Windows 9 To Win Over Windows 7 Users, Disables Start Screen For Desktop 681
DroidJason1 writes One of Microsoft's main goals with Windows 9, the next major version of Windows, is to win over Windows 7 hold outs. The operating system will look and work differently based on hardware type. Microsoft is looking to showcase the desktop for desktop and laptop users, while two-in-one devices like the Surface Pro or Lenovo Yoga will support switching between the Metro interface and the classic desktop interface. The new desktop will allow Modern UI apps to run in windowed mode, and have Modern UI apps pinned to the Start Menu instead of a Start Screen. There will also be a mini-start menu. Microsoft is looking to undo the usability mistakes it made with Windows 8 for those who are not on a touch device. WIndows 9 is expected around spring of 2015.
Why didn't they just listen to users? (Score:5, Informative)
I know, ridiculous, right?
Microsoft could have avoided all this mess by simply listening to people who were beta testing and using 8 and complaining about the horrible start screen. I'm sure they got PILES of feedback, but they were so stubborn they even went out of their way to keep people from bringing back the traditional start menu.
What happened to listening to your customers? To providing options? Historically MS has always been all about that, and *Apple* has been the "our way, or the highway" company. It was really strange to see things reversed for Windows 8.
Also, MS really should break free of their "we are the only OS that exists" philosophy. Other operating systems support a wide variety of filesystems and networking protocols out of the box. Windows still only supports its own and assumes nothing else exists. It's time to knock that shit off, Microsoft.
Re:One switch to rule them all? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Blank is to Blank... (Score:3, Informative)
that was when they still had the enterprise / consumer split OSes.
XP came after both 2000 and ME. XP joined to 2 lines into 1 core OS.
Re:Hah! (Score:4, Informative)
Agreed, but I generally get heavily modded down when I complain about the actual problem (badly written drivers). I finally bought replacement cards and so far no problems.
[John]
Re:And here I'm hoping... (Score:5, Informative)
64-bit OS can run 32-bit processes (do you live under a rock or something?). Just like how 32-bit-only versions of Windows - which describes every version from Windows 95 until XP 64-bit edition - can run 16-bit apps. 64-bit-only doesn't mean it won't run a 32-bit app, it means it won't run on a processor which lacks 64-bit support. There are few such processors in use on PCs today, and they're on their way out. Even Atom chips, for a long time the holdout 32-bit x86 CPUs, support x64 these days. By 2015 it won't matter (seriously legacy machines can continue running legacy OSes; the OSes will probably outlive the machines).
Now, 64-bit OSes can't run 16-bit apps directly - the processor won't drop two levels like that - but 16-bit apps are cheap on CPU power so the tiny number that ever still need to be run (I'm mostly thinking games from the DOS days) can be easily emulated (which is exactly what DOSBox does on x64 today... and also on smartphones and such). 64-bit OSes also won't load 32-bit kernel-mode drivers, but that's not a big problem anymore; very little hardware still in use lacks a 64-bit driver, and if it does, it probably doesn't run on 32-bit Win8 anyhow so Win9 is out of the question.
Re: hmmmmm (Score:4, Informative)
I hate to be That Guy and kill the joke, but relative primes are actually a thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprime_integers
Re:One switch to rule them all? (Score:1, Informative)