bit-tech.net

Windows 9 'Threshold' release date April 2015

Windows 9 'Threshold' release date April 2015

Microsoft BUILD 2014.

The release date for Windows 9, codenamed Threshold, has been earmarked as April 2015 according to Windows 'insider' Paul Thurrott.

Thurrott, who runs the blog Windows SuperSite, is well known as being a reliable source for Microsoft information and his latest tidbit is to reveal that the next version of Windows will be called Windows 9 and have a possible release date of April 2015.

Although he hasn't cited any sources for his information Thurrott is confident that Microsoft will use the company's BUILD developer conference in April 2014 to outline a new vision for the next version of Windows. That vision will include a new version of the Metro interface, dubbed Metro 2.0, with possibly a windowed version of the touch Metro mode.

He also describes how there is expected to be three 'milestone' releases before commercial availability, hinting at a beta, release candidate, etc release schedule.

A key reason for highlighting that the new release will be called Windows 9 is that Thurrott sees Microsoft as distancing itself from the 'disaster' that is Windows 8. As he points out, Windows 8.1 is currently in use on less than 25 million PCs, which for a major new Windows release is very poor uptake. Microsoft hopes Windows 8 will thus be seen as the Vista to Windows 9's Windows 7.

We'll hear more come April 2 when BUILD kicks off.

97 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
WarrenJ 13th January 2014, 13:46 Quote
So, queue the Riddick fans going into PC world next year shouting "Take us to the threshold".
Hustler 13th January 2014, 14:13 Quote
Are MS too stupid or too stubborn to see what people want....or as I suspect, both.

Windows 9 Metro for tablets only

Windows 9 Desktop with traditional Start menu and if you really want it, the option to pay for a metro interface via download.
NethLyn 13th January 2014, 14:25 Quote
The Win8/Metro interface was fine for the 360 IMO, but now they've made this general announcement they've killed any casual trying out or comeback potential they could have had with a price cut and second service pack to 8.1.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 14:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Are MS too stupid or too stubborn to see what people want....or as I suspect, both.

As Steve Jobs said: people don't know what they want until you show it to them. Ford said: "If I gave people what they wanted I would be selling faster horses".

Stupid is relative.
MrGumby 13th January 2014, 14:32 Quote
Spot on what Hustler said. Also why not introduce a lite gaming edition? Would surely sell if its priced correctlx.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 14:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by NethLyn
The Win8/Metro interface was fine for the 360 IMO, but now they've made this general announcement they've killed any casual trying out or comeback potential they could have had with a price cut and second service pack to 8.1.

Some people wish to interpret Windows 9 as a return to the good old days. The Messiah is coming and He will restore order and food old-fashioned family values once more... It is not; it is the next logical evolution of Windows and Metro, which is here to stay.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGumby
Spot on what Hustler said. Also why not introduce a lite gaming edition? Would surely sell if its priced correctlx.

It's called the XBox.
Redbeaver 13th January 2014, 15:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Are MS too stupid or too stubborn to see what people want....or as I suspect, both.

Windows 9 Metro for tablets only

Windows 9 Desktop with traditional Start menu and if you really want it, the option to pay for a metro interface via download.

Hell, why pay? Give it for free even, I don't care.

I just want the old start menu. (to a degree of enhancements, sure, but i still want to see my workspace when i access it)
rollo 13th January 2014, 15:18 Quote
If it brings another 10% free performance Id upgrade. Otherwise im happy on 8, Easy enough to remove metro anyway.
loftie 13th January 2014, 15:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Are MS too stupid or too stubborn to see what people want....or as I suspect, both.

I'll think you'll find you don't speak for everyone. And iirc there was at least one Modern UI hater who ended up liking it and using it in the Marmite thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler

Windows 9 Desktop with Modern UI and if you really want it, the option to pay for a Start Menu via download.

FTFY. Also, this is currently what we have just with the start menu being made by third parties which work just fine.
Corky42 13th January 2014, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
As Steve Jobs said: people don't know what they want until you show it to them. Ford said: "If I gave people what they wanted I would be selling faster horses".

Stupid is relative.
And Microsoft have show it to people and they still don't want it, well only around 25 million 1% of the 2.5 billion people who use computing devices want it.
And how dare you call my sister stupid only im allowed to do that :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Some people wish to interpret Windows 9 as a return to the good old days. The Messiah is coming and He will restore order and food old-fashioned family values once more... It is not; it is the next logical evolution of Windows and Metro, which is here to stay.
Yup they do seem to be acting like a deer in the head lights don't they.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It's called the XBox.
To true, Microsoft gave up on the merits of using the PC as a platform to play games on long ago. It's why we are seeing SteamOS: To Valve, it's a first step in levering development, publishing, gameplay and community away from their reliance on Windows and DirectX (and to a lesser extent Mac OS), systems that cannot be relied upon in the long term.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
If it brings another 10% free performance Id upgrade. Otherwise im happy on 8, Easy enough to remove metro anyway.
We can uninstall metro ? IDK we could remove the bloat, at last someone has convinced me to upgrade. If only we could also uninstall all the other unnecessary rubbish that comes with 8.X
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 16:09 Quote
Last time I checked Windows 8 has a smaller footprint than Windows 7. :p
runadumb 13th January 2014, 16:46 Quote
There's a very obvious issue that hasn't been mentioned yet. Windows isn't cheap, why upgrade at all when XP, vista or 7 still does what most people want, ie run a web browser?

I only have windows 8 on my HTPC because it was much cheaper than 7 at the time (£25). My main rig uses windows 7 and win 8 hate aside, why would I "upgrade" to 8? What difference will it really make? I've used it plenty, the boot times are great but I'm not buying it for that. It has zero standout features I want and more stuff I don't want.

So when someone like me who has jumped onboard every release since 98 (technicially still have as i did buy 8) doesn't see the point you've got a big uphill struggle.

Windows 9 needs to bring something worthwhile to the table, something people really want, something useful.
Corky42 13th January 2014, 17:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Last time I checked Windows 8 has a smaller footprint than Windows 7. :p
Depends what version we are talking about, some people claim it uses more some say less. But the point remains that all recent versions of Windows install things some people have no use for.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 17:24 Quote
That's what happens when one OS tries to cover all usage scenarios. Of course you could ask users to pick and choose the components to be installed (Custom instead of Express/Standard install) but then people will complain that the installation process is too complicated.

Frankly with terabyte drives going for £60,-- and even 250Gb SSDs going for just over a hundred bucks, Windows' install size is the last thing I worry about.
SchizoFrog 13th January 2014, 18:31 Quote
You also have to take in to account that the vast majority of people who have Windows 8 don't know or care that they can/should upgrade to Windows 8.1 for free.
jrs77 13th January 2014, 19:54 Quote
They should simply make the Metro-thingy optional, like an additional layer or something.

For work I need the start-menu and the taskbar. Nothing more annoying than having to switch to the desktop or whatever to open another software instead of simply using either the pinned ones in the taskbar or the start-menu. Also, having multiple windows open using the taskbar to drag and drop stuff between two windows isn't something I would sacrifice for a fancy tiled desktop.

And having alot of stuff in the taskbar like the USB-control, sound, network, minimized software like the music-player etc is mandatory imho.

Microsoft should be improving Win7 instead of trying to force their Metro-crap upon us, who use their PCs for work primarily with the Classic UI, and yes, I'm not even using Aero in Win7, but oldschool Win98-style.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 20:03 Quote
So you are saying that Windows should have remained unchanged from W98? I thought I was the old retro geek. :p
Pete J 13th January 2014, 20:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
I'm not even using Aero in Win7, but oldschool Win98-style.
You're not alone - I do too.

I like MrGumby's suggestion - a cut down version optimised for gaming.
loftie 13th January 2014, 21:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
They should simply make the Metro-thingy optional, like an additional layer or something.

Maybe use a start menu replacement, fairly quick and painless. Not as good as an on/off switch but good enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
For work I need the start-menu and the taskbar. Nothing more annoying than having to switch to the desktop or whatever to open another software instead of simply using either the pinned ones in the taskbar or the start-menu.

Is this referring to W8? Because you know you can pin stuff to the taskbar in W8.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Microsoft should be improving Win7 instead of trying to force their Metro-crap upon us, who use their PCs for work primarily with the Classic UI, and yes, I'm not even using Aero in Win7, but oldschool Win98-style.

I always found both Aero Peek and Aero Snap to be pretty useful. I'm surprised someone would turn it off tbh. MS did improve W7 when making W8, and that's not referring to the cosmetic changes.
jrs77 13th January 2014, 21:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
Maybe use a start menu replacement, fairly quick and painless. Not as good as an on/off switch but good enough.

Is this referring to W8? Because you know you can pin stuff to the taskbar in W8.

I always found both Aero Peek and Aero Snap to be pretty useful. I'm surprised someone would turn it off tbh. MS did improve W7 when making W8, and that's not referring to the cosmetic changes.

Win 8 has a taskbar like Win7 does? This would be the first time someone would make such a statement. By taskbar I mean the whole bar in the bottom, or MacOS X in the top. A bar where there's these little icons like network-status, time, sound, USB, AntiVir, etc, etc... in addition to the pinned software-links and windows. And the classic startmenu is a must-have for me, as it's the most elegant way to put alot of links to your software into. I only have pinned the most important ones in the quickbar (Firefox, Explorer, Calculator, VLC and Foobar). All the other 50 programs are accesible via the startmenu, as I don't put any links on my desktop, as I never even see my desktop.

And the Aero-stuff... I hate all this big transparent and glassy stuff, and what do I need any snapping for? I allways work in fullscreen, be it the explorer, the browser or other software, and most of the software I use has snapping enabled for the menus by itself.

Vista and now Win8 simply feels like Microsoft want's to change stuff for gods sake, even if the classic UI and desktop works perfectly fine and alot of people love the oldschool look and feel of it.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 21:57 Quote
You are referring to the systray. And in Windows 7 and 8 you can customise it to show all those little cluttery icons that you want (personally I much prefer the current clean arrangement). Windows 8 has no Aero either.
RedFlames 13th January 2014, 22:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Windows 8 has no Aero either.

It retains Aero-Snap, Aero-Peek and few other 'Aero' features though....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Win 8 has a taskbar like Win7 does? This would be the first time someone would make such a statement.

From 8.1 -

http://i.imgur.com/GyfR6BO.png?1

Based on how you use windows the only main difference you'd notice between 7 and 8.1 is the start menu takes up the whole screen when called upon...
jrs77 13th January 2014, 22:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You are referring to the systray. And in Windows 7 and 8 you can customise it to show all those little cluttery icons that you want (personally I much prefer the current clean arrangement). Windows 8 has no Aero either.

Yeah, systray whatever. I simply like the whole 26px grey bar on the bottom of my screen from left to right, from the start-button to the clock, as it is very useful for lot's of stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
From 8.1 -

http://i.imgur.com/GyfR6BO.png?1

Based on how you use windows the only main difference you'd notice between 7 and 8.1 is the start menu takes up the whole screen when called upon...

Ah OK, this is new with 8.1 then I guess, which is an improvement allready, but it's still allmost twice the height of my current taskbar.

And why does the startmenu take up all of the screen? :stoopid:
loftie 13th January 2014, 22:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You are referring to the systray. And in Windows 7 and 8 you can customise it to show all those little cluttery icons that you want (personally I much prefer the current clean arrangement). Windows 8 has no Aero either.

I think he means systray + taskbar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Win 8 has a taskbar like Win7 does? This would be the first time someone would make such a statement. By taskbar I mean the whole bar in the bottom, or MacOS X in the top. A bar where there's these little icons like network-status, time, sound, USB, AntiVir, etc, etc... in addition to the pinned software-links and windows.

Yes. I don't think anyone has ever made a statement either confirming or denying the existence of a taskbar + systray in W8. Are you sure you've used W8?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
And the classic startmenu is a must-have for me, as it's the most elegant way to put alot of links to your software into. I only have pinned the most important ones in the quickbar (Firefox, Explorer, Calculator, VLC and Foobar). All the other 50 programs are accesible via the startmenu, as I don't put any links on my desktop, as I never even see my desktop.

Whatever floats your boat I suppose. Surely a toolbar on the taskbar with all 50 programs would be better for you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
I allways work in fullscreen, be it the explorer, the browser or other software,

But not the Start Screen? (see what I did there :p)

Edit: No it's not new to W8.1, it was in W8. Twice the height? Same height as standard 7 iirc, give or take a pixel. It's the same height on my PC screen.
RedFlames 13th January 2014, 22:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Ah OK, this is new with 8.1 then I guess, which is an improvement allready, but it's still allmost twice the height of my current taskbar.

Windows 8 has it too, albeit without the 'start' button... whoever told you 8 didn't have it was lying to you...

And you can make the bar smaller... this is as close as you can get to the 9x layout in 8.1

http://i.imgur.com/GipQsTu.png?1
Quote:
And why does the startmenu take up all of the screen? :stoopid:

Because technically the start menu is gone, the start screen that replaces it is full-screen.
jrs77 13th January 2014, 22:26 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
Yes. I don't think anyone has ever made a statement either confirming or denying the existence of a taskbar + systray in W8. Are you sure you've used W8?

Only in a store to play around with it, so maybe I missed it.

Quote:
Whatever floats your boat I suppose. Surely a toolbar on the taskbar with all 50 programs would be better for you?

Why an addiitional toolbar, when all programs are shown in the startmenu?
Quote:
Edit: No it's not new to W8.1, it was in W8. Twice the height? Same height as standard 7 iirc, give or take a pixel. It's the same height on my PC screen.

I'm not using W7 standard, but the grey/blue Win98 Classic UI. Height of the taskbar is 26 pixels there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
And you can make the bar smaller... this is as close as you can get to the 9x layout in 8.1

http://i.imgur.com/GipQsTu.png?1

Because technically the start menu is gone, the start screen that replaces it is full-screen.

This taskbar is much better, yes. Now get rid of the transparency and make it 50% grey :p

And the startmenu gone and now being a fullscreen application is just annoying.
Star*Dagger 13th January 2014, 22:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redbeaver
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Are MS too stupid or too stubborn to see what people want....or as I suspect, both.

Windows 9 Metro for tablets only

Windows 9 Desktop with traditional Start menu and if you really want it, the option to pay for a metro interface via download.

Hell, why pay? Give it for free even, I don't care.

I just want the old start menu. (to a degree of enhancements, sure, but i still want to see my workspace when i access it)

Windows is free with 2 minutes spend with google and some time with bit torrent
longweight 13th January 2014, 22:40 Quote
I just don't get the resistance. How on earth can you complain about the start menu taking up all of the screen? Do you solely navigate with the mouse JRS?
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 22:45 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Only in a store to play around with it, so maybe I missed it.

So basically you don't know anything about Windows 8, and have never used it, but you don't like it?
dancingbear84 13th January 2014, 22:46 Quote
I use Windows 8.1 at work, used to use 8 but then side graded to 8.1

Initially I dispised it. Then I took a good look at myself and thought "what don't I like" answered the question with "full screen start menu" then I pinned 10 or so of my most common programmes to the task bar, learnt some key presses and they added the shutdown in 8.1
I very rarely press the start key now. Mostly just when I'm too lazy to browse to a file, win key and type. Sorted.

Now I'm kicking myself for not taking advantage of the 30 quid upgrade scheme when they ran it.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
jrs77 13th January 2014, 22:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by longweight
I just don't get the resistance. How on earth can you complain about the start menu taking up all of the screen? Do you solely navigate with the mouse JRS?

I like the oldschool UI as it is, and I don't want it to be changed. Simple as that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
So basically you don't know anything about Windows 8, and have never used it, but you don't like it?

See above. If I can't get Win8 to look and feel like the Classic UI, which has basically been there since Win 3.1 I don't like it.
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 23:07 Quote
That's cool, but why don't you just use Windows 98 and let others get on with it in the 21st Century?
AlienwareAndy 13th January 2014, 23:17 Quote
I hate to break it to every one, but apparently 8 carries native support for AMD's HSA. So if you're thinking about one of the new APUs you'll be much better off on 8.

8 is faster, sleeker, boots quicker, has tons more support for CPU architecture and generally pees on Windows 7.

Even if you don't like how it comes it's a ten second fix to put it right.
dancingbear84 13th January 2014, 23:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That's cool, but why don't you just use Windows 98 and let others get on with it in the 21st Century?

Would 98 run on current hardware? I don't think I've seen Intel chipset drivers for Windows 3.1, 95, 98, 98se or ME, for a little while on the downloads page for.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Nexxo 13th January 2014, 23:24 Quote
No, but if he likes old skool Windows 98 I'm sure he likes the old skool hardware to go with it. Nothing rocks like a Pentium II with a Cirrus Logic graphic card combined with a Voodoo II Monster via pass through cable. :D
RedFlames 13th January 2014, 23:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That's cool, but why don't you just use Windows 98 and let others get on with it in the 21st Century?

No need to be a dick nexxo [whether it was intentional or not, that how that comment came across],

@jrs77, I can appreciate sticking with what you know [and/or like] but sometimes you have to make the change, hopefully i've outlined how 8.1 can be made so the change isn't so drastic or jarring... whether you go for it is ultimately your choice...

Personally I wish touch screens would **** off and die... I hate the things, and i can't type on one to save my life... but if I want a phone that does what I need of it, it's something i have to put up with...

Likewise with windows 8 - if, as alienwareandy points out, you have hardware that requires it whether you like the UI changes in 8.x or not, it's something you're going to have to put up with...
dancingbear84 13th January 2014, 23:34 Quote
And dial up. I still remember the noise it made.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
GaryP 14th January 2014, 01:03 Quote
Just bring back a proper retail version that can be moved from pc to pc without hassle. Still on 7, does everything I need. Unless the jump is like xp to 7 I wont be upgrading any time soon.
dyzophoria 14th January 2014, 01:15 Quote
actually I'm good with Metro, but I honestly think a system similar to the start menu or the applications bar on Ubuntu's Unity that swipes from the left (just like how the Charms Bar is) would make better sense for a desktop if you want overlapping windows. rather than the whole start screen occupying everything, Metro is awesome on touchscreens from small to about 15", go higher than that, it just feels out of place, what I really like is how the new Metro Apps are deployed, I'm hoping for the day where all applications just install that easily, one click, installing on the background, for this it makes sense for their plan to enable Window Mode on Metro Apps, maybe finally we can simplify how software are installed.
ssj12 14th January 2014, 02:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hustler
Are MS too stupid or too stubborn to see what people want....or as I suspect, both.

As Steve Jobs said: people don't know what they want until you show it to them. Ford said: "If I gave people what they wanted I would be selling faster horses".

Stupid is relative.

There is still a basic philosophy of ease of use and efficiency.
loftie 14th January 2014, 05:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
Why an addiitional toolbar, when all programs are shown in the startmenu?

Because, depending how you pin stuff to your startmenu, it'd be faster. If everything is stored under programs in the start menu, you have to click start, go to programs, click program to run. If it's in a tool bar, you click the arrow which throws up ( not that throw up ) a menu just like hitting start, but this time all you have are the shortcuts to the programs.

Of course if everything is pinned directly onto the start menu, it'd be nearly identical. Though it'd still be faster in a toolbar since you don't have to navigate past all the menus to get to the pinned items sitting at the top.

Downside is, it'd take up a bit of space on the taskbar.

http://thewindowsclub.thewindowsclubco.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/taskbar-launcher.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrs77
I like the oldschool UI as it is, and I don't want it to be changed. Simple as that.

I thought W8 looked retarded before it was released. Then I used it. We're friends now.
Griffter 14th January 2014, 06:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGumby
Spot on what Hustler said. Also why not introduce a lite gaming edition? Would surely sell if its priced correctlx.

It's called the XBox.

haha
Harlequin 14th January 2014, 07:46 Quote
jrs77 - why not just get a win98 skin for win8....


I do like win 8 now , win8.1 is `better` for what I want


and winxp support totally dies in 10 weeks time. forever.
Nexxo 14th January 2014, 08:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedFlames
No need to be a dick nexxo [whether it was intentional or not, that how that comment came across]

Whereas: "Microsoft should not have created Windows 8 because I don't like it" is a perfectly mature and rational attitude. :p
Meanmotion 14th January 2014, 09:02 Quote
One thing I think that's worth pointing out is that the failings of Windows 8 aren't only weird niche issues raised by power users. There are plenty of examples out there of usability experts de-constructing exactly why it's a very poor experience. Many things have been fixed in 8.1 but it's still fundamentally a poorly conceived mashing together of two separate interfaces. You only have to look at what Apple has and hasn't done with its products and UIs to recognise that the approach MS has taken isn't very clever.
Nexxo 14th January 2014, 09:07 Quote
The same has been said about older versions of Windows, about OSX and about Linux Ubuntu Touch. Turns out it is really hard to create a perfect GUI.
Meanmotion 14th January 2014, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The same has been said about older versions of Windows, about OSX and about Linux Ubuntu Touch. Turns out it is really hard to create a perfect GUI.

Not in quite such demonstrable terms and overwhelming numbers.
Nexxo 14th January 2014, 09:53 Quote
All criticism of Windows 8 seems to boil down to the Start Menu. That's it; that's all. Has to be, because otherwise it is exactly the same as Windows 7. But OSX has no Start Menu. Ubuntu Touch has no Start Menu. That is not perceived to be a problem. So perhaps it is not about the Start Menu.

Perhaps many people are like jrs77, and haven't actually used or even meaningfully interacted with Windows 8 for more than a few seconds in a shop and have already made up their minds that it is rubbish, because superficially it looks all different, and experts are then rationalising the aversion after the fact.

I'm not convinced. Too many people are saying that actually, Windows 8 is quite good once you try it. People had no problem embracing radically different GUIs on their iPhone and iPad and their Android devices and lately even the Chromebook --lauded by the same experts as a success...

Microsoft is struggling to catch up in the mobile devices market because it stubbornly stuck to the desktop and windows paradigm where it made obvious sense not to. Now it is blamed for moving away from it. It is a bit like people wanting a company to make bikes in the same classic shape and model as they have since the 1900's, because we like heritage and tradition and craftsmanship and stuff, even though most people now buy cheaper aluminium mountain bikes mass-produced in China and the traditional company is about to go under because there simply isn't a market for its products beyond a few traditionalist customers.
Harlequin 14th January 2014, 10:36 Quote
the 1 thing my missus actually likes about windows 8 the most? she can do things on her Lumia + surface + pc + xbox and it all just works together.. she changes her desktop? it now is on her surface and phone.


she starts an ACCA paper on her surface on the bus on the way home , then finishes it on her pc.


she can throw anything from her surface to the xbox , and use her phone as a remote.


that's why she ditched android. For her - windows 8 does what she wants.
Kovoet 14th January 2014, 11:22 Quote
Never tried Vista and looks like 8 is going to fly past me as well.
loftie 14th January 2014, 11:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
All criticism of Windows 8 seems to boil down to the Start Menu. That's it; that's all. Has to be, because otherwise it is exactly the same as Windows 7. But OSX has no Start Menu. Ubuntu Touch has no Start Menu. That is not perceived to be a problem. So perhaps it is not about the Start Menu.

Perhaps many people are like jrs77, and haven't actually used or even meaningfully interacted with Windows 8 for more than a few seconds in a shop and have already made up their minds that it is rubbish, because superficially it looks all different, and experts are then rationalising the aversion after the fact.

I'm not convinced. Too many people are saying that actually, Windows 8 is quite good once you try it. People had no problem embracing radically different GUIs on their iPhone and iPad and their Android devices and lately even the Chromebook --lauded by the same experts as a success...
+1.
My personal favourite are people who've 'heard it's rubbish', therefore it must be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meanmotion
There are plenty of examples out there of usability experts de-constructing exactly why it's a very poor experience.

Googling Usability Expert Windows 8 gives me two, both from the same company and one of which didn't involve a study. The one that did involve a study used 12 'experienced' people. He moans the OS is too flat and we don't know what's actionable, and then mentions he loves Ribbon. Ribbon is flat!

I could find 12 people who would give W8 a good review. The massive problem with W8 and Modern is it's different. No Windows before it is the same, effectively people have to re-learn how to use a windows PC.

Taking me as an example, I can navigate my way around my Cowon A2 with ease. Cowon's UI is terrible, people have called it confusing and difficult to use. As such, I am a UI navigating god as I find it easy :D. Put me in front of Android, I have no clue what I'm doing. iOS, no clue. OSX, no idea. Ubuntu, vague idea gained after a fair few hours on it.

People seem to expect to be able to fire up W8, and be able to whiz round it with ease instantly as it's Windows. If you happen to have a well done review of Modern, I'd be interested to read.
Corky42 14th January 2014, 11:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
All criticism of Windows 8 seems to boil down to the Start Menu.
Its not just the Start Menu. But isn't this thread going a little OT, its starting to go the same way as the Windows 8 Marmite thread and if people cant agree after 214 pages there what makes you think people are going to change their mind hear ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Perhaps many people are like jrs77, and haven't actually used or even meaningfully interacted with Windows 8 for more than a few seconds in a shop and have already made up their minds that it is rubbish, because superficially it looks all different, and experts are then rationalising the aversion after the fact.
Most likely true. I think something like this was covered in the Marmite thread, maybe 8 would have seen greater traction if as people suggested Microsoft asked what the default GUI should be on first boot, forcing an unfamiliar GUI on people was never going to work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm not convinced. Too many people are saying that actually, Windows 8 is quite good once you try it. People had no problem embracing radically different GUIs on their iPhone and iPad and their Android devices and lately even the Chromebook --lauded by the same experts as a success...
Different products with different expectations, Windows is a brand name, it's akin to changing the recipe for Coca Cola versus trying a Tesco's own brand Cola.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Microsoft is struggling to catch up in the mobile devices market because it stubbornly stuck to the desktop and windows paradigm where it made obvious sense not to. Now it is blamed for moving away from it. It is a bit like people wanting a company to make bikes in the same classic shape and model as they have since the 1900's, because we like heritage and tradition and craftsmanship and stuff, even though most people now buy cheaper aluminium mountain bikes mass-produced in China and the traditional company is about to go under because there simply isn't a market for its products beyond a few traditionalist customers.
Its not struggling to catch up, it had close to 50% market share 7 years ago, this has shrunk to a 3% market share today. It's not because they stubbornly stuck to the desktop and windows paradigm, its that they didn't and still don't make a distinction between how people use different devices. Simply put one size doesn't fit all no matter how much you try to force it to.
loftie 14th January 2014, 12:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Different products with different expectations, Windows is a brand name, it's akin to changing the recipe for Coca Cola versus trying a Tesco's own brand Cola.

They have changed the recipe for Coca Cola, they removed the cocaine :p I'd say it's still loosely on topic. It's mainly changed to a Modern discussion, the most visible sticking point in the current latest OS is Modern. And with the article only really stating a date, name and Modern/Metro 2.0, there isn't much to discuss.
Quote:
possibly a windowed version of the touch Metro mode.
This intrigues me, I wonder if they mean the apps, the start screen, both or something completely different. IIRC there was a W8 start menu replacement that looked very metro-esque, it almost looked like having a windows phone appear when you hit the start button. Was quite interested in it actually.
jimmyjj 15th January 2014, 23:39 Quote
Some people like windows 8 (Nexxo) and some people hate it (everyone else in the known world) but that is not the point.

The point is the arrogance of Microsoft to say, here is the metro interface you can like it or you can f**k off. What else are you going to use?

There should have been a desktop option, classic mode whatever you want to call it; for those who wanted it. Easy.

But no, it had to be their way or highway and surprise surprise it has bitten then on the arse.
atlas 16th January 2014, 10:16 Quote
Everyone's always talking about smart devices smart this smart that, how about a "smart" os that can see if it's on a desktop/laptop or something with a multitouch input and switch interfaces accordingly..... you know so desktop users don't have to see a shitty touch interface and vice versa.
loftie 16th January 2014, 12:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
Some people like windows 8 (Nexxo) and some people hate it (everyone else in the known world) but that is not the point.

You mean Modern? Because I'm sure there are a fair few people running Start Menu replacements and still using W8 while liking it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
The point is the arrogance of Microsoft to say, here is the metro interface you can like it or you can f**k off. What else are you going to use?

There were alternatives to the start menu other than colours and layouts? But now you're mad because it affects you? :|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyjj
There should have been a desktop option, classic mode whatever you want to call it; for those who wanted it. Easy.

Same as before W8, you want something different you get additional software.

It's like that time when I wanted a black taskbar in XP. My dreams were shattered by MS, they said "No! You shall not have Black" and I was sad. So I installed Windows Blinds and made it black. All was well and I was happy.

It seems the majority of people who moan about W8 seem incapable of doing what I did as a kid. And whinge more too.
Nexxo 16th January 2014, 22:07 Quote
Damn straight. When my Commodore 64's floppy drive didn't load fast enough, I installed a parallel interface upgrade. It didn't have a decent compiler, so I installed five different kernels which you could swap at the flick of a switch. It didn't have a reset button so I added one. It didn't have any CPU activity indicator so I added a nice dual-colour led to do so. That was in 1982. I was 16.

On my PC? I've ran different shells on top of Windows 98. I've used WindowBlinds. I've used RocketDock. I've used Yahoo Widgets and Samurize at the same time. I've used Rainmeter. I've hacked splash screens and changed system icons. And that's before I get to the hardware modifications. Why? Because I'm a MODDER.

I thought that this was a forum for MODDERS. But no; it turns out to be a forum full of whiny little girls who get all upset because they have to install a small bit of freeware to get their Start Menu back. I mean, come on.
longweight 16th January 2014, 22:11 Quote
Orrrrrrrr they have to adapt!
Nexxo 16th January 2014, 22:36 Quote
That's crazy talk! :p
longweight 16th January 2014, 22:40 Quote
Isn't it just! Windows OS was definitely at it's peak in 98 / early 2000's. Why the hell would MS change the OS to work in tablets, hybrid laptops and PCs? Why on earth would anyone want an OS that works well on all of those?!
theshadow2001 16th January 2014, 22:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo

On my PC? I've ran different shells on top of Windows 98. I've used WindowBlinds. I've used RocketDock. I've used Yahoo Widgets and Samurize at the same time. I've used Rainmeter. I've hacked splash screens and changed system icons. And that's before I get to the hardware modifications. Why? Because I'm a MODDER.
[/I]

Thats not really modding, its installing software. In the same way painting a room doesn't change the room, just puts a purdy colour on top. If people were free to actually mod windows you bet yer ass the shell would be ripped out and replaced with something else.

Anyway what "mods" have you done to windows 8?
Nexxo 16th January 2014, 23:05 Quote
So you're saying that people can't cope with installing some software?

And you can rip the shell out and replace it with something else. I've done it. I haven't done anything to Windows 8 yet; I quite like it the way it is.
theshadow2001 16th January 2014, 23:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
So you're saying that people can't cope with installing some software?
No that seems to be what your saying. I'm just saying installing software isn't modding.
Nexxo 16th January 2014, 23:10 Quote
Pedantry? On Bit-Tech?!? Surely not?!? :p
longweight 17th January 2014, 08:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
No that seems to be what your saying. I'm just saying installing software isn't modding.

Wouldn't installing software be modifying the OS?
bawjaws 17th January 2014, 09:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
No that seems to be what your saying. I'm just saying installing software isn't modding.

Er, it's not hardware modding, sure, but it is software modding, is it not?

Also, Nexxo's post #59 sums it up for me. People have been tinkering with both hardware and software to get things working the way that they like since home computers first started, but now some folks are moaning because Win8 didn't ship with a Start button? If only there was some way of obtaining a third party utility to provide that functionality for those that want it... :D
impar 17th January 2014, 10:51 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
All criticism of Windows 8 seems to boil down to the Start Menu. That's it; that's all.
Not really. The lack of a StartMenu option is just the most discussed problem of W8.
We are talking about a OS that blended poorly two UIs. That made the primary UI be the touch-first one. That lacked the ability to run apps in resizable windows. That provided two different background images for the two main screens of the UIs. That booted directly to the least used app launch screen. That provided a lack of general search results. That used all of the screen for the most basic tasks. That introduced obscure and intrusive hot-corners. That added a second incomplete Control Panel. ... (pretty sure I am forgetting some of the problems)

That many of the defenders of W8 resume all to the lack of a StartButton (and not StartMenu) says much.

Apart from the "under-the-hood" improvements made to W8, what the user perceives as improvements are the Task and File managers. They just dont justify the hassle of moving from W7 to W8 (and I bought a W8 copy).
loftie 17th January 2014, 11:38 Quote
I agree there needs to be some sort of either distinct separation or cloned settings in Modern setting and control panel in W9. Though I've not looked too closely since 8.1 so maybe it's improved.

I've never found W8 to be disadvantaged by using a M+K over touch. Charm bars? Not that different to autohide menus imo. Never found hot corners to be obscure, there are 4 of them, not 100. Intrusive - on occasion I've activated the top right but not made it become active/go dark, maybe I just have l33t mouse skills from all the Battlefield I play.
bawjaws 17th January 2014, 12:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!

Not really. The lack of a StartMenu option is just the most discussed problem of W8.
We are talking about a OS that blended poorly two UIs. That made the primary UI be the touch-first one. That lacked the ability to run apps in resizable windows. That provided two different background images for the two main screens of the UIs. That booted directly to the least used app launch screen. That provided a lack of general search results. That used all of the screen for the most basic tasks. That introduced obscure and intrusive hot-corners. That added a second incomplete Control Panel. ... (pretty sure I am forgetting some of the problems)

That many of the defenders of W8 resume all to the lack of a StartButton (and not StartMenu) says much.

Apart from the "under-the-hood" improvements made to W8, what the user perceives as improvements are the Task and File managers. They just dont justify the hassle of moving from W7 to W8 (and I bought a W8 copy).

I'm not sure how hot corners can be both obscure and intrusive :D At the end of the day, though, if you don't like 8, go back to using 7 until support for that is withdrawn. By that time 9 will be out and will have introduced a whole load of extra issues that will make 8 look fabulous in comparison :D
Corky42 17th January 2014, 12:18 Quote
We will be on Windows 10 or 11 by the time extended support for 7 comes to an end, and rumors say Windows 10/11 is going to be a cloud based (Azure) operating system.
Nexxo 17th January 2014, 13:04 Quote
Naah, Windows 10/11 will be an artificially intelligent peronality who sounds like Scarlett Johansson, installed on a cranially implanted direct neural interface chip that is powered by ordinary body heat. You will have a telepathic interface with a HUD overlay on your visual cortex, direct 24/7 uplink to the internet and full Virtual Reality simulation. Her knowledge base and processing abilities will seamlessly interface with yours, so that you become a hyper-intelligent, all-knowing meta-human.

People will complain that it does not have a Start Menu.
theshadow2001 17th January 2014, 17:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Pedantry? On Bit-Tech?!? Surely not?!? :p

OOOOH!!! BURN!!!

Anyway you want to mod an OS get thee to openBSD linux or some such
Yslen 17th January 2014, 18:53 Quote
I still don't understand the Start Menu thing. I don't understand why people miss it, or even which version they miss.

From 95 to XP it was an alphabet-defying, screen filling monstrosity, and in Vista and 7 it was the same thing crammed into a tiny corner of the screen so you couldn't see what you were doing.

Everyone I ever saw using Windows used many desktop shortcuts, or put them in the quick-launch bar, or pinned things to the start bar or the top section of the start menu.

So Microsoft sees this and designs an OS where the start menu has become a second desktop layer to pin all of your apps to, instantly summonable using the Windows key and highly customisable. You can still pin stuff to the desktop or the start bar as before, if you wish, and the search function has been expanded greatly, making it much more powerful and flexible...

... and everyone hates it.

:/
Corky42 17th January 2014, 19:26 Quote
You would have a point if it was just about the start menu, or lack thereof.
longweight 17th January 2014, 23:52 Quote
So what else is it about? Hot corners?
Corky42 18th January 2014, 03:10 Quote
Perhaps look up the page at impar's reply, or take a read of the Windows 8 Marmite thread
Or maybe if you read some articles on Google
siliconfanatic 18th January 2014, 04:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Damn straight. When my Commodore 64's floppy drive didn't load fast enough, I installed a parallel interface upgrade. It didn't have a decent compiler, so I installed five different kernels which you could swap at the flick of a switch. It didn't have a reset button so I added one. It didn't have any CPU activity indicator so I added a nice dual-colour led to do so. That was in 1982. I was 16.

On my PC? I've ran different shells on top of Windows 98. I've used WindowBlinds. I've used RocketDock. I've used Yahoo Widgets and Samurize at the same time. I've used Rainmeter. I've hacked splash screens and changed system icons. And that's before I get to the hardware modifications. Why? Because I'm a MODDER.

I thought that this was a forum for MODDERS. But no; it turns out to be a forum full of whiny little girls who get all upset because they have to install a small bit of freeware to get their Start Menu back. I mean, come on.


D@amn nexxo, I don't think I have ever seen you shout before. This side of you scares me

I honestly must agree, if you don't like it, feel free to voice your opinion. But don't whine, and in the meantime adapt, or do what we all do best, mod the living crap out of it.

Personally just getting the hang of rainmeter and loving every second of it. Hence, for now I see no reason to move to win8... Not going to whine, but only guff with it is the start screen and the rather flat appearance compared to 7... Both of which are easily worked around.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 09:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Perhaps look up the page at impar's reply, or take a read of the Windows 8 Marmite thread
Or maybe if you read some articles on Google

impar's reply is weak. It is inaccurate (apps resize and snap) and mentions points addressed in Windows 8.1 (background, optional booting to Start Menu). And something cannot be obscure and intrusive at the same time.
Corky42 18th January 2014, 09:55 Quote
So that still leaves...
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Greetings!a OS that blended poorly two UIs. That made the primary UI be the touch-first one. That lacked the ability to run apps in resizable windows. That booted directly to the least used app launch screen. That used all of the screen for the most basic tasks. That added a second incomplete Control Panel. ... (pretty sure I am forgetting some of the problems)

The 215 pages in the Windows 8 Marmite thread and the 499,000,000 Google results, but there is little point getting into the pros and cons of Windows 8.X in a thread about Windows 9 when its fairly clear from the Windows 8 Marmite thread you either love it or hate it. It would seem from the uptake of 8.X most people are on the hate it side of the fence, even Microsoft is distancing them self from it.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 10:05 Quote
>sigh< What does he mean by "primary"? Metro apps can snap, and anyway windowed apps have their own problems: contents don't dynamically resize to the window, so you end up with finicky scroll bars. Booting to Start Screen: fixed in W8.1. Apps using full screen: I refer you to snapping. Second incomplete control panel: fixed in W8.1. and anyway, you can just pin the desktop one to the Start Screen or taskbar.

Again you are confounding your data. Most people don't care what version of Windows they run. They just run whatever happens to be on the PC they bought. And people are not buying as many PCs because tablets will do nicely, thanks.
Corky42 18th January 2014, 10:22 Quote
I would guess he means the dictionary definition of "primary"
Booting to the start screen isn't fixed, it still boots to the primary touch optimised UI as default.
Snapping isn't resizing.
Apps using full screen is default behavior.

And "tablets will do nicely, thanks." just backs up how awful Windows 8.X is, as people are not buying the tablets with it installed even though Microsoft have designed the OS with mobile devices as their primary target.
impar 18th January 2014, 10:40 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It is inaccurate (apps resize and snap)...
Still far away from the resizing flexibility of windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
... mentions points addressed in Windows 8.1 (background, optional booting to Start Menu).
Problems addressed by Microsoft two years after they were found. Forgot to mention another solved problem, the StarScreen filled up with all sort of unneeded shortcuts to readmes\helpfiles\license agreements\uninstalls\etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And something cannot be obscure and intrusive at the same time.
Microsoft proved it can. Obscure in the sense that there is no visual cue of their existence in the UI and intrusive for when you dont want them to appear and they do.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 10:45 Quote
I guess he makes no sense then.

Tick one box, and it won't boot to Start Screen anymore. But I guess most people only use Windows 7 and earlier strictly in default settings, too.

As for tablets with Windows: http://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/windows-8-tablets-to-surge-in-2014-analyst-predicts-114011300223_1.html

Again, the main problem has been price and maturity of ecosystem, not the OS.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 10:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Still far away from the resizing flexibility of windows.
One man's flexibility is another man's chaos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Problems addressed by Microsoft two years after they were found. Forgot to mention another solved problem, the StarScreen filled up with all sort of unneeded shortcuts to readmes\helpfiles\license agreements\uninstalls\etc.
So did the Start Menu. Drove me nuts. But again: fixed in W8.1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
Microsoft proved it can. Obscure in the sense that there is no visual cue of their existence in the UI and intrusive for when you dont want them to appear and they do.

Except the installation intro demonstrates them. And I never have had them appear when I don't want them.

We've been over this. No point doing it again. Let's move on, no?
loftie 18th January 2014, 11:01 Quote
In the spirit of this being a Windows 9 thread, to the haters of Modern and W8, assuming Modern was kept in 9 what in your eyes could be done to improve upon it? And no cheating by saying have an option of the start menu :p
impar 18th January 2014, 11:09 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
We've been over this.
You sure?! :?

PS:
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
And no cheating by saying have an option of the start menu :p
Not going to cheat then.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 13:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar

You sure?! :?

Which goes to show how well you've been following the debate. :p
Corky42 18th January 2014, 13:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Tick one box, and it won't boot to Start Screen anymore. But I guess most people only use Windows 7 and earlier strictly in default settings, too.
Yes most people do stick to default settings, maybe you are viewing this through the eyes of someone who is comfortable to experiment, change things or install software, but people like you, me and most others on these forums are not the majority of operating system users.

Most people leave the PC exactly as they bought it, complete with all the bloated junk that OEM's install, most people have trouble finding a document they saved just 1 min earlier, most people don't know anything about the most basic settings on their device.
Quote:
When predictions become more than that maybe we can re evaluate things but until then predictions mean nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Again, the main problem has been price and maturity of ecosystem, not the OS.
Price is dependent on quality if you have a better product than your competitor people are willing to pay the extra cost, if you don't then you have to appeal to peoples pocket by beaing cheaper than your competitor.
And if people are not willing to buy into the OS the ecosystem means nothing, previous OS's didn't have a "ecosystem" people either liked it or didn't, developers either wrote software and drivers for it or they didn't
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Except the installation intro demonstrates them. And I never have had them appear when I don't want them.
Great if you was the one that happened to install it, not so great if like the vast majority of people you bought it from a OEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loftie
In the spirit of this being a Windows 9 thread, to the haters of Modern and W8, assuming Modern was kept in 9 what in your eyes could be done to improve upon it? And no cheating by saying have an option of the start menu :p
Nothing, Modern is optimised for touch.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 13:40 Quote
I'm sorry, but that's not entirely true. iOS had the advantage of being the first and only decent mobile OS, so as it was gradually adopted the apps gradually appeared. Moreover it was already able to leverage iTunes' massive media ecosystem. Android was able to leverage Google's already huge and popular, well-known information ecosystem and cloud storage.

Microsoft did not have much to leverage at all, and what it had, it failed to leverage. Bing is still second place to Google; few people know Skydrive, Hotmail was no patch on GMail, and Microsoft failed to leverage Zune media and XBox Live games.
loftie 18th January 2014, 15:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by impar
PS:

Not going to cheat then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Nothing, Modern is optimised for touch.

Well, I tried. Apparently Windows is doomed, you guys better start running Linux, or OSX.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Yes most people do stick to default settings, maybe you are viewing this through the eyes of someone who is comfortable to experiment, change things or install software, but people like you, me and most others on these forums are not the majority of operating system users.

I think you have way too much faith in some people on here, they seem to have trouble with installing software :p
Corky42 18th January 2014, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm sorry, but that's not entirely true. iOS had the advantage of being the first and only decent mobile OS, so as it was gradually adopted the apps gradually appeared. Moreover it was already able to leverage iTunes' massive media ecosystem. Android was able to leverage Google's already huge and popular, well-known information ecosystem and cloud storage.

Microsoft did not have much to leverage at all, and what it had, it failed to leverage. Bing is still second place to Google; few people know Skydrive, Hotmail was no patch on GMail, and Microsoft failed to leverage Zune media and XBox Live games.
iOS didn't have the advantage of being the first mobile OS, Microsoft had a 7 to 11 years head start on them with Windows CE. Admittedly an awful mobile OS but that's what happens when you try to use an OS on a device it wasn't intended for.

Microsoft had all the leverage they needed but failed to take advantage of it, instead they either didn't care or didn't think that there was a better way to interact with a mobile device and that mobile users have different needs.
Nexxo 18th January 2014, 17:00 Quote
And here we go again. Let me bold it for you:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm sorry, but that's not entirely true. iOS had the advantage of being the first and only decent mobile OS, so as it was gradually adopted the apps gradually appeared.

And let's not forget that iOS' GUI was based on Newton OS, which existed back in 1993, and inspired the GUI of Palm OS.

But it is nice to know that we roughly agree on Microsoft's failure to leverage its assets. It has a history of doing so (Blackberry would never have existed otherwise). Still, to say that it had all the leverage it needed... well, I do not entirely agree. Search, Maps and Webmail were all dominated by Google. Microsoft came to the internet party quite late; it totally failed to see how central it would become to most common computing activities.
Corky42 19th January 2014, 08:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
And here we go again. Let me bold it for you
Seriously ? You have problems reading what i wrote ?
Let me help you...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Admittedly an awful mobile OS but that's what happens when you try to use an OS on a device it wasn't intended for.
Microsoft had 7 to 11 years to take advantage of their market dominance and improve the situation, they decided not to and someone came along and took advantage of that by making a mobile OS that worked better.
Its called a free market, if you don't provide your customers with what they need or want eventually someone else will and your customers will choose the better product.

Microsoft did have all the leverage it needed, in fact it was in a better place than its competitors with a %47 market share. Apple used the same internet, had access to the same technology, etc, etc that could have been used by anyone including Microsoft.
Nexxo 19th January 2014, 09:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Seriously ? You have problems reading what i wrote ?
Let me help you...

Microsoft had 7 to 11 years to take advantage of their market dominance and improve the situation, they decided not to and someone came along and took advantage of that by making a mobile OS that worked better.
Its called a free market, if you don't provide your customers with what they need or want eventually someone else will and your customers will choose the better product.
So basically you agree with me. You just like to make it sound like you don't. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Microsoft did have all the leverage it needed, in fact it was in a better place than its competitors with a %47 market share. Apple used the same internet, had access to the same technology, etc, etc that could have been used by anyone including Microsoft.
Leverage is not just about market share. Anyway, that is fairly trivial. What we agree on is that Microsoft failed to leverage the resources it already had.
impar 20th January 2014, 10:27 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Windows 9 Could Arrive Much Earlier Than Anticipated

Citing some leaked documents and some good detective work, it has been reported that there is a good possibility that Windows 9 may debut its final version in Q4 2014. It looks like Microsoft really wants to put the problems of Windows 8/8.1 in their rear view mirror once and for all.

If they’re accurate with Windows 9, then Microsoft may be hoping to push things along so that they don’t have to suffer through another holiday shopping season plagued by the ghost of Windows 8.

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2014/01/18/windows_9_could_arrive_much_earlier_than_anticipated
Beta maybe, RTM doubt it.
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums