Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 15th Aug 2014 20:17 UTC
Windows

Microsoft is aiming to deliver a "technology preview" of its Windows "Threshold" operating system by late September or early October, according to multiple sources of mine who asked not to be named.

And in a move that signals where Microsoft is heading on the "servicability" front, those who install the tech preview will need to agree to have subsequent monthly updates to it pushed to them automatically, sources added.

I'm excited about this 'Windows 9', because experience has taught us that Windows releases follow an up-down-up-down pattern. Windows Vista was down, 7 was up, 8 was down, so hopefully 9 will be up again. The rumoured changes are all positive, but it's not like Microsoft does not have a history of over-promising and under-delivering.

Order by: Score:
Over-promising
by XenonXZ on Fri 15th Aug 2014 20:39 UTC
XenonXZ
Member since:
2011-05-25

Over-promising and under-delivering, they have been doing that since 1995...

Reply Score: 9

RE: Over-promising
by moondevil on Sat 16th Aug 2014 11:34 UTC in reply to "Over-promising"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Like every other company out there.

Reply Score: 4

Excited
by Bobthearch on Fri 15th Aug 2014 20:57 UTC
Bobthearch
Member since:
2006-01-27

I'm excited to see it, or at least curious. In three or four more years I'll be looking to upgrade this Windows XP computer to something more powerful. I like Windows 7 and use it on several other computers, but by the time this particular machine is ready for replacement, 7 will be in the same boat that XP is now.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Excited
by WorknMan on Fri 15th Aug 2014 21:12 UTC in reply to "Excited"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

This is a little off-topic, but my spare PC died and I'm about to drag an old P4 from 2003 out of the closet running XP that I'll be using until I can build a permanent replacement in a couple of months..

What do you need to keep it secure online? I won't be visiting any 'iffy' sites with it so I'm not worried about that, but is it susceptible to drive-by malware and such without any 3rd party firewalls?

Edited 2014-08-15 21:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Excited
by Bobthearch on Fri 15th Aug 2014 21:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Excited"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Zone Alarm, an older version without all of the bundled crap or constant nags. I had been using Microsoft Security Essentials, but it turned into a nagging POS, so I'm trying Avast. Mozilla Firefox with AdBlock Plus.
Haven't had a virus problem in years. And my browsing is just as fast as the 'new' Windows 7 computers.

Funny thing, I was just down at the courthouse and saw several XP machines operating. No idea if they're online, or only set up as access points. But they were running just fine.

Sad day, a few weeks ago my graphic card kicked the bucket. It was a $250 card eight years ago when I built the computer. The replacement card cost $40 and it's much faster than the original.
Like I said, maybe in a few years I'll want to replace the entire machine. But for now, this one is still relatively fast and powerful, and it runs all of my software. Couldn't be happier with it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Excited
by WorknMan on Fri 15th Aug 2014 22:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excited"
WorknMan Member since:
2005-11-13

Zonealarm, really? I've heard nothing but terrible things about it. Where do you get an older version that doesn't suck? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Excited
by Bobthearch on Fri 15th Aug 2014 22:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Excited"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I'm on version 6.1.744.001, from an old archive CD.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Excited
by Morgan on Sat 16th Aug 2014 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Excited"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Where do you get an older version that doesn't suck?


http://www.oldversion.com/windows/zonealarm/

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Excited
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sun 17th Aug 2014 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excited"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

The thing is most viruses these days, don't want to be detected. They just want to use your computer to do stuff. If you notice it, they've done a horrible job.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Excited
by cmost on Sat 16th Aug 2014 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Excited"
cmost Member since:
2006-07-16

This is a little off-topic, but my spare PC died and I'm about to drag an old P4 from 2003 out of the closet running XP that I'll be using until I can build a permanent replacement in a couple of months..

What do you need to keep it secure online? I won't be visiting any 'iffy' sites with it so I'm not worried about that, but is it susceptible to drive-by malware and such without any 3rd party firewalls?


f you’re an XP user, or know some XP users, there’s a trick which makes it possible to receive security updates for the aging OS for another five years -- right up until April 2019.

This workaround makes use of updates for Windows Embedded Industry (formerly known as Windows Embedded POSReady), which is basically a customized version of Windows XP. This is based on Windows XP Service Pack 3, and the security updates which are being released for it are essentially the same ones Microsoft would have pushed out for XP, if it was still doing so. This only works on 32 bit systems.

Create a text document, and call it XP.reg. You’ll need to make sure .reg is the proper extension -- so not "XP.reg.txt". If it’s not showing up as a registry file, open any folder, go to Tools > Folder Options, select View and uncheck 'Show hidden files and folders'. That should fix the problem.

Right-click the file, and select Edit. Paste in the following:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\WPA\PosReady]

"Installed"=dword:00000001

Save it, and then double-click the file. That will make that change to the registry. That’s all you need to do. Windows will now automatically fetch updates designed for POSReady 2009, ensuring XP remains protected for the foreseeable future.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Excited
by Morgan on Sat 16th Aug 2014 11:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Excited"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

If it’s not showing up as a registry file, open any folder, go to Tools > Folder Options, select View and uncheck 'Show hidden files and folders'.



Shouldn't that be "Hide extensions for known file types"?

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Excited
by allanregistos on Sat 16th Aug 2014 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Excited"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

This is a little off-topic, but my spare PC died and I'm about to drag an old P4 from 2003 out of the closet running XP that I'll be using until I can build a permanent replacement in a couple of months..

What do you need to keep it secure online? I won't be visiting any 'iffy' sites with it so I'm not worried about that, but is it susceptible to drive-by malware and such without any 3rd party firewalls?

Install any Free Anti Virus like Avira, or you can just use WinPatrol.

THen use a normal user account, please, I beg you. The reason why Windows users are plagued with viruses of all kind(Even Windows Administrators) is because they can't comprehend the difference between an administrator(root) and a normal user.

So use a normal user, you may use your administrator account only when you need to install an app with the required environment. Or just right click the installer and select Run As from the context menu.

Use Firefox or Google Chrome and also install the latest IE,(up to v. 8 only in XP).

I do not know if there are bad effects of using the POS channel(as the post above) to get XP updates, use it at your own risk.

Edited 2014-08-16 04:56 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Excited
by kumarakam on Mon 18th Aug 2014 13:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Excited"
kumarakam Member since:
2014-07-17

Just unplug the network cable and disable wifi

Reply Score: 1

Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Fri 15th Aug 2014 23:03 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

I don't get it - apart from hardware makers that utterly failed in making sure machines they sold were up to spec, why was Vista a "down" version?

And, was it "Down" for any reason that had to do with Microsoft?

Edited 2014-08-15 23:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by gan17 on Sat 16th Aug 2014 01:01 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
gan17 Member since:
2008-06-03

I don't get it - apart from hardware makers that utterly failed in making sure machines they sold were up to spec, why was Vista a "down" version?

And, was it "Down" for any reason that had to do with Microsoft?


It made my hard drive thrash like a crack-hoe. SSDs were still in their infancy (only thing non-infant was price) at the time, so for a common spinning-platter equipped person like myself, the frickin read/write/page noise a typical Vista install generally inflicted made chopper V-twin engines seem pleasant in comparison.

Other that that, it was mostly driver and speed related, I think. Drivers were probably OEMs being incompetent (as usual), but Vista was still pretty heavy for most non-Crysis-capable systems at the time. Win7 ran smoother on Vista-era hardware than Vista did, ffs.

Edited 2014-08-16 01:06 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by 1c3d0g on Sat 16th Aug 2014 01:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Agreed. There were a number of major technical improvements/optimizations from Vista -> 7, one which I remember off the top of my head was something that had to do with the GPU having to copy everything graphics related from system RAM, thereby increasing memory use tremendously. This was fixed in 7, where only one instance was loaded, instead of having another copy laying around wasting RAM.

There was a ton more fixes like that in 7, which is why I still consider Vista an experimental (or Beta) O.S., and Windows 7 a true stable release.

Now if only M$ could implement their damned promised WinFS (since the Blackcomb days!) in Windows 9... ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by delta0.delta0 on Sat 16th Aug 2014 04:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
delta0.delta0 Member since:
2010-06-01

I think vista sp2/3, sorted out most of vistas issues, when it first came out it was clunky shit.

I only ever ran it as a vm tbh.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Comment by Drumhellar
by moondevil on Sat 16th Aug 2014 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar"
moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Now if only M$ could implement their damned promised WinFS (since the Blackcomb days!) in Windows 9...


Actually it was already discussed since the Windows 95 days, when it was called Chicago.

Maybe if Windows 9 gets even more WinRT love at its internals, we get to see more of what was planned for Longhorn.

Reply Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Why do you want winfs exactly?

It was scrapped due to terrible performance when performing normal file system tasks. NTFS is one of the best file systems out there, and has been since it was created.

And BTW, its been promised since the pre windows 95 days ( Cairo).

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 16th Aug 2014 06:31 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Well, it was really heavy in RAM usage, especially when using Aero - rendered windows were stored both in VRAM and in system RAM - but I'd say the stability gains vastly outweighed performance loss. User-mode video drivers rather than kernel mode, simplified sound drivers meant their common shittiness couldn't be a source of instability.

And, most of the issues Vista had could be fixed with more RAM. Problem is, system builders had barely increased standard RAM amounts during XP's tenure, so when Vista came out, their "Good" systems were lousy.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Celerate on Sat 16th Aug 2014 20:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Celerate Member since:
2005-06-29

It also took a long time to defragment the hard drive in Vista if you used the default Microsoft application. I remember leaving a new system going for 24 hours straight and it hadn't finished. I don't remember if Defraggler existed in the first year of Vista's release, but when I learned about that it saved me a lot of time.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by Carewolf on Sat 16th Aug 2014 12:05 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
Carewolf Member since:
2005-09-08

I don't get it - apart from hardware makers that utterly failed in making sure machines they sold were up to spec, why was Vista a "down" version?

And, was it "Down" for any reason that had to do with Microsoft?


It was mostly redesigns that were pointless, and an overzealeous authorization system that popped up so often that they trained even power users to always click ok.

Many of the issues were fixed in SPs and the rest in Windows7, which is why you don't hear so much about it now, but it had BIG issues when it first came out, and more negative backlash than Win8. If anything it is Vista's fault so many users are still on XP.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Bobthearch on Sat 16th Aug 2014 15:17 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

If anything it is Vista's fault so many users are still on XP.


I can identify some reasons why some people continue to use XP:
- Contrary to the Microsoft "Upgrade Now or Die" marketing, XP still works just fine.
- There is no inexpensive upgrade path. Pay full retail for a new OS version, or keep using the one they have? If I could upgrade this machine to Windows 7 for $20, I probably would.
- Most consumers only get a new OS when they get a new computer. It isn't necessary to get a new computer every three years like in the "old days."
- People who are buying new computers are choosing to spend their money on laptops and tablets instead of replacing their desktops.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by Drumhellar
by Drumhellar on Sat 16th Aug 2014 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by Drumhellar"
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

It was mostly redesigns that were pointless, and an overzealeous authorization system that popped up so often that they trained even power users to always click ok.


I refuse to consider the aggressiveness of UAE to be Microsoft's fault, simply because for more than a decade prior to Vista, Microsoft has been telling developers not to keep settings in the program's directory, and not to put files in the Windows directory.

This as been how applications should have been designed ever since Windows NT came out.

Do NOT place settings in the program's directory or the Windows directory. Place them in the user's app data directory.

But, developers didn't listen, and when Microsoft puts mechanisms in place that enforce this, they get dinged, when it's really just shitty software that is doing this.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by christian on Sat 16th Aug 2014 14:34 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
christian Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't get it - apart from hardware makers that utterly failed in making sure machines they sold were up to spec, why was Vista a "down" version?

And, was it "Down" for any reason that had to do with Microsoft?


I installed Vista Business on a recently ebay purchased desktop (using the CoA sticker license on the side), and I must say that once I'd gone through the horrendous install and SP upgrade cycle, the end result was actually a reasonably nice desktop. Stick on the Microsoft Security Essentials, Chrome and Firefox, and the wife is happy, the kids are happy (they can run games with Unity plugin) and the system is relatively stable. Upgraded to an SSD and 4GB RAM, and it flies. I personally can't tell the difference between Vista and 7, but then I've never used 7 on a day to day basis.

My previous Vista experience was in 2008, when it came with my then new(ish) Lenovo N100 laptop, and it was a dog. Slow, unintuitive, just generally painful to work with on a laptop with 1GB of RAM and pre-Core2 CPU.

That laptop is still in use (I'm using it now) with Debian/testing, and I wouldn't dream of putting Vista back on it even if the CoA sticker was still legible.

The laptop itself (IMO) rocks. It's not fast, as I said it has a pre-Core2 CPU, SATA1 limited chipset, and crappy Intel built in graphics, but the keyboard is sublime (unlike more recent chiclet keyboards) and with 2.5GB RAM and an SSD, it's plenty fast enough for my Linux needs.

So, no. You can't just blame the manufacturers. They worked within the limitations of the available hardware. Microsoft did not.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Drumhellar
by jessesmith on Sun 17th Aug 2014 23:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by Drumhellar"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

I had to support Visa when it first came out and it was definitely a huge "down". Some of the problems we ran into early on included...

1. Poor driver support.
2. Slow boot and run times.
3. Unwanted reboots after updates applied.
4. Nag screens from the UAC that popped up constantly, even when accessing basic MS tools for account-specific actions.
5. Vista would timeout on many websites that loaded fine in XP, this turned out to be an issue with network TCP windows.
6. The "admin" account did not have full access to change low-level settings unless UAC was turned off completely.
7. Changing basic settings often required a reboot. For example, fixing the TCP window issue meant A) disable UAC B) reboot C) disable TCP window limitation D) reboot E) test to make sure setting took as it sometimes did not get saved F) re-enable UAC G) reboot. Total time could be around half an hour since each reboot took several minutes.
8. Vista did not run all the software XP did. We ran into at least three applications that worked under XP and under WINE on Linux, but refused to function on Vista.

There were a few other minor problems, like having trouble getting Citrix to work on Vista machines for some clients. But the above 8 summed up most of the issues we had to deal with on a regular basis.

Reply Score: 3

The exciting Part of Windows Next
by allanregistos on Sat 16th Aug 2014 04:47 UTC
allanregistos
Member since:
2011-02-10

I am excited to install the preview version. However, I am more excited if they would release Windows free of charge. They can still build their fortune for support and application on top of Windows via their app store.

Reply Score: 1

Sorry for the language
by mmrezaie on Sat 16th Aug 2014 09:19 UTC
mmrezaie
Member since:
2006-05-09

Stop nagging about support, anti-virus, and other stuff ==> use linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Sorry for the language
by Bobthearch on Sat 16th Aug 2014 16:08 UTC in reply to "Sorry for the language"
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

Yeah, because no one who reads OSNews has ever heard of Linux before, much less actually installed it or used it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Sorry for the language
by ilovebeer on Sat 16th Aug 2014 16:18 UTC in reply to "Sorry for the language"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Sounds like a typical comment from someone who wouldn't even know how to tell if their Linux box has been compromised.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Sorry for the language
by moondevil on Sat 16th Aug 2014 17:21 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry for the language"
RE: Sorry for the language
by allanregistos on Mon 18th Aug 2014 01:42 UTC in reply to "Sorry for the language"
allanregistos Member since:
2011-02-10

Stop nagging about support, anti-virus, and other stuff ==> use linux.


I'm a Linux supporter, even so, I am open to use full *BSD desktop if hardware support is available.

The one I am talking about is for those who want Windows, also I need Windows in the workplace. If they would release it free of charge, then it makes me happy, it makes businesses happy and everyone is happy. They can still build their fortunes on top of Windows, e.g., selling ERP to businesses. This will hinder the growth of Linux desktop I think. As a osnews reader, I am a OS hobbyst, I have installed so many operating systems in the past, and so is Windows.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Sorry for the language
by ilovebeer on Mon 18th Aug 2014 17:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Sorry for the language"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

Yes, a lot of people would be happy if Microsoft started giving Windows away for free. I'm one of them. Selling Windows is still highly profitable for them though. In 2013 the Windows division brought in $10 Billion after the bills were paid. That's a serious gravy train. It's worth noting this is happening during a time when people expect free OS software/updates. We'll see what they do with Windows 9. Should be interesting.

Btw, Microsoft doesn't have to waste 2 seconds trying to hinder the Linux desktop because the Linux desktop hinders itself quite effectively. You're more likely to see the apocalypse/end of days before you see the Linux desktop enjoying more than a sliver of that market.

Reply Score: 3

I will be glorious.
by Verenkeitin on Sat 16th Aug 2014 18:38 UTC
Verenkeitin
Member since:
2007-07-01

Oh, please let it be subscription based.
I want to see the epic sh** storm that follows when subscriptions start to run out for the first time and Windows turns into ransom ware.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I will be glorious.
by Bobthearch on Sat 16th Aug 2014 18:52 UTC in reply to "I will be glorious."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

I don't mind if subscription is an option, like Adobe has done. And I don't mind spending money when I have it to spare. But I hate monthly bills and never willingly "subscribe" to anything.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I will be glorious.
by shotsman on Sat 16th Aug 2014 19:28 UTC in reply to "RE: I will be glorious."
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

MS already have OS Subscriptions

It is called MSDN.

Strange how supposedly Multiple Activation keys suddently stop working after a while....

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: I will be glorious.
by henderson101 on Mon 18th Aug 2014 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I will be glorious."
henderson101 Member since:
2006-05-30

MS already have OS Subscriptions

It is called MSDN.


Errrr.... MSDN prohibits you (the user) from using your MSDN subscribed benefits for anything except for development, *unless* you buy a very *specific* SKU, which is essentially intended for "system builders" and "OEM"'s. That includes all elements, such as OS, Office, Visual Studio, SQL Server, Exchange etc.

In other words - I would be extremely wary and careful if you are doing this.

Reply Score: 5

RE: I will be glorious.
by Nelson on Sat 16th Aug 2014 19:28 UTC in reply to "I will be glorious."
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Did you notice the epic shitstorm when Microsoft did it for Office with Office 365?

Just wondering.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I will be glorious.
by Bobthearch on Sat 16th Aug 2014 20:17 UTC in reply to "RE: I will be glorious."
Bobthearch Member since:
2006-01-27

It wasn't mandatory; you can still buy full retail versions of MS Office. I have a feeling though that the software industry would like to eliminate retail sales altogether in favor of subscription services.
But people I know like Office 365 for the 'cloud' and mobile features, and they don't mind paying a subscription for it. They probably even save money in the long run because of the number of installs included.

Edited 2014-08-16 20:20 UTC

Reply Score: 3

up-down-up-down
by shakeshuck on Sat 16th Aug 2014 23:41 UTC
shakeshuck
Member since:
2011-03-21

experience has taught us that Windows releases follow an up-down-up-down pattern

Thom, I think you may be suffering from Apophenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia)

Reply Score: 1

RE: up-down-up-down
by quackalist on Sun 17th Aug 2014 00:22 UTC in reply to "up-down-up-down"
quackalist Member since:
2007-08-27

Hardly think the up/down nature of windows OS's is as random as you seem to think.

Other than that, I actually quite like Win 8. as long as I totally ignore the metro horror. Not that I'm anticipating anything worth the bother with 9. It seems a long time since anything was worth paying monies to upgrade with windows. It's more stable and more secure since XP but no great WOW factor you'd miss if, for whatever, if you had to use it again. Which I did as a VM a few months back for giggles.

Reply Score: 4