Two pieces of news about Windows 9 (codenamed Threshold) showed up today:
First, Windows 9 will morph to fit the device it's running on which is good news for everyone who thought that Metro/Modern interface on a device with a keyboard and mouse didn't make sense.
Meaning, if you're on a traditional desktop or laptop using a mouse and keyboard, Threshold will boot directly into the Windows desktop you know and love. The Live-tiled Start screen may return for people using touch-based machines like tablets and convertible laptops.
Second, Windows 9 Preview May Arrive Later This Year, although the final released isn't expected until 2015.
I won't go as far as to say that Microsoft has learned from their mistakes, but they at least seem to moving towards what the market wants from them.
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Saturday July 05 2014, @08:06PM
The touch screen revolution on the desktop is proving slower than Microsoft believed.
The monster tables first dubbed "Surface" shrunk to the hand held tablets, (still called Surface),
and a few small-screen laptops, but other than that, touch screens aren't selling well in the office.
Without a touch screen, Metro didn't make sense, and Microsoft's stubborn attempts to push it to the desktop has only enriched Apple. The cabal pushing Metro is losing favor in Redmond with the departure of key players and some sense is returning to the desktop.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by doublerot13 on Saturday July 05 2014, @08:27PM
Microsoft is/was stubborn about Metro because of the Windows Store tile(s). Every click/tap is revenue for them.
Metro also makes using the search for everything you are trying to find. The searches all go to bing now which means more money for them.
Metro is not really about touch at all, that is just a means to an end.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday July 05 2014, @08:35PM
That's it. They want the locked-down, "buy it from us or don't run it" deal Apple has going. The sad part is that if they didn't have such a poor attempt at a new interface they might have had a shot at it.
(Score: 2) by elgrantrolo on Sunday July 06 2014, @07:51AM
That's a good point that needs to be compared with the alternative: today, if you do a search for (whatever).apk to sideload to an android machine, you get the exact same kind of rubbish that have been for a long time making PC use quite dangerous. Then there's also Installshield-kind of software defaulting to adding all sorts of adware with your chosen product. This is also a nuisance that I've not seen with the app-market approach.
The app market was a great idea, which I'm sure that someone will point out that is a follow on from repositories or rpms or whatever. At the scale MS, Apple and Google need to work, it is clear to me this is the correct way to prevent infestation with malware.
I've been using Windows8 since Jan2012 and regret that there aren't more 2nd party Metro apps. The UIs of "before the iPad" era really have been surpassed. Microsoft did a good thing with the Start screen by making all that screen real estate useful from he start - IMHO it beats having a clear desktop doing nothing and having dashboards as add-ons that don't meet any UI standard look. Some of the changes in 8.1 compromised the Metro UI in ways that reward the part of the userbase that would never be in agreement with changing anything. I found that quite sad.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:36PM
Unity for all of its flaws and Gnome Shell did a better job of the same thing. Yes, application repositories, ideally like Linux's implementation of it are an excellent solution to reducing malware, but locking a platform to a single one is one of the worst things to happen in computing since the bad old IBM days. There needs to be reasonable ways to consumers to have alternative sources if they desire.
(Score: 2) by elgrantrolo on Monday July 07 2014, @06:10AM
Unity for all of its flaws and Gnome Shell did a better job of the same thing. How is that?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Saturday July 05 2014, @09:12PM
What are you talking about?
I seldom visit the Windows store, I just install the standard packages without going to get Windows Store versions. The only people who got stuck using Windows Store apps are Windows RT users, who should have known better.
On my Windows 8.1 metro tablet (Surface PRO) I never use Bing. I continue to use Google as always.
For searching on my device, I just start typing, and it finds the files or programs I want. There is no revenue in that.
Metro is about adopting the OS to touch screens, and it does a reasonable job of that. It allowed Microsoft to push Windows down onto small hardware without having to learn many new tricks. They took the cheap way out, but in doing so they damaged their brand, and essentially threw the desktop market to Apple.
Take away the touch screen and no part of Metro makes sense any more.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @11:18PM
Just because one version of Windows is terrible doesn't make Macs any better.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 06 2014, @05:22AM
You are correct. Windows sucking doesn't make Mac any better. But, when Windows sucking makes Windows worse than anything Mac makes, the market will start buying Macs.
Or, do as I did. Switch to Linux.
Those who live in, or visit Linux Land are aware that the "surface" thing affects us as well. Ubuntu was tremendously popular, until they insisted that they were going the Unity route. Gnome was the most popular desktop in Linux Land, until they insisted on going Metro. In response, the Linux Land denizens have created new desktop environments, including Cinnamon and Mate. I have migrated to the Enlightenment desktop environment. And, several other desktops have enjoyed increased popularity because they continue to concentrate on being fast, lightweight, and predictable.
But, again, you are correct. When the biggest competitor in the market just sucks, that doesn't make the smaller players any better. It only makes them more attractive!
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2, Informative) by doublerot13 on Sunday July 06 2014, @01:36AM
Your local searches are going to bing, by default, unless you turn it off. So yes, Microsoft has a monetary interest in making you use search instead just looking at the desktop or standard start menu.
http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/windows-81-tip-configure-smart-search [winsupersite.com]
This was my point.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Sunday July 06 2014, @07:49AM
Meh, that setting has been off since day one on my device. (I actually think it came that way and I was offered the ability to turn it on).
Besides, there is no revenue in that for microsoft. If I search for an image named P20140230143.jpg or an a file named invitations.txt, how could Microsoft possibly monetize that while still honoring their privacy policy?
They can't even use it to push ads to me, because I never search with bing, and I never use MSIE.
Your tinfoil is on so tight its cutting off blood to your brain.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday July 05 2014, @10:05PM
What I want to know is if they are still gonna have a free "powered by Bing" version? If so this would be a great way to upgrade low end machines where the cost of a Windows license would make upgrading impracticable.
Oh and for those die hard "Embrace teh fuuuture! Its innnovaaaaation!" softies? I'm doing the dance of moral superiority right now. The start screen is just fine on a tablet but on a desktop? the UI made as much sense as putting bicycle handlebars on a pickup truck. its unwieldy, takes more clicks and time to do less, trying to use it with a mouse just sucks, and its pretty much a boat anchor on productivity. It really feels like an Android/iPad "consuming only" OS on a platform where creation is done just as much as consumption. Just a bad idea all around.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @09:42PM
Microsoft's stubborn attempts to push [Metro]
There seems to be a lot of that sort of thing going around.
http://fuckbeta.slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]
Now, how many people are buying things of a size that runs desktop Windoze?
When someone mentions that OS, the next thing he mentions is a $600 app (though he would never give that kind of cash for a single app).
ISTM that those who do use that app do that on their employer's machine, using their employer's copy, under a legacy version of the EULAware OS.
When those folks go home, they run a different OS.
These days, the vast majority of ordinary people who buy a computing device want small and cheap.
M$ doesn't understand either of those concepts.
(On handheld thingies, M$ holds under 4 percent share.)
With the glut of used desktop systems available, I don't see much of a market for a new OS from Redmond.
Add in a $0 OS with tons of $0 apps a few clicks away [netupd8.com] and it defies all logic that people in the middle of a continuing economic downturn are going to be giving cash to M$.
-- gewg_
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:23AM
The real shame is that Microsoft neglected the original incarnation of Surface, which was to be like a "smart" interactive touchscreen coffee table. It was a pretty bitchin' idea -- you could actually view digital images and rotate and manipulate them by hand just as you would real photographs laying on a coffee table. It would also detect when you laid a phone or other bluetooth object on it and encircle the gadget with a "halo."
Microsoft would have been a household name in the high-end luxury market, a place so high up that profit margins could have been astronomical and with no initial competition. Even Apple would be nowhere to be found for awhile. Gambling on the Surface as it was originally conceived would have been a more innovative and less risky strategy than stupidfuck Ballmer's bumbling and counterproductive third-rate copycatting. Microsoft's reputation would have been propelled to the forefront as it became known as visionary. Microsoft could have accelerated consumer technology at light speeds as competitors stepped up and ideas were shared, or better ways were invented.
However, Microsoft, like the San Diego Chargers, has always had a lot of potential but can't manage their talent for shit -- which is why it always chokes in the playoffs.
(Score: 2) by AnonTechie on Saturday July 05 2014, @08:34PM
What a surprise. I think it would be first time ... if M$ really started caring about what people think of MS Windows ...
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @09:02PM
9 bound to look good in retrospect.
(Score: 2, Funny) by sea on Saturday July 05 2014, @09:38PM
AAaarghhh, get it off!!!
(Score: 1) by PlasticCogLiquid on Saturday July 05 2014, @10:10PM
You really think this is boosting Linux? I get people in my electronics repair shop everyday that want me to upgrade them from Win 8 to Win 7. Nobody is running to Linux like you suggest. They're running back to what works for them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @10:58PM
Well, nobody said that, not TFA, and no comment has asserted that besides you. But I will argue that Microsoft's blunders of late have pushed people to Linux, but not so much GNU/Linux, rather Android/Linux. I replaced my laptop with a newer model half a year ago and gave the old one to my wife, who has never once used it despite haranguing me about needing a full PC for a year. She's been sticking with an Android tablet I got her instead rather than using the Windows 7 laptop I prepared. The computing needs of growing segments of the population are more than sufficiently served solely by Android and iOS devices. If I could run my dev tools on the Nexus 7 I'm writing this on I'd have very little need for a full-blown desktop.
People will only migrate away from a platform if there are no longer any apps they can live without. You're only seeing the people still wedded to Windows, and not seeing the trend away from the traditional PC desktop for most casual users, nor are you seeing the people who migrate to OS X. The people who have need for apps that only run on GNU/Linux are specialists and they already know what to do.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Nerdfest on Saturday July 05 2014, @11:16PM
I have a few non-tech friends that have recently switched to Linux because of XP expiry and malware in Windows 7. As an exercise, I set up one machine as duel boot and timed it. 4.5 hours for Windows, and it required manual driver installs downloaded from another machine. 25 minutes for Ubuntu and everything worked right away. This was on a Sony Vaio laptop, not an off-brand. It was quite eye opening. I now know why people don't run Windows updates ... it's absolutely ridiculous how long they take ... and it took six reboots. Linux is simple enough that people can install it themselves. If they don't get Windows CDs when they buy a machine, they are unlikely to have them laying around. Things have changed. At this point it only requires spreading the word.
A do need to add that one person managed to pick up some malware on her Linux machine; she managed to get a Chrome browser extension installed and it also changed her default search engine. If that doesn't say Linux is ready for the mainstream, I don't know what does. :(
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 05 2014, @11:44PM
people don't 'use' an os; they use applications. it's all about what apps are available. when adobe, autodesk and ea games etc start releasing linux versions of their flagship products, only then will the writing be on the wall for microsoft.
linux pwns in servers for businesses bigger than 25 workstations; linux admins are less hard to find than they were 10 years ago and with sbs gone, anyone with half a brain will go with linux (especially when they compare initial costs and tco). only companies that depend on products like autodesk vault might be stuck forking out for windows server still.
android (linux) only pwns the mobile market because of google's investment in app development and the skyrocketing number of apps on google play and its predecessor. a mobile app developer who once might have only released an ios version would now be retarded not to release a version for android as well.
ps: i use debian at home. i'm stuck using windows at work due to dependency on autodesk products (thankfully not vault).
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:37AM
For home users, 'applications' is their browser, for probably 90+ percent of them anyway.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Sunday July 06 2014, @05:00AM
So you let the operating systems fight each other and boot the one which survives? :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 1) by kaganar on Sunday July 06 2014, @02:43AM
I hope it's got built-in support-oriented (oh, and secure) screen sharing that's enabled out of the box and punches through firewalls like a champ. There's a lot of people who simply don't find any OS intuitive, and when you're positioned to support them (work, family, or otherwise) you have to know exactly what they should click on, type, or look for -- otherwise they'll get confused. But anymore between Android OS, iOS, Windows, MacOS, and Linux -- and all the different versions thereof -- there's a lot of little details to remember. Directing someone over the phone on how to download and launch a remote assistance tool isn't trivial -- different browsers, browser versions, security settings, OS popups, save locations, and the like cause difficulties that waste time and raise frustrations. With the added bonus of people not being able to express which Windows 9 configuration they're running, simple to activate remote diagnostic and assistance tools will become even more important -- even required.
(Score: 1) by DECbot on Sunday July 06 2014, @04:27AM
At first, I thought MS did something truely innovative, like a single OS instance that you can transfer to multiple different devices and architectures without rebooting or recompiling.... just beam it over to your $deviceImUsingNow, and your OS morphs into that devices form factor (think Jarvis from Ironman). I was a little disappointed to read that it was just something sensible, having the UI match the physical input hardware. On a slightly tangent topic, how long will it take to get this feature back into gnome/unity?
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 06 2014, @05:29AM
I thought everyone sensible in the Linux world had abandoned Gnome and Unity.
The latest iteration of Enlightenment is beautiful, lightweight, stable, and works well on my hardware. I'm just loving it! If you have some hardware, or a virtual machine available, you can take it for a spin, and see how great it is!
http://sparkylinux.org/ [sparkylinux.org]
Basically, it's a rolling release of Debian, with the Enlightenment desktop baked in.
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Sunday July 06 2014, @06:55AM
I migrated to XFCE and played fluxbox when gnome2 started getting too goofy. I'm just curious if those projects will feature a desktop interface in the future, like Windows 9.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday July 06 2014, @11:23AM
Hmmm . . . I would say "not likely". Cinnamon and Mate were both created from Gnome2, in rebellion against the Metro themed desktops. They'll reject any suggestions that they should "go with the flow", I'm sure.
Enlightenment? I'm less sure about that. As much as I like Enlightenment, it is largely an unknown factor in the desktop wars. It has little to nothing in common with any other desktop environment. They have created their own libraries, they have their own methods - nothing works the same. On the surface, at least, they are dedicated to old-style menus and desktop environments, but they could undergo a change of philosophy. It probably wouldn't be to difficult to adapt E to touchscreens, and from there, who knows?
Gnome 3 and Unity are dedicated to the Metro style interfaces, and that is all there is to that. They are both hiding access to desktop menus and the terminals - or if not actually "hiding", then making them less accessible.
I like XFCE - I guess it ranks third behind E and Mate in my own private universe. My only complaint is that it could probably be made a little more "pretty" without using more resources. Most desktop environments are turning into resource hogs, making them less appealing on older hardware.
Strange - machines that run as fast as 2 ghz today are considered "older hardware".
“I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
(Score: 2) by Marand on Sunday July 06 2014, @07:57AM
However long it takes to give up on them and apt-get install kde-plasma-desktop instead. One of the major points for the rewrite KDE went through in the transition from 3 to 4 was they were creating a framework where you could build completely different environments using the same underlying parts. They've provided separate small-screen netbook and large-screen desktop UIs like that for years, and more recently, added a tablet/mobile UI called Active, all using the same underlying design but without forcing everyone to use the same thing.
Because everything (taskbar, launcher, systray, etc.) is a widget, you can also use the Activities feature in a similar way, though you have to be a bit creative because the panels persist through activity swaps. For example, one activity's desktop layout can be set to "Search and Launch", which works well with touchscreen input or on small screens, and another layout can be set to "Folder" (WinXP style shortcut icons) or "Default Desktop" (KDE default widget-focused one). Switch activities and you go from finger-friendly to normal in an instant, with it even remembering what programs you had on which activity.
The transitions aren't automagical currently, but otherwise it's a good setup, and doesn't force one UI design on everybody like everyone else has been determined to do. KDE5 is supposed to be improving the switching to be more flexible and seamless, too, so it should continue to improve without the one-UI-for-all brain damage.
One KDE program, Krita, has been something of a playground for this type of work; Krita itself has separate tablet version (called Krita Sketch), and recently they started releasing a duo version called Krita Gemini that can switch between the Sketch and default UI on the fly. It's the sort of thing you see and wonder why everybody else isn't already doing it, too, because it just makes sense.