So windows 9?

Mynight

Mynight

Mynight

Soldato
Joined
16 Jun 2013
Posts
5,375
As it's rumoured for a September unveil.

What is everyone hoping for this time around?

Personally I'm hoping for a less metro aimed UI or at least one easier to customise without third party plug ins. I don't use touch screen so have little use for it.
 
Mynight said:
I don't use touch screen so have little use for it.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: it is not just about touchscreen, it is about making the OS modern and adding notification and instant display of data something that wasn't included or needed on other versions of windows due to lack of internet connection and the always on world we live in now.
So you don't use email? Or use outlook/thunderbird? Most people don't so metro is the far better way of getting emails, than logging into a website and manually checking.
Same with weather, news, etc.
Then there's plenty of apps that are far better than the desktop/website versions. Youtube, Netflix, packagetracket, audible to name a few.

Calling it a purely touch OS is stupid and saying you don't need it or have any use, is almost certainly you not trying it/understanding. Most people do have a need for instant info and notifications. A few go but I use my phone for emails, really? When at home you use a ~5" screen over a 10-30" screen.


What I would like to see is a merger, start screen with the taskbar on it. I don't see the need for two screens. Why can't live tiles just be pinned on the desktop. And rather than forcing tiles to be placed in columns from top down, allow freedom of placement. I can't see that happening.

And it won't be out in September, developer preview hasn't been released yet, once that's released you're usually looking at 9-12months before public version goes on sale.
 
Personally I think this looks great, but so close to the release of 8.1, it seems like a waste of money. Not sure why I'd buy it, possibly for the use of the start menu showing the apps, but that's about it.

Unless there are massive differences and improvements around its functionality, which would change the way you work, its not worth it.
 
By the time it comes out it will be around 3years. Which is MS usual release schedule. And if you get the introduction offer, its super cheap anyway.
 
Unless there are significant performance benefits I'll be sticking on Windows 7. I have no problem with W8, in fact it seems like a pretty good OS but for me personally it didn't offer anything I saw as warranting the purchase.
 
Personally as someone who's left IT support and is now working in IT Security I'm most interested in how well..

games will work on it, sod work lol

Honestly I'll upgrade if it's cheap, done that every time and not had any regrets despite the whingers saying Windows 8 was rubbish, I never thought it was although I will honestly say I prefered Windows 7 over 8, I prefer 8.1 over every previous version and I'm hoping 9 simply adds to it.

Most keen to see improved encryption and backup support though if I'm honest. No interest in touch screens but that's a very minor part of even Windows 8.1, it's just a peripheral choice.
 
I want them to get the basics right, with a few personal recommendations

New icons
Consistent look across the entire operating systems

Pet hates of mine with Windows 8

From the start screen press the down arrow at the bottom to see a list of all your apps. It looks dreadful. How is that good looking, or even productive? Say you install some software which has 10 applications. You know you want to run one of them, but can't remember the name. Good look finding it quickly.

With the old start menu at least they were in groups, not a flat system

The icons on the start screen. Look at notepad, it's the old notepad icon stuck in a coloured square box :eek: come on ms! fire your design team and get people in who know how to make it look sexy

Release updated iso images!!!!!! why is it so complicated actually getting and installing a copy of windows 8 these days? I have a paid licence key, but can't for the life of me find an updated image. I have to install the basic windows 8, and spend hours installing update after update after update! and when windows says it's fully updated.....it's not, cause then you have a load of seperate updates to do from the app store LOL

two internet explorers, the desktop one and the metro one!! WHAT! lol

If I log in using a cloud connected account to sync the profile, where is it in the online world?

Apple let you download the latest image, or even do an internet installation!

I really don't like the idea of having metro apps running in a window on the desktop. It still feels to me like it's two operating systems competing against each other.

Apple are light years ahead which is a shame, as I much prefer the windows explorer shell over os x
 
Last edited:
For me Win9 would need to serious overhaul to get me to take the leap. Having used the start menu / desktop shortcuts for my main navigation for so many years I simply just don't have the time to essentially learn a newer way of working in order to use an OS.
For me it needs to be backwards compatible (essentially do everything that my current OS does), and more. I find it enough of a royal pain in the *** having to work my way around server 2012 @ work, I'm not going to do the same thing to my daily use pc. I know a lot will just say I'm stuck in an OS of the past, but I like what I know, and know what I like :D

Only thing that would drag me from Win7 to Win9 would be the option of a native "classic" interface, coupled with DX improvements for gaming.
 
An improved Windows 7 with all of the performance improvements of Windows 8.1, and with all of the Metro guff removed. Sounds good to me!
 
glen8 said:
Release updated iso images!!!!!! why is it so complicated actually getting and installing a copy of windows 8 these days? I have a paid licence key, but can't for the life of me find an updated image. I have to install the basic windows 8, and spend hours installing update after update after update! and when windows says it's fully updated.....it's not, cause then you have a load of seperate updates to do from the app store LOL
Click to expand...

Code: 
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B3c2hcaO4GgWbXB4Q0g5YkhHUVE&usp=sharing
 
I can almost guarantee you, that DX12 (or at least the full feature version) will be only available for Win 9.

Your probably have partial support in Win 8.1 but I would be suprised if Microsoft make it available for Win 7. Just not in their interest.
 
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!
 
Glaucus said:
:rolleyes: it is not just about touchscreen, it is about making the OS modern and adding notification and instant display of data something that wasn't included or needed on other versions of windows due to lack of internet connection and the always on world we live in now.
So you don't use email? Or use outlook/thunderbird? Most people don't so metro is the far better way of getting emails, than logging into a website and manually checking.
Same with weather, news, etc.
Then there's plenty of apps that are far better than the desktop/website versions. Youtube, Netflix, packagetracket, audible to name a few.

Calling it a purely touch OS is stupid and saying you don't need it or have any use, is almost certainly you not trying it/understanding. Most people do have a need for instant info and notifications. A few go but I use my phone for emails, really? When at home you use a ~5" screen over a 10-30" screen.
.
Click to expand...

I've always used thunderbird for email. Never used weather or news feeds. Maybe I wrote it off too quickly.
 
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...

So don't buy it. It's not going to revolutionise the computing industry, and it's unlikely there'll be anything you can do on Windows 9 that you won't be able to on Windows 7 or 8. The only real question mark is DX12, and that's not going to stop people on 7 and 8 playing games new games.

By the way, XP was more the successor to Windows ME (itself a rushed stop-gap) in the consumer market. 2000 was aimed at businesses primarily, getting them to move over to NT5, and building the platform for XP for consumers. You could quite easily have gone 95 or 98 to XP to Windows 7. Windows 9 won't put Windows 7 to pasture.
 
this_is_gav said:
So don't buy it. It's not going to revolutionise the computing industry, and it's unlikely there'll be anything you can do on Windows 9 that you won't be able to on Windows 7 or 8. The only real question mark is DX12, and that's not going to stop people on 7 and 8 playing games new games.

By the way, XP was more the successor to Windows ME (itself a rushed stop-gap) in the consumer market. 2000 was aimed at businesses primarily, getting them to move over to NT5, and building the platform for XP for consumers. You could quite easily have gone 95 or 98 to XP to Windows 7.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to, don't worry about that.

The idea of MS stopping users access to DX12 for W7/W8 users is abhorrent and yet you lot will quite happily let them bend you over the barrel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom