Microsoft To Switch Focus To Windows 8 In July 2010

An anonymous reader noted a bit from Ars saying Microsoft will be switching internal focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2010. Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away. According to Microsoft's roadmaps, the release of Windows 8 is scheduled for 2012."

Comments

Release early, release often...

[Anonymous Coward]

...at least they got that clue from FOSS. Now if they could understand the added value of peer review. Many eyeballs wouldn't be too many for spotting bugs in Windows, now would they?

Price Appropriately

[areusche]

I feel like I have been spoiled by the solid 6 years of time XP was on the market. I literally remember using XP in 8th grade and running it well up to my sophomore year of college. That is a HUGE amount of time. Microsoft can make huge gains by keeping the price of upgrades cheap. Cheap meaning 30-50$. They will have a happy pirate free user if they did that.

Re:Price Appropriately

[bmajik]

posting my credentials would be irrelevant; in the best case it would be the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority", in the event that you assumed i was an authority on relevant matters. I mentioned Austrian economics only because I find it to be the most compellingly rational treatment of the subject at hand, and rather than try to re-create all of it here unattributed and with the possibility of the introduction of mistakes, I figured I'd [indirectly] point readers at the source literature.

But since you have an ideological "off switch", I'll try and explain to you more concretely the specifc point given here: there is no meaningful concept of absolute value:

Situation 1: i am the last surviving human, all alone, on an island
Before me are three boxes
1) an infinite supply of food and water
2) a single handgun with a single bullet
3) an infinite supply of money

Which is most valuable to me?

Situation 2: i am one of two surviving humans - the other is my wife, and we are all alone, on an island
Now which is most valuable to me?

Situation 3: I am me, living in the USA in 2009.
Now which is most valuable to me?

I'd claim that the answers are:
1) option #2 - so I could kill myself rather than have a lifetime of animalistic lonesome agony
2) option #1 - so that my wife and I could enjoy the remainder of our lives together with our food and water needs met
3) Trick question!
If i chose option #3, nobody would take my money once they realized there was an infinite supply of it, and so it would become worthless. This is infact what the US governemnt is finding out regarding their own US dollar! HA HA!.
If I chose option #1, people that had chosen option #2 would take my food or my life from me [people like the US government, for instance].
If I chose option #2, I can defend myself against exaclty one person, but doing so probably invites the wrath of many subsequent people, for which I will be unprepared. I suppose I could sell the gun and bullet though.

So in the 3rd case, there are no good choices, but option #2 isn't necessarily a bad choice.

So the point here is that the value of things isn't intrinsic, but is instead a function of who evaluates them and at what time. In the original post I told you my value assessment was that that I'd rather pay for a $120 operating system every year than for four dining-out-for-two experiences. If there was no internet and I had no particular interest in computers, I don't think I'd decide the same way, to be honest. But it is already the case that today I use my computer [and its operating system] every day and I eat at resturants fewer than 4 times per month. 20 years ago people used resturants more than they used the internet. Today I am not convinced that is the case for many segments of the population.

Re:Price Appropriately

[rantingkitten]

I think your attempt to categorize windows users as ignorant rubes who would choose differently if only they were as wise as you is pretty insulting to them,

That isn't what I said at all. I said that most people don't know or don't care enough about computers or operating systems to change, even if they're aware of the options, which most are not. But if you really want to put those words in my mouth, fine. I think most Windows users are fundamentally ignorant about computers and operating systems. That's because most people don't give a damn. It's why they use whatever came with the computer, including all the pre-installed OEM crapware. They don't know better because they're ignorant. They don't care because they're apathetic about computers beyond "I need this thing to do my job."

There's nothing necessarily wrong with that. I don't expect them to be computer experts and I understand most people are not enthusiastic enough about computers to really care what OS they have. But you seem to think the majority of people are really technically astute enough to know their options and weigh their choices. Most people aren't.

But for reasons I can't quite fathom, you seem to actually believe that:

• The general public is pretty knowledgable about computers
• They also care about their operating system
• Given the above, they carefully deliberate their choices and most conclude Windows is ideal for them, based on rational, technical, and economic factors.

Whereas I believe:

• The general public is pretty ignorant about computers
• They also don't give a damn what operating system they use, so they use Windows, since that's what was there
• There is a minority of people who want the latest and greatest of everything, or just think they need "an upgrade"
• Those people tend to buy retail Windows because they "already know Windows", and fear change, not because of any rational, technical, or economic factors.

Another way to look at it would be the fanboy factor. Linux and Mac zealots abound, and will not hesitate to tell you how awesome their choice is. Those are people who weighed options and made a concious, deliberate decision to use something other than Windows. Of all the millions and millions of people using Windows day in and day out, what percentage of them would you say are really excited about it?

Re:Windows 8..

[sopssa]

I'd think that constantly creating new versions of windows to create an income stream is getting
ridiculous now. What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7? I guess the trend may be
that the consumer/customer will update on every 2nd or 3rd windows version that comes out instead
of every year. The same goes for the browsers and office too. I think that it should be v7.1 and v7.2
etc to add additional functionalities for free vs. buying functionalities in increments. Also just
changing the GUI interface to look new improved shouldn't count either.

The only new version that should come out that would drastically be new that one can purchase
is the artificial intelligence version. That is, one that can improve itself!

Tell that to most of the linux distros, who have a written rule to release new major version every 6 months.

will they get it right next time?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have brrn using XP since 2003. Before that I was using 98SE
I didn't see the need to upgrade to Vista, and I heard it sucked anyway.
I guess I should skip & then (since that would mean buying new hardware as well) and wait for Win 8

Of course if everybody does this then both MS and the PC manufacturers have a cashflow problem.

Re:Windows 8..

[sopssa]

And on top of that, there IS monetization going on with the popular distros, since they are paid for by Google for internet searches and so on what their users generate.

Just because its free to you, don't think there's no any capitalization behind it.

Which version will Windows 8 be?

[TimSSG]

Which version will Windows 8 be?

Windows 7 is Windows version 6.1
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Tim S.

Re:Windows 8.. Linux distros actually updates...

[Anonymous Coward]

If your OS comes with close to all the applications you'll ever have on your computer then yes, very frequent updates do make sense.

Ha. You *want* Microsoft to bundle applications now? Boy, how soon these people change sides...

Windows if very different, installing Windows XP and running the update manager will NOT give you a system identical to Windows 7. Linux distros have package managers who actually upgrade your system, Windows update merely bugfixes it.

And? Is there a point under all that drivel? The goal of Windows is not the same as Linux. The typical users of Windows are different from typical users of Linux. Just as Linux is not Windows, it works the other way round too. Windows is a commercial product made for the explicit reason to make money, just like every other proprietary software.

Linux was made because ... hmm.. some dude got bored and wrote a toy OS. Since then because of all the volunteer dev work and influx of massive corporate cash, its changed to being a first class OS for servers, and other non-desktop uses. Although I guess users of Linux would jump to claim that its a good OS for desktops too, but the proof of that is market share. There is no point claiming to be a better product, if you've never had 500 million average users trying to run your OS user interface. Yeah there is proof of reliability through server usage, but not UI.