Windows 9 being unveiled on Sept. 30
Some of you may know this, but Microsoft is showing Windows 9 off on Monday.
I am pretty... nervous to say so the least. This means Windows 7 will soon be irrelevant. I have a lot of older games on my PC, and Windows 9 will most likely not be able to run them, much alike Windows 8. Windows 9 may not even support DirectX 9 anymore... Dx9 was released in 2002, and quite a bit of games still run on it.
The good in all this, is that Microsoft has been pretty good with its odd numbers. Windows XP - great. Vista - slow, ugly. Windows 7 - godly. Windows 8 - not that good.
So maybe, Windows 9 may top Windows 7.
I am guessing DirectX 12 will be showed off alongside it, though, which is good.
What's everybody else's thoughts on this?
I am pretty... nervous to say so the least. This means Windows 7 will soon be irrelevant. I have a lot of older games on my PC, and Windows 9 will most likely not be able to run them, much alike Windows 8. Windows 9 may not even support DirectX 9 anymore... Dx9 was released in 2002, and quite a bit of games still run on it.
The good in all this, is that Microsoft has been pretty good with its odd numbers. Windows XP - great. Vista - slow, ugly. Windows 7 - godly. Windows 8 - not that good.
So maybe, Windows 9 may top Windows 7.
I am guessing DirectX 12 will be showed off alongside it, though, which is good.
What's everybody else's thoughts on this?
| Windows 9 may not even support DirectX 9 anymore... |
| This means Windows 7 will soon be irrelevant. |
Well, by irrelevant, I mean, it will soon be pretty unused. And besides, WinXP isn't even supported anymore. It still works, but it is pretty outdated.
Do you think Microsoft intentionally alternates between "good" and "bad" releases? I think they do. To clarify, I don't believe it's a conspiracy to boost sales - that doesn't actually make sense if you think about it - but experimentation. Every time they've released a "bad" Windows version, it's brought new and experimental features (primarily, from an end-user's point of view, the UI) which were then improved and consolidated in the next, "good", release.
I hope Windows 9 will have a similar interface to Metro but made more suitable for keyboard+mouse users rather than the stupid touchscreen-style menu they have now.
I hope Windows 9 will have a similar interface to Metro but made more suitable for keyboard+mouse users rather than the stupid touchscreen-style menu they have now.
Large companies and goverment most organisations do not update as soon as possible. Reasons:
1) Existing enviroment works, well-known and there is support team trained to solve problems with it. Transition to new version has riscs.
2) You need to buy license for new system. And when new version are released every few years it is going to cost them too much if they would use only new versions.
3) Transition and training costs.
Many organisations I know stopped using WinXP only because its support stopped. Some of them started using Linux, some Win7 or Win8. I think no one is going to update until support stops for these systems.
BTW many factories are using DOS or Wind95: there simply no need for something else (and that "else" will not work on that hardware anyway)
1) Existing enviroment works, well-known and there is support team trained to solve problems with it. Transition to new version has riscs.
2) You need to buy license for new system. And when new version are released every few years it is going to cost them too much if they would use only new versions.
3) Transition and training costs.
Many organisations I know stopped using WinXP only because its support stopped. Some of them started using Linux, some Win7 or Win8. I think no one is going to update until support stops for these systems.
BTW many factories are using DOS or Wind95: there simply no need for something else (and that "else" will not work on that hardware anyway)
@chrisname, when I read your first sentence, I thought you were saying that as in "Do you think that? Heh. Idiot", so I was gonna say the thing you said next. But then I actually read your full post.
I agree. It is Microsoft sending out an OS. If people like it, then the next OS will be similar. They don't, then the next will be different.
There was actually a leak of like, 2 screenshots, and, assuming it was real, they did a massive graphical overhaul. The taskbar and icons are sharper, and it seems more... "metro in the desktop". As for the metro look itself, its sort of gone. Now, it is just the windows 7 start menu, except on the right of it, it has all the live tiles and stuff. The "start menu" is no longer a whole interface, but more of a small window in the corner of the screen. And the best, greatest part: the applications are no longer fullscreen, but windows now!
But of course this could have been a fake leak. We won't know until Monday.
Also, something I think: MS should make it a free - or at least like, 20 dollar - update for anyone with an older OS, and save the $100, $200 price tag for when you actually build a PC. That was actually a rumor, so, the future looks bright.
I agree. It is Microsoft sending out an OS. If people like it, then the next OS will be similar. They don't, then the next will be different.
There was actually a leak of like, 2 screenshots, and, assuming it was real, they did a massive graphical overhaul. The taskbar and icons are sharper, and it seems more... "metro in the desktop". As for the metro look itself, its sort of gone. Now, it is just the windows 7 start menu, except on the right of it, it has all the live tiles and stuff. The "start menu" is no longer a whole interface, but more of a small window in the corner of the screen. And the best, greatest part: the applications are no longer fullscreen, but windows now!
But of course this could have been a fake leak. We won't know until Monday.
Also, something I think: MS should make it a free - or at least like, 20 dollar - update for anyone with an older OS, and save the $100, $200 price tag for when you actually build a PC. That was actually a rumor, so, the future looks bright.
closed account (10X9216C)
| Do you think Microsoft intentionally alternates between "good" and "bad" releases? I think they do. To clarify, I don't believe it's a conspiracy to boost sales - that doesn't actually make sense if you think about it - but experimentation. Every time they've released a "bad" Windows version, it's brought new and experimental features (primarily, from an end-user's point of view, the UI) which were then improved and consolidated in the next, "good", release. |
Not really tbh. Vista was good, you just needed new hardware, it's driver support for older hardware was bad. I went back to windows XP from vista and i couldn't believe how bad XP was. Windows 8 isn't that bad, sure metro is pretty useless but otherwise it adds a lot more useful features. It's not really something to condemn an entire operating system over though.
@spectral
Well, that's why I put good and bad in quotes. I liked Vista but a lot of people didn't like the new UI and generalised it to the entire system. But more importantly, "Vista is bad" became a meme; people heard that it was bad from others and interpreted all that was different about it from that frame.
But you're right that the real problem, as has always been the case with Windows, was third-party drivers; namely, MS overhauled the driver interface for Vista, so drivers had to be largely rewritten. The Windows kernel has never really been slow or unstable; the real problem seems to always be third-party drivers. Whenever I have a kernel panic on Linux or BSOD on Windows, the faulting code is in a third-party driver.
Well, that's why I put good and bad in quotes. I liked Vista but a lot of people didn't like the new UI and generalised it to the entire system. But more importantly, "Vista is bad" became a meme; people heard that it was bad from others and interpreted all that was different about it from that frame.
But you're right that the real problem, as has always been the case with Windows, was third-party drivers; namely, MS overhauled the driver interface for Vista, so drivers had to be largely rewritten. The Windows kernel has never really been slow or unstable; the real problem seems to always be third-party drivers. Whenever I have a kernel panic on Linux or BSOD on Windows, the faulting code is in a third-party driver.
Last edited on
| people heard that it was bad from others and interpreted all that was different about it from that frame. |
Vista was slow, unstable and a memory hog. I thought it was bad because that was my experience with it.
Yeah me too. My mom had gotten a computer with Vista on it, and it wasn't a bad computer. It was actually better than average. It only lasted about 2 years though, because once we used about 100gb of hdd space on it, it started getting slow. Really, really slow.
That, and the UAC on that was an absolute nightmare
That, and the UAC on that was an absolute nightmare
Wow... I just realized that.
To clear things up, it is September 30th. On Tuesday.
Read the calendar wrong.
To clear things up, it is September 30th. On Tuesday.
Read the calendar wrong.
closed account (10X9216C)
| Vista was slow, unstable and a memory hog. I thought it was bad because that was my experience with it. |
Like i said that was only really the case if you installed it on old hardware. Running on a single core CPU also would make a big difference. Multi tasking is nigh impossible on windows xp.
| That, and the UAC on that was an absolute nightmare |
You can disable that quite easily.
| Like i said that was only really the case if you installed it on old hardware. |
Uh, no. I was running it on a high end custom build for the time.
See, my problem is I expend some effort to keep all the crap off my desktop. No stinkin' shortcuts. No widgets. Auto-hidden taskbar. (I even use a little utility called TaskBarHide to get rid of that one-pixel high line that the "hidden" taskbar poops on the edge of my display.)
I don't want anything but pretty picture and the one or two applications that I'mrunning actively using cluttering my view.
LOL, one or two...
But, from what I understand of Metro, you can't do that, right? Or can you?
(I'll be sticking with Windows 7 for a while anyway, but just wondering.)
I don't want anything but pretty picture and the one or two applications that I'm
LOL, one or two...
But, from what I understand of Metro, you can't do that, right? Or can you?
(I'll be sticking with Windows 7 for a while anyway, but just wondering.)
| See, my problem is I expend some effort to keep all the crap off my desktop. No stinkin' shortcuts. No widgets. Auto-hidden taskbar. (I even use a little utility called TaskBarHide to get rid of that one-pixel high line that the "hidden" taskbar poops on the edge of my display.) I don't want anything but pretty picture and the one or two applications that I'm running actively using cluttering my view. |
You'd probably vomit if you saw the state of my desktop then.
| But, from what I understand of Metro, you can't do that, right? Or can you? |
You can remove every tile from the start screen but that would make even more useless than it already is. AFAIK you can't change the background to a custom image. I'm sure there's a hack that lets you do that though.
My problem with Windows 8 is that it thinks that OS is more important than user. Most glaring example:
Imagine you need to make a 3 day long train trip. You are prepared: your HDD is stuffed with movies and music, you checked that all needed codecs are installed, etc. You stopped by your friend house to print tickets. To to so you connected to his WiFi and to the internet. When you got to the traing and turned on first movie, Movie Player told you: "This application requires an updated to continue function" and refuses to work. If you agree to the update it will say that it needs internet connection. On a train. Mind you, update preferencies were "Check for updates but download and install only on command" for everything.
Well, it happened. I managed to explain how to find alternative player (which luckily I installed on tha laptop) and change file assotiations. But if it wasn't there? Why do OS thinks it is a good idea to randomly block applications without asking user first? WTF, Microsoft?
Imagine you need to make a 3 day long train trip. You are prepared: your HDD is stuffed with movies and music, you checked that all needed codecs are installed, etc. You stopped by your friend house to print tickets. To to so you connected to his WiFi and to the internet. When you got to the traing and turned on first movie, Movie Player told you: "This application requires an updated to continue function" and refuses to work. If you agree to the update it will say that it needs internet connection. On a train. Mind you, update preferencies were "Check for updates but download and install only on command" for everything.
Well, it happened. I managed to explain how to find alternative player (which luckily I installed on tha laptop) and change file assotiations. But if it wasn't there? Why do OS thinks it is a good idea to randomly block applications without asking user first? WTF, Microsoft?
| AFAIK you can't change the background to a custom image. I'm sure there's a hack that lets you do that though. |
there is and 8.1 lets you do it natively.
| MiiNiPaa wrote: |
|---|
| When you got to the traing and turned on first movie, Movie Player told you |
That's not a problem with Windows... it's a problem with Movie Player.
And why on Earth would anyone use anything other than VLC for playing anything?
| And why on Earth would anyone use anything other than VLC for playing anything? |
*Tries to not look suspicious while tugging on collar*
I have never heard of VLC before. For music I use spotify, and for videos, Windows Media Player. I only have 4 videos on my pc. When I watch a movie I just use Netflix.
Are Spotify and Netflix gonna help me when I am without WiFi on a train? No. But, since I have a 20 - 25 pound desktop computer with 2 monitors, a keyboard, and a mouse, one wouldn't think I am going on a train with it anytime soon....