What will future Windows operating systems be like?

Serenity595

Serenity595

Active Member
If any of you are reading this on a computer, chances are you have a Windows OS installed. Windows has a market share of over 90% right now, making it the most well-known brand of operating systems in the world. Based on statistical data from a variety of sources, around 60 - 70% of all computer users in the world use a Windows OS. So it brings up an interesting question: what's next? What will the next few Windows operating systems be like? Is it even possible for us to predict? Actually, it is. I'll explain.

Let's start back when Windows really gained momentum. The date was August 24, 1995. Microsoft had just released their brand new operating system known as Windows 95. It was a huge success and started pushing other computer companies out of business. Then three years later, Windows 98 was released and made many improvements over its predecessor. Then, in the year 2000, both Windows 2000 and Windows Me were released. They were regarded as economic failures and were soon replaced by the extremely popular Windows XP the following year. It took a surprising six years until Microsoft released their next OS in 2007 known as the Windows Vista. It received mostly negative critical reception and was followed two years later by Windows 7. This OS had very positive reception and Microsoft was doing well. Then in 2012, they released Windows 8. It was widely regarded as a failure due to its clunky interface and was only mildly improved in the Windows 8.1 upgrade.

So the question still remains: what's next? In order to get our answer, let's take a look at an overview of what we just read:

In terms of critical reception:

Windows 95 - Success (released in 1995)
Windows 98 - Success (released in 1998)
Windows 2000 - Failure (released in 2000)
Windows Me - Failure (released in 2000)
Windows XP - Success (released in 2001)
Windows Vista - Failure (released in 2007)
Windows 7 - Success (released in 2009)
Windows 8 - Failure (released in 2012)

Are you starting to notice a pattern here? Every "failure" was essentially an experiment by Microsoft, whereas every "success" was the polished product. So if we continue this pattern, it is safe for us to assume that the following may occur in the future based on what happened in the past:

Windows 9 - Success (released in 2015)
Windows 10 - Failure (released in 2018)
Windows 11 - Success (released in 2020)
Windows 12 - Failure (released in 2023)

And so on.

What do you think? Does this theory have any merit? Will the next Windows OS be a success, whereas the one after that be nothing more than a failed experiment? Or is it possible that the future of Windows will be more like how it was in the earlier days, where each individual OS had several numerical versions?

Discuss!

(cue jokes from Mac users here)
 
Microsoft will take all the complaints and criticism and utilize them to create the greatest OS based on 70 year olds who bought a laptop from Walmart that had Windows 8 already installed on it.

The desktop system will be entirely replaced with Metro. Metro will be fully utilized and be the main source of everything for your computer. Everything will be accessed by one button on metro. This button opens up a drop down which opens access to a drop down to access a tab hidden under a setting you have to enable of which will allow you to access your programs. Once you open the program the system will ask for all your personal information, to sell your soul to Satan, and to give rights to the NSA for all your personal info. To get back to Metro will be accessed by holding down the windows key + = + \ + 9.

Updates will delivered via email which will have a 50/50 chance of not wiping your computer clean. The OS will have a customizable background with 5 variants of colors. The Control Panel will be completely replaced by a 3d animated clippy that takes of 50% of your CPU and will guide you through any trouble shooting based on large bright vivid pictures showing you how to fix what is wrong which will just result in telling you you did it wrong and to call your service provider.
 
Just to say I use Ubuntu (without Unity),
soAHz64.png

Plus I dual-boot Windows 8.1 with it.

But since Windows is primarily getting worse as Metro is shoved down the throats of people who buy computers nowadays, you either have Mac OS X or Linux distros to run.
Mac OS X is difficult to get running on computers that are not Apple hardware, not good for people who don't want to spend $1000+ on an Apple computer.
So Linux distros is really the way to go for anyone not on Apple hardware to escape from Metro (unless you install Windows 7, but that can be hard depending on your computer). There is no doubt that Ubuntu is the most compatible distro that supports most things out of the box (however Unity and Amazon lenses aren't good, but they can be removed easily). The only hardware I personally had to install was for a proprietary Broadcom adapter. Really, the only reasons I have WIndows installed is for my games (since gaming + wine = not good, plus not a lot of games are compatible with Linux distros), and some other programs.

As for your questions, the theory has little merit. There's no telling what Microsoft will do with Windows 9, 10, etc. However, Microsoft may start taking suggestions from the community. Maybe make it an option whether or not you want a standard desktop or a completely Metro environment. Kind of like how you can change the desktop manager in Linux distros. But there's no telling us right now.
 
Windows 8 was by no means anything short of one the /largest/ successes for Microsoft in the past 5 years. You're incorrect and ignorant.
 
rsmv2you said:
Microsoft will take all the complaints and criticism and utilize them to create the greatest OS based on 70 year olds who bought a laptop from Walmart that had Windows 8 already installed on it.

The desktop system will be entirely replaced with Metro. Metro will be fully utilized and be the main source of everything for your computer. Everything will be accessed by one button on metro. This button opens up a drop down which opens access to a drop down to access a tab hidden under a setting you have to enable of which will allow you to access your programs. Once you open the program the system will ask for all your personal information, to sell your soul to Satan, and to give rights to the NSA for all your personal info. To get back to Metro will be accessed by holding down the windows key + = + \ + 9.

Updates will delivered via email which will have a 50/50 chance of not wiping your computer clean. The OS will have a customizable background with 5 variants of colors. The Control Panel will be completely replaced by a 3d animated clippy that takes of 50% of your CPU and will guide you through any trouble shooting based on large bright vivid pictures showing you how to fix what is wrong which will just result in telling you you did it wrong and to call your service provider.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I do have the feeling the Metro system will continue to be pushed on us, but I highly doubt that Microsoft wouldn't have a desktop/laptop compatible interface in their next OS.

DaGamer12345 said:
Just to say I use Ubuntu (without Unity),
soAHz64.png

Plus I dual-boot Windows 8.1 with it.

But since Windows is primarily getting worse as Metro is shoved down the throats of people who buy computers nowadays, you either have Mac OS X or Linux distros to run.
Mac OS X is difficult to get running on computers that are not Apple hardware, not good for people who don't want to spend $1000+ on an Apple computer.
So Linux distros is really the way to go for anyone not on Apple hardware to escape from Metro (unless you install Windows 7, but that can be hard depending on your computer). There is no doubt that Ubuntu is the most compatible distro that supports most things out of the box (however Unity and Amazon lenses aren't good, but they can be removed easily). The only hardware I personally had to install was for a proprietary Broadcom adapter. Really, the only reasons I have WIndows installed is for my games (since gaming + wine = not good, plus not a lot of games are compatible with Linux distros), and some other programs.

As for your questions, the theory has little merit. There's no telling what Microsoft will do with Windows 9, 10, etc. However, Microsoft may start taking suggestions from the community. Maybe make it an option whether or not you want a standard desktop or a completely Metro environment. Kind of like how you can change the desktop manager in Linux distros. But there's no telling us right now.
Click to expand...

Hopefully there is an option to switch between desktop and Metro.

mikeymagic said:
Windows 8 was by no means anything short of one the /largest/ successes for Microsoft in the past 5 years. You're incorrect and ignorant.
Click to expand...

I said it was a failure in terms of critical reception, not sales. Something can still sell well and be poorly made. Example: Call of Duty.

There is no need for you to turn this discussion into insulting people.
 
mikeymagic said:
Windows 8 was by no means anything short of one the /largest/ successes for Microsoft in the past 5 years. You're incorrect and ignorant.
Click to expand...
Agreed, people wouldn't hate it if the OS didn't automatically start in the Metro view. With the new search feature and download stats, it definitely does have some improvements over windows 7. Although, I don't understand the decision to remove the start button. Can be easily fixed with a download, though.

I'd really like to dual boot Ubuntu and Windows 8 when I build my gaming rig in a couple months. I prefer Linux, but, y'know, compatibility issues and such.
 
Serenity595 said:
Then in 2012, they released Windows 8. It was widely regarded as a failure due to its clunky interface and was only mildly improved in the Windows 8.1 upgrade.
Click to expand...

Serenity595 said:
I said it was a failure in terms of critical reception, not sales. Something can still sell well and be poorly made. Example: Call of Duty.
Click to expand...

1. You didn't say it was a failure in terms of its critical reception.

2. Why you actually consider it a failure is unobjective and ignorant.

3. I wasn't talking about sales or critical reception. Microsoft's ( not Windows', as most people would assume ) new set of design patterns and ideology ( Metro is a part of this ), was 3 years ahead of the competition and one of the most innovative and influential UX and design shifts in the past decade. Whilst not /invented/ by Microsoft, the team behind the new ideology championed what the rest of the community was trying to do and forced it upon the public. ( this was the right thing to do. As a consumer, you have no idea what you want; ever. )
 
mikeymagic said:
1. You didn't say it was a failure in terms of its critical reception.

2. Why you actually consider it a failure is unobjective and ignorant.

3. I wasn't talking about sales or critical reception. Microsoft's ( not Windows', as most people would assume ) new set of design patterns and ideology ( Metro is a part of this ), was 3 years ahead of the competition and one of the most innovative and influential UX and design shifts in the past decade. Whilst not /invented/ by Microsoft, the team behind the new ideology championed what the rest of the community was trying to do and forced it upon the public. ( this was the right thing to do. As a consumer, you have no idea what you want; ever. )
Click to expand...

1.

Serenity595 said:
So the question still remains: what's next? In order to get our answer, let's take a look at an overview of what we just read:

In terms of critical reception:

Windows 95 - Success (released in 1995)
Windows 98 - Success (released in 1998)
Windows 2000 - Failure (released in 2000)
Windows Me - Failure (released in 2000)
Windows XP - Success (released in 2001)
Windows Vista - Failure (released in 2007)
Windows 7 - Success (released in 2009)
Windows 8 - Failure (released in 2012)
Click to expand...

2. When did I ever say this was an objective argument? My entire post was my opinion on the future of Windows.

3. See, "most innovative and influential... in the past decade" is your opinion, just like I have my opinion. The reason Windows 8 was seen as a failure by critics is because Microsoft forced the Metro system on the desktop/laptop users. Windows 8 is perfectly fine for tablets, but not home computers. It is better in some ways compared to Windows 7, but it's also worse in the context of desktop/laptop compatibility and interface.
 
Serenity595 said:
1.



2. When did I ever say this was an objective argument? My entire post was my opinion on the future of Windows.

3. See, "most innovative and influential... in the past decade" is your opinion, just like I have my opinion. The reason Windows 8 was seen as a failure by critics is because Microsoft forced the Metro system on the desktop/laptop users. Windows 8 is perfectly fine for tablets, but not home computers. It is better in some ways compared to Windows 7, but it's also worse in the context of desktop/laptop compatibility and interface.
Click to expand...
@1. fair, though the second paragraph kind of contested the motive.

2. Opinion of the future isn't objective, however the analysis of successes or failures of the past can /only/ be objective.

3. Not my opinion, it's fact. Critical reception is worthless, and the 'forcing' of metro upon all users is exactly what the success was.
 
Vista was a failure? Like every second computer I see that still doesn't have XP installed on it has Vista.

*crawls back under rock*
 
Operating systems are funny like that... people hate them because they're told to. I will defend Windows Vista as a piece of software to the death. It was a hardware and OEM problem, not a software people. Same with windows 8... people hate metro because it's different, and because they're told to, not because it's bad.
 
mikeymagic said:
the 'forcing' of metro upon all users is exactly what the success was.
Click to expand...
I'm confused. If a measure of success is how many people use a service, then would you argue that, by that logic, Google Plus was enormously successful after they forced people to use it in order to use features of YouTube? Ignoring critical reception and basic usability will only alienate people who have a choice in OS.
 
mikeymagic said:
Nope. Not what i'm saying at all.

The success was the change that was championed and instilled into ubiquity by Microsoft.
Click to expand...

WHY was this change of forcing Metro upon users a success? You said it wasn't a success because of sales OR critical reception. So then how could it possibly be considered a success? If it's because you believe it was the most innovative design shift of the decade, then that is YOUR critical reception and therefore, an opinion and not a fact.

I don't understand how forcing something on someone is considered a success. The terrible Windows Me was forced on us and Microsoft realized it was a dumb idea, so XP came after it. As St. Theo said, Google Plus was forced on YouTube users. Was that a success? You say the success is the change that Microsoft forced on people, so inherently you're saying that forcing things on others is considered a success as well.
 
Microsoft will give two shits about the changes to WIndows operating systems. You say Vista and 8 were failures, but really, they weren't. Computer companies that supply the 99% (yes, we are the 1% that build systems) are most likely throwing the latest version of Windows on it. Microsoft is still making money no matter what and is too big at this point to even be flopped by the government.

The thing is Microsoft isn't stupid for doing this. They already assume if someone has the common knowledge to build themselves a computer, they'll probably thinking they'll run Linux for freedom on the software as well as hardware level.
 
mikeymagic said:
Windows 8 was by no means anything short of one the /largest/ successes for Microsoft in the past 5 years. You're incorrect and ignorant.
Click to expand...

Thank you.

Unfortunately Windows 8 isn't doing that great, so much that companies are starting to offer Windows 7 on new OEMs again due to complaints about Windows 8.

Metro (IMO) is only but a small part of the operating system. Perhaps Start8 (best start button ever) has made me oblivious to all the things that riddle Windows 8, however, I think Windows 8 is great (haha I rhymed). It's crazy fast, fastboot is awesome, very stable, self healing, and I love it's design scheme. Metro never gets in my way because Start8 boots me straight to desktop. I haven't seen a virus and I don't even have an AV installed.

Given enough time with it, actually using it, not testing it on a VM you will like it as well. I wouldn't go back to 7, unless I was given no choice. As a matter of fact, I fix dozens of PCs a day, and I rather work on the Windows 8 ones than Windows 7.
 
The Metro interface, the "charm" buttons, and the lack of a start button is what really annoys me about Windows 8. I'll have to look into Start8. Windows 8 is crazy fast though, I'll give it that.
 
In my opinion I thought windows 2000 was a great operating system. But in windows 9 they are most likely going to fix the problems that windows 8 had. (but sticking with the same template) So it will be a success in the future. But I could be wrong.
 
JerzeyLegend said:
Thank you.

Unfortunately Windows 8 isn't doing that great, so much that companies are starting to offer Windows 7 on new OEMs again due to complaints about Windows 8.

Metro (IMO) is only but a small part of the operating system. Perhaps Start8 (best start button ever) has made me oblivious to all the things that riddle Windows 8, however, I think Windows 8 is great (haha I rhymed). It's crazy fast, fastboot is awesome, very stable, self healing, and I love it's design scheme. Metro never gets in my way because Start8 boots me straight to desktop. I haven't seen a virus and I don't even have an AV installed.

Given enough time with it, actually using it, not testing it on a VM you will like it as well. I wouldn't go back to 7, unless I was given no choice. As a matter of fact, I fix dozens of PCs a day, and I rather work on the Windows 8 ones than Windows 7.
Click to expand...
Dear Jerzey,

You don't hear this much from me, but I completely agree with everything you're saying, and you are totally correct.

Sincerely,

Crane
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top