Slashdot Mirror
Windows 8 To Be Released In October 2012
dkd903 writes "Microsoft has been very secretive about the next version of its Windows operating system. After the success of Windows 7, everyone is very interested in the next iteration – Windows 8. A few leaks have been the only source of news about Windows 8 till now. However, a slip up from Microsoft Netherlands has put the release date in October 2012."
Woot!
2010 or 2012?
I wager 1,000,000 quatloos that it won't be released that month.
that can match past successes, such as Vista, Zune, or Kin.
Furthermore, Microsoft is of course the next version of Windows. But it will take about two years before “Windows 8 ‘on the market.
Yeah, this is hardly a concrete release date. It's probably one person's very rough estimate, he might not even be close to the project for all we know.
I want Windows 7.1, not Windows 8.
Windows Vista sucked horribly. Windows 7 fixed some suckage with Windows Vista. But just stop this runaway train and fix all the problems, not just a few with each new Windows version. There's a very good reason why 61% of Windows users still use XP. Give them a reason to want something new. Otherwise, you'll just create more division and confusion by creating another version of Windows that PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT.
Looks like the Mayans were right...
Perhaps this will be the trigger for our Dec 20, 2012 apocalypse. The Mayans foresaw this long ago, and built it into their Long Count Calendar. The release of Windows 8 is simply breaking the final seal that spells our doom.
How about that's when they first slip the delivery date?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
And we're back, with this hours episode of Trolldot. On todays show, trolls trolling trolls. Our first guest is Anonymous Coward. How are you doing today, Mr. Coward?
Will there be time between the October release and the end of the world Mayan-Calendar-Style, for Service Pack 1?
Everyone knows that's why the Mayan calendar stops there. Windows 8 comes out. The world ends. Apocalypse explained.
-- Begin thoughtfuly, end insensitively.
It has more impact that way.
It wasn't Vista.
I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
everyone is very interested in the next iteration
You keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.
you had me at #!
"Two years from now means October 2012. If this is correct and Windows 8 is supposed to be released In October 2010, we should see the first beta in early 2012"
From the link from the article..
fingers crossed.
Hiroshima 1945 Chernobyl 1986 Windows 95 and now Windows 2012??1! zomgomgomg
Correctly translates to:
I'm dutch. The translation was engrish, i thought this might help.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
It quotes a translation from a Dutch press release that says "about two years" after Windows 7. Since when did "about" suddenly become a definite statement of a release time frame??
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
will finally be the year of the Linux Desktop!
Smivs on the intertubes!
October you say? How apropos.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
MS might try to catch up to Debian, on release time!
"Liger"
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Maybe this will make me to shift from my XP
The next version of Windows will be based on revolutionary cloud-based technology with improved pricing models.**
** a nominal fee of 1$/hour for using Microsoft Windows Cloud 8 and other third-party applications
Do Not Want
this would be the perfect time.
Google, Apple and Oracle, their biggest competitors, are in a major shoot out.
What Microsoft needs to do is exploit the patent conflict by publicly ending its patent threats against FOSS. Completely, no exceptions.
While it does that, it should make Windows 8 the first release that breaks with the past by moving all legacy technologies into a sandbox a la what OS X originally did.
Finally, they should work on extending whatever POSIX compatibility they still have left until Windows 8 can reliably run code originally written on Linux and OS X. Why? Because it would bridge one of the last gaps between Windows 7 and OS X.
Apple is getting increasingly controversial. Microsoft could exploit by becoming the first vendor to make peace with everyone.
>>>to deploy Win 7 in full-scale roll-outs.
Why not? In just the brief time I've been using Win7, I've not felt the desire to punch the screen or run the chassis over with a bulldozer. (RIP Vista PC) I also experimented with installing Win7 on a 1/2 gig laptop and it ran quite well. Then I removed the RAM to bring it down to 256k, and it still ran decently (for single tasking). Microsoft did a good job of optimizing the OS for low memory systems.* I think Windows 7 is just as ready for widescale deployment as XP.
I'm wondering which version of NT we will get:
- Will it be NT 8? NT 7?
Or maybe another +0.1 iteration to become NT 6.2?
(ponder)
*
* Although I eventually erased 7 and installed Lightweight Ubuntu instead. Works on systems as low as 128K.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I'm still waiting on Cairo!!! Come on Bill, my Win 3.11 For Workgroups is getting a bit long in the tooth. But seriously, I doubt MS has ever shipped a major OS revision on time. So I won't be holding my breath for Win 8.
Windows 8 will be a turd just like Vista and Vista sp1 (also known as Windows 7). No matter how much you polish a turd, ITS STILL A TURD!
Perhaps they'll make Windows 8 more compatible with XP programs. Though I do find it upsetting that companies don't update their software on a regular basis to work with more secure platforms. It's one thing to not fix something that works, it's another to still be using IE6.
iburnaga.blogspot.com
I'd rather have Windows Love.
Here's the basic summary:
- Some website guy found an article from the Netherlands branch of Microsoft which conjectured Windows next version will be released in ABOUT two years.
I could have told you that.
Not news; guessing.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
I think the parent is talking about why MS is trying to get us to buy an upgrade as if it is a new release with all the problems of switching.
Win95 and Win95SE was its upgrade. Windows 98 and Windows 98SE was its upgrade. NOT ME. That was a new release and it showed because it totally changed things.
But should we pay the price of a new release. Even with upgrade discount it is high. Far higher then OSX's point upgrades and of course far more expensive then Ubuntu releases. About a gazillion times more.
And yes, this matters because there are people, younger slashdotters might want to skip over the next bit less they will be unable to sleep tonight from sheer terror, who do NOT upgrade their computer every quarter... some even keep their computer running for half a DECADE or MORE!!!
Why should these people spend a lot of money to upgrade Windows for essentially point fixes? And it is MS itself that is making the situation worse. IE6 goes with XP like urine goes with shit and they are to inept to get rid of it. Despite Google and Firefox and Apple and Opera being able to code fast and up-to-date browsers for XP, MS can't code IE9 to work on XP, because they are to lazy/inept (some MS fanboy will no doubt insist that IE9 depends on some fancy thing that no other browser needs to run fast, this is kinda like saying you need a 3D card to run a MS text adventure when text adventures have run on text only machines for decades).
But this means as long as the upgrade path is so expensive MS is always going to have hopelessly outdated software out there and all the hassle that comes with it.
And oddly enough, MS itself doesn't benefit either because more and more companies simply ain't upgrading. Or downgrading. That is hard revenue MS is missing out on. Worse, its own latest software like office won't run on them, so that is another revenue stream drying up.
MS has learned to squeeze water from stones, but when the stone has become squeezed out, nothing will give anymore.
What exactly is NEEDED in Windows 8.0 that I should buy a license for? Until MS can answer that, they won't be making many sales from people who aren't buying their PC in the shop or must have the latest shiny. That is a LOT of people, but MS has always been a company that burned through cash. They NEED more sales. Vista hurt them bad. Windows 7 was better but not back to old form. I see no reason 8 should change this.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Lets hope Chrome and html5 have progressed enough by 2012 that the UI issues in Linux are a non issue because most applications are now web apps by then.
Even though no information has been released yet, I would expect to see something in the next 2 years. That would put Windows 7 at 3 years old. If we don't see a release, we should be seeing some betas by then. They will not wait 5 years again like they did from XP to Vista and the Vista to Win 7 timeline was 3 years.
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
"So I'll be skipping this upgrade and sticking with my White Anal Dildo OS."
Screenshots?
Oh, erm. Perhaps not.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
wasnt it just new ? what is going on ?
Read radical news here
probs the best name for a windows os that will be released in 2012. double win. both windows, and 2012 date. they both have the traits for cataclysm.
Read radical news here
everyone will be playing Call of Duty: Caracas on their 3D monitors and complaining on slashdot about the lack of linux support for their Kinect microsoft gesture devices
because the only thing lamer and more tired than predicting microsoft's survival, is predicting microsoft's imminent demise
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Unfortunately Microsoft are big enough to churn out newer versions of the OS when they feel like it and the rest of the world pretty much just has to put up with it. We've seen this time and time again with products that are designed (poorly) for home use and then have enterprise functionality tagged on as an afterthought (poorly as well).
The big picture however is that they are ramping up release dates not to improve or add features to the product but in order to be able to come out with Windows 10 which they will name Windows X.
By that time they will have applied for a patent and/or copyright on putting the words "X" and "Windows" in the same sentence. They will then turn around and sue anyone using the X window system for trillions of moneys, the crafty dogs.
Cause and effect here?
How did About Two Years become "October 2012"?
did you get the memo that date is off?
but how did the Mayans know that windows 8 will launch nukes?
What exactly is NEEDED in Windows 8.0 that I should buy a license for? Until MS can answer that, they won't be making many sales from people who aren't buying their PC in the shop or must have the latest shiny. That is a LOT of people, but MS has always been a company that burned through cash. They NEED more sales. Vista hurt them bad. Windows 7 was better but not back to old form. I see no reason 8 should change this.
What exactly is needed in windows vista, or 7. Or Ubuntu anything greater than about 6? How about anything newer than OS 10.2? That's why people aren't upgrading. You only upgrade OS's when you buy a new computer. We're at the point where operating systems basically do what they're supposed to properly, and have been for a decade. That is to say, they generally don't crash unless you really torture them (or bad hardware), they generally run programs without getting non- recoverable stuck. Everything beyond that isn't really operating system, it's just fundamental computer user experience, but ultimately application level. What the new OS's do is have access to new hardware features, which could be supported in old versions but intentionally aren't, they add new computer experience programs (think windows media player, itunes etc.). Even how you organize your programs, whether it's a start menu list or a layered list or icons on screen or whatever is basically irrelevant, there might be very minor degrees of efficiency with different organizations but they all do basically the same thing.
So what are any of the OS makers going to do to get you to upgrade? They are trying to glue flashy stuff into an otherwise working system, and they're intentionally depreciating old versions. If you want a truly new computer use experience, stick in solid state drives. Otherwise it's all application driven. If I play a lot of games I want an OS that has the best drivers and the best support for OpenGl/DirectX possible, I still don't care if my desktop is 3D or 2D, or if my start button is on the bottom or top. And who ever said the OS was supposed to be upgraded except for that limited set of people who actually care about those sorts of minor details of the operating system anyway? You're suggesting MS is trying to sell boxed copies of Windows and Office, I'm sure they aren't opposed to selling boxed copies, but they are under no illusion that they could add new 'features' to warrant an upgrade over whatever comes with a computer, or whatever people already have. Unless you actually know what the new version adds for you specifically, you probably don't want to upgrade. And if you do know what it does for you, you already know why you're upgrading.
Now to be fair, one version of office/windows/OS/ubuntu/OO to the next is usually minor in new features. Even major revisions need time to iron out. But enough new versions along and you can start to see what has been fixed, and what has been improved with productivity studies advancing design. Which ultimately is to benefit of MS and the user. If you jump from a computer running windows XP to one running windows 8 (and I don't mean upgrade the OS I mean the next time you buy a computer), hopefully the new user experience will be that much better you'll be glad about the purchase.
15 or 20 years ago new OS's meant fairly dramatic changes in how the underlying OS worked. From 3.1 to 95, then from the 95/98 era up to XP you went from 'on top of DOS' to a full windowed system that crashed a lot, to a full windowed system that was basically stable. After that, there's not a lot of room to grow until someone comes out with a reason for a 3D UI or something else, and even then the underlying scheduling, etc. are all done sufficiently well that the OS shouldn't crash no matter what type of front end you stick on it. Unless they can figure out some fancy new multi core scheduling algorithm I don't see much to improve on. And since people don't generally run more than one or two intense applications at a ti
The only issue I have with windows is DDE.
I use keyboard shortcuts to launch everything I use on a daily basis. When certain apps are running or just over time DDE goes haywire. Events take forever to propogate leaving me to wait a very long time to launch an app or even waiting to type individual characters into the cmd shell CLI. The same goes for office integartion with various apps if the wrong app is running integration either breaks entirely or runs rediculously slow.
Some programs won't even start at all until the offending program holding up DDE is killed and then the whole queue of impatient key presses is launched at the same time.
This issue was never corrected in any previous versions of Windows. It is by far my single biggest gripe with the OS. If the problem is corrected I will upgrade.
...if Win8 won't have a build-in app store ;)
Microsoft's crack marketing team decided play off the year 2012 and code name the OS "Apocalypse".
From TFA:
"Two years from now means October 2012."
Gee, thanks.
Until then, it will be confined to its cage, fed only scraps of code, and be tortured by piling new bloated features on it's back until it's slow and harmless once again.
*Then* it will be released on an unsuspecting public.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
FUD - I'm still waiting for "Longhorn" and that fantastic file system promised in 1998.
Typical Microsoft marketing-scare-announcements. It means nothing.
Has anyone of any real size (5K users+) actually deployed Windows 7 yet? Seriously?
Do we have to wait until Windows 9 again for it to become usable?
I fed the dates into Excel an according to it, the next Windows version will be released on 1.23974537651289E+10
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
After the success of Windows 7, everyone is very interested in the next iteration
What do you mean everyone? You have several million mice in your pocket? My company is just rolling out W7 next year, and the labs are still on XP for the foreseeable future.
Businesses, hardware buyers A.K.A. Microsoft's installed customer base, only make software changes when absolutely FORCED to.
I was working at a financial services firm which still had O/S2 boxes handling their fax communications YEARS after IBM has stopped selling O/S2. Its called "If it ain't #$^ing broke, don't #$^ing fix it!" As long as the hardware/software could handle (send/receive/OCR faxes, it was going to stay inviolate. For all I know, the machines are still there, chugging away...
Windows buyers, mostly businesses, don't upgrade because upgrades hurt them in the pocket book. They LIKE not having to spend money. They LIKE having equipment going well past its amortization date. (Otherwise, NO building in New York City would be older than 30 years. Goodbye most of the skyline.)
Since home Windows boxes are always on the verge of chaotic collapse, and are bought by people whith the same motivation as the businesses that employ them, and seeing all of the problems IT has keeping Windows boxes running, its a rare person with enough guts to do an upgrade. (Oh, that driver no longer works. #$@&!!)
OS X buyers, mostly consumers (what my SysAdmin friend calls LUSERS,) upgrade and gladly pay for the pleasure. I have bought OS X 10.1 to 10.6 and I've mostly enjoyed the experience. (I finished my career in management after years in object-oriented financial software development.)
Linux users (see comment above,) are die hard dependency chasers. :-)
Different strokes for different folks.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
What? No obligatory jokes about 2012, Mayan calendars, end of the world and stuff? Come on Slashdot, you can do better!
Giving out an October 2012 date is moot. With the typical Microsoft delays it'll be deep into 2013 before it comes out.
I hear it will come with Duke Nukem Forever pre-installed!
There are only 2 real reasons to upgrade an OS:
- security fixes
- new device support
Of course non-technical people see it as
- new shiny (nothing wrong with that, as long as the other 2 are kept in mind)
I'm still waiting for the year that MS has a GUI that doesn't suck, aka tab Window Title Bars, ala Be OS, let alone being able to customize it.
"Microsoft could exploit by becoming the first vendor to make peace with everyone."
Balmer's idea of making peace with everyone is called "a smokin' crater."
The man throws chairs and runs around like a demented ape yelling "Developers" over and over.
The playbook at Microsoft reads like "von Brauchitsch guide to Poland" or Sun Tsu' "Art of War"
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
What exactly is needed in windows vista, or 7. Or Ubuntu anything greater than about 6? How about anything newer than OS 10.2? That's why people aren't upgrading. You only upgrade OS's when you buy a new computer.
What keeps me upgrading OS X is two things. Firstly new OS X iterations up until now have usually brought new features I wanted, often they were usability improvements that have increased my productivity but also things like a better Finder.app (or should I say a Finder.app that sucks less), increased stability, security featurs etc... Secondly there is the fact that OS X older versions tend not to be supported by new software which uses newer APIs. That situation is pretty much the same for Linux if you don't update the OS your new apps will break. With Linux of course the upgrades are free, OS X upgrades don't cost that much although they are more frequent and if you add it up it probably comest to about the same amount as upgrading to a new Windows rehash every 3-5 years.
will follow on 12/21/2012
Have gnu, will travel.
Because now that the PC penetration has plateaued for quite some time, the main way MS makes money from its OS business (aside from leveraging it to sell other software) is selling new OS versions rather than selling OSes to people who don't have an OS already.
Consequently, regular major upgrades with the associated costs.
Microsoft does benefit, because some are upgrading. The ones that aren't have no effect, not a negative effect, and so don't offset the ones that are. And the ones that are downgrading are paying for the new OS with downgrade rights to the old one, so they are indistinguishable, from a revenue perspective, to purchases of the new OS.
Under Ballmer, Microsoft has taken increasingly to working with the Internet as a standard than Bill Gates ever permitted. Like it or not, but the fact is that if Gates were still head honcho, Microsoft would not be bragging that IE9 will leave a smoking crater where its competition used to be---on standards compliance. Even if IE9 is imperfect there, the very fact that Microsoft is moving steadily in this direction is a massive corporate culture change over Gates where everything was about trapping developers and f#$%ing over everyone to stay on top.
It is probably unrealistic to expect Ballmer to do what I said. Mainly because he'd likely be ousted by the Board of Directors if he did what I said. They wouldn't "get" that Microsoft is a platform vendor first and foremost and that their platform is increasingly under attack mainly from corporation-backed commercial rivals.
...Microsoft Netherlands has put the release date in October 2012.
Then June 2014 it is!
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Twenty four months is barely enough time to check out the latest Apple innovations, clumsily integrate them into the OS and try to take credit. Where does all the time go?
I think the two greatest things you could possible add to Windows 8 would be:
1: Force 64 bit on everyone. Yes, I know it's a stepping stone, but we've got to do it someday - might as well make it ASAP.
2: metadata/database/semantic filesystem. Folders can be used too, but searching for files based on tags is so much simpler and faster. Think Google, but for the OS.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
>After the success of Windows 7, everyone is very interested in the next iteration – Windows 8.
>A few leaks have been the only source of news about Windows 8 till now
Wow, talk about creative marketing, as they see Apple doing this with great success, now they think that buy buying off a few bloggers and creating some advanced buzz, they might sell people on their crap. How about just coming out with a good working windows product for once. Windows 7 was supposed to be the way it was, nothing special about this...the fact that there are fewer bugs then vista doe snot impress me, this is the way it should be, and is usually with linux or mac.
As for being interested, they barely got 7 out the door, and people still do not want to upgrade, and they think there will be interest....I wonder how much this post is fetching money wise for starting a buzz where there isn't, I am not interested in 8, nor 7 for that matter, I am talking for myself, but know of many others that feel the same, after being so badly burned with vista.
Instead make sure that all 7 users are REALLY happy, I mean REALLY REALLY happy,
then worry about moving forward to the next version.
If you go from source to source to source to (and so on), it turns out the source is:
http://www.microsoft.com/netherlands/nieuws/nieuwsbericht.aspx?id=390
It mentions neither Windows 8 nor a release date in two years.
So either they removed it or it was never there.
Nothing in the Google Cache about it either.
More like some day in late December 2012
"Microsoft has been very secretive about the next version of its Windows operating system. After the success of Windows 7, everyone is very interested in the next iteration – Windows 8"
Except they're not. In fact, most people, if they've upgraded to 7 at all, are hoping to have another XP-esque reign of continuing stability improvements and tweaks simplifying simple operations that had been bloated with Vista.
Next iteration? For an OS? We're not talking about blockbuster entertainment here, we're talking infrastructure. Who the hell looks FORWARD to infrastructure changes unless something broken or amiss?
I just built an XP box for a friend whose computer burned down in an apartment fire! It runs fine on *old* hardware! I didn't kick him up to 7 because he doesn't need it... why should he be "excited" about Windows 8!? /hype-rage!
The Mayas have told us this would happen
Perhaps Nibiru would a suitable project code name
I bet it'll be the most secure, stable and innovative windows ever. If I'm lucky the Wow! will never stop.
Oh, and people will still fall for the same marketing shit rather than realising that Windows is the lowest common denominator of operating systems
- Just two words:
'Microsoft Bob'
The push to the internet was over ("I've got email, right?") but the web got started in 1995 while Gates was the hands-on leader of Microsoft.
Gates got Microsoft turned around from a "navel gazing" OS and software development/stealing/buying/killing company(1) into a web facing company "on a dime!"
He saw the threat of his OS and Office apps marginalization because he'd been doing the same kind of shit to his "competition" since 1986.
In comparison Balmer is the janitor who's in charge of turning out the lights after everyone's gone home after calling it a day.
Balmer was the schmuck who decided to break antitrust laws and murder Netscape while calling it "lively proof of the viability of the software industry" and forcing them into a war of attrition on the browser and the server.
Netscape couldn't out last Microsoft's deeper cash reserves.
IIS went through revision after revision until IIS was almost as usable as Apache.
Explorer went through revision after revision until Netscape was dead, starved for funds while the antitrust trial was happening.
Then Microsoft stopped development on the web browser front dead, where it has pretty much stayed since. (That's a long time, ever in pre-internet years.)
HTML 5.x is definitely NOT a Microsoft initiative.
Gates no longer cares about the game.
He's won and he wants to get off the field because the stink of the corpses of everybody who ever got in the way, from Digital Research to QuarterDesk to ...
Unless you a poor African who's dying of something ugly, he don't wanna know about you.
1) The transcripts from the antitrust trials are available on the Web.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
"this would be the perfect time. Google, Apple and Oracle, their biggest competitors, are in a major shoot out. What Microsoft needs to do is exploit the patent conflict by publicly ending its patent threats against FOSS. Completely, no exceptions. While it does that, it should make Windows 8 the first release that breaks with the past by moving all legacy technologies into a sandbox a la what OS X originally did. Finally, they should work on extending whatever POSIX compatibility they still have left until Windows 8 can reliably run code originally written on Linux and OS X. Why? Because it would bridge one of the last gaps between Windows 7 and OS X."
Why would they want to do that? Linux users aren't going to come to their camp. What do they gain by making peace with everybody? The goal for Microsoft, after all, is money. How does throwing away your patents and embracing the enemy make you money?
A few years ago (2006 or 2007) I built a new PC for myself and tried to run it under Win2k at first. Which I still consider a perfectly good system, feature-wise.
But I could not get the damn thing to run stable, despite quality components. I suspect the graphics card driver, because the manufacturer (MSI) did not provide any up to date Win2K drivers anymore. I had the choice between a pretty old Win2k driver or running the XP driver. Both would install, but the PC had a tendency to crash a few times per evening.
Eventually I gave up and installed XP. The stability problems immediately disappeared.
C - the footgun of programming languages
MS Track Record..
Win 3.1 (It apparently worked but it was basically a colourful clown suit for DOS)
By today's standards it was pathetic. I don't remember much of it, but what I remember was on the same quality level as Win95 later. Of course there was not much affordable competition back then (UNIX licenses were really expensive), so its success was deserved on some level.
Windows NT 3.1 Had a reputation as pretty solid, user interface was much like Win 3.1. That's all I can say.
Win95 (Its was Just Broken.. Big Improvement over Win3.1 but still It was just broken)
Yes. GUI was nicer than Win 3.1, but it was just as unreliable...
Windows NT 4.0 Windows 95 user interface but waaay more stable. Good system for work, but lacked Direct X and USB support so no gamer system.
Win98 (It took MS 3 Years to finish Win95.. This could have been windows 95)
True. Win 98 was not really stable like NT, but OK for home users.
WinME (a Travesty that it was ever released to the Public.. This should be a learning tool for everyone at MS.. This is the perfect Example of a Mistake)
From what I heard, true. I heard of people who replaced it with Win98 and reported better success. If a "downgrade" works better, you know the vendor screwed up ;-)
Windows 2000 Good all round system for work and gaming (descended from NT, and also identifies itself as NT 5.0 in some API call), but I guess Microsoft was not ready to separate it into a "Home" and a "Professional" version yet. Technology wise, this is what they should have offered to everyone instead of ME.
WinXP (Initially it was full of bugs and barely worked.. But once SP1 came out it was rock solid.. and Has been ever since.)
XP was essentially NT 5.1, Windows 2000 with fluff. Functionally, XP is a minor upgrade. Lack of support in all forms has made Windows 2000 somewhat useless by now, but otherwise it would still be a valid choice.
Vista (Again MS just screwed up... Buggy/Bloated/Slow/Crashed almost as much as it did anything else.. Again a product that should have never seen the light of day)
I did not try this one, but the reports are bad enough that I'm glad I missed the experience ;-)
Win7 (Just like Windows 98 was for windows 95.. This should have been what was released instead of Vista..)
From what I've seen so far, it is OK. I think Win7 is overall somewhat better than XP, but not a spectacular improvement. Less than what I expected for the seven years since XP was released.
Win8 (If you go by the typical MS Trend... It will suck.. It will be crashy and riddled with mistakes.. MS Seems to be Very consistent in screwing up every other release of their platform)
But the Biggest underlying thing...There is basically no reason to Update from XP.. MS Creates Reasons for you to upgrade... There is no ground breaking/revolutionary advancement.. There was a significant improvement between win95/98 and XP.. but since then nothing... Just Eyecandy that eats up more memory and slows your system down. Even that you can backport to WinXP if you know what your doing..
I don't know how good or bad Win8 will be, but I think XP will eventually be killed from lack of support. Security patches run out in 2014, after that it will be increasingly risky to put XP on a network that is not 100% locked down with a firewall. Driver support for new hardware may run out even sooner - that is what made me give up Windows 2000 a few years ago.
C - the footgun of programming languages
by then I'll be playing duke nukem forever on Win8
It had better be faster on the same hardware or I am not interested. Windows Vista and 7 are both slower on the same hardware as Windows XP. I don't call that an improvement. Yes, they have added many, many new features, 99% of which I don't want or care about and all of those features slow down the system. Figure out how to make those features load on demand or something so that my system performs better under the new OS than it does now.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Windows ME constantly gets a bad rap, but people forget that it served a very important purpose - it put the ISVs on notice that the Win9x line was DEAD. D.E.A.D Dead.
DOS based TSRs that a lot of software depended on - all were dying. Share.exe, remember that fiasco? I bet not.
In general, a usability nightmare, but it kicked a lot of developers into high gear.
you're not gay, you're sad and pathetic.
Native X windows instead like we could use with NT 3.51 instead of entire virtual desktop crap that is worse than VNC.
Far higher then OSX's point upgrades and of course far more expensive then Ubuntu releases. About a gazillion times more.
OS X upgrades typically cost $129. There have been a couple of exceptions to this but the pattern is clear. Windows upgrades typically cost slightly less than than (about $120).
Of course, the cost of a Windows upgrade is largely irrelevant, since the vast, vast bulk of Windows users get new versions of Windows either a) when they buy a new PC or b) when their corporate IT department puts it on their PC (which, due to how volume licensing works, costs "nothing").
Despite Google and Firefox and Apple and Opera being able to code fast and up-to-date browsers for XP, MS can't code IE9 to work on XP, because they are to lazy/inept (some MS fanboy will no doubt insist that IE9 depends on some fancy thing that no other browser needs to run fast, this is kinda like saying you need a 3D card to run a MS text adventure when text adventures have run on text only machines for decades).
Hilarious you offer Apple up as a counterexample when the minimum requirement for Safari on OS X is 10.5.8, released only a bit more than a year ago, and it's pretty much a given that the next major release of Safari, whenever it hits, will only be supported on Snow Leopard and newer.
There are only 2 real reasons to upgrade an OS:
You forgot: New features I want or benefit from.
I'm still waiting for the year that MS has a GUI that doesn't suck, aka tab Window Title Bars, ala Be OS, let alone being able to customize it.
Wow. Of all the things to pick on, that's pretty obscure. Just what productivity enhancement do you think tabbed title bars is going to deliver ?
Balmer was the schmuck who decided to break antitrust laws and murder Netscape while calling it "lively proof of the viability of the software industry" and forcing them into a war of attrition on the browser and the server.
"Forcing them" ? You do realise Netscape's basic business plan was to tie together their web server and browser products with proprietary extensions, right ? They very much fired the first shots in that battle.
Netscape couldn't out last Microsoft's deeper cash reserves.
Explorer went through revision after revision until Netscape was dead, starved for funds while the antitrust trial was happening.
Netscape couldn't improve their products fast enough. They were basically killed by the Navigator 4.x debacle, and IE clearly won on quality in that race.
Of the various problems Netscape had, lack of developers and funding for their browser was not one of them. Though reliance on a revenue stream from a software product that was clearly going to transition from "expensive and third party" to "free and integrated" as surely as file managers, GUIs and network stacks had before it, was stupid enough in and of itself to have killed the company.
Z_3, i.e. integers modulo 3. Compare with "2**32 == 0 (as an unsigned int)".
(As 3 is a prime, Z_3 is a field; Z_(2**32) isn't, as 2**32 isn't a prime, but there is a field with 2**32 elements which is unique up to isomorphism, as all finite fields are.)
Mac Box set costs 129.00 - That includes ILife, and IWork as well as OSX Snow Leopard.
What does Windows seven cost with a copy of Premiere, (don't even try to compare Moviemaker to IMovie) and Office Suite?
Where on earth did you get the idea that OSX leopard cost 129.00?
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
As it happens, the Win2K and WinXP drivers are interchangeable. You likely had problems because you were running an old driver, while you *could* have run the newer WinXP driver on Win2K without any trouble.
The sod who wrote the MSI support page was equally at fault, of course, for not knowing that either.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
Mac OSX 10.6 Snow leopard costs 29.00 at the Mac website
Yes, it's one of the exceptions. The other one being 10.1 (though as with 10.6, only if you were upgrading from the immediately previous version - 10.0).
Note also that 10.6 is only licensed as an upgrade from 10.5. Which means if you have 10.4, you technically need to buy both 10.5 *and* 10.6 to upgrade.
Mac Box set costs 129.00 - That includes ILife, and IWork as well as OSX Snow Leopard.
I'm not talking about the box sets. All other releases of OS X except 10.1 and 10.6 (assuming you're coming from 10.0 and 10.5 respectively) have had a price of $129.
What does Windows seven cost with a copy of Premiere, (don't even try to compare Moviemaker to IMovie) and Office Suite?
Your comparison is invalid.
Where on earth did you get the idea that OSX leopard cost 129.00?
Evidence.
Since Windows 7 is so popular and well selling, and given the fact that many XP users (at least half of all windows machines out there is my guess) are still working on upgrading to Win7, I would think that Win8 would fail if sold within the next two years. Given that XP is still in heavy use a solid seven years after it's release, then common sense dictates that to release windows 8 in 2012, or even 2014, wouldn't be too smart, unless the overall cost in development, marketing and the rest is small enough to warrant meager sales. Once people buy an expensive and well put together OS like Win7, they're not going to upgrade again unless a new computer makes them or MS makes them by no longer patching holes in Win7.
I've never paid more than 29.00, If prodded, I could dig up the receipts.
Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
You are missing the point entirely.
Then I removed the RAM to bring it down to 256k, and it still ran decently (for single tasking).
That's pretty weird, even Windows 2.0 did not run in 256k of RAM.
Every end has half a stick.
Correction: Microsoft is WORKING on the next version of Windows. But it would take about two years before “Windows 8" got on the market.
Is this a poor Google translation?
Also, ABOUT two years doesn't mean October 2012 exactly. What kind of journalism is this?
I am not devoid of humor.