Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Rumor: Next Windows Won't Be Windows 9

Tags:
Last response: in News comments
Share
August 14, 2012 10:34:16 AM

"The news is based on unnamed sources who also claim that ..."

I stopped reading there. SICK of speculation and stuff like this.
Score
21
August 14, 2012 10:37:38 AM

The title sais "Rumor". Why did you open the article in the first place? If you're so sick, go to the doctor.
Score
20
Related resources
August 14, 2012 10:43:56 AM

Rumor: Next Windows Won't Be Windows 9, it wont be at all, because of failing to deliver in Windows 8 and OEM's alienating from it, because of surface, M$ will go bankrupt... just a rumor...
Score
3
August 14, 2012 10:46:20 AM

First simple version numbers, then years of release, then names, then version numbers again, then names again?

This is becoming more and more complicated.
Score
6
August 14, 2012 10:48:55 AM

One, Two... Microsoft is coming for you,
Three, Four, Bill is knocking at your door ,
Five, Six, Grab some XP sticks,
Seven, Eight, a little bit too late,
Nine, Ten... WTF? Come again?
Score
20
August 14, 2012 10:50:37 AM

MS in 2014...

"We heard users complaints about not being able to turn off Windows Modern UI and having no classic start menu in Windows 8 under the classic Deskop UI. So for Windows 9 we heard the users load and clear and now the users will have an option to turn off Windows Modern UI along with allowing the user to enable the classic start menu again in the classic Desktop UI in Windows 9.
Score
9
August 14, 2012 10:52:58 AM

Windows 8 PU will revert to the desktop lol.
Score
12
August 14, 2012 10:59:54 AM

DjEaZyRumor: Next Windows Won't Be Windows 9, it wont be at all, because of failing to deliver in Windows 8 and OEM's alienating from it, because of surface, M$ will go bankrupt... just a rumor...

Is MS supposed to sit there when the oem's release Android tablets?
Score
-2
August 14, 2012 11:01:11 AM

wavetrexThe title sais "Rumor". Why did you open the article in the first place? If you're so sick, go to the doctor.

I didn't see 'Rumour' when I initially clicked on the article.
Score
-4
August 14, 2012 11:02:19 AM

I think the reason for this rumor, for one, developers are especially upset with 8. Second, ol Steve Ballmer received a "Special" phone call from Big Bad Bill, more along the lines of damage control, for when 8 rides the Fail Whale into the sunset. And that he better have a fix, or Gates will make Steve a recipient of a pink slip.
Score
6
August 14, 2012 11:03:55 AM

Already talking about the next Windows while the new one is not yet officially out... I have a "deja-vu" feeling. It looks like Windows 8 may be like Vista, a version that will make us either regret Windows 7 or want to upgrade to the next one ;-)
Score
1
August 14, 2012 11:31:31 AM

Speculation : It's gonna be called Max OS :p 
Score
8
August 14, 2012 11:42:15 AM

Personally I think that Windows 8 will sell millions. Standard consumers will actually USE the product instead of finding things not to like or repeating stuff they've read.
Score
0
August 14, 2012 11:45:20 AM

lol...probably won't have any 'Windows' full stop because according to internal research few people use them, full screen app or bust :p 
Score
0
August 14, 2012 12:31:34 PM

It'll be called Windows 7 Reloaded after Windows 8 nearly bankrupts the company.
Score
5
August 14, 2012 12:37:12 PM

unless M$ "manage" to put back the START button, I guess no one will care.
Score
12
August 14, 2012 12:57:50 PM

Windows Blue Balls?
Windows Post Depression Blues?
Window Blue Screens Extraordinaire?


No one is going to call it 'Widows Blue' for a variety of reasons. Like already stated, Rumor Mills. The only reason to post such a story is for attention, but the cost is integrity.
Score
5
August 14, 2012 1:00:55 PM

how about holding on and make next version 20 (in 2020)? i would rather have current OSs supported than having new one every year. Give the OS chance to mature. While ago OS was just disk operating system (DOS) then the video and audio got integrated so programming is more streamlined. after that USB got added and that's about it.... lately all they do is fiddle with the user interface.
Score
5
Anonymous
August 14, 2012 1:09:58 PM

Windows 8 is awesome, having used it for a few months now. So fast in games and bootup and loading in general. Metro is simple once you get used to it and I only realized then how little I actually do need the Windows 95-7 start menu.
Score
0
August 14, 2012 1:35:04 PM

What pisses me off about Win 7 and 8 is that it really puts new life into my old Opty185 but it doesn't support my older multi channel ASIO sound card forcing me to have to revert back to XP64.

Yes I could get a new machine but I can't afford it right now and since I don't play games with it,it is plenty powerful enough for what I do with it.

Besides that the new "Metro GUI" sucks and is about the stupidest thing I have ever seen for a desktop interface.
Especially when you don't have a touch screen for what it was designed for!!
Although I do like some of the new features that Win7 does have to offer.

I have read there is little difference in performance between XP64 and Win7,but the snappiness of Win 7 is quite noticeable.

Why is it so hard for them to make it backwards compatible as well.

I have read somewhere that if you use an upgrade version that this may not be a problem,I don't know I haven't tried it as I don't have an upgrade version copy.

jer :/ 
Score
1
August 14, 2012 1:36:54 PM

FWIW,

I have built a newer FX6100 and I like it a lot but it is not my machine and so I don't use it........Much !!

jer
Score
0
August 14, 2012 1:47:20 PM

Next version will be called LCARS. :-P
Score
0
August 14, 2012 1:53:08 PM

What a bunch bull... Games in win8 won't run any faster than in Win7... nobody has shown reliable results as of yet.
Score
3
August 14, 2012 2:01:24 PM

Next Versin.. Windows XXL ( as in Bloated) :-)

But seriously. Win 8 isn't even really out there and they are talking Win 9 ?
That's getting to Firefox numbering. Every few month a new one.

How about getting one right and then, for a few years, just fixing the bugs and short comings?

Like the annoying "always on top" problem in the Win 7 Taskbar.

How about multiple desktops for different parts of the day or different jobs?
Score
3
August 14, 2012 2:03:38 PM

delta4g4Windows 8 is awesome, having used it for a few months now. So fast in games and bootup and loading in general. Metro is simple once you get used to it and I only realized then how little I actually do need the Windows 95-7 start menu.

Exactly! Moving from win3.1 to win95 I felt like a lot of people feel now with the new 'start screen'. When I saw the start menu I was like 'wtf is this?'. I spent the next several years trying out various other interfaces and windows hacks and alternate program launchers until win7 where they finally had a usable one. Now with the win8 start screen I feel like it is a better direction to go (not so stoked on metro apps though), everything is easily find-able, it brings a lot more information up front where I want it, and I can turn off all the crap that I do not want. It is not perfect (I mean, it is a first gen interface), I don't like that when you right click you have to move the mouse to the bottom of the screen instead of having a closer context menu, or that when you scroll in win8 apps it is not always sure if you mean to scroll side-to-side or up-and-down, or that there is so much 'dead' space on the screen, or the odd requirement of 1GB of ram when the 32bit version can clearly run on much less and needs 768 vertical lines of resolution which is a contrived number to weed out old tablets and netbooks that only have 600 lines, or the lack of customization on colors and backgrounds. But as the concept of a program launcher that is easily usable via many input styles, and having applications which work as services that can work with each-other to better aggregate and sort information from a multitude of sources is pretty damn awesome and I think a lot of people are missing just how powerful of a tool this can turn out to be for scheduling and business purposes.

My only real disappointment with win8 is the supreme lack of a decent speech interface. The voice commands feel just as clunky now as they did back with winXP. But with the speech work they are putting in with WP, I am hoping it will move over to the desktop/tablet side as well soon enough, because speech commands (if used properly) can allow the interface to truly disappear, bring program interaction much closer to the user, and potentially allow for much more interesting/complex/multi-step commands which are simply not possible with keys/mouse without some form of pre-scripted batch file. The problem right now is that they are viewing speech commands as a way to access the GUI instead of it being an entirely different (and native) way to interact with the machine, and they are trying to view it as a rigid command structure instead of an intelligent 'intent finding' command interface. I know it is not easy... but that is why they have billions of $$ to figure it out!
Score
1
August 14, 2012 2:10:40 PM

v3.1=windows 3.1 (good)
v4.0=windows 95 (problems)
v4.1=windows 98 (good)
v4.9=windows me (wretched)
v5.0=windows 2k (problems)
v5.1=windows xp (good)
v5.2=windows xp-x64 (problems)
v6.0=windows vista (problems)
v6.1=windows 7 (good)
v6.2=windows 8 (problems?)

the way i see it is every x.0 version is 'revolutionary' and 'innovative' but has problems, by version x.1 the kinks are ironed out and we end up with an O/S everyone likes, if they push their luck any further they're just tinkering with something that ain't broke and end up breaking it.
so... the way i see it is it doesn't matter if windows 9/blue is v6.3 or v7.0 it'll probably suck.

EDIT: i've used every O/S mentioned. i'm not saying windows 95/2k/vista totally sucked, but being systems that introduced new features/funtionality they were problematic (more so than their predecessors), whereas windows 98/xp/7 were the most stable systems released to date (at the time). and it seems that windows me/xp-64/8 simply took their respective preceeding & reliable O/S and tweaked it to the point of de-stabalising them again. i love(d) windows 95/98/2k/xp/xp-64/vista/7 in spite of flaws they had, but it's 98/xp/7 that i stuck with long term. i don't forsee dropping 7 to upgrade to 8 and, if the pattern i see holds true, i don't predict commiting to 9/blue over 7 either because it won't be a x.1 version.
Score
1
August 14, 2012 2:22:44 PM

DjEaZy... yes... the windows OS costs the OEM's, android is free... http://www.tomshardware.com/news/W [...] 15992.html

Don't think you understood, why would MS just sit there doing nothing while they could jump start tablets based on their own OS and make money. No company in the world will just sit and watch others make money where they could try and make money as well. As for the tablets I am planning on getting a Surface tablet cause honestly it looks to be better then other tablets out now.
Score
0
August 14, 2012 2:25:45 PM

Brandenv3.1=windows 3.1 (good)v4.0=windows 95 (problems)v4.1=windows 98 (good)v4.9=windows me (wretched)v5.0=windows 2k (problems)v5.1=windows xp (good)v5.2=windows xp-x64 (problems)v6.0=windows vista (problems)v6.1=windows 7 (good)v6.2=windows 8 (problems?)the way i see it is every x.0 version is 'revolutionary' and 'innovative' but has problems, by version x.1 the kinks are ironed out and we end up with an O/S everyone likes, if they push their luck any further they're just tinkering with something that ain't broke and end up breaking it.so... the way i see it is it doesn't matter if windows 9/blue is v6.3 or v7.0 it'll probably suck.

2K was awesome actually as is XP x64, I have XP x64 running on a comp and it runs great and yes there are drivers for all my hardware and all software I run including games work perfectly. You can't exactly lump 2k and XP x64 in with XP and 98 or the rest though since those 2 were not for general public use, it went ME, XP, Vista, 7 for the public which still follows your pattern though.
Score
1
August 14, 2012 3:03:42 PM

Rumor: Next Windows Won't Be Rumored name, "Windows 9"
Score
2
August 14, 2012 3:58:12 PM

So... Instead of Service Packs, we may have "Product Updates" or ".x" added to the OS name (like WP7)? That sounds like just naming convergence to me...
Score
0
August 14, 2012 4:02:17 PM

start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENUSTART MENU START MENU

STFU you stupid fagits. you don't like it then don't use it.
Score
2
August 14, 2012 4:28:48 PM

They'll need an 8.5 real quick to make Metro optional and allow the freaking desktop to be the primary interface with 1-click access to all your applications (aka: start menu). My god Microsoft, wake up! Some people actually use their PC for more than email/web/angry birds. sigh.
Score
4
August 14, 2012 4:33:14 PM

p05estoThey'll need an 8.5 real quick to make Metro optional and allow the freaking desktop to be the primary interface with 1-click access to all your applications (aka: start menu). My god Microsoft, wake up! Some people actually use their PC for more than email/web/angry birds. sigh.

Devoteiconstart menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu start menu START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENU START MENUSTART MENU START MENUSTFU you stupid fagits. you don't like it then don't use it.


Actually using Windows for many of us means how we make money for food. There are NOT any good alternatives to Windows for most (without significant cost). For those who make a living using Windows everyday we have a lot invested in how well the system works and what is the most efficient. We can't just "not use Windows"...... so please, you STFU if you think the UI doesn't matter and just stop using the computer is your answer.
Score
3
August 14, 2012 4:35:16 PM

It shall be anointed "Windows Linux" or "Windows OS X" or.......

Does it really matter what it will be called?
Score
3
August 14, 2012 4:56:27 PM

What does it matter anyway what the host desktop looks like? Simply boot a VM with whatever desktop you like. Really, surfing the web from a VM is safer anyways and you can run your productivity apps and servers there too. That leaves gaming to the host desktop, I fail to see where everyone is having a problem... or is it that those who don't know how to to do this, are the ones who are having the problem. The underlying OS is superior to Windows 7, change can be a good thing people!
Score
3
August 14, 2012 4:57:16 PM

Quote:
Windows 8 PU

LOL
Score
2
August 14, 2012 5:06:55 PM

p05estoActually using Windows for many of us means how we make money for food. There are NOT any good alternatives to Windows for most (without significant cost). For those who make a living using Windows everyday we have a lot invested in how well the system works and what is the most efficient. We can't just "not use Windows"...... so please, you STFU if you think the UI doesn't matter and just stop using the computer is your answer.


You can still stick with Windows 7... Even for those of us who use Windows as a tool in our food endeavors...

Score
1
August 14, 2012 5:32:56 PM

rodmap=roadmap !
Score
1
August 14, 2012 5:36:19 PM

damianrobertjones"The news is based on unnamed sources who also claim that ..."I stopped reading there. SICK of speculation and stuff like this.

with how bad the reputation for numbered windows is getting because of 8, i can see them distancing themselves from the number line.
Score
3
August 14, 2012 5:37:50 PM

p05estoActually using Windows for many of us means how we make money for food. There are NOT any good alternatives to Windows for most (without significant cost). For those who make a living using Windows everyday we have a lot invested in how well the system works and what is the most efficient. We can't just "not use Windows"...... so please, you STFU if you think the UI doesn't matter and just stop using the computer is your answer.

Um... use win7 like you have been? On that hardware you already have? How is the release of a new (and optional) OS going to change your life?

Also, I have yet to find a program that requires a start menu to work properly, and if you are using a program that often then why not just pin it to the superbar or desktop? Or (and this is innovative) pin it to the start screen! And use it JUST LIKE A START MENU!

Is it really all that hard?
Score
0
August 14, 2012 5:44:21 PM

I thought Microsoft was trying to get people to stop using Windows XP? This rumor and Windows 8 will only encourage people to continue using XP. And XP is still the best overall. Windows 7 is nice but its for those with older machines that don't want to upgrade will want to continue using XP.
Score
2
August 14, 2012 6:18:39 PM

Its no longer call Windows, its call Jail Cell
Score
2
August 14, 2012 7:20:16 PM

Windows brown anyone
Score
1
August 14, 2012 7:22:25 PM

Branden said:
v3.1=windows 3.1 (good)
v4.0=windows 95 (problems)
v4.1=windows 98 (good)
v4.9=windows me (wretched)
v5.0=windows 2k (problems)
v5.1=windows xp (good)
v5.2=windows xp-x64 (problems)
v6.0=windows vista (problems)
v6.1=windows 7 (good)
v6.2=windows 8 (problems?)

the way i see it is every x.0 version is 'revolutionary' and 'innovative' but has problems, by version x.1 the kinks are ironed out and we end up with an O/S everyone likes, if they push their luck any further they're just tinkering with something that ain't broke and end up breaking it.
so... the way i see it is it doesn't matter if windows 9/blue is v6.3 or v7.0 it'll probably suck.

EDIT: i've used every O/S mentioned. i'm not saying windows 95/2k/vista totally sucked, but being systems that introduced new features/funtionality they were problematic (more so than their predecessors), whereas windows 98/xp/7 were the most stable systems released to date (at the time). and it seems that windows me/xp-64/8 simply took their respective preceeding & reliable O/S and tweaked it to the point of de-stabalising them again. i love(d) windows 95/98/2k/xp/xp-64/vista/7 in spite of flaws they had, but it's 98/xp/7 that i stuck with long term. i don't forsee dropping 7 to upgrade to 8 and, if the pattern i see holds true, i don't predict commiting to 9/blue over 7 either because it won't be a x.1 version.

Um... 95, 98 and ME have nothing to do with modern windows as the product line ended with winME.

It goes more like this:
win pre 3.1
... ya, nobody heard about it for a reason

win 3.1
innovative, relatively stable, but still rough (especially compared to mac OS at the time), generally a pretty front end for DOS

WinNT (win3.x-win4.x)
generally sucked through the whole product line, but offered better support than competitors (Linux and OSx). This was also the only MS non-server OS that offered builds for various CPU architectures (until win8 which now has a stripped down ARM version, which is not exactly the same idea)

Win2K (win5)
awesome, but prone to security issues (I loved it way better than XP until SP2). First OS where a program crash did not (always) mean that you would have to reset the computer!

WinXP (win5.2)
At release people did not like it because it was resource heavy and the interface was 'cartooney', but hardware caught up fairly quickly, and some early patches made things run smoother. As it was basically win2K with a new 'friendly' UI it suffered from major security flaws, and could not keep up with the major changes happening with hardware (most notably wireless becoming standard in laptops).

winXP SP2 (Win5.5ish? they dropped the 5.x lingo with SP1)
While the UI stayed the same, the entire kernel was basically given an overhaul, redesigning the way things worked to finally shut down most of the security flaws, and making winXP the thing that everyone loves to this very day. A major push by MS finally made driver development and digital signing much more important which made 3rd party security issues much smaller as well. It was the development of SP2 that finally made MS software engineers realize that they had no idea of how Windows actually worked, which prompted the MinWin project. MinWin would eventually define the kernel, and segregated the OS into very distinct and separate parts (kernel, drivers, interface, etc) that we have today. This MinWin project is what we have to thank for the core stability and security found in Vista, 7, and 8, and has allowed MS to develop the different parts of the OS separately with minimal fear of different dev teams changing things which would then screw up another teams product cycle.
-Note XP 64bit was a port of sorts, and not an entirely new OS, and certainly not a new revision as it ran parallel in development to regular XP. Instead it was just a flavor of XP similar to MCE. The OS itself was just as stable as XP, but hardware manufacturers had a rough learning curve on writing drivers for 64bit (which continued through the first few years of Vista).

Win Vista (win6)
solid OS, but terrible 3rd party driver support (especially for the 64bit version), and generally a resource hog for what was available at the time (needing 1-2GB of ram to run smoothly when 512MB was considered a lot, and Ram was crazy expensive at the time), but things got much better over time. Running it on a machine now you would never have guessed the hell it put people through during the first year or so of it's release.

Win7
solid from RP onwards (RC1 and 2 had some issues), a little ram heavy but otherwise it was the first windows to require less hardware than it's predecessor for the CPU and GPU. It will go down in history as the first popular windows OS to have a good dev cycle, release cycle, and life cycle.

Win8
solid from first beta, great new features making what use to take 3rd party mods now part of the OS, great backwards compatibility, very small footprint and hardware requirements, in all respects the best OS ever made by MS, but because the UI has evolved past 1995 (17 years ago!) it is bound to have a terrible release with a long educational cycle like win95 had when the start menu was introduced. Other than the Ram and screen resolution requirements, this is now that 2nd OS to be released that uses less hardware than its predecessor.

In the alternate bizaro world you had a separate consumer product line which was (very) loosely based upon win3.1 development, and by the end had absolutely nothing to do with the business winNT platform which carried on the win3.1 kernel development:

win95
sucked. It had a new interface that NOBODY liked at the time, it was unstable, it had terrible driver and hardware support, terrible resource handling, and it still ran on top of DOS while stripping out all of it's usefulness

win98
sucked less. The OS was relatively stable (provided you had 'modern' hardware), 3rd parties figured out how to write a proper drivers and software, and it finally did not rely on DOS

win98SE
Was awesome and the only 'good' OS of this product line! Sadly nobody used it, but it was rock stable, had great driver support, was secure (well... secure for it's day), and was perhaps the best all-around release through its entire product cycle we would see until win7, having even less hiccups through its lifetime (all be it a short lifetime) than XP

winME
It was an attempt to bring the consumer OS more in line with the winNT/2K product line in an attempt to bring cross-platform compatibility. What they ended up with was a mess of code that simply did not work unless you were running hardware that was specifically designed for it. This was the only version of Windows (other than v1 and 2) that I never used as a daily-driver, and the few times I did have to interact with it were painful. There is good reason it was the end of the product line.

So really the list goes like this:
win1&2: had no idea what they were doing
win3.1: Usable but behind the times, turned to crap with NT release
win4: crap
win5: rough beginnings with win2K, but by XP SP2 it was awesome
win6: extremely rough beginnings, but by SP1 it was usable
win7: awesome
win8: awesomer, but not everyone's cup of tea

saying that they have an every-other good release cycle is just silly. If anything, they typically always have a rough start, and get better as it goes
Score
2
August 14, 2012 7:22:38 PM

Quote:
According to a leaked rodmap, Microsoft is expected to release a developer preview for Windows 8 PU


Now THAT is truth in naming! And the perfect name to replace 'metro'!
Score
0
August 14, 2012 7:44:27 PM

from the looks of things win 8 is more like a service pack...interesting
Score
1
August 14, 2012 8:05:49 PM

Blue you're my boy!
Score
0
August 14, 2012 8:26:00 PM

Rumors are like A holes everyone has one.
Score
0
!