backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by NellyFromMA.. on Jan 7 at 5:03 PM

Beloved icon of Windows history appears to be in the rear view for good

For those upset about the lack of a start button in Windows 8, prepare yourself for another disappointment -- "Windows Blue", an upcoming short-cycle successor to Windows 8, is not expected to bring the feature back.

The source of this supposed leak is CNBeta, a site with close insider ties at Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), which gained respect by accurately leaking a number of early Windows 8 details.

Other info from the site includes suggests that Microsoft will further flatten the UI on the desktop (think the Metro/Windows 8 UI style), the taskbar/desktop will get tweaks, the price will be low (or free), and the new kernel version number will be v6.3 (corroborated by other independent reports).  The final remnants of the Aero UI, which was a staple of Windows Vista and Windows 7 is also being bid adieu, like the Start button before it.

Windows 7 Start Button
The start button went the way of the Dodo with Windows 8. [Image Source: Jason Mick/DailyTech]

Neowin reports that a summer launch of Windows Blue is expected.  And its contacts close to Microsoft hint that the name will be some sort of riff on Windows 8, not Windows 9, as some suspected.

(For the record you can get a Start Menu-like menu by moving your mouse to the lower left corner of the screen and right-clicking.  Voilà, magic!)

Sources: CNBeta, NeoWin



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Free market
By name99 on 12/28/2012 2:29:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They changed the UI once before... People were angry, but adapted.


Uhh --- then why is half the Windows user base still XP?
What I see is that people were angry (justified or not) about Vista, and at that point got off the Windows upgrade path, basically forever.


RE: Free market
By 0ldman on 12/28/2012 4:22:37 PM , Rating: 2
Most of my entertainment PCs are Windows 7. My workstations all run XP Pro with the exception of a backup/test unit.

Games, videos, etc, work better on 7. XP is faster for a network admin. I don't have too many issues swapping between multiple networks or programming different devices on XP, occasional snag. With 7 (which I hate to say, btw) seems to require a reboot after about the third time I swap IP addresses or devices I'm working on.

I don't get paid by the hour. Every second wasted on the new Windows networking costs me.


RE: Free market
By name99 on 12/28/2012 4:45:18 PM , Rating: 1
And all my computers are Macs. So by your logic OSX is a much more common than Windows...

The point is not what YOU think, the point is what the world does.
Do you deny my point --- that XP is STILL (after ten years) at almost half the market? (Actually 40%)

As a point of comparison, OSX has 2.5% using 10.4 (2005)
13% using 10.5 (late 2007)
43% using 10.6 (mid 2009)
49% using 10.7/10.8 (I group these together because the only numbers I could find were about a week after 10.8 was released).

Presumably Apple would prefer that these be even better (and on iOS they ARE much better) but one problem Apple has is that this period covers the PPC transition (all the PPC users are stuck at 10.5) and the x86-64 transition (all the Yonah based Macs, using a 32-bit Intel chip, are stuck at 10.6).

There is probably some of this hardware ratchet in Windowsland, with XP boxes unable to handle the GPU demands of Vista, but I've never seen the ongoing nostalgia in OSX-land for older versions. What happens with OSX is an initial period of whining, followed three months later by a realization that the changes are not so bad, that actually they're mostly for the better. With Windows, on the other hand, you don't seem to get that change, after three months, with MOST users concluding that the changes are for the better.


RE: Free market
By TakinYourPoints on 12/28/2012 6:19:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think the higher adoption rate for OS X comes down to two things. One is that upgrades are more invisible and less painful. The Home folder is retained and untouched while upgrades are now made OTA. Easy and painless. Another more important thing is that the smaller Mac market falls to consumers and more higher tech businesses (media, web, research, etc). Those groups are more likely to keep their technology up to date.

It isn't like the vast majority of businesses that buy a cheap point-of-sale station or data entry econobox running Windows, those will stay without upgrades until the hardware kicks the bucket. It is no wonder why the XP market remains so huge, it is a pointless expense to keep such basic hardware made for office work up to the latest technology.

All that matters is that its cheap and that it works, and anything that gets in the way of it working (ie - unexpected incompatibility or training on new tech) is a bad thing. IT guys just want it to work and their bosses don't want to spend money.


RE: Free market
By menting on 12/28/2012 5:29:10 PM , Rating: 2
because if it works good enough, why upgrade?
It doesn't say Windows 8 is bad, all it says is Windows XP is good.


RE: Free market
By TakinYourPoints on 12/28/2012 6:10:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uhh --- then why is half the Windows user base still XP?


A large portion of the Windows userbase isn't consumers, it is businesses, things like point-of-sale stations, data entry, call centers, etc etc. Those will stick with what they have for as long as possible. The cost of upgrading tens of thousands of computers that they've had for the last eight years from XP to 7 or 8 is tremendous.

Most companies are slow to upgrade anything, and computers fall under that category. Honestly, upgrades generally don't happen in large numbers until hardware actually starts failing and they are forced to get the newest version of Windows because that is what their Dell or HP econoboxes come with.

Look at it this way, that insecure, non-standards compliant, dog-slow web browser IE6 still has a surprisingly large number of users in business because of some applications that only work with it.

Lots of old tech isn't held because it is better. Vista was actually far superior to XP after patches and drivers caught up several months later. No, it is held because it is "good enough" and the physical and training costs are too high for most to justify.

A rocky start with something like Vista or 8 is certainly less incentive though.


RE: Free market
By InsGadget on 12/29/2012 2:57:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
why is half the Windows user base still XP?

Inertia. And besides, more Windows users are on Win7 (45%) than XP (40%). This is as of November 2012.


"So, I think the same thing of the music industry. They can't say that they're losing money, you know what I'm saying. They just probably don't have the same surplus that they had." -- Wu-Tang Clan founder RZA














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki