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!
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...
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.
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..
Correctly translates to:
I'm dutch. The translation was engrish, i thought this might help.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
will finally be the year of the Linux Desktop!
Smivs on the intertubes!
"Liger"
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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.
Try a phased roll-out to 20,000 desktops - with unknown compatibility in 4,000 departmental desktop applications.
You can see the regression issues that make a desktop roll-out of ANY new OS a suicidal risk for any IT organization of size. The answer they are grasping for? Consumerization of IT. Bring your own device, and we'll police connection/identity and document policy.
You see, people have already been bringing in their own Macs and Androids for a couple of years now - and "self servicing". This is how the IBM PC showed up next to the 5250 terminal, 25 years ago.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Mostly because of three things:
1) Many companies (and governments) have glacially slow approval processes for new OSes. My facility would like to move to Windows 7, but there's still no official DoD hardening and approval process for it. Since we're planning to jump over Vista straight to 7 we're on XP till we get official blessing.
2) A *staggering* number of companies still need IE6 for various internal web apps. A little hunting will turn up companies still selling solutions that require IE6 right now, as XP runs down the clock on even security support. Someone must be buying this crap, though I can't imagine who or why. I don't know which is worse, that Microsoft made IE6 so standards incompatible that this happened in the first place, or that they then immediately reversed course and left all these standard's non-compliant apps hanging. (Though at this point the companies still using them have no one to blame but themselves, XPs retirement schedule has been public for a good long time).
3) A lot of companies just don't feel the need. XP has the distinction of being probably the first Microsoft OS that really worked so well that there's not a lot of compelling reasons to upgrade it (besides its support clock running down). DirectX 10 is mostly unimportant to business, and the rest of Vista and 7's improvements can often be matched by just installing 3rd party software on XP (which many businesses did long before 7 was available). There's some really nice functions in the newest version of AD, but so far MS hasn't allowed XP-AD integration to break.
I suspect the only thing that will actually force companies to upgrade will be XP finally becoming completely unsupported. Even then I wouldn't be shocked to see a lot of companies jump to Vista instead of 7 on the theory that it's been around longer and is therefore better supported.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
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
Win 7 Stig here http://iase.disa.mil/stigs/content_pages/windows_os_security.html
"There are too many legacy dependencies, as well as testing for existing apps that has to happen before they can even being to roll out Windows 7.'
If those nimrods haven't seen the joys of 7's XP Mode, then they should be fired, kicked out of the building, and shot.
50,000 station deployment and NOT ONE SINGLE LEGACY ISSUE.
Because XP Mode uses an ACTUAL XP SERVICE PACK 3 IMAGE.
It's as if nobody pay attention to the features and only focuses on the Windows name.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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
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. #$@&!!)
OS X buyers, mostly consumers (what my SysAdmin friend calls LUSERS,) upgrade and gladly pay for the pleasure. I have bought OS X 10.1 to 10.6 and I've mostly enjoyed the experience. (I finished my career in management after years in object-oriented financial software development.)
Linux users (see comment above,) are die hard dependency chasers. :-)
Different strokes for different folks.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Pricing the OS too high is the same mistake the Unices made. It cost them their head.
nosig today
Under Ballmer, Microsoft has taken increasingly to working with the Internet as a standard than Bill Gates ever permitted. Like it or not, but the fact is that if Gates were still head honcho, Microsoft would not be bragging that IE9 will leave a smoking crater where its competition used to be---on standards compliance. Even if IE9 is imperfect there, the very fact that Microsoft is moving steadily in this direction is a massive corporate culture change over Gates where everything was about trapping developers and f#$%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.
++True
XP mode is a virtual machine inside your windows 7 installation. Once installed, the user sees the application no differently than any other app, but when it is launched, it runs seamlessly in the VM.
That would depend on the application. I know of one application I use to work on that was a server, ran in the system tray, provided a GUI interface, and was installed a Windows Service. Guess what? Starting with Windows Vista all services are no longer allowed to have a GUI interface. Good luck integrating that with Vista/7; and I very much doubt it would work well under XP mode too. Why? We had problems with the app under normal WinXP when terminal services was used - guess where the service was told its GUI interface should go? Guess where the user got sent? Yep, not the same console; could we hard-code it? No - the user's console was indeterminate.
Oh, and it would have been a major rewrite to move the application into a server+admin-gui architecture like it should have been.)
Yes, the majority of user applications will probably run fine; but not all of them. Any IT administrator worth their salt would know they need to test every application that their users need to perform their job before doing a roll-out, and yes - that goes beyond what would be part of the official company standard. The larger the organization, the more software that has to get tracked and verified, so at the very least users can be notified that a problem will exist whereby they may need to purchase new software - either newer versions or move to another product, if that is even possible.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
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.
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
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.
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.