So windows 9?

The thing that grinds my gears is that they release the ridiculous windows 8 ui then make you pay for a new ui to fix it.

All because MS don't want to make a UI that is good to use they want to make a UI that is good to make more money.

****ing mouse gestures.
 
"You either have the desktop or you have the Modern UI, you cannot have both," says the Windows focussed blog.
Click to expand...

As someone who actually DID end up liking metro once I customised it, to me this makes Windows 9 suck already. I don't want to go back to what is a slower, clunkier start menu like interface. Sure, keep it for those who want that, but don't force metro away from me if I want the goddamn desktop as well.
 
Just continue to use Windows 8 then but don't expect many (if any) "Windows 9 Metro interface mods" because you're in a tiny minority, a menu that takes up less than a quarter of the screen is always going to be faster and more efficient for a mouse user than one that's spread out over the whole screen.
 
Typing in the name of the app is often faster than using the mouse. Ie windows key >"Photoshop" > enter. Don't need to touch the mouse.

What I would really like is the search function without taking over the screen when its used. Small start menu should solve that
 
Number_25 said:
Is anyone else finding the current release cycle a little bit laughable?


  • Windows 3.1 (July 1993)
  • Windows 95 (May 1995) + 2 years
  • Windows 98 (June 1998) + 3 years
  • Windows 2000 (February 2000) + 2 years
  • Windows XP (October 2001) + 1 year
  • Windows Vista (January 2007) + 6 years
  • Windows 7 (July 2009) + 2 years
  • Windows 8 (October 2012) + 3 years
  • Windows 9 (February 2015(?)) + 3 years
£60 a pop, that's quite an expensive update cycle!
Click to expand...

Meaningless when the vast majority of people only every upgrade their OS when they buy a new machine. I'm sure there are still a few Vista OEM machines out there chugging along quite nicely.
 
ThePirateHulk said:
Meaningless when the vast majority of people only every upgrade their OS when they buy a new machine. I'm sure there are still a few Vista OEM machines out there chugging along quite nicely.
Click to expand...

Vista was decent OS,you really can't complain especially by SP2,at least you can't moan about the Start menu on Vista,yes I know you did not ;) .

Originally Posted by Number_25 View Post
Is anyone else finding the current release cycle a little bit laughable?

Windows 3.1 (July 1993)
Windows 95 (May 1995) + 2 years
Windows 98 (June 1998) + 3 years
Windows 2000 (February 2000) + 2 years
Windows XP (October 2001) + 1 year
Windows Vista (January 2007) + 6 years
Windows 7 (July 2009) + 2 years
Windows 8 (October 2012) + 3 years
Windows 9 (February 2015(?)) + 3 years

£60 a pop, that's quite an expensive update cycle!
Click to expand...

Want to throw in Win98SE,and there was different versions of Win95 ie A and B version ,I also believe there was C version of Win95 ,XP had three service packs as well.

So again that cycle is pure FUD like most things around here.

Funny how he missed out the worst OS ever IMHO ie WinME.


£60 a pop funny how I got two Win8 operating systems for £40 total(£25+£15) with free upgrade to 8.1,not bad investment at all,even at 60 quid still cheap when you consider how long they last and LTS etc...I bet you spend hundreds on hardware for just an upgrade.


Also note Microsoft have stated they are going back to 3 years or less cycle ,but then nothing stops you staying with your current OS or going Linux.


I forgot Win3.1 you know there was four versions?


This might be a little confusing, but there were actually 4 releases of Windows 3.1x:
Windows 3.1 - First release, shown on previous page.
Windows 3.1 for Workgroups - Windows 3.1 packaged with real mode networking software and some extra utilities.
Windows 3.11 - Same as Windows 3.1 but with a few updated files. Made available as a patch to Windows 3.1 and on disks.
Windows 3.11 For Workgroups - (Shown here) Windows 3.1 plus core updates plus protected mode networking and extra utilities.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
With China moving to Ubuntu and developers flocking to OpenGL, I think Microsoft really need to pull some thing out of their arse with Win9.
 
I might install it if it allows you to seamlessly upgrade to the final retail version instead of forcing you to do a fresh install. This isn't the early 2000s where an OS may not have been smart enough to not tank itself.
 
That's unlikely to happen, MS don't made the largest profits in the industry when a laptop running their OS is sold.

I would like to see subscription licensing though, perhaps as an addition to Office 365 for small/medium business customers at first. Getting onto Volume Licensing is restrictively expensive at the moment.
 
Number_25 said:
Is anyone else finding the current release cycle a little bit laughable?


  • Windows 3.1 (July 1993)
  • Windows 95 (May 1995) + 2 years
  • Windows 98 (June 1998) + 3 years
  • Windows 2000 (February 2000) + 2 years
  • Windows XP (October 2001) + 1 year
  • Windows Vista (January 2007) + 6 years
  • Windows 7 (July 2009) + 2 years
  • Windows 8 (October 2012) + 3 years
  • Windows 9 (February 2015(?)) + 3 years
£60 a pop, that's quite an expensive update cycle!
Click to expand...

You forgot that atrocity that was Windows ME :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom