"Threshold" to be Called Windows 9, Ship in April 2015

By +Frank B.
in Back Page News

 Share

Recommended Posts

Experienced

Rickkins

Posted
Posted

Modular is the answer. 

Yanno, if ya listened carefully, you'd have noticed that that is essentially all we've ever wanted. On a personal level, I couldn't care less what someone else runs on their device. I just want access to the full desktop experience, and ideally I'd like to see it remain fully supported for another 20 years.(by which time I would be 78, or more likely dead...)

 

This does not, in and of itself mean that if something better came along I wouldn't jump on it, I would.

 

It's simply that tifkam wasn't it.

Grand Master

firey

Posted
Posted

It's funny, how pictures can show the clear divide.  I agree with all the 8/8.1 is not practical and doesn't fit, and how 7 is sleek and clean, and awesome.  Yet you can clearly see that others feel reverse.

Grand Master

BajiRav

Posted
Posted

Windows 8 / 8.1

 

 

Windows 7

 

 

:laugh:

(except Windows 7 can't be a Prius - more like a gas guzzling SUV compared to lean and mean Win 8.x)

  • DConnell and dr_crabman
  • Like 2
Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

But the problem is, not everyone uses just a keyboard.  Hell I used a mouse way way more than a keyboard.  I don't use a touch screen on my computer, and will likely never.. I lose productivity if I wanted to move to that.  

The start menu is way way better for me than the start screen ever will be.  I still sue the start menu as a start menu.   Just because some people don't use it, doesn't mean that everyone doesn't.  I still 100% believe metro is for tablets, and phones. I don't see it as having a place on a desktop, production, machine.

firey - that is exactly the entire point I have been trying to make - there have been two groups of merely GUI users (the issue cuts across Windows, so it's not JUST a Windows issue).  Note that the Start menu launched as part of Windows 95, and was, in fact, late coming to NT (it didn't until NT 4.0), and was, in fact, pretty much entirely pointing-device driven (according to Microsoft's own documentation) and I'm not even counting touch-screen users.  Because I don't have touch support, the inclusion of them merely covered up the already-extant dichotomy between the keyboard-driven and pointing-device-driven users.

That is why a hybrid OS makes sense - not every user uses the OS the same way.  The problem that Windows 8/8.1 is facing is that now the hybrid OS is the default - not a niche.  The problem that those that want simply standard production desktops (old-school desktops, as they would say) want is that such HARDWARE is no longer the default, at least in terms of Windows - truth be told, such hardware has been moving away from being a default build of merely Windows hardware since XP.  As much as the "kitchen-sink" versions of merely Vista and 7 sold (look at JUST the sales of the Ultimate SKU - of either OS - sold vs. any other SKU of the same OS), there is still far more to even Windows 8.1 Pro than there was to Windows 7 Ultimate - and that is despite Media Center being an extra-cost option in 8.1 vs. it being standard in 7.  (I've pointed this out in another thread - it's more that Windows 8 and 8.1 include too much.)  Therefore, from what the critics themselves are say, they would rather have a more cut-down SKU as an option (something below the existing Windows 8 Core).

They may have been hoping that the keyboard-driven user would go along with the pointing-device-driven users into complaining - however, by and large, that has no more been the case here than it has been with GNOME.  The excision of the Start menu has been a panacea for the keyboard-driven users - we're no longer second-class citizens behind pointing-device users.  Touch support (to me) is utterly irrelevant.

  • BajiRav and DConnell
  • Like 2
Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

It's funny, how pictures can show the clear divide.  I agree with all the 8/8.1 is not practical and doesn't fit, and how 7 is sleek and clean, and awesome.  Yet you can clearly see that others feel reverse.

firey - I have never (as in ever) said that there would not be a divide - I am saying that I am apparently wrong as to the reason for it.

 

On one side are the pointing-device-driven users - on the other are not just touch-screen users, but keyboard-driven users as well.

 

The first group is heavily-reliant to the point of bias on the Start menu - therefore, they are the most upset with its excision; most of them feel that no third-party alternative for Windows 8 or 8.1 will do.  (What strikes me as weird is that most of them can't even explain WHY that is the case.)  Touch-screen users and keyboard-driven users BOTH got some bennies out of Windows 8 and 8.1.  Touch-screens actually gained more support (in both 8 and 8.1 - with 8.1's support improving merely over the base 8) - however, surprisingly, keyboard-driven users gained more than even touch-screen users simply by ModernUI being more neutral compared to the pointing-device-driven Start menu.

 

That is why I can speak about neutrality with a straight face - because I am neither pointing-device-driven OR touch-screen driven.  I'm in that category that has been around (even in Windows) for a while, but doesn't get talked about much - a keyboard-driven (for the most part) user.

Grand Master

redfish

Posted
Posted

Metro 2.0. Maturing and fixing the "Metro" design language used by Windows will be a major focus area of Threshold. It's not clear what changes are coming, but it's safe to assume that a windowed mode that works on the desktop is part of that.

Three milestones. Microsoft expects to deliver three milestone releases of "Threshold" before its final release. It's unclear what these releases will be called (Beta, Release Candidate, etc.) or which if any will be provided to the public.

 

That's good, but how about maturing and fixing the desktop, too.

Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

Windows 8.1:

10-modern_cars_12.jpg

 

How exactly do you get into that ugly piece of crap? Did they remove the usefulness of A DOOR and just make you climb into it?

 

Actually, after thinking about it for a moment. That is the perfect Windows 8 car.

Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

How exactly do you get into that ugly piece of crap? Did they remove the usefulness of A DOOR and just make you climb into it?

 

Actually, after thinking about it for a moment. That is the perfect Windows 8 car.

rinspeed_senso_01.JPG

 

Rinspeed+Senso+Cars+Pictures.jpg

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

I'm still not seeing door hinges. Do you climb in?

Pretty much that is the case - there are no "doors" that I can see; you climb over the doorsill.  (Unless there is a lever - and there appears to be one to the far rear of the doorsill under the left (passenger-side - this concept is right-hand-drive, just behind the roof) hinge; it's covered with the roof closed down.)

Grand Master

+Warwagon MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

It's a concept car. You do climb in because the drivers seat is in the middle of the chassis.

 

Which makes it the perfect Windows 8 car

 

1) it's ugly

2) It forces people to be inconvenienced. What if you get a broken leg, how do you get in?

Grand Master

PGHammer

Posted
Posted

That's good, but how about maturing and fixing the desktop, too.

Tell me, honestly - how is the desktop broken other than it not being biased toward pointing devices?

I haven't noticed ANY lack of usability in what desktop applications, games, etc. I use in Windows 8.1 every day - desktop applications could care less about the Start menu being missing.

 I still have a pronounced skew toward desktop applications and games - therefore I'm asking that question with a straight face.

Grand Master

Dot Matrix

Posted
Posted

Which makes it the perfect Windows 8 car

 

1) it's ugly

2) It forces people to be inconvenienced. What if you get a broken leg, how do you get it?

The definition of a concept car went right over your head, didn't it?

 

"Concept cars never go into production directly. In modern times all would have to undergo many changes before the design is finalized for the sake of practicality, safety, the meeting the burden of regulatory compliance, and cost. A "production-intent" vehicle, as opposed to a concept vehicle, serves this purpose."

 

Obviously, if it was mass produced, things would be reconfigured for use. I could point out a nice BMW concept too, that doesn't have doors. The initial picture was meant to be something modern and forward looking, but this conversation went sour fast.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing