So it looks like Microsoft is acknowledging the unpopularity of Windows 8.

http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/threshold-be-called-windows-9-ship-april-2015

Hopefully Windows 9 will be in some ways like Windows 8 but not bad? A bit like how Windows 7 is a fixed version of Vista.

In fact, there seems to be a bit of a history of alternation between good and bad Windows versions.

I personally find it too early for a new Windows give it 2 or 3 years at least.

Also brace yourself for complaints about Backwards compatibility with old games like MechWarrior 3 on Disc.

I meant either 2016 or 17.

So like Star Trek movies then? ;-)

I'm going to remain sceptical for now. The continued focus on Metro does bother me somewhat, especially as Win8's implementation broke the installation of program shortcuts for just about every legacy program out there.

I've not used Win8.1 yet, but Win8 was genuinely a horrible experience that I would not care to repeat again. It will never find its way onto my own PCs. Having to install third-party hacks just to make the OS half-way usable is not my definition of acceptable.

It all depends on how Microsoft approaches the Metro problem. Metro is itself an attractive interface, but it is also highly impractical outside of a tablet environment. Hopefully MS will see sense and enable users to choose from a streamlined Start Menu à la Win7 and the Metro interface (a feature that would be especially useful for convertible hybrid tablet/laptops like the Surface Pro), but given how aggressively they're pushing Metro, I wouldn't bet on it.

Also, the faked speedy shutdown/startup thing, whereby Windows would simply use ACPI Suspend, was appallingly bad. I've had numerous occasions where the PC would simply freeze upon resume (in fairness, Ubuntu and Windows 7 don't do suspend/resume very well either, which is why most people simply don't use it).

Ironically, it was actually the removal of a feature - that of the resource-consuming and utterly useless Aero interface - that proved to be Win8's greatest asset, but the speed difference really wasn't noticeable enough to warrant the upgrade or put up with the other inadequacies.

Death to Metro

Agreed, heck all they really need to do is add in a windows 7 style start menu as an alternative to their start screen and bam, you've got a damned good OS on your hands (or rather it already is a good OS, it just needs that one thing). It's a slow process, but they seem to be realising this.

In the meantime, I'm loving start8 :P

All hail the Start Button.

Wasn't win 8.1 like a very stable OS? People seem to be happy with it or maybe will 8 go the same road as Vista...

Exactly! :P

8 bad, 7 good, Vista bad, XP good, 2000/ME bad, 98SE good, 98 bad, 95 good. So... hopefully Windows 9 won't break the sequence.


There are rumours that the Start menu will return, which is great.

I didn't know about the suspend thing.

I actually like the design - it looks really, really good. They only completely failed at applying it properly to the desktop. This for example is an unoffical concept art how a Metro desktop could have looked like, if they had done a better job.

Yeah, I'm hoping the Start menu comes back. I was thinking about getting Windows 8 with my new laptop and using one of the programs that adds the Start menu back, but I'm not sure now. Maybe I'll just stick with 7 and see what 9 brings. 7 was fairly hot on the heels of Vista from what I remember. :P

You know what the funny thing is? That concept actually reminds me of GNOME 3.

Really? I haven't used it, so I might be wrong, but from what I've seen, it doesn't have a task bar or start button, and uses a lot of skeumorphic design element - in other words, the complete opposite of this concept.

I thought it was the other way around that 95 was bad, but 98 was good.