Vague answer to question

Windows 9 'came and it went' according to Microsoft

Code name Asimov

Windows 9 could let Microsoft to check on PC issues directly

May be good news for Windows 8 users

Windows 9 free upgrade for Windows 8 confirmed?

Crystal ball time

Here's what we think will be in the next version of Windows

Big download file for next Windows preview

Windows Technical Preview download sizes revealed

Did Microsoft confirm the new OS name

Microsoft preparing 'Windows TH' technical preview

What will the next Windows be called?

New Windows name teased ahead of next week's reveal

Threshold gets a name?

Microsoft exec uses 'Windows 9' term for the first time

HiRez

Windows 9 could support 8K monitors

Look at the colors!

Windows 9 Start menu colors change

No live stream for big Windows event

Microsoft' won't offer a live stream of 'next Windows' event

New Windows updates every week?

Microsoft could update Windows much faster in the future

Microsoft News

Microsoft announces Windows 9 event to place on Sept. 30th

Threshold + Cortana = Maybe

Sleuthing finds that Cortana just might come to Windows 9

More Wi-Fi features in Windows 9

Wi-Fi Sense could be a feature in Windows 9

Leaked feature!

Video leak shows Notification Center on Windows 9

New Threshold feature spotted

Storage Sense could appear as part of Windows 9

New Windows 9 leak

Video shows multi-desktop support in Windows 9

Lights. Camera. Start menu!

Windows 9 Threshold Start menu detailed in new video leak

IE12 rumors

IE12 look look like a mix of Chrome and Firefox

< >
87

Prominent Hacker, WZor, claims Windows 9 will reach RTM this October

Earlier this month reputable Microsoft news blogger, Paul Thurrott, claimed that Windows 9 (also known as “Threshold”) was to ship in April 2015. According to Thurrot, company would like to get out of the crazy fire fight of redesign that has become Windows 8 by supposedly distancing itself and brining the next rebranding of Windows to consumer hands as soon as possible, but a well known hacker says Windows 9 will be arriving a bit earlier.

In contradiction with Thurrott’s statement , well-known hacker and source for Microsoft information leaks, WZor, has tweeted that the next build for manufacturers (also known as the RTM release) will be distributed this October 21 – just shy of two years after the initial launch of Windows 8.

Rumo Meter 3

In the past, WZor has been an accurate source for corporate and product rumors surround Microsoft. He has been featured in the media most recently for screen leaks and information relating to the company's upcoming Windows 8.1 Update 1 that is to be announced this April.

According to original reports, Microsoft is supposed to have three milestone builds available before hitting a release to manufacturers, so the October date would squeeze them a bit tight, but it would not prove to be impossible. More light could be shed at this year’s BUILD 2014 event, as Thurrott previously mentioned in his post earlier this month:

"But I think Windows watchers will agree that the biggest news from the show will be an announcement about Microsoft's plans for the next major Windows version, code named 'Threshold'."

As of now, the question remains whether to trust a prominent reporter or a prominent hacker. We aren’t ready to lean on WZor's statements 100% yet, so we are going to have to wait for more concrete evidence to give this rumor some power.

Do you have any take on WZor’s tweet – truth or meaningless?

Source: WZor via Twitter; Thanks for the tip, Zapella!

0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...

Reader comments

Prominent Hacker, WZor, claims Windows 9 will reach RTM this October

87 Comments

Well whatever they do I hope they fix the glaring mistake sthey've made with Metro. Don't get me wrong, i love WP8 and i like Windows 8.1 (not 8). But  take fo example the Metro mail application. On my Desktop windows 8.1 when you press right click, you see all the different buttons but there is no visual explanation. Do they think we know hieroglyphics? I have to hover on top of the icon to know what it does!  With so much screen space on a monitor I can't see why they couldn't have the word bold, underline etc on the screen.

Now when I do exactly the same on my surface RT, the explanatory words are there. So is RT different from Windows 8.1!? Why it doesn't work the same in 8.1. Should i also mention that many times strings obviously being a web address with httpp:\\ etc are not recognised by the mail client as a web address and have to copy paste into the web address bar? And Microsoft because there is no space on a mobile and have to use an icon doesn't mean the same should happen on the desktop where there is plenty of space.

I also hate the scrollbars in metro. They disappear and are almost impossible to spot in certain situations. Why make them transparent, and they get confused with the screen colours underneath. And why the scrollbar is so light grey?? Similar in Desktop actually and had to download a theme (which doesn't exist by default) to fix it. I am running a CSS script on IE11 to be able to see the scrollbar properly. Seriously, the person who gave the authorisation for scrollbars to work this way Windows 8 has no idea about UI and should be fired immediately from Microsoft. Hope it was Sinofsky.

 

exactly two years and five days after the initial launch of Windows 8?
It's actually 5 days less than 2 years.
Windows 8 was launched on October 26, 2012.

Incorrect, as you are comparing general release with RTM.

Windows 8 hit RTM on August 1st 2012. Therefore this is 2 years, 2 months and 21 days later.

Nope, we might know more at BUILD. Tho we know the UX designer Jay Machalani, who made an interesting windows 8.2 concept is reportedly working with Redmond, so something of his work might actually reflect in the next iteration of the OS. Of course these are just my two cents, I have no sources nor I work for MS.

I think this is 'no way'. Windows Phone 'Threshold' is still in planning stages for features, same with 'Threshold' for Windows, AFAIK. That means actual coding has yet to begin.

I hope your wrong. I kinda wish Microsoft would be capable of pushing out big updates a little quicker. I love what there doing, and what the possibilities could be but they do tend to be super slow to get anywhere. So again hope your wrong odds are your right though.

windows 9 would have been forked off into a seperate branch before windows 8 rtm'd so it being ready for rtm in october and a consumer xmas release is very workable.

Not sure if this is right. Everything that I've read so far point to "one os" for desktop and mobile come Win 9. Win 8.1 for windows phone should bring a shared code base to above 70%, win 9 was suppose to bring this up to 90% or more...

If you're right that means no unification between 2 code branches anytime soon and boy that could be a bad bad news for Windows Phone. (Short term it would mean nothing of course, but long term it would seriously cripple MS ability to attack iOS for 2nd spot...)

Why unified OS matters? Develop once, sell on at least 2 (desktop and mobile) platforms... man this would be a big deal to attrack developers... Just think about it, instead of targeting rather small user base (those who have 1GB phones - as games tend to require these days) you'd be able to targed 10x more users (when desktop and mobile are combined)

It'll have the stupid classic start menu because too many people complain about the start screen. Personally I love Windows 8.1, and I think it's far better than Vista was...To each their own, but I really hope there's no classic shell to it.. 

You know something we don't??? I hope they don't do anything radical design wise. It great to innovate and make changes but too much too soon will drive even more people away from the platform. I for one had no issues with win8 and definitely non with 8.1. So if they simply tweak 8.1 and optimise on certain areas, ill be fine with that.

I bet it will be a cleaner and simpler amalgam of desktop and tablet UI. I am willing to bet there will be a start menu implemented IN the desktop, with the live tiles still being the "official" start menu. I think that would be good though, to ensure desktop user functionality. I love the new start menu, but I can understand the frustration if you don't understand it. I recently helped my Mac user boss get a Windows 8 machine and his mind pretty much exploded.

I just cannot see it. Surely too early, and Thurrott has a provenance that speaks volumes. Can't see him missing that scoop.

like i said the next major release of windows( windows9) would have started before windows 8 hit rtm, so in reality they have had plenty of time to get this os up and running. Windows development doesnt just stop when they release windows 8 builds keep churning out in seperate branches.

Well, I have read that Microsoft is making a sort of Metro 2.0 style to combat the shortcomings of such a flat UI. I'm sure Windows 9 will reflect it.

Haha for a while there I wasn't sure if it was some new lingo where "awful" actually means "good", just like "sick" and "wicked" seem to be these days! :)

Will current Surface 2 models be able to run Windows 9, I wonder..... who am I kidding.... I'll be buying a Surface 3 so no matters to me. I'm a sucker.

Well RTM means something different now if you look back at what happened with 8.1. Manufacturers did indeed get it I believe for two months before general availability. Also a release in October might be in time for the next Surface. If it does take another two months before general availability, that sets up the rumor of being available in early 2015 as in what Thurott suggested.

2 Years ? Too soon, unless they think Windows 8 is a failure. Vista was phased out real quick(in the 2 year frame) with W7 due to bugs and driver issues that just the rumor of a bad os killed it off (After SP1, Vista was actually really good).

I've been reading a little bit of the tech that will go into it but, I wonder what they are going to do about the endless fight about W8, the start menu...??

The problem is...W8 was a failure and Microsoft failed to address some complains about it in 8.1 as well as completely failed to promote the fixes that were made in 8.1. They pretty much burned the "Windows 8" brand. So they're changing it to Windows 9. Pretty much like they did with Vista/7.

Yes, the comparison to Vista is likely the crux of the issue.   I ran Vista and found that it was fine, and while I don't remember its' behavior after SP 1 I always had the impression that Vista had been branded a failure unnecessarily in the popular consciousness.   It's my understanding that everything post Vista is still based upon the same overall architecture of WinNT 6/6.1/6.2.  

So given that Microsoft did in fact successfully run away from Vista's "stink" with Windows 7, they may be trying to do the same with Windows 8.

However I think the visual design of LIve Tiles and the Modern UI interface is in fact the "brand face" of Microsoft at this point, and a Windows 9 that continues to present that face will make a clear break problematic.

So I am torn about Windows 9.   Windows 8.1 still needs futher work, but I am torn about a rebranding without some very salient differences.    Realize that I AM NOT arguing for running away from Modern UI.

To answer your question I think they should bring back the old style Start Menu for the desktop of Win8/9.    That should be a feature that one can turn on or off as one desires.    Bringing back the start button without a start menu was the same sort of half measure that I fear MS will do in releasing Windows 9.

They brought back the start menu, and changed it so that you can set that button to automatically bring up the Apps list, making it functionally if not visually a lot like the old start menu. Maybe they should've done more (like allow the user during setup to decide whether one wanted Desktop or Modern UI as default, and then adjust start settings automatically for that) but they didn't just add back the Start button and do nothing else at least.

Personally I used to organize my old Start Menu into folders, you know like Utilities and Graphics-Video, etc.    I would like to be able to do that still.   There's aspects of organzing the current Start and Apps list that I find awkward.     I think that in order to provide a bridge for those used to twenty years of WinXP through Windows 7, that retaining the old Start Menu as an option would have been an excellent idea.   I think there's a reason why Start Menu replacements are one of the Store's biggest sellers.

I think the "Start" shortcut on the desktop was supposed to be a slap on the face of morons who don't get that the Start screen IS the old Start menu but in a visual, functional form. At least I always hoped it was...

Interesting premise.  I love how you call people's preference for different organizational style morons.   If I can borrow your phrase, it's moronic to assume that people did not know the Start Screen is a way to launch apps.   Of course the Start screen is a variant of the Start Menu.  However there are times where I prefer a fly out Start Menu that only takes up ten to twenty percent of the screen instead of a full screen menu that one may need to go through several different screen, and yes I am aware of the search feature.

Microsoft needed to pick its' battles and Metro was a big enough battle.   But instead they overreached with ripping out the Start Menu and not allowing choice there, and also removing the ability to boot to desktop.   From what I hear that arrogant and insular style was part of Sinosky's style.

Does he still work at Microsoft?
 

Interesting how one of the fastest selling OS ever is a "failure". The future is touch, Windows 8 is the future of OS, if they backpedal now in a couple years they'll be having to play catchup to everyone else who has gone with metro/flat UI.

As far as I am concerned there will be a huge dilemma in Microsoft thinking that a rebrand will solve the Windows 8 "problem".     First off let me say that I've been running Windows 8 since release and am now running 8.1.   I spend the vast majority of my time on the desktop and have spent little time in the Modern UI's Store.

That said I like Windows 8 and have not set my copy to boot into the desktop.  

The dilemma as I see it is that I doubt "Windows 9" will represent a significant step away from the issues that complainers have about Windows 8.    Many complainers hate the Modern UI part of the OS and want a desktop only version of Windows.   I think Microsoft is moving in the opposite direction.  I've heard it is possible that the consumer version will be Modern UI only and that the Pro version will include desktop.  Personally I think if that is true, that is a classic blunder that will further damage Windows uptake.   It is way too early for a move like that by Microsoft.

So I believe that in major features Windows 9 will be very similar to Windows 8 and a simple rebranding by calling it Windows 9 will not resolve customer hesitation.    In one way Microsoft is trying to run away from "who they are" and a rebranding without significant differences will just create more customer dissatisfaction.

I had heard that in the foreseeable future that further Windows releases would just be point releases of Window 8.    I am not sure that is the wrong move.   Personally if Windows 9 is not a significant change from Windows 8, then I would suggest that Microsoft either release it for free to current Windows 8.1 owners like they did 8.1 or sell it at release to people with current 8.1 keys for lets say $50.00.    Finally given I think that Windows 9 is a likely problematic release that will in fact be a fine tuning and polishing of Windows 8, that given that and the likely backlash that will occur at release of Windows 9, given all this retail cost of a full copy of Windows 9 should be $100.00. 

I don't think Microsoft is going to abandon the metro interface for any forseeable version of Windows. They'll absolutely keep refining it until the "bring back my Windows XP" crowd is comfortable with the mouse/keyboard usability.

I completely agree with your comments regarding price. From what Paul Thurott and Mary Jo Foley are reporting, the only reason this is being called Windows 9, is because Windows 8 "left a bad taste" in some peoples' mouths. I guess the name change simply tries to show they've changed a lot since Windows 8.0. If that's the case, I could see it being a free upgrade for Windows 8.x users and maybe like $40 for Windows 7 users.

I mean, Microsoft is still trying to get people off of Windows XP for God's sake. I'm sure they'd love it if everyone flocked to Windows 9 for it to be the new XP or 7.

I don't think they should get rid of Metro/Modern UI and I expect I make that clear in a couple of other posts on this thread.   My concern is that given Microsoft is likely strongly associated with the "brand face" of Metro/Modern UI that "running away" from Windows 8 is going to be hard to do.

Certainly there is more to be done in refinement of the OS and I definitely look forward to it.    However from looking at various tech sites like Tom's Hardware and the Register it seems as though that those consumers (not businesses) who are still running XP are either grandpa/grandma who has not bought a computer in many years, or someone who is fairly poor and also has not bought a computer recently,  and a group of super fanatics who think everything post XP is bloated and many of them are running Linux at this point.    I have no doubt that reading the comments sections at tech sites like that gives one a perspective skewed towards the fanatics who often populate such forums.   

So all those who are of normal disposition but only update their computer only once every ten years will be getting off of Windows XP fairly shortly.   However they are not the loud ones and the dialog has been driven by the loud ones who have crystallized their opinion around antipathy to Metro and that situation was not helped by Microsofts' semi-incompetence at introducing the new features of the OS to those either installing for the first time or in their first interactions with a store bought computer.

Those who are still running XP but are not of "normal disposition" are likely lost to Microsoft and are running Linux and are salivating at the idea of running a Linux Steambox for their games.    Those people plus some of those in the tech press who are Apple fans are likely the loudest of the complainers.    I'd expect that many of them are in "bad faith" and have no real intention of running a Microsoft product and will focus on whatever they perceive to be an "error" at the exclusion of anything that may be positive about whichever OS MS is putting forth at the time.

Unfortunately for Microsoft I think they failed in a number of aspects in their launch of Windows 8 and we are now looking at a coalesed public opinion that Windows 7 is now the new "gold standard" that many people associated with XP (and before that Win98SE).

Personally I am looking forward to futher refinements of "Windows 8" and am hopeful for the unification of the "Stores" of the various MS platforms.    I hope that for my pocketbook and for Microsoft's sake that they do realize the dilemma around releasing a Windows 9 that for some will really just remind them of Windows 8, and respond to that dilemma by keeping prices low.

I had no idea W8 was seen as a failure. It had shortcomings, but most of those were fixed in 8.1.

Maybe MS should just make more of a push for 8.1?

MS did a rather poor job of introducing people to the new procedures around operating with the Metro/Modern UI part of the OS.    Futhermore they yanked out a couple of features that they had in earlier builds of the Preview, that is boot to desktop.    I also think it was kind of arrogant to rip out all vestiges of the Start Menu.    I think had they not made some of those unforced errors and spent a tad more time in resolving some polishing issues, the release would not have been viewed as a failure.

To some degree it really wasn't a failure, but that it has been branded as such repeatedly and given that some people did in fact have some issues with the learning curve, the idea that Windows 8 sucks has stuck where it really shouldn't have.

ehmmm

WZor had and has access to builds/isos which are not brought by magic... he has information and while everything can change because its Microsoft and a little delay or bug or feature can change plans. still it doesnt mean this information is false and we shouldnt believe it.

I hope you understand WZor leaked Windows 8.1 way before msdn, and still the WZor leak isos are the ones you can easily get.
again, those isos and information dont come from magical dreams... if he say it, it must not be totally wrong... but we are starting a year, and anything can happen from here to october.

like he said "maybe, maybe, this data discussed today and the planned in the msWindev. Redmond work group :)" he said MAYBE, because its the plan, but plan from reality is another story. so how do you know Microsoft wont release it on october? you cant know... but you cant be sure it will be released either.

he has been pretty spot on with most things over the years regarding ms software, why would it be any different now.