Windows.next to be "Completely Different" and "Mind-Blowing" - Hardware & Software

At long last? Dare one hope? [editline]12:22PM[/editline] Should also be noted that the 128-bit rumor seems to talk about upgrading to "IA-128 from IA-64" in which case they aren't really talking about the x86-64 architecture we know as "64-bit", but rather they may be preparing for the next Windows to be able to run on some hypothetical new 128-bit Intel [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itanium]Itanium[/URL] processor.

[QUOTE=Cey22;20485166]Regardless of how well the 360 can play Xbox games, there isn't a chance in hell of microsoft making an operating system that wasn't fully compatible with everything that runs on Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows Xp. I mean honestly, unless they build something for a completely different purpose - a tablet-only edition or something perhaps.[/QUOTE] Compatibility isn't in Microsoft's vocabulary. Besides the obvious Xbox/360 example, when I try to run older programs in Compatibility Mode for it's supported OS, it fails more often than it succeeds. If Microsoft wanted good compatibility, Windows drivers should all be interchangeable among all NT-based Windows versions, and they aren't. Vista drivers sometimes don't work in 7, and they should. Even OS X and Linux have better driver compatibility. Users could upgrade from XP to Vista, so why not XP to 7? Because Microsoft's idea of "compatibility" is a fucking joke. Also, Microsoft should have ditched 32-bit support with the release of Vista. If they hold on to 32-bit through one more Windows release, it's going to hold us back even longer.

[QUOTE=Panda X;20526282]People who think it's slow should use a Longhorn M7 build with WinFS and Aero enabled.[/QUOTE] ...and Phodeo. (although if you've got a Lab6 one by all means continue using it)

[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;20550366]Compatibility isn't in Microsoft's vocabulary. Besides the obvious Xbox/360 example, when I try to run older programs in Compatibility Mode for it's supported OS, it fails more often than it succeeds. If Microsoft wanted good compatibility, Windows drivers should all be interchangeable among all NT-based Windows versions, and they aren't. Vista drivers sometimes don't work in 7, and they should. Even OS X and Linux have better driver compatibility. Users could upgrade from XP to Vista, so why not XP to 7? Because Microsoft's idea of "compatibility" is a fucking joke. Also, Microsoft should have ditched 32-bit support with the release of Vista. If they hold on to 32-bit through one more Windows release, it's going to hold us back even longer.[/QUOTE] I don't know what you're trying to do here because the poster above is right, Microsoft goes great lengths to ensure their software is compatible [B]when they want to[/B]. Now obviously they pull some planned obsolescence shit like (IMO) DX10 by forcing a rewrite of the driver model, but they also do a ton of other things to keep that compatibility when it is beneficial for them For instance, there's a reason for that "6.1" version tag you see in your command prompt if you're running Windows 7 (you may have to type ver, I don't know). Vista was 6, why is 7 not 7.0? Because some broken software and drivers looked for the major version number to check if they were compatible. By making Windows 6.1, you keep some compatibility with that software. Have you ever heard of virtual registry and filesystem? It basically remaps file writes from badly written software so that they do not get errors when they attempt to write to places they shouldn't be writing (such as Program Files). There's no reason to have that feature in Vista; afterall, it's our job, the programmers, to make our software behave so it won't write to directories we don't have access to. It was made because software made for XP assumed the user was Admin, because Microsoft's security model sucked so bad back then that it was really hard to do anything without admin privileges. Thirdly, have you ever looked at the pages documenting the Windows 2000 source code leak? There's a few gems such as these: // ACHTUNG!!! this is a special hack for IBM antivirus software Or this: [URL]http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/11942/2702[/URL] You can complain about a lot of stuff MS does, and you can complain about the times that they [I]purposely[/I] break compatibility, but when they want to, they definitely try their damnest to keep it. [QUOTE=a2h;20550273]Does Microsoft even patch bugs via Windows Update?[/QUOTE] Yes.

windows 8 is already being talked about? didn't windows 7 just come out around 4 months ago

[QUOTE=Wii60;20587265]windows 8 is already being talked about? didn't windows 7 just come out around 4 months ago[/QUOTE] When one os is released, they start making next one. They can't afford to wait.

[QUOTE=johanz;20591207]When one os is released, they start making next one. They can't afford to wait.[/QUOTE] They don't even wait until the current one is released most of the time.

[QUOTE=Wii60;20587265]windows 8 is already being talked about? didn't windows 7 just come out around 4 months ago[/QUOTE] 7 was being worked on before Vista retailed.

[QUOTE=Wii60;20587265]windows 8 is already being talked about? didn't windows 7 just come out around 4 months ago[/QUOTE] People don't seem to realize this, but the 2 year gap between Vista and 7 was completely normal. Microsoft (Before Windows Vista) released new operating systems every 2-3 years, so Windows.next in 2012/2013 or even sooner isn't a surprise.

It will be interesting to see what MS have hiding up in their sleeves

[QUOTE=Jimmy422;20623867]People don't seem to realize this, but the 2 year gap between Vista and 7 was completely normal. Microsoft (Before Windows Vista) released new operating systems every 2-3 years, so Windows.next in 2012/2013 or even sooner isn't a surprise.[/QUOTE] So... explain the 5 year gap from XP to Vista, I'm dying to know... :keke:

[QUOTE=Pixel Heart;20626740]So... explain the 5 year gap from XP to Vista, I'm dying to know... :keke:[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Jimmy422;20623867](Before Windows Vista)[/QUOTE] jesus fuck you are just retarded no wait that's an insult to retards everywhere [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - SteveUK))[/highlight]

Vista was one OS out of many.

[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;20433538]So long as it's not a repeat of Vista I'll be happy.[/QUOTE] Vista was fine, 7 is leagues better, but vista trumped XP by far as well.

Windows 7 didn't come out that long ago and they are already in dev for Windows.next? I was hoping not to have to spend more money so soon.

[QUOTE=cheeseman52;20630694]Windows 7 didn't come out that long ago and they are already in dev for Windows.next? I was hoping not to have to spend more money so soon.[/QUOTE] Do you not know that Microsoft always has done this? 7 already had the superbar in 2007, the same year Vista retailed. Microsoft always went the 2-3 year route. 95-98, 98-00/ME, 00-XP. Vista to 7 was their longest on schedule release. It took less time to develop Vista than it did 7. (Aug 04 - Nov 06) [editline]12:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pixel Heart;20626740]So... explain the 5 year gap from XP to Vista, I'm dying to know... :keke:[/QUOTE] Due to the way things were managed at the Windows devision, (being that there were 7 groups individually working on Longhorn at a time) Lab01: Base (Kernel) Lab02: Networking Lab03: Server Lab04: Management [Lab05:] Main (also known as idx02 or winmain) Lab06: Desktop Lab07: IIS/COM+ Lab05 couldn't keep up with everything and push it into one build so you're left with up to 7 builds of the same build number. It also became very unstable with so many new additions (kernel, explorer in .NET, WinFX, WinFS, Avalon, Indigo, etc) It became such a mess that they decided to drop Longhorn as-is and restart the project from scratch in August of 2004. The very first build of Vista was 5.2.3790.1232.winmain.040819-1629, and as you can see it's from Server 2003 (August 19th, 2004 at 4:29PM PST) as all it was at the time was Server 2003 Standard with a Longhorn EULA in it. After Vista the team fell apart and they brought the Office team (Steven Sinofsky and others) to be the lead in the Windows devision.

[QUOTE=mastersrp;20433135]I'm pretty sure it'll be 64bit only.[/QUOTE] Good. 64 bit is the way of the future. might be a bit of a rough change over for the tech world (with some apps having features only supported in their 32 bit version) But it will be better in the end.

[QUOTE=Mokkan13;20698256]Good. 64 bit is the way of the future. might be a bit of a rough change over for the tech world (with some apps having features only supported in their 32 bit version) But it will be better in the end.[/QUOTE] Oh come on, 32bit is really old now. Most people have 4 or more gigs of ram anyway. I haven't used a software that is 32bit only and won't run on 64 bit, so they're not that common.

If it really is innovative and new, everyone will probably hate it and it will end like Vista (which was great, but nobody liked it). I guess that's something MS will have to live with, release the new feature->get hated->release the same OS with minor changes->everyone loves it->repeat

[QUOTE=Robber;20704139]If it really is innovative and new, everyone will probably hate it and it will end like Vista (which was great, but nobody liked it). I guess that's something MS will have to live with, release the new feature->get hated->release the same OS with minor changes->everyone loves it->repeat[/QUOTE] The flak that Vista took wasn't related to how "different" it was, it was related to how buggy, slow and complicated it was (and then on top of that, you add the people who've never tried it but have heard the same thing and kept repeating it to other people). An example of a new feature that was welcomed -> The superbar. There weren't major complaints about that, most people thought it was a great improvement, and its adoption is almost ubiquitous (if that's the right word). Make new things that are easy to use and an improvement over the original, and people will use it. New and more efficient start menu? Sure! New, more powerful task bar? Sure! Make a mess out of the control panel and implement a complex hierarchy of clicks to change the most mundane settings? No thanks. New security measures that forces me to click 'Yes' way too often? No thanks. Tune it down. Oh, you did in 7? "Cool, I like it now". That's how it works.

World wasn't ready for vista. It ran too slow compared to xp. I know with SPs it improved, but the bad impression remains.

The start menu is the same in Vista and everybody bitched about that. The control panel was the natural extension of the Windows XP one and everybody said "fuck this" (and it's the same in 7). And the toned down UAC is exploitable. (UAC isn't annoying at all actually, it makes elevation management easy and no fuss. The problem is god and every man and their grandmothers want admin for everything. Don't blame Microsoft for finally trying to solve security issues and making it easy for you.)

I think the start menu should just go. The only thing I use if for is search. Which is why when I get my computer back I'll make a theme that only has the search box and never finish it.

[QUOTE=BmB;20721498]The start menu is the same in Vista and everybody bitched about that.[/QUOTE] What? It's not the same at all. Didn't you notice how the programs are embedded into the menu now? Personally I and everyone I know think it's an improvement, I have yet to hear a single person bitch about it. [QUOTE=BmB;20721498]The control panel was the natural extension of the Windows XP one and everybody said "fuck this" (and it's the same in 7)[/QUOTE] Yep, and I agree with everybody that it is complete shit. It's not a natural extension at all, they just separated everything in a million different menus with a complex click hierarchy. XP had nothing similar to this; the most complicated menu was probably My Computer's properties. Why do I need to open "Network and sharing" to access my interfaces now? Whyyyyy? It's completely needless. Why does "Change notification settings" lead to the same place as "Turn Windows Firewall on or off" in the Windows Firewall panel? What the fuck? [QUOTE=BmB;20721498]And the toned down UAC is exploitable. (UAC isn't annoying at all actually, it makes elevation management easy and no fuss. The problem is god and every man and their grandmothers want admin for everything.[/QUOTE] The toned down UAC is just as exploitable as the old UAC, but now it's much less annoying. I never said it made things hard. I said it was a pain in the ass in Vista compared to say, UAC in Windows 7, or gksudo in Linux. [QUOTE=BmB;20721498]Don't blame Microsoft for finally trying to solve security issues and making it easy for you.)[/QUOTE] Now I'm starting to think that your post isn't directed at me at all, because I've said none of these things.

Given that Classic View remains in 7, I honestly don't care that the Grouped one is there.

[QUOTE=Panda X;20440089]Unfortunately it won't be.[/QUOTE] Back before 7 came out they said that it might be their last OS with native x86 support.

[QUOTE=ChrisLovesSAW;20754472]Back before 7 came out they said that it might be their last OS with native x86 support.[/QUOTE] I don't recall any official word from MS. I mean I heard talk about 7 being 64-bit only. Which could have been done, but then then the Netbook market became popular and most netbooks contained Intel Atoms which only supported x86. Hell 7's 64-bit is like 60-70%. I still doubt that Next will be 64-bit only.

They'll keep saying "Windows *insert-next-version-here* will be 64-bit only!" until marketing gives them the go.

[QUOTE=gparent;20730884]Yep, and I agree with everybody that it is complete shit. It's not a natural extension at all, they just separated everything in a million different menus with a complex click hierarchy. XP had nothing similar to this; the most complicated menu was probably My Computer's properties. Why do I need to open "Network and sharing" to access my interfaces now? Whyyyyy? It's completely needless. Why does "Change notification settings" lead to the same place as "Turn Windows Firewall on or off" in the Windows Firewall panel? What the fuck? The toned down UAC is just as exploitable as the old UAC, but now it's much less annoying. I never said it made things hard. I said it was a pain in the ass in Vista compared to say, UAC in Windows 7, or gksudo in Linux. Now I'm starting to think that your post isn't directed at me at all, because I've said none of these things.[/QUOTE] It really is the natural extension. The whole idea with XP was loads of wizards and task based workflows. Which reflected in the control panel. Vista just took it to the extreme with loads of categories and loads of tasks instead of a few. I think it works pretty decently. It's never really hard to find anything even if you have to click a few times, whereas on XP I'd often forget where the fuck an option was. Searching makes it much nicer too. I never understood why everybody love classic view so much, it's ugly, messy and doesn't always have all the items anyway. I'm not sure what you mean "embedded into the menu"? Now you can use the jump lists in the start menu, that's the only real change. And it wouldn't be possible in Vista considering there's no such thing as jump lists in Vista.

I can't for the life of me find stuff in category. I can't even find stuff in classic (it was easier in Vista because I could see the icons better. I'll hack the control panel to allow for larger icons like in vista later)