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."
I wager 1,000,000 quatloos that it won't be released that month.
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.
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.
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.
You don't understand.
The ERP incumbents are guys like ORACLE.
They make SURE that the upgrade path for their ERP front end brings the whole stack. Ten, if not HUNDREDS of millions. So. Not the kind of IT big spend that will be driven, in a down economy, by an IT sub-department's need for Windows licensing.
Trust me, Oracle knows that Windows desktop and MS Office revenue are Microsoft's lifeblood.
By holding off IE-next or FF compatible rendering for Oracle Financials and PeopleSoft, they hit Microsoft where it hurts - core revenues. They also reinforce the perception of Microsoft as a difficult upgrade, and a general poor technology choice.
Larry likes this. There are other vendors, playing this game, too. Some are MS partners, so work th angle with more ambiguity.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
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
in a VM that only has access to the company Intranet
You wish.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Pricing the OS too high is the same mistake the Unices made. It cost them their head.
nosig today