that with the fact that OEMs thought putting Vista on XP spec 512MB RAM machines would be a good idea did not help the cause.

    The OS itself was very advanced, in fact ironically, Microsoft changed very little in Windows 7, it's basically Vista with some cosmetic changes, yet it is now the fastest selling OS ever released.

    Windows 8's UI actually works very well if the user is willing to put in time to adapt to the change. But the majority of PC users are quite lazy. A lot of key functions are much faster to do in Windows 8 than they are in Windows 7, particularly in the desktop, and things like Hyper-V, and ISO/VHD mounting native in the OS is a major plus for power users.

    A lot of the user gripes were eliminated in Windows 8.1. You can completely bypass the Modern interface if need be, so to be honest, I think a lot of it is complaining for the sake of complaining as it's not much different from Windows 7 in everyday use.
  • TheTruth1983TheTruth1983 Posts: 13,462
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Zack06 wrote: »
    Mac uptake is not increasing, Apple have to give away their updates for free to drive interest in the platform and Chrome OS has yet to take off.

    ME was dreadful, but Vista and 8 were not bad releases at all. Vista was blown out of proportion by the media, but it was more Microsoft rush releasing it after the Longhorn mess that caused all the problems. OEMs had no time to adapt to the kernel change from NT5.2 to NT6.0 resulting in pretty much every driver breaking and failing in Vista. Couple that with the fact that OEMs thought putting Vista on XP spec 512MB RAM machines would be a good idea did not help the cause.

    The OS itself was very advanced, in fact ironically, Microsoft changed very little in Windows 7, it's basically Vista with some cosmetic changes, yet it is now the fastest selling OS ever released.

    Windows 8's UI actually works very well if the user is willing to put in time to adapt to the change. But the majority of PC users are quite lazy. A lot of key functions are much faster to do in Windows 8 than they are in Windows 7, particularly in the desktop, and things like Hyper-V, and ISO/VHD mounting native in the OS is a major plus for power users.

    A lot of the user gripes were eliminated in Windows 8.1. You can completely bypass the Modern interface if need be, so to be honest, I think a lot of it is complaining for the sake of complaining as it's not much different from Windows 7 in everyday use.

    And fixed it.

    The OS may have been good but it's release was an unmitigated disaster
  • MaxatoriaMaxatoria Posts: 17,980
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    And fixed it.

    The OS may have been good but it's release was an unmitigated disaster

    Vista was a great project in theory but it was too much for the hardware of the day and with the complete rewrite of the driver code and not much time for 3rd parties to get to see how it worked it became a lemon at the begining but by now its perfectly fine, but for driver level fun you still need to head back to apple in the days when they decided to allow 3rd party pci graphics cards etc and every little patch seemed to break the drivers as they kept removing API's until everyone gave up and just left it like it is now where apple sorts it all out
  • RobinOfLoxleyRobinOfLoxley Posts: 27,040
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I still find security permissions difficult.

    I end up setting full control to Everyone, to avoid problems, and setting Ownership as well.

    And even then I have to go round in circles for a few minutes trying to do that.

    Maybe it's difficult on purpose?

    I am a single user but with a home network so security isn't the issue, just Access denied. Oh, and I enable Sharing too and no passwords, and File Sharing switched on and folders enabled for sharing.

    It all takes time and I am not even trying to set up a corporate network.
  • LyricalisLyricalis Posts: 57,958
    Forum Member
    Zack06 wrote: »
    What "last hope"? Isn't Windows still on 85%+ marketshare on PCs worldwide? :blush:

    Microsoft is one of few companies that can afford to make big mistakes in the PC market and still recover. If they can recover from ME and Vista, they can recover from Windows 8, which was not the catastrophe that people paint it to be.

    The OP is just repeating the typical click bait headline from the article. Those types of headline are used by far too many media outlets.

    Microsoft is far from being in any short term trouble. It makes huge amounts of money each year and is still the provider of the most popular, by such a huge margin, OS with end users. The Surface Pro 3 is finally the sort of machine that Windows 8 was intended for, Windows Phone is coming along nicely, and the XBox range is hardly a failure either. Microsoft also produce Visual Studio, which is one of the best development environments, and getting better each year (now anyway after a few ropey years).
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,078
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    PrinceGaz wrote: »
    XP (5.1), 7, 9...

    It is just the natural continuation of what has gone on for years.

    Odd-numbered versions of Windows are good, even numbered versions are not so good.

    Windows 3.x - as good as you could get in the day once you had left OS/2
    Windows NT 4.x - not as good as OS/2
    Windows 5.x - aka Windows 2000 & XP, the first truly good OS for everyone
    Windows 6 - aka Vista, bloated mess
    Windows 7 - everything Vista should have been
    Windows 8 - mismatched combination of interfaces
    Windows 9 - (remains to be seen, but can't be worse than Windows 8)

    Don't want to burst your bubble, but if 5.x is good then 6.x is also good.

    Vista=NT6.0
    W7=NT6.1
    W8=NT6.2
    W8.1=NT6.3

    WIndows 7 you liked.

    I can see W8 Update 2 or whatever being made available to W7 users too. It needs to be a platform for Microsoft to move forward or they will die. Yes, it should detect the hardware and offer UI options. Yes, the Store. Office 365 only, no more standalone versions.

    Please make regular payments to your Microsoft Account. Thanks.
  • cnbcwatchercnbcwatcher Posts: 56,681
    Forum Member
    Zack06 wrote: »
    Mac uptake is not increasing, Apple have to give away their updates for free to drive interest in the platform and Chrome OS has yet to take off.

    ME was dreadful, but Vista and 8 were not bad releases at all. Vista was blown out of proportion by the media, but it was more Microsoft rush releasing it after the Longhorn mess that caused all the problems. OEMs had no time to adapt to the kernel change from NT5.2 to NT6.0 resulting in pretty much every driver breaking and failing in Vista. Couple that with the fact that OEMs thought putting Vista on XP spec 512MB RAM machines would be a good idea did not help the cause.

    The OS itself was very advanced, in fact ironically, Microsoft changed very little in Windows 7, it's basically Vista with some cosmetic changes, yet it is now the fastest selling OS ever released.

    Windows 8's UI actually works very well if the user is willing to put in time to adapt to the change. But the majority of PC users are quite lazy. A lot of key functions are much faster to do in Windows 8 than they are in Windows 7, particularly in the desktop, and things like Hyper-V, and ISO/VHD mounting native in the OS is a major plus for power users.

    A lot of the user gripes were eliminated in Windows 8.1. You can completely bypass the Modern interface if need be, so to be honest, I think a lot of it is complaining for the sake of complaining as it's not much different from Windows 7 in everyday use.

    I see enough people with Macs these days. They're much more common than they were 10 years ago, but of course not everyone can afford them. I wouldn't even call ME a Windows version. There's a reason it was called the Mistake Edition :D Vista was just pants. I have used it on other people's computers and it was an absolute nightmare. Of course putting it on XP spec machines didn't help, but it really was a mess. Windows 7 is what Vista should have been and is a rock solid OS. It's hands down one of the best OSes MS have ever released. I think it will become the XP of the 2010s as people will be reluctant to upgrade from it and they'll keep using it until 2020 when it reaches end of life. Windows 8 is a mess on a desktop or laptop without touchscreen and while 8.1 is an improvement it's still not perfect.
  • SambdaSambda Posts: 6,183
    Forum Member
    I still find security permissions difficult.

    I end up setting full control to Everyone, to avoid problems, and setting Ownership as well.

    And even then I have to go round in circles for a few minutes trying to do that.

    Maybe it's difficult on purpose?

    I am a single user but with a home network so security isn't the issue, just Access denied. Oh, and I enable Sharing too and no passwords, and File Sharing switched on and folders enabled for sharing.

    It all takes time and I am not even trying to set up a corporate network.

    Agreed - the whole sharing/permissions model in Windows is now way, way too complicated. There are now even hidden users for things like IIS!

    Share a folder, and then share a folder upstream (back towards the raw drive letter), then figure out how the two sets of share permissions and the two sets of NTFS permissions all work together for a user who is in two security groupings. And add the old DOS "read only" flag for a laugh. Then mix in crap like this: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-security/users-folder-shared-without-restrictions/6f912ddb-139e-445a-89fe-863c6aebb510

    and feel your brain start to melt.

    MS should release two versions of Windows. A home one which has all the public folders, homegroups, media-streaming stuff. Which has apps and the Metro interface.

    Then a corporate one which only has the old Windows desktop, no charms, metro or other shit. And only NTFS (and the old WfW/lan-manager) sharing scheme. No stupid "sharing wizards" or "public/private network location" crap. Everything locked/tightest permissions by default.

    Oh yeah, Microsoft, the corporate sector usually do not want people to store their work in their C: drive profiles, in your silly "My Pictures", "My Music" folders etc. We have network drives on servers to keep our users' work safe. So stop trying to manipulate everything so storing stuff in the profile appears to be the only acceptable thing to do!

    And stop trying to make Windows appear "kewl" to spotty 15-year-olds. Help us in the business sector please! We pay your bloody wages.
Sign In or Register to comment.