Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Windows 8 Will Run On All Current PC Hardware

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the just-a-little-slower dept.

Stoobalou writes "Microsoft exec Tami Reller told attendees at the company's Worldwide Partner Conference 2011 taking place in Los Angeles yesterday that any PC capable of running Windows 7 today would be capable of running Windows 8 when it is released, towards the end of the year."

31 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Windows 8 by Dyinobal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year? It's not like windows seven is another vista, it's a solid OS and is remarkably stable, why do I want Windows 8?

    1. Re:Windows 8 by RazzleFrog · · Score: 2

      Well if you are on a two year lag of upgrades then why are you even asking? Just wait until 2013 and then see if you want to upgrade.

    2. Re:Windows 8 by Rinnon · · Score: 2

      If the add a UAC white list I'll buy it just to stop the annoying pop-ups.

      You know you can just turn off UAC, right? Control Panel > User Accounts > Change User Access Control settings.

    3. Re:Windows 8 by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Traditionally, MS has released a new retail OS every year to two years. the huge gap between XP and Vista was the oddity, not the rule.

      Windows 3.0 was 1990
      3.1 was 1992
      3.11 and NT 3.1 were both in 1993
      NT 3.5 was 1994
      95 was... 1995.
      NT 4.0 was 1996
      98 was 1998
      98se was 1999
      ME and 2000 were both in 2000
      XP was 2001 ...
      Vista was 2006
      Windows 7 was 2009

      seems to me that they're right on schedule for windows 8.

    4. Re:Windows 8 by toastar · · Score: 5, Funny

      I just upgraded from Window XP to WIndows 7 now you want to tell me you're planning windows 8 already with in the year? It's not like windows seven is another vista, it's a solid OS and is remarkably stable, why do I want Windows 8?

      What you've never heard of the every other windows curse? It''s like the star trek movie curse

      Win 2k was great
      Win Me Sucked balls
      Win Xp was pretty good
      Win Vista was smoking crack
      Win 7 is usable

      you might as well not even bother checking out 8

    5. Re:Windows 8 by DrgnDancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It'd be nice if they adopted Apple's more recent model for OS upgrades. They are relatively more frequent than they used to, less revolutionary than evolutionary, and extremely inexpensive for upgraders ($35 or so). There's nothing so OMG Awesome about Lion that I have to have it, but it's got a few nice features, and for less than the price of most app software I'll upgrade the Macbook (once I figure out if it's second gen or first gen Intel). Similarly I doubt Windows 8 is revolutionarily different from Windows 7, but if it's got a decent number of useful upgrades and is only going to cost me $30-50, I'll do it. If it's going to cost $150, forget it till they force the issue.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    6. Re:Windows 8 by Mia'cova · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You'll want it for an ARM-based tablet.

    7. Re:Windows 8 by TemporalBeing · · Score: 2

      Windows8 is windows 7 sp3.

      So supporting new processor architecture (ARM) and introducing completely new application model (HTML5/JS) and user interface (touch) is just a Service Pack to you? Do then ever any OS upgrades qualify as non-SP?

      WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there. The Metro interface that will be used by Win8 is hogwash and will probably be another WinME/Vista - both good products in many respects, but completely public failures for many reasons.

      --
      Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
    8. Re:Windows 8 by TWX · · Score: 5, Informative

      But back then there were two separate product lines:

      Windows 3.0 1990
      Windows 3.1/3.11 1992-1993
      Windows 95 1995
      Windows 98 1998
      Windows ME 2000
      Windows XP 2001
      Windows Vista 2006
      Windows 7 2009

      Windows NT 3.1 1992
      Windows NT 3.5 1994
      Windows NT 4.0 1996
      Windows 2000 2000
      Windows XP 2001
      Windows Vista 2006
      Windows 7 2009

      The other consideration is the relationship between the OSes in these channels. Windows 3.0, 3.1, and 3.11 are substantially similar, and Windows NT 3.1 and 3.5 are as well, sort of blending into 4.0. Windows 95, 98, and ME were also similar enough to be the same product family with incremental changes. Windows 2000 and XP are the same product family. Windows Vista and 7 are the same family.

      I'm probably going to skip 8. I've got too many XP-running computers to upgrade, and Microsoft's three-seat volume packs for home users bring the cost down to between $35 and $50 a PC for Win7 Home Premium (depending on the vendor and any deals at the time) makes it easy to justify buying two or three sets of three, and the benefits in the UI scaling, newer APIs for newer programs, and better multicore support seem worthwhile. It also was eight years from the release of XP to the release of 7, so there's probably been some actual real improvement there, even with the new bugs. 8, coming this quickly on the heels of 7, is probably going to only screw up the UI again, without having any real reason under the hood to compel me to change. I figure if I go to 7, I can probably wait to upgrade OSes until 2017 or so before it becomes a real issue.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:Windows 8 by X3J11 · · Score: 2

      WinNT has supported ARM for a long time. Just not publically. So nothing new there.

      [citation needed]

      I was under the impression that only Windows CE and its brethren supported ARM. Back in the day NT4 could run on x86, MIPS, PowerPC and DEC Alpha, but at the time ARM wasn't a feasible architecture for running Windows NT.

    10. Re:Windows 8 by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2

      FYI, winsxs isn't really as big as you think it is. A lot of those files are hardlinked from different folders, so they only take up space once, but are counted multiple times.

      http://www.davidlenihan.com/2008/11/winsxs_disk_space_usage_its_no.html

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  2. Re:Why hello there! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think more likely it's Vista SP5. Between Microsoft and Firefox, version numbers have been rendered meaningless.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  3. It's almost like by jdpars · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's almost like an operating system doesn't need to amp up its requirements with every new release. Once it gets to a certain point, really, there's no need for an increase in necessary resources. Sure, you can make it scale well and perform better, but it really shouldn't be hard to keep the minimum fairly low.

  4. Already? by gubers33 · · Score: 2

    They are not going to get many businesses jumping on board quickly, many companies are just upgrading from XP to Windows 7 while many are still running XP. Trying to rush a new release will just cause another Vista disaster.

    --
    Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
  5. Can or Will? by PPH · · Score: 2

    Windows 8 will run on my PC over my dead body!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  6. What about 32 Bit Systems? by rtobyr · · Score: 2

    Didn't Microsoft say that Windows Server 2008 (without "R2") was the last 32 bit OS that they'd make? It's likely that the vast majority of Windows 7 Home/Business edition users have a CPU that can handle 64 bits, but what about all those people running Windows 7 Starter on netbooks that can't do 64 bit? It seems to me that they need to come out and say whether there will be a 32 bit version of Windows 8 or not.

    1. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Didn't Microsoft say that Windows Server 2008 (without "R2") was the last 32 bit OS that they'd make?

      No, not really, given that 2008 was released before Win7, and Win7 has a 32-bit version.

      What was said is that 2008 is the last 32-bit server OS in the line.

    2. Re:What about 32 Bit Systems? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Yes, that's because 2008 R2 the next major release in server line after 2008 - not a service pack (despite the confusing name). 2008 had a 32-bit version, 2008 R2 does not.

      (2008 = "Vista Server", 2008 R2 = "Win7 Server")

  7. But... by SwedishChef · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You won't be able to find anything until you either take a certification course or spend hours clicking on buttons searching for the simple commands you used to be able to find instantly.

    Bwhahahaha!

    --
    No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
  8. How about make it run well on ... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 2

    How about make it run well on on all hardware capable of running XP SP3? You may not get the fancy display bells and whistles (Aero), but the core APIs and should still be the same. This would actually get a lot of people to upgrade. I don't expect fancy display features to work on old hardware, but it would be nice since I have a perfectly good windows machine that I am not going to upgrade since it does what I want for a windows box but would like the added security updates of a more modern OS.

    --
    Time to offend someone
  9. Re:Yeah, right! by the_fat_kid · · Score: 2

    "and the run like a diseased snail."
    congrats, you just renamed my desktop machine.

    --
    -- Sig under construction...
  10. Re:Why hello there! by tripleevenfall · · Score: 2

    All you need to know is that it's worth buying a new license for!

  11. Re:Windows 8 in my pants by tripleevenfall · · Score: 3, Funny

    Does that explain all the performance issues? :)

  12. Re:Xbox Games on Windows 8 by Kenja · · Score: 2

    This is a bad thing. It stops developers from having a reason to make a PC version of a game.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  13. Dell Won't like that by ISoldat53 · · Score: 2

    Dell has made a fortune selling hardware to keep up with the requirements of Windows.

  14. Re:But ... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

    you mean like the huge speed loss going from vista to windows 7?
    oh... wait...

  15. Re:That's easy... by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

    Netbooks run Windows 7. What on earth did you upgrade to?

    A: "i3" and "Pentium3" are part of the same model line, right?

  16. Re:Why hello there! by BoberFett · · Score: 2

    So it's Windows Phone Desktop Edition?

  17. Re:Why hello there! by beelsebob · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's actually the first time I've seen the new UI, and I had two responses...

    Initially I thought "wow, that's such a massive change they should drop the windows name, windows 8 doesn't do the change justice". Then when I saw that normal Windows apps dump you straight down to a windows 7 desktop I thought "wow, all they've done is a motorola... They've tacked an additional UI layer on top of the existing one and created an ugly cludge that doesn't work right in either scenario".

    If I had been MS I honestly would have taken the opportunity to start again with Windows – call it something new, make it their OS X. Some of the stuff in there is cool – like the fact that in the Windows 8 UI you can easily access "files" stored in another application's DB, but it doesn't seem to fit together right – what happens when you want to access that "file" in the windows 7 layer?

    All in all, it's very MS – it's a cool idea, but they've not gone the whole hog and rejigged everything, they've tried to maintain compatibility and in doing so created something that doesn't work right.

  18. Re:Why hello there! by Brad1138 · · Score: 2

    There's a completely new radical default interface coming...

    Unity?

    --
    If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
  19. Re:Why hello there! by beelsebob · · Score: 2

    Why would anyone buy a new version of Windows if the all the things that are new in it require them to dump old windows apps?