Windows 8... 9... 10 is coming next year!

[Xenocity 343]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412

 

 

 

Microsoft is skipipng 9 in favor of 10.

 

Windows 10 is coming next year to all devices.

The OS will morph to fit each device.

Xbox One is getting it too.

 

Microsoft HQ has yet to cofirm the free upgrade that their overseas subsidaries are talking about.

[Compdude787 916]

Hmm, I am hoping it will be a worthy replacement for Windows 7. Windows 9 has some big shoes to fill, and I'm not sure if it will be able to do so. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The information that crossed my path is that the internal name is Threshold and that it really is a revision, and not a service pack.

[Xenocity 343]

Hmm, I am hoping it will be a worthy replacement for Windows 7. Windows 9 has some big shoes to fill, and I'm not sure if it will be able to do so. 

Windows 7 is vastly overrated.

It is one of Microsoft's best efforts, but still gets more praise than it deserves.

 

I actually love 8.1 and the titles.

I find it easier and snappier to use (I started using at Windows 95)

 

The information that crossed my path is that the internal name is Threshold and that it really is a revision, and not a service pack.

That's what many said about Windows 7...

A revision is a service pack by another name.

 

There is no reason to believe Microsoft actually built Windows 9 from the ground up in under a year with a new kernal.

Currently Windows 8's is Windows kernal is 6.2 and Windows 8.1 is running Windows Kernal 6.3

 

I believe Microsoft is rushing Windows 9 out to match OSX 10.10 Yosemite's new interface and features.

[Compdude787 916]

I'm not saying that Windows 8 was bad. I have used it (it was pre-installed on my laptop, of course) and I didn't think it was bad enough that I had to promptly dispose of it for Windows 7. (I used it for about a year) I know Windows 8 is supposedly faster than Windows 7, but I've used both on the same computer and I didn't notice any speed difference. Startup times are about the same, but then again, I never fully shut off my computer. One of the things I didn't like most about Windoze 8 was how they removed the "Aero" shell from Windows 8. By comparison, the shell in 8.x looks flat and boring compared to Windows 7!

 

I'm back at Windows 7 because Windows 8.1, my laptop's Intel integrated graphics, and SC4 didn't play nicely together. I do not regret it one bit. I didn't really care for the Metro apps on Windows 8; I never used them anyway. We can agree to disagree, but I think that as it stands right now, Windows 7 is the best version of Windows that MS has ever made. Maybe my opinion will change when they unveil Windows 9. We'll see...

[Xenocity 343]

The reason why Aero was removed from Windows 8 was due to all the complaints from customers and business showing Aero was compromising performance and causing their systems to see significant slow downs.

People hated Aero with a passion the world over.

 

It's odd that you didn't see any performance boost going to Windows 8 over 7.

Windows 8 is less resource intensive than Windows 7.

 

I know many engineers, software developers and other professionals, who refuse to move on from XP, claiming Microsoft removed too many features going to Vista, 7 and 8.

They also refuse to upgrade to 64-bit processors and OS because it supposedly borks their 32 bit programs.

 

By the by here is Windows 9 only screenshot, if you missed it.

 

Flat is the future, Windows is the last to fully embrace it.

Market research claims users, businesses and developers prefer flat!

[Compdude787 916]

Okay, I don't understand why certain businesses don't want to move away from XP, especially when you got Windows 7. I also find it funny that they think that MS has removed features in newer versions of their OS--nothing could be further from the truth. MS actually added a ton of extra stuff (or you can call it bloat if you want) in Vista and beyond. Windows XP only required 1.5 GB of hard disk space, while Vista required 10 times as much hard disk space as good ol' slim XP.
 
As for the future of UI design, I don't like it one bit. I don't like how things are getting flatter. It just looks bad! How on earth do people prefer "flat" interfaces and buttons?!? I just don't understand it! Take Office '13 for example. All the icons look flat, and when I first saw it, it reminded me of something from Windows 95. Yes, that was my initial reaction to Office '13. Like icons in that era, these lacked depth and do not look visually pleasing. I still use Office '07 as I see no reason to upgrade. All the newer software, for the most part, is really dumbed-down. I don't like new stuff just because it's new; I am strongly against change for the sake of change. We as a society have pushed the saying "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" by the wayside in favor of something new that is "if it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is." Good grief...
 
Windows 9? Meh. I don't have the feeling of excitement and satisfaction about it that I did with Windows 7. I knew an awesome Windows version when I saw one, and that was the case with Windows 7. I loved it from the beginning, and it's still great today!!! I think I may start toying with Linux, since Microshaft is taking windows in what I think is the wrong direction.

 

Just my opinion, and we can agree to disagree, but I'll stick with what I like.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

I personally don't like the tiles. I like the compactness of the old shell. I also never liked the Start tiles (which takes up the whole screen) and I also don't like the flat look of Windows 8. Therefore, I've installed Classic Shell and a Vista skin so I get rid of Windows 8's downsides. There are more problems with Windows 8:

• It occured to me twice that due to a Windows update, my PC failed to start up. The only way to fix this was by using a restore point. But it took me at least an hour to find this fix...
• It is not any faster than Windows 7, as they claim it to be.
• Windows 8 troubles installing Linux due to the UEFI-boot mechanism. So if you want to get an alternativce, you have to go through a lot of trouble.

So yeah, I never liked Windows 8.

 

Best,

Maarten

[Xenocity 343]

I can understand a dislike for flatness, but Office 13 has the best office interface yet!

You can install themes on Windows 8 very easily, so you aren't stuck with flatness.

Businesses love XP and won't move on any time soon.

XP and 7 currently are at a 40/40 spilt of the Windows market with 8 at 9%.

There is a list of supposed features that were axed with moving forward to Vista that people still gripe about.

Anyways you are running out of places to hide from flatness.

(You can alter the flatness in 8 )

[Sabretooth78 808]

This new "flat" look can go off to a corner somewhere and die a quick yet painful death.  So MS is doing it too?   I suppose looking at Win8.1, they may have started the trend.  And if that's the case, shame on Apple and anyone else who follows it.  If MS has ever started a trend, it's over-hype and disappointment swimming in bloat and bugs.

 

I like depth in my graphics.  I think we can have a tasteful looking OS (most of OS 10.x to date, WinXP and Win7, etc.) without having to evoke late 90's memories of gaudy buttons and lens flares, etc.  I think 10.10 "Yosemite" is ugly as a result of its flatness and the system font change and I'm not sure I want to have to look at it every day.  The loss of rudder owing to Steve Jobs' death is really starting to become evident.

 

I'm probably completely wrong, but for some reason this triggers that part in me that gets so annoyed when some new design trend comes out and people flock to it and [apparently] mindlessly claim it to be "better" or "higher end" even though all that really happened was the maker decided to cut corners and save time by offering a dumbed-down or simpler product (while still charging the same amount) and apparently did a good marketing job.  This type of phenomenon seems to be really prevalent in home design.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Since I've been a Linux-only user for more than 10 years now, I suppose I have no comment here except that MS seems to be in a bit of a rush to abandon Windoze 8.

 

As for building a new kernel (that is the correct spelling, BTW), that is not a problem in this day and age.  It is getting shut of all of the incestuous deals many MS apps have with the O/S that is the problem, and why there were several suits in the EU over some of it.  Some of the serious deficiencies in MS product are:

 

NTFS (New(?) Technology File System) with its MFT overflows lose physical space access from disks as the disks checker-board.  I've heard a story that on Windows 8 they kick in the defrag program regularly to help solve this, but this is not a good answer.

 

General Bloat: MS seems to think that people have unlimited budgets for equipment.  With the arrival of Vista (NT 6.0) their product became so large it drove me to Linux.  Operating kernels are supposed to be small and efficient.  Everything else is a Ring 3 app, some with privileges to call Ring 1 services, but nobody gets into Ring 0 except the hardware services interrupts.  The PC hardware has supported this for a long time.

 

Failure to take advantage of virtual memory properly:  MS is still using the old EXE format for executables.  This means that when a program is loaded for the first time it has to be virtualized; page and segment tables have to be built.  MS still uses a single file for its backing store (swap file) when it should be using a partition on the disks.  Compilers by now should be generating proper virtual operation units instead of stodgy old EXE files.

 

No outfit can serve two masters:  MS needs to break up into two business units that don't talk to each other except through interface documentation; the operating system unit should make no concessions to the applications unit.  The operating systems unit should do its best to support all the latest hardware and leave the software applications strictly alone.  The applications unit should never be allowed to see the code of the kernel.

 

Of course, in the Linux world, the whole shebang is open source, but there are ethics about making special deals in the kernel.  The idea of an open source system came from Project MAC at MIT, and the full source for Multics, the goal operating system, is public domain.

[jmsepe 2,038]

I'd stick to Windows 7. #enoughsaid 

[Cyclone Boom 16,875]

People hated Aero with a passion the world over.

Flat is the future, Windows is the last to fully embrace it.

Really, all this is subject to personal opinion.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only person who quite liked Aero, and think flat tiles are monotonous and lack visual depth. Microsoft designed Metro for touchscreen devices, intending to be a clean and simple interface. But it's flawed for those who wish to use mouse & keyboard -- the requirement to be lightweight in resources is not suited to powerful desktops, but the smartphones, tablets and low-end laptops. The big mistake here was creating a single OS for multiple devices, without enough options for users to configure features. Hopefully this new Windows will learn from this, giving people much more choice.

I'm not in a hurry to abandon Windows 7, and certainly won't until extended support ends in 2020. After this, I'm more inclined to switch to Linux than endure Metro's bloatware.

[coolwiththecool2 827]

The tiles are good, but not for a computer. Its designed for touch devices, and not laptop hybrid touch devices, but actual touch devices. Microsoft just ran out of ideas because they feel they would be pressured about innovation like Apple was when people realized nothing was super new and innovative about iPhone hardware anymore. Even though what they don't realize is OS X has been at this position for years and people still value it.

[Compdude787 916]

 

People hated Aero with a passion the world over.

Flat is the future, Windows is the last to fully embrace it.

Really, all this is subject to personal opinion.

 

I'm sure I'm not the only person who quite liked Aero, and think flat tiles are monotonous and lack visual depth. Microsoft designed Metro for touchscreen devices, intending to be a clean and simple interface. But it's flawed for those who wish to use mouse & keyboard -- the requirement to be lightweight in resources is not suited to powerful desktops, but the smartphones, tablets and low-end laptops. The big mistake here was creating a single OS for multiple devices, without enough options for users to configure features. Hopefully this new Windows will learn from this, giving people much more choice.

I'm not in a hurry to abandon Windows 7, and certainly won't until extended support ends in 2020. After this, I'm more inclined to switch to Linux than endure Metro's bloatware.

 

Absolutely agree with you. I've been strongly considering trying out Linux (probably Ubuntu) and dual-boot Windows 7. I'm going to keep using Windows 7 till 2020. If Microsoft is really going to be serious about integrating the Metro and desktop interface for everything, there should be no way to distinguish between these two different programs. They should all have a consistent shell! They still aren't doing that in Windows 9; the Metro apps are not organized together with the regular programs.

 

I would really love it if MS had split its Windows OS into two product lines, just as they did with NT: one line would be for desktop PCs, another would be for tablets, and the Metro start screen would only appear on the tablet version of the OS. Another thing I'd love to see them do is redesign the kernel and just make the OS more stable and secure. I'd love to see Windows approach the power, reliability, and stability of Unix. And, they need to re-do their updating to make it so that each new update, rather than just overriding the file it replaces, it should actually just overwrite it! How hard would that be? If they did this, updates would waste less space on your computer.

[Xenocity 343]

Since I've been a Linux-only user for more than 10 years now, I suppose I have no comment here except that MS seems to be in a bit of a rush to abandon Windoze 8.

 

As for building a new kernel (that is the correct spelling, BTW), that is not a problem in this day and age.  It is getting shut of all of the incestuous deals many MS apps have with the O/S that is the problem, and why there were several suits in the EU over some of it.  Some of the serious deficiencies in MS product are:

 

NTFS (New(?) Technology File System) with its MFT overflows lose physical space access from disks as the disks checker-board.  I've heard a story that on Windows 8 they kick in the defrag program regularly to help solve this, but this is not a good answer.

 

General Bloat: MS seems to think that people have unlimited budgets for equipment.  With the arrival of Vista (NT 6.0) their product became so large it drove me to Linux.  Operating kernels are supposed to be small and efficient.  Everything else is a Ring 3 app, some with privileges to call Ring 1 services, but nobody gets into Ring 0 except the hardware services interrupts.  The PC hardware has supported this for a long time.

 

Failure to take advantage of virtual memory properly:  MS is still using the old EXE format for executables.  This means that when a program is loaded for the first time it has to be virtualized; page and segment tables have to be built.  MS still uses a single file for its backing store (swap file) when it should be using a partition on the disks.  Compilers by now should be generating proper virtual operation units instead of stodgy old EXE files.

 

No outfit can serve two masters:  MS needs to break up into two business units that don't talk to each other except through interface documentation; the operating system unit should make no concessions to the applications unit.  The operating systems unit should do its best to support all the latest hardware and leave the software applications strictly alone.  The applications unit should never be allowed to see the code of the kernel.

 

Of course, in the Linux world, the whole shebang is open source, but there are ethics about making special deals in the kernel.  The idea of an open source system came from Project MAC at MIT, and the full source for Multics, the goal operating system, is public domain.

You do know that Linux kernal is a near line for line copy of the Unix kernal.

Right now Linux is currently around ~1% of the global marketshare by all tracking metrics, and the majority of Linux computers are servers.

OSX is currently holding ~10% of the global marketshare.

They are more advanced than Windows, but that doesn't equate to developers supporting them.

Right now developers and business are forcing Microsoft to hold on to legacy development tools.

 

So far the reason why software developers avoid Linux with a passion, is the fact that Linux users won't purchase software unless it is free.

The reasons why developers refuse to fully support OSX is due to the low marketshare of OSX and Apple's development tools and framework not being compatible with Windows legacy tools.

OSX users at least buy productivity software.

 

Windows will continue to dominant software wise as long as Microsoft allows legacy tools to run and allows anything to work on Windows.

It also helps that Windows has a big enough marketshare for even the smallest developers to turn a profit.

 

If one tech company gets broken up this decade, it will be Apple.

 

Right now the U.S. government is fighting Apple in court over:

1. Keeping music prices artificially low
2. Keeping movies prices artificially low
3. Keeping mobile apps prices artificially low
4. Forcing mobile phone prices artificially low
5. Fixing e-Book prices

U.S. government is asking the federal courts to ban Apple from signing contracts with media and music companies, forcing a massive price increase.

They are also asking iTunes to be taken away from Apple.

 

The EU is also investigating after numerous companies and consumers filed antitrust issues with the EU comission for:

1. Locking their OS to their computers
2. Locking most of their software to their OS
3. Locking iOS to their mobile devices
4. Using Lightning bolt adapter for their mobile devices as the connector
5. Not allowing iOS 7 and iOS 8 to run on all models of their mobile devices in existence including the original iPhone
6. iTunes is seen as a monoply in the digital media space, with keeps prices artificially low, below the natural market.

The EU will decide whether or not Apple should be legally forced to license out it's OSes and other software.

They will also decide whether or not Apple can have exclusive proprietary hardware as well.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Do you know that I could care less about all that.  All I care about really as far as PC operating systems is that the one I have does its job for what I want to do.  The mob can have Windoze or OS/X or whatever, and continue to pay exorbitant license fees.  I choose to have equivalent services for almost no cost at all to me.

 

My costs are an occasional application or driver, which are usually less than $20, and a little labour and some understanding of what is going on in front of me.  Since I've been on Linux, I have not had one system outage that was not recovered within seconds.  We one-percent must be the only real home computer users on the face of the planet.  The rest are caught up in the consumer jungle.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Right now developers and business are forcing Microsoft to hold on to legacy development tools.

Considering Micro$oft's past history of promoting nonstandard (not to mention substandard) packages and formats by pure fiat, I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe this.  Probably little coincidence that now as they're slowly but surely losing that ability, they're starting to squirm.

 

 

If one tech company gets broken up this decade, it will be Apple.

If Apple is broken up, it's going to have more to do with a lack of direction than any form of government action.  See also the early 1990s.  Btw, these claims would not be brought by the US government per se but rather RIAA lobbyists who are still sore with getting their rears handed to them by Apple, among others.  They've never accepted the concept of the post-Napster market and too bad.  They're useless, nobody likes them, and nobody ever did.  Useless middlemen who finally got pushed out of the market.

 

Underpriced music?  It costs $10-15 to buy a foil-coated plastic disc with songs on it, the same as a cassette cost (including moving parts!).  On iTunes, Rhapsody, or any number of music purchase/download sites you can buy an entire album for about the same cost ($0.99 to $1.29+ per track, 10 +/- tracks per album).  The physical form of the media is apparently meaningless.  I fail to see the "artificial" part of this.  Given the amount of piracy that still exists I would say the market is saying prices are still too high if any conclusion can really be drawn.  I would also say that the "sharing" capacity of a Rhapsody subscription makes it a better (cheaper) alternative, so long as you're not hung up on owning the physical files.  Where's the outcry over this?

 

"Everything is worth what its purchaser is willing to pay."

[RipRap 4,400]

...And Windows 10 has been announced.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412

[mrsmartman 200]

Detailed and thoughtful analysis. I agree with many of your comments. I will wait and see before installing Windows 9 for free.

Perhaps good programmers are usually not good designers except Steve Jobs.

[Xenocity 343]

Considering Micro$oft's past history of promoting nonstandard (not to mention substandard) packages and formats by pure fiat, I'm not sure I'm inclined to believe this.  Probably little coincidence that now as they're slowly but surely losing that ability, they're starting to squirm.

 

 

Actually with all the business folk and engineers I know always complain to no end about how Apple is always refusing to conform to the norm by imposing proprietary standards on the market.

Microsoft is considered the company that follows standards over proprietary ones.

 

You can easily find news articles about Apple and how they refuse to use industry norms on nearly ever aspect.

 

If Apple is broken up, it's going to have more to do with a lack of direction than any form of government action.  See also the early 1990s.  Btw, these claims would not be brought by the US government per se but rather RIAA lobbyists who are still sore with getting their rears handed to them by Apple, among others.  They've never accepted the concept of the post-Napster market and too bad.  They're useless, nobody likes them, and nobody ever did.  Useless middlemen who finally got pushed out of the market.

 

Underpriced music?  It costs $10-15 to buy a foil-coated plastic disc with songs on it, the same as a cassette cost (including moving parts!).  On iTunes, Rhapsody, or any number of music purchase/download sites you can buy an entire album for about the same cost ($0.99 to $1.29+ per track, 10 +/- tracks per album).  The physical form of the media is apparently meaningless.  I fail to see the "artificial" part of this.  Given the amount of piracy that still exists I would say the market is saying prices are still too high if any conclusion can really be drawn.  I would also say that the "sharing" capacity of a Rhapsody subscription makes it a better (cheaper) alternative, so long as you're not hung up on owning the physical files.  Where's the outcry over this?

 

"Everything is worth what its purchaser is willing to pay."

 

Apple of the 90s suffered from a power struggle between Jobs and Sculley.

The board sided with Sculley and forced Jobs out of the company.

Jobs' vision was seen as too radical and too expensive by the board.

The board ran the company.

 

Right now U.S. government is unhappy with the penalties the Judge issued on Apple for losing the e-Book anitrust case regarding iBooks store.

Apple was forced to pay millions in damages to the government which in turn was issued to consumers in the form of Kindle credit, and was forced to accept a antirust monitor to keep watch on iTunes and iBooks to ensure fair play.

Apple was found guilty for colluding with publishers on e-Book prices, which caused e-Book prices to up instead of down.

The U.S. government is debating on whether or not to appeal the case, because the believe it is in the consumers and market's best interest to break up iTunes and ban Apple from signing contracts with different media and recording companies.

 

The U.S. and EU regulators claim Apple has set the price of music far below the natural market point for music.

They claim Apple is abusing their massive market share of digital music (75%+  marketshare of digital music, ~40% total music marketshare) by forcing companies and artists to Apple's pricing models.

They also claim this has made it impossible for any other retailers/merchants/services to fairly compete against Apple.

Other retailers/merchants/services have filed antitrust claims as well.

 

Price of a  product is normally set by the company that produces it basing it on supply, demand, and costs of production.

CDs are priced between $10-$20, this includes the production of CDs, shipping, distribution, and retailer mark up.

iTunes digital music was originally set at a price of $.99, because 5 major music studios banked on Sony (who owns BMG) to develop digital music store and program, Sony failed to do the project thus leaving Apple as the sole option and forcing 5 major studios to agree to Jobs demand.

Apple in 2011 (or was it 2012) agreed to allow $1.29 for new songs in order to compete against Microsoft who was bankrolling the 5 major studios with blank checks to get them to support Zune.

 

According to economics the $.99 and $1.29 price on iTunes is well below the equilbrum pricing (where supply meets demand) aka the natural price point. This in the short run benefits consumers leading to a monopoly in the long run.

It also means the price of digital music should be significantly higher than the current prices.

 

Lastly Apple is also facing issues from the movie and TV studios who are demanding higher prices for their goods.

 

Soon the regulators of both U.S. and EU will decide the fate of iTunes and digital music.

 

Also Rhapsody lost a U.S. copyright case and was forced to pay out millions in damages and agree to huge licensing terms to the RIAA.

All sites that stream music and radio have licensing contracts for all the content, which is makes very little profit due to the licensing costs (same goes for iTunes radio). 

 

The last major threat to Apple is their own shareholders who are claiming Tim Cook and co. are not running the company in the best interest of the shareholders. They are claiming Tim Cook and co. are not selling enough of every product and are unhappy with the profit margins on all the products. The shareholders are taking Apple to court over all of it, claiming Apple isn't maximizing profits for investors.

 

...And Windows 10 has been announced.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412

Well there goes 9...

At least they have delayed it until later next year.

[Sabretooth78 808]

 

 

You can easily find news articles about Apple and how they refuse to use industry norms on nearly ever aspect.

 

[snip]

 

Price of a  product is normally set by the company that produces it basing it on supply, demand, and costs of production.

CDs are priced between $10-$20, this includes the production of CDs, shipping, distribution, and retailer mark up.

iTunes digital music was originally set at a price of $.99, because 5 major music studios banked on Sony (who owns BMG) to develop digital music store and program, Sony failed to do the project thus leaving Apple as the sole option and forcing 5 major studios to agree to Jobs demand.

Apple in 2011 (or was it 2012) agreed to allow $1.29 for new songs in order to compete against Microsoft who was bankrolling the 5 major studios with blank checks to get them to support Zune.

 

 

I never said Apple didn't (you'll note I was trying to be careful not to single them out, but this thread and issue isn't about Apple as much as every Micro$oft fanboy tries to make it in defense of their overlord which is dying the death of a thousand cuts.  From my experience, Apple's non-compliance is more of a hardware issue.  Firewire vs. thunderbolt vs. USB, iPhone chargers and sh***y quality MagSafe adapters.  I hate their taste in strain relief on cords.  They look cheap and are cheap.  Micro$oft's issue, on the other hand, is the bane of software production and innovation.  There must be truth to the "Ballmer Peak".

 

While I've never been one to gloat, I'd be remiss if I didn't say how much I enjoy being able to run any of MS's poorly written bloatware (although I've finally weened myself of it aside from work - which unfortunately isn't my choice), anything open source or any Mac software equally well on my MBP.  Hilariously, my experience is that MS's garbage will often run better on a Mac in BootCamp or an emulator better than on a similarly spec'd Windows box.  So tell me more about non-standard.  Or tell any Linux user.

 

Full disclosure:  My loyalty to Apple ends at OS X.  I own an Android phone and a Sansa mp3 player.  I have no desire to own an iPhone, in fact my next "upgrade" will probably be back to a flip phone.  My loyalty to Micro$oft was severed in 2008 and fully closed earlier this year when I discovered Wine.  Linux is a curiosity to me and I would readily embrace it in a post-Apple world.

 

Regarding the cost of the CD.  Fine.  Say all CDs cost $20 and have 12 tracks.  (Doubtful anybody would argue that is a generously conservative estimate.)  That's $1.67 per track.  Eliminate all (or most of) the costs of shipping, distribution and middleman markup as the internet makes these irrelevant.  Also gone is the cost of production tied to the physical media.  Now I admit I'm grasping a bit here for ignorance, but I doubt those costs are a negligible percentage of the total, if you take into account what those costs are for every other product on the market as a rough guideline.

 

Oh, and the Zune....isn't worthy of a comment.  Supposedly you could ask Bill Gates' kids for their opinion on that.  See also: death of a thousand cuts.

 

Anyway, allow me to bring this thread back onto topic...

 

 

...And Windows 10 has been announced.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29431412

Well there goes 9...

At least they have delayed it until later next year.

 

 

Where are we now...cut # 614?  Is anybody actually keeping track?

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

I am sitting on the same BBC thread that made this announcement.  Amazing what a little push-back will do, eh?

[Xenocity 343]

Hilariously, my experience is that MS's garbage will often run better on a Mac in BootCamp or an emulator better than on a similarly spec'd Windows box.

 Yup I know, my Macbook Pro is the only computer I own.

 

 

So tell me more about non-standard.  Or tell any Linux user.

Like I said, I know plenty of engineers, business folk, and even some software developers.

They are all glued to Microsoft due to "industry standards" and the development tools.

Enterprise ❤ Microsoft due to "standards" and "compliance"

I don't agree with it, but I don't set the rules.

 

Where are we now...cut # 614?  Is anybody actually keeping track?

 

Actually Windows 10 is indeed the 10th Windows release with the full GUI (if you count 8.1 as seperate OS like Microsoft does).

It would be the 13th consumer release if you include 3.0 and before.

 

• Windows 10  = 10
• Windows 8.1 = 9
• Windows 8 = 8
• Windwos 7 = 7
• Windows Vista = 6
• Windows XP = 5
• Windows 2000 = 4
• Windows 98 = 3
• Windows 95 = 2
• Windows 3.1 = 1

[hym 358]

I have Windows 8 (I got it for free via a Microsoft promotion).  The answer to 3 questions determines whether I upgrade or not.

 

1. Will it cost me money?  (If its free to upgrade, I might.  If I have to pay for it, I won't.)
2. Will it install in place, or do I have to start fresh again?  (If it simply updates the existing installation, then I will install it.  If I have to start from scratch again, then it becomes a matter of priorities. )
3. Will my copy of Office 2013 still be valid after the upgrade?  (I got the full Office suite, all $3,000 worth of it, for $30 via another Microsoft promotion.  Microsoft simply cannot make a Start menu worth ruining that deal.)

 

Actually Windows 10 is indeed the 10th Windows release with the full GUI (if you count 8.1 as seperate OS like Microsoft does).

It would be the 13th consumer release if you include 3.0 and before.

 

• Windows 10  = 10
• Windows 8.1 = 9
• Windows 8 = 8
• Windwos 7 = 7
• Windows Vista = 6
• Windows XP = 5
• Windows 2000 = 4
• Windows 98 = 3
• Windows 95 = 2
• Windows 3.1 = 1

 

One of the little known facts about Windows is that the original software lineage of Windows died after XP.  When Microsoft decided to offer a specially branded server OS, Microsoft forked the Windows code line to develop it.  Microsoft realized that this was not sustainable in the long run from a technological standpoint, so for Windows Server 2003, Microsoft undertook the laborious process of writing a new operating system from the ground up.  Between the release of Windows Server 2003 and the start of work on Longhorn, the code name for Vista, Microsoft realized that it could no longer afford to maintain separate code lines for every operating system it sold, so the decision was made to begin consolidating everything around a common OS.  As such, the decision was made that Longhorn would be based on Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, and the code line that had existed from Windows 3.1 up to XP was broken.  All Windows OSes released since Vista have been based on the code Microsoft wrote for Windows Server 2003.

[Duke87 1,070]

Price of a  product is normally set by the company that produces it basing it on supply, demand, and costs of production.

CDs are priced between $10-$20, this includes the production of CDs, shipping, distribution, and retailer mark up.

iTunes digital music was originally set at a price of $.99, because 5 major music studios banked on Sony (who owns BMG) to develop digital music store and program, Sony failed to do the project thus leaving Apple as the sole option and forcing 5 major studios to agree to Jobs demand.

Apple in 2011 (or was it 2012) agreed to allow $1.29 for new songs in order to compete against Microsoft who was bankrolling the 5 major studios with blank checks to get them to support Zune.

 

According to economics the $.99 and $1.29 price on iTunes is well below the equilbrum pricing (where supply meets demand) aka the natural price point. This in the short run benefits consumers leading to a monopoly in the long run.

It also means the price of digital music should be significantly higher than the current prices.

 

Sony did develop a digital music store and player, it's called SonicStage. Ever heard of it? Yeah, a lot of people haven't but it does exist and it came preloaded on all computers manufactured by Sony. It utterly bombed in competition against Apple, though, not only because it failed to be sleek and cool but also because it is genuinely an inferior product to iTunes. The program has a lot of intentional glaring limitations designed to prevent piracy that in reality just render it very annoying and difficult to use.

 

Which brings me to the next point: to say that Apple is artificially depressing the price of music gives them too much credit. Music is cheaper than it used to be, yes, but the one square reason for this is because in the 21st century pirating music is pathetically easy to do and nigh impossible to prevent or stop. Record companies now have to compete in a marketplace where people can obtain any music they want for free if they see fit. THAT certainly places substantial downward pressure on the price.

 

One of the little known facts about Windows is that the original software lineage of Windows died after XP. 

 

Little known except to those of us who have attempted to play old games on Windows 7 and quickly discovered that the backwards compatibility ain't what it used to be.

 

Although to be fair there are also a lot of programs from the 90s which simply cannot run properly on any 64 bit system, even XP.

 

I personally don't like the tiles. I like the compactness of the old shell. I also never liked the Start tiles (which takes up the whole screen) and I also don't like the flat look of Windows 8. Therefore, I've installed Classic Shell and a Vista skin so I get rid of Windows 8's downsides.

 

This right here is why pointing to the graphics as a major reason not to like a particular version of Windows is silly. The graphics are just graphics and if you don't like them they are user-adjustable. I used to run XP on 95/98/2000 "Classic" style graphics when I was in high school because it allowed me to make the window frame colors anything I could produce an RGB code for rather than being stuck with a short list of presets. Windows 7 will still allow you to use that look if you like (although interestingly, not the XP look), and while I haven't gone that extreme I have been using "Windows 7 Basic" graphics as long as I've had it. I find Aero to be too flashy and distracting visually, and the Aero taskbar sucks because it groups together different windows of the same program, forcing you to click twice instead of only once to toggle between them. I much prefer the basic taskbar which you can make behave essentially the same way the taskbars in 95/98/2000 and XP did.

 

I do think it's kind of funny, though, that the 95/98/2000 look is considered "Classic". In my mind a Windows that doesn't have a program manager is not classic. But I guess the older DOS shell versions of Windows get little love since it seems a majority of people are either too young to remember them or did not yet own a computer at the time they were current.

 

Having cut my teeth on Windows 3.1.1 as a lad, I must say it is somewhat amusing that "it has no start button!" is everyone's first complaint about Windows 8. The start button (and indeed the entire taskbar) did not exist prior to Windows 95, and I would argue that going from 3.1.1 to 95 was even more of a radical jump in how Windows works than going from 7 to 8. If you think learning to live without a start button is an adjustment, you've never experienced learning to live without "exit to DOS".

 

Alas, people have more of a flair for the dramatic today than they did 20 years ago, and nowadays we go crazy complaining about things that previously we may have just learned to get used to.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

If Windows 8.1 is Windows 9, will that means that we get another bad version next? It seems an oddly occuring pattern in every Windows version: the odd versions (3.1, 98, XP, 7) are usually good, while the even versions (95, ME, Vista, are usually bad or unneccesary. Will this pattern continue?

[Hamish 1,369]

Will this pattern continue?

 

I think that will be determined by how well it runs on mobile devices, and if there are any trade offs from that which effect the traditional desktop workspace. Its a bold move creating a unified operating system, but there are certain interfaces that work well with touch screens and others that work better with a mouse and keyboard. I'm not sure that the tiles are the right way to go, but then again, I haven't used the system so can't make any assumptions. In my mind, if they don't get the desktop right, then the trend will probably continue, but it will be interesting to see if their approach works.

[MandelSoft 2,769]

 

I personally don't like the tiles. I like the compactness of the old shell. I also never liked the Start tiles (which takes up the whole screen) and I also don't like the flat look of Windows 8. Therefore, I've installed Classic Shell and a Vista skin so I get rid of Windows 8's downsides.

 

This right here is why pointing to the graphics as a major reason not to like a particular version of Windows is silly. The graphics are just graphics and if you don't like them they are user-adjustable.

 

 

The point with Windows 8 is that this is not the case. You have to install third party software to get the old start menu back.

 

The Vista skin for me is just a bonus; an ugly UI is not a criterion to reject an O/S, but lacking functionality is one...

 

I find Aero to be too flashy and distracting visually, and the Aero taskbar sucks because it groups together different windows of the same program, forcing you to click twice instead of only once to toggle between them. I much prefer the basic taskbar which you can make behave essentially the same way the taskbars in 95/98/2000 and XP did.

You can still do that with Windows 7 and 8. Right-click on the taskbar, click "Properties" and set Task bar buttons to either "Combine when task bar is full" or "Never combine". This will make the labels appear again. I've always set this option to "Combine when full" ever since I use Windows 7 (on my university) or 8 (at home).

 

Having cut my teeth on Windows 3.1.1 as a lad, I must say it is somewhat amusing that "it has no start button!" is everyone's first complaint about Windows 8. The start button (and indeed the entire taskbar) did not exist prior to Windows 95, and I would argue that going from 3.1.1 to 95 was even more of a radical jump in how Windows works than going from 7 to 8. If you think learning to live without a start button is an adjustment, you've never experienced learning to live without "exit to DOS".

Alas, people have more of a flair for the dramatic today than they did 20 years ago, and nowadays we go crazy complaining about things that previously we may have just learned to get used to.

 

The thing is that with the removal of the start button, Microsoft actually REMOVED functionality that was there in the previous version. I have used both the Metro Start and Classic Shell in Windows 8. After one month of using the Metro start, I installed an alternative start menu (Pokki Start, which was great until the functionality got downhill...) and boy, how I've missed the good old start menu! It just works so much quicker and it has some convenient features Metro Start doesn't have:

• It does not take up the whole screen, only a portion
• It packs files together in directories (no really?). Metro Start puts everything on the same screen, including readmes and other bloat you don't want see, which makes it hard to find the actual program...
• You can quickly access useful locations on your PC, such as My Computer, My Documents, your User folder and (most importantly) the Control Panel. Try to find the control panel in Windows 8 stock...
• Moreover, try to find the shut down button in Metro Start! It's really hard to find! In the classic shell, it's just a button in the main start menu.
• There is a start button to click on to open the menu. You don't have to remember keystrokes or wher you should put your mouse to open start. It's clear that you should click there right from the start. Windows 8 Metro doesn't seem to be as straightforward as the rest of Windows is...

I therefore have my reasons why I think the Metro interface is poorly designed and I prefer Classic Shell over that. However, I think Gnome Classic outperforms both (but this is only available for Linux users); I like that interface better since it automatically organises all your programs and splits up the start menu in three different menus (applications, locations and general functions).

 

I'm still being skeptical about Windows 10, just as I was about SimCity 2013 two years ago...

Best,

Maarten

[Duke87 1,070]

 

I find Aero to be too flashy and distracting visually, and the Aero taskbar sucks because it groups together different windows of the same program, forcing you to click twice instead of only once to toggle between them. I much prefer the basic taskbar which you can make behave essentially the same way the taskbars in 95/98/2000 and XP did.

You can still do that with Windows 7 and 8. Right-click on the taskbar, click "Properties" and set Task bar buttons to either "Combine when task bar is full" or "Never combine". This will make the labels appear again. I've always set this option to "Combine when full" ever since I use Windows 7 (on my university) or 8 (at home).

 

Yeah, that's how I have it set. Basic theme and "combine when full". I'm not sure whether it's possible to do this in Aero or not, I never tried. But when I first got this computer I played with some settings and made my taskbar look like this:

and I like it.