Windows 9 release date, news and rumors

[fixx]

It's odd that you say it caters to different needs considering how much Microsoft tried to shift Windows over to a tablet UI, and Windows Phones also have a similar UI as does Xbox One. It's a one shoe fits all strategy, but like I said there's a purpose for this.

Windows8 and Windows Phone are different OSes and cater to different needs. Problem is Microsoft tried to have unified look between the two which failed big time. Android is catered to phones and tablets and has zero usability features desktop computer needs kinda like Windows Phone, but Win8 is aimed for desktop PCs.

But notice that even in Mac OSX that Apple didn't create a whole new UI to force customers to purchase apps off their app store. And they update OSX extremely often compared to Windows. It may incorporate some iOS features but nothing going as far as creating a new UI.

I think you have the implications there backwards. It doesn't matter for software compatibility if Win8 looks different from 7 which looks different from 6 etc while binary compatiblity stays. Apple on the other hand is well-known for obsoleting parts of both iOS and OSX so that you're forced to update (or abandon) all your software after two cats. It's not that far when Blizzard dropped support for OSX 10.1 through .4 or .5 in MoP while on Windows side it still works on 15 year old OS just fine.

Care to explain why the links I posted are irrelevant cause they're old?

Companies X, Y and Z thought Win8 would change the way they do business and did a rant based on early beta you keep linking around. None of those fears became reality with the final release and those people turned out to be fearmongers and doomsayers. It's not only obsolete because it's old, it's both old and wildly inaccurate. And you somehow still think it's somehow valid criticism towards Win8.1 today?

[Aberrict]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--wgAsHWNRE
http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/...les-12912.html

For those unaware here are the two videos leaked out showing Windows 9. I have Windows 7 and while thinking about upgrading once 8.1 was released decided to hold off once it became known Microsoft was pushing out Windows 9 quickly.

Based on the videos that show mostly adding, removing, re-sizing live tiles attached to the start I am liking the look. Although the calculator looks terrible. I'll probably buy it and look forward to trying the preview that's supposed to be released at the end of the month.

[Fallen Angel]

I'm hoping it's a free upgrade for 8.1 users. Spending thousands on school will have paid dividends!

Seriously though, as long as I have a way to disable anything regarding metro I'll be happy.

[Twoddle]

All this OS version updating is turning into a farce TBH. Computing isn't fun like it was.

[Aaros]

Windows 9?

I still haven't upgraded to 8.1, yet. I'm still waiting for M-Audio to get off their rear-ends and put out an updated driver for my M-Track audio interface.

[Dhrizzle]

While a harsh way to put it, you are correct in that quoted user is a bit on the slow side.

Windows 8 & 8.1 had a big, red problem in the form of the Metro screen, but give how incredibly simple it was to eliminate that (Hello ClassicShell FOR FREE), I don't see it as a valid complaint.

The system is very, very fast, much faster than any previous iteration of Windows. It had its flaws, but with those recognized, along with 8's under-the-hood improvements, I think 9 has very good potential.

I still don't understand why Metro was such a huge problem for everyone. It's basically a place to keep short-cuts, with the addition that there might be some mobile-type apps that you want to play on it. I figured there wass nothing the gaming/PC "community" can whine about that would surprise me, but the sheer amount of venom and tears over Metro was astounding.

[Vash The Stampede]

I still don't understand why Metro was such a huge problem for everyone. It's basically a place to keep short-cuts, with the addition that there might be some mobile-type apps that you want to play on it. I figured there wass nothing the gaming/PC "community" can whine about that would surprise me, but the sheer amount of venom and tears over Metro was astounding.

It really isn't a huge problem, but when you get down to it that's what you're basically paying for. Performance according to benchmarks isn't special for gaming. While booting is faster in Windows 8 over 7 it's not enough to make me justify and buy it. Though Windows 8 vs Ubuntu 14.04 shows it's nothing speical.

My point is what justifies buying 8 over 7? If 8 came with DX12 or some other massive changes I would certainly be using it myself. But for the most part it is really the UI and it's a controversial UI.

[Dhrizzle]

It really isn't a huge problem, but when you get down to it that's what you're basically paying for. Performance according to benchmarks isn't special for gaming. While booting is faster in Windows 8 over 7 it's not enough to make me justify and buy it. Though Windows 8 vs Ubuntu 14.04 shows it's nothing speical.

My point is what justifies buying 8 over 7? If 8 came with DX12 or some other massive changes I would certainly be using it myself. But for the most part it is really the UI and it's a controversial UI.

For a lot of people the UI is a big deal though, even amongst people who prefer 8 there are a lot who only use it because of a Start Menu application or after 8.1 when you could boot straight to the desktop - that's the attitude of the poster I quoted.

Personally I love the Start Screen and find it a much better area to keep any short-cuts I might want to click on, but really the biggest improvements I've found have been in things like the file explorer, task manager and other OS type stuff (and the quick booting is brilliant). I'd say it's the least-horrible version of Windows I've used and certainly given the choice I'd take it over 7 any day of the week.

[Remilia]

It really isn't a huge problem, but when you get down to it that's what you're basically paying for. Performance according to benchmarks isn't special for gaming. While booting is faster in Windows 8 over 7 it's not enough to make me justify and buy it. Though Windows 8 vs Ubuntu 14.04 shows it's nothing speical.

My point is what justifies buying 8 over 7? If 8 came with DX12 or some other massive changes I would certainly be using it myself. But for the most part it is really the UI and it's a controversial UI.

http://media.bestofmicro.com/M/A/350...l/image003.png

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/...rmance_review/

and where you took the benchmarks from 2 years ago. Cherry picking the one that's favorable to you yet ignoring the other ones.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3289-3.html

[Vash The Stampede]

http://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/...rmance_review/

and where you took the benchmarks from 2 years ago. Cherry picking the one that's favorable to you yet ignoring the other ones.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ce,3289-3.html

I don't see how age of links has anything to do with what I'm saying. What could have changed in a year or two worth of time that would make anything I'm saying irrelevant? If you don't like the benchmarks then post some that show me to be wrong, which you did for BF4 only. In fact I'll do it myself but feel free to find a benchmark that favors Windows 8 in gaming. In most benchmark tests Windows 8 has shown to be like 1-3 fps faster. It's just that it's not consistent and sometimes Windows 7 does better, which to me says the tests are equal and are within percentage of error.



Hey another benchmark where Windows 8 wins and I'm super super wrong.

[bmjclark]

I never really understood the windows 8 hate. Literally the only difference i've seen is that you right click the start button instead of left clicking it and totally ignore the whole metro thing in return for a much faster OS.

[haxartus]

The performance difference is consistent with the change of some of the "automatic" services to "manual". You can do that optimization by yourself in Windows 7. Most optimizations are applicable to Windows 7 because that's what they are - optimizations. There is nothing substantially different in the kernel between the two OSes.

[Vash The Stampede]

The performance difference is consistent with the change of some of the "automatic" services to "manual". You can do that optimization by yourself in Windows 7. Most optimizations are applicable to Windows 7 because that's what they are - optimizations. There is nothing substantially different in the kernel between the two OSes.

Which is why I showed the benchmark with the Windows 7 FX patch which moved 7 to 8 like performance. Not many people know that there's a AMD FX patch for Windows 7 that fixes performance issues, but Windows 8 comes with the patch already. And no, Windows update doesn't download the patch for Win7.

Windows 8 is most certainly faster overall then Windows 7 in file transfers and just about everything else, but for gaming there's no real difference. Even then I would argue cause Windows 7 is not patched, and yes there's patches to improve SSD performance as well. That's why some tests on websites show a big difference and some show nearly none.

[Deleted]

My point is what justifies buying 8 over 7? If 8 came with DX12 or some other massive changes I would certainly be using it myself. But for the most part it is really the UI and it's a controversial UI.

We've already told you countless times in this thread but you ignore anything serious that doesn't support your hate for Windows 8. I'm not gonna go over all the benefits again because you're just gonna ignore them again. If you're building new and has to buy a new OS there is literally zero (or very close) reason to pick Windows 7 anymore. It's not just about random benches of games.

[Ycarene]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--wgAsHWNRE
http://winfuture.de/videos/Software/...les-12912.html

For those unaware here are the two videos leaked out showing Windows 9. I have Windows 7 and while thinking about upgrading once 8.1 was released decided to hold off once it became known Microsoft was pushing out Windows 9 quickly.

Based on the videos that show mostly adding, removing, re-sizing live tiles attached to the start I am liking the look. Although the calculator looks terrible. I'll probably buy it and look forward to trying the preview that's supposed to be released at the end of the month.

That seems to me to be a very good blend of the old and the new interfaces TBH. 9 might be worth looking into for a lot of win 7 people, especially since 7 is reaching it's end of mainstream support in January.

[TaintedOne]

Also didn't Metro UI fail badly in Windows 8, and Microsoft still expects you to deal with it in some way?

Metro is fully functional people just dont like it. Its not that it doesnt work its that desktop users with a keyboard and mouse dont like the way it works and unaware of the options to change it to a more win7 feel. So in user likeability department you can say it failed badly.

[Ciddy]

I'm interested. It sounds like it'll be one of those deals where I'm just going to flat-out skip Windows 8 and wait for the next one (did the same with Vista). Not a big fan of the Windows 8 interface, and so far there's nothing in it that makes me think "must upgrade now!" I have a Windows 8 system at work, and even with tweaks to make it more familiar (Classic Shell, etc), I just don't like it.

I'm perfectly happy with my SSD/Windows 7 for now, thank you.

[Asera]

I still don't understand why Metro was such a huge problem for everyone. It's basically a place to keep short-cuts, with the addition that there might be some mobile-type apps that you want to play on it. I figured there wass nothing the gaming/PC "community" can whine about that would surprise me, but the sheer amount of venom and tears over Metro was astounding.

It wasn't that Metro is/was bad or non-functional. It's because of the fullscreen interface caused a split ecosystem that confused the majority of regular users not on a tablet, and infuriated power users and system administrators due to how stupid of an idea it is for a traditional workstation. Windows 8 is an excellent experience on a tablet, and especially the Surface line of tablet/ultrabooks or anything else where the function is almost entirely focused on fullscreen touch workflows. It simply does not work well for a workstation or laptop. Why do you think Apple has zero touchscreen Macintosh devices? Aside from the fact that people would complain about their pretty glossy screens being dirty all the time, it simply would not work for those applications.

The whining is mostly a result of this combined with human nature/people hating change. Happens all the time with Facebook, even though every UI iteration there has been a usability improvement.

[Bristae]

Because Windows 9 likely doesn't fix the issues with Windows 8 and 7. You can say it's faster and responsive but it seems no different to me. Windows needs.

#1 Windows update needs to have full driver packages. Don't give me graphic drivers without OpenGL, or printer drivers with no software. Should be able to handle the whole driver package without issue. Why do I need to visit AMD/Nvidia's website to get a proper driver package?

#2 Windows update needs to handle software updates. I use Firefox, flash, and Java but they all have their own methods to update. Usually sitting in the background eating up system resources, and Adobe is constantly trying to trick me in installing their crapware. Android and iOS do this but not Windows?

#3 No more anti-virus software. Shouldn't need it. Mac OSX doesn't and neither does Linux, and I don't care the reasons why. Sometimes the virus is better than the anti-virus software. Windows 8 gets infected with the same virus just like Windows 7. Doesn't seem all that advanced to me.

If you believe that Linux is invincible then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

[Vash The Stampede]

It wasn't that Metro is/was bad or non-functional. It's because of the fullscreen interface caused a split ecosystem that confused the majority of regular users not on a tablet, and infuriated power users and system administrators due to how stupid of an idea it is for a traditional workstation. Windows 8 is an excellent experience on a tablet, and especially the Surface line of tablet/ultrabooks or anything else where the function is almost entirely focused on fullscreen touch workflows. It simply does not work well for a workstation or laptop. Why do you think Apple has zero touchscreen Macintosh devices? Aside from the fact that people would complain about their pretty glossy screens being dirty all the time, it simply would not work for those applications.

The whining is mostly a result of this combined with human nature/people hating change. Happens all the time with Facebook, even though every UI iteration there has been a usability improvement.

The problem Microsoft faced with their Metro UI is that it needed new software, and they knew they would have a hard time convincing developers and users to use it. Microsoft is a victim of their own success as they know that Windows huge software library would almost certainly prevent Metro apps from taking off. So they forced the Metro UI onto users at first but they backed away by Windows 8.1

Look at what happened with Windows RT and Windows Phone. Without a software library it doesn't matter how good the OS is if there isn't any applications for it. Which is why it made no sense for a tablet UI to be the first thing to see for desktop users when they boot their PC. And yes I know they allow you to disable Metro UI when booting.

If you believe that Linux is invincible then I've got a bridge to sell you in Brooklyn.

Course it's not invincible. Every OS has it's vulnerabilities, but how quickly they're patched is what makes a OS secure. It's not just the OS itself but some key software as well. Apple for example is surprisingly actively against Oracle Java, so they often just deny Java from being installed on users Macs.

The worlds biggest websites like Google, Facebook, Wiki, and etc all use Linux. If Windows was more secure then you'd think they would be using it but they're not. Linux won't stop people from visiting porn sites and accidentally downloading a program that was a virus, but because of the open source interaction that developers have, any known problems gets patched fairly quick.

Having good communication with developers is normal with open source. Even Dolphin emulator developer had good things to say about open source drivers for this reason.