Rumor: Windows 9 may be coming this fall

In light of Windows 8's failure to achieve Microsoft's "Windows everywhere" vision, the company may be eager to get a fresh start. Frequent Windows leaker Wzor claims that we could see a new version of Windows, possibly called Windows 9, at Microsoft's Worldwide Partner Conference this week, and that the new version will ship in the fall of this year.

The Windows 8.1 Start menu that's set to arrive in a future update.

The new information comes from a post on RU-Board (in Russian). BetaNews has posted a translation of the post here. If the information is accurate, the return of the Start menu will be a major feature of Windows 9, and Microsoft will trumpet its return in an accompanying advertising campaign. As for Windows 8.1, Wzor claims that the OS will receive one more major update, "Update 2," before it's relegated to security and bug-fix updates only.

While we have to treat any rumor like this with the appropriate skepticism, the details fit with CEO Satya Nadella's goal of "obsessing over [Microsoft's] customers." If users want the Start button and menu back, then it stands to reason that such a demand would shape future Windows development. Making the return of the Start menu the sole highlight of the next version of Windows would have to sting, though, given the company's ambitions for Windows 8's Modern UI. We should also see the Start menu return in a Windows 8.1 update, possibly lessening the impact of such a change in a new Windows version. Hopefully, there's more to Windows 9 than this rumor implies.

Comments closed
    • HisDivineOrder
    • 6 years ago

    I think he’s confused by the fact that a beta is likely to start in the Fall. I don’t think we’ll see a full release until next year.

    I doubt they’d bring Update 2 and then a couple of months later release Windows 9. It’d just make little sense, especially if they intend to make it so every Windows 8(.1(.1)) user upgrades to it (for free?).

    • Buzzard44
    • 6 years ago

    Epic rap battles of History:
    Windows Vistaaaa!
    VERSUS
    Windows 8!

    BEGIN!

    • Xenolith
    • 6 years ago

    It is coming in April 2015. We may see developer builds in the fall, but not the final retail version until next spring.

    • Dai
    • 6 years ago

    Just call it Windows 9X so when it fails, they can erase the 9 and use the same packaging. Or, use reflective packaging right and you have Windows XP. I hope their broad imagination in naming their new OS equals its features. Let’s have a contest: 1, 2, 3, START!

    • Ninjitsu
    • 6 years ago

    Really doubt it’s this year, unless:

    1. Win 8.1 Update 2 Episode VI Start Menu Edition will be called Windows 9.

    2. This rumour is getting confused with the Release Candidate/preview/Beta.

    • marraco
    • 6 years ago

    For some reason, I read “Rumor: Windows 9 may be coming this fail”

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    1. Microsoft, stop forcing everyone to have the same OS on their desktop and mobile devices. Apple was right.

    2. Flat colors still? When I first laid eyes on Windows 7, I can’t help but be awed by all the ‘glass’. Now after that everyone just seems to want to reinvent things and make flat colors and icons in vogue. Ugly, if you ask me. After all this time going from monochrome to CGA, EGA, VGA, Super VGA, 3D graphics, FSAA, fully programmable graphics chips… we go back to flat colors? What’s next, floppy disks?

    3. Metro is ugly. Ditch it.

    4. Make it easy to switch to other OSes. Win8 makes sure switching to Linux or even Windows 7 is a PITA.

    Edit 2 – oh, and please quit calling it the [i<]Charms Bar[/i<]. Ugh.

      • Ifalna
      • 6 years ago

      Aero’s eye candy and Windows 8s visual blandness is one of the main reasons why I stay on Windows 7.

      There, I outed my self as a shallow individual. ._.

        • MEATLOAF2
        • 6 years ago

        The lack of the shiny bits is pretty much my reasoning behind having chosen to ignore the existence of windows 8.

        Shallow or not, I like the look of Aero, and I can’t let it go so easily, especially when there are plenty of other reasons to stay away from win 8. For me, Aero seems to take away the blandness of looking at a flat screen, it gives it another dimension, and makes it feel like an environment to work in (even if only superficially, and barely) rather than a flat surface to wave a pointer around.

        Edit: I also like the rounded corners and the generally “soft” vibe I get when I have Aero windows open, it feels inviting to me. Not sure why they decided flat colors, shading, and sharp corners would be the way to go with win 8, but I think I’d rather not know.

        • TwoEars
        • 6 years ago

        My ideal OS would be Win8 with start menu, no metro and aero.

        That’d be slick.

        And Win8 does have a lot of improvements of Win7, but you won’t see them unless you really dig in and use the OS.

    • Generic
    • 6 years ago

    (pushes taped together bridge of heavy rimmed spectacles up to nose)

    Neither Foley nor Thurrott have said as much; therefore just a rumor.

    • Kougar
    • 6 years ago

    Some call it Windows 9. Some called it Windows 8.2. Some have called it Windows 8.1 Update 2. Some may even call it Windows 8.11 Update 1.

    Whatever it’s name, we’ve already known when it’s going to arrive!

      • keltor
      • 6 years ago

      Update 2 is a TOTALLY different thing coming in apparently August/September time frame. Windows 9/8.2 should be something released for XMas, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it does not make it.

    • Chrispy_
    • 6 years ago

    I really hope that W9 is more than just a de-metro’ed start-menu fix.

    Explorer needs some work, the flat graphics need some work, and the filesystem needs some work.
    How about you stop arsing around with silly little interface tweaks and actually build an [i<]OS[/i<]?

    • Krogoth
    • 6 years ago

    I like it better when it was called XP and 7.

    Protip: They are “fixed” versions of their predecessors.

    • southrncomfortjm
    • 6 years ago

    Here’s hoping they update Windows Media Center along with everything else. WMC is a great program that I use daily along with my InfiniTV4, but it really needs an update.

    At the very least, include is as part of the Windows 9 package by default so I don’t end up with a major downgrade just to get an updated OS with the start menu back where it should be.

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      Was there anything done to the wmc code base since 2008?
      I only recall part of wmc actually being removed/abandoned since then.

      I think its because only you and I uses it, and the team as moved on long time ago to work on more profitable sectors, like IPTV solutions.

      Wmc is just an old abandoned shell at this time,
      I believe even newer ms product dont support it at all, like the xbox1.
      So I don’t see ms changing their mind, wmc is a dead horse.

        • southrncomfortjm
        • 6 years ago

        I don’t either. One can hope, though without a WMC update I won’t have a reason to update from Windows 7.

          • Disco
          • 6 years ago

          I love WMC. I access it through my xbox360 and it’s how I play all the various videos I have on the shared network media drive on our TV.

          Would WMC (through the xbox) not work if I only had win 8 machines? Or an xbox 1?

            • keltor
            • 6 years ago

            The WMC in 8 and 8.1 is effectively identical to 7. It works the same with Xbox 360s, but fortunately the same old crappy issues actually plague the XB1. Buy a Roku and download Plex and you’ll never have to worry about it again.

    • geekl33tgamer
    • 6 years ago

    If this is released by say October this year, Windows 8 will of had the 2nd shortest lifetime between major releases of all their desktop Operating Systems:

    Windows 3.1: 3 years 3 months
    Windows 95: 3 years 1 month
    Windows 98: 2 years 4 months
    Windows 2K/ME: 11 and 9 months respectively
    Windows XP: 6 years 2 months
    Windows Vista: 2 years 7 months
    Windows 7: 4 years
    Windows 8: October 2012 Onwards

    Never realised Windows ME had such a short lifetime until I worked out the release dates. So, we taking bets on Windows 8 being replaced quicker than Vista did?

      • blastdoor
      • 6 years ago

      I thought I read somewhere that MS was going to try moving to a faster OS release schedule. My impression is that the idea is to roll out new features/ideas one by one, as they become feasible, rather than waiting to role everything up into a giant release like Vista.

      It seems to me that so long as they reduce the price for these smaller updates, the strategy makes a lot of sense. If nothing else, it enables them to get feedback from the marketplace on wacky ideas before they go too far down the rabbit hole. But I think there are more benefits than just that — is means users get access to new features more quickly. It also imposes discipline on MS engineers to get things done and to prioritize which new features get added first.

      The big downsides will be if they try to charge too high of a price for upgrades, and/or if the upgrade process is anything other than seamless/painless.

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 6 years ago

        Another downside is that the business/server market is going to be lagging far behind.

          • geekl33tgamer
          • 6 years ago

          Already are. My employer still hangs onto XP and has no plans to move yet (apparently none of our software will work anymore). It’s madness – They buy in brand new Toshiba laptops with Win 8 on them and wipe it off?

          We still use Office 2003 too. 🙁

            • Cataclysm_ZA
            • 6 years ago

            I guess he hasn’t learned yet that Windows 7 Professional includes XP Mode.

            • gamerk2
            • 6 years ago

            Which doesn’t solve every problem. Nevermind the cost of licensing and potential driver problems for older HW. It really comes down to: Is it worth the money to upgrade the OS if everything is working? And for business, the answer is always NO.

            • Whispre
            • 6 years ago

            The proper business answer is yes, because you no longer get security updates for XP and older. Security should be and is a HUGE driver for any competent IT department.

            Additionally, improvements like bit locker and increased functionality in Group Policy are more huge drivers that businesses should be paying attention to, and another huge reason to move forward.

        • jihadjoe
        • 6 years ago

        Microsoft pretty much has the upgrade process down to a T. If you look around there’s actually a video where someone updates all the way from Windows 1.0 on DOS to Windows 7 and stuff just works. Even ends up with some funky color settings in his theme because certain colors from the old versions were preserved.

        Edit: [url<]https://youtube.com/watch?v=vPnehDhGa14[/url<]

    • geekl33tgamer
    • 6 years ago

    Ok, having recently just bought Windows 8.1 – they had better NOT roll out those start menu updates I saw a few months back under a new OS only, requiring you to empty your wallet even further to get them.

    • blastdoor
    • 6 years ago

    I think Microsoft has stumbled onto a great business model here. Introduce an OS that 85 to 90 percent of users love. Then take away the features they love most in the next version. Then, take two or three versions adding those features back in. Charge for each interim version.

    I bet Windows 10 brings back Aero.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 6 years ago

    I think this should be Windows 8.1 Update 2, if only as a good will gesture to make everyone feel better. Start menu + windowed ModernUI apps would turn Windows 8.x into a solid PR win.

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      That might actually work, but Microsoft seem to be just a tad ham-handed when it comes to PR ideas.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 6 years ago

        Yeah I don’t trust them to do it on their own right now, unless Satya Nadella understands the world outside of Microsoft better than Ballmer did.

    • unclesharkey
    • 6 years ago

    They better offer it at a steep discount or I will just stick with win7 until they end support for it.

    • LaChupacabra
    • 6 years ago

    Removing the Start Menu was like taking the knobs off of every door in your house. Sure it sounds nice not to have to interface with the same thing every time you want to use a door, but it doesn’t change the fact it is a terrible idea.

    • Convert
    • 6 years ago

    I have the feeling that the launch dates of 8.1U2 and 9 are getting mixed up somewhere along the lines.

    I think U2 will be out this year and 9 will be out next. I hope I’m wrong as I’m looking forward to 9.

    • slaimus
    • 6 years ago

    I think its premature to say there won’t be any feature changes to Windows 8, only bugfixes.This also contradicts MS’s own website [url<]http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?p1=16799[/url<] where it says mainstream support for Window 8 ends in 2018.

    • Aliasundercover
    • 6 years ago

    You would have thought the business world learned from New Coke when you climb down you do it decisively. I predict Microsoft will undo only another small fraction of the crippling damage they did to Windows and themselves while creating yet more planned obsolescence.

    As pleasing as it is to see Microsoft sink I fear they will drag open personal computers to the bottom in their draft. New form factors like phones and tablets are mostly locked up like game consoles, much like Microsoft wants to do to us with their not-metro.

      • Concupiscence
      • 6 years ago

      Ultimately the software that runs on phones and tablets has to be written, compiled, and debugged somewhere else. Not everyone can afford Apple, but if Microsoft renders itself sufficiently unattractive then something else – say, a fine-tuned Linux with backing from at least one major company with focus and funding – could carve out a niche for itself. I’m not greedy. 10% for Apple, 10% for Player #2, and 80% for Microsoft in this space would still make things a lot better.

    • DPete27
    • 6 years ago

    This is just Windows 8.2

      • Concupiscence
      • 6 years ago

      Nah, that’s Windows 8.1 Update 2, the third consecutive release that refuses to admit it’s just a service pack.

        • Firestarter
        • 6 years ago

        After which the wait is on for Point Release 3 for Windows 8.1 Update 2

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        Wouldn’t it really be Widows 8.0 SP3?

      • gamerguy76
      • 6 years ago

      I don’t think you can charge for windows 8.2, however if its windows 9, cha-ching, ring up the sales! mo money for micro$oft!

        • DPete27
        • 6 years ago

        Jeez, with marketing skills like that, Microsoft would probably offer you a job!

    • MadManOriginal
    • 6 years ago

    9×9=81
    81/10=8.1
    Half-Life 3 confirmed.

      • PrincipalSkinner
      • 6 years ago

      Makes perfect sense.

    • sweatshopking
    • 6 years ago

    YOU PEOPLE WILL STILL WHINE.

      • uni-mitation
      • 6 years ago

      The moment that people quit whining is the moment they stop giving a frack about it. It is better for Microsoft to listen to the whines with money in their pockets or perish.

        • NeelyCam
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]stop giving a frack about it[/quote<] Actually, using 'frack' as a curse word is quite appropriate, as fracking is pure evil. Obama should ban fracking, and make everyone use only carbon-free energy sources.

          • uni-mitation
          • 6 years ago

          Unrelated to the topic, I still wish to know what you think about it. I might learn something.

          What are your plans for the new emerging energy crisis? The population of the world keeps increasing. It is putting a great stress on our food chain. The pollution of greenhouse gases is causing Global Warming. In the future, many refugees will be displaced, affected by natural disasters made worse by global warming. The oil supply will peak in the next decade or so if it hasn’t already.

          More people > more food and energy > more pollution > more competition for dwingling resources > more wars.

          So what is your master plan besides banning fracking, and everyone using carbon-free sources assuming these sources can keep with the outpacing demand. Nuclear isn’t as safe as people think. Wind and solar require a great amount of invested resources in infrastructure, and continuing maintenance. Cars are still reliant on petrol.

            • ludi
            • 6 years ago

            He was baiting you.

            • ssidbroadcast
            • 6 years ago

            Then I’d say he is a master [spoiler<]baiter[/spoiler<].

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            solar winds solar winds, and nucular is safe enough.

            I just read an article on Time about this solar power plant that uses molten salt to store the energy as heat, to release it when demand requires. Pretty interesting.

            Petrol cars? Horrible. Obama needs to [url=http://time.com/2974984/finland-helsinki-private-car-obsolete-environment-climate-change-transportation/<]ban cars[/url<]. Oil should be used only for fertilizing crops to buy time for optimizing food production better. Using it for moving cars and heating houses is a bad idea.

            • oldog
            • 6 years ago

            Cool! A nucular powered iPad. Where can I get one? My guess is I’ll need a lead jock strap as well.

            [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3qy1XFLRVc[/url<]

            • dWind
            • 6 years ago

            Well in france iPads are nucelar powered and their work just fine without led jackets.

            • dWind
            • 6 years ago

            Edit: double post

            • oldog
            • 6 years ago

            Wow, three posts and not a one with the proper spelling of NUCLEAR. Go figure.

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            And your prepretuating incorrect spelling.

            I guess you went to public school

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          [quote<]Obama should ban fracking[/quote<] TOTALLY!!! IT'S BAD FOR THE ENVIRONMENT!!! -- Middle eastern oil shieks & Chinese high-sulfur coal producers

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 6 years ago

            Democrats end goal is to ban everything thus turning us into a 3rd world country slave state. Kind of like North Korea.

            Here’s an obvious example:
            [url<]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc16H3uHKOA[/url<] [quote<]In a recent TED conference presentation, Microsoft billionaire Bill Gates, who has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to new vaccine efforts, speaks on the issue of CO2 emissions and its effects on climate change. He presents a formula for tracking CO2 emissions as follows: CO2 = P x S x E x C. P = People S = Services per person E = Energy per service C = CO2 per energy unit Then he adds that in order to get CO2 to zero, "probably one of these numbers is going to have to get pretty close to zero." Following that, Bill Gates begins to describe how the first number — P (for People) — might be reduced. [/quote<] Anyone who believes this spiel is either a moron or a useful idiot.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            HAHAHAHAHAHHAA BILL GATE’S IS A MAN EVERYONE RESPECTS. EVERYONE. LIBERALS FOR HIS PHILANTHROPY AND CONSERVATIVES FOR HIS BUSINESS.
            WHEN WILL YOU GUYS LEAVE OUR ALIEN OVERLORDS ALONE? THESE REPTILES KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR US.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 6 years ago

            Respect or not, CO2=PxSxExC is retarded, not to mention when he says we have to get this down to ZERO, he’s downright advocating genocide. Liberals are nothing but Nazi’s wearing pink boots.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Yeah, that’s what he’s saying. He’s saying we should murder everyone, not that population growth needs to be slowed and potentially reversed depending on the ability of technology to offset the issues it causes. Nothing rational, he’s clearly a nazi.

            • superjawes
            • 6 years ago

            …I’m going to regret responding to you…

            Even from your own description of CO2=P*S*E*C, that equation is useful as long as you don’t assume the worst in people and ACCUSE BILL GATES OF GENOCIDE (or accuse him of wanting one).

            What he’s saying is that each variable has an effect on CO2 emissions. He’s saying that there are [i<]four[/i<] variables that can reduce it. What I like about the equation is that it takes into acount all aspects that we can improve upon. We can reduce services per person, making ends meet with less. We can reduce the energy each service uses by increasing efficiency. And we can reduce the carbon footprint of the energy used by utilizing more renewables. Couple more points. First, the shortcoming of this is that it takes each variable somewhat seprately, when we should be looking at them together. Of course, that could just be your skewed interpretation showing. Second, you can acknowledge that population is a problem WITHOUT advocating GENOCIDE. Environments can only handle a certain number of a species. If you over populate, the environment will change and cut into the population. It's not crazy to suggest that [i<]maybe there are more humans than the planet can actually support.[/i<] (and again, one can say that WITHOUT advocating GENOCIDE.)

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 6 years ago

            Maybe, but Bill Gates was advocating it, and it was quite obvious in how he said it. Bare minimum he was advocating soft kill / population control.

            Maybe there are too many people, idk and that’s debatable, but that’s not an excuse to make stuff up about carbon dioxide being a pollutant and then Nazi all around with Green Jack Boots. Especially when none of these regs apply to China, and this will devastate our economy.

            Green / Pink doesn’t make being a Nazi OK. Fascist policies are never OK, and there is absolutely no legitimate justification for what democrats are trying to do, especially when it’s based on lies. Kind of like how the Patriot Act and the Invasion of Iraq had no legitimate justification. None of this garbage should be getting through Congress when it obviously violates the constitution and limits our “free” society. Democrats are overstepping the bounds of what our gov should be allowed to do, the rest of us realize it and are saying, “you’ve done enough, back off control freaks.”

            One of the biggest points to ponder with CO2 is “carbon credits”. Look it up. It’s a scam invented at Enron, which introduces middlemen/fees to energy production. Vampire leeches like Al Gore can simply own non-productive energy plants, then sell credits to productive plants. It’s free money for doing nothing, and that raises your elec prices. Total scumbaggery that doesn’t do anything to change pollution, not to mention co2 isn’t pollution. You just pay higher prices, and the leeching con artists get super rich off their nonsense fees. This is basically slavery where you fund your own enslavement.

            • superjawes
            • 6 years ago

            Yup…I regret responding…

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 6 years ago

            So basically you totally agree with soft-kill, population control, credit scams, and lying about pollution that doesn’t exist?

            Because that’s exactly what you inferred.

      • ssidbroadcast
      • 6 years ago

      You [i<]people[/i<]?! >: |

        • sweatshopking
        • 6 years ago

        You’re one of the worst. You miss fundamental user knowledge, like right clicking on a touch screen, which is the same since XP, and then decide stuff sucks cause you don’t know how to use it and they make it sooo hard.

          • ssidbroadcast
          • 6 years ago

          Hm. Consider this: the first time I picked up an iPad, I was never confused about how to use it, or how to “right-click”. Because you never need to “right-click” anything in iOS.

          That’s the difference between designing a device for a specific purpose, and trying to affix a purpose to a device.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Consider this: You don’t right click in metro. Its not as productive as the desktop, and neither is an iPad. My point was that you are years behind in your understanding of the os, but complain about it without knowing anything about it. You’re not alone in that, but its not really accurate criticism.

            • ssidbroadcast
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]Its not as productive as the desktop[/quote<] Right. So then why does Microsoft keep insisting otherwise? I stand by my point.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Nobody ever insisted otherwise. Please provide a source.

            • ssidbroadcast
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]Please provide a source.[/quote<] All I did was google "Microsoft Surface" and it was the [url=http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r41/sidpix/surface3_YOUPEOPLE_zps8a35daaf.png<]first hit.[/url<] ([i<]The red was added by me.[/i<]) [url=http://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-us/?SEMID=1&WT.srch=1&ocid=NYX_SEM_google_FAM_SURFACE_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_microsoft%20surface&wt.mc_id=NYX_SEM_google_FAM_SURFACE_BRAND_NULL_LEARN_microsoft%20surface<]Source.[/url<]

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            The surface has a keyboard and the desktop. Granted, the keyboard is “optional”, but its certainly part of the replacing your desktop part. A surface is not an iPad. Its a WAY more productive device. Largely thanks to the addition of things like right clicking and multiple apps, which apple seems to be copying thanks to its huge increase in productivity.
            In the end it doesn’t matter. My point was you’re missing basic information on thr os but whine about it anyway. That still stands.

            • ssidbroadcast
            • 6 years ago

            No, none of that stands. I was able to back myself up. You haven’t.

            [quote<]things like right clicking and multiple apps, which apple seems to be copying thanks to its huge increase in productivity.[/quote<] Please, provide some evidence that Apple is going to introduce right-clicking into iOS.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            What? You understand core windows features? No you don’t. You say yourself you haven’t used it in years.
            You know I meant copying multitasking, which they likely are. I doubt they’ll bring right clicking. They haven’t positioned IOS as a productive os, as it clearly isn’t. And that makes some sense for the user base.

            You’re link shows that Microsoft makes a touch screen device with a mouse and keyboard that has the desktop and a mouse pad with two clicks. That’s not an iPad. You didn’t back anything up, as its completely irrelevant. A surface isn’t an iPad. And ill give you the original dance ad was as stupid and pointless as an apple ad, they’ve, as your link shows, always positioned it as a productivity device, and not an iPad.
            An iPad is easier to use. Its also less capable. That’s not a bad thing, but its reality.

            You still don’t know anything about windows, you still will whine, even though it means NOTHING TO YOU because you wouldn’t use it ever. If you can’t even right click you shouldn’t be critiquing a desktop os.

            • ssidbroadcast
            • 6 years ago

            I like how you…

            • Assume I don’t understand Windows, and then claim that I haven’t used it in years. Yet, [url=http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r41/sidpix/usingWin8_zps869db2fc.jpg<]here I am[/url<] using it to write this very post. I use a Windows8 laptop ~40 hours a week at work. • You looked at my link, a link I posted of the Microsoft Surface 3 that purports to be productive, which I assert is how Microsoft has positioned the product, and we BOTH agreed that they aren't productive... yet then backpedal and say this is "a touchscreen device with a mouse and keyboard". Sure it is. Those cost extra. On top of that, a Surface Pro 3 costs as much as most mid-range laptops, or even entry-level Macbook Pros. Yet it's a tablet. That's some serious RDF on your part there to claim that I'm wrong about something when I clearly made my point and backed it up. • You claim that I whine, when I actually [i<]defended[/i<] Windows 8 somewhat in the other thread, asking if people think it's actually worse than Vista. As for the right-clicking thing, that's not whining. That's pointing out my hands-on observation with the device. The device has a native windows interface, yet has touch controls. There was no (clear) way to right click that was communicated to me, so I was confused. As a consumer, if a device confuses me, I'm going to lose interest fast. Get a grip.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            Whoa. I NEVER agreed a surface isn’t as productive. I said METRO. A surface pro is a FANTASTIC device, and I myself own a pro two and adore it. I also said that the keyboard is required to replace your laptop, and Microsoft has said so many times as well, but crap about color choice (which I think is dumb) keeps then from bundling. No rdf. I don’t agree with your point and you are either misrepresenting my position or misunderstanding. You didn’t back it up. I said metro, you took that as the surface WHICH HAS THE DESKTOP. That was your mistake, not mine. You moved from metro to the surface. Again, you didn’t prove anything. You CANNOT BUY A WINDOWS TABLET OR PC THAT DOESN’T HAVE THE DESKTOP. METRO ISN’T AS PRODUCTIVE. THE DESKTOP AND THE SURFACE SURE ARE.

            I never said that your right clicking thing was whining, but you’ve complained about the os Many times, and yet don’t know basic controls that are literally a decade old. I did see that you agreed it wasn’t as bad as vista, but that was nvidias fault mostly. I’ve linked that info many times, no need to do it again. Almost all crashes were their fault. There was the minimum hardware issues too, but the core os wasn’t bad, and by sp2 was great. I guess I’m saying complaining about vista is dumb and not based in reality. The perception of vista was thanks to apple ads, not the OS. They were excellent ads. I find the whole discussion irrational.

            I’m not trying to be belligerent, but if you need any help, talk to my son. Took him like three seconds to figure out right clicking. We are a windows house though, so he’s used to the UI.

            I do like your posts and often think you’re witty. I’m not picking on you in particular, but I think much of the windows hatred is, like most hatred, not based in reality.

            • sweatshopking
            • 6 years ago

            I don’t know if you know this, but the surface has the desktop on it. Office is included, and it runs on the same desktop as your PC.

      • willyolio
      • 6 years ago

      nah, it’s an odd-numbered version.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 6 years ago

      AND SOME WILL [i<]STILL[/i<] WINE.

    • Meadows
    • 6 years ago

    [url<]http://9gag.com/gag/agyP5Nn[/url<] (not as work-safe a reaction as I would prefer)

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      Oh.

      I feel violated

    • Prestige Worldwide
    • 6 years ago

    Free update to Windows 8 KTHX

      • superjawes
      • 6 years ago

      Agreed if the start button was the only change between 8.1 and 9. It makes sense to have a clean break from 8 to 9 just to clear the air, similar to how 7 replaced Vista, but if there aren’t going to be any other changes, charging full price for the upgrade is going to tick off everyone who’s stuck with 8 for this long…

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 6 years ago

    Is it just me, or does this seem a bit soon?

      • atari030
      • 6 years ago

      To me it seems like a no-brainer given my impression that Win8 went over like a lead zeppelin relative to expectations.

      I bet Win8 : Win9 as Vista : Win7

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 6 years ago

        I’ll definitely agree that Windows 7 is better than Windows 8, but is Windows 8 [i<]as bad as [/i<] Vista? That sounds a little harsh.

          • cynan
          • 6 years ago

          From a desktop user’s perspective, Windows 8 was worse than Vista. At least as far as making things needlessly more difficult/different than the previous version of the OS.

            • ssidbroadcast
            • 6 years ago

            Fair enough. I never owned Vista so I don’t have that frame of reference… but remember that *really* dumb Aero-Glass alt+tab effect? The one where the Windows were all tilted at an angle, which made alt+tabbing [i<]less useful[/i<] than before? Then again... the Start Screen on Windows 8 is kinda bad, made worse by a really inefficient/inaccurate type-search...

            • DreadCthulhu
            • 6 years ago

            [i<]Windows-key[/i<]+tab does the tilted Windows effect on Vista and 7; the alt+tab key on those operating systems gives you a row of non-tilted screen shots of your open windows to select from.

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            I have used Vista from its release and it was nowhere near as bad as the internet seemed to cry out at the time. I have liked it even before TR’s Cyril’s public coming-out regarding it.

            • Pbryanw
            • 6 years ago

            I felt Vista was just too far ahead of its time, in terms of hardware requirements.

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            It wasn’t far enough. I would’ve preferred Longhorn still, but it was not meant to be. The feature creep and overall overhead must’ve been insane for them to scrap so much of it. (Still, it would’ve been a wonderful use of any gaming PC, but oh well.)

            • moose17145
            • 6 years ago

            I can agree to that. I was using longhorn when I was available… then Vista came out and I was like “WTH is this garbage?!? How did the finished product get WORSE than the open beta?!?”

            That being said… I have found windows 8 to be way worse than windows vista as far as usability is concerned. To me there is just absolutely nothing intuitive about the OS… Windows Vista’s biggest issue was the other companies not having vista ready drivers ready until a couple of years after the OS came out.

            • travbrad
            • 6 years ago

            Most of Vista’s problems were related to 3rd party applications and drivers. Some programs didn’t play nicely when they weren’t allowed full administrator access. The transition to 64-bit caused some issues too (even though there was a 64-bit XP, Vista was the first 64-bit Windows with any sort of real mainstream adoption), particularly with drivers.

            All of that stuff worked itself out over time though, and Windows 7 would have had many of those same issues had it been the first of this “generation” of Windows OSs. A lot of the PCs sold with Vista installed had a completely inadequate amount of memory too (512MB isn’t enough for an OS that uses MORE memory than Win7). There were some legitimate issues with Vista too, but most of the really serious issues weren’t with the OS itself.

            Windows ME made Vista look like the best OS ever made. :p

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 6 years ago

            ME wasn’t that bad. It included a lot of fixes for 9x to make 9x viable on newer computers with more memory. The only problem was that ME was still based on 9x. 9x was the problem, not ME. People were better off using 2k unless you wanted 9x/dos compatibility. ME is still a competent OS for retro boxes, but if you were looking for a real upgrade to 9x, that upgrade was 2k.

            I used both OSes. You had to use 3rd party hacks to play dos games in 2k, like vdmsound, which didn’t always work. Also, driver support was much like Vista’s. If you had a Diamond Viper v770 and a Vortex2 soundcard, good luck. Stuff like that is why I dual booted, but after the kinks were ironed out, 2k was a pretty decent OS. I actually skipped XP and went to XP-64. 2k / XP were pretty solid OSes.

      • Concupiscence
      • 6 years ago

      Nothing’s too soon if it means salvaging one of the company’s most profitable brands. But I think I’m sitting this next one out.

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      Are you kidding me? I’ve been contemplating moving on from W7 with my home PC but not even 8.1 seems convincing enough yet. W9 might be just the thing.

        • robliz2Q
        • 6 years ago

        Happy birthday tomorrow!

          • Meadows
          • 6 years ago

          No.

      • uni-mitation
      • 6 years ago

      Yeah, too soon indeed. Microsoft should end support for Windows 7, the main competitor of windows 8. Yes, they should trade up. That way all the hordes of upset former Microsoft customers come to Linux! I am quite sure Nutella will get the Linux Champion Award from the Linux Foundation!

      Just a memo at a time it is paved the destruction of so much shareholder value!

      • keltor
      • 6 years ago

      They have explicitly said they are moving to a faster cycling of OS releases.

    • tootercomputer
    • 6 years ago

    Geez, I recall when the Start button was introduced with Win 95 and at the time it seemed odd actually. Some people complained about it. Who would have thought it would be so important that MS is making a 180 and putting it back. Amazing.

      • bthylafh
      • 6 years ago

      I find it hard to credit people complaining about the start button, given how atrocious the Windows 3.1 interface was.

      I had bought a shareware program (not Calmira) for Win31 that added something very much like a Start button. Totally worth the $20-something even to a student. Can’t remember the name of it and Google’s not helping, but I’m pretty sure I still have the install floppy in my closet.

      • DreadCthulhu
      • 6 years ago

      There will be people that grumble and complain about any UI change, good or bad. If the change turns out to be good for most people (like adding the Start Menu) the complaining will soon end. A bad UI change (like the Start Screen) will cause people to keep complaining.

      And to be fair, for those who really didn’t like the Start Menu in Windows 95, the oldschool Program Manager was still included. Microsoft removed it from later versions, since very few people were still using it. OTOH, third-party Start Menus are quite popular on Windows 8, and lots of people are sticking with Windows 7 because of the Start Menu (and other poor UI changes Windows 8 made, like swapping the rather nice Aero theme effects for an over-simplified and excessively flat look).

      So the sensible thing for MS to do is the bring back the Start Menu, at least for desktop & laptop users. Hopefully they will ditch the ugly flat design theme next, and come up with a touch-optimized UI (for tablets and phones) that isn’t a jumble of garishly colored rectangles.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 6 years ago

        Yeah. I want 7’s graphics with an improved start menu, dx12, and a new FS.

        • Concupiscence
        • 6 years ago

        progman.exe was still present in Win98 – many moons ago I remember an older guy at my high school asking me to replace the new Explorer with it because the Start Menu and pervasive presence of the Explorer interrupted his workflow. “I could get used to it, but if I don’t have to, why should I?” were his exact words.

          • DreadCthulhu
          • 6 years ago

          I just checked wiki, apparently progman.exe was included all the way up until Windows XP SP2; I edited my post to reflect that.

      • puppetworx
      • 6 years ago

      I don’t consider the Start Menu to be a selling feature these days (although it’s useful to fall back on), I launch 99% of programs from the Taskbar or from Windows Search.

      Windows Search came with Vista I believe, and the improvements to Taskbar shortcuts came in Windows 7. If Windows 8 retained the Windows Search box – at least on the Taskbar if not in a Start Menu – then I think people may not have resisted the OS so much.

      The Windows 8.1 Start Menu looks really good to me. Windows Sidebar/Gadgets in Vista never really took off (they were also pretty buggy) I always liked the Idea though. This iteration of the Start Menu makes so much sense, and it’s actually a place where that Metro style works well.

        • robliz2Q
        • 6 years ago

        How many twists and turns? Win 8/8.1 has had me using even more heavily Quick launch, that I already had to re-enable in 7. The sad thing is, I usually have to root around now in C:\Program Files now to make the icon.

        Why make things so hard? Simply because they wanted to force you into using their App store.

        Win 8 start disturbs, due to flip screens from desktop, to this gaudy non-personalised gimmick screen. The metro apps fail unless you had a recent lobotomy or could feature as an extra in a zombie flick

        Linux’s KDE does it right, type on desktop, a mini bar appears giving feedback of typed chars, then launches the application, without clicking on a button or lurching onto a different screen.

      • trackerben
      • 6 years ago

      They could relabel it ReStart, for starters.

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      I’m not aware of anyone complaining and not buying windows95 because of the start menu .
      It was afterall, some added functionality, not functiality removed…

        • tootercomputer
        • 6 years ago

        “I’m not aware of anyone complaining and not buying windows95 because of the start menu.”

        I never said people did not buy Win 95 because of the start menu, just that some complained. The Win 95 interface was significantly different from Win 3.x, and like with any change in OS, people complained. It was sort of unique at the time as I recall (I could be wrong, I’m getting old). Now it seems people feel Start needs to be there.

    • maxxcool
    • 6 years ago

    Just give the *Choice* to enable one or the other … that is all I need. Let me pick ‘Classic coke or new Coke” in the control panel .. Win. Profit.

      • atari030
      • 6 years ago

      This no-brainer feature should have been included from the beginning. Imagine how much more successful Win8 would have been?

      How common sense didn’t prevail in what I’m sure was some major internal battle over this is beyond me. PHBs I’d guess.

        • puppetworx
        • 6 years ago

        I think the decision mainly came from the belief that ‘the PC is dead’. They thought that the future was going to hold untold growth in mobile and touch so they could afford to screw over desktop users.

      • moshpit
      • 6 years ago

      Underpants gnome logic for the win!

        • maxxcool
        • 6 years ago

        o.0 ????

          • stdRaichu
          • 6 years ago

          I think you mean Phase 2: ????

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            1.21 JIGGAWATTS!@!!!

      • derFunkenstein
      • 6 years ago

      as long as I don’t have to pick “[url=http://www.thegrocer.co.uk/pictures/420xAny/4/1/8/27418_named-coke-bottles.gif<]Coke with weird names on the bottle[/url<]" I'm good.

        • tfp
        • 6 years ago

        You don’t want to drink Laura or Dan or maybe Chris?

          • derFunkenstein
          • 6 years ago

          I kinda quit when I drank “Mom” on Friday.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Hah.. nice ….

      • moose17145
      • 6 years ago

      While we are at this… can I also choose to go back to the Aero interface / theme / style ? Seriously… I hate the flat bland pastel look of windows 8. Half the time you cannot even tell what is a button and what is just plain ol’ text.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This