Windows 9

The rumor mill as now posted on several sites that Windows 9 is now going to be coming out in November 2014.

Don't kill the messenger. . .please. . .

 

[Coke Robot]

I don't see this upgrade pattern to be a new thing for Windows or being like apple, maybe like apple though but a touch.

See, if it weren't for vista crapping things up with Windows, this would had already be the norm, except there wouldn't be a .5 style update like with Blue. The pattern that emerged back in the late '90s early 2000s was 98 being released, then 2000 in the year 2000. xp came after 2001 by one year. Then vista was slated for October 2003, two years after xp. xp was intended as a stopgap measure to update 2000's UI to the Luna interface and improve digital media management among other things. vista was supposed to include the Libraries feature of 7 and a TON of media features, but that fell off a cliff for many years and later ended up with a glassy Windows xp with bloated, incomplete code that required pretty much installing Windows 7 to fix.

Basically, we're behind a few versions here. But instead of releasing a GENUINELY new version of Windows every year and then a complete new one every two, Microsoft seems to be going the correct route of doing a Windows 8.5 style update to improve a few UI things and features, THEN have 9 be released to be a new version. Maybe NT Kernel 7 built on MinWin technology?!

 

[chrisa]

I don't see this upgrade pattern to be a new thing for Windows or being like apple, maybe like apple though but a touch.

See, if it weren't for vista crapping things up with Windows, this would had already be the norm, except there wouldn't be a .5 style update like with Blue. The pattern that emerged back in the late '90s early 2000s was 98 being released, then 2000 in the year 2000. xp came after 2001 by one year. Then vista was slated for October 2003, two years after xp. xp was intended as a stopgap measure to update 2000's UI to the Luna interface and improve digital media management among other things. vista was supposed to include the Libraries feature of 7 and a TON of media features, but that fell off a cliff for many years and later ended up with a glassy Windows xp with bloated, incomplete code that required pretty much installing Windows 7 to fix.

Basically, we're behind a few versions here. But instead of releasing a GENUINELY new version of Windows every year and then a complete new one every two, Microsoft seems to be going the correct route of doing a Windows 8.5 style update to improve a few UI things and features, THEN have 9 be released to be a new version. Maybe NT Kernel 7 built on MinWin technology?!

What you're trying to get across is when it comes to Windows you basically have the 'new' version which deviates from the expected norms with new stuff and then the 'fixed' version which takes anything that didn't work with the 'new'.. pitches it.. fixes anything if needbe.. and keeps all the other new stuff that people liked, but didn't know they liked until they were able to wait a requisite amount of time such that they could like it. That then 'stabilizes' the OS and the majority upgrades.

Oh.. and we always have hobos that jump off the train and simply pitch a tent in the middle of an OS and squat there until hell freezes over. You have your 'i'll never leave XP!' and your 'i'll never leave Windows 7!' folks.

Just the way it goes :>. Hey.. at least we have a formula to it. We're just in the middle of the 'new' op sys.

Btw... I'd rather they call it Windows 8.1 for old times sake :>

 

[Coke Robot]

I don't see this upgrade pattern to be a new thing for Windows or being like apple, maybe like apple though but a touch.

See, if it weren't for vista crapping things up with Windows, this would had already be the norm, except there wouldn't be a .5 style update like with Blue. The pattern that emerged back in the late '90s early 2000s was 98 being released, then 2000 in the year 2000. xp came after 2001 by one year. Then vista was slated for October 2003, two years after xp. xp was intended as a stopgap measure to update 2000's UI to the Luna interface and improve digital media management among other things. vista was supposed to include the Libraries feature of 7 and a TON of media features, but that fell off a cliff for many years and later ended up with a glassy Windows xp with bloated, incomplete code that required pretty much installing Windows 7 to fix.

Basically, we're behind a few versions here. But instead of releasing a GENUINELY new version of Windows every year and then a complete new one every two, Microsoft seems to be going the correct route of doing a Windows 8.5 style update to improve a few UI things and features, THEN have 9 be released to be a new version. Maybe NT Kernel 7 built on MinWin technology?!

What you're trying to get across is when it comes to Windows you basically have the 'new' version which deviates from the expected norms with new stuff and then the 'fixed' version which takes anything that didn't work with the 'new'.. pitches it.. fixes anything if needbe.. and keeps all the other new stuff that people liked, but didn't know they liked until they were able to wait a requisite amount of time such that they could like it. That then 'stabilizes' the OS and the majority upgrades.

Oh.. and we always have hobos that jump off the train and simply pitch a tent in the middle of an OS and squat there until hell freezes over. You have your 'i'll never leave XP!' and your 'i'll never leave Windows 7!' folks.

Just the way it goes :>. Hey.. at least we have a formula to it. We're just in the middle of the 'new' op sys.

Btw... I'd rather they call it Windows 8.1 for old times sake :>

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting across. Windows 98 did the same thing almost actually with 98 Second Edition, or more like a Service Pack on steroids. The Blue wave sounds like it might be based off Windows Phone how with 7, it came out almost all the way done, but not feature complete. It was ok, but then a year later, 7.5 was released that added a claimed 500 new features and changes to the platform; all free to the user. Then there's 7.8, but that's a different story.

Uuuuggghhh, those people that claim stake to their OS's like it's their lifeblood.... But 8.1 would be interesting, for old time's sake, if this were old times which it is not.

 

[chrisa]

Windows Blue For Cheap, 7-Inch Tablets - Business Insider

 

[FuturDreamz]

I'm interested in the performance optimizations. Will they work on my system, or is it mostly for Windows RT?

 

[Coke Robot]

I would assume it would be for both RT and x86. Why wouldn't it be?

 

[Night Hawk]

Here's a piece of one blog where the author caught someone mentioning Win 9 and IE 11 in their MS resume'? Microsoft mention Windows 9 in a job ad for a Bing Software Development Engineer

This one is interesting. Here’s what it says:

We utilize cutting edge technologies across the stack from Bing metro application development using WinJS and HTML5, innovative features in IE10 such as flip ahead and much more! The team will be constantly delivering great products in areas including Windows 9, IE11 services integration, touch friendly devices including iPad and more. Our talented, customer-focused, team delivers these features through rapid cycles of experimentation and customer feedback to bring the best ideas to market.

​

You can read it here.

 

[TONSCHUH]

M$ will maybe kill off the Desktop completely:

Click

 

[FuturDreamz]

I would assume it would be for both RT and x86. Why wouldn't it be?

Al lot of what Microsoft can do is remove legacy code and port more of the OS to the Modern UI environment. Which only really works on RT devices.

 

[Coke Robot]

I would assume it would be for both RT and x86. Why wouldn't it be?

Al lot of what Microsoft can do is remove legacy code and port more of the OS to the Modern UI environment. Which only really works on RT devices.

That also works on x86 devices.

 

[Coke Robot]

I'd love to see a more modernization of Windows through and through. More MinWin, more RICH metro design (parts of Windows 8 makes me think of modernist design over metro design, two separate but similar designs) and better app management. That, along with more apps being brought over from Desktop counterparts that are through and through a whole functional app. I don't care to see a lite version of Excel or Word or anything like that. Do it like VLC Player developers are doing, make a full WinRT app of the whole Desktop version.

 

[chrisa]

I would assume it would be for both RT and x86. Why wouldn't it be?

Al lot of what Microsoft can do is remove legacy code and port more of the OS to the Modern UI environment. Which only really works on RT devices.

What most people really don't understand is that Apps are not meant to be Applications. They're basically there to provide services. Here, I will do something for you. They have very severe limitations.

The first is that while the Walled Garden is great for security, it means that everything you want an App to do, must be performed out of the App. Apps have a very hard time intercommunicating like Applications without simply saving everything so it can be reopened somewhere else.

The second is that they're designed to only be running when you see them. How do you pause an App? Shift it to the background, it does it automatically(my understanding is it does this to optimize battery usage on mobile devices by auto-suspending that which you aren't currently using). This makes certain things like having it do intense calculations in the background while you shift to another app, not feasible. But then, thats not what its designed for.

The layman seems to think that everything can be made an app.. and really.. thats not true at all. For certain things, you really need the full-blown application, if it can't be reformated to fit the requirements of the app environment. In short, Apps are great if what you do has a lot of short-bursts of unnoticeable calculation, and spends most of its time waiting on input so that getting shifted to the background is seemless.

 

[pcRat]

#32 Thanks chrisa for easy explanation of how apps work/ don't work.
When I furst got 8 I changed the metro IE to always open on desktop. A few days later I read about metro IE being safer for banking, online shopping etc. so I changed it back. Also read how to control it without confusion.
So I feel that having 2 versions of IE is a definite plus.
Thanks again for explaining why it is safer. (no malware)

 

[FuturDreamz]

Sure, if you don't want desktop apps.

 

[lehnerus2000]

It could be true, ...

Thanks again for explaining why it is safer. (no malware)

It could be true, If MS do all of the testing necessary to eliminate the possibility of backdoors and other malware functions.

Testing costs money and therefore eats away at profits.

 

[chrisa]

Thanks again for explaining why it is safer. (no malware)

It could be true, If MS do all of the testing necessary to eliminate the possibility of backdoors and other malware functions.

Testing costs money and therefore eats away at profits.

Thats funny.. as security experts regard OS X as one of the weakest systems for bugs and exploits on the market today, and Windows 8 as one of the strongest.

 

[Night Hawk]

I'd love to see a more modernization of Windows through and through. More MinWin, more RICH metro design (parts of Windows 8 makes me think of modernist design over metro design, two separate but similar designs) and better app management. That, along with more apps being brought over from Desktop counterparts that are through and through a whole functional app. I don't care to see a lite version of Excel or Word or anything like that. Do it like VLC Player developers are doing, make a full WinRT app of the whole Desktop version.

Modernization as far as seeing an updated desktop gui would be the direction MS needs to work in. 8 was a quick slap in the face with the RT gui designed specifically for the tablet platform. These are two totally different areas to begin with. The ModernMix while being a 3rd party app shows a good example of how the Metro apps fail as far as the desktop platform is concern not allowing a "windowed" option to anything. Afterall the OS wasn't named "Windows" for no reason at all!

Now take a pic of the 3.1 desktop and slap a task bar on it along with ModernMix and that's roughly what the 8 desktop looks like disregarding the improvements of everything else to get the basic idea of what 8 is missing when having stripped so much out! Ignoring the 3.1 File menu button which dropped down the "Exit" option to return to Dos you would only have what is pinned to the tack bar in plain view. Where is everything?

Well the popup for the Start screen is not seen until you... The Crawler tool bar is where now? The hidden right click menu is an unknown for everyone at first sight. And then how the hect do you exit Windows without any power options button at least like you would see on a Linux distro found. Well you can "bring up the Start screen and right click on the profile pic" or "you can find the Crawler tool bar if you just happen to move the cursor over the right spot on one side..." blah blah blah awkward!

If you are going to make a major change to the desktop OS you first need to remain on the desktop platform to come up with a new desktop gui that is functional considering the point and click factor while still developing something with touch and swipe capability not simply slap tablet touch on desktop and call it a day! You want the changes adaptable for everyone not just a few OS geeks who like new things regardless of setting back the average newbie!

 

[Ray8]

It must say something when things like this pop up in the interwebs:

 

[lehnerus2000]

OS X?

Thats funny.. as security experts regard OS X as one of the weakest systems for bugs and exploits on the market today, and Windows 8 as one of the strongest.

Who said anything about OS X?
I was specifically referring to the "Windows App Store".

Maybe you should have said iTunes.
https://secunia.com/vulnerability-review/

Even if what you posted is true, that doesn't invalidate, "Testing costs money and therefore eats away at profits."

It just means that Apple have less justification for vulnerabilities, than MS.

 

[Lee]

It is funny how I started this thread to be about the up and coming Win 9 in 2014, and now it has turned into "you either love win 8, or totally hate win 8."

I was hoping for some thoughtful and insightful ideas as to what we just might see in Win 9 in two years time. . .silly me. . .