Leaked Windows 9 videos

[Fapstation]

3 videos about the new Windows 9 has leaked some mins ago.

In the first video we can see the new Start Menu.


In the second video we can see a notification center


This last one we can see new multi-desktop function


Source: http://www.engadget.com/2014/09/15/wind ... _truncated

[Overdoze]

3 videos about the new Windows 9 has leaked some mins ago.

You mean some days ago...

[esc1010]

Is this real?

[betaluva]

these are old ps.. what happened to the H_U_G_E leak that was going to occur on the 15th of September?

[Lukas Marsik]

these are old ps.. what happened to the H_U_G_E leak that was going to occur on the 15th of September?

I didn’t know such thing was "planned", how did you even come to the conclusion of it being HUGE and where did you find this information?

[betaluva]

a certain website has been promising for atleast 6 weeks that Windows 9 preview build would leak on the 15 of September.

[Wheatley]

I read about the 15th of September leak somewhere... But at the same time, the public preview will be out soon anyway, so I don't really care whether any build leaks before that or not.

[Lukas Marsik]

Looked up the Sept15 thing, WZoR said that WTP may leak after Sep15.

[betaluva]

no ,it wasnt WZOR, it doesnt matter because it didnt happen, just wait for September 30.

[bckf]

Hope people will be happy now that the start menu is back.
So sad Microsoft have to deal with so much resistance to change.

On another note, I simply find your nickname/avatar combination to be the most awkward ever on BetaArchive.
Seriously, Fapstation and the Windows XP logo?
When 5 minutes of pornsite browsing on Windows XP will get you enough malware to trash your machine?

[betaluva]

i think its great that the Start menu is back,it should never have left.

[MrFreeman]

When 5 minutes of pornsite browsing on Windows XP will get you enough malware to trash your machine?

not if he uses an adblocker. Actually if you have adblock and some common sense, anti-virus on any windows version would be redundent.

[x010]

When 5 minutes of pornsite browsing on Windows XP will get you enough malware to trash your machine?

not if he uses an adblocker. Actually if you have adblock and some common sense, anti-virus on any windows version would be redundent.

Who said? It is too easy to unknowingly get any virus. Adblock does not prevent any virus, simply blocks viewing of ads. There are many other ways to get a virus , that're not easy to detect. One click can be enough to ruin a PC.

i think its great that the Start menu is back,it should never have left.

The fact that the build shows the option to get back to the Windows 8.1-type start menu gives some interesting possibilities. Someone could use the Metro mode on the road(Store apps) , and switch back to the new start menu for work back at office/home. This could be very useful for devices such as Surface Pro , though a log off is required...
EDIT 1:- Correction , I meant 'ads' not 'apps'.

[MrFreeman]

Who said? It is too easy to unknowingly get any virus. Adblock does not prevent any virus, simply blocks viewing of apps. There are many other ways to get a virus , that're not easy to detect. One click can be enough to ruin a PC.

most viruses come from ads (even the most "secure" providers have several of them) or 3rd party download sites.

[charrison82]

i think its great that the Start menu is back,it should never have left.

I agree I hate win8 was able to find some mods to bring back the start menu but just wasn't the same.

[Vith]

I kind of dislike to see the start menu coming back. The start screen to me is way more efficient, it's like another desktop you get on top of your windows, with big buttons to make clicking on them easier/faster than going through several nested menus.

In fact, you don't even need to think about the position of the start screen or the desktop. You don't even need to separate them. You push a key and get a panel with buttons that start applications. Call it desktop, call it start start screen. You can also design the visual effects to make that panel show up on top of your windows, or make the windows disappear so you can see a panel behind them. It's always the same concept, so no idea why the hate.

You can already show the desktop with a hotkey, but unfortunately it sometimes fails to restore my windows. If it worked, it would be the same, and some people have been using it for that exact purpose for a very long time. Anyway, having a desktop dedicated to anchor applications can be seen as a cleaner approach than having files and programs together.

I also like the visual effect (the fade in/out). But yeah, all that is subjective, so it should definitely be more customizable, and perhaps let you use a vertical scroll. You should be able to set the size and style of your shortcuts, the visual effect used, let you choose between hiding the windows to go back to the desktop or bringing the desktop to the front (or having a second desktop on top, like we basically have now), pin files if you want, that kind of stuff.

As I said, it's not that different than the good old desktop we've ever had, and it's basically the only part of metro you have to see. Some people simply typed the name of the program they wanted to open, and that also works in win 8. Not saying some people don't have legitimate concerns, but I'm positive much of the anger is just a trend. The cool thing to do.

I think I read somewhere that the pc version of the next windows will use the menu and the tablet will use the screen. They can be overridden if you want. So I'm happy with that, and I hope everyone will get their preference.

[ExplicitNuM5]

You know you can either use Start Menu or Start screen in Windows 10, right?

[Vith]

I know, and I'm very happy about it. I probably found out after writing my previous post. Everything I said is still valid, just my view on the criticism thrown at the start screen, and my reasons why it's never made much sense to me.

[Battler]

but I'm positive much of the anger is just a trend. The cool thing to do.

That's because you only view at the issue from your own point of view. Thing is, when you use the OS for, say, work, you don't want to switch between two different screens of stuff all the time. It's distracting. The Start Menu is shown on top of the rest of the current screen, while the Start Menu takes the entire screen for itself.
In addition, a lot of the anger is because the Start Screen was forced. They could have made it optional and seen how well it's received. They instead forced it down everyone's throats and after lots of people complained, they released Windows 8.1 with which they went like "ha ha, we're giving you back the button but not the menu".
In addition, they made all those blog posts about the new UI during Windows 8 development, asking people for feedback, then ignored any negative feedback. As far as I know, they even ignored the results of the usability testing they performed.
Also, pushing an UI designed for phones and tables onto desktop users was bad move too. Most desktop PC's have larger screens and no touch, so the Start Menu just works much better.

Edit:

Hope people will be happy now that the start menu is back.
So sad Microsoft have to deal with so much resistance to change.

It's not resistance to change. It's Microsoft trying to force change. Windows 95 changed the UI even more radically in comparison to Windows 3.1 than Windows 8 did in comparison to Windows 7, but the fact they followed what usability tests told them, *AND* gave the users the ability to use the Program Manager if they so wished, did a lot make people accept the new UI.
With Windows 8.x, Microsoft did usability tests but completely ignored their results as well as any negative user feedback about the new UI.

[Maza]

That's because you only view at the issue from your own point of view. Thing is, when you use the OS for, say, work, you don't want to switch between two different screens of stuff all the time. It's distracting. The Start Menu is shown on top of the rest of the current screen, while the Start Menu takes the entire screen for itself.

That is, dare I say, a narrow-minded viewpoint, Battler. The transition from the desktop to the Start screen may be jarring at first for some users, but I would attribute this to a lack of experience with the operating system. I can attest to this, that it was jarring at first, but it no longer is. And yes, I use the OS for "work."

In addition, a lot of the anger is because the Start Screen was forced.

You mean just like the Start menu interface present in every version of Windows since Windows 95? Sure, the Program Manager could be used in Windows 95, but we don't have any statistics to show how many people actually used this feature (and it was phased out it later versions of Windows) so its inclusion is really a moot point.

They could have made it optional and seen how well it's received. They instead forced it down everyone's throats and after lots of people complained, they released Windows 8.1 with which they went like "ha ha, we're giving you back the button but not the menu".

That's an unfair assessment of Windows 8.1. The OS not only reinstated the Start button but it also introduced quite a few improvements to the Start screen.

Also, pushing an UI designed for phones and tables onto desktop users was bad move too. Most desktop PC's have larger screens and no touch, so the Start Menu just works much better.

First of all, the Start screen UI and traditional computing devices (desktops, laptops, etc) are not mutually exclusive; the team actually did address comments and explain how the Start screen offered improvements over the Start menu interface. Finally, your comment about the Start menu working better with larger screens is particularly awkward. Have you ever tried to use the Windows 7 Start screen on a large monitor? The results aren't pretty. The Start screen is much better in this regard.

It's not resistance to change. It's Microsoft trying to force change. Windows 95 changed the UI even more radically in comparison to Windows 3.1 than Windows 8 did in comparison to Windows 7, but the fact they followed what usability tests told them, *AND* gave the users the ability to use the Program Manager if they so wished, did a lot make people accept the new UI.

Windows 7 forced people to use the new taskbar and Start menu, with no options to use the classic versions. (I am aware that some classic taskbar features are available, but they are not cohesive; grouping cannot be disabled, users can only invoke the classic context menu by simultaneously holding down the shift key and right-clicking a taskbar button, otherwise the jump lists are always enabled. Users cannot select multiple taskbar buttons simultaneously, etc, etc).

With Windows 8.x, Microsoft did usability tests but completely ignored their results as well as any negative user feedback about the new UI.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you actually look at the articles on the Building Windows 8 blog (such as the one linked to above) you will find that Microsoft did not "completely ignore" feedback.

Edit: Your statement that the company performed "usability tests but completely ignored their results" is also peculiar. The article I linked to above explains various aspects of usability such as eye-tracking, information density, Fitt's law, etc. that contributed to the design of the Start screen.

[InsertGoodNameHere]

In addition, a lot of the anger is because the Start Screen was forced.

You mean just like the Start menu interface present in every version of Windows since Windows 95? Sure, the Program Manager could be used in Windows 95, but we don't have any statistics to show how many people actually used this feature (and it was phased out it later versions of Windows) so its inclusion is really a moot point.

Does it really matter if there are statistics? At least it's there.

Fair enough that it isn't in later versions, but it helps the transition.

[Maza]

Does it really matter if there are statistics? At least it's there.

Fair enough that it isn't in later versions, but it helps the transition.

Yes it's there; I am not saying that is a bad thing. My point was that too many people (opponents of Windows 8) like to say "Windows 95 let you use the Program Manager!" when we have no data to show how many people actually used it (the consensus seems to be that the Explorer interface was an improvement). Now one could argue that at least Windows 95 provided you with a choice, but I think that this means very little since later versions of Windows phased out the Program Manager. It'd be like if versions after Windows 98 dropped the classic Start menu interface (like Windows 7 did).

[HiCZoK]

thats really interesting but after using win8 for some time, the start menu is really useless. tiles are fine but some options like turning off pc or control panel are too hidden

[Vith]

That's because you only view at the issue from your own point of view. Thing is, when you use the OS for, say, work, you don't want to switch between two different screens of stuff all the time. It's distracting. The Start Menu is shown on top of the rest of the current screen, while the Start Menu takes the entire screen for itself.
In addition, a lot of the anger is because the Start Screen was forced. They could have made it optional and seen how well it's received. They instead forced it down everyone's throats and after lots of people complained, they released Windows 8.1 with which they went like "ha ha, we're giving you back the button but not the menu".
In addition, they made all those blog posts about the new UI during Windows 8 development, asking people for feedback, then ignored any negative feedback. As far as I know, they even ignored the results of the usability testing they performed.
Also, pushing an UI designed for phones and tables onto desktop users was bad move too. Most desktop PC's have larger screens and no touch, so the Start Menu just works much better.

Interesting. In the other post, I tried to explain how I personally like it, and how some objective properties can be analyzed. They give some insight about the reasons some people have to like it, and why others may be just disliking what is different. You are probably not part of that group and have perhaps put more thought into this that the average person (and I'm ok with that), but I definitely think they exist. This is not seeing only my point of view, but seeing the big picture. Sometimes, we are not even aware of the fact that other people's opinions are negatively affecting us. Or just not being used to something. It certainly happens to me all the time, and at first I was also skeptical.

So it may be you who is viewing the problem only from your own point of view. I use the computer to work as much as anyone, I guarantee you that. Yet I still prefer the start screen to the start menu, and I already explained the reasons why I think it can be seen as another desktop, how it can be more efficient than the desktop and the tiny menus of the old start menu. How it uses all your screen instead of wasting most of it. There is no need to repeat them, part of this is my taste, and the other part tries to be objective, like the amount of work required to click on a big button in the middle of the screen, compared to navigating through 3 small nested menus. Or how similar it is to the desktop everyone loves. There are people who didn't use the start menu, only the desktop for all their programs, yet they find the start screen completely different and intolerable. Good, to each their own, but there are important similarities between them.

Touch interfaces on pc don't make sense, but the properties needed in a launcher are not too different in both platforms. It doesn't make much sense to defend the desktop and hate the second desktop (aka start screen). I want to see more customization in that screen, I would like to see all the desktops abstracted, but couldn't care less about the return of the menu. I want them to add the ability to make different tiles, change the colours, sizes, perhaps to make subfolders, change the scroll direction. In the end, I don't really care, I simply type the name of the program I want to run. I see how someone wouldn't want to use metro apps on pc, but you can ignore those apps. I also dislike them. The concept of how the desktop is just an app is kind of neat in a tablet that can morph into a laptop, but perhaps a device without touch capabilities should have metro as hidden as possible.

It seems we'll get both things in the next os, so be happy about it, and accept other points of view. I accept yours. I understand that you get distracted when the start screen takes the complete screen, but I don't have that concern myself. It's a valid one, though. I don't find it confusing when I go back to what I was doing, don't need to see my programs in order to accomplish the action of opening a new one, and find it helpful that it uses the whole screen. Also, it uses one monitor, the others still show whatever you were working with. And you also have the concept of virtual desktops, that are there to increase productivity and do exactly what you dislike, changing the whole screen all the time. It's much more noticeable than the start screen, because now you are using all those virtual desktops for work and can get really confused. I like them, but prefer physical monitors. Although they can be used together, to change the logically group programs that won't be often used together. Some people hate them, totally understandable, but not me. Just like the start screen. Don't assume you are the only one working with computers, especially in this forum, where most people are or will be working in IT. Releasing w8.1 with that fake start menu button is absurd, I agree with you. Release the menu everyone expected, or don't do anything.

Unfortunately, you usually have to force things if you want to make big changes. Resistance is always expected, and sometimes you need a risky, bold move. Mistakes are made, but you should always expect people to complain and dislike the new radical features, regardless of how they are. If you are going to blindly follow all the contradictory feedback you will receive (given by a very small, not random group of your customers), nothing will ever be done. So... iterate, like they are doing. At some point you have to say, well, this is how I see the product, I think it will be good in the long term, and do it. If too many people still dislike it after some time, listen and fix what bothers them. It doesn't even matter if it's real or they are following a hate trend. The important thing is you now have proof (sales statistics, for example) that nobody likes it. The concept of giving options and making things optional is really nice, until you realize you will have to maintain everything. That you are simply diluting the experience of using your product in the process, to the point where nobody knows what you are doing anymore. Everyone will want you to keep everything in the future, the user base will be split, there won't be a known way to use the system that your users will be able to associate with with the brand, you risk losing the feeling you want to transmit in the whole ecosystem. The product won't have a clear direction and can lose its identity. This is really abstract, and I'm not even talking about the start screen anymore, just about reasons a company could have against implementing all the customization and openness I would love to have. You can implement a few things, but it's a slippery slope if you follow that path all the time. This is not always true though. It depends on the kind of customers you have and the type of product. Sometimes the best approach is something very open and customizable, but other times something really closed is the best direction. I prefer things with many options, but both situations make sense from a business standpoint to me, unfortunately.

I know praising windows 8 in public always gives problems, but there you go.

[Maza]

Hello,

For those interested, it is possible to use the Windows 8.1 Start screen in the most recently released Windows 10 build, build 9926. Open Registry Editor (regedit.exe) and disable (i.e., set to 0) the EnableXAMLStartMenu and EnableStartMenu keys located at HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced.

If the EnableXAMLStartMenu key does not exist, create a new 32-bit DWORD EnableXAMLStartMenu key and keep its value at 0. Restart Explorer.

For those wishing to keep the Start screen as an option, there are requests on the UserVoice website: https://windows.uservoice.com/forums/26 ... t%20screen
The seemingly most popular request is located at: https://windows.uservoice.com/forums/26 ... art-screen