Microsoft Will Update Its Windows OS Every Year

Ur_Mom said:
This is what I'm worried about. I am sure they will have some working ahead a version and then have clean up, but there will be a lot of things that will be 3-5 months of work then a feature freeze. That's not really a lot of time to get some major work done. Maybe some of the major features (new file system) would be a multiple year effort, but a lot of things will be sacrificed for time constraints.
Click to expand...

With good planning and moving to a more agile development process they may be able to pull this out. Also, being a huge company they can allocate many teams to work on different features.
 
Don't they already do this to some extent?

Year one: Release
Year two: Major Service Pack


A yearly "edition" of Microsoft products is not the way to go though. Windows 8, Windows 9, Windows 10. It'll be a cheap gimic and fragment the OS community. Developers will have to develop and test on so many different versions (can Microsoft guarantee they won't screw something up between them?), it'll become a headache. Support will dwindle I suspect (for Microsoft too), as releases will have bugs that need to be squashed among them.

There's a reason other large corporations (Adobe, etc) utilize bi-annual release schedules.
 
sviola said:
With good planning and moving to a more agile development process they may be able to pull this out. Also, being a huge company they can allocate many teams to work on different features.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and compared to a small Linux-based distro organization, Microsoft has the money, the developers and the resources to probably put out major and/or significant revisions each year.
 
I think this whole thing is a trial balloon.

They've fired the Windows guy, maybe even realized they screwed up bad with Windows 8 on the desktop, and are looking for some way to please the tribe.

This ain't it :)

I expect there to be some sort of press release stating something like "we never approved or discussed this. Please disregard" if the push-back is too bad.
 
sviola said:
With good planning and moving to a more agile development process they may be able to pull this out. Also, being a huge company they can allocate many teams to work on different features.
Click to expand...
Resource allocation seems to be the main thing Microsoft struggles with. I don't think Microsoft being more reliant on proper allocation of human resources is a good way forward.
 
Everything that is old is new again. Software as a service here we go again wooo! This move makes me glad I don't work tech support or run my own shop anymore. If it really is a service pack thing then fine, whatever. Otherwise, I see a rise in technet subs on the horizon. Windows doesn't really matter to be anymore on the personal computer front because I only use it to play games now that linux has a netflix client. Linux for work at home and at the office. W8.37274 or whatever for games... now if only the steam client for linux would mature a little...
 
Today, MS's strength is reliability. That's not a emerging market like tablets and "oooh new shiny" gadgets, but it's really big and MS is the top dog.

I'm all for them to go chase the new trend, after all if they don't innovate they'll disappear. But I think they're going too far: if they want to go balls out with upgrades, they better have a "stable" version ready for anyone who wants reliability over new features.

They can't pull a Google/Apple on that one - as of now, they can't compete with Google on cost (Android is free: we know why, but to OEMs it does not matter, one less cost). They can't compete with Apple on the shiny factor (let's face it: Microsoft is not cool. After years of bearded, flip-flop wearing hippies talking about how bad Microsoft is, it became true for most people). If they want to win in the Mobile space, they'll have to go slowly and steady, focusing on their strengths, not trying to mimic others pure and simple. That's why I think they should partner with RIM, for example (if it's not too late for that, is RIM still alive?). Mission-critical approved mobile devices, and works with all the crazy enterprise stuff you can think of, and lots of security - that would sell tons for companies, and go beyond any "fad". It's Microsoft strength since forever - after all, not many things we buy offer updates for 10+ years like they do - and if they keep trying to be Apple, they'll fail.
 
This doesn't surprise me. In fact it would shock me if they weren't considering a yearly model, partly for software leasing as mention. I mean, they've already adopted the "DLC" concept from games (Windows Media Center in Windows 8). What better way to rake in money at a reliable rate than through a subscription model where if you want the full features you have to buy them at $10 a pop?
 
blitzkommando said:
This doesn't surprise me. In fact it would shock me if they weren't considering a yearly model, partly for software leasing as mention. I mean, they've already adopted the "DLC" concept from games (Windows Media Center in Windows 8). What better way to rake in money at a reliable rate than through a subscription model where if you want the full features you have to buy them at $10 a pop?
Click to expand...

Except they will drive away customers, resulting in less money.

Looks like I'll be sticking with Windows 7 for a LONG time.
 
I think MS has lost focus what an OS is suppose to be. An OS is suppose to be easy and fast to use. That's it. if you want features you add them thru programs.

I'm hoping the steam on linux takes off it would be nice to see more and more games work on linux. Cause thats the only thing holding me to MS.

I think in 10 years MS is going to be a closed platform, and its smart that valve and others are moving away from MS.
 
Give me windows xp interface with windows 7-8 performance benefits. Businesses are happy, users are happy.
 
Conker said:
Give me windows xp interface with windows 7-8 performance benefits. Businesses are happy, users are happy.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to sell that more than once. Incremental upgrades annually at lower prices is a much easier sell
 
oh its going to happen
friend of mine is friends with the lead guy at MS on the Xbox who was the former head on Windows till 7
he linked this to him in a "ill just leave this here" and said nothing on it

now the rub is it looks like itll maybe 50 bucks if you have a copy of 7 or 8 and free from then on
but i see them charging later down the road
the other way this could work is if they keep it free for end users and charge for enterprise level support since thats where the bulk of the money is made any way
 
In general I do not like the idea nor any implementations I've seen of fast release cycles. Focus on getting a good product, testing it to death, THEN release it, then spend plenty of time supporting it and improving it, then put plenty of effort in to the next upgrade to make sure it's quality before releasing it. That does not fit well with short release cycles. Honestly, I think Ubuntu would be faaar better off if they went from a 6 month release cycle to something closer to 2 years.
 
Tudz said:
In general I do not like the idea nor any implementations I've seen of fast release cycles. Focus on getting a good product, testing it to death, THEN release it, then spend plenty of time supporting it and improving it, then put plenty of effort in to the next upgrade to make sure it's quality before releasing it. That does not fit well with short release cycles. Honestly, I think Ubuntu would be faaar better off if they went from a 6 month release cycle to something closer to 2 years.
Click to expand...

Well, Ubuntu's 6-month cycles in between the LTS versions are sort of a "not beta but still sort of a beta beta." They do have a 2 year LTS, or long term support, cycle that you're implying.

It's a sort of "these are pretty steady" every 6 months, and then every two years you get a "this one is rock solid."
 
Conker said:
Give me windows xp interface with windows 7-8 performance benefits. Businesses are happy, users are happy.
Click to expand...
Business wouldn't be happy they want XP with all it's quarks because their in house software they paid some guy to code way back when was designed for that, and they don't want to pay another guy to redo/update it.
 
Semantics said:
Business wouldn't be happy they want XP with all it's quarks because their in house software they paid some guy to code way back when was designed for that, and they don't want to pay another guy to redo/update it.
Click to expand...

this getting the business world off XP has been a chore
getting them off 7 if MS goes ahead with this will make getting them off XP looks like a walk in the park
 
pelo said:
Well, Ubuntu's 6-month cycles in between the LTS versions are sort of a "not beta but still sort of a beta beta." They do have a 2 year LTS, or long term support, cycle that you're implying.

It's a sort of "these are pretty steady" every 6 months, and then every two years you get a "this one is rock solid."
Click to expand...

Except reality is that even the LTS versions are often shit at launch :D
 
Basically, they're saying no more service packs. Undocumented err, "features" will be "upgraded" in the next OS release.
 
Elios said:
this getting the business world off XP has been a chore
getting them off 7 if MS goes ahead with this will make getting them off XP looks like a walk in the park
Click to expand...

step 1- release 2013 Win8 Pro 2.1 Start Edition

step 2- price it $15-20 to current Win8 owners and bundle in a goodwill gesture to early adopters that will cost them next to nothing like a $10 Winstore app credit, to spur enthusiasm for their app store. Charge Win7 and XP users $40, no BS jumping thru hoops, using discount codes or any retarded restrictions or marketing hype. Simply pay $40 and upgrade, just that simple.

step 3 - make sure servers can handle the load
 
kbrickley said:
Just wait ... maybe Windows 9 will add a start menu for only $20 :p
Click to expand...

What exactly is wrong with the new start menu? I've found it to be fantastic, a vast improvement over previous incarnations of it. All the shortcuts you want displayed in an orderly fashion across the entire screen... Its great. The search function from the vista start menu has only been improved and no functionality has been lost. Also with a 3rd party app to replace icons with tiles you can get it looking fantastic.

Its like having 2 desktops, one for all your important programs and shortcuts and another for all your crap. The taskbar remains the same, which is what i primarily used anyways.

What the took away, i hardly ever used but what they added is very functional.
 
Ticker305 said:
step 1- release 2013 Win8 Pro 2.1 Start Edition

step 2- price it $15-20 to current Win8 owners and bundle in a goodwill gesture to early adopters that will cost them next to nothing like a $10 Winstore app credit, to spur enthusiasm for their app store. Charge Win7 and XP users $40, no BS jumping thru hoops, using discount codes or any retarded restrictions or marketing hype. Simply pay $40 and upgrade, just that simple.

step 3 - make sure servers can handle the load
Click to expand...

that will work for end users but not then business world
again getting them off 7 will be harder then XP

imo 7 will be more entrenched then XP ever was
 
bbenz33 said:
Yes they have been doing this with 2-3 different OS's to support. Now we could be talking 10 different OS's. Unless they do as suggested earlier by making core sections extremely similar between releases this could and probably will turn into a major headache.
Click to expand...

Why do people think so black and white? What is the difference between 2 OS releases on any platform? The answer is the difference in time between releases. If you release every year there will simply be some years where there is a large change but most will share a ton of the back end. Just like anrdoid, I can install just about any app on any android version and it works. There is no need for a massive increase in support load.
 
They should keep to the 3yr model, this is just retarded! The article basically says it will have a full OS release every year ie......Win9/2013......Win10/2014.....Win11/2015. It doesn't make reference to each OS weekly/monthly patching which should be business as usual.

Like it or not we are on Vista 3.0 with windows 8 now (Win7 = 2.0). Its really the same kernel slimmed and tweaked each release, except now they are stripping more features and charging you to get them back (WMC, DVD).

Also for gamers, telling them Win7 won't support DX11.1 when It should be fully possible is just another force of the hand at Microsoft.

Yeah there usually a couple of good reasons to upgrade each release but seemed to be a bait and switch tactic IMHO.

I have been using Windows 8 since its release date and if it is any indication of reliability then I'll be passing a few more releases as they really seem to be slipping these days. I did the Win7>Win8 upgrade and WM ProPack wouldn't install. Had to do a clean install. 2 weeks later they release 310MB of patches and surprise my system would hang at bootup once installed. Had to do a Reset to fix that!! So here I'm on my 3rd attempt of running windows 8 waiting for it to fail again.
 
Funny they would do this. It's one of the few problems of Linux, is too many distros (well it's good in a way but bad in another) and now Windows wants to do the same? Will be a pain for software devs to have to support so many OSes. It will also force lot of them to say "screw it" and use "container" programming languages like Java, thus, more buggy slow software.
 
I think one of the big motivations for windows is the problem where you have too many people attached to a specific OS, you never here people who deal with an OS that has a faster release cycle saying gosh gingerbread was the best and I am sticking with that, who sells a gingerbread phone still?

The actual difference between OS versions is probably going to be really not much and the support will be pretty solid. It might even make it easier for them because if any feature is not ready for an OS release there will be no more big long delays, they can just wait till the next year and include it.
 
Well, Win8 came out months ago and Asus still hasn't updated their AI Suite for Win8 on my board. I sure hope they can get their lazy ass OEMs to keep things working in a timely fashion.
 
niconx said:
Well, Win8 came out months ago and Asus still hasn't updated their AI Suite for Win8 on my board. I sure hope they can get their lazy ass OEMs to keep things working in a timely fashion.
Click to expand...

Lazy OEMs did in Vista too... *cough NVIDIA cough* What was it, 20% of Vista crashes were NVIDIA GPU drivers barfing?
 
I dunno if a yearly release is a good idea. It probably depends a lot on what will be included in each release, how well MS supports prior versions after release, pricing, licensing...ugh, there's a whole buncha ways this can go wrong for them, but they are trying to be more like Apple so I guess they have to start pretending to be like them somehow.
 
I still install xp on a lot of systems still for people at a shop i work at. A lot of older people want xp. They don't like 7 or 8 ;)
 
rudy said:
The actual difference between OS versions is probably going to be really not much and the support will be pretty solid. It might even make it easier for them because if any feature is not ready for an OS release there will be no more big long delays, they can just wait till the next year and include it.
Click to expand...

I would assume you have never been involved software support. EVERY new OS version requires extensive software testing to make sure no new bugs have been introduced. My compaany has to test each version of it's software with each new OS (and all the older ones still in use). A yearly release cycle would more than double the testing. I'd probably have to add another 15TB of disk space to handle all the new VM's they would have to create over the next 3 years.

The other reason many companies are still running old OS's like XP, is that to roll out a new OS, they need to test ALL thier applications, and either upgrade them or even re-write some of thier custom apps. This can take a long time, easily longer then a short 1 year release cycle.
 
QUOTE=rudy;1039384911]I think one of the big motivations for windows is the problem where you have too many people attached to a specific OS, you never here people who deal with an OS that has a faster release cycle saying gosh gingerbread was the best and I am sticking with that, who sells a gingerbread phone still?

The actual difference between OS versions is probably going to be really not much and the support will be pretty solid. It might even make it easier for them because if any feature is not ready for an OS release there will be no more big long delays, they can just wait till the next year and include it.[/QUOTE]

LOL. actually ive heard quite a few people say "The original motorola android was the best android phone motorola put out because it ran the plain stock android os with no BS carrier skin. AKA that motoblur crap.' When it was released it had good/great hardware for its time.
 
nutzo said:
I would assume you have never been involved software support. EVERY new OS version requires extensive software testing to make sure no new bugs have been introduced. My compaany has to test each version of it's software with each new OS (and all the older ones still in use). A yearly release cycle would more than double the testing. I'd probably have to add another 15TB of disk space to handle all the new VM's they would have to create over the next 3 years.

The other reason many companies are still running old OS's like XP, is that to roll out a new OS, they need to test ALL thier applications, and either upgrade them or even re-write some of thier custom apps. This can take a long time, easily longer then a short 1 year release cycle.
Click to expand...

bingo. Add the fact of cost of upgrading one pc vs multiple for a business, the time because somehow the install goes wrong and stops production for that machine, Legacy software that is critical and would cost a fortune to update or even create new software that did the same function because new os doesnt support it..

I worked at a WaMu Mortgage processing building. Had something like 1500 to 2500 people working there in 2 shifts. So they could shard some computers. Even then that was probably around 800 computers or more just at that location. They upgraded the software we ran, which would require to upgrade ram on systems and if the system was too old, upgrade the system. In order to do all this over in a weekend and not stop production, they had to outsource this to a company. This required something like 30 or so people. This company was able to cut some costs of "hiring" these people temporary by using college kids in the field. heh.
 
Sweet, Windows Service Packs will now cost money, except they'll call it a New Windows OS. The exact same BS that Apple does. Put out essentially, a service pack, call it an OS. Then charge you $100 for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top