Posted on 01/13/2014 11:40:15 AM PST by SeekAndFind
SOFTWARE COBBLER Microsoft might be ready to abandon Windows 8 earlier than it planned in an attempt to reverse the slide in its fortunes.
The company might announce Windows 9 as early as April, reports claim, as it tries to distance itself from the poorly received Windows 8.
We reported on Friday that the Threshold project was being tipped as a major update for Windows 8, however according to Winsupersite it will instead be billed as a new Windows operating system version slated for release in April 2015.
Although the launch of Windows 8 has not been the disaster that Windows Vista was, this would confirm that Windows 8 has been another failure for the company and make Windows 9 another "do or die" product for Microsoft like Windows 7.
Big changes are likely to be in store for the new "Modern" interface that has been criticised for its lack of integration with the traditional Windows desktop environment. Many aspects of the "Modern" user interface have a tacked on feel to traditional Windows PC users, but without enough innovation to lure new ones.
Other major changes that have alienated users include the withdrawal of support for DVD playback out of the box, which is now a premium feature limited to Professional Edition users. Perhaps the most discussed change, however is the removal of the traditional Start Menu, which Microsoft considered uncecessary but has been the subject of a continuing campaign by users lobbying for its return.
A Start Button was reintroduced in Windows 8.1 along with a host of other features designed to answer the many critics of the operating system, however the new Start Button is simply a toggle switch between the "Modern" and traditional Windows Desktop interfaces and has failed to placate most users.
Paul Thurrott, the blogger who runs Winsupersite said that work on Windows 9 has not yet begun, so there will be no early version of it available at Microsoft's Build conference in April, although it's likely that there will be opportunities to work with the upgrade that's been leaked for the Windows 8.1 service pack.
Windows 1.0 sucked. No mouse.
Windows 2.0. Better, mouse support.
Windows 3, was ok. Windows 3.11 for Workgroups even better.
NT 4.0. My goto OS for a long time.
Win 95. Major change from 3.11. Liked it.
Win 98. Fixed a few things from 95 that sucked.
Win 2k. Mixed bag.
ME sucked.
XP SP2 stopped the suckage XP had initially.
Server 2003 was ok. Still running this on 2 of my servers.
Vista was outright malware.
7 has turned out ok.
Server 2008 sucked. But R2 cured that. Running this on 3 of my servers.
Win 8 sucks. 8.1 sucks less, but is still annoying. More stable, faster, but sucks from my Net Admin standpoint. Doesn’t matter how fast it is or how I can tweak it if I can’t get my end users to want to use it.
Haven’t seen Server 2010 yet. Been working more with Linux, VMWare, and OSX these days.
Interested to see what direction they take 9.
486's and contemporary s/w can also do good work on audio files.
It was the user interface that caused the woes, not the OS beneath the hood. An office environment is Microsoft's bread and butter for the windows desktop OS. This new interface was completely different than all the windows before and very unintuitive. For the computer savvy this was a temporary, relatively minor annoyance. But for the typical office worker (such as a secretary) who isn't computer savvy it was a nightmare - everything was changed and they couldn't figure out how to work the thing. They are used to the way its always been and they pretty much spaz out when confronted with that magnitude of change.
Yup. 7/64 here. in 2 years I think I have had MAYBE 6-7 crashes. And that’s running all manner of software/games.
It dethroned XPsp2 for me as my favorite. XP I knew inside out. 7 I don’t have to because it just works. At this point it seems like diminishing returns to make a new OS. Until hardware needs something 7 can’t provide/adapt to, why bother?
Some of us actually used them to compute stuff with s/w personally written for true application specific conceptions.
But "work" works too.
Microsatan.
Since Windows XP is at EOL (end of life April 2014) I just finally upgraded my mom to Windows 7 on a generic computer i built 10 years ago. Seems to run fine after i found a video driver that would work with my old Geforce2. Windows 7 EOL is Jan 2020 so I’m in no hurry to embrace any new MS OS.
If you have Windows XP there are no more security updates after April 2014 so get upgraded or you’ll be at risk of malware like the VERY bad Cryptolocker Ransomware with unpatched security vulnerabilities.
http://blog.malwarebytes.org/intelligence/2013/10/cryptolocker-ransomware-what-you-need-to-know/
http://www.foolishit.com/vb6-projects/cryptoprevent/
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle
LOL! My wife almost had me do the same with her new laptop. But I installed Classic Shell (see post 29) and she’s been happy ever since.
Or Clippy!
What was wrong with 8?
How do I know this for certain?
I hear tell gov't computers are on Win 7.
I'm a Mac guy and I run Win 7 on a Mac Pro for the (shrinking) Windows-only work I need to do.
They did Windows 7 to copy Mac OS X, and it does a fair job. They did Windows 8 to copy iOS 6, and it also does a fair job, although it makes no sense on the desktop or in the enterprise.
I like it!
Micro = small: Satan exists on the other side of the Gates of Hell; founder of Company has the last name of Gates.
Very reasoned name nomination!
Vista makes Win 8 look good. I still hate the win 8 UI. Works on a tablet, not a laptop or desktop. I’m sticking with Win 7 for my Windows needs, though I primarily uses OSX.
Win 2000 Pro.
Perfect.
My very first desktop computer was a Micron PC Millennia RS3000 with Windows ME pre-installed (Best Buy) and I really thought it was the cat’s pajamas but what did I know!?
Bleuscreen 9.0
Window 7 good
Windows Vista sucks
Window XP good
Window ME sucks
98 SE ok
98 ok
95 so so
Windows 2000 was excellent
Well, Windows NT 3.51 was great, NT was finally ready for prime time.
Windows 95 was a much improved desktop.
Windows NT 4.0 was NT with the Windows 95 user interface and it was awesome.
Windows 98 SE was great but ME was a joke.
Windows 2000 where they merged regular Windows with NT was awesome and brought Active Directory but it was starting to get bloated.
Windows XP and Windows 2003 server are both awesome.
Vista wasn't too bad but people didn't see much reason to move off of XP since XP was a rock and people would continue to use it if they keep it patched.
Windows 7 is awesome and I haven't used Windows 8 but the whole thing behind 8 was lame. I don't see the need for a touch screen on a regular desktop. No one wants to reach across their desk to operate their computer not to mention a streaked screen after a bag of chips.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.