Windows Blue - How it could reinvent Windows (or sink Windows 8) - ComputerworldUK.com
I thought Widows Blue was like a super SP unil I read the above article. I may still be wrong but my take now is that it is actually a "Program Upgrade from 8 to 9" but then, it also sounds like it will upgrade any Windows program to 9.EXACTLY
The #1 internet guru guy in Spain says today in his blog that Windows 8 is officially a fiasco (as predicted by everyone) and gives many interesting links. He says Microsoft is in trouble and refuses to admit it.
I advice a read (translated here Traductor de Google)
Maybe that is why Microsoft will hurry with Windows Blue and a new (free?) strategy to try to survive.
I think Windows 8 has more broken user interface rules than user interface improvements. It's like when they introduced the ribbon in Office 2007. Everyone at work lost their ability to quickly find the most basic functions in Office that they used frequently and productivity in Office went way down and frustrations went high. You can get away with this to some degree if you add more functionality (this is stated explicitly by MS's user experience guru in the 1 hour video about how they made Windows 8), but there really isn't any dramatic functionality increase in Windows 8. It's just a new way to do a very few of the old things, and many things still need the Desktop, which now has no start button.
The unofficial ness is that Steve Ballmer split up the Windows team into two, one for Windows 9 and 8. Though this is normally done, people were actually moved from working on Windows 8 to 9 and reverse, so it's more official I guess. He also demands a new version of Windows every two years.
So it seems this will be more of a faster paced release schedule, probably to keep up with current technologies as three years is by FAR TOO LONG. In three years, the fad was from netbooks to tablets and convertibles.
Also, it seems like Windows and Windows Phone will be in sync that way, as if one were to buy a Windows Phone 8 on a typical two year contract, by the end of that contract, Windows Phone 9 will be out after 8 will have had a major halfway through type update. This happened with Windows Phone 7, it came out in 2010, a pretty decent platform but incomplete here and there. A year later, the 7.5 update was released that changed some UI features and added many other things. Windows Phone 8 came out a year later, with more UI changes and MUCH more technological changes 7 couldn't support.
As both the two share a similar kernel and code, it makes sense to keep Windows on a two year release, with a major update a year in. I bet the update will be at RTM by summer 2013, THEN released in the fall, as I think SP1 of Windows 7 did. In the whole scheme of things, there's less of a major learning curve every two years, as a .5 update would soften the blow. Or, a slight learning curve every so often versus a major one every two years. But they would need to avoid changing things so often, as Windows already kind of has a reputation for changing things often.
I scanned through this thread, which I started some time ago, though I have not read all the posts. Yes, I am an IT professional. I remotely support Hospital servers from home, which run a medley of Unix/Linux/and Windows Server. It is not that I am incapable of learning a new thing, or of teaching a new thing to others. The entire point of this thread is simply asking, are the changes worth the need to do so. I run Windows 8 with Classic Shell on my two home computers... I still am adamantly opposed to the decision by Microsoft to completely omit the start menu, and believe, even after 3 months with the OS, that the experience is way better with Classic Shell installed. I can still get to the start screen with relative ease, by just going all the way into the corner and bypassing the start button, but if I just want to get someplace quickly, without pulling up a whole new screen, the classic start menu is there when I need it.
I don't think you are going to find many IT professionals who would agree with the sentiment that windows is somehow better than it was without the start button/menu, but with the start screen. I surely have not, and I work with many. That is the point of this thread. With both start screen, and start menu, Windows 8 is a great OS. I have the best of both worlds. I can still do things the way I always used to do them, and I have this whole new tool at my disposal, with an app store ta boot. I do not mind the fact that aero is no longer present. I am enjoying the smoothness of the Windows 8 experience (Firefox always used to hang notoriously, but I found that it was a security setting inside the browser.. ever since that change, the OS is fast and snappy.. much like 7). I would enjoy it more, if the start menu was native and did not occasionally fail to respond right away when I click it.
So in a nutshell.. The OS would be better with Start menu, and start screen.. I still have yet to hear a credible reason as to why the start menu was removed as an option? Yes I work in IT, and I still have yet to meet anyone who likes this aspect of Win 8. Most IT folks I work with, gave it a quick look and cringed, and are too busy to care further..
Last edited by musiclover7; 03 Jan 2013 at 16:06.
I find that people that work in IT are the MOST by far, vocal about complaints with Windows 8...
The fact of the matter is, it's *FASTER* to use the start page than it is to use the start menu. I've timed it with myself, and others. There is this perception that the start page takes a lot of time to open, as if you had to physically pick up your computer and shuffle it around your desk to use it. It takes the exact same amount of time to open the start page as it takes to open the start menu, but since you don't have to navigate through menus, which takes more time, you end up with a faster experience.
I mean, come on.. "pulling up a whole screen"? Really? Have you actually timed this?
I gave it 2 months before installing classic shell.. read my initial post in this thread..