Anticipation of 9 compared to 8

badrobot said:

I don't think Win 9 will be any different from Win 8/8.1 in terms of hardware/driver compatibility. I am thinking, Win 9 is still Win 8 in essence with a reconstructed user interface and more cloud features.

I agree and unless MS has a reduced upgrade price for us W8 users, I'm wondering if it would be worth the effort.

Just as Win 8 is pretty much Win 7 with a new (optional) interface, I'm sure Win 9 will be more of the same.

I don't really get excited with built-up anticipation over OS releases. Once the preview gets released, I will be one of those that download it on the first day and install it in a VM to see what it's like and start learning about it. I probably won't install it on a physical machine unless it really wows me.

LittleJay said:

I agree and unless MS has a reduced upgrade price for us W8 users, I'm wondering if it would be worth the effort.

I will be riding the preview bandwagon but I don't see myself jumping into it right away. I will cling to Win 7 as long as it is supported by MS. As for my Win 8 machines, if Win 9 comes as a free upgrade, I will probably clone one of them on another hard rive and upgrade the cloned version only and keep the original version as a backup ( I don't wanna re-install from scratch again).

badrobot said:

I will be riding the preview bandwagon but I don't see myself jumping into it right away. I will cling to Win 7 as long as it is supported by MS. As for my Win 8 machines, if Win 9 comes as a free upgrade, I will probably clone one of them on another hard rive and upgrade the cloned version only and keep the original version as a backup ( I don't wanna re-install from scratch again).

Whether I decide to upgrade to W9 will depend on two factors: do I really like the preview and how much will it cost me. Otherwise, I will wait until it's time to update my computer, which I usually do every 5 years or so. Like you, if I do decide to upgrade I will definitely keep my W8.1 SSD as well. It would be a real bugger to re-install everything from my original W8 disk.

Indianatone said:

XP Pro 64 was an excellent OS. So vista was a disappointment.

I agree that Windows XP x64 Edition was a dream OS if you had the right hardware. My HP xw8200 was supported perfectly. I have no issue with your saying Vista was a disappointment with the RTM release, but those issues (mostly I/O access speed issues/impedance and WDM driver issues) were sorted out in the service packs. Today Vista x64 SP2 runs every bit as good as Windows 7.

Indianatone said:

Windows 7 is awesome. Windows 8, 8.1 is a disappointment.

Now how can Vista be a disappointment when Windows 7 is awesome? They are so similar that it's not funny. Had Windows 7 seen the light of day back in January 2007, it would have been hated too. Take away Libraries, Aero Snap, and the new Pin-Style Taskbar, and you have Vista. Moreover, I am running the Windows 8.1 Eval Edition in a VMWare session. It runs QUITE well. Metro has been eradicated from my desktop. And with IOBit Start Menu 8, I have that "choice" you mention below.

Indianatone said:

If you like the way 8.1 runs on a tablet and you want that interface on a desktop, fine by me. Some may want desktop on a small tablet.

I wonder about this one. I see the benefit of choice, but I think product focus is a good thing too. Had the Surface (ARM/RT version) been just released with the Metro interface as a tablet that lets you use your Microsoft Office files and data, without the Explorer interface, I think it would have still won over its supporters. Whereas, Metro has no place on the desktop. I know, I know there are touch screens, yada yada, and the Metro Start Screen works well, but the presentation is jarring going between both. Even when you change themes on the Explorer interface, a "metro styled 'Please Wait'" screen appears. Sheesh, just show a progress window or something. It's a case of pushing the Metro interface, just for the sake of it.

I say, put Metro on the Surface/RT stuff, and leave Explorer for desktops and notebooks. Yes there are some that stubbornly want both on each, but they just shouldn't have let that happen because it just leads to a disorganized product. Now, those that want Explorer on Windows RT, and want Metro on the desktop are going to make it hard to put the Genie back in the bottle. Whereas if Metro fans had never been exposed to Metro on the PC platform in the first place, I don't think they would have missed it.

Microsoft has had this insatiable need to have Windows on all devices with a common interface, because they think users want that consistency. It's time that they learn: they don't! A user may have Android on his phone, a ChromeBook and Windows on his desktop. Or maybe they have an iPad, Windows on a notebook, and a Mac desktop. Users are more flexible than we give them credit for.

In fact, Apple has figured this out. Even if you were to shell out for an entire lineup of Apple products, it's not like its OS X everywhere. iOS is for mobile devices, and OS X for Intel devices. They realize different products are suited to different things.

HippsieGypsie said:

Although I always anticipated the "next OS" since 95... Windows 9 has got to be the most anticipated OS yet because of the vast changes of 8 and 8.1. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm really wondering which direction MS is going to take > Desktop vs Modern/Metro. I'm thinking everything will be ported to Modern/Metro except for the Desktop app/portal. We shall see.

We will either scream or jump for joy.

You remind me of how I anticipated each new OS release since the mid 90s, and it's fun to stroll down memory lane.

My first real anticipated release was OS/2 Warp 3.0. I was already running v2.1 and heard that v3.0 was going to drop memory requirements and snazz up the interface. 1994 and 1995 were good years for OS/2, and I was even excited about the Merlin Beta. But the requirements for the finished OS/2 Warp 4.0 were more inline with NT, and you couldn't run the new Win32 apps. So I bailed and moved over to Windows.

I anticipated Windows 95 throughout the Chicago project, and really liked the look of the interface. I finally switched over to Windows 95 in mid 1996, and I admit that it ran really well. Mind you, I was still running 16-bit apps for the most part, so I wasn't really putting the system through it's paces. I also really like Windows NT 4.0 as a server platform, but no USB provisions made it hard to use by the late 90s.

At first I thought I was going to hate Windows 98 because of the new Active Desktop update. But hardware improved and kept up with its heavy requirements. But it did run most apps better than Windows 95 SR2 (especially multimedia).

My favourite version of Windows though was Windows 2000 Professional. It was soooooooo stable. I only moved over to Windows XP in 2007, because I bought a used HP xw6000 machine, which I was going to format and install Windows 2000 on. But XP ran so well with it, that I stayed. I wish I had adopted the x64 version of XP sooner than 2011, because it was also a dream to run on HP Workstations.

I initally was excited about Longhorn because of the journalized file system. It sounded cool (but to be honest, I usually disable indexing since I don't search intensively so I would likely have hated it). Anyway, Vista ran horribly on 512 mb notebooks coming out then, so I avoided. Post April of this year, I now run Vista, and I love it.

So I am looking forward to what Windows 9 will bring. I think my interests around this have more to do with the path that Microsoft takes as a corporation to try and recover from Windows 8. So I'm interested to see what Windows 9 will include. If I try the Preview Release and it doesn't bring that much to the desktop world though, I'll move to Windows 8.1 when Vista support runs out.

Jody Thornton said:

You remind me of how I anticipated each new OS release since the mid 90s, and it's fun to stroll down memory lane.

My first real anticipated release was OS/2 Warp 3.0. I was already running v2.1 and heard that v3.0 was going to drop memory requirements and snazz up the interface. 1994 and 1995 were good years for OS/2, and I was even excited about the Merlin Beta. But the requirements for the finished OS/2 Warp 4.0 were more inline with NT, and you couldn't run the new Win32 apps. So I bailed and moved over to Windows.

I anticipated Windows 95 throughout the Chicago project, and really liked the look of the interface. I finally switched over to Windows 95 in mid 1996, and I admit that it ran really well. Mind you, I was still running 16-bit apps for the most part, so I wasn't really putting the system through it's paces. I also really like Windows NT 4.0 as a server platform, but no USB provisions made it hard to use by the late 90s.

At first I thought I was going to hate Windows 98 because of the new Active Desktop update. But hardware improved and kept up with its heavy requirements. But it did run most apps better than Windows 95 SR2 (especially multimedia).

My favourite version of Windows though was Windows 2000 Professional. It was soooooooo stable. I only moved over to Windows XP in 2007, because I bought a used HP xw6000 machine, which I was going to format and install Windows 2000 on. But XP ran so well with it, that I stayed. I wish I had adopted the x64 version of XP sooner than 2011, because it was also a dream to run on HP Workstations.

I initally was excited about Longhorn because of the journalized file system. It sounded cool (but to be honest, I usually disable indexing since I don't search intensively so I would likely have hated it). Anyway, Vista ran horribly on 512 mb notebooks coming out then, so I avoided. Post April of this year, I now run Vista, and I love it.

So I am looking forward to what Windows 9 will bring. I think my interests around this have more to do with the path that Microsoft takes as a corporation to try and recover from Windows 8. So I'm interested to see what Windows 9 will include. If I try the Preview Release and it doesn't bring that much to the desktop world though, I'll move to Windows 8.1 when Vista support runs out.

Hey neighbor, I'm in Thornhill, too. Dufferin and Steeles. :)