Early Look at Windows 9
-
InfoWorld: Windows 9 A New Hope
-
@scottalanmiller said:
InfoWorld: Windows 9 A New Hope
Hopefully it's better than Windows 8 was. It can't be much worse...
-
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
InfoWorld: Windows 9 A New Hope
Hopefully it's better than Windows 8 was. It can't be much worse...
8 was ok but should have been only ever a beta. 8.1 should have been the retail release of 8.
8.1 is orders of magnitude better for non-touch screen users. -
Looks like a mix of Windows 7, 8 and Linux.
I hope they rename it in Australia to Windows Mongrel.
-
@nadnerB LOL
-
@nadnerB said:
@ajstringham said:
@scottalanmiller said:
InfoWorld: Windows 9 A New Hope
Hopefully it's better than Windows 8 was. It can't be much worse...
8 was ok but should have been only ever a beta. 8.1 should have been the retail release of 8.
8.1 is orders of magnitude better for non-touch screen users.They released a platform when there was almost no hardware to utilize its design. That was the biggest flaw with Windows 8. If they had it straight to desktop for desktops, laptops, etc and tablets got the more RT feel, it would have been much more successful. Their blanket statement was their blanket failure.
-
Now that Balmer is gone, the ship is being corrected. Video I saw looked much better, while still being new.
-
@Bill-Kindle said:
Now that Balmer is gone, the ship is being corrected. Video I saw looked much better, while still being new.
Yeah, he kinda screwed stuff up.
-
Windows 8.1 isn't bad at all. It has a lot of improvements over windows 7.
-
I can see virtual desktops confusing the heck out of end users. Probally will generate many helpdesk calls like; My application/windows got lost, or closed itself. Fix It. I need it etc..
-
@thecreativeone91 said:
I can see virtual desktops confusing the heck out of end users. Probally will generate many helpdesk calls like; My application/windows got lost, or closed itself. Fix It. I need it etc..
Turn off multi-Desktops by default via GPO
-
Multiple desktops are great. The Linux and BSD desktop folks have had them since the 1990s and are constantly shocked that Windows has remained without them. I hear that the implementation in Windows 9 is pretty weak, but at least Microsoft is attempting to join the last millennium a little.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Multiple desktops are great. The Linux and BSD desktop folks have had them since the 1990s and are constantly shocked that Windows has remained without them. I hear that the implementation in Windows 9 is pretty weak, but at least Microsoft is attempting to join the last millennium a little.
That was one of my favorite things about Ubuntu when I used it. There are 3rd party apps that try to emulate it, but it's not the same. And none of the snappy transitions!
-
We had that on KDE 1 in 1998 or so and it wasn't new then. Amazing how long it took to catch on.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
We had that on KDE 1 in 1998 or so and it wasn't new then. Amazing how long it took to catch on.
It's almost as good as multiple monitors. Not quite but very, VERY close.
-
I'm still trying to see the real use case for multiple desktops?
And I agree, if MS turns this on default and people are able to 'accidentally' switch over - it will cause massive calls to the helpdesk.
-
@Dashrender said:
I'm still trying to see the real use case for multiple desktops?
And I agree, if MS turns this on default and people are able to 'accidentally' switch over - it will cause massive calls to the helpdesk.
If you can't appreciate the use case for multiple desktops, you've never used them. For users with only one monitor, they are invaluable. Once you have multiple displays, they aren't quite as useful, albeit still VERY handy. They have some unique advantages over multiple physical displays, but each has it's best-use case. I'd love to have both personally.
-
Please provide examples.
I have had two monitors for going on 14 or so years. Not being able to see the second desktop would be pretty useless for my personal use. I can't see why layered applications aren't 'good enough'?
-
@Dashrender said:
Please provide examples.
I have had two monitors for going on 14 or so years. Not being able to see the second desktop would be pretty useless for my personal use. I can't see why layered applications aren't 'good enough'?
It's easy to have layers and layers of windows open when you have two or three physical displays. When multiple workspaces, you are able to have one or two windows open on that workspace, then another fresh workspace to do other stuff on. The need for multiple workspaces goes down with multiple displays, but not totally away. I have 7 screens, so I don't have a huge need for multiple workspaces. However, if you have 1-3 displays, being able to segregate different tasks to different workspaces helps things stay organized.
-
I'm still looking for a real world example of how you can be more productive with multiple workspaces.
I have two displays so I can have one process going on one screen while I'm doing something else on the second (but watching the first). You can't do that with workspaces.
Are you telling me that people are so cluttered that they can't work efficiently without having the workspace only have the single app they want open at the moment showing? Then why do we even have multi tasking UIs? LOL (not a real question)
If you need to pay attention to only one app at a time, then just make sure the rest are minimized, or the one you are working on is maximized - I don't believe it's more efficient to flip between workspaces than it is applications.
