Who's waiting for Threshhold?

M

MrCrispy

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
3,961
I love running public beta's of MS OS's. IMO they are extremely stable and I've never had any issues. In addition you get upto 6mo-1 year of a free OS, what's not to like!

I ran the Win 7 PDC builds as soon as they were released, same with Win 8. I just hope the rumors are right and we get a build around Sep 30.
 
I sure hope so! I'm going to be running it, as I do with every other beta since Windows 2000. Just a lot of cool new stuff to learn and play with.

Looking forward to the preview of this one.
 
Almost everyone is waiting for it.
What they will do is a different matter.

I will hang on maybe 6 months and if its not poisonous in some regard I will get it.
I'm not trusting any beta to be like the final product, fell for that one before.
I used to be an enthusiast, now I'm a pessimist.
 
Nenu said:
Almost everyone is waiting for it.
What they will do is a different matter.

I will hang on maybe 6 months and if its not poisonous in some regard I will get it.
I'm not trusting any beta to be like the final product, fell for that one before.
I used to be an enthusiast, now I'm a pessimist.
Click to expand...

Since RTM is supposed to be April 2015, you won't have to wait 6 months :) But honestly I've never had any issues with MS betas.
 
I've never had any problems with MS betas.

But, and this always has to be repeated MANY MANY times in the Microsoft forums (I think people here already get it) - IT'S A BETA! YOU WILL HAVE TO REINSTALL YOUR OS WHEN DONE! So many people were pissed that it was a pre-release and not the final, and they were forced to format and reinstall their OS after a while (or after beta expired). It was in big writing on the download site, and it was on the install. People were still pissed because they didn't read it...

The beta is similar to the final product. It's usually frozen in adding new features, but it's still going to have bugs and few small things that are different. With Windows 8 development preview, we still had access to the start menu via a registry hack. They removed that later. It was always said that the menu was going away, so there was no surprise there.
 
The problem wasnt with the beta, it was with features being removed in the final product that were previously present.

I will wait 6 months after final version is released before I think of buying it.
I'll probably try a beta, but my trust is thin.
 
If it wasn't listed as a feature of the OS, then there's nothing to "take away." Using previous versions of Windows to build upon for the next one (and having legacy code in the beta product) is nothing new or surprising.

You just had unrealistic expectations.
 
I wanted the OS to look nice and be adequately functional.
Both were possible before the final release.
 
If it has all of the good stuff in 8 without any of the bad stuff, it's going to be the best OS ever released.
 
I really hope so, and that it has a nice gui :)
Fingers crossed.
 
Nenu said:
I wanted the OS to look nice and be adequately functional.
Both were possible before the final release.
Click to expand...

What specific features were removed? Are you talking about theme support, Aero glass enabling via registry etc?
 
Nenu said:
I wanted the OS to look nice and be adequately functional.
Both were possible before the final release.
Click to expand...

Hacks aren't features. Nice is highly subjective. Your definition of "adequately functional" is also highly subjective.
 
bigdogchris said:
If it has all of the good stuff in 8 without any of the bad stuff, it's going to be the best OS ever released.
Click to expand...

It could be the most flexible OS ever released from an end user standpoint. The ability to work on the desktop and keyboard and mouse like Windows 7 plus the ability to run on a tablet with touch and pen. And the addition of something like Cortona beyond phones and tablets could be very useful in certain situations.

Windows 9 has to do it all well and I don't think that's impossible. Windows 8.1 Update got to the point of working pretty well on the desktop while still be very capable on tablets.

Looks like Windows will finally be getting a centralized Notification Center: http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-threshold-say-hello-to-the-notification-center
 
After all the cheer leading in the run up to 8, I'm taking a more...hesitant stance. I expect MS learned their lesson and that 9 effectively correct the idiocy that was 8, but then again; 8 was such a bone headed move that I fear that could spill over to 9.

Now, with that out of the way, I can be petty: I told you all the start menu would be back by windows 9.
 
XOR != OR said:
After all the cheer leading in the run up to 8, I'm taking a more...hesitant stance. I expect MS learned their lesson and that 9 effectively correct the idiocy that was 8, but then again; 8 was such a bone headed move that I fear that could spill over to 9.
Click to expand...

I don't think that there were a lot of "cheerleaders" per se for Windows 8. I look at it as Microsoft doing something that it had to do knowing full well that it was problematic in many ways. Keyboard and mouse and desktop operation and traditional desktop apps and traditional PC hardware is simply not enough for Windows these days. It had to support more kinds of software and hardware and still does.

The execution of 8 was very poor but the idea essentially correct. It's very much like the comparison that many like to make between 8 and Vista. Indeed many call 7 Vista SP3 and in a lot of ways that makes sense. The basic ideas of 7 were carried over from Vista and refined and that looks to be the essence of what 9 is going be.

XOR != OR said:
Now, with that out of the way, I can be petty: I told you all the start menu would be back by windows 9.
Click to expand...

I never doubted that something like the Start Menu would return, at least something that wasn't full screen. The full screen nature of the modern UI is probably the biggest issue with the UI for many desktop users. It looks like the Start Menu or whatever in 9 however will be significantly different in that it will support tiles and even be able to be full screen, which is necessary for x86 versions of 9 to work on tablets and hybrid devices.
 
I absolutely hate Win 8 on my desktop and laptops. But I am running it on my Dell tablet and love it. Took a week to get the hang of it, but it is absolutely great on a touch tablet.

I just hope Windows 9 works like windows 7 on my desktop.
 
jordan12 said:
I absolutely hate Win 8 on my desktop and laptops. But I am running it on my Dell tablet and love it. Took a week to get the hang of it, but it is absolutely great on a touch tablet.

I just hope Windows 9 works like windows 7 on my desktop.
Click to expand...

The best would be Windows 9 working like 7 on non-touchscreen devices and like 8 on touchscreen devices. That's really all they would need to do. And allow people to configure the system as they want to, with native options rather than 3rd party addons.
 
jordan12 said:
I absolutely hate Win 8 on my desktop and laptops. But I am running it on my Dell tablet and love it. Took a week to get the hang of it, but it is absolutely great on a touch tablet.

I just hope Windows 9 works like windows 7 on my desktop.
Click to expand...

All the rumors thus far seem to indicate that all of the major issues with 8 on the desktop are being resolved, Start Menu like capability, removal of the charms and windowed modern apps. The biggest question I have is how 9 will work with tablet devices, which as you indicate, 8 seems to much more palatable there.

Simply making 9 work like 7 isn't enough and the touch and tablet capabilities for x86 devices simply can't go away to appease desktop users. Sure, in the long run that would satisfy the core of Windows users, especially in the enterprise, but long term the tablet market is very important. Even with the tablet market not growing nearly as rapidly as even just a year ago, it's still a huge market. And with rumors of mobile OS tablets getting more into productivity, like the supposed 12.9" iPad, have x86 Windows work well on tablets can't be something that Microsoft tosses to the side just for the sake of the desktop. We are still in the early stages of tablets and to think that they can no longer impede on the sales of desktops and laptops would be a mistake.
 
Tsumi said:
The best would be Windows 9 working like 7 on non-touchscreen devices and like 8 on touchscreen devices. That's really all they would need to do. And allow people to configure the system as they want to, with native options rather than 3rd party addons.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no other logical course of action than this.
 
Tsumi said:
The best would be Windows 9 working like 7 on non-touchscreen devices and like 8 on touchscreen devices. That's really all they would need to do. And allow people to configure the system as they want to, with native options rather than 3rd party addons.
Click to expand...
Wow, that sounds familiar...somehow.

I'd swear I'd heard that before. Now it's going to bug me all day until I remember where I heard that originally.
 
XOR != OR said:
Wow, that sounds familiar...somehow.

I'd swear I'd heard that before. Now it's going to bug me all day until I remember where I heard that originally.
Click to expand...

It's probably been repeated multiple times by both 8 supporters and haters alike :p
 
heatlesssun said:
I never doubted that something like the Start Menu would return, at least something that wasn't full screen. The full screen nature of the modern UI is probably the biggest issue with the UI for many desktop users. It looks like the Start Menu or whatever in 9 however will be significantly different in that it will support tiles and even be able to be full screen, which is necessary for x86 versions of 9 to work on tablets and hybrid devices.
Click to expand...
*cough* http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039092786&postcount=12 *cough*
 
XOR != OR said:
*cough* http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1039092786&postcount=12 *cough*
Click to expand...

I never said anything about the Start Menu returning. I've mentioned repeatedly that the modern UI needed to better integrated into the desktop and that non full screen elements were a part of that, so something like the Start Menu coming back, in that it's not full screen at the least like the Start Screen, isn't at all odds with what I said here and many other places.

But Windows 9 x86 cannot be desktop-centric or perhaps a better way to say it is desktop-only. Windows 9 must work well on both desktops AND tablets to be successful. Anything less simply isn't enough.
 
After all this time, its still amazing that a simple fullscreen Start screen caused so much hate, when alternatives were available. I can understand common users not liking it, but its rather dissappointing to see [H] users still complain about it, and not recognize the fact that its much better, faster OS in every other way.
 
MrCrispy said:
After all this time, its still amazing that a simple fullscreen Start screen caused so much hate, when alternatives were available. I can understand common users not liking it, but its rather dissappointing to see [H] users still complain about it, and not recognize the fact that its much better, faster OS in every other way.
Click to expand...

It's not better or faster in any technical sense other than booting fast, you lose features (or have to pay extra, in the case of Media Center), and the start screen is a workflow impediment to the majority of users.

More subjectively, IMO the 'flat' modern theme is ugly compared to aero glass. I think it could have worked as a replacement for Aero Basic as an option for low end hardware, but as with the start screen there was no reason to force it on everyone.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
It's not better or faster in any technical sense other than booting fast, you lose features (or have to pay extra, in the case of Media Center), and the start screen is a workflow impediment to the majority of users.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think there's a good answer to the performance comparison between 7 and 8. A big issue that I see would be the performance of 7 on modern day Atom processors like Bay Trail. Technically those SoCs don't support 7 and I have not seen anyone even trying to attempt putting 7 on something like a Dell Venue 8 Pro. Sure, at the higher end I don't think there's that big of a difference, but on lower end hardware I think 8 has a pretty good edge. Again, I have no proof, but so does no one else to the contrary.

DeathFromBelow said:
More subjectively, IMO the 'flat' modern theme is ugly compared to aero glass. I think it could have worked as a replacement for Aero Basic as an option for low end hardware, but as with the start screen there was no reason to force it on everyone.
Click to expand...

This issue of flatness I think is actually working in favor Windows 8 more so than when 8 launched. The design principles of the modern UI, which Microsoft didn't at all invent, are more prevalent now than when 8 launched in 2012. Of all of the issues that Windows 8 has, moving away from transparency isn't one of them by every indication of current UIs across the board.
 
League of Legends just updated their UI with a significantly flatter look. Microsoft isn't the only ones doing this.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
It's not better or faster in any technical sense other than booting fast, you lose features (or have to pay extra, in the case of Media Center), and the start screen is a workflow impediment to the majority of users.

More subjectively, IMO the 'flat' modern theme is ugly compared to aero glass. I think it could have worked as a replacement for Aero Basic as an option for low end hardware, but as with the start screen there was no reason to force it on everyone.
Click to expand...

It IS objectively and measurably faster (see B8 blog for details). There was a ton of engineering work that went in it, so how can you claim its not any better in a technical sense?

Every single UI is moving towards a flat design (which MS introduced with Metro and were the first) - Google (with ICS and now L), Apple (iOS7, Yosemite), a ton of websites. It was done to give a uniform look and is an improvement.

Add in your choice of start menu replacement and you have a better OS in every way.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
It's not better or faster in any technical sense other than booting fast, you lose features (or have to pay extra, in the case of Media Center), and the start screen is a workflow impediment to the majority of users.
Click to expand...

The Start Screen is just a full screen Start Menu. It's the exact same concept as the Start Menu on a larger scale. Complaints about the Start Screen are pretty amusing given that it's a grander version of the interaction people claim to want.

The Windows 8 explosion just reveals that people actually don't like Start anything, they're simply used to one specific iteration of the concept.
 
Terpfen said:
The Start Screen is just a full screen Start Menu. It's the exact same concept as the Start Menu on a larger scale. Complaints about the Start Screen are pretty amusing given that it's a grander version of the interaction people claim to want.

The Windows 8 explosion just reveals that people actually don't like Start anything, they're simply used to one specific iteration of the concept.
Click to expand...

For the vast majority of Windows users the Start Screen can be more powerful than the Start Menu when modern apps are used when using 8.1 Update 1. There are significant changes between 8.0 and 8.1 Update 1 that unfortunately got lost in the mix partly because of Microsoft's naming scheme.

Full screen elements, that is the basis of the bane of Windows 8.x for most of the detractors and if the rumors are correct, Microsoft fixed that problem. Hopefully Windows 9 will be called Windows 8.1 SP1. Such a designation is usually an indication of a successful Windows.
 
heatlesssun said:
removal of the charms
Click to expand...

Mi lucky charms!

What I find pathetic is how posters here get bashed totally for pointing out obvious flaws in Windows (Vista, 8) and sometimes even banned for posting them - and then a couple of years later Microsoft admits their mistakes due to market pressure and proving the posters absolutely correct.

Yet they were labeled as trolled, bashed upon and even banned for posting obvious truths. This is the lames side of Hardforum for me.
 
Terpfen said:
The Start Screen is just a full screen Start Menu. It's the exact same concept as the Start Menu on a larger scale. Complaints about the Start Screen are pretty amusing given that it's a grander version of the interaction people claim to want.

The Windows 8 explosion just reveals that people actually don't like Start anything, they're simply used to one specific iteration of the concept.
Click to expand...

If you mean by explosion people being force fed with Windows 8 on every new OEM computer purchase. If people had the ability to choose Win8 would never pick up speed.

Win8 would have to be totally inoperable to cause drastic measures such as stop buying computers or paying a huge premium to downgrade.
 
B00nie said:
If you mean by explosion people being force fed with Windows 8 on every new OEM computer purchase. If people had the ability to choose Win8 would never pick up speed.

Win8 would have to be totally inoperable to cause drastic measures such as stop buying computers or paying a huge premium to downgrade.
Click to expand...

By explosion I refer to the flurry of complaints about the Start Screen and Win 8 in general.
 
B00nie said:
Mi lucky charms!

What I find pathetic is how posters here get bashed totally for pointing out obvious flaws in Windows (Vista, 8) and sometimes even banned for posting them - and then a couple of years later Microsoft admits their mistakes due to market pressure and proving the posters absolutely correct.

Yet they were labeled as trolled, bashed upon and even banned for posting obvious truths. This is the lames side of Hardforum for me.
Click to expand...

Not all the flaws were obvious, not to everyone. The debate over the Start Screen vs. the Start Menu. Sure plenty of people had issues with but most of them revolved around familiarity. Lack of familiarity for desktop users is at the heart of most of Windows 8's UI issues and sure that's a problem. But for most day to day use I don't by the notion that the Start Menu is inherently more efficient than the Start Screen. Each has the pluses and minuses but when it comes to how fast and easy each is for launcher apps, it's more a preference than any inherent property. But sure, the option for something like the Start Menu needs to be there simply because so many people seem lost without it.
 
Hope there are at least some enhancements to app splitting in this release. I generally like the idea of split apps, but the current implementation has some severe workflow shortcomings. Split apps need to remember their state more adequately.

Oh, and virtual desktops, of course. But I'm not holding my breath for it.

heatlesssun said:
I don't think that there were a lot of "cheerleaders" per se for Windows 8.
Click to expand...
He didn't say there were a lot of cheerleaders. He said there was a lot of cheerleading. The latter doesn't necessitate the former.
 
After years in android I have fallen in love with Windows Phone. The thing that intrigues me about threshold is the alleged synchronization of your smartphone's live tiles into the side panel of the new start menu. That just seems like a good productivity enhancement to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top