# Windows 9 release in April 2015



## DRDNA (Jan 11, 2014)

http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/11/5298798/windows-9-release-date-april-2015-rumor


----------



## scoutingwraith (Jan 11, 2014)

Hmm. Isnt it a bit too early. i think they are pushing it too early personally.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 11, 2014)

scoutingwraith said:


> Hmm. Isnt it a bit too early. i think they are pushing it too early personally.



Windows Vista = Jan 2007
Windows 7 = Jul 2009(~2.5 Years)
Windows 8 = Oct 2012(~3 Years)
Windows 9 = Apr 2015(~2.5 Years)

Seems like they are pretty much sticking to the same schedule, give or take a few months.


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2014)

Please keep away the start meny. Expand on Metro instead.

About the release schedule:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

Frick said:


> Please keep away the start meny. Expand on Metro instead.



Screw Metro, it is terrible.  Give people the option to use what they want.


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Screw Metro, it is terrible.  Give people the option to use what they want.



Like earlier versions of Windows, which has a HOST of different desktops and ways of using them? Metro ... has issues, but I like it. Refine it, expand it, make it better.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 12, 2014)

So is this what became of the Windows 8.2 rumors? Where they were bringing back a full start menu finally. I hope they can come up with more than just that to make people fork out money for it. That sort of thing should be free for existing 8 users.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

Frick said:


> Like earlier versions of Windows, which has a HOST of different desktops and ways of using them? Metro ... has issues, but I like it. Refine it, expand it, make it better.


Thats fine, it works great on touch devices, but give traditional desktop users the option to use the traditional start menu.  They had the code there, they didn't have to do anything beyond include it and give those that want to use it a check box to enable it.


----------



## KainXS (Jan 12, 2014)

I want to be able to choose between having the start menu or metro at installation(or first boot on a prebuilt), that way I would never have to see metro period because its more than likely not going away.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

DRDNA said:


> Windows 9 release in April 2015


Another fiasco.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 12, 2014)




----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

remixedcat, that's uneatable.


----------



## Easy Rhino (Jan 12, 2014)

Metro is terrible for the workplace. Bring back the classic start menu and you will see businesses purchase Windows 9.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> remixedcat, that's uneatable.



Nope. It's eatable. I had something big like that at Red Robin and it was gooood.  I had enough for 2 meals. He he. Not bad for 12 bucks.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

Easy Rhino said:


> Bring back the classic start menu and you will see businesses purchase Windows 9.


Why to buy when you can get something better for free?! (rhetorical question)

Now tell me if you can understand humans. I cannot.



remixedcat said:


> Nope. It's eatable. I had something big like that at Red Robin and it was gooood.


I admire your talent.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 12, 2014)

remixedcat said:


> Nope. It's eatable. I had something big like that at Red Robin and it was gooood.  I had enough for 2 meals. He he. Not bad for 12 bucks.



2? my gosh. cant even eat half of that. lol. yeah like Blue-Knight said I admire your talent as well.

Well I know people missed the classic start menu. since win 8 release, been using it. It is just getting used to it honestly. I dont admire the metro style of win 8/8.1 but im not totally against it. I stopped using win 7 cause M$ never release SP2. Looks like they really pushing people to move towards win 8.

If I can wish, would like to have option on the next M$ release to install a metro style or classic windows set up. I do miss the classic start menu where I can select all the programs instead of the win8.1 where I have to click alot of places inorder to find the programs i want.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 12, 2014)

night.fox said:


> I do miss the classic start menu where I can select all the programs instead of the win8.1 where I have to click alot of places inorder to find the programs i want.



Have you tried Start8?  You would swear you were still on Windows 7.  Everything works just like on 7.

And you can even try ModernMix too, which will control the behavior of all the modern UI apps when you DO use them.


----------



## DRDNA (Jan 12, 2014)

I'm betting that 9 will have the option to have the normal start menu and options or a metro style.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 12, 2014)

DRDNA said:


> I'm betting that 9 will have the option to have the normal start menu and options or a metro style.



Let's hope so!


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 12, 2014)

rtwjunkie said:


> Have you tried Start8?  You would swear you were still on Windows 7.  Everything works just like on 7.
> 
> And you can even try ModernMix too, which will control the behavior of all the modern UI apps when you DO use them.



yes i did tried. but dont like it cause at some point i experienced some weird things when any of the start menu programs (freeware and paid). Cannot really explain it well but it has some conflicts (maybe) in programs I installed. I just gave up didnt want to dig more into trouble. My laptop still runs win 7 and my desktop runs 8.1. So it is just getting used to it. ^_^


----------



## qubit (Jan 12, 2014)

Not only would I want Metro gone, but I want Aero back.

I'm still on 7 for these two main reasons (especially Metro).


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

night.fox said:


> I stopped using win 7 cause M$ never release SP2. Looks like they really pushing people to move towards win 8.



There is no need for a SP2 to be released for Win7.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 12, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> There is no need for a SP2 to be released for Win7.



Other than update bundling. Takes quite awhile to get a new SP1 disc up to date these days.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 12, 2014)

slipstreaming


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 12, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> There is no need for a SP2 to be released for Win7.



yeah you might think that way. look at win xp, they have until SP3. win 7 SP1 and just continous update? i would want SP2 for a small space for reprogramming / reformatting my PC instead of having enourmous update after SP1 installed


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

LAN_deRf_HA said:


> Other than update bundling. Takes quite awhile to get a new SP1 disc up to date these days.



WSUS Offline updater, check it out.  It rolls up all the updates for you into a folder, you drop that folder on a USB stick, plug the USB stick into the fresh computer and run the installer and walk away, it installs all the updates for you.  You only have to download the updates once and the fresh computer doesn't need to be connected to the internet.   And it installs all the updates in roughly the same amount of time it would take to install a service pack.



night.fox said:


> yeah you might think that way. look at win xp, they have until SP3. win 7 SP1 and just continous update? i would want SP2 for a small space for reprogramming / reformatting my PC instead of having enourmous update after SP1 installed



XP needed so many service packs because XP was lacking pretty major features that needed to either be added to the OS or the OS would have died a lot sooner.  Windows 7 doesn't need major features added to it, so it doesn't need another service pack.


----------



## Hood (Jan 12, 2014)

If they really want to keep Windows market share, they need to release a dozen or more custom versions; Business, Gamer, Pro, Ultimate, Lite, Super Lite, HTPC, Miner, Server, Tablet, Phone, Classroom, etc., all priced according to functionality, so Gamers who never use office apps and whatnot don't have to pay for them, and Super Lite users can just use the core OS and add 3rd party apps as needed - no bloated, memory hogging versions unless that's what you want and choose Ultimate or Pro.  If M$ would quit shoving unnecessary crap down our throats, they'd be heroes instead of the inside joke they have always been.  They need to make Windows more modular so that unwanted features can easily be deleted and we can stop running 150 services and 2 Gb of memory even when doing nothing.  Like Linux but more user-friendly and universal.  But why dream? - they'll never do it, it will just keep getting more bloated and integrated with fucking Bing and Store and all their other money-grabbing schemes.  I can't imagine a worse CEO than Steve Ballmer, but they'll find one somewhere, who will take us all into the "cloud" to our ever-lasting bliss.


----------



## VulkanBros (Jan 12, 2014)

There a plenty of options for getting back the Start menu - Start8, Classic Shell, etc etc...

But yeah - for touch things Metro is allright, but keep it away from Desktop users.
Give us the Core installation - like the Windows Server 2012.....


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

Hood said:


> If they really want to keep Windows market share, they need to release a dozen or more custom versions; Business, Gamer, Pro, Ultimate, Lite, Super Lite, HTPC, Miner, Server, Tablet, Phone, Classroom, etc., all priced according to functionality, so Gamers who never use office apps and whatnot don't have to pay for them, and Super Lite users can just use the core OS and add 3rd party apps as needed - no bloated, memory hogging versions unless that's what you want and choose Ultimate or Pro.  If M$ would quit shoving unnecessary crap down our throats, they'd be heroes instead of the inside joke they have always been.  They need to make Windows more modular so that unwanted features can easily be deleted and we can stop running 150 services and 2 Gb of memory even when doing nothing.  Like Linux but more user-friendly and universal.  But why dream? - they'll never do it, it will just keep getting more bloated and integrated with fucking Bing and Store and all their other money-grabbing schemes.  I can't imagine a worse CEO than Steve Ballmer, but they'll find one somewhere, who will take us all into the "cloud" to our ever-lasting bliss.



Ironically, most people bitched them up a storm about having too many different editions with Vista and 7, which is why they went with the simpler 2 version approach with 8.

And it works.  People don't want to have to compare a bunch of different versions, most consumers don't care, they want a simple choice.  Home users take choice A and Office users take choice B.

Having a bunch of niche versions that might appeal to 1% of the market, and those people are buying your products anyway, isn't worth the development time.


----------



## Jack1n (Jan 12, 2014)

I actually had windows 8.1 installed the other day and i went back to 7 because i hated it so much.


----------



## Ja.KooLit (Jan 12, 2014)

people dont want change.... i myself dont want to. but somehow there is inside of me being so curious about win 8. i actually get used after a week of usage. i do use metro apps as well. i found out it performs better than win 7 in some cases..... but that is just my personal opinion. look at some other people.... i know a guy who like so much xp.... he dislikes win 7 and win 8..... right now he is actually using 8.1. i was so surprised. amd when i ask why... he said its not really bad.... 
i myself use start menu alot of times. im a kinda of guy like a clean desktop. i dont have any icons and so on into my desktop.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Jan 12, 2014)

well if they release it the 1st april ... then it would not be a fiasco ...

nevermind


night.fox said:


> people dont want change.... i myself dont want to. but somehow there is inside of me being so curious about win 8. i actually get used after a week of usage. i do use metro apps as well. i found out it performs better than win 7 in some cases..... but that is just my personal opinion. look at some other people.... i know a guy who like so much xp.... he dislikes win 7 and win 8..... right now he is actually using 8.1. i was so surprised. amd when i ask why... he said its not really bad....
> i myself use start menu alot of times. im a kinda of guy like a clean desktop. i dont have any icons and so on into my desktop.



mostly true


----------



## Hood (Jan 12, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Ironically, most people bitched them up a storm about having too many different editions with Vista and 7, which is why they went with the simpler 2 version approach with 8.
> 
> And it works.  People don't want to have to compare a bunch of different versions, most consumers don't care, they want a simple choice.  Home users take choice A and Office users take choice B.
> 
> Having a bunch of niche versions that might appeal to 1% of the market, and those people are buying your products anyway, isn't worth the development time.



So sorry, but I have to disagree.  The problem with those versions is that they were too much the same, and all bloated with unwanted junk.  I think M$ is more driven by greed and laziness.  People want choices, they're tired of having to settle for crap, and I think anyone who's smart enough to really use their PC can certainly decide between a dozen versions, and the computer-illiterate masses can just use the standard Home version like they've been doing.  You don't give people enough credit.  More people are building custom rigs and shunning the crappy OEM beige boxes, and they're not afraid to spend time setting their systems up to their liking.  The 'computer geek' is now looked up to instead of ridiculed, and being inept at using your PC or tablet or smart phone is socially unacceptable.  This is 2014, and the landscape is different than the scenario you describe in 2006 and 2009.   PCs have only been around for 30 years, and the base of savvy users continues to grow, (along with the number of newbies who don't know know much).  But the spread of PC knowledge is exponential as the market matures and society becomes saturated with technology.  This is all just my opinion, I could be wrong...


----------



## Kaynar (Jan 12, 2014)

Well if Win9 doesn't have a start menu I think my next OS (after my current Win7) will be Ubuntu.

Some people here claim forced changes is the way to go. Join Apple then, that's why the exist, to tell their customers what is good and bad.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

Hood said:


> So sorry, but I have to disagree.  The problem with those versions is that they were too much the same, and all bloated with unwanted junk.  I think M$ is more driven by greed and laziness.  People want choices, they're tired of having to settle for crap, and I think anyone who's smart enough to really use their PC can certainly decide between a dozen versions, and the computer-illiterate masses can just use the standard Home version like they've been doing.  You don't give people enough credit.  More people are building custom rigs and shunning the crappy OEM beige boxes, and they're not afraid to spend time setting their systems up to their liking.  The 'computer geek' is now looked up to instead of ridiculed, and being inept at using your PC or tablet or smart phone is socially unacceptable.  This is 2014, and the landscape is different than the scenario you describe in 2006 and 2009.   PCs have only been around for 30 years, and the base of savvy users continues to grow, (along with the number of newbies who don't know know much).  But the spread of PC knowledge is exponential as the market matures and society becomes saturated with technology.  This is all just my opinion, I could be wrong...


You can disagree all you want, but the fact is the market doesn't want a bunch of niche versions.  If you want to keep disagreeing just go back and find the threads on the announcement of the versions for Vista and Windows 7.

And with as powerful as even the most basic computers are, the marginal extra bloat doesn't make a difference.  Who cares if Win8.1 idles using 2GB of RAM with even basic laptops come with 4GB and 8GB is the stanadard?(but to be fair it only uses about 0.9GB of RAM)

Heck, I haven't even bothered going through and disabling the extra services that I don't use in probably 4 years, the last time I did it was with Vista.

But again, you are talking about making so many extra versions for a small niche of people that are already buying their products anyway.  There is no point in that, and there is no point in adding that confusion to the market.  Especially when those versions add basically nothing to the user expereience at this point.  Windows 8.1 is far from bloated, it doesn't need a lite version, that wouldn't really make any noticeable benefit.  

I'm not saying people can't figure out the difference between all the different versions, I'm saying they don't want to.  They want simple.  They basically want the choice to be made for them, they don't want to do any research either.


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Jan 12, 2014)

I hope there will be again an upgrade from 8.1 or 8.2 whatever, for low cost.

I am using win 8.1 at home, and at work (we do have a couple of computer with it), it runs soo smooth.

Personally, I will never go back to Windows 7. Modern UI is way better than the start menu. 1 click or press windows menu, I see all my pinned apps, faster than going to start, all programs or to pinned just a couple. now it can be sort like I want: Audio/video, games, Office, utilities, benchmark, etc. Plus, I like the live tile.

The only bad thing, is that win 8.1 cannot be downloaded other way that from the Store. Bad for business with WSUS installed


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Who cares if Win8.1 idles using 2GB of RAM


Me (and many others). This is a total waste of RAM.

And it's not my opinion, it is a fact.


----------



## ChristTheGreat (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> Me (and many others). This is a total waste of RAM.
> 
> And it's not my opinion, it is a fact.



the more you gives to the OS, the more it will take... It is not a waste of ram, it is caching it. You see, on my Asus T100, I have 2gb of ram, idle, I have less than 50% of ram used.. On Windows 7, on 4gb of ram, Windows is taking like 35 to 40% on my sisters'computer. Nothing running. it is not better.. xD

Sorry but alot of people complain about nothing. They just tryto get reason to not like any new things cause they don't want to buy it. They can keep Windows 7 for a long time if they want... But in fact, Windows 8 is a good OS..


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

ChristTheGreat said:


> It is not a waste of ram


It is.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 12, 2014)

What 7 was to Vista, 9 will be to 8. 

All the little bugs and negativity etc etc will be ironed out. 

I hope.


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> It is.



You forgot the rest of his point: It will make use of what is avaliable. That is The Point.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

Frick said:


> You forgot the rest of his point


No, I did not.

It is a waste of memory.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 12, 2014)

WhiteLotus said:


> What 7 was to Vista, 9 will be to 8.
> 
> All the little bugs and negativity etc etc will be ironed out.
> 
> I hope.


That is what I hope for as well.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> No, I did not.
> 
> It is a waste of memory.


As if people don't have 4GB as standard these days anyway...


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

WhiteLotus said:


> As if people don't have 4GB as standard these days anyway...


I do not.

And that's a not intelligent way of thinking. If you have 1TB of memory and the OS alone takes 900GB just keep it idle, then what's the point of having so much memory.

Nothing against it, but if you support and use this you are stupid just like them are. No decent OS need so much, that's a waste of memory.


----------



## WhiteLotus (Jan 12, 2014)

Nope its an efficient OS. Why have RAM if you're not going to use it?


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> No, I did not.
> 
> It is a waste of memory.





Blue-Knight said:


> I do not.
> 
> And that's a not intelligent way of thinking. If you have 1TB of memory and the OS alone takes 900GB just keep it idle, then what's the point of having so much memory.
> 
> Nothing against it, but if you support and use this you are stupid just like them are. No decent OS need so much, that's a waste of memory.



So it's better to have the memory totally unused, as opposed to make use of the caching and prediction functions and store things in memory so that said things can be brought up quicker than if they were on the HDD?


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

Frick said:


> So it's better to have the memory totally unused, as opposed to make use of the caching and prediction functions


I'm not talking about caching... I'm talking memory hungry OSes that eats hundreds of megabytes just "keep it alive" and leave that amount impossible to use.



WhiteLotus said:


> Why have RAM if you're not going to use it?


RAM should be used wisely. If you use it wisely, you won't need that much.

And if you need that much, you will be able to use more in real world applications instead of losing them to OS. This is making your money spent on RAM worth every cent!

-----
Not to mention those big OSes that eat precious GB of your hard disk just for nothing useful. But this is not being debated here...


----------



## Frick (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> I'm not talking about caching... I'm talking memory hungry OSes that eats hundreds of megabytes just "keep it alive" and leave that amount impossible to use.
> 
> RAM should be used wisely. If you use it wisely, you won't need that much.
> 
> And if you need that much, you will be able to use more in real world applications instead of losing them to OS. This is making your money spent on RAM worth every cent!



... I'm pretty sure it's dynamic (it is dynamic). From what I've seen it's no different from Windows 7. If you don't have 2GB memory, it will not use 2GB. When you launch your real world applications, they will use the memory they need. But you know this. Less than 2GB will get annoying (for me anyway), but such is the case with Windows 7, and every fancier Linux distro, as well.

EDIT: Actually, less than 4GB is out of the question for me for "proper" work. slitaz to the rescue.

EDIT again: Are you talking Windows 8 here, or just Windows in general? I'm thinking it's about Windows Anything, and then you are right in that it needs more than your xubuntu. But so does Ubuntu. It's how it works.


----------



## HammerON (Jan 12, 2014)

It looks like you all may just need to agree to disagree and let it go


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

Frick said:


> But you know this. Less than 2GB will get annoying


Maybe on Windows. I use Xubuntu and it lets me with a little more than 1700MB for me to use with I want.

And that's if I let the window manager running. If I disable it, I will have 1800MB out of 2000MB to spend with real applications and productivity!

And that's because if I have 1900MB available out of 2000MB the kernel seems to allow only "free memory -100MB"(approximately) to be used by programs.

Not sure.


----------



## AsRock (Jan 12, 2014)

DRDNA said:


> I'm betting that 9 will have the option to have the normal start menu and options or a metro style.



But that would require common sense from MS, and i don't know about that.

For ever changing moving removing shit that don't need to be moved rarely helps user performance.  Like how many more times they going change the control panel OMG stop already..


----------



## erixx (Jan 12, 2014)

nothing against anyone in particular, but this thread needs to be closed because it is just stupid: i like it, I do not, I like it, i do not.

please, consider that opinions are like assholes, every animal in this zoo has one.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

erixx said:


> it is just stupid


Just like the one you've just posted.


----------



## erixx (Jan 12, 2014)

hey hey stop it! Nothing compares to my post(s)!!


----------



## HammerON (Jan 12, 2014)

Alright folks. Cool it.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 12, 2014)

Blue-Knight said:


> Me (and many others). This is a total waste of RAM.
> 
> And it's not my opinion, it is a fact.





Blue-Knight said:


> I do not.
> 
> And that's a not intelligent way of thinking. If you have 1TB of memory and the OS alone takes 900GB just keep it idle, then what's the point of having so much memory.
> 
> Nothing against it, but if you support and use this you are stupid just like them are. No decent OS need so much, that's a waste of memory.





Blue-Knight said:


> I'm not talking about caching... I'm talking memory hungry OSes that eats hundreds of megabytes just "keep it alive" and leave that amount impossible to use.
> 
> 
> RAM should be used wisely. If you use it wisely, you won't need that much.
> ...




You should really look into how Windows manages memory more.  Notice I said on my machine(a laptop) it only uses 0.9GB.  Windows targets RAM usage at about 25% of the total memory installed in the compute, of course it can only go so far.  It is extremely efficient with managing memory.  If you have 4GB of RAM, like my laptop, it will use about 1GB when idle.  If you have 8GB it will use about 2GB.  It doesn't really go above 2GB though, so adding 16GB of RAM will still result in about 2GB of RAM used idle.

It manages to do this by paging the less important processes related to the less important services. These are the services that some people spend hours going through and disabling to save memory.  But it isn't really necessary, because Microsoft has already optimized this and will page these services if it needs to.

However, like I said there is a limit.  If you have 2GB of memory it will use about 0.75GB.

But in the end, it doesn't matter how much memory it is using, what matters if the machine runs smoothly.  And even with 2GB of RAM, Win8.1 runs extremely smoothly and works perfectly for everything but playing games.  My HTPC has 2GB of RAM, and works perfectly for watching movies, browsing the web, Office apps, I even run Photoshop on it.

It isn't wasting RAM, it is using it efficiently and adapting to the situation it is in. An OS sitting there using very little RAM doesn't mean it is not wasting RAM, and an OS using the RAM it has available is not an OS that is wasting RAM.  The RAM is there to be used, and Win8.1 knows that.

So I'll rephase my statement slightly to clearify.  Who cares Win8.1 idles using 2GB of memory when you've got 8GB?

Edit: I'm not trying to keep the argument going, I just trying to get the information on how Windows manages memory out there, because there are a lot of people that don't know.


----------



## Blue-Knight (Jan 12, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> It is extremely efficient with managing memory.


I'm not even going to reply or read your entire post because I do not want to be banned in one more forum.

I'm leaving this topic. Happy New Year and sorry anything!


----------



## Arctucas (Jan 12, 2014)

qubit said:


> Not only would I want Metro gone, but I want Aero back.
> 
> I'm still on 7 for these two main reasons (especially Metro).




I also have foregone W8 for those reasons, as well as the accursed Windows Store.


----------



## Arctucas (Jan 12, 2014)

DRDNA said:


> I'm betting that 9 will have the option to have the normal start menu and options or a metro style.




That depends on how successful the cranial-rectal extraction is on the Windows development team...


----------



## HammerON (Jan 12, 2014)

Arctucas - please don't double post.


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 13, 2014)

i consider moving to win 9
i guess m$ will release something better than 8. yeah i dont like metro, i prefer something simple like xp with 7 looks and new architekture
and usually windows is up and down, so 7 is up, 8 is down and (i hope) 9 will up too.
and i just hope m$ wont push its costumer to eat what they offer, remember when m$ released win 8 and push the market to accept it coz bla.. bla.. bla.. and it aint work, so i hope m$ wont do that again


----------



## erocker (Jan 13, 2014)

Windows? Blah! I've noticed there has been a nice push lately (steam, software/gaming developers) to get stuff out on Linux. While I can't stand using Linux, I'm hoping in a few more years there will be a very (stupid) user friendly version. Windows needs competition.


----------



## micropage7 (Jan 13, 2014)

erocker said:


> Windows? Blah! I've noticed there has been a nice push lately (steam, software/gaming developers) to get stuff out on Linux. While I can't stand using Linux, I'm hoping in a few more years there will be a very (stupid) user friendly version. Windows needs competition.



linux fight windows, yeah everybody knows that, i mean when windows tries to make everything easy as possible, linux is kinda harder to do more if you dont get its command line
and its driver, i wonder why they dont make like any emulator at driver level so its its easier for anyone
but return to windows, personally i like simple system with straight forward and reliable features, just wait and see how abou new windows


----------



## v12dock (Jan 13, 2014)

Handout a copy of Start8 with every copy of W8 so everyone is happy


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Jan 13, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> WSUS Offline updater, check it out. It rolls up all the updates for you into a folder, you drop that folder on a USB stick, plug the USB stick into the fresh computer and run the installer and walk away, it installs all the updates for you. You only have to download the updates once and the fresh computer doesn't need to be connected to the internet. And it installs all the updates in roughly the same amount of time it would take to install a service pack.



I use custom discs with bundled updates. The OS is pretty much ready to go after installation. I was speaking generally it's an inconvenience for people because most casual builders won't use any of those shortcuts and would benefit from an official update bundling despite other options existing. Though it occurs to me maybe MS updates their SP1 discs silently every time they burn a new batch. I haven't used the stock discs for awhile so idk.


----------



## stinger608 (Jan 14, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> WSUS Offline updater, check it out.  It rolls up all the updates for you into a folder, you drop that folder on a USB stick, plug the USB stick into the fresh computer and *run the installer* and walk away, it installs all the updates for you.  You only have to download the updates once and the fresh computer doesn't need to be connected to the internet.   And it installs all the updates in roughly the same amount of time it would take to install a service pack.



"run the installer....." What installer?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2014)

MS writes the OS for the average joe- computer illiterate people-dont know shi+ not the power user- black viper is the one who spent the time to go through all of their processes and figure out their functions.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 14, 2014)

stinger608 said:


> "run the installer....." What installer?


It creates a folder, in that folder is a file called "updateinstaller.exe", you run that on a fresh machine and it installs all the updates for you.


----------



## techtard (Jan 14, 2014)

Hopefully there are some big improvements over Win7, which is still a pretty badass OS.


----------



## stinger608 (Jan 14, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> It creates a folder, in that folder is a file called "updateinstaller.exe", you run that on a fresh machine and it installs all the updates for you.



Hmm, I guess I need to look closer LOL. loaded up an XP on a vm and installed WSUS but didn't see that file. Will look again; thanks Tekie!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Jan 14, 2014)

Might aswell start being a tester of ReactOS.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 14, 2014)

stinger608 said:


> Hmm, I guess I need to look closer LOL. loaded up an XP on a vm and installed WSUS but didn't see that file. Will look again; thanks Tekie!!!


WSUS and WSUS Offline Updater are different things.  WSUS is a Microsoft tool, WSUS Offline Updater is a 3rd party tool that downloads all the updates and creates an installer for you that you can put on any machine.  It basically makes a service pack for you that you can use on any machine without an internet connection.


----------



## stinger608 (Jan 14, 2014)

Right, that is what I got was WSUS Offline.


----------



## Frick (Jan 14, 2014)

Here's what Peter Bright of Arstechnica says:



> So what'll be in Threshold? The two things Thurrott says are a way of running Metro apps on the desktop and a reinstatement of the Start menu. _Our_ sources say that's only sort of true, and that it won't be the Start menu as such but rather something new. Start menuesque, perhaps, but not a literal Start menu.



Which I think would be excellent.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Jan 14, 2014)

Frick said:


> Here's what Peter Bright of Arstechnica says:
> 
> 
> 
> Which I think would be excellent.


 That would be fine as long as they leave in the ability for companies (like Stardock and others) to mod in a proper start menu and desktop, like they did with 8 and 8.1, for those that want it.


----------



## remixedcat (Jan 14, 2014)

Oh wow.


----------



## erixx (Jan 15, 2014)

vista brought the desktop gadgets
7 took them away
8 brought live tiles on another screen (metro)
9 wants to put them back on desktop

nice brainstorm, could have done that 10 years ago and make it consistent


----------



## Melvis (Jan 15, 2014)

newtekie1 said:


> Windows Vista = Jan 2007
> Windows 7 = Jul 2009(~2.5 Years)
> Windows 8 = Oct 2012(~3 Years)
> Windows 9 = Apr 2015(~2.5 Years)
> ...



Until you throw in Windows XP lol


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Jan 15, 2014)

I don't see why this is a big deal.  M$ will release an OS whenever they feel like it.  There will be immediately backlash, and hate.  Within 6 months M$ will say that it is a commercial success, because they've shipped a large amount of computers that feature it.

During this joyful 6 month period early adopters will determine whether they recommend the switch.  There will be a roughly 50-50 divide between the early adopters, which will polarize the trolls on each side.  Cue the ensuing flame war of haters on each side, while those of us who have computers already will wait for the dust to settle.

Within 8 months of release, there will be a general consensus on whether the OS was "good" or not.  This will drive continued sales, which will determine whether the OS is beloved or not.  4 months later M$ will announce something new (whether it be an OS or otherwise), and we'll reenter the speculation buzz.  M$ has learned to time this crap, so that their PR engine will require as little maintenance as possible.  Doesn't anyone else recognize this yet?


In the coming weeks we'll see the rise of fluff pieces condemning and evangelizing windows 8/8.1.   M$ has confirmed nothing, but managed to generate a buzz about themselves.  In the glory days of XP there was no reason to upgrade.  Volume sales of new computers made it so that M$ could gain revenue just by people buying new machines.  As the market has become saturated, they have shifted focus to planned obsolesence.  Each OS has a set life, then M$ wants you to buy another.  Great for business, but crappy for people who want to buy a PC that lasts a few years.



TL ; DR
Another OS from M$...yay...  I'm getting ready to break out the marshmallows, because this flame war is going to be a fun watch.  Wait until there's some actual news!  I may need to buy some asbestos undergarments...


----------



## Frick (Jan 15, 2014)

erixx said:


> vista brought the desktop gadgets
> 7 took them away
> 8 brought live tiles on another screen (metro)
> 9 wants to put them back on desktop
> ...


----------

