Expect Windows 8 in October

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
According to the people at CES who analyze every word spoken by anyone representing Microsoft, the likely commercial release of Windows 8 is scheduled for October. The other jewel of information gleaned from presentations and Q&A’s is we can expect to see a ‘preview’ of Windows 8 in late February, as expected. Hopefully the February preview will be the long awaited public beta.

Public relations director of the Windows Business Group Janelle Poole said, "Windows releases come round about every three years and this year will be three years in October since we launched Windows 7"
Click to expand...
 
Commercial release in October, but RTM will probably be much sooner. It'll probably be RTM by summer.
 
I build my computers for gaming but when it comes to Windows, I am not a power user. I don't see myself needing to go beyond Win7 anytime soon. I'm figure Win8 will be around for a couple of years before I switch to it.
 
I've been playing around with the Windows 8 developer preview... I'm not seeing a need to upgrade... I'm happy with 7
 
Windows releases come round about every three years
Click to expand...

False statement unless Microsoft is very loose with the term "about".

1000px-Windows_Family_Tree.svg.png


Excluding server and media center releases, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows, three times has MAJOR Windows releases been close to three years apart, & two happened last century..

Windows 95 (Aug 24, 1995) - Windows 98 (June 25, 1998) = 1037 days or 2 years, 10 months, 2 days

Windows 4.0 (Aug 24, 1996) - Windows 2000 (Feb 17, 2000) = 1237 days or 3 years, 5 months, 25 days

Windows Vista (Jan 30, 2007) - Windows 7 (Oct 22, 2009) = 997 days or 2 years, 8 months, 23 days (or 2 years, 10 months, 23 days if you rather count the Vista Business release on Nov 30, 2006)

The rest of the releases have been usually a lot shorter than three years.. except for XP and Vista which was 1924 days or 5 years, 3 months, 6 days.

There were five major Windows releases within 1219 days (or 3 years, 4 months, 1 day).. Windows 98, 98SE, ME, 2000 and XP!!

If you do count media center & server editions into the mix, then the only years that haven't had any Windows version released was 1986, 1991, 1997 & 2010.
 
Insula Gilliganis said:
Clip
Click to expand...

Ever since Vista was released, I swore I heard Microsoft say that they never want to have another "XP" happen again (an OS that lasts for half+ a decade). Microsoft is now wanting to sure up release times and bring out new products every couple years.

Vista: Retail Release: January 30, 2007 (late 06 if including RTM)
7: Retail Release: October 22, 2009
8: Retail Release: Late 2012

This looks about right on par for a 2-3 year release schedule.
 
I figure 8's going to be their next version of Vista, so very few people will see a need to move until 9 comes out.

That's unless M$ decides to cut support for 7 along with XP in 2014, or something outlandish like that.
 
Satyrist said:
I figure 8's going to be their next version of Vista, so very few people will see a need to move until 9 comes out.

That's unless M$ decides to cut support for 7 along with XP in 2014, or something outlandish like that.
Click to expand...

What's up with the "7 is the next version of vista" and "8 is the next version of vista" bollocks? No one in the mac camp has ever said "Lion is the next version of Leopard" or anything.

Operating systems evolve slowly, and many things are changed typically for the better. Sure they're different, it's called getting used to it. I remember people bitching about XP's Luna theme during the transition from 2000. Then you get people bitching about UI changes in both 7 and 8. You people are impossible to please, grow up. MS isn't here to ruin it's business reputation for windows so for sure that tile crap won't be the only option available.

The only reason why Vista felt like something totally different was because it WAS! People seem to forget that half way through it's development process from XP that the whole thing was started from scratch due to crappy planning and the awful direction the OS was going. So we basically missed a release cycle and were able to dodge one hell of a bullet. The only thing that could've been handled better was the initial driver support and some speed issues.
 
Today date is 1-15-12, are we going to be able to download the beta win8 today?? and how long does the demo last?
 
Forgot Windows 2000 and NT both were good. I have notice good and bad with most versions. Seems Microsoft makes better version to support bad one version previous. Here is idea make them 100 percent stable. Only thing windows 8 has is better ARM processing support. Not sure for gaming platforms.
 
PornoSatan said:
a5djch.jpg
Click to expand...
it's interesting that of those releases the ones marked as "good" were relatively minor releases that took a previous release (though note that XP was based on 2K which is not in your list rather than ME) and improved on it while most the ones marked as "shit" were mostly the ones that made more radical changes (with the exception of ME which was a last ditch attempt to prolong the 9x line).

Though I think the author of that chart may be looking at XP with rose tinted glasses, I remember the reaction was anything but positive initially.
 
brettjrob said:
Funny that in my experience, during the span from 95 to Me, 98 SE was the shittiest of them all.
Click to expand...

Really? There is no way :eek: ME had to be worse than 98 SE. 98 SE was not without it faults but it was the best for gaming. I even held off going to Windows XP until service pack one.
 
NT and 2000 were meant as server operating systems, not really for home usage. Same with Server 2003/2008 not being on there.
 
Khaos Kid said:
I build my computers for gaming but when it comes to Windows, I am not a power user. I don't see myself needing to go beyond Win7 anytime soon. I'm figure Win8 will be around for a couple of years before I switch to it.
Click to expand...

Technically Windows 8 isn't for power users either. It's about as dumb downed as it gets for a OS.

I figure MS is going to release Windows Vita after Win8, which will essentially be a "fixed" version of Win8. I still hold some hope for Linux finally not sucking.
 
GushpinBob said:
I like how that list conveniently omits Windows NT and 2000.
Click to expand...

Agreed. NT4 and 2K were excellent workstation/personal use operating systems. I didn't see them very much outside of a professional environment due to their non-consumer nature.
 
wonderfield said:
I liked Windows 95...crazy?
Click to expand...

No, there was nothing wrong with 95 IMO. I never had an issue with it.

It's funny, with the possible exception of Win ME, I've NEVER had any issue with any of these OS's. Doesn't mean I liked them all, but they were all stable and did what they were supposed to. Of course there are always cases where a user had incompatible components or are on hold for new drivers, but I bet in most cases that the people bitching the loudest had problems created by their own doing.
 
I find windows 2000 was the best release ever. I refused to go to XP till I ran into a game I really wanted to play, which would not run on 2000. At the time XP was WAY too demanding for the hardware that was available. That's the problem with MS, they make their operating systems WAY too demanding and think everyone has top of the line hardware. And the people saying "It runs fine" are running it with no antivirus and arn't actually using their computer for much then opening a browser. XP does not "run fine" on a machine with 512MB of ram and a single core CPU, even though that's what it was commonly sold on. Vista does not "run fine" on a machine with 2GB of ram and a dual core processor, even though it was popular to see such machines labeled as "Designed for Vista".

2000 was lightweight, easy to use, and very snappy. XP, they started to add too much eye candy, and it just went downhill from there. Though a few years after XP was released and dual/quad core machines were standard, and 2GB+ of ram was standard, XP was not bad. Turn off all the eye candy, switch to Windows classic, and you got something close to windows 2000 and same performance.

I'm running XP SP2 now and I have zero problems. Next PC I build I will probably go 7 or 8. I have nothing against 7, in fact I kinda am eager to try it, but I just have no reason to upgrade the current machine. An OS is simply to run your programs, and XP is running my programs fine.
 
Grimham said:
No, there was nothing wrong with 95 IMO. I never had an issue with it.

It's funny, with the possible exception of Win ME, I've NEVER had any issue with any of these OS's. Doesn't mean I liked them all, but they were all stable and did what they were supposed to. Of course there are always cases where a user had incompatible components or are on hold for new drivers, but I bet in most cases that the people bitching the loudest had problems created by their own doing.
Click to expand...

Same, even vista was fine after a brief period of driver maturity being needed. Even then it was pretty Sid for me. 7 is not that different than vista honestly.
 
Sherk said:
NT and 2000 were meant as server operating systems, not really for home usage. Same with Server 2003/2008 not being on there.
Click to expand...

They weren't "server OSes" per se as there were both workstation and server editions of Windows NT/2000 (the NT line was meant to be a more flexible and more robust series of operating systems that would eventually replace the classic Windows and MS-DOS line after the whole MS/IBM collaboration on OS/2 fell apart). Though NT based versions of Windows weren't as popular with the average Joe market segment initially due to the lacking performance and compatibility of 16-bit software and the steep hardware requirements (Windows NT 3.1 Workstation required a minimum of 12 MB of RAM, an amount that would be unattainable for your average home user in the early to mid-90s).

Concerning that list, where's Windows 1.x? Windows 2.x? What about the OSR releases of Windows 95? Windows 98 Second Edition? And I don't recall the overall public perception of Windows 95 being "shit" compared to Windows 3.x. :rolleyes:
 
Windows 8 vs. Android 4.0 on tablets should be interesting. My Touchpad is getting tired of Gingerbread.
 
So how likely is it that history will prove Windows 7 to be the same situation as XP, with individuals and companies still using it after a decade with little reason or desire to upgrade? Everyone seems to love it so much...
 
Red Squirrel said:
I find windows 2000 was the best release ever. I refused to go to XP till I ran into a game I really wanted to play, which would not run on 2000. At the time XP was WAY too demanding for the hardware that was available. That's the problem with MS, they make their operating systems WAY too demanding and think everyone has top of the line hardware. And the people saying "It runs fine" are running it with no antivirus and arn't actually using their computer for much then opening a browser. XP does not "run fine" on a machine with 512MB of ram and a single core CPU, even though that's what it was commonly sold on. Vista does not "run fine" on a machine with 2GB of ram and a dual core processor, even though it was popular to see such machines labeled as "Designed for Vista".

2000 was lightweight, easy to use, and very snappy. XP, they started to add too much eye candy, and it just went downhill from there. Though a few years after XP was released and dual/quad core machines were standard, and 2GB+ of ram was standard, XP was not bad. Turn off all the eye candy, switch to Windows classic, and you got something close to windows 2000 and same performance.
Click to expand...

Agreed about xp, I remember when I upgraded my family's rig from windows me to windows xp it struggled. We were running a garbage compaq with a 700mhz amd duron w/ 64mb of ram. Should have gone with 2000 instead. However I begged my parents to go to the fry's in wilsonville oregon so I could buy some more ram and finally they caved. I bought a 512mb ram stick and windows xp actually ran decent and I could play some newer games on low. :p

However I think modern machines should have no problem running windows 7. Even single core machines with 2gb of ram can run windows vista sp2 or windows 7 sp1 just fine.
 
Silverghost said:
I like how people can hate an OS they haven't used yet.
Click to expand...

I've used it (well the developer version) and i'm not terribly fond of it. If they dropped metro's general annoyingness (everything is full screen...so would make using more than 1 program at the same time annoying with all the switching) and the general touch "i'm a giant phone" focused interface and a few odd screw ups (task manager only shows 1 chart for all cores) then it would be fine...

But then again, it wouldn't really be that different from 7...
 
Silverghost said:
I like how people can hate an OS they haven't used yet.
Click to expand...

Not sure about those who outright hate it, but I think some do have a point on whether people need to upgrade to W8 or not.

It doesn't mean its bad, in fact, even if W8 is an improvement, it doesn't necessarily mean we need to upgrade to it.

Windows 7 had fulfilled all the basic needs of the majority of PC users and so I don't see many users upgrading to Windows 8 anytime soon. Yes it does brings its own underlying improvements but these improvements doesn't mean anything to the average users. The only difference people would see is the Metro UI, and its debatable whether this UI is good or not.
 
Crap UI and focas on tablets when I already got a androiud tablet so I dont give a fuck if it is not a real desktop OS


Do not want will not buy will buy another copy of windows 7 on that day.
 
Even without the metro start menu, there are enough improvements in Windows 8 that I will likely upgrade. Real Hyper-V on Windows 8 Pro\Enterprise? Count me in.

I also think that barring some real show stoppers in the Beta, RTM will be July/August which will still be a tad late for back to school but plenty of time for Holiday 2012 season.
 
You mean October 2011 is when Windows 8 was released, right?

Mary Jo Fuad had the inside scoop that it was being released in 2011! What an idiot.
 
i did XP support for 4yrs and ya when XP launched (think Oct. 2001) it was not that well received. there were so many issues with upgrades and 3rd party software. then came the blaster virus, that was a nightmare.
 
meh... I guess i'm just crazy, cuz besides ME ... i've never had any problems running any windows, nor considered any of them "shit".

Sure some took time before they worked properly, but that wasn't always microsofts fault... companies not wanting to write new drivers, or updating software was also to blame. Hell even with windows 7 there are companies that still don't test game performance in 64-bit
 
LordCalin said:
meh... I guess i'm just crazy, cuz besides ME ... i've never had any problems running any windows, nor considered any of them "shit".

Sure some took time before they worked properly, but that wasn't always microsofts fault... companies not wanting to write new drivers, or updating software was also to blame. Hell even with windows 7 there are companies that still don't test game performance in 64-bit
Click to expand...

Same. Though I never even tried ME, haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top