Windows 8 Planned for 2012

Terry Olaes

Terry Olaes

I Used to be the [H] News Guy
2FA
Joined
Nov 27, 2006
Messages
4,646
Microsoft showed their “Release Cadence” roadmap at PDC09, which confirmed that the next major OS release is code named “Windows 8” and is scheduled for a 2012 release date. No other details were revealed but I guess those of you trying to extend XP’s usefulness past Windows 7 will have a long road ahead.

The schedule suggests Microsoft doesn't expect a radical delay in its OS releases and that it intends to resume a regular schedule for releases. Windows Vista's three-year delay from its original 2004 target stemmed from a decision to largely scrap existing work after security and modernization concerns prompted Microsoft to base Vista on Windows Server 2003's code.
Click to expand...
 
hopefully MS continue their great work from windows 7 and dont have another PR flop
 
seems like every other OS is good...so with that pattern, Windows 8 will suck
 
I heard about this a few weeks ago. I was surprised as I thought Win7 would be the next XP and have a 6-8 year lifespan, as it easily could from what's been experienced so far IMO. Hopefully they make the RCs available to public as they did with Win7. That was a great idea and it worked well.
 
if it's not before Dec 21st it won't matter anyways...






...sorry I had to.
 
WindowsXP here still going strong........wo0t.

And I was using windows2000 up until about 2 years ago.
 
Aren't you glad you just paid for 7, and it's already being planned for replacement?;)

I'm betting there won't be too many innovative changes. 2012 isn't that far away.

Oh, wait. The world's going to end in 2012 anyway.........don't spend the money, 7 will last you long enough!:D
 
I wonder if it will be worth upgrading? What else can you possibly do with an OS,... other then artificially tying the DirectX version to the OS version. Will it be forced upgrades from here on out? Microsoft doesn't want another XP situation where people use the same OS for 8 years. Apple isn't about to help out and make a buck selling OSX, nor is Google going to make a real OS anytime soon. I think it will be forced upgrades from here on out given all these factors.
 
niconx said:
I wonder if it will be worth upgrading? What else can you possibly do with an OS,... other then artificially tying the DirectX version to the OS version.
Click to expand...

Well, I remember hearing back that Windows 8 and every OS thereafter will be 64-bit only. So I suppose that will be the motivation for some people to upgrade, since every manufacturer is forced to make 64-bit support.
 
2012 feels too soon. A release for 2014 sure but only 2 years from now already? :/
 
With the exception of 2k/me-XP and XP-Vista the normal rate has been once every 2-3ish years. OTOH 2k/ME-Vista was 6 year; with XP being the early outlier that merged the two lines together.

92 Win3.1
95 win95
98 win98
00 winME
01 winXP
06 Vista
09 Win7

93 NT3.1
94 NT3.5
96 NT4
00 2k
01 XP
06 Vista
09 Win7

2012 is about when win8 should have been expected based on historical progressio; anyone expecting otherwise was fooling themselves.
 
Vathral said:
2012 feels too soon. A release for 2014 sure but only 2 years from now already? :/
Click to expand...

If it's released in late 2012, it could be closer to 3 years, though.

I think one of the reasons why everyone seems to like XP is because it remained Microsoft's primary OS for so long (for nearly 6 years). This gave application developers time to really learn how to best write applications for the OS, hardware companies perfected XP drivers and users grew accustomed to the user interface and workings of the OS.

Perhaps most importantly, this allowed the hardware to catch up. It was designed to run well on mid-range hardware from 2001 - by 2006 even low-end systems were much more powerful than anything Microsoft could have imagined when XP was being developed.

With too frequent Windows releases, no Windows OS will ever reach that state of acceptance and maturity...
 
niconx said:
I wonder if it will be worth upgrading? What else can you possibly do with an OS,... other then artificially tying the DirectX version to the OS version. Will it be forced upgrades from here on out? Microsoft doesn't want another XP situation where people use the same OS for 8 years. Apple isn't about to help out and make a buck selling OSX, nor is Google going to make a real OS anytime soon. I think it will be forced upgrades from here on out given all these factors.
Click to expand...

You're thinking in 20th Century terms. There's a HELL of a lot you can do in the OS world still.

Natural language interfaces for one and it Apple ever releases its tablet I think you'll see this area heat up a lot. In fact Windows 7 has done quite a bit in this area. The pen and touch features in Windows 7 are fantastic but still need third party support.

The digital inking in 7 is the biggest leap in Tablet PC technology since it was introduced. It's not only good but its become practical.
 
Not really a 3 year cycle for W7, more like 2 years and 2 months.

Microsoft has gotten in trouble with rushing stuff before...Xbox360's, Vista, others I dont I probably forced myself to forget.

I don't much of change in the GUI within the next 2-3 years. W7 programming so far seems good as well, but that could change with time...hope not...
 
DanNeely said:
With the exception of 2k/me-XP and XP-Vista the normal rate has been once every 2-3ish years. OTOH 2k/ME-Vista was 6 year; with XP being the early outlier that merged the two lines together.

92 Win3.1
95 win95
98 win98
00 winME
01 winXP
06 Vista
09 Win7

93 NT3.1
94 NT3.5
96 NT4
00 2k
01 XP
06 Vista
09 Win7

2012 is about when win8 should have been expected based on historical progressio; anyone expecting otherwise was fooling themselves.
Click to expand...

it can be that xp was the first OS for those kids.
 
King Icewind said:
Not really a 3 year cycle for W7, more like 2 years and 2 months.

Microsoft has gotten in trouble with rushing stuff before...Xbox360's, Vista, others I dont I probably forced myself to forget.

I don't much of change in the GUI within the next 2-3 years. W7 programming so far seems good as well, but that could change with time...hope not...
Click to expand...

You said It and how.
 
JokerCPoC said:
odd=good
even=bad

You might have something there, maybe, Although I think MS should hold off until 2015.
Click to expand...

Six years? That's WAY to long and the five year wait between XP and Vista was something that hurt Vista no doubt. Too much change from one version to the other. Faster and more incremental changes between releases is better for customers and developers overall.
 
King Icewind said:
Not really a 3 year cycle for W7, more like 2 years and 2 months.

Microsoft has gotten in trouble with rushing stuff before...Xbox360's, Vista, others I dont I probably forced myself to forget.

I don't much of change in the GUI within the next 2-3 years. W7 programming so far seems good as well, but that could change with time...hope not...
Click to expand...

So you are assuming they mean January 2012 I presume? It could just as easily be Oct/Nov 2012, or get pushed back to 2013.
 
Hmm. I hope they push for something more.... revolutionary or something with the next windows. I know that sounds weird but I'm just waiting for something really crazy. Whatever.
 
King Icewind said:
Not really a 3 year cycle for W7, more like 2 years and 2 months.

Microsoft has gotten in trouble with rushing stuff before...Xbox360's, Vista, others I dont I probably forced myself to forget.

I don't much of change in the GUI within the next 2-3 years. W7 programming so far seems good as well, but that could change with time...hope not...
Click to expand...

Windows Vista: Retail: January 30, 2007
Windows 7: Retail: October 22, 2009

That's more like 2 years and 9 months.

Windows 7 had the most widely deployed beta of an OS ever. I doubt anything would come up that would completely change the perception that Windows 7 is a solid release. Sure there'll be bugs like the SMB flaw but that's fairly minor stuff after nearly a year counting the beta.
 
kuhla said:
Hmm. I hope they push for something more.... revolutionary or something with the next windows. I know that sounds weird but I'm just waiting for something really crazy. Whatever.
Click to expand...

Who doesn't what something totally revolutionary but at the same time it also has to be nearly 100% backwards compatible. Kind of tough to do but before Windows departs this world there may be a surprise or two left.
 
polonyc2 said:
seems like every other OS is good...so with that pattern, Windows 8 will suck
Click to expand...

Not really. 95 was better than 3.1 and 98 was better than 95. Although I found ME ran about as well as 98, clearly others had a lot of problems.

2000 and XP were good (though XP was not a slam dunk winner during the first year or 2. It didn't suck, but like Vista there was driver issues and plenty of bugs that affected people. What's more, the hardware requirements were much higher than windows 98.

Remember how early on sites said don't upgrade to Vista if you're a gamer? They said that about XP (and 95) too.

Gaming aside -- the early video drivers for vista were appallingly bad (thanks AMD/Nvidia) -- I generally found that Vista was fine starting around the Summer of 2007 (which is when hotfixes were released for some of the worst bugs).

Unless 8 is using a new kernel, it won't be a big deal. The other big difference is that MS will never make the mistake of sticking with the same OS for 6 years.

As for sticking with XP, I wouldn't dream of it. The UI is showing its age and there are security issues that cannot be fixed (without a major rewrite, which will not happen).
 
Microsoft cant afford to wait more than 3 years to release the next OS

The last time they did it it turned to be a big fiasco; last thing they need is Apple and others attacking them saying they are unable to keep up with Apple's releases

I think it's a good thing overall. The pace of development is rather fast in today's world and being late to the party can be very harmful
 
heatlesssun said:
You're thinking in 20th Century terms. There's a HELL of a lot you can do in the OS world still.

Natural language interfaces for one and it Apple ever releases its tablet I think you'll see this area heat up a lot. In fact Windows 7 has done quite a bit in this area. The pen and touch features in Windows 7 are fantastic but still need third party support.

The digital inking in 7 is the biggest leap in Tablet PC technology since it was introduced. It's not only good but its become practical.
Click to expand...

I would like to see Win7 try to understand my handwriting. Not gonna happen, I have my own alphabet lol
 
heatlesssun said:
Who doesn't what something totally revolutionary but at the same time it also has to be nearly 100% backwards compatible. Kind of tough to do but before Windows departs this world there may be a surprise or two left.
Click to expand...

Yep and Apple still only plays games on TV, I'd rather stay with the Devil I know and not be Apple sauced.
 
heatlesssun said:
Windows Vista: Retail: January 30, 2007
Windows 7: Retail: October 22, 2009

That's more like 2 years and 9 months.

Windows 7 had the most widely deployed beta of an OS ever. I doubt anything would come up that would completely change the perception that Windows 7 is a solid release. Sure there'll be bugs like the SMB flaw but that's fairly minor stuff after nearly a year counting the beta.
Click to expand...

I generally agree, but I also recall Vista being well received right up until it was out in the wild.

Part of the problem was Nvidia/Amd video drivers, but a lot was due to the crappy machines that were Vista capable. Aside from gaming, I found that the Vista RC2 ran fine on an Athlon 64 3000 with a then 2 year old x800xl video card. It even worked with 512mb of ram (i'd just sold the 2gb of DDR and had to make due until I built a core2 system).

Then again, I seem to ahve very few problems with my machines, so long as I don't do a lot of testing.....when i installed the 7 beta on my vista machine, I trashed the vista system restore and some other stuff.....apparently that is a flaw in Vista (not sure if it persists in 7).....luckilly, I image my system every now and then (and data is on a separate partition), so aside from a few new app installs/updates, I'm good to go within an hour or 2
 
nilepez said:
I generally agree, but I also recall Vista being well received right up until it was out in the wild.

Part of the problem was Nvidia/Amd video drivers, but a lot was due to the crappy machines that were Vista capable. Aside from gaming, I found that the Vista RC2 ran fine on an Athlon 64 3000 with a then 2 year old x800xl video card. It even worked with 512mb of ram (i'd just sold the 2gb of DDR and had to make due until I built a core2 system).
Click to expand...

Yup. Vista didn't suck, but it involved some significant driver changes over XP. That plus piss-poor marketing and widespread online FUD (OMG did you hear Vista phones home to Haliburton!?!) really hurt Vista adoption even though its largely superior to XP. Its similar to how Windows 2000 never caught on with home users even though it was much better than 98/ME.
 
Windows 7 have just been release and now they are talking about Windows 8?:confused:

I feel like its not going to do Windows 7 marketing any good, but thats just me
 
2000 was never marketed to home users. It was a business OS marketed to business customers (like NT4) and wasn't available in an inexpensive consumer edition. There was also a non-trivial amount of hardware/software out there that only worked with the 9x kernel. This continued until after XP was out for a while, similar to the status of x64 when vista first came out. 2k/xp64 were both only used at home by geeks and we're not a large enough group for lazy/cheap/inept companies to be willing to invest any dev time in supporting the weird things that run as an OS.
 
The big thing about XP was very high compatibility.
The only thing that didn't work in XP were low level drivers and programs/games that were designed for MS DOS, and programs designed for windows 3.1/95 that used low level hardware access to bypass the operating system completely. (very often, these were just 32 bit versions of DOS applications). Programs that were designed for windows95/98 and games usually worked fine on XP; most problems were due to video card drivers not supporting older features, or dropping them, and so forth. The other games and programs that were designed for 95/98 that didn't work correctly in XP were usually too tied to the OS itself.

Vista butchered everything, pretty much, with bugs and bad 64 bit drivers initially, bloatware and incompatibility, although it improved later. Windows 7 tried to correct most of the Vista problems but still is 64 bit...
 
The big thing about XP was very high compatibility.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I can't agree there. XP was the first NT-based OS for consumers, and it was a major change from previous 9x-based OS's. Win2000 was actually meant to be the one that merged 9x and NT lines, but because there were so many problems, MS had to rush WinME to give consumers something new instead of Win2000.

With WinXP they managed to fix many problems, but it was plagued by compatibility and performance issues in the beginning. I think people have forgotten just how many problems XP had in its early days. It has been a long time, after all. Vista wasn't nearly as big a change, though it did get a new driver and security model that caused some problems in the beginning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top