Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Operating Systems Windows Microsoft Upgrades

New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One? 251

Posted by timothy
from the double-insulated dept.
snydeq (1272828) writes "Nobody seems to know for sure whether 'Threshold' and 'Windows 9' will be one and the same or separate operating systems, reports Woody Leonhard in his roundup of insights on Microsoft's forthcoming OS plans, expected September 30. 'Many people think the terms are synonymous, but longtime Chinese leaker Faikee continues to maintain that they are two separate products, possibly headed in different directions. Neowin Senior Editor and Columnist Brad Sams appears to have access to the most recent test builds, possibly on a daily basis. He doesn't talk about details, but the items he's let drop on the Neowin forum leave an interesting trail of crumbs.' Either way, the next iteration of Windows will have a lot to say about the kind of Microsoft to expect as Satya Nadella cements his leadership over the flagship OS."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

Comments Filter:
  • Not worth it (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:16AM (#47756391)

    Until MS forces OEMs to sell a clean copy of Windows with zero third-party crapware, I won't even consider it. I've been a Linux user since 1998, and since then, have seen no compelling reason to part with my money. Fact is, when you buy a new Windows PC, it's largely unusable what with all the Kaptalistic crapware and bloat already bringing the system down below peak performance. This is a black eye for the Windows brand.

    • Right, because all PCs are black boxes that won't let you wipe the HD clean and install your own Windows.

      Oh wait.
      • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

        Right, because all PCs are black boxes that won't let you wipe the HD clean and install your own Windows. Oh wait.

        Hey, when I replaced W8 with Linux Mint on my better hal's computer, it wasn't that big a deal, only had to enable legacy boot. Trouble was, that meant I coudn't boot Winwos 8 any more.

        Gee, I can't tell people how much that upset me.

    • Re:Not worth it (Score:5, Informative)

      by NJRoadfan (1254248) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:42AM (#47756661)
      You can buy such a computer direct from Microsoft. They call it Microsoft Signature [microsoftstore.com].
      • by dunezone (899268)
        I only cross checked a few of the HP's listed but you pay about $100-150 extra compared to going to HP directly. But that is why HP/Dell PC's come with that crap ware it helps them reduce the sale cost.
    • Re:Not worth it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CastrTroy (595695) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:46AM (#47756701) Homepage
      The problem is defining what "third-party crapware" means. Windows doesn't come with the ability to play DVDs, because of licensing costs. So some OEMs throw in a program to play DVDs because it's easier than dealing with customers who complain that they just bought a computer with a DVD drive that can't play DVDs.

      If you want a machine without an OS, you are free to buy one. It's not as though MS doesn't sell copies of Windows to install on computers that you assemble yourself.

      Not to mention that MS has done a lot of rectify the situation. With the last Windows 7 laptop I bough, the Product Key included was an actual Windows Product key that would work with any copy of Windows 7. It didn't need a special OEM disk that was available only from the manufacturer. This is much better than the old way where you'd end up with an OEM product key that was essentially useless, because you could only use it with a special CD you got from the OEM which would automatically install all the third party software anyway.
      • Not to mention that MS has done a lot of rectify the situation. With the last Windows 7 laptop I bough, the Product Key included was an actual Windows Product key that would work with any copy of Windows 7. It didn't need a special OEM disk that was available only from the manufacturer. This is much better than the old way where you'd end up with an OEM product key that was essentially useless, because you could only use it with a special CD you got from the OEM which would automatically install all the third party software anyway.

        This has not been true going back as far as XP at least. The license keys can be used with any standard clean Microsoft OEM disc/ISO.

      • The problem is defining what "third-party crapware" means. Windows doesn't come with the ability to play DVDs, because of licensing costs. So some OEMs throw in a program to play DVDs because it's easier than dealing with customers who complain that they just bought a computer with a DVD drive that can't play DVDs.

        Then the PC maker could install only Windows plus a package manager analogous to Mac App Store, Ubuntu Software Center, or Steam. Then when the user inserts a DVD-Video disc, the package manager could connect to the Internet and send the machine's serial number to the repository to present a list of "third-party crapware" that the machine's administrator is entitled to install. For a PC configured with an optical drive, this would include DVD player software. If the user knows he's going to play a DVD while

    • Re:Not worth it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Richard_at_work (517087) <richardprice@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @11:14AM (#47756955)

      And yet one of the things "fought for" by OEMs during the antitrust battles was more freedom to do shit with OEM installs.

      So which would you prefer - more freedom for OEMs, or more freedom for MS to restrict OEMs?

    • by enjar (249223)

      Microsoft forcing things was the cause of a little legal trouble they got into a while ago. Be careful what you wish for.

      Also, if you buy from the "Business" side of many Windows PC retailers, you will get exactly what you describe -- a bare Windows install with no additional software / trialware / bloatware / etc. Or you can just buy a retail/OEM Windows license and DIY on a system you built yourself. I did this a few years back for my family's desktop machine, saved a pile of money and was able to configu

      • by Windowser (191974)

        I'll also note that Linux is by no means free of crappy packages. There are some great ones out there, to be sure -- but many distros bundle some substandard crap with them as part of the default install. I'll spend time on pretty much any Linux install I've set up pruning useless packages and replacing them with better alternatives.

        One word : Debian

        • by enjar (249223)

          It is the universal operating system, after all
          (this comment and the original one typed into a machine running Debian)

    • Microsoft has less leverage with the OEMs than ever. You can get crapware free systems from the Microsoft store. They all come configured by MS without the crapware.

    • Just get your PC from a reputable OEM. I get mine from a local shop who build machines to spec or provide one of their predefined configurations, and they give knowledgeable advise on tuning, configuring, noise management, etc. They install Windows for you with no crapware (but with the right vendor-supplied drivers, and with any additional software you specify), or without Windows if you so prefer. By the way, over here any shop will sell me an OEM version of Windows if I buy a PC component (motherboard
    • Until MS forces OEMs to sell a clean copy of Windows with zero third-party crapware, I won't even consider it. I've been a Linux user since 1998, and since then, have seen no compelling reason to part with my money. Fact is, when you buy a new Windows PC, it's largely unusable what with all the Kaptalistic crapware and bloat already bringing the system down below peak performance. This is a black eye for the Windows brand.

      Except that it isn't true. You being a Linux fanboy you show your bias pretty easily. You can download a clean copy of Windows straight from MS and activate it with the same key you have for your current PC. That's how most that install a new SSD do it when replacing the drive.

    • MS do have a program for this, it's called the Microsoft Signature Experience [techradar.com] - it's a selected range of hardware sold without crapware on it.

      Alas, it only covers a tiny selection of hardware.

      For desktops, I always buy parts and install Windows myself. For laptops, if it comes with a standard Windows medium, I'll bleach it clean and reinstall from scratch.

      Laptops which make you burn your own recovery disks with the crapware on them are taking the piss.

    • by Ravaldy (2621787)

      Good for techs as usual but that doesn't work for the other 98% of the population.

  • Already? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:17AM (#47756403)

    Is Windows 8 bombing so hard they have to rush the successor that quickly?

    • Re:Already? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by armanox (826486) <asherewindknight@yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:38AM (#47756621) Homepage Journal

      More like Microsoft keeping to a release schedule? Vista and Office 2007 were way off track, but they've been pretty constant since then.

    • Is Windows 8 bombing so hard they have to rush the successor that quickly?

      Happened with Vista, ME, Windows 2, DOS 4 (iirc). Everyone has to shit a real steamer sometimes look at people in stores trying to use it, it's hilarious but they kept annoying people with UI changes and moving things around so it's really turned into Windows H8 now.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      I'm still wondering if the upgrade will be free for Windows 8 users or if they'll expect us to dish out another $100 to upgrade.

      Don't get me wrong - WIndows 8.x has some nice features. I'm primarily a Linux user at home and only keep Windows 8 on my laptop (I use it for doing Visual Studio projects). The integration with Microsoft's cloud services is done pretty good.

      HOWEVER, the UI is just insane (and I'm judging mostly from the "semi-fixed" 8.1 version - I never bothered with the original Windows 8). M

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        I'm hoping that they move to more of a Mac model where they will release more frequent updates and charge less for updates. Shelling out $100 for an operating system upgrade on a $400 computer that is 3 years old isn't something I'm likely to do. Especially when computers that old may not have compatible drivers released for the new OS version. I'll just wait until I buy a new computer. Charging $30-$40 for the upgraded version every year isn't much to keep my computer running the latest software.
        • by MBGMorden (803437)

          Yeah - $30 or 40 may be a bit more reasonable. Still though, computers have gotten pretty cheap these days. I paid $199 for my Windows 8.1 laptop on sale. $30-40 is still a decent chunk of the purchase price to upgrade the OS (which I'm sure when the computer was assembled the OEM was charged next to nothing for the original copy).

  • Why (Score:5, Interesting)

    by binarylarry (1338699) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:20AM (#47756433)

    Why hasn't Google given Microsoft the coup de grace and actively developed some desktop/laptop distro ala Chromebook but without the stupid "web only" focus?

    If that had built a Chromebook that wasn't built on a stupid fucking premise they'd already own the market and Microsoft would be carved up ready for sale to Mitt Romney's friends.

    • by MBGMorden (803437)

      Because "web only" is what Google is about. It works pretty well for them honestly. Android phones and Chromebooks are selling pretty darned well.

      For the most part that's what people seem to want these days. Even for the "keyboard, mouse and screen" form factor you'll likely see a shift to those type of devices. As said Chromebooks are already selling very well, but they're also introducing Chrome "desktops" - basically a chromebook that connects to external peripherals (ie, the Acer Chromebox CXI).

      In

    • by DarthVain (724186)

      Because it ties into their current business model.

      WTF does Google care about consumers who do not go online? Perhaps at some point, but in the beginning it will all be about trying to leverage one business against another for more advantage.

    • Google has enabled applications that are cached and run locally, without need of an internet connection, and basically appear to be local apps. Their strategy seems to be to use this method to enable cross-platform application development on any platform capable of running the Chrome browser.

      Because honestly, what difference does it make if the browser was created using HTML, CSS, and Javascript? If it runs locally and looks like a local application, you might not even notice the difference.

  • by DrXym (126579) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:23AM (#47756477)
    Just a mini metro which launches from the start button and serves a similar role as the old start menus. i.e. something which doesn't cause the user to have a brain fart when their entire screen is hidden and replaced with a massive launcher. Let the user customize it and have access to all apps and control panel etc. That and remove the distinction between metro apps and classic apps on the desktop. Let them both live there. Outside of these issues Windows 8.1 is pretty stable and fast really.
    • by iggymanz (596061)

      The UI of windows 8.x is an abortion, MS needs to totally scrap it and go back to refining the tried and true UI memes

      • The problem though is that those UI ideas fail dismally on small-screen touch devices. What MS is trying to do is create an interface that is applicable to conventional mouse-keyboard, tablets and phones. What they actually did was make an interface that tries to be usable on everything, but is pleasant to use on nothing.

        From a business perspective, it's about maintaining consistent brand identity across platforms.

        • by iggymanz (596061)

          There are very simple ways of having brand identity across different UI. Logo, same icons, etc.

          There are you Microsoft, solution to your problem. That'll be $1M

        • "Snap an App" allows a phone-sized app to fit in a 20em-wide column of the screen on desktops, laptops, and 10" tablets. So why would it be so hard to allow the Start screen to start snapped on desktops, laptops, and landscape tablets? A snapped Start screen would at least be consistent with Windows Phone's Start screen.
        • From a business perspective, it's about maintaining consistent brand identity across platforms.

          It's possible to do that by keeping things like names, colors and fonts the same but without shoehorning everything into the same interaction method, you know!

      • WIndows 8.1 is what Windows 8 should have been. I don't hate Metro, I just think it is cumbersome to keyboard / mouse based interface. Knowing keyboard shortcuts, it doesn't bother me that much and setting up the desktop as desired is just as easy as Win 7.

    • by MobyDisk (75490) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @11:56AM (#47757335) Homepage

      Everybody on Slashdot talks about how Windows 8's flaw is the Start Screen. But as someone who has used Windows 8 extensively, the fundamental problem isn't just that the start menu is now full-screen. That is just the first big jarring change you see. But fixing that alone won't solve the problem.

      The real issue is that half of the OS uses the desktop UI, and the other half uses the "metro" UI. The built-in metro apps are inferior and redundant to the desktop counterparts. The metro photo viewer doesn't have as many features, you can't navigate photos in a folder. There are at least 4 wizards for adding a printer, some are metro-based and some are desktop based. System restore is another one like that, and there are lots more. There is a redundant registry area for desktop IE and the Metro IE, so some things like IE proxy settings can get out of sync between them. You can't even get to some of those settings from Metro. You can't put apps in the Startup folder.

      The bottom line is that they just didn't finish the Windows 8 UI.

      Look back at the Windows XP and 7 start menu. The shortcuts are usually a mess: folders with only one icon in them. Or folders with 3 icons: the app, the readme, and the uninstall. Can you remember which things are under "Accessories" versus the ones under "System Tools?" How many icons are on there that aren't apps at all? (Ex: I have a Silverlight icon - why?) The Windows 7 start menu is capped at 1/2 the screen height, wasting space and requiring scrolling. Installs typically put icons onto the desktop, the quick launch bar, and the start menu.

      There are actually a lot of good improvements to Windows 8. Full-screen apps isn't a *terrible* idea necessarily. But they just haven't figured out how to offer full-screen apps with all the power of the desktop. I'm not sure anyone has figured that out yet. Time will tell.

      • by Ol Olsoc (1175323)

        The real issue is that half of the OS uses the desktop UI, and the other half uses the "metro" UI. The built-in metro apps are inferior and redundant to the desktop counterparts.

        A million times THIS!

        For all the shills squawking about addon's to make your W8 desktop into something approaching a normal computer, they simply ignored that there are a lot of Apps that you gotta go Metro for. So now instead of one desktop you have to use two.

        And it's not just built in versus desktop apps, because much of the offering's on the store are metro app only.

        After trying it for almost a year, it convinced me that Microsoft has slipped a cog. My W8 touchscreen laptop is running Mint now. F

      • The real issue is that half of the OS uses the desktop UI, and the other half uses the "metro" UI.

        And this problem, unfortunately, extends to the settings. Which settings are in the Control Panel, and which are in "PC Settings"? Who knows? Do the settings in the metro-based "PC Settings" only apply to the metro environment? Nope. There's not a clear distinction.

        The built-in metro apps are inferior and redundant to the desktop counterparts.

        I think part of the problem there is they were thinking, "Well we have all of these aging applications like Paint and Windows Photo Viewer. Instead of fixing them or making newer versions, let's just replace them with Metro apps!" So you h

      • Excellent analysis. Spot on.

        That's because Microsoft doesn't have a fucking clue about UI -- how to design a good consistent UI. They half-ass everything.

        Not that Apple is (much) better, but at least the Apple System Preferences has been consistent from OXS 10.1 .. 10.9.

      • But not all apps need to be full screen as do you really need a 20" 4 function calculator?

        Also things like the charms bar are very poor things when you have mouse + keyboard and or a big screen / multi screen.

  • by nimbius (983462) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:25AM (#47756493) Homepage
    You see, the next windows will be modelled after the successful launch of Vista. Threshhold will be released in 32,768 independent varieties in order to suck up every possible demographic for a ride on the microsoft money choo choo. one version will contain a golden ticket, in which the buyer is automatically invited to redmond to see the hideous chocolate factory responsible for the mere idea of the windows operating system.

    Windows 9 will be the finest windows ever released, that is, to the untrained eye. In fact its simply a cleverly reskinned copy of Ubuntu with a systemd service that occasionally brands you a felon and contests the genuine authenticity of your OS.
  • Counterproductive (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:31AM (#47756559) Homepage

    Microsoft's rush to introduce a new OS every other year or so is a terrible strategy. While I understand the desire to bury the Windows 8 name, that is the only advantage and I'm not sure it is enough to counterbalance the disadvantages.

    Microsoft seems to think they need to release a new OS to stay competitive. The thing is, people (with the exception of techies) do not BUY operating systems. They take what is on their computer, be it Windows98 or Windows8. Generally, people do not care about operating systems. Their care that their applications will run, and that their workflow will not be disrupted by a new GUI. Neither of these can be assured if Microsoft keeps pumping out new versions of their OS every few years.

    Microsoft has a mistaken belief that they need to reinvent themselves every few years, that it is the chrome that sells their product. They are wrong. It is the 20+ years of backwards compatibility that maintains their dominance on the desktop. Their current strategy is directly threatening their core strength. It may not bring them yearly growth, but when you already have 90% control of the desktop, there really isn't that much to grow into anymore.

    Of course, the market /is/ changing. Desktops are no longer the sole computing devices in use by the general public; tablets and smartphones are directly threatening that hegemony. Frequent changes to the core software of the desktop, however, is not going to revitalize the desktop market, however; it will only fragment and weaken it. If sales are declining, it is not because the OS is at fault but because people are buying fewer new computers overall. Microsoft should branch out into new markets with WinRT and WinPhone, sure, but do not do so by cannibalizing their main market.

    Microsoft needs to focus on its core strength and not rush new versions to market in vain hopes of recapturing the glory days of the early 2000s. Incremental upgrades, not complete reinventions are the name of the game. Neither end-users nor businesses are clamoring for a Windows 9. Upgrade Windows8 to a usable state (e.g., kill Metro) and then keep it up to date with further upgrades throughout its lifetime. If they keep selling that for ten years they will do fine. Only release a new version of the OS when it is actually necessitated by the technology, not by marketing.

    Microsoft, give us a Windows8SE, then live off the OEM sales for five or ten years. Take the time to create a new, stable and well-tested version of Windows instead of rushing into the next Vista or Metro. The users will appreciate having a platform that is not subject to upheaval every other year.

    • by omnichad (1198475)

      If they give us a Windows8SE, they're just going to follow it up with a Windows 9ME

      • by DarthVain (724186)

        Windows SEME: All the non-compatibility of SE with the slowness of ME, Win - Win!

        Just add Metro for an unusable UI, and you get the Trifecta! :)

    • What? Let technology drive a technology company's strategy instead of marketing?

      Witch! Burn her! Burn her!

    • ...Microsoft seems to think they need to release a new OS to stay competitive....

      I think it is more that Microsoft thinks they need to release a new OS to keep the revenue flowing towards Redmond. Remember the Microsoft Upgrade Treadmill of yore? That business strategy is so engrained in Microsoft that they do not know any other way of convincing consumers to buy Microsoft products.

      .
      Microsoft is still living in the past world where Microsoft controlled computing. First and foremost, Microsoft needs to learn how to compete in the marketplace by convincing consumers that Microsoft

    • by gtall (79522)

      Well, if MS stopped producing new OS versions frequently, they wouldn't get the software churn they need to stay in business. They don't do anything but software and if they stay on Winders 7, then no one will upgrade their other MS software. It becomes much like the XP ecosystem and that won't do MS any good.

      Their other attempting at breaking the plague of XP-itis is Software in the Cloud which is attractive because then you must pay rent every year whether they update it or not.

  • by ErichTheRed (39327) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:42AM (#47756657)

    Our company has a Premier Support account manager at Microsoft, and I can't even get a straight answer out of him, so either the communications are really screwed up about this or they're being very tight-lipped.

    I'm guessing that this is part of their new "no frozen releases" cloud-enabled release cycle. It's no secret that Microsoft wants people off the on-premises software because they want to collect recurring revenue. Constantly rolling in new features is going to be the way they get customers used to the idea. Apple does it with iOS, and most people (consumers) are comfortable with constantly-changing software. Businesses are a whole different story.

    I still am trying to figure out how Microsoft is going to support enterprise customers with the constant release of patches plus feature changes. (August's Internet Explorer patch broke Java on enterprise desktops, and while it's a good idea for consumers who never update the bug-ridden JRE, it makes for a lot of headaches. There is no end to crappy IE-only, JRE 1.4-only, hastily thrown together "enterprise" Java applets.) Speaking as an end user computing person, targeting master images around SP1 of an OS release has been a pretty good standard. Service Packs or at least Update Rollups have been a convenient point to stop the integration work at, make all the desktop apps hang together, and concentrate on regression testing of patches. Without these big milestones anymore, it's going to get harder to roll out a stable platform for people.

    Microsoft's in an interesting spot. They could just ignore business customers and force everyone onto the cloud, which I doubt they'll do right away. I also doubt they'll have the courage to backtrack and give people back all the features in Windows 7. However small it is, they now have a whole App Store ecosystem to support, and it's apparently going to be even more important since they're merging Windows and Windows Phone. Whatever happens, I'm sure someone has said that Windows 9 is going to have to be a huge hit with both the desktop and the tablet crowd. 8.1 is now usable with keyboard and mouse...hopefully Windows 9 will allow desktop-only users to not have to switch between Metro and desktop to do things like use the control panel. I hear the Charms thing is going away-- that's a huge help for desktop users. I think if Microsoft actually listened to customers, then they'll be in a good spot. Traditional desktop users don't want change as drastic as the 7-to-8 transition -- you have to introduce stuff like this slowly. Everyone hated the Ribbon in Office 2007, and some people still do, but most people are used to it now.

    I think my #1 feature request would be to put Aero Glass back into the OS, plus better theme support in general. The 2D Windows 2.x look is really awful if you're not on a tablet. The OS under the hood is actually quite good...unfortunately performance and stability enhancements don't sell licenses.

    • Constantly rolling in new features is going to be the way they get customers used to the idea. Apple does it with iOS, and most people (consumers) are comfortable with constantly-changing software. Businesses are a whole different story.

      But businesses are still run by people, so what's going to happen if your 10-years old "business OS" can't keep up with the always-up-to-date OS of phones and tablets? People will switch to OS X at home and after that, they'll want to switch the business too. Lack of softwar

      • by ADRA (37398)

        When the latest and greatest OS can dymanically update itself to the latest and greatest while still being 100% compatible with the giant hodge-podge of software and hardware required in a large company, then by all means 'business people' will flock to it. If it makes a company's life easier SURE. The problem is they aren't. No company remains as compatible with the exisitng corporate networks de-jour as Microsoft. Some of that is very very on purpose making their own tech hostile to others. That's not the

  • by squiggleslash (241428) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:50AM (#47756757) Homepage Journal

    If I'm reading the Neowin thread, followed by the Neowin articles, properly, the "two windows" speculation thing appears to be because of this:

    - In September, Microsoft will release a preview of Windows 9 called "Threshold" to Enterprise customers. The idea is that Enterprises (large corporations) need some time to prepare for the upgrade.

    - Threshold is mostly feature complete, but lacks the more significant UI changes that Windows 9 will bring.

    - Windows 9 will be released much later and will have significant UI upgrades as well as everything in Threshold.

    Because these two versions of "Next generation Windows" have been floating around, some have thought that there are two different versions of Windows.

  • by fallen1 (230220) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:51AM (#47756769) Homepage

    I've been in the computer and IT industry in some form for over 20 years. I've seen a lot of changes come and go -- some I've embraced, some I've just dealt with, some I've beat my skull on a wall wondering WTF?!?!

    Windows 8 was, in all ways, a very What The Fuck?!?! product. Microsoft did it so that they could increase their revenue stream and lock-in potential - not so they could increase the user experience. There is no situation in this world which you shove a phone/tablet interface onto a desktop or laptop computer with touchscreen penetration rates in those markets of, what?, 2 or 3%? It was bad idea from the beginning and it is still a bad idea now. When most users resort to third party software to give them back the interface that WORKS on desktop/laptop environments and/or adoption of the new operating system is only because users are being given no other choice, then the system was badly designed.

    Fortune 1000/500/100 companies are NOT adopting Windows 8.x. Why in the hell would they want the lost productivity from a user being forced to learn a new interface that is not user friendly or conducive to a work environment? They don't. Which is one major reason Dell and HP both started offering Windows 7 Pro installed on Windows 8.x Pro downgraded systems for business.

    Stardock is making money, even at $4.99 a pop, for Start8 as a replacement for Windows 8.x sorta-not-really-a-start menu. That says a lot about the state of Windows 8.x adoption and usability.

    Even smaller companies that I deal with or have consulted for avoid Windows 8.x and use Windows 7. I've dealt with some hard-headed people who ask why it is cheaper to buy Windows 8 than 7 or "Why aren't we using the latest version?" and so on -- until I sit a laptop in front of them with a standard, out-of-the-box Windows 8.x configuration on it and tell them "Please turn the laptop off without using the power switch." Then I ask them if they could turn their Windows 7 laptops off right out of the box. You guessed it, they said YES, they could turn it off with no problems and I point out the lost productivity from their users needing to be trained on how the access everything and learning how to use the new interface(s). They always purchase Windows 7 systems. By the way, this puts LESS money in my pocket as a consultant because my company would be the ones training them to use Windows 8.x.

    Windows 9, if Microsoft has ANY sense left in their Corporate brain, will go back to Windows 7 start menu functionality and leave the Metro interface for phones and tablets. Give desktop and laptop users the interface that works and that doesn't require retraining everyone. Individual user and most small-to-medium businesses I deal with are tired of vendor lock-in. Learn from your mistakes Microsoft.

  • Nobody seems to know for sure

    For "Nobody" read "No Journalist".

    Unless Microsoft have really lost the plot, I'm fairly certain they know the difference between 'Threshold' and 'Windows 9', and which is heading for release.

  • by wonkey_monkey (2592601) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @11:24AM (#47757043) Homepage

    New Windows Coming In Late September -- But Which One?

    September 2014, of course.

  • Unless it's free... and has some sort of start button... Windows is dead.

    People aren't even buying PC's anymore. I build all the PC's for my friends and family. I used to do 20+ a year. This year I've done 1. People have their phones, windows got all wonky and hard to use with Win8, and it's insanely expensive. They can get a chrome book for $200+ Why would anyone that's not hardcore into Games buy a windows PC?

    Make the OS free and go back to the ease of use of WnXP/Win7 and people might deal with it. Oh, a

  • MFC? Visual Basic? Bastardized Java? .Net? Silverlight? Windows CE? Windows Phone? Windows RT? It seems that if you stay with Microsoft, either as a user or as a developer, you will never be able to become an expert in what you do and capitalize on your investment in software and skills. Back in the days of VB6 and IE6, Microsoft was largely untouchable because of the rich ecosystem of useful 3rd party software and libraries as well as universal user familiarity.

    By killing everything that works, Microsoft i

  • As long as it's not called VistaMe ... all will probably be ok.
  • The whole premise is stupid. If they're 30 days from being in stores, then the media have already gone to press and the boxes are being loaded and shrink-wrapped and loaded onto cargo ships as I type this.

    There's no mystery entry of a new operating system that's also going to be released at the same time. Microsoft doesn't do that. Heck, even Apple doesn't do that.

    Somebody could speculate that Microsoft will be releasing Windows 9 with a free AI-enhanced Teddy Ruxpin, and find a Chinese leaker to "confi

  • I'll vote for "Windows Gefilte Fisch".

Our business in life is not to succeed but to continue to fail in high spirits. -- Robert Louis Stevenson

Working...