Looks win 9 is here sooner than we thought

D

drakken

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
1,196
From an email blast from Microsoft, there is going to be a webcast that would be boring for the most except for the tidbit below. We may not get a date but if they are close enough to be discussing migration stats that would be different for win 9 verse win 7 or win 8. That call might be vary interesting. Unfortunately the rest of it is going to be so dry.

http://mcpmag.com/webcasts/2014/03/flexera-april1714.aspx
Date: 04/17/2014 Time: 8:00 am PT

Insights and consideration in planning moving forward for future OS and Application migrations including Windows 7 to 8 and Windows 9 in the near future
 
Just because they talk about migration doesnt mean windows 9 will be out sooner at all. They are just putting out info to try and get people aware of Windows 9 and they should start planning now since so many companies failed to migrate off XP.

IRS alone is spending almost $12 million for extended XP Support for 1 year cause they missed their deadline.
 
They really need to stop with this new Windows every single year. They're going too fast, and they really need to work into one OS for a good long time. :\
 
Cerulean said:
They really need to stop with this new Windows every single year. They're going too fast, and they really need to work into one OS for a good long time. :\
Click to expand...

Which OS's are being released every year?
Vista- November 8, 2006
Win7- July 22, 2009
Win8- August 1, 2012

The only real exception was the gap between XP in 2001 and Vista, but considering the work they put into XP SP2, released in 2004, the schedule holds pretty steady at ~3 years per OS. 8.1 certainly doesn't count as it's own OS.

That would put a Windows 9 release at ~Summer 2015, so it would make sense for them to start talking about it on some level.
 
Windows XP screwed up the release cycle, normal MS release cylce of a new OS was 2-3 years at most.

Long releases = XP = tons of patches, updates, and people getting stuck on the same OS then you get where we are today, too many people stuck on XP and old slow hardware that is inefficient,power hungry vs todays systems.

You don't want the new OS, don't get it.
 
GotNoRice said:
Which OS's are being released every year?
Vista- November 8, 2006
Win7- July 22, 2009
Win8- August 1, 2012

The only real exception was the gap between XP in 2001 and Vista, but considering the work they put into XP SP2, released in 2004, the schedule holds pretty steady. 8.1 certainly doesn't count as it's own OS.

That would put a Windows 9 release at ~Summer 2015, so it would make sense for them to start talking about it on some level.
Click to expand...
I was purposefully exaggerating
 
Sounds about right. Windows 9 is right on track to becoming the new focal point. Windows 8 is almost 2 years old now and I wouldn't call these 8.1/Update 1 "yearly" updates. At best they're half-assed SP packs, something Microsoft has done for years, yet recently are slapping themselves on the back as if they're really speeding up to yearly development cycles.

I agree the 3 year wait has to end somewhat. Not necessarily for a "major" release, but Service Packs need to start coming a lot faster. They're already shitting up the naming conventions confusing things into the ridiculous with Windows 8 > Windows 8.1 > and now Windows 8.1 Update 1.
 
New focal point or new fecal point, depends on how you look at it :D
 
Liger88 said:
Sounds about right. Windows 9 is right on track to becoming the new focal point. Windows 8 is almost 2 years old now and I wouldn't call these 8.1/Update 1 "yearly" updates. At best they're half-assed SP packs, something Microsoft has done for years, yet recently are slapping themselves on the back as if they're really speeding up to yearly development cycles.

I agree the 3 year wait has to end somewhat. Not necessarily for a "major" release, but Service Packs need to start coming a lot faster. They're already shitting up the naming conventions confusing things into the ridiculous with Windows 8 > Windows 8.1 > and now Windows 8.1 Update 1.
Click to expand...
Hopefully the former "Windows Update" team are the ones behind 8.1 and Update 1, in that the primary Windows team is hard at work at far into the Windows 9 development cycle.

I'd really be depressed if 8.1 is all we got out of the last 2.5 years of development.
 
Liger88 said:
Sounds about right. Windows 9 is right on track to becoming the new focal point. Windows 8 is almost 2 years old now and I wouldn't call these 8.1/Update 1 "yearly" updates. At best they're half-assed SP packs, something Microsoft has done for years, yet recently are slapping themselves on the back as if they're really speeding up to yearly development cycles.

I agree the 3 year wait has to end somewhat. Not necessarily for a "major" release, but Service Packs need to start coming a lot faster. They're already shitting up the naming conventions confusing things into the ridiculous with Windows 8 > Windows 8.1 > and now Windows 8.1 Update 1.
Click to expand...


8.0 to 8.1 was much more than any previous Windows Service Pack I can think of, other than XP SP2 which took 3 years to deliver after XP RTM instead of just one like 8.1. Even 8.1 Update 1 is a bit more than the typical SP, a lot fair number of UI changes for KBM users, a lot of optimization work and the new WIMBoot deployment option to get a Windows 8.1 install to fit in only 4GB. And there were a number of changes in the Windows RT API to get it to align to Windows Phone 8.1 and thus making universal apps possible. And then there's the new Start Menu update coming this fall hopefully. So in two years that's a lot of work and change to the original 8.0 release. More than anything amount of change I can think of in two years for any Windows release.
 
Cerulean said:
I was purposefully exaggerating
Click to expand...

To prove what point? That you prefer the XP longevity, when XP was the exception, not the norm?

In any case, I don't see Windows 9 getting widely adopted either. Businesses are going to wait for Windows 10 in 2018, since Windows 7 support expires in 2020. Or some may even wait for Windows 11 in 2021.
 
Tsumi said:
To prove what point? That you prefer the XP longevity, when XP was the exception, not the norm?
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're trying to get at, but when Vista was announced I was actually looking forward to it and excited. Then after they released it I found out how much of a POS it was -- not just for me -- but the overall public audience. This is where I begun to start with this "releasing an OS every year" exaggeration. Not very long after Vista they were like "oh btw, Win 7 next year *trollface*".

k, fine. Fast forward, Win7 comes out. We all think it's the next XP. Hallelujah! There's festivals, dancing, and rejoicing! Then, out of nowhere, unexpectedly, bam.. Windows 8 and it's like "wtf! we just only got started with Win7!!"

In the 90s, each new version of Windows was major and significant enough + combined with evolution in technology with RAM, HDD, and CPU ... i dont think it was as big of a deal. Then XP --> hardware evolution begins to slow down --> we reach a point where some people are realizing a need for more than 4GB of RAM and 64-bit processing capability --> years later THEN we get Vista promising us all that 64-bit goodness.

Remember the hypes throughout those times?

Anyway, this is how I remember things growing up. I even remember how both my parents and non-tech people were all talking about the new Windows. Vista got the same reaction, but after Vista the whole "did you hear about the new Windows from Microsoft?!" excitement in the consumer world just started dying, especially with "like a new Windows from Microsoft every year" it's just friggin tiring and loses its shine real quick. Now this is just "bla bla bla" to most people; life is good with the hardware they have with XP. They legitimately don't realize a need to upgrade. Especially more so if you exclude security from this picture. People have their own ideas of "security" and tend to not listen. There are a lot of old fashioned, older generation people sticking to the times and philosophies and experiences they grew up with. There are a lot of marketing and salesmen gimmicks out there. Why fix what isn't affecting my ability to check Yahoo? Even if I'm infected or have a handful of toolbars I can still use my computer for practically free and still be able to check my Yahoo e-mail. That's all that matters. Unless you start paying people what it's worth, you'll always have XP around. Many parts of Vista's new UI was great, but I too also felt there were some things that shouldn't have changed.

It is natural that people don't like change and resist it, GREATLY. I know this from experience at my own workplace in a total system overhaul and makeover from one that is 7+ years old to state of the art systems costing several millions of dollars.

If some parts of Vista were kept consistent from XP to Vista perhaps Vista may have had a bigger marketshare.
 
Last edited:
Cerulean said:
I don't know what you're trying to get at, but when Vista was announced I was actually looking forward to it and excited. Then after they released it I found out how much of a POS it was -- not just for me -- but the overall public audience. This is where I begun to start with this "releasing an OS every year" exaggeration. Not very long after Vista they were like "oh btw, Win 7 next year *trollface*".

k, fine. Fast forward, Win7 comes out. We all think it's the next XP. Hallelujah! There's festivals, dancing, and rejoicing! Then, out of nowhere, unexpectedly, bam.. Windows 8 and it's like "wtf! we just only got started with Win7!!"

In the 90s, each new version of Windows was major and significant enough + combined with evolution in technology with RAM, HDD, and CPU ... i dont think it was as big of a deal. Then XP --> hardware evolution begins to slow down --> we reach a point where some people are realizing a need for more than 4GB of RAM and 64-bit processing capability --> years later THEN we get Vista promising us all that 64-bit goodness.

Remember the hypes throughout those times?

Anyway, this is how I remember things growing up. I even remember how both my parents and non-tech people were all talking about the new Windows. Vista got the same reaction, but after Vista the whole "did you hear about the new Windows from Microsoft?!" excitement in the consumer world just started dying, especially with "like a new Windows from Microsoft every year" it's just friggin tiring and loses its shine real quick. Now this is just "bla bla bla" to most people; life is good with the hardware they have with XP. They legitimately don't realize a need to upgrade. Especially more so if you exclude security from this picture. People have their own ideas of "security" and tend to not listen. There are a lot of old fashioned, older generation people sticking to the times and philosophies and experiences they grew up with. There are a lot of marketing and salesmen gimmicks out there. Why fix what isn't affecting my ability to check Yahoo? Even if I'm infected or have a handful of toolbars I can still use my computer for practically free and still be able to check my Yahoo e-mail. That's all that matters. Unless you start paying people what it's worth, you'll always have XP around. Many parts of Vista's new UI was great, but I too also felt there were some things that shouldn't have changed.

It is natural that people don't like change and resist it, GREATLY. I know this from experience at my own workplace in a total system overhaul and makeover from one that is 7+ years old to state of the art systems costing several millions of dollars.

If some parts of Vista were kept consistent from XP to Vista perhaps Vista may have had a bigger marketshare.
Click to expand...

I always thought that Vista's biggest failing was that Microsoft underrated the system requirements and gave the OEMs a free pass to slap a Vista sticker on Celeron single-core systems with 512MB memory, integrated video and a 60GB HDD. I was running Vista on a Socket 939 Athlon 64 x2 4800+ with 2GB DDR, a 7900GTX and two 160GB HDDs in RAID0 for years without issue. People used to come over and were amazed at how much faster it was than their XP boxes. I didn't bother to upgrade it to Windows 7 and the motherboard (A8N-SLI Deluxe) has since gone tits-up, but I do have fond memories of that box.

I see the same thing happening now with Windows 8.1. I had to work on a "new" laptop that was running an AMD dual-core 1.0GHz CPU with integrated video the other day and it was terrible. Worse-yet, it had a slow-spinning platter drive in it, though I bet even an SSD would not have helped that much. The experience index was 3.8 for the CPU. I've got a Celeron single-core that pulls mid-4s and feels sluggish.

Vista was certainly a bloated OS, 7 was better, and now 8.1 Update 1 is even better, but Microsoft has done themselves no favors by not figuring out a way to get the OEMs to stop releasing crap with a Microsoft logo glued onto it. Or by not releasing a Start Menu option from the beginning...
 
Cerulean said:
I don't know what you're trying to get at, but when Vista was announced I was actually looking forward to it and excited. Then after they released it I found out how much of a POS it was -- not just for me -- but the overall public audience. This is where I begun to start with this "releasing an OS every year" exaggeration. Not very long after Vista they were like "oh btw, Win 7 next year *trollface*".

k, fine. Fast forward, Win7 comes out. We all think it's the next XP. Hallelujah! There's festivals, dancing, and rejoicing! Then, out of nowhere, unexpectedly, bam.. Windows 8 and it's like "wtf! we just only got started with Win7!!"

In the 90s, each new version of Windows was major and significant enough + combined with evolution in technology with RAM, HDD, and CPU ... i dont think it was as big of a deal. Then XP --> hardware evolution begins to slow down --> we reach a point where some people are realizing a need for more than 4GB of RAM and 64-bit processing capability --> years later THEN we get Vista promising us all that 64-bit goodness.

Remember the hypes throughout those times?

Anyway, this is how I remember things growing up. I even remember how both my parents and non-tech people were all talking about the new Windows. Vista got the same reaction, but after Vista the whole "did you hear about the new Windows from Microsoft?!" excitement in the consumer world just started dying, especially with "like a new Windows from Microsoft every year" it's just friggin tiring and loses its shine real quick. Now this is just "bla bla bla" to most people; life is good with the hardware they have with XP. They legitimately don't realize a need to upgrade. Especially more so if you exclude security from this picture. People have their own ideas of "security" and tend to not listen. There are a lot of old fashioned, older generation people sticking to the times and philosophies and experiences they grew up with. There are a lot of marketing and salesmen gimmicks out there. Why fix what isn't affecting my ability to check Yahoo? Even if I'm infected or have a handful of toolbars I can still use my computer for practically free and still be able to check my Yahoo e-mail. That's all that matters. Unless you start paying people what it's worth, you'll always have XP around. Many parts of Vista's new UI was great, but I too also felt there were some things that shouldn't have changed.

It is natural that people don't like change and resist it, GREATLY. I know this from experience at my own workplace in a total system overhaul and makeover from one that is 7+ years old to state of the art systems costing several millions of dollars.

If some parts of Vista were kept consistent from XP to Vista perhaps Vista may have had a bigger marketshare.
Click to expand...

Vista had classic mode, which made it have more things in common with XP than 7 did. It's not about consistency. It's about driver and hardware problems. Driver and hardware problems doomed Vista, not consistency.

Also, I would draw an analogy with CPUs and GPUs. All the low hangings have been picked. It's getting harder and harder to make progress. Most progress for the past few years has been evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
 
The problem is back then computer hardware was enough of a novelty that anything major (whether its a new cpu from Intel, a new Windows from MS, a new version of Word) was a *big deal*. People used to actually buy software at retail.

Now, everyone is used to cheap, ubiquitous computing power everywhere they go, in their laptops, tablets, smartphones. The Internet, online sites and apps have replaced traditional computer hw and sw - everything is fast enough that you don't really care how you get to facebook.com or google docs or stream music.

The only excitement product launches create these days is through artificial hype generated due to 'looks', like by Apple. Back then the general public actually got excited about core computing concepts like 'multitasking' and bigger memory and hard disks.
 
Cerulean said:
They really need to stop with this new Windows every single year. They're going too fast, and they really need to work into one OS for a good long time. :\
Click to expand...

Faster is better. If they slow down, we'll have a repeat of XP....which by the way, we still haven't managed to eradicate from the face of the earth yet.

The more frequently they release new versions, the faster new features will be brought to market and the more regularly legacy can be put out with the trash.

pcjunkie said:
For who?
Click to expand...

Everybody. Small, frequent releases are far less painful than big, long releases, as anybody who has ever done any amount of work in the software industry can tell you. Bigger gaps in releases means more things changing all at once, means more problems with software compatibility. Remember Vista's launch? Everybody had problems, because the driver model in Vista was so much newer than the driver model in XP. All the driver manufacturers had to start from scratch and this meant lots of things didn't have stable, quality drivers at Vista release. If you change the driver model, and the security model, and the hardware architecture all at once, you're going to end up with a lot more problems than if you move to the new driver model the first year, the new hardware architecture the next year, and the new security model the year after that.

Plus, short releases mitigate inertia. You don't have time to cement everything into place with 2 year release cycles. Anybody who typically 'lags behind' usually isn't going to lag behind nearly as far, either, and eventually we'll get to the point where the old version is being retired 'this year', and the next oldest version is being retired 'two years from then', which means if they migrate to the next oldest version, they'll have to update again in 2 years. It makes it difficult for people to make things stagnant and impede progress for the rest of the world.
 
Last edited:
bigdogchris said:
Hopefully the former "Windows Update" team are the ones behind 8.1 and Update 1, in that the primary Windows team is hard at work at far into the Windows 9 development cycle.

I'd really be depressed if 8.1 is all we got out of the last 2.5 years of development.
Click to expand...

We'll have to see how the new Start Menu and windowed modern apps update goes. Assuming that it will be an update to Windows 8.1 Update 1, 8.1 could begin to show some muscle. We could have essentially the same familiarity and KBM capability as any Windows release coupled with modern apps that work like traditional windowed desktop apps. And it's possible that their might be another bone thrown to desktop users, maybe multiple desktops perhaps.

Obviously far to early to make any informed judgments but 8.1 could be on its to being by far the most flexible client OS ever. A full desktop OS that has the options to be completely familiar to any Windows desktop user with the ability to work just like any tablet and to fit easily in the confines a typical mobile OS hardware profile, 1GB RAM, 16 GB storage. It starts to become a too much capability to ignore.
 
heatlesssun said:
Obviously far to early to make any informed judgments but 8.1 could be on its to being by far the most flexible client OS ever.
Click to expand...
You're right, and I think Windows 9 will take it even further. I don't see going back to separate OSes, but the same OS that you use in different ways.
 
bigdogchris said:
Hopefully the former "Windows Update" team are the ones behind 8.1 and Update 1, in that the primary Windows team is hard at work at far into the Windows 9 development cycle.
Click to expand...

Its the same Windows Sustained Engineering division thats done Service Packs in the past Windows versions. Shills will deny it, but the maneuver to versioned "updates" and away from service packs was Microsoft's strategy to be able to end support sooner in the belief it will force upgrades so people and companies can't stay on XP or 7 until THEY are ready to upgrade. Now Microsoft believes they will decide that foe them.

Proof: look how fast Windows 8.0 support is ending. Had they continued the service pack model they'd again be extending supported-until date with every service pack.

More of that "good for Microsoft, bad for consumers" M.O. in this Metro era of Windows suck.
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Its the same Windows Sustained Engineering division thats done Service Packs in the past Windows versions. Shills will deny it, but the maneuver to versioned "updates" and away from service packs was Microsoft's strategy to be able to end support sooner in the belief it will force upgrades so people and companies can't stay on XP or 7 until THEY are ready to upgrade. Now Microsoft believes they will decide that foe them.

Proof: look how fast Windows 8.0 support is ending. Had they continued the service pack model they'd again be extending supported-until date with every service pack.

More of that "good for Microsoft, bad for consumers" M.O. in this Metro era of Windows suck.
Click to expand...

:rolleyes:

Vista service packs didn't extend support for Vista. Vista support ends when they said it would end when it was first released. Same thing will happen with 7.

The ONLY reason XP support was extended was because Vista was continuously delayed and plagued with driver problems when it was released. That was the only reason. It had absolutely nothing to do with service packs or whatever.
 
Dogs said:
Faster is better. If they slow down, we'll have a repeat of XP....which by the way, we still haven't managed to eradicate from the face of the earth yet.

The more frequently they release new versions, the faster new features will be brought to market and the more regularly legacy can be put out with the trash.
Click to expand...

Unless you're an employee, investor, or otherwise have a financial stake in MSFT then I really don't understand why its so important that people constantly upgrade To the latest version even if the version they have works and the new version adds nothing compelling for them or doesn't improve upon what they have enough to justify the initial expense, and hidden expenses like retraining. I don't understand why XP needs to be "eradicated" or why "another XP" would be a problem - it was a great version of Windows that just worked.

In short, where's the fire?
 
Windows 8 reminds me of Vista...good OS under the hood but performance issues prevented people from accepting it...Windows 7 refined it and was a major success...Windows 9 will hopefully be the same...it's too late for Windows 8/8.1/8.2 etc...MS should prioritize Windows 9 over the Windows 8 Start Menu update...and get rid of the number naming system and go back to something more creative...Threshold sounds better then Windows 9
 
DPI said:
Unless you're an employee, investor, or otherwise have a financial stake in MSFT then I really don't understand why its so important that people constantly upgrade even when the version they have works. I don't understand why XP needs to be "eradicated" or why "another XP" would be a problem - it was a great version of Windows that just worked.

In short, where's the fire?
Click to expand...

What's wrong with progress and innovation, and a company trying to make a product to make a profit to pay its employees?

polonyc2 said:
Windows 8 reminds me of Vista...good OS under the hood but performance issues prevented people from accepting it...Windows 7 refined it and was a major success...Windows 9 will hopefully be the same...it's too late for Windows 8/8.1/8.2 etc...MS should prioritize Windows 9 over the Windows 8 Start Menu update
Click to expand...

They don't need to worry about prioritizing an OS for businesses until Windows 10. Right now, they can basically do whatever they want in the name of trying to gain consumer marketshare.
 
Tsumi said:
What's wrong with progress and innovation, and a company trying to make a product to make a profit to pay its employees?
Click to expand...

Strawman not relevant to what I stated.

Tsumi said:
:rolleyes:

Vista service packs didn't extend support for Vista. Vista support ends when they said it would end when it was first released. Same thing will happen with 7.

The ONLY reason XP support was extended was because Vista was continuously delayed and plagued with driver problems when it was released. That was the only reason. It had absolutely nothing to do with service packs or whatever.
Click to expand...

You've got a few knowledge gaps. This should get you squared away:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

exsKGPV.jpg
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Its the same Windows Sustained Engineering division thats done Service Packs in the past Windows versions. Shills will deny it, but the maneuver to versioned "updates" and away from service packs was Microsoft's strategy to be able to end support sooner in the belief it will force upgrades so people and companies can't stay on XP or 7 until THEY are ready to upgrade. Now Microsoft believes they will decide that foe them.

Proof: look how fast Windows 8.0 support is ending. Had they continued the service pack model they'd again be extending supported-until date with every service pack.

More of that "good for Microsoft, bad for consumers" M.O. in this Metro era of Windows suck.
Click to expand...

DPI said:
Strawman not relevant to what I stated.



You've got a few knowledge gaps. This should get you squared away:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle

exsKGPV.jpg
Click to expand...

You really contradicted yourself there. If you were running XP SP1, you lost support on 10/10/2006 unless you upgraded to SP2. It's no different than they are doing now. Windows 7 and 8 will be supported until 2020 and 2023 respectively as long as you keep the latest updates installed.


If anything, MS has become much more consistent in their release and support scheduling than they ever had been prior to Vista.
v0mD0Tzl.png
 
Last edited:
DPI said:
Unless you're an employee, investor, or otherwise have a financial stake in MSFT then I really don't understand why its so important that people constantly upgrade To the latest version even if the version they have works and the new version adds nothing compelling for them or doesn't improve upon what they have enough to justify the initial expense, and hidden expenses like retraining. I don't understand why XP needs to be "eradicated" or why "another XP" would be a problem - it was a great version of Windows that just worked.

In short, where's the fire?
Click to expand...

Show me precisely where I said people have to constantly upgrade?

Nobody needs to upgrade every time a new version comes out. More than once every decade is important, though. If you don't understand why, ask a software developer whether or not time and money are finite resources, bearing in mind that supporting something grossly legacy means a non-trivial amount of added work. There's only so much time/money to be spent developing applications, so if less time is spent ensuring compatibility with obsolete, legacy software, more time can be spent developing features that would have otherwise been cut. Shorter release cycles, if done right (so minimal breaking change from version to version, rather than potentially large differences from version to version like the XP-Vista gap) mean a faster time to market of new features for both Windows and software running on Windows.

Furthermore, if I'm not mistaken Microsoft developed Windows 8.1 and Windows 8.1 Update 1, a process which costs them money, and then shipped them to existing Windows 8 users for free. Windows 7 users were also offered an update route to Windows 8 (something which cost Microsoft a lot of money to develop) which in the US would have only cost them $15.

Anybody who has already had Windows 7 has so far been expected to pay a grand total of $15 to keep their operating system up to date with the latest releases, and anybody buying newer hardware would be paying the same price regardless of if their hardware shipped with Windows 7, or one of the newer versions of Windows. Thus, I can't really see how you could have sat down and actually thought this out and came to the conclusion that short release cycles are valuable to people with a financial stake in Microsoft.
 
bigdogchris said:
You're right, and I think Windows 9 will take it even further. I don't see going back to separate OSes, but the same OS that you use in different ways.
Click to expand...

There will probably be ultra cheap tablets, phones and other devices that have only the modern UI with no desktop but the modern UI will without doubt become capable of integrating into the desktop which has happened with 8.1 Update. I know that many think that "Apple got it right" with a separate desktop and tablet OS but that has more to do with Apple's business model, selling as much hardware as possible, versus any real technical or usability barrier.

When configured properly even without a Start Menu, I think the bulk of long time Windows users wouldn't have that much problem using 8.1 Update on a desktop. I've noticed my wife using 8.1 Update on the dual screen desktop. She did have a time with closing apps with the drag gesture but it didn't take her long to notice the new title bar buttons which she found on her own and she has no problem finding apps on the Start Screen. But she also uses a Dell Venue 8 Pro tablet and so not being a techie, it's sort of become natural to her to see a consist UI across the devices she uses.

Much of this Windows 8 UI debate is cultural. Much of what we argue about has little or nothing to with efficiency or ease, it's just what people have become accustomed to. That's not to say that familiarity isn't important, it obviously is and why so many people have complained about 8, but that familiarity can be added to modern UI elements, like the title bar for modern apps when used with a keyboard and mouse.
 
DPI said:
Proof: look how fast Windows 8.0 support is ending. Had they continued the service pack model they'd again be extending supported-until date with every service pack.
Click to expand...
Ignoring the fact that Microsoft isn't beholden to extend support with each Service Pack (they do, after all, run their own company), I actually consider shorter support cycles to be a good thing overall. Microsoft invests considerable resources into supporting older products that should be EOL'ed. Resources not spent supporting older products are resources that can be allocated toward improving current products.

Should Microsoft release major operating systems every year or two? Assuming they can hit their quality targets, yes. Should Microsoft EOL OSes more quickly? Again, yes. They should, at the least, halve support terms. Should consumers more rapidly adopt new OS versions? Again, the answer is yes.

Lingering operating systems are a source of pain for Microsoft, for developers and for consumers. Faster cadences and more rapid obsoletion are a net win for everybody.
 
ryan_975 said:
You really contradicted yourself there. If you were running XP SP1, you lost support on 10/10/2006 unless you upgraded to SP2. It's no different than they are doing now. Windows 7 and 8 will be supported until 2020 and 2023 respectively as long as you keep the latest updates installed.

If anything, MS has become much more consistent in their release and support scheduling than they ever had been prior to Vista.
Click to expand...

Not sure what any of that has to do with my statements, or how it was a contradiction. Perhaps you didn't follow the thread which started with me stating that Microsoft getting away from the service pack model allows them to end support sooner and try to force upgrades, because service packs extended supported-until dates of a base Windows version. Then someone replied "Vista service packs didn't extend support for Vista" which was obviously wrong and misinformed. That's all I was responding to.
 
Last edited:
wonderfield said:
Should consumers more rapidly adopt new OS versions? Again, the answer is yes.

Lingering operating systems are a source of pain for Microsoft, for developers and for consumers. Faster cadences and more rapid obsoletion are a net win for everybody.
Click to expand...

Why? Microsoft hasn't made a compelling case for that, particularly evident in their latest product offerings. I don't see how consumers "win" with rapid obsoletion, especially when a vast majority of the existing install base doesn't find anything significantly improved over what they already had in a newer version.

Its good for Microsoft, sure, but not necessarily good for consumers.
 
DPI said:
Not sure what any of that has to do with my statements, or how it was a contradiction. Perhaps you didn't follow the thread which started with me stating that Microsoft getting away from the service pack model allows them to end support sooner and try to force upgrades, because service packs extended supported-until dates in prior Windows. Then someone replied "Vista service packs didn't extend support for Vista". That's all I was responding to.
Click to expand...

You're simply arguing about naming. 8.1 one is the update for 8.0, just as 8.1 Update is the update for 8.1. It would be no different if 8.1 had been called 8.0 SP 1 and 8.1 Update 1 had been called 8.0 SP 2.
 
DPI said:
Why? Microsoft hasn't made a compelling case for that, particularly evident in their latest product offerings. I don't see how consumers "win" with rapid obsoletion, especially when a vast majority of the existing install base doesn't find anything significantly improved over what they already had in a newer version.

Its good for Microsoft, sure, but not necessarily good for consumers.
Click to expand...

So what you're saying is that the old version is good enough but because it's not the newest version it's not good enough?
 
DPI said:
I don't see how consumers "win" with rapid obsoletion, especially when a vast majority of the existing install base doesn't find anything significantly improved over what they already had in a newer version.
Click to expand...

Rapid is the wrong word, to be honest. It's rapid only compared to the pace at which XP's lifecycle was ended, which lies somewhere between phenomena such as continental drift and stalagmite formation.

We're not advocating that customers should need to purchase an update every 3 months or anything crazy like that. We're advocating that a new version of Windows should be on the market every 1-3 years, and that versions of Windows should not have 10 year life cycles.
 
DPI said:
Not sure what any of that has to do with my statements, or how it was a contradiction. Perhaps you didn't follow the thread which started with me stating that Microsoft getting away from the service pack model allows them to end support sooner and try to force upgrades, because service packs extended supported-until dates of a base Windows version. Then someone replied "Vista service packs didn't extend support for Vista" which was obviously wrong and misinformed. That's all I was responding to.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?

Vista was scheduled to be supported from 2007 to 2017. Release of service packs did nothing to change that. The only thing that happened was newer updates required older service packs to be installed in order to be updated. It's not like Microsoft was charging any money for a service pack update. It's not like Microsoft said "Oh, Vista was scheduled to be supported from 2006 to 2017, but in order to get the full 2017 support you need to buy these service packs."

You're just grasping at straws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top