Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Operating Systems Windows Microsoft Upgrades

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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • 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?

  • 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.

  • Re:Already? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by David_Hart ( 1184661 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @10:49AM (#47756745)

    Yes in fact Windows 8 did a face plant at it's introduction. Just look at the interface - did an ADHD sufferer design it? It's awful. I mean Windows has long had a tiling option but that just took it to ridiculous extremes.

    Something else to note about Microsoft OS's. Odd numbered versions tend to be the most stable - the even numbered are flaming pieces of crap starting with NT4 and then Vista, and Win 8. XP (5) and Win 7 were ok though.

    Yes, the new Tile interface did scare a lot of people off, including the enterprise. It works well with a touch screen but sucks for anyone without it. However, there are number of inexpensive (under $10) and free utilities that fixes the interface so that you boot to the desktop and never see it. But... most consumers wouldn't be smart enough to know this. They were forced to use the new UI.

    If you take a step back and look at the latest phones and tablets, the majority of them have tile interfaces in some form or another. So, it looks like some form of tiles will be here to stay. That being said, it doesn't make it a useful UI for a desktop or laptop without touch.

    Windows 8 and 8.1 has been just as stable and is faster than Windows 7. You could argue that 8.1 is the odd version, though...

  • 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.

  • Re:Which means... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday August 26, 2014 @02:54PM (#47759243)

    There are a lot of hints that Microsoft is backing away from this mistake and realizing that the desktop is still important to their bottom line. Ther executive that pushed Windows 8 was canned a long time ago, and there's a new CEO at the helm, and we've had backpedalling on some features (now you can boot straight to desktop, charms bar is announced to be vanishing, etc).

BLISS is ignorance.