Future For Windows 8.1

[Itaregid]

Just hoping MS cater for both when we get the fnal version

That is the plan but no doubt there will be good and bad things with both.

 

[paulsalter]

very true


Off to have a look at some more of Win 10 now

Enjoy your weekend

 

[Itaregid]

You too.

 

[broe23]

You just really need to install Classic Shell or Start8 and utilize the standard desktop. As for from Metro Screen, the search function still works the same as it does in desktop.

Ummm, no. Classic Shell and Start8 (which I use) have nothing to do with W8's integrated search feature.

You do realize that was two different statements. It is obvious that you assumed too much that both sentences were talking about the same thing.

 

[LAX]

Plus, you show me a Windows 8 user who complains about the missing start menu and I'll show you a Windows 8 user who likely doesn't know about the search charm and how it blows the start menu completely out of the water.

That doesn't work effectively in an Enterprise environment. In addition to standard MSOffice we also work with a great deal of customized software developed for a global user-base. The large program infrastructure makes it infeasible to remember the program names to enable a search. That and the program titles don't follow US English norms given that they were developed overseas.

Having these programs nearly compacted into the Start Menu makes life so much easier, particularly when training new employees with no prior exposure to this software. It just eliminates the need to hunt all over the massive Start Screen to locate and sequentially open programs when this can be more efficiently accomplished as a process-driven tasks.

For these employees there would be no time or cost savings achieved by attempting to use the Start Screen, only lost productivity.

 

[Itaregid]

You do realize that was two different statements.

No I didn't, and sorry - but why would I? You quoted towget's comment (and only his comment) about Windows 8.1 searching issues. His comment mentioned nothing about Metro or desktops, only W8.1. You then put your two sentences together in one paragraph - which by definition is one or more closely related sentences that form one main idea. As noted here, the "only" requirement for a paragraph is that,

it expresses only one idea, thought or topic.

It is obvious that you assumed too much that both sentences were talking about the same thing.

Yes I did assume too much though it is obvious you assume everyone can read your mind, follow improper grammar structure, and understand your replies may jam together in one paragraph different subjects - even when quoting just one.

So my apologies for only having 5 senses and misunderstanding what you were trying to say.

That doesn't work effectively in an Enterprise environment.

I agree. And it doesn't always work in home or small office environments either. There is no reason the Start Menu search could not be made to provide the same results as the Charm. This was just another attempt by MS to force the new UI on us.

particularly when training new employees with no prior exposure to this software

Not just newbies, but experienced users set in their ways, perhaps with no desire to learn a new procedure - especially if they don't have a trainer around to show them. And frankly, I think that is another misstep by Microsoft. While true, the corporate/enterprise/business universe holds the majority of Windows based computers, there typically are IT people, or more experienced users on site to get help from. That often is not the case with home users. Especially home users [more or less] forced to upgrade to a new computer and modern OS because their old computer broke, or because XP needed to go away for security.

People naturally are resistant to change and don't like changes forced on them. MS needs to remember that.

For these employees there would be no time or cost savings achieved by attempting to use the Start Screen, only lost productivity.

I agree. There is no evidence to suggest people who use the new Start Screen are more productive than those who use the desktop and start menu. After all, most of their work is done in Word, Excel, custom apps, or their browser, not the Windows UI. If the new Start Screen improved worker efficiency/productivity, then things might be different.

 

[strollin]

This whole thread makes no sense to me. When Win 8 was first released, I don't recall people asking what the future held for Win 7. Same with XP when Vista was released or Vista when Win 7 was released. Once a new OS is released that supersedes the previous one, then development ceases on the old OS except for security updates. What company would continue to develop the old OS when they want you to move to the new one?

 

[broe23]

This whole thread makes no sense to me. When Win 8 was first released, I don't recall people asking what the future held for Win 7. Same with XP when Vista was released or Vista when Win 7 was released. Once a new OS is released that supersedes the previous one, then development ceases on the old OS except for security updates. What company would continue to develop the old OS when they want you to move to the new one?

They did that with NT4, with the various Service Packs. NT4 was pretty much the longest surviving OS around, before XP replaced it.

 

[asvent]

Wastes 95% of the screen? Nah! Let's avoid extreme exaggerations, okay? And remember, the standard W7 taskbar can easily be set to autohide when an app is open so the app has 100% of the screen's real estate IF THE USER SO DESIRES - and that's the point. It is, or should be, the user's choice.

You misunderstand. I mean that the start menu uses only maybe 5% of the screen when active, which is a complete and total waste of all those additional pixels that could be put to active use when the user is actually looking for something. What might take 3-4 cascading menus with the start menu can all be put on a single screen with the start screen.

Had it been my decision, I would have borrowed an idea from the Xbox 360 firmware. Namely the bladed popup you get when you press the "X" button in the middle of the controller. You could have used at least 75% of the screen, leaving enough so users don't feel completely transported from their environment, and kind of split the difference. One blade for all programs in a big jumble and then an individual blade for each program group if you wanted to go about it that way.

Let's also remember one of the primary reasons why Windows and the "wintel" PC is the dominant OS and hardware platform and not MacOS and Macs, is because Windows allows for every user to customize Windows and their hardware as they chose. Macs were totally proprietary. Apple's way or no way. Microsoft forcing a totally new UI - with the STATED intent of making it so Windows 8 users will automatically like and choose Windows Phones over other types, went over like a lead balloon.[/QUOTE]

 

[asvent]

Plus, you show me a Windows 8 user who complains about the missing start menu and I'll show you a Windows 8 user who likely doesn't know about the search charm and how it blows the start menu completely out of the water.

That doesn't work effectively in an Enterprise environment. In addition to standard MSOffice we also work with a great deal of customized software developed for a global user-base. The large program infrastructure makes it infeasible to remember the program names to enable a search. That and the program titles don't follow US English norms given that they were developed overseas.

Having these programs nearly compacted into the Start Menu makes life so much easier, particularly when training new employees with no prior exposure to this software. It just eliminates the need to hunt all over the massive Start Screen to locate and sequentially open programs when this can be more efficiently accomplished as a process-driven tasks.

For these employees there would be no time or cost savings achieved by attempting to use the Start Screen, only lost productivity.

Actually, I'd say that this is based more on your IT department's limited range of thinking than anything else. You could very easily create a grouping of all of these programs on the start screen, and it would probably be even easier because they have bigger icons and text under them so you can clearly see what it is you're looking at. The start screen has essentially all the same functionality of the start menu, it's just rearranged a bit. Think of it like how tennis is really just ping-pong while standing on the table. You just have to be able to take a step back and look at things from a new/fresh perspective.

In a great many ways, Windows 8 is even more Enterprise friendly because of the start screen. Imagine trying to do support over the phone. "Click on the start button..." "What's that?" "Okay, you see a blue orb thing in the lower left corner of the screen?" "Yes" "Great, click on that" "OK" "Now go to all programs, whatever, and click on whateverelse." As opposed to "You see the big box that says whateverwhatever?" "Yes" "Great, click on that" and done. The one thing I will say, is I'm not sure how the start screen integrates into active directory, so how much control a company could exercise over what users saw if they were so inclined. That may be a concern for the Enterprise which isn't addressed, but it's on the pedantic side of things.

 

[Jody Thornton]

This whole thread makes no sense to me. When Win 8 was first released, I don't recall people asking what the future held for Win 7. Same with XP when Vista was released or Vista when Win 7 was released.

First off, some did ask about Vista when Windows 7 was released, because while most looked at 7 as a fix for Vista, others like me started to appreciate Vista once the two service packs were applied and fixed most of the disk IO issues. So Vista users wanted some assurance of it's future.

And again, I prefer 8.1 to what I've seen in 10 TP. 10 is meant to "fix" 8x, but many 8.1 users want there to be some future for their preference. After all, I'm on a Windows 8 Forum aren't I?, so why wouldn't I want to see what might come of it's future now?

It appears that users like asvent are also like minded.

 

[broe23]

asvent, you do realize that the Mac OS-X theme can be changed. It is just that most people leave it how it is. As for Wintel, I have not heard that term used for almost a decade and a half. Microsoft has been in bed with Intel, since day one. It was only recently in the past six years or so, that Apple went with Intel as their platform. Because the costs were cheaper and they got a better deal after IBM stopped producing the RISC chips that Apple was using.

Now this argument is not about Apple vs. Microsoft, or Microsoft vs. Linux. People choose each for their own reasons. A lot of people have started to move over to Linux and Mac OS after Windows 8.x.x came out. Once Google gets Android and ChromeOS in line. You will start seeing a huge surge of people no longer adopting Windows.

Right now Microsoft has a lot riding on if they are going to still have a high user share when Windows 10/8 sp2 comes out. MS has pretty much screwed up Office, Server Windows & their mobile OS. They are pretty much now grasping at air at this point. Look at the weekly, almost daily reports of how much MS is stating that they are starting to flounder.

 

[David Bailey]

I have 8.1.1 .

Classic Shell.
WindowBlinds.
Iconoid.
Metro apps are pretty much useless---



Do use Metro search.

Autohide Taskbar.

Ran Windows 10 in a VM & saw nothing to get excited about.

I think a lot of people will stick with Windows 8.1 before using 10.

If it is free I'll try it.
But will keep a Macrium image of what I have.

I have a feeling 10 will be buggy to start with.
Better to wait to install it after a few bugs get fixed.

I have most things pinned to the Taskbar or on the Desktop.
Don't use Classic Shell but for odd programs & Control panel.

I think 8.1 will be like XP.
It will be around for a while.

 

[strollin]

This whole thread makes no sense to me. When Win 8 was first released, I don't recall people asking what the future held for Win 7. Same with XP when Vista was released or Vista when Win 7 was released.

First off, some did ask about Vista when Windows 7 was released, because while most looked at 7 as a fix for Vista, others like me started to appreciate Vista once the two service packs were applied and fixed most of the disk IO issues. So Vista users wanted some assurance of it's future.

And again, I prefer 8.1 to what I've seen in 10 TP. 10 is meant to "fix" 8x, but many 8.1 users want there to be some future for their preference. After all, I'm on a Windows 8 Forum aren't I?, so why wouldn't I want to see what might come of it's future now?

It appears that users like asvent are also like minded.

But MS isn't going to do anymore development to Win 8.1 no matter how hard you wish. So there is no future for it. Doesn't mean you have to stop using it.

 

[asvent]

asvent, you do realize that the Mac OS-X theme can be changed. It is just that most people leave it how it is.

Think you've got me confused with someone else.

As for Wintel, I have not heard that term used for almost a decade and a half. Microsoft has been in bed with Intel, since day one. It was only recently in the past six years or so, that Apple went with Intel as their platform. Because the costs were cheaper and they got a better deal after IBM stopped producing the RISC chips that Apple was using.

It also didn't hurt that Intel's CEO was buddies with Jobs and Intel is well known for giving companies money for "marketing" purposes.

Now this argument is not about Apple vs. Microsoft, or Microsoft vs. Linux. People choose each for their own reasons. A lot of people have started to move over to Linux and Mac OS after Windows 8.x.x came out. Once Google gets Android and ChromeOS in line. You will start seeing a huge surge of people no longer adopting Windows.

Right now Microsoft has a lot riding on if they are going to still have a high user share when Windows 10/8 sp2 comes out. MS has pretty much screwed up Office, Server Windows & their mobile OS. They are pretty much now grasping at air at this point. Look at the weekly, almost daily reports of how much MS is stating that they are starting to flounder.

While I doubt anyone will dispute the "lost decade" of Ballmer where MS spent its time chasing the taillights of Apple, Sony and Google, Windows 8 marks the first major milestone in a multi-CEO effort to unify Windows for the desktop, cell phone/tablet and the Xbox. All the back end stuff is more or less finally done, so in theory you could start seeing it become possible to write a metro/modern style app that runs on everything from desktops to cell phones to game consoles. That would be nothing short of a game changer and could do wonders to propel the sagging tablet and phone market to the point of at least being competitive. Plus, it would essentially deliver on a lot of the promises of Java... Companies could write one app and deploy it to employees using standard desktops, tablets, cell phones, etc. It would allow for an experience far more rich than you get from web apps, while still being properly sandboxed.

That's been the end game with Windows for a very long time now. They kind of jumped the gun with Windows 8 though and probably should have held off at least one more release until they had a more or less complete solution ready. I'm sure the idea was to try and get people accustomed to the new interface and even get people writing apps for it, but that kind of backfired on them in a big way. Still, if they can pull off a largely seamless way for developers to target multiple platforms with a single bit of code, that would most definitely make a lot of developers sit up and take notice of the Windows Phone platform since they could also tap into the desktop and even Xbox One markets.

 

[broe23]

asvent, you do realize that Java still has a huge hole in it, that has not been patched. .net also has a lot of issues that MS has not resolved, same with TragicX, which Metro & both Windows 8 & 10 heavily rely on to work.

You need to start paying attention to what is going on with MS, by getting out of the forums and reading the real news of the negative direction MS is going.

It is sad that in order to keep the company alive, they now have to finally get on board with Google & Linux development to save theirselves. Face the fact, that the ship is sinking and even 10 is not going to save it going underwater.

 

[asvent]

asvent, you do realize that Java still has a huge hole in it, that has not been patched. .net also has a lot of issues that MS has not resolved, same with TragicX, which Metro & both Windows 8 & 10 heavily rely on to work.

Okay... Once I could write off as just an honest mistake, but now I have to ask if you're actually reading and comprehending what is actually being said. I only referenced the initial selling point of Java with the whole "write once run anywhere" slogan that was a complete load because it was basically impossible to write a program that did anything useful that would qualify. I never said anything about Java security or really anything else about the language.

If you're going to have an imaginary conversation with me, I'm not going to be held responsible for things you imagined me saying.

You need to start paying attention to what is going on with MS, by getting out of the forums and reading the real news of the negative direction MS is going.

It is sad that in order to keep the company alive, they now have to finally get on board with Google & Linux development to save theirselves. Face the fact, that the ship is sinking and even 10 is not going to save it going underwater.

I have... Microsoft is in a major transitional period right now. Not only is a multi-decade and multi-CEO effort to unify the disparate Windows variants finally starting to come together, but Microsoft is adopting a more agile inspired development model. They're trying to speed up the pace at which programs get released, having more frequent releases with fewer changes per release.

Windows on the desktop isn't going anywhere soon. It would cost probably tens of TRILLIONS of dollars for all the Fortune 500 companies to switch to anything else and no CTO, CFO or CEO is going to be the one who signs off on that when it would send the stock price into a tailspin, since stock options make up a huge chunk of their compensation package. Not to mention, what would they switch to? Mac OS X? Apple's business model is too disruptive, Apple has a nasty habit of not bothering to tell anyone when they stop supporting any given OS release, they have never supported an OS as long as Microsoft has and there's nothing even beginning to approach ActiveDirectory for OS X. Repairing and upgrading Apple units is getting increasingly difficult the more Apple solders everything to the logic board, so company IT staff couldn't even do much in the way of basic triage. Linux then? Hardware support for new systems is still spotty at best and the open source community is prone to a lot of infighting and major disruptions happening on a whim of a few people. Plus even LTS distributions are only supported for 5 years, about half that of Windows. Also, while you can lock down Linux pretty effectively, I've never seen anything like ActiveDirectory that lets an admin control a large number of systems from one location. So then maybe go with a bunch of Unix workstations from HP or one of the others? Now you've got a mix of problems such as limited hardware options a la Apple, plus you'll be paying significantly more for it. This is before you have to rewrite any/all custom programs your company wrote because most HP Unix workstations will be using the PA-RISC CPU. HP will absolutely bleed you dry on support contracts too, making you pay annually to receive even security updates to the OS. I wish that I were making this sort of thing up, but I'm not. The things we take for granted in the Windows world, like security updates, you have to pay for in the commercial Unix world. There have been lawsuits where HP or Oracle sues some little third party support company for providing these kinds of updates to people who bought hardware from HP or Oracle. Android/ChromeOS and iOS are not even viable options on their face right now.

One other thing to consider is if a company has a major ERP program like SAP. You ever tried using the web interface for SAP? I fortunately only have to use the portal aspect of it and that's more than enough. As bad as the Windows "native" interface is, I will take that in a heartbeat over anything else I've seen. Plus, once a company spends the tens or hundreds of millions of dollars it takes to implement SAP, which usually consists of paying some developer obscene amounts of money to write custom modules for SAP to make it work like your business or turn your business upside down to work like SAP says it should... You seriously want to propose the company just walks away from that and start over?

You need to remember that you and I are not Microsoft's core customer. They're happy to sell us stuff, but in the end we don't matter. Microsoft is interested in the enterprise customer, the Fortune 500 companies. Companies that will buy volume licenses for Windows, then licenses for ActiveDirectory, Exchange, SQL Server, the works, to go along with it. You and I buying one or two computers every couple of years is insignificant. You also need to remember that Microsoft became the dominate player because, as bad as they are, they are still heads and shoulders better than everyone else that Enterprise customers might go to. Compared to basically everyone else, they're cheaper, support their products longer, and the tight integration of products makes administration quite a bit easier.

 

[broe23]

asvent, I stopped reading your post when you started to get delusional. I am not a MS customer. I may work on them for friends and family. But majority of the devices I work on now, are running either Apple's iOS & Mac OS-X, Android or Linux. I keep my old netbook with Windows 7 on it, in case I have someone that has a screwed up iOS device. Otherwise it just sits on a shelf collecting dust.

 

[asvent]

asvent, I stopped reading your post when you started to get delusional. I am not a MS customer. I may work on them for friends and family. But majority of the devices I work on now, are running either Apple's iOS & Mac OS-X, Android or Linux. I keep my old netbook with Windows 7 on it, in case I have someone that has a screwed up iOS device. Otherwise it just sits on a shelf collecting dust.

Got it: You have absolutely nothing to back up your arguments, which are based on what appears to be a mix of you attributing comments from one person to another and then just flat out making things up. When someone calls you on your BS arguments, you drop a couple ad hominems and talk about how you don't even use Windows anymore.

You try and puff up your chest and act all nonchalant like you don't really care, but like someone with a really bad comb-over, the only one you're fooling is yourself. Either you're here, on a Windows specific forum in a discussion about potential future development directions of Windows, because you care a lot more than you're trying to let on, or you're just straight up trolling. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here and just assuming you're acting like a toddler who threatens to take their toys and go home when they start losing a game as opposed to deliberately trolling.

If you were so happy with your other devices, you wouldn't be here, in this thread, engaging people in a discussion about something that's of fringe interest to you at best. I could understand being here for the technical discussions to keep your skills reasonably sharp, but you wouldn't be trying to debate the direction Microsoft was going if you were being completely truthful. Frankly you can delude yourself all you want, I don't care, provided you keep it to yourself.

 

[broe23]

asvent I have more to back up my argument than you do. You are so delusional at this point. That you are probably bouncing up and down in your chair and shaking your fists. At this point, you have proved nothing that the industry will not adopt Windows 10. They sure are not adopting Windows 8 as Microsoft first thought.

Majority of the back end runs on Linux. As for your argument about Apple not letting consumers know what is coming down the pipe is actually incorrect. Apple does more to inform their developers and user group than Microsoft Does. You know why Apple is more adopted for tablet & phone platforms. That is because it is an all in one package that works.

If you look at the numbers when 8 came out. There is a large segment that either jumped ship from Microsoft, or stayed with Windows 7. Only a very small share has stuck with Windows 8, and will not even consider moving to 10, because it brings nothing new to the game.