"Windows 9" "Threshold" and "Windows" Rumors thread

[Glorfindel]

Tune in here for all the latest gossip
To start out: I heard that it will have multiple "desktops" like *nix has.
It might have no sufix (i.e. no '9')
Its code name is Threshold
It will have a start menu built-in
(Source for all this is PCWorld)

[DMcCunney]

It's been possible to get multiple desktops under Windows like *nix has for a long time. I was doing it in Win98. You just need to use third party software. My current solution is an open source offering called WindowsPager from Jochen Baier. It offers four desktops, which show as thumbnails on the right side of the task bar.

See http://windowspager.sourceforge.net/

There's a 64 bit version that works fine here in Win7, and should work in Win8 as well.

Those pining for a Start Menu on Win Vista/7/8 can look at the open source Classic Shell: http://www.classicshell.net/
______
Dennis

[Glorfindel]

It will have all that built in though.

[Glorfindel]

Also: "desktops" from the sysinternals suite works really good

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

It will have all that built in though.

<shrug>

As usual, MS is playing catchup. Virtual desktops have been around for a very long time, and as mentioned, easily added.

Adding back the Start Menu sounds like a tacit admission that the Win8 "Metro" interface wasn't that good an idea.

It looks like a good fit for a tablet, but UI's aren't generally "One size fits all". I dual boot Win7 and Ubuntu Linux here, and passed on the default Ubuntu Unity interface. It's another that is well suited to devices with limited screen real estate like netbooks and tablets, but falls down on big monitors.

Also: "desktops" from the sysinternals suite works really good

I looked at it. I have all of the Sysinternals stuff here. It works well, but WindowsPager is a better fit for how I work.
______
Dennis

[Glorfindel]

Yeah, I like the the start screen on tablets but not so much for desktops
I tried a desktop manager that sounds much like WindowsPager, but ended up not liking the gui
(I just remembered: you are the one who informed me about sysinternals )

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Glorfindel

Yeah, I like the the start screen on tablets but not so much for desktops

The underlying issue is ongoing OS convergence. The goal is that you run the same OS on everything you have. It's possible now because devices have gotten steadily more powerful. I've been predicting for a while, for instance, that every phone will soon be a smartphone because it can be one. The hardware gets steadily smaller, faster, and cheaper, and the devices can run larger and more powerful OSes and applications.

With Windows 8, Window 8 RT, and Windows Phone, we have variants of Windows running on desktops, laptops, notebooks/netbooks, X86 and ARM based tablets, and ARM based phones, with the Metro interface designed to look and act the same on all of them.

Apple has OS/X for desktop/laptop, and iOS for phone and tablet, but I expect increasing convergence, and down the road I expect OS/X to be subsumed into iOS, and everything Apple makes will run it.

Linux isn't there yet. There is too much fragmentation in the Linux market, and way too many distros. Linux has been ported to just about everything, but the only thing in common will be a Linux kernel as the core of the OS. Everything else will vary very widely.

I expect that sort of convergence will take place around Android. While originally written to power smartphones, it uses Linux, and there is no requirement that what it powers has to be a phone. The flood of Android tablets like the one I have came as no surprise.

There are alpha test ports of Android to X86, so a version of Android that runs on a desktop is likely, and down the road, everything you have will run Windows, iOS, or Android.

We are increasingly reaching the point where it may not matter what OS you run, because an assortment of major apps, like Open Office/Libre Office are cross platform, and you get the computer to run apps. (I have a beta version of Open Office on my Android tablet.)

Meanwhile, the issue is that one UI doesn't fit all. Lots of folks drag their feet about upgrading to a new Windows version. (Corporate users are especially foot draggers, because company wide upgrades are troublesome and expensive.) The Win8 Metro interface seems to be a major reason for foot dragging in moving to Win 8, so no particular surprise if the Start menu returns in Win 9.

As another foot dragger, I'll be curious to see what Win v9 brings to the table, but have no plans to switch from Win 7. Things like a Start Menu and virtual desktops are things I can get without a new version of Windows.

I tried a desktop manager that sounds much like WindowsPager, but ended up not liking the gui

There are many virtual desktop programs for Windows. My requirements were simple: four virtual desktops, that would show in the taskbar and be selectable from it. (I have the taskbar set to auto-hide until moused over.)

There are larger and more complex products that allow you to specify what gets shown in other desktop windows, and which windows things appear in, but that's more than I require.

WindowsPager meets my needs and behaves fine.

(I just remembered: you are the one who informed me about sysinternals )

You're welcome.

Sysinternals is Mark Russinovitch and Bryce Cogswell. I've been a fan of Mark's work and running his code for years. He's a noted lecturer on and writer about Windows programming, and I got the impression he knew more about Windows internals than Microsoft did. MS apparently agreed, since they bought his company and put Mark and Bryce to work in their Core Architecture group. Fortunately, Mark's code is still available through MSDN Technet.
______
Dennis

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I expect that sort of convergence will take place around Android. While originally written to power smartphones, it uses Linux, and there is no requirement that what it powers has to be a phone. The flood of Android tablets like the one I have came as no surprise.

There are alpha test ports of Android to X86, so a version of Android that runs on a desktop is likely, and down the road, everything you have will run Windows, iOS, or Android.

Well, Ubuntu does have Convergence planned with Unity, possibly in 14.10 when they can finally start shipping Ubuntu phones...

Isn't the important thing having one architecture to build the code for? After that, you can just install one base system and depending on whether you install for a phone/tablet or a PC, the appropriate packages get installed to setup the right environment?

So far, all attempts to provide one desktop that scales for both have been a miserable failure. As you said:

Meanwhile, the issue is that one UI doesn't fit all. Lots of folks drag their feet about upgrading to a new Windows version. (Corporate users are especially foot draggers, because company wide upgrades are troublesome and expensive.) The Win8 Metro interface seems to be a major reason for foot dragging in moving to Win 8, so no particular surprise if the Start menu returns in Win 9.

I don't expect that Android on the desktop will so much as voice an opinion on UI, though it will probably come together with Yet Another Failed One-Size-Fits-All Desktop.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Well, Ubuntu does have Convergence planned with Unity, possibly in 14.10 when they can finally start shipping Ubuntu phones...

I can only wish them luck. Why, precisely, should anyone want to buy a Ubuntu phone?

These days, smartphones are as much fashion accessory as anything else, and bought because they are perceived as cool. Apple's iPhone is cool. Android is cool. MS has the uphill battle of making Windows Phone cool.

There will be a core of users for whom the fact that it runs Ubuntu will be a selling point, but I don't thank that core is anywhere near large enough to make the project successful.

Isn't the important thing having one architecture to build the code for? After that, you can just install one base system and depending on whether you install for a phone/tablet or a PC, the appropriate packages get installed to setup the right environment?

The important thing is to have code that builds on more than one architecture.

One of the things that has helped Linux is the fact that it does. On the desktop and on servers, it runs on the X86 architecture. On tablets and in smartphones, it runs on ARM. My old Linksys WRT54G router had a Linux 2.6 kernel, and ran on a MIPS architecture. Linux has also been ported to SPARC, HP Precision Architecture and other things.

Doing that is not simple. One of the things in the Mozilla Developer's documentation was an amusing set of guidelines for writing portable code, since the expectation was that Mozilla code would be brought up on multiple architectures. Part of the issue was understanding what was portable, and the other was understanding that not all compilers were created equal. Mozilla code is written in C++, and the code needed to compile under any of the various C++ compilers that might be used (with the HP-UX C++ compiler a particular problem child.) There were an assortment of admonitions of the form "Just because it works in Microsoft Visual C++ on Intel, don't assume it will work elsewhere."

For that matter, the chief architect of Windows NT, David Cutler, came over from the late Digital Equipment Corporation where he led development of DEC's VMS OS for their VAX line. Dave was insistent that NT be portable code, capable of being brought up on architecture other than X86. That foresight made it possible for MS to bring up Windows 8 on ARM in the RT flavor for tablets. (And ARM is beginning to gain traction in the server market,, because of lower power consumption. Power and cooling are major data center concerns as servers proliferate, and anything that reduces power consumption and heat generation will be looked upon with favor. The fact that NT can be brought up on ARM might be quite important to MS down the road.)

Of course, those comments apply to the OS kernel. Applications are another matter. But even there there are large possibilities. Development is increasingly done in cross-platform scripting languages like Java and Python, where the binary code is the same regardless of architecture, and current hardware is fast enough that you often don't need to compile to native code to get adequate performance.

So far, all attempts to provide one desktop that scales for both have been a miserable failure.

I think the big problem with Metro was the absense of the Start Menu. Successive versions of Windows have changed the UI in various ways, but there were still common things like the Start Menu to allow users to find their way through the changes.

What I've seen of the Metro interface doesn't put me off that badly, but having no tie to the prior UI that users can use to find things and get stuff done while they learn the new UI is deadly. MS seems to have figured that out, if rumors that the Start Menu will return in Win 9 are accurate.

I don't expect that Android on the desktop will so much as voice an opinion on UI, though it will probably come together with Yet Another Failed One-Size-Fits-All Desktop.

Looking at the variety of launchers available for my Android tablet, I concur. It's as much fun as window managers for Linux. But something needs to establish itself as the baseline and default offering, even if you can switch it out for something you like better. We'll see whether Google's UI designers can do a better job that other folks have so far been able to.
______
Dennis

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

The important thing is to have code that builds on more than one architecture.

One of the things that has helped Linux is the fact that it does. On the desktop and on servers, it runs on the X86 architecture. On tablets and in smartphones, it runs on ARM. My old Linksys WRT54G router had a Linux 2.6 kernel, and ran on a MIPS architecture. Linux has also been ported to SPARC, HP Precision Architecture and other things.

Doing that is not simple. One of the things in the Mozilla Developer's documentation was an amusing set of guidelines for writing portable code, since the expectation was that Mozilla code would be brought up on multiple architectures. Part of the issue was understanding what was portable, and the other was understanding that not all compilers were created equal. Mozilla code is written in C++, and the code needed to compile under any of the various C++ compilers that might be used (with the HP-UX C++ compiler a particular problem child.) There were an assortment of admonitions of the form "Just because it works in Microsoft Visual C++ on Intel, don't assume it will work elsewhere."

For that matter, the chief architect of Windows NT, David Cutler, came over from the late Digital Equipment Corporation where he led development of DEC's VMS OS for their VAX line. Dave was insistent that NT be portable code, capable of being brought up on architecture other than X86. That foresight made it possible for MS to bring up Windows 8 on ARM in the RT flavor for tablets. (And ARM is beginning to gain traction in the server market,, because of lower power consumption. Power and cooling are major data center concerns as servers proliferate, and anything that reduces power consumption and heat generation will be looked upon with favor. The fact that NT can be brought up on ARM might be quite important to MS down the road.)

Of course, those comments apply to the OS kernel. Applications are another matter. But even there there are large possibilities. Development is increasingly done in cross-platform scripting languages like Java and Python, where the binary code is the same regardless of architecture, and current hardware is fast enough that you often don't need to compile to native code to get adequate performance.

I may have been thinking too much of Win8 when I read that at first, I started thinking of having one OS installed from a universal ISO which runs on all devices... As long as the code builds on all platforms that does make more sense.

I think the big problem with Metro was the absense of the Start Menu. Successive versions of Windows have changed the UI in various ways, but there were still common things like the Start Menu to allow users to find their way through the changes.

What I've seen of the Metro interface doen't put me off that badly, but having no tie to the prior UI that users can use to find things and get stuff done while the learn the new UI is deadly. MS seems to have figured that out, if rumors that the Start Menu will return in Win 9 are accurate.

It doesn't really put me off either, at least in the sense that after installing a normal menu the rest of the UI is fine. But anything Metro is ugly to use on the desktop. I cannot speak for desktops on a Win8 tablet, but I can only imagine that it sounds better than it works.

Looking at the variety of launchers available for my Android tablet, I concur. It's as much fun as window managers for Linux. But something needs to establish itself as the baseline and default offering, even if you can switch it out for something you like better. We'll see whether Google's UI designers can do a better job that other folks have so far been able to.
______
Dennis

I still think there is no one-size-fits-all UI, and Google will fail.

I want to see a UI that has two completely different looks, one for desktop and one for Mobile.

The Ubuntu phone claims to have this, I think that is the hype behind why anyone would want one. I think the idea was to have one UI that simplified itself in Mobile mode, and in Desktop expanded to have more point-and-click.

Although really Unity is far too mobile-y for me even in desktop mode, and for that reason alone I doubt it will have too much appeal.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I may have been thinking too much of Win8 when I read that at first, I started thinking of having one OS installed from a universal ISO which runs on all devices... As long as the code builds on all platforms that does make more sense.

As mentioned, getting the code to build on all platforms is not easy.

One of the reasons the C language became popular was that Dennis Ritchie intended it to be relatively easy to port to a new machine. When C was mature enough for Unix to be rewritten in it from the version of assembler the earliest version had been written in, it became possible to bring it up on other machines at Bell Labs besides the DEC minicomputer on which it had been developed, and Unix began to spread.

But just because code was written in C was no guarantee of portability - the programmer had to understand what sort of code was portable, and what would only work on a particular architecture.

And while a universal ISO might be possible, I see limited use. For things like OSes, the OS is normally pre-installed on the device, and the usual use for an ISO is if you wish to change the OS to something else, or install another OS alongside the current one, like I did with Win7 and Ubuntu. OS upgrades are handled differently.

It doesn't really put me off either, at least in the sense that after installing a normal menu the rest of the UI is fine. But anything Metro is ugly to use on the desktop. I cannot speak for desktops on a Win8 tablet, but I can only imagine that it sounds better than it works.

There are all sorts of usability issues. A friend bought a Dell "All-in-one" PC with Win7 a while back - the sort of machine where everything is in the monitor. It came with a touch screen she didn't really want, but she needed a new machine right away and the touch screen model was available. She simply didn't have much actual use for a touch screen on a desktop machine.

That's a major area of difference between tablets and desktops. A touch screen is pretty much a requirement on a tablet, but what will you actually do with it on a desktop?

I still think there is no one-size-fits-all UI, and Google will fail.

I suspect you're right, but it will be curious to see how they fail.

I want to see a UI that has two completely different looks, one for desktop and one for Mobile.

I don't mind some similarity. The question is what elements can be common, and what will need to differ.

The Ubuntu phone claims to have this, I think that is the hype behind why anyone would want one. I think the idea was to have one UI that simplified itself in Mobile mode, and in Desktop expanded to have more point-and-click.

Ubuntu's Unity interface at least tries to scale to fit larger displays, but makes implicit assumptions about what it's running on. I have an older version of Ubuntu on an ancient notebook from 2005, and Unity isn't an option - it requires 3D graphics capability the notebook doesn't have, and won't run. (I use the Lxde window manager there.)

Although really Unity is far too mobile-y for me even in desktop mode, and for that reason alone I doubt it will have too much appeal.

One thing I haven't seen is how Unity works on a dual monitor setup. I don't have one - I don't have space for a second 23" monitor - so I have no idea how it adapts.

An old friend is a devoted Linux user, and mentioned having made his peace with Unity. After getting rid of stuff that offended his sensibilities, like the Amazon search button, he learned to make his way around and use it. He wanted to know enough about it to be able to help folks in the local Linux User Group who were trying to deal with it.

I have Unity as an option in Ubuntu on my desktop, along with Enlightenment, Gnome, Lxde and XFCE4, and play with it occasionally. At least some of the rough edges have been polished off and it is usable. XFCE4 is simply a better fit for the way I tend to work. I install things on panels, which auto-hide till moused over. I like an uncluttered screen with a minimum of desktop chrome.
______
Dennis

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

One thing I haven't seen is how Unity works on a dual monitor setup. I don't have one - I don't have space for a second 23" monitor - so I have no idea how it adapts.

It has been real up and down with multi-monitor support in Unity. Now, it has a lot to do with the drivers that you are using, obviously (the open drivers or the binary drivers, which manufacturer, etc., etc.). And different platform/kernel versions have sometimes made it way better and sometimes made it way worse.

I always wait with bated breath when trying out multi-monitor support in Ubuntu. I put my little USB in and start praying. But, these days, it seems to work quite a bit better than it used to. In 12.04 it would randomly deactivate my second monitor, set that off monitor as the main display, and then cause hell with my built-in display on one of my laptops. Ugh! But that went away when I switched to a more recent version of Ubuntu and started using the Free drivers for the display card.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Anthem

I always wait with bated breath when trying out multi-monitor support in Ubuntu. I put my little USB in and start praying. But, these days, it seems to work quite a bit better than it used to. In 12.04 it would randomly deactivate my second monitor, set that off monitor as the main display, and then cause hell with my built-in display on one of my laptops. Ugh! But that went away when I switched to a more recent version of Ubuntu and started using the Free drivers for the display card.

Yeah, video tends to be quirky.

The old notebook running Ubuntu has an ATI Mobility chipset, and does 1280x768 resolution in Windows. (In Windows, it will go even higher, but it does so by creating a 1280x768 window onto a larger workspace, and you pan to see it all. No thanks.)

Getting that in Ubuntu required using ndiswrapper to use the Windows driver. The free driver did 1024x768 at best, And even then, Ubuntu reverted to 1024x768 after one OS upgrade. Poking around indicated Ubuntu knew what the card could theoretically do, but I couldn't track down the config file I needed to change to get the expected performance. Things were back to normal after the next Ubuntu upgrade.

A friend reported the fun of getting dual monitor support in Ubuntu. Part of it was hardware issues on the part of one monitor. The other was getting it to work in Ubuntu. He spends most of his time cranking out code, so he has no interest in an eye candy UI. He wants emacs up on one screen, and console windows for compiler/debugger output on the other, with the odd instance of Firefox or the like. He uses a very minimalist window manager (I don't recall just which). He got it working, but it took more doing than it arguably should have.

On that line, a personal annoyance these days is that monitors all seem to be wide screen. That's nice if you are watching a video, but less suited for text. I am mystified by folks who have applications set to take the whole screen for things like reading and replying to email.
______
Dennis

[Anthem]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Yeah, video tends to be quirky.

The old notebook running Ubuntu has an ATI Mobility chipset, and does 1280x768 resolution in Windows. (In Windows, it will go even higher, but it does so by creating a 1280x768 window onto a larger workspace, and you pan to see it all. No thanks.)

Getting that in Ubuntu required using ndiswrapper to use the Windows driver. The free driver did 1024x768 at best, And even then, Ubuntu reverted to 1024x768 after one OS upgrade. Poking around indicated Ubuntu knew what the card could theoretically do, but I couldn't track down the config file I needed to change to get the expected performance. Things were back to normal after the next Ubuntu upgrade.

Yeah, new kernels and various platform updates tend to have dramatic effects on various bits of hardware. With the slowly/quickly developing state of graphics hardware in the GNU/Linux world it can be difficult to get things just right. (Unless you go straight Intel hardware. I think there is the best driver/kernel support for Intel right now with their active participation in development. For Linux oriented systems, I buy all Intel hardware now.)

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

He got it working, but it took more doing than it arguably should have.

Unfortunately, this applies to a lot of things in the Unix and Linux world. I love messing around with all of it... but I'm screwed up! Although, I have to admit that after a long day of playing around with various systems to keep them all working properly and staying safe and up to date... I find it horribly refreshing to come home and use something like the Kindle Fire tablet that is basically idiot proof.

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

On that line, a personal annoyance these days is that monitors all seem to be wide screen. That's nice if you are watching a video, but less suited for text. I am mystified by folks who have applications set to take the whole screen for things like reading and replying to email.
______
Dennis

Agreed. Our culture has a strange fascination with screens being as wide as a theater screen, more or less. It is very inefficient for working with most of the things that we work with on computers. And now, with desktops and laptops becoming quite a bit more utilitarian in nature while we all offload a lot of our entertainment to set top boxes (Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku), Game consoles, and mobile devices like tablets and phones... it is feeling even more inefficient than it did.

Strangely, this widescreen phenomenon is a bit of a blip. For the longest time screens were basically 4x3, or near that aspect ratio. Then we got all multimedia obsessed and went 16x9. But that has only existed for a small fraction of the time our previous aspect ratios did.

Anyway.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Anthem

Yeah, new kernels and various platform updates tend to have dramatic effects on various bits of hardware. With the slowly/quickly developing state of graphics hardware in the GNU/Linux world it can be difficult to get things just right. (Unless you go straight Intel hardware. I think there is the best driver/kernel support for Intel right now with their active participation in development. For Linux oriented systems, I buy all Intel hardware now.)

I sympathize but I'd be reluctant. Intel is heavily involved in Linux and sees that their hardware is well supported. But while Intel is many things, a maker of top video graphics adapters isn't one of them.

I just installed a graphics card in the machine I'm using at the moment - it came with Intel onboard graphics. That works well enough for some things, but Intel 3D performance sucks. (Which is actually a bit surprising, given Intel's technical skill. I suspect their attitude is "We make CPUs and supporting chipsets. We'll make graphics hardware good enough to let the user use the system till they install a better video adapter, and sell it to motherboard makers for onboard video, but it's not really our business.")

I'm not a heavy gamer, so I didn't need the latest whiz bang GFX card with 4GB on card RAM and a faster GPU than my CPU. I picked up an ASUS HD 5450 Silent low profile card with a gig of onboard RAM. The ASUS card is based on an ATI design. Performance in things like Google Earth is notably better. It cost me $40. I don't do a lot that uses 3D, but I do enough to justify the investment.

Unfortunately, this applies to a lot of things in the Unix and Linux world. I love messing around with all of it... but I'm screwed up! Although, I have to admit that after a long day of playing around with various systems to keep them all working properly and staying safe and up to date... I find it horribly refreshing to come home and use something like the Kindle Fire tablet that is basically idiot proof.

I've been a computer guy for 30 years, starting on mainframes and moving across and down. I've spent a lot of time popping the hood and fiddling with the insides.

But there's a limit to how much of that I want to do. I use Ubuntu these days because it does the best job I've seen in a Linux distro of figuring out what hardware it's being installed on, setting itself up, and Just Working that I've seen in a distro. I want to devote my time to using the system, not to fiddling to make it usable.

Agreed. Our culture has a strange fascination with screens being as wide as a theater screen, more or less. It is very inefficient for working with most of the things that we work with on computers. And now, with desktops and laptops becoming quite a bit more utilitarian in nature while we all offload a lot of our entertainment to set top boxes (Apple TV, Fire TV, Roku), Game consoles, and mobile devices like tablets and phones... it is feeling even more inefficient than it did.

I don't mind the widescreen, per se. I do the odd DTP project, and a wish of mine for a while has been a monitor large enough to show two 8.5x11 pages in portrait orientation side by side in the DTP program at full size. The 23" monitor I use now just about does it.

But I can't imagine trying to read text in a full screen app where the text stretched all the way across. It's just too hard for the eye to keep track of what line it's on.

Strangely, this widescreen phenomenon is a bit of a blip. For the longest time screens were basically 4x3, or near that aspect ratio. Then we got all multimedia obsessed and went 16x9. But that has only existed for a small fraction of the time our previous aspect ratios did.

Anyway.

The change in aspect ratio mirrors a change in the content displayed. As hardware got faster, monitors got bigger and higher resolution, and broadband became pervasive, content increasingly shifted to video.

That's another annoyance here, as more and more software has started to use video to show how to use it. People, I can read far faster than I can watch. Give me a bleeping manual!
______
Dennis