Windows 10: Can someone tell if Windows 9 will not be like windows 8?

Well darn a rumor for a while, I guess I am the last to know. *Smile

 

I agree...full Aero is needed, not that awful flat look 8 currently has *Wink

 

Seriously? People like Aero? It looks so dated, and I hated theat glow/glassy effect around the window border's text.

 

Aero looks dated? And Window 8's flat look looks modern? If so, I don't like modern!

 

Why not go back to DOS?*Roflmao2*Roflmao2

 

LOL!

 

"In some ways, the most interesting thing about Threshold is how it recasts Windows 8 as the next Vista. It's an acknowledgment that what came before didn't work, and didn't resonate with customers. And though Microsoft will always be able to claim that Windows 9 wouldn't have been possible without the important foundational work they had done first with Windows 8—just as was the case with Windows 7 and Windows Vista—there's no way to sugarcoat this. Windows 8 has set back Microsoft, and Windows, by years, and possibly for good."

~ http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/th...hip-april-2015

If it does turn out that Threshold/Win9 does make people think Win8 was a bust, then that would be a grand shame. There's nothing wrong with Windows 8, other than it forced certain things which could easily have been optional and most people would have been happy. And I blame Steven Sinofski for that.

Win8 (Sinofski):
- No boot to desktop.
- No start button.
- No start menu.
- No modern apps in Desktop windows.

8.1:
- Has boot to desktop.
- Has start button.
- No start menu.
- No modern apps in Desktop windows.

Threshold:
- Has boot to desktop.
- Has start button.
- Has start menu.
- Has modern apps in Desktop windows.
Have toggles during the initial installation boot where people can choose which way they want to run Windows/how they want it to look.

Other than some people still liking and wanting Aero, which could become a prebuilt theme, where's the problem with Windows 8 now? MS doesn't need to throw the baby out with the bathwater and have the uninformed masses believe they are validated in thinking that '8 is the new Vista, yup'.

 

I agree. But Microsoft have still to initialise a statement of their own, regarding the next OS.(The name is still a "maybe", not a fact)
The missing start menu gave me no problems. I never did use Aero, so, essentially, Windows 8.1 was no big deal for me.
The appearance of any OS, up to a certain point, of course, has never, for me, been a principal consideration. Navigation (remember the huge change from XP to Vista?) was important. But providing functions were not any more difficulty to get to, it was merely a new learning experience.
But, on the rumours so far, I am not about to jump to the conclusion that it is a Microsoft face saver, or a massive update doing, roughly, the same thing.
Last thing I ever heard, many months ago, was that Miicrosoft were rather looking towards having cloud operation, with a web based facilities, rather than a computer based OS - BUT, I am not starting a rumour - I know nothing!
"I have heard from an outsider" Hmm. Not too far away from Paul Thurrot and Mary Foley's "Sources"

 

The most important things that people are looking forward to are Areo? Seriously?
Areo adds nothing to the system other than eye candy, that is it. And you can get that from WindowBlinds if you seriously want it. it's not and should never be an integral part of any OS.

I want better functionality, The graphics are fine for me as they are.

I want Modern UI Apps on the desktop in Windowed Mode, that have all the same features as if they were Full screen or Windowed.
The ability to swipe them away and back in, gadget modern apps, some of the concept screens shown in a another thread here, would be awesome to have.

More cross platform compatibility and sharing/synching over home/business WiFi, not someone else's cloud services. Skydrive is fine for certain things, but I would like to keep more of it internal/private. Let us put Homegroup to better use.

There are a lot of things that Windows should be but isn't. And it would be nice if it were.
But that can be said about every OS on the market.

Windows 8 is not a horrible attempt. Certain decisions were wrong, true.
but, it's not that bad.

Hopefully Win9 will bring in some better more futuristic features that are sadly lacking in all OS's to date.

 

Yup. They should have more glass, not less. Also it should be easier to program. The way it's going now desktop programs that look at least decent on every previous W flavor will look like crap on W8+. There's no real way to fix them accept revert to XP code. If OS is 7 do glass, else XP it. Blah. *Smile

 

Right. MS always has and always will "wrong foot" the programmer. It started all the way back with allowing spaces is file paths, and ensuring they will be there by putting programs in Program Files(note the space) thereby leaving those out of the loop in the lurch with "C:\Program is not a valid path" that we still see popping up today. The W7 equivalent is coaxing developers to spend all kinds of time with user draw code to get the glass, only to pull the rug out a very short time later.

It's an endless loop.

 

They would probably make Metro more usable on the desktop. Imho they should just fix the mess that Metro is and make a PC version of Windows 9 without the touchscreen stuff.

 

Well, throw my hat in the ring for the return of Aero. My machine and any I'm likely to buy this year is/will be plenty powerful enough for Aero themes. I spend a fair bit of time in front of my machine and yes, I want it to look good. Not flat, not something that looks like a phone or tablet. 8 looks more like 98 or even 3.1 than a modern O.S. imho of course.

View attachment 549 View attachment 550
I looked at 98 long enough. All things equal performancewise I will take Aero over these any day.

 

I hope they are not going to make the same mistake twice. If it was not for the new PC sales where 8.1 is forced on the customer, their sales would be approaching zero. Nobody in his right mind will pay money for an 8.1 license.

 

Yes, I believe that if they want to satisfy their base, this will have to be the absolute minimum. Anything less, and they'll be looking at yet another massive failure.