Microsoft might unveil Windows 9 in April to end Windows 8 woes

and now that i've killed another thread, i'm outta here !

Thanks for the history lesson! I always suspected the 386SX was built as a kind of “transition” chip that let manufacturers continue to use available 16-bit components until everyone else got caught up to 32 bit.

I’m convinced there’s a boatload of stuff in your basic MS operating system that both MS and the USG would rather not know was in there.

Strip it all you want and it will still be massive.

You missed a few things. How many 300MB upgrades have you done at one time on dial up? A considerable share of the market can not get high speed service. Thus basic is ones friend in that respect and all some users need is a basic system where they can move previous stored data too and find it. As for Tablets? Big Whoop!! Where do I plug it into the phone line at? I'm not ready for Mr Gates to store my stuff for me up in his Cloud either. Give me my own and a back up hard drive any day. The first time CLOUD has a major boo boo and can't find customers files the Tablet Market will bottom. Laptops and desktops in that respect rule.

When MS creates an OS and within a few months of release needs a 300 plus MB upgrade {cough cough repair} someone screwed up or didn't listen to it's customers which seems to be the major W-8 issue at hand. The screw up was trying to make a Tablet OS into a desktop OS. Windows 8 may be great for Tablets etc but not for PC unless one is a geek loving to play hide and seek. Some persons thrive on the thrill of it but many more simply don't.

You'll not hear MS talk about lost man hours and production time when businesses including health care used XP and all the staff had to learn W-8. There is no sense in playing games with the menus and making users play button button who's got the button to find program, function, or files. Improvements can be made without doing this and that is the parts MS can not comprehend. They are doing these type of changes simply in the name of a {bling} change and people get angry.

MS does screw up. I started out on WEB TV which was good for what it was designed to do. I went then to W/98. Within a few minutes I was able to navigate it OK. Next came Windows ME Upgrade. The piece of crap OS would not stop writing to the HD long enough to even Defrag even in Safe Mode with only primitive system running it so I uninstalled it. When XP came up I bought a new computer. I've bought three actually since XP's release. XP is a stable system and the jump from 98/SE to XP only took minutes to figure out. Now as I understand it VISTA was garbage and W-7 is great except for again messing with where things were especially in the area of Documents.

Going on the previous MS track record W-8 is likely the dog many say it is and I'm not wasting good money to find out. I'll do a W-7 upgrade soon instead and hope W-9 is a lessons learned OS for MS.

How many zeroes in “million zillion”?

I’m not into exaggerations in order to win an argument. I just like the simple truth.

The simple truth is that, after 30 or so years of the OS wars, Microsoft has won the battle for PC OSes, and Windows still runs quite well on all PCs, no matter what kind of configuration is thrown at the OS, unlike Macs, which only support 2 or 3 configurations which Apple deems is all that people need. Also, most PC applications, which number into the millions, are written for Windows, not OSX or Linux. Those points are not exaggerations; they’re the facts.

> ...That idea that “licenses sold” is not the same as Windows instances installed, is completely wrong. Licenses sold into the distribution channels all eventually become sold and installed and used. Even if they are held on shelves by the OEMs for eventual installation and sales, they are on the way towards usage. “Licenses sold” works the same for all PCs and tablets and smartphones. The only way to get at the true usage numbers, is to go out and do a survey of every home and consumer and business..."

Were you around when Vista was about a couple years old, and Microsoft was panicking because nobody wanted Vista? When MS was strong-arming computer vendors to drop XP and only provide Vista, and the public and businesses revolted?

Do you not remember how consumers and business buyers refused to purchase new PCs unless XP was installed, or at least available on a CD with the computer? Do you not remember how vendors did an about-face, installed XP on the new computers and provided Vista as a CD?

Why on a CD? Because Microsoft forced them to take a Vista license, or else no more Windows for them.

Well, if you had been around, you would remember that Microsoft continued to tout the Vista "license sales" because they didn't care whether people installed it or used it -- they only wanted "the numbers", that is, license sales.

Huge numbers of Vista licenses sold. But how many Vista installations in actual use? Big difference.

That's what's happening with Windows 8, albeit not as dramatically. Instead of revolting, people are just saying, "Screw Windows 8 on a PC, I'll get an iPad or an Android, or a Mac, or maybe I'll just keep using my Win7 machine another year."

If Win 8 was so damn compelling -- on a desktop PC -- people would be flocking to it. Right?

Fact is, it's a fine mobile OS. But on a desktop, it has no discernible advantage to the user over Win7. (Yeah, I know, it's a little faster and cleaner under the hood. But these days, users by and large don't care any more about incremental speed increases.)

> most internet traffic still shows IE and Windows to be the biggest sources of that traffic. Smartphones and tablets are still way behind, by a lot, and Linux and Mac OS hardly even register.

Please provide your sources (two would be nice, but one that's not a Microsoft shill house would be okay). Of course Windows, all versions combined, is still the single largest segment. That's not what we're arguing here. We're talking Win8. Hello?

Like they say on the interwebs, "Pics or it didn't happen". Okay? Source, or it's just a forum comment.

> you couldn’t be more wrong on all your points and comments.

We shall see. Let's revisit the actual usage numbers, as published by the reputable sources, in a year, shall we?

You apparently have not used the new UI, and you actually don’t even have to.

But, the icons can be customized, and rearranged to your liking.

And, again, the wheels haven’t really been reinvented. Windows 8 works the same way as Windows 7, but better and faster. You can make 8 look like 7, and you can do it very simply. Desktop mode still exists, and I actually use my PCs mostly in desktop mode. I can’t see much of a difference between 7 and 8/8.1.

> The START button was basically unnecessary, and it was rarely used by the majority of people.

Wow. Do you have any contact with actual Windows users from the past 10 years? Have you watched actual Windows users use Windows to start a variety of applications and utilities?

I have. I've been using Windows since version 2.0 (that would be well over 20 years), and have been a System Admin all that time (and exclusively since about 2005).

You really need to sit with actual users more, or something. Your statement is astonishingly uninformed.

You may disagree... if so, please give your sources of user data for your statement.

I’m not missing anything at all with my comments.

Windows is just an OS for computers. Windows is built by people. People can’t possibly think of all the problems that can be issues that can come up ahead of time, and they can’t possibly code for all situations ahead of time. Thus, MS has it monthly “fix” releases, which for the most part, work quite well, and without a person having to be involved in installing those fixes. There is no such thing as an OS which comes complete or error-free from the factory; not the Mac OSes, nor Android, nor Linux, nor Windows. Those are moving targets in hardware and software, and moving targets get fixed or upgraded all the time.

Dial up upgrades might be a problem to many, but it can be done, and was done, and it happened to me when I was using dial-up a bunch of years ago. The idea is to schedule the “upgrade” to when the computer wont be used, like in the middle of the night. In fact, the default time for fixes and upgrades is set to something like 2 AM or when a PC is about to be shut down. That’s basically a non-issue, and it’s something that occurs with all OSes.

I don’t know why you needed to go “cloudy” on me, but my comments dealt, basically, with Windows 8. I’m not particularly anxious to do my computing on the cloud myself, but, there are things that work best on the cloud, and eventually, most computing will be cloud-based or supported by cloud services. I’m one of the biggest detractors for cloud computing, since I know that, sooner or later, one or more of those cloud services will go down for a very lengthy period of time, and then people will be left holding bricks in their hands or laps.

Windows 8 was designed to work with PCs and/or tablets, and it does those things quite well. The OS on tablets is actually more advanced than any other, including iOS or Android. And on PCs, the new UI can be used, if the PC has the touch screens, or the PC can be used in desktop mode. Both of the versions work quite well. When it comes to Windows RT, I’m one of those that feels that Windows for ARM never needed to exist, and MS should’ve concentrated on making the “regular” OS work with ARM processors. No need to have created 2 “different” OSes, which aren’t really compatible, other than through cloud support.

Learning Windows 8 doesn’t take too much time, and in fact, it can be done in a couple of hours, and perhaps less. Plus, most businesses usually do not upgrade to a new OS as soon as it has been released. That gives the employees within a business a lot of time to become acquainted with the “new” OS, before the business upgrades. Thus, the building of experience for the employees, will already have occurred. And that’s the way it is in most cases nowadays. In fact, that’s what BYOD is about, where employees bring their own devices to work, and companies supply the support for them. No training of the employee necessary, since the employee is already “self-trained” and experienced.

With hardware and software, there is no such thing as an established way of doing things. Hardware and software changes by the minute. So, the hardware and software companies HAVE TO continue being leading edge providers of that hardware and software, otherwise, they risk becoming extinct, like what happened to Palm and is happening to RIM/Blackberry. So, if a company needs to stay current, and what they provide continues getting upgraded, then they have no choice but to continue the upgrade cycles, where people are constantly demanding some “greatest and latest” product. It’s called staying current and relevant. That costs money, and it’s going to cost money to the consumers and businesses too. That’s not for the “bling” motive alone; it’s for trying to remain relevant and alive. Apple keeps coming up with “upgrades” to their iPhones and iPads, yet, for the most part, the changes are barely perceptible or needed, and the consumers eat it up when a “new” iPad or new iPHone is released. Why isn’t Apple castigated or criticized the same way that Microsoft is? Apple does it for the bling, or to put it more business-like, for the revenue and profits. Revenue and profits is what Microsoft and Apple and Google and IBM and Amazon and Samsung, are all after. You call it bling; I call it, revenue and profits, and it’s also called, remaining relevant and alive.

Windows 8 is not a perfect product. But then again, no product is ever perfect. That’s why companies continue coming out with new versions of the same, or completely new products. Mistakes are made, and they’re also corrected. Nobody at Microsoft, nor outside of Microsoft, could ever claim that Windows, or any other MS product or service, was ever perfect. The same could be said for any Apple or Google or Samsung or IBM product or service. If perfection was ever achieved, then the business cycles would end soon after, and sales would stop completely, and we’d end up with a stagnant company, and a whole lot of the economy also becoming stagnant. If I grew my own food in my backyard, I wouldn’t need to go to the grocery store; if I get the perfect PC with all of the software that I could ever need, I would never need another PC in my lifetime, nor would most other people. But, that’s not the reality, and we will continue getting upgrades and new stuff, and new purchases, and an economy which won’t stand still. PCs sales have been slowing down in the last 3 or so years. But, that’s a testament to how good the hardware and software have been. No need to purchase a new one if the old one will be good for another few years. That’s not the same with tablets and smartphones, for now. But, people will eventually get tired of the constant upgrade cycles, which are a lot more costly than with PCs. So, people will not be upgrading every 2 years, and tablets and smartphones will be kept for 4-6 years, because, they will have been created to be good enough to last that long. PCs and Macs aren’t selling as well as they did before 2009, but, they’re still selling better than tablets, with more than 300 million still being sold yearly. Those PCs will be mostly Windows inside, and what MS is putting out with Windows, will be good enough for most people and businesses. There will be complainers, but then, complainers exist for everything in life. I complain myself, but I also know that, I am free to go elsewhere and find something which might suit be best or better. If Windows is not good for you, then there are options, such as tablets with other OSes, or get a Mac, or get a PC with Linux. Nobody is stopping you from making other choices, not even Microsoft. Happy trails!

You are talking from a business perspective, while most computers are used at the consumer level.

Most consumers use what’s present on their desktops, and just simply click on an icon to open a program or application. Most people don’t have a long list of applications to warrant a huge menu. Heck, even with apps ecosystems, most people have their apps immediately available on a screen full of icons.

I have been a user of PCs for the last 30 years, in both business environments and on the personal level. I’ve seen how people interact with their PCs, and most of them don’t go to the Start menu to get at what they want to use. The Start menu is useful, but then, if it’s rarely used, it wasn’t that necessary. With Windows 8, people didn’t really lose the Start menu; it’s there, but it just looks different. It’s really not that hard to use, and you ought to know that yourself as a techie. My Start menu (in the new UI), has over 100 applications which I can find easily, and click on to get started. It’s actually a lot easier to navigate than a menu which opens up other menus before you get to the application you need. Different is not necessarily more difficult; think about that.

BTW, I don’t ever like to open up a discussion by mentioning my previous experience. It’s bragging and intended to set up an experience background which says “I know better than you”. I don’t do that, but, since you mentioned your background first, I’ll mention a bit of mine. I have been in the computers and IT since 1968, so, I’m acquainted with the “ancient” and the “current”. My biggest bragging points were always to design and develop systems which were very user-friendly, to the point that, even a monkey could use them. I see the current crop of computers and tablets and smartphone, as well as the software that come with them, as being very user-friendly. All of them are pretty easy to use, for consumers and even businesses. If I had to choose any one of them as being better, I’d have to choose the Windows versions, since it’s a more modern interface, supporting a larger set of hardware configurations, and different platforms. No other system can do that, currently. I would still make changes to all of those systems to make them more user-friendly, and more appealing. An example of what I used to design for can be found in ATMs and in online banking systems, which I was involved in before those systems became popular. Coming from a design and experience standpoint, I don’t really see why people complain so much about Windows 8; in fact, it’s the more modern of UIs out there, and even iOS is going more towards what Windows 8/8.1 looks like; Android will follow.

I said ‘never mind’, but never mind. I’ve read your posting history on the subject and disagree that you make coherent convincing arguments, and conclude what you do believe is rather outdated.

The facts in this article show that even MSFT regards Win8/8.1 as a flop, and the market share agrees. Sales don’t lie. Also, their direction with copying Apple for boutique point of sale locations (witness any Apple store and compare to Best Buy) isn’t lost on the market either. This is the narrative on all media outlets covering the Windows9 press release, even in the media outlets that MSFT has a stake in.

On the subject of the Windows installed user base declaring a win for the desktop OS, you’re essentially using the same logic in stating that the Honda CR/X hatchback wagon has won the battle of the nation’s highways over Porsche and that this budget Honda is the worlds better alternative to the Carrera — costs less, hauls more groceries, more practical all around. I won’t even try to change your mind there.

I would like you to prove that adopting all MSFT product solutions — Windows OS/Windows Phone/Surface tablet pad thingie — can match the harmony and integration of OSX/iOS for operations most consumers prefer and use daily. Don’t even bother, because the market has spoken on that long ago and even MSFT admits they can’t compete with what they offer. They’re owners of a grain silo full of awful right now which is the subject of articles like the one which began this thread. No amount of appealing that you’ve got some Windows-specific mission critical operation changes that.

Thank you for your thoughtful and detailed reply.

> I have been a user of PCs for the last 30 years, in both business environments and on the personal level. I’ve seen how people interact with their PCs, and most of them don’t go to the Start menu to get at what they want to use.

You're correct that the XP/7 Start Menu was not necessarily how people started their most-used apps. Most had a shortcut on the desktop, or the XP quicklaunch bar (which Vista/7 scrambled). But I would argue that the real value of the Start Menu, when I saw most people using it, was when they needed to do ANYTHING ELSE other than their top two or three apps. If there wasn't an icon on the desktop, they knew they could find it in the Start Menu, and that was comforting.

So I guess the objection to removal/change of the Start Menu was that it took away a very useful -- and comforting -- tool that users depended on, especially when they were unsure. The worst thing you can do when someone is unsure, is remove a familiar comfortable tool they used to get them back and going again.

I think that's why everybody bitched about the Start Menu going away in Win 8. JMHO.

> I have been in the computers and IT since 1968

Ah, well, you've got me by 2 years then, as I started programming in college in 1970, and designing computer hardware a few years later, first as a hobbyist and then as part of my job starting in 1975. Nice to meet a fellow old-timer! :)

Yes, I agree, compared to what we could do back then, every system in use today is leagues ahead in terms of user friendliness, usefulness with minimum learning curve, etc. The fine points of whose UI is better for what, from release to release, are mostly noise in the grand improvement curve.

Ultimately, what matters is whether the user can do what they want/need to do, successfully, efficiently, and happily. The details of UIs change, but they're just a means to an end.

Thanks again for a pleasant and thoughtful response, and have a great evening!