In Forum: Microsoft Operating Systems
By User: WinPC
Before I start, let me explain a few things:
I have seen a lot of "rumors", "speculation", "ideas", and so on, relating to Windows 9. A lot of people say "it will be version 7.0, it will drop 64-bit support, it will add 128-bit processors, etc...", and yet, I really don't see that happening, especially given Microsoft's recent moves. As I see it, that was much more logical back in the early 2000s, and even as recently as the first half of the mid-2000s, with the state of technology back then being significantly different from today.
Really, we now live in a world where touch tablets are becoming quite common, people expect their computers to behave in a way similar to their TVs (which would explain Microsoft's idea of an "instantly available computing appliance"), and where people are now using their phones (as in PDAs, or smartphones) to do many of the same tasks that they normally would do if they were at a fully-functional computer that they could use. This is not the same world where broadband was only just invented, when many people were still trying to get past all sorts of rumors about the Internet, when many operations still required a great deal of technical expertise, etc... That was back then.
Now, we live in a world where tablet usage is finally becoming quite common, and even those who don't use tablets (such as myself) would greatly benefit from having a lot of easy to use features that are literally available at your fingertips. To have a major update (such as "Longhorn", later Windows Vista) was necessary to move people away from a world where even having a 3D accelerator and CD-RW/DVD ROM drive(s) were considered luxuries in many cases, and where high speed Internet access was only just invented (although as many people have pointed out, even as recently as Windows 7, Windows still ran quite well on many older systems from the early 2000s, most likely due to the architecture still being mostly the same).
Today's world is very different. It is now becoming much more important for Microsoft to focus on making the user interface compliant with the image of an "instantly available computing appliance" that it finally seems to be achieving with Windows 8, for making upgrades and changes easily available to even the most computer illiterate, and for finding new opportunities in the form of new ideas (such as Microsoft's SkyDrive file storage service; part of their cloud focus, etc...). Making the computer easy to control and adjust on the fly, as well as improving on earlier successes, seems to be Microsoft's goal, all of which I basically agree with entirely.
Really, I doubt that they would go back to the past and resurrect the old way of doing things - it would be an absolute last resort for them. We're not even anywhere near a 7850-level build, and yet some people are "speculating" that it will be "completely different" (with their definition being version 7.0, 64-bit only, 128-bit processor support, a complete change from Windows 8, etc...). Wishful thinking, perhaps?
Microsoft's focus now is quite clear: They wouldn't sacrifice everything they've accomplished with Windows 8. They worked quite hard on it, and they would rather build on what they've already invented rather than starting all over from scratch.
And to all you people who "hate" the Modern UI in Windows 8, try to think about it a bit. Not everyone is a technically inclined "geek" as you might be. Sure, some people are, and might not like everything so "dumbed down" as you might put it, but not everyone is like that. Infact, most people are not. Most people are just normal, average users who use their PCs (whatever the formfactor happens to be) for Internet (including social networking), word processing, games, and photo/video editing. For them, the new Modern UI in Windows 8 may infact make these tasks easier, because everything is now streamlined into an appliance look and feel. Sure, the new user interface takes a bit of adjusting to if you're new to it, but even now, there are still "computer illiterates" who are literally "scared" of computers completely. The new user interface will, if anything, just make it easier for them.
Finally, I believe that Microsoft has made it quite clear that it's current focus with Windows 8 is here to stay. Yes, it was indeed "Windows Reimagined", but for a very good and perfectly legitimate reason. I believe that Windows 9 will basically be a significant improvement on the fields that Microsoft has already entered into with Windows 8.
--------
Personally, these are my predictions for Windows 9 (based on what I personally believe is most likely):
- Version number 6.5
- Use of MinWin for maintenance purposes
- Continued development of a 32-bit version to retain the ability to run on certain older and lower-powered devices, as well as compatibility with older software, while at the same time, not conflicting with the features of modern hardware and software
- AppX Setup routine for Windows Setup (including ability to install from the Windows Store)
- Modern UI-style Windows Setup from start to finish
- A boot screen similar with a non-circular "loading area" similar to the one seen in some apps
- Customized OEM boot screens for certain systems, especially in compliance with Microsoft's "appliance" and "instantly available" ideals (for example, a Toshiba system might have the Toshiba logo, rather than the Windows flag emblem).
- Ability to activate Windows during Setup, before Setup starts copying files.
- Ability to install to and boot from a Windows Live or SkyDrive account (in compliance with Microsoft's cloud focus)
- Ability to boot over a network
- Replacing of all language versions of Windows with instantly available language packs, combined together with the ability to switch languages on the fly
- A single unified "corporate edition" of Windows (basically, a combination of the Enterprise variant with all of the Server versions), further improving Windows's reputation among businesses.
- Further synchronization between desktop and Modern UI apps (for example, where there is a desktop WordPad, there will be a Modern UI WordPad, etc...)
- Changes to the shell (such as Modern UI-style UAC prompts and file operation dialogs, as well as the ability to customize the shell to be optimized for a desktop, notebook, or tablet, which also changes whether notifications use the word "Tap" or "Click")
- Modern UI ("Metro")-style Help and Support Center
- Synchronization of settings and apps now allowed between Windows client and Windows Phone.
Simply put, the above descriptions are much more realistic, by far, for reasons I will be describing below:
1. Personally, I see no evidence of a "version 7.0" of Windows. Infact, the fact that Windows 8 turned out to be version 6.2 (even despite being a major release!), not to mention Microsoft's reason for this (compatibility with older programs), shows that Microsoft these days is far less likely to implement major version number milestones except where absolutely necessary. I personally think that 6.3, 6.4, or 6.5 as version numbers would be far more realistic.
2. Use of MinWin for maintenance purposes could actually increase the reliability of the operating system itself, and might even create new possibilities (such as multitasking between Windows sessions, etc...).
3. A lot of people (quite understandably) believe that Windows 9 will be 64-bit-only. But what they are forgetting is that similarly, people thought the same about Windows 8, and guess what? It never happened. Unfortunately, although most people in the developed world are able to aquire 64-bit systems, not everyone can. Also, as someone here even pointed out once, there are also low-powered devices that are still 32-bit, and finally, there are still people who may be required to run older software that can't run on a 64-bit version of Windows.
4. An AppX Setup routine for Windows Setup by itself might or might not have its benefits. However, not only is AppX a reliable platform, but it would also be good if Microsoft decides to use the Metro/Modern UI theme for the entire Setup process, not to mention that it would make it much easier to upgrade Windows from the Windows Store, if Microsoft does indeed go that route (which I believe is extremely possible).
5. A Modern UI-style Windows Setup from start to finish is extremely realistic (in my opinion), since it would not only further optimize it for use on tablets, but it would also make it much easier for someone of lower technical expertise to install Windows without assistance from someone else, giving Windows all the more feel of an appliance.
6. Sounds realistic if you ask me, and is perfectly consistant with Microsoft's pattern of changing the boot screen for each version of Windows.
7. A customized OEM boot screen would go very well with Microsoft's idea of an "instantly available computing appliance". Plus, since many Windows 8 systems (most notably tablets) boot almost instantly anyway, the only logo that people would be seeing would be the Windows boot logo, so to have a customized OEM logo in that regard would once again allow the name of the system manufacturer to be displayed upon power on.
8. Activating Windows during Setup before the file copying stage could very well reduce confusion among less experienced users, and even if not required, could also help to discourage piracy.
9. The ability to boot to Windows from a Windows Live or SkyDrive account would go very well with Microsoft's cloud focus, especially for portable devices and for certain environments such as schools and universities, not to mention that especially in today's UEFI world, it is no longer a case of whether it's possible, nearly so much as it is a case of complying with the "instantly available appliance" idea of a modern PC or phone.
10. The ability to boot Windows over a network would work out excellent for businesses, especially those where there are hundreds (if not even thousands!) of systems being used at the same time, especially for schools and universities, but also for cases where the same apps would be required for more than one system, since it would by far reduce the time and effort spent in deploying the same software (including even Windows itself) to different machines.
11. To simply replace all language versions of Windows with a feature that takes advantage of language packs to switch languages on the fly would not only comply with the idea of a computing "appliance", but would also make it much easier to switch languages for different users, not to mention that it would make it easier for people who are travelling in different languistic regions to switch languages when necessary (especially since obviously a computer is the same everywhere, but still with different languages nonetheless). Also note that as far as I know (although I could be wrong), since Windows RT is proprietary, it would be much harder to reinstall a Windows RT tablet to another language.
12. There are quite a lot of arguements, in my opinion, for a single unified "Corporate Edition" of Windows. Now, I am not 100% sure about the actual benefit of a version of Windows with the Enterprise (client) variant and all of the Server variants merged, but if it does indeed combine features, then it would make it a lot easier for many businesses (in my opinion). However, I'm not quite sure about this, since I don't focus on the Server versions nearly so much as I do on the Client versions.
13. Now this, obviously, would go quite well with Microsoft's aim for an improved touch experience. There are legitimate reasons, in my opinion, why a tablet user would want a Modern UI version of WordPad. However, a desktop user might want to be able to view .PDF files from within Internet Explorer, or even Windows Explorer. But then again, how would a tablet user want to browse the hard disk's contents? A Modern UI version of Windows Explorer? This is where I personally think Microsoft should consider their new opportunities.
14. Again, this would obviously go very well with Microsoft's aim for an improved touch experience. I mean, to have Modern UI-style UAC and file copy dialogs would probably make it more convenient and more consistant for touch users. However, I can also understand why people would find the word "Tap" instead of "Click" in several notification boxes to be inappropriate for a desktop system.
15. And again, this would obviously go very well with Microsoft's aim for improving the experience on touch displays. I mean, obviously, my idea is to have both, a desktop Help and Support Center, and a Modern UI one, with a button to switch between each mode, and possibly even a third mode (similar to the Share, Devices, and Settings selections from the Charm bar, only it displays Help content).
16. Finally, this would make it quite easy for users of both, the version of Windows used on desktops, notebooks, and tablets, and the version of Windows used on PDAs, which are mostly smartphones these days (Windows Phone, obviously). Many people would obviously prefer to have not only their settings, but even their apps synchronized between their systems. Settings would not be so hard, but with apps, that would mean having to make sure that the app can adapt to the different peripherals and screen resolution, but it's still very much possible for Microsoft to go that route.
There. Those are my personal predictions for Windows 9. Now of course, I'm not saying that the development of Windows 9 will necessarily occur this way - these are only my personal predictions - but this is more or less the way I personally see it happening, especially since it would also create the impression (that Microsoft has been trying to create for years) of an instantly available computing appliance, and would also simplify many of the once time consuming tasks for less technologically experienced users.
Everyone is free to express their own opinions on future versions of Windows, and I see nothing wrong with that. All I'm doing, really, is trying to explain to people what I find is much more realistic to expect from Microsoft at this point, especially in this day and age.
By User: WinPC
Before I start, let me explain a few things:
I have seen a lot of "rumors", "speculation", "ideas", and so on, relating to Windows 9. A lot of people say "it will be version 7.0, it will drop 64-bit support, it will add 128-bit processors, etc...", and yet, I really don't see that happening, especially given Microsoft's recent moves. As I see it, that was much more logical back in the early 2000s, and even as recently as the first half of the mid-2000s, with the state of technology back then being significantly different from today.
Really, we now live in a world where touch tablets are becoming quite common, people expect their computers to behave in a way similar to their TVs (which would explain Microsoft's idea of an "instantly available computing appliance"), and where people are now using their phones (as in PDAs, or smartphones) to do many of the same tasks that they normally would do if they were at a fully-functional computer that they could use. This is not the same world where broadband was only just invented, when many people were still trying to get past all sorts of rumors about the Internet, when many operations still required a great deal of technical expertise, etc... That was back then.
Now, we live in a world where tablet usage is finally becoming quite common, and even those who don't use tablets (such as myself) would greatly benefit from having a lot of easy to use features that are literally available at your fingertips. To have a major update (such as "Longhorn", later Windows Vista) was necessary to move people away from a world where even having a 3D accelerator and CD-RW/DVD ROM drive(s) were considered luxuries in many cases, and where high speed Internet access was only just invented (although as many people have pointed out, even as recently as Windows 7, Windows still ran quite well on many older systems from the early 2000s, most likely due to the architecture still being mostly the same).
Today's world is very different. It is now becoming much more important for Microsoft to focus on making the user interface compliant with the image of an "instantly available computing appliance" that it finally seems to be achieving with Windows 8, for making upgrades and changes easily available to even the most computer illiterate, and for finding new opportunities in the form of new ideas (such as Microsoft's SkyDrive file storage service; part of their cloud focus, etc...). Making the computer easy to control and adjust on the fly, as well as improving on earlier successes, seems to be Microsoft's goal, all of which I basically agree with entirely.
Really, I doubt that they would go back to the past and resurrect the old way of doing things - it would be an absolute last resort for them. We're not even anywhere near a 7850-level build, and yet some people are "speculating" that it will be "completely different" (with their definition being version 7.0, 64-bit only, 128-bit processor support, a complete change from Windows 8, etc...). Wishful thinking, perhaps?
Microsoft's focus now is quite clear: They wouldn't sacrifice everything they've accomplished with Windows 8. They worked quite hard on it, and they would rather build on what they've already invented rather than starting all over from scratch.
And to all you people who "hate" the Modern UI in Windows 8, try to think about it a bit. Not everyone is a technically inclined "geek" as you might be. Sure, some people are, and might not like everything so "dumbed down" as you might put it, but not everyone is like that. Infact, most people are not. Most people are just normal, average users who use their PCs (whatever the formfactor happens to be) for Internet (including social networking), word processing, games, and photo/video editing. For them, the new Modern UI in Windows 8 may infact make these tasks easier, because everything is now streamlined into an appliance look and feel. Sure, the new user interface takes a bit of adjusting to if you're new to it, but even now, there are still "computer illiterates" who are literally "scared" of computers completely. The new user interface will, if anything, just make it easier for them.
Finally, I believe that Microsoft has made it quite clear that it's current focus with Windows 8 is here to stay. Yes, it was indeed "Windows Reimagined", but for a very good and perfectly legitimate reason. I believe that Windows 9 will basically be a significant improvement on the fields that Microsoft has already entered into with Windows 8.
--------
Personally, these are my predictions for Windows 9 (based on what I personally believe is most likely):
- Version number 6.5
- Use of MinWin for maintenance purposes
- Continued development of a 32-bit version to retain the ability to run on certain older and lower-powered devices, as well as compatibility with older software, while at the same time, not conflicting with the features of modern hardware and software
- AppX Setup routine for Windows Setup (including ability to install from the Windows Store)
- Modern UI-style Windows Setup from start to finish
- A boot screen similar with a non-circular "loading area" similar to the one seen in some apps
- Customized OEM boot screens for certain systems, especially in compliance with Microsoft's "appliance" and "instantly available" ideals (for example, a Toshiba system might have the Toshiba logo, rather than the Windows flag emblem).
- Ability to activate Windows during Setup, before Setup starts copying files.
- Ability to install to and boot from a Windows Live or SkyDrive account (in compliance with Microsoft's cloud focus)
- Ability to boot over a network
- Replacing of all language versions of Windows with instantly available language packs, combined together with the ability to switch languages on the fly
- A single unified "corporate edition" of Windows (basically, a combination of the Enterprise variant with all of the Server versions), further improving Windows's reputation among businesses.
- Further synchronization between desktop and Modern UI apps (for example, where there is a desktop WordPad, there will be a Modern UI WordPad, etc...)
- Changes to the shell (such as Modern UI-style UAC prompts and file operation dialogs, as well as the ability to customize the shell to be optimized for a desktop, notebook, or tablet, which also changes whether notifications use the word "Tap" or "Click")
- Modern UI ("Metro")-style Help and Support Center
- Synchronization of settings and apps now allowed between Windows client and Windows Phone.
Simply put, the above descriptions are much more realistic, by far, for reasons I will be describing below:
1. Personally, I see no evidence of a "version 7.0" of Windows. Infact, the fact that Windows 8 turned out to be version 6.2 (even despite being a major release!), not to mention Microsoft's reason for this (compatibility with older programs), shows that Microsoft these days is far less likely to implement major version number milestones except where absolutely necessary. I personally think that 6.3, 6.4, or 6.5 as version numbers would be far more realistic.
2. Use of MinWin for maintenance purposes could actually increase the reliability of the operating system itself, and might even create new possibilities (such as multitasking between Windows sessions, etc...).
3. A lot of people (quite understandably) believe that Windows 9 will be 64-bit-only. But what they are forgetting is that similarly, people thought the same about Windows 8, and guess what? It never happened. Unfortunately, although most people in the developed world are able to aquire 64-bit systems, not everyone can. Also, as someone here even pointed out once, there are also low-powered devices that are still 32-bit, and finally, there are still people who may be required to run older software that can't run on a 64-bit version of Windows.
4. An AppX Setup routine for Windows Setup by itself might or might not have its benefits. However, not only is AppX a reliable platform, but it would also be good if Microsoft decides to use the Metro/Modern UI theme for the entire Setup process, not to mention that it would make it much easier to upgrade Windows from the Windows Store, if Microsoft does indeed go that route (which I believe is extremely possible).
5. A Modern UI-style Windows Setup from start to finish is extremely realistic (in my opinion), since it would not only further optimize it for use on tablets, but it would also make it much easier for someone of lower technical expertise to install Windows without assistance from someone else, giving Windows all the more feel of an appliance.
6. Sounds realistic if you ask me, and is perfectly consistant with Microsoft's pattern of changing the boot screen for each version of Windows.
7. A customized OEM boot screen would go very well with Microsoft's idea of an "instantly available computing appliance". Plus, since many Windows 8 systems (most notably tablets) boot almost instantly anyway, the only logo that people would be seeing would be the Windows boot logo, so to have a customized OEM logo in that regard would once again allow the name of the system manufacturer to be displayed upon power on.
8. Activating Windows during Setup before the file copying stage could very well reduce confusion among less experienced users, and even if not required, could also help to discourage piracy.
9. The ability to boot to Windows from a Windows Live or SkyDrive account would go very well with Microsoft's cloud focus, especially for portable devices and for certain environments such as schools and universities, not to mention that especially in today's UEFI world, it is no longer a case of whether it's possible, nearly so much as it is a case of complying with the "instantly available appliance" idea of a modern PC or phone.
10. The ability to boot Windows over a network would work out excellent for businesses, especially those where there are hundreds (if not even thousands!) of systems being used at the same time, especially for schools and universities, but also for cases where the same apps would be required for more than one system, since it would by far reduce the time and effort spent in deploying the same software (including even Windows itself) to different machines.
11. To simply replace all language versions of Windows with a feature that takes advantage of language packs to switch languages on the fly would not only comply with the idea of a computing "appliance", but would also make it much easier to switch languages for different users, not to mention that it would make it easier for people who are travelling in different languistic regions to switch languages when necessary (especially since obviously a computer is the same everywhere, but still with different languages nonetheless). Also note that as far as I know (although I could be wrong), since Windows RT is proprietary, it would be much harder to reinstall a Windows RT tablet to another language.
12. There are quite a lot of arguements, in my opinion, for a single unified "Corporate Edition" of Windows. Now, I am not 100% sure about the actual benefit of a version of Windows with the Enterprise (client) variant and all of the Server variants merged, but if it does indeed combine features, then it would make it a lot easier for many businesses (in my opinion). However, I'm not quite sure about this, since I don't focus on the Server versions nearly so much as I do on the Client versions.
13. Now this, obviously, would go quite well with Microsoft's aim for an improved touch experience. There are legitimate reasons, in my opinion, why a tablet user would want a Modern UI version of WordPad. However, a desktop user might want to be able to view .PDF files from within Internet Explorer, or even Windows Explorer. But then again, how would a tablet user want to browse the hard disk's contents? A Modern UI version of Windows Explorer? This is where I personally think Microsoft should consider their new opportunities.
14. Again, this would obviously go very well with Microsoft's aim for an improved touch experience. I mean, to have Modern UI-style UAC and file copy dialogs would probably make it more convenient and more consistant for touch users. However, I can also understand why people would find the word "Tap" instead of "Click" in several notification boxes to be inappropriate for a desktop system.
15. And again, this would obviously go very well with Microsoft's aim for improving the experience on touch displays. I mean, obviously, my idea is to have both, a desktop Help and Support Center, and a Modern UI one, with a button to switch between each mode, and possibly even a third mode (similar to the Share, Devices, and Settings selections from the Charm bar, only it displays Help content).
16. Finally, this would make it quite easy for users of both, the version of Windows used on desktops, notebooks, and tablets, and the version of Windows used on PDAs, which are mostly smartphones these days (Windows Phone, obviously). Many people would obviously prefer to have not only their settings, but even their apps synchronized between their systems. Settings would not be so hard, but with apps, that would mean having to make sure that the app can adapt to the different peripherals and screen resolution, but it's still very much possible for Microsoft to go that route.
There. Those are my personal predictions for Windows 9. Now of course, I'm not saying that the development of Windows 9 will necessarily occur this way - these are only my personal predictions - but this is more or less the way I personally see it happening, especially since it would also create the impression (that Microsoft has been trying to create for years) of an instantly available computing appliance, and would also simplify many of the once time consuming tasks for less technologically experienced users.
Everyone is free to express their own opinions on future versions of Windows, and I see nothing wrong with that. All I'm doing, really, is trying to explain to people what I find is much more realistic to expect from Microsoft at this point, especially in this day and age.