More info on Windows Blue

#4487939

Year

2012-12-27 08:38

bah.. :rock: http://img3.uploadhouse.com/fileuploads/17093/17093262a86b8ed87c3c8e621ca7ae8e88ff2935.jpg

#4487943

Ven0m

2012-12-27 08:49

I'm not sure what to think about such "disclosure" - basically anyone could make it up and post, as there are no details except for "version numbers", and all the general information could be told a year ago.

#4487947

PhazeDelta1

2012-12-27 08:55

I'm using an alpha version of Windows Green. see what i did there??? :eyebrows:

#4487982

Tat3

2012-12-27 10:54

Most of that sounds good, but I'm not sure about this one yet...

debuting a new yearly update cycle for Microsoft's OS.

If they are going to sell upgrade to next OS for $15 or so then I suppose it might be fine, but I kinda liked this current theme and not upgrade every year a bit, but take few years and make bigger upgrade to OS. This yearly upgrade stuff reminds me about some other company who also makes operating systems for their own computers and phones, cant be bothered to remember what the name of that company was.

#4487991

styka

2012-12-27 11:10

Most of that sounds good, but I'm not sure about this one yet... If they are going to sell upgrade to next OS for $15 or so then I suppose it might be fine, but I kinda liked this current theme and not upgrade every year a bit, but take few years and make bigger upgrade to OS. This yearly upgrade stuff reminds me about some other company who also makes operating systems for their own computers and phones, cant be bothered to remember what the name of that company was.

Is it the Annoying Orange ?? 🤓

#4487996

Sash

2012-12-27 11:29

if they fix the metro ui, i will get it

#4488234

scoter man1

2012-12-27 19:34

I really wish they'd drop the whole being good for both tablets and desktops at the same time thing.

#4488241

Loophole35

2012-12-27 19:43

If they are going to sell upgrade to next OS for $15 or so then I suppose it might be fine, but I kinda liked this current theme and not upgrade every year a bit, but take few years and make bigger upgrade to the OS.

Sounds kinda like what Apple does with their OS as of recently every year there is a new OSX out.

#4488249

deltatux

2012-12-27 19:57

After using Windows 8 for a while, there are things I love and hate about the "Metro UI" on my desktop. I like how I can have some of the Metro apps which are useful for things like mail, but I still think that Microsoft could have done this better and only activate the Start Screen if it detects a touch panel. deltatux

#4488277

ScoobyDooby

2012-12-27 20:49

After using Windows 8 for a while, there are things I love and hate about the "Metro UI" on my desktop. I like how I can have some of the Metro apps which are useful for things like mail, but I still think that Microsoft could have done this better and only activate the Start Screen if it detects a touch panel. deltatux

Anyone who uses Windows 8 whether they like it or not I'm sure will admit MS could have done many things better... maybe people who like it may be a bit more tough to convince, but it seems fairly obvious to most computer users that I've spoken with at least. Sounds to me like most users have some beef with it big or small.. I personally don't use it because I find it clumsy and most of the "improvements" are unnecessary. Seems like MS finally has gotten to that point where they are making changes nobody asked for and trying to sell it like its new and impoved where its anything but. Just hoping that the next iteration will feature some point to upgrade with some actual productive changes/updates to the os. Win 8 makes me feel the same way I do about Iphone 5.. which to me is not much of an upgrade over Iphone 4s.

#4488285

deltatux

2012-12-27 20:54

I don't think a lot of people especially companies are going to like the idea of yearly upgrades. I still know a lot of companies having issues migrating to 7 and still stuck on XP because their in-house software just won't run on 7 properly without a significant re-write, especially if they are designed poorly. deltatux

#4488288

ScoobyDooby

2012-12-27 20:59

I don't think a lot of people especially companies are going to like the idea of yearly upgrades. I still know a lot of companies having issues migrating to 7 and still stuck on XP because their in-house software just won't run on 7 properly without a significant re-write, especially if they are designed poorly. deltatux

Indeed I am finding this all the time.. particularly when it comes to SQL and database/client incompatibility.. either you stick with Xp or you Upgrade to server 2008+ and windows 7.. this however can be extremely costly so companies tend to shy away from the expense. Yet at the same time their network environment and software ages day by day and sooner or later starts to degrade and can't handle the load.. see it all the time... and I am only talking SQL, not even mentioned the litany of other customized apps that companies could potentially be running..

#4488289

WindtalkerCS

2012-12-27 20:59

I don't think a lot of people especially companies are going to like the idea of yearly upgrades. I still know a lot of companies having issues migrating to 7 and still stuck on XP because their in-house software just won't run on 7 properly without a significant re-write, especially if they are designed poorly. deltatux

I can't speak for most companies but for my company I would definitely jump on board with yearly updates. The problem with OS's for me is that they are so spread out and so different that it takes forever to test everything and every work flow since there are so many changes. With yearly updates things would happen a bit slower, with less differences from version to version, less of an upset to the overall workflow. It would allow me to keep up to date without having to dedicate as much time as I do to OS upgrades.

#4488291

deltatux

2012-12-27 21:03

Indeed I am finding this all the time.. particularly when it comes to SQL and database/client incompatibility.. either you stick with Xp or you Upgrade to server 2008+ and windows 7.. this however can be extremely costly so companies tend to shy away from the expense. Yet at the same time their network environment and software ages day by day and sooner or later starts to degrade and can't handle the load.. see it all the time... and I am only talking SQL, not even mentioned the litany of other customized apps that companies could potentially be running..

Ya, from experience, it's the DB backend that causes an issue. Rarely is it running the actual front-end being the issue.

I can't speak for most companies but for my company I would definitely jump on board with yearly updates. The problem with OS's for me is that they are so spread out and so different that it takes forever to test everything and every work flow since there are so many changes. With yearly updates things would happen a bit slower, with less differences from version to version, less of an upset to the overall workflow. It would allow me to keep up to date without having to dedicate as much time as I do to OS upgrades.

That might depend on how significant the changes Microsoft is going to make and depends on the company. There are many factors that will factor into a company's willingness to upgrade. They also have to factor in the cost. Plus, if companies, especially upper management don't see any difference, they won't budget these yearly upgrades if they cost money because to them, if Microsoft keeps the Windows 8 branding, they'd be wondering why they need to pay for a minor upgrade and rather skip it. These corporate brass don't know that there will be changes underneath. deltatux

#4488332

Kaleid

2012-12-27 21:52

I don't think a lot of people especially companies are going to like the idea of yearly upgrades. I still know a lot of companies having issues migrating to 7 and still stuck on XP because their in-house software just won't run on 7 properly without a significant re-write, especially if they are designed poorly. deltatux

Agreed, and it should be hellish for MS too, updating so many operative systems.

#4488425

tsunami231

2012-12-28 00:40

if they give me back my Desktop and let me disable this metro or what they call it now I might be interested. Win 8 was 2 steps backwards for desktops usability and easy, 1 step forward for touchscreen os. As far as i concerned

#4488435

CyberPaddy

2012-12-28 01:00

tbh men, an im sure most w8 user wil agree, they need to got rid of the desktop completly and it wil make things easyer. if they do this it will be a step in right direftion an a definete buy from me, if they put start menu back i dont want it, we want plane stylist interface that is fast with easy access just liek metro is now they just need to add more colors

#4488484

Clouseau

2012-12-28 02:23

tbh men, an im sure most w8 user wil agree, they need to got rid of the desktop completly and it wil make things easyer. if they do this it will be a step in right direftion an a definete buy from me, if they put start menu back i dont want it, we want plane stylist interface that is fast with easy access just liek metro is now they just need to add more colors

I see, that way they capture all the ADD & ADHD crowd at the same time alienating the base that brought them to the show. The more things change, the more things remain the same.

#4488536

tsunami231

2012-12-28 04:25

I tried Win8 and i hated it, and all the people i talk to that tried it hated it. And the people that barely knew how to use win7 and earlier hated even more. So for me unless I get my Desktop back, and can remove/disable this Tablet/Phone UI bs i want nothing to do it

#4488556

deltatux

2012-12-28 05:23

I tried Win8 and i hated it, and all the people i talk to that tried it hated it. And the people that barely knew how to use win7 and earlier hated even more. So for me unless I get my Desktop back, and can remove/disable this Tablet/Phone UI bs i want nothing to do it

You do get the desktop in Windows 8... deltatux