FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Windows 8 in 2012!





Meit


Microsoft last week at a conference for developers Professional Developers Conference (PDC) announced plans to appear the new version of Windows. According to these plans, Windows 8 will appear 2012th year.


Although Microsoft has yet to formally consider plans for Windows 8, the publication of its 2012th continued the tradition by Microsoft which the company seeks to publish a new version of the operating system for desktop computers every three years.

The last speculation about the new version, which is preparing for the 2012th year come from the web log "Microsoft Cuisine" (Microsoft Kitchen), where the text was published under the title "Microsoft's serving very tasty. Besides the display of plans taken from the PDC conference this diary and some other rich information on Windows 8th
However, an employee at Microsoft last month was probably accidental, revealed one major feature of Windows 8th Robert Morgan, employed at Microsoft, revealed details of plans from the company on development of 128-bit versions of Windows 8, Windows and even 9th Morgan did it in your profile in the social network LinkedIn, which is said to work as senior programmer in the Department of Research and Development. " On his profile, which is removed from the site of social networks for business networking, it was noted that Morgan "worked in a highly secure section for research, development and strategic planning of medium and long term projects.

Morgan discovered that his research and development projects included "project plan for the development of 128-bit compatibility with the core architecture of Windows 8 and Windows 9. He is also responsible for forming relationships with the largest partners - Intel, AMD, HP and IBM.

At the same time on the Internet have appeared reports that Microsoft wants to hire people who will help in shaping the Windows 8th The site Neowin.net posted to the Microsoft search software engineers. "We have just finished work on Windows 7 and continue on to the plans and preparations for Windows 8," is the ad for a job that is placed on the site CodenameWindows.
HalfBloodPrince
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/10/08/excited-about-128-bit-windows-8-dont-hold-your-breath/
jwellsy
Another good reason to switch to Linux. Continuing to give Bill Gates $100 - $150 every couple of years is ridiculous. Get off that treadmill!
HalfBloodPrince
jwellsy wrote:
Another good reason to switch to Linux. Continuing to give Bill Gates $100 - $150 every couple of years is ridiculous. Get off that treadmill!

At least Bill Gates has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. I don't want to turn this into an Apple/Steve Jobs bashing thread, but you know what I'm getting at... Wink
Hogwarts
jwellsy wrote:
Another good reason to switch to Linux. Continuing to give Bill Gates $100 - $150 every couple of years is ridiculous. Get off that treadmill!

Uh, why? Continuing to give your council $x - $y every year must also be ridiculous. Get off that treadmill!
deanhills
I don't mind paying for good software, but the fact that we have to have new versions all the time has to underline that there is a certain amount of obsolescence written into the product so that new versions can be created all the time. Why can't they get it right once and for all so that we won't need complete re-engineering of the same software over and over again?
HalfBloodPrince
deanhills wrote:
I don't mind paying for good software, but the fact that we have to have new versions all the time has to underline that there is a certain amount of obsolescence written into the product so that new versions can be created all the time. Why can't they get it right once and for all so that we won't need complete re-engineering of the same software over and over again?

$$$$$$$$
Hogwarts
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't mind paying for good software, but the fact that we have to have new versions all the time has to underline that there is a certain amount of obsolescence written into the product so that new versions can be created all the time. Why can't they get it right once and for all so that we won't need complete re-engineering of the same software over and over again?

$$$$$$$$

People want more, people want improvements. Consider MS DOS: It was what people wanted at that time. Then people decided to get fancy, and wanted a GUI -- and so came about Windows. Then people wanted functionality such as windows being able to overlap each other, and a better UI in general. Thus came about Windows 2.0.

This has been going on for ages. You can't expect them to write something that is 'right once and for all'; you don't know what functionality will be demanded in future. Windows 3.1 was only 16-bit -- there was no need to cater for 64-bit (as I imagine pretty much nodody was using it back then), and yet that's what virtually ever computer uses today. How could they have engineered it back then to work for that?


Obsolecence doesn't come about because something isn't done correctly. For this day and age, Windows 7 is perfect, as was windows 1.0 when released in 1985, as were horses, even, when used millenia ago. However, something better came along, and peoples expectations changed. Neither horses, nor Windows 1.0, are capable of doing what we expect today of cars or, in regards to this, Windows 7.0.

Basically, if you want something "good for all time", stop increasing your standards as a consumer.
deanhills
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I don't mind paying for good software, but the fact that we have to have new versions all the time has to underline that there is a certain amount of obsolescence written into the product so that new versions can be created all the time. Why can't they get it right once and for all so that we won't need complete re-engineering of the same software over and over again?

$$$$$$$$
Sorry, not sure what you mean, are you saying this has all to do with dollars, if yes, I do agree completely.

Hogwarts wrote:
Basically, if you want something "good for all time", stop increasing your standards as a consumer.
You must be joking, when has Microsoft ever been interested in my standards, and is there any place where I can tell them what I want, and would they listen? I was quite happy with Microsoft Office 2003 for example. The standards were perfect as they are. Windows XP is perfect for me as is. I was quite happy using Internet Explorer Version 6 or say any of the earlier versions, and then messages came up that I have to change, or my YouTube won't be working as well as it should.

I'm sorry although I do agree with your arguments about "advancement", as a consumer I have zero input in the changes. Microsoft 2007 was definitely such a turnaround and departure from MS 2003, whoever decided to change it, most definitely did not ask me the consumer what my standards are, or whether I wanted them to be changed. They just changed it and drastically this time round. Word2000 to me is still superior to Word2007. Mailmerge certainly works much better with Word2000 for starters. Do we really need all the bells and whistles of the new 2007 software? How much of the fancy features does any person really use?

Maybe it is more of a case of Microsoft identifying consumer standards for their own benefit and "selling" those standards to the consumer, in order to get them to purchase their new brand of software?
Hogwarts
deanhills wrote:
You must be joking

I'm really, really not. You must be joking, to be admitting to have been recently using IE6.

deanhills wrote:

Hogwarts wrote:
Basically, if you want something "good for all time", stop increasing your standards as a consumer.
You must be joking, when has Microsoft ever been interested in my standards, and is there any place where I can tell them what I want, and would they listen? I was quite happy with Microsoft Office 2003 for example. The standards were perfect as they are. Windows XP is perfect for me as is. I was quite happy using Internet Explorer Version 6 or say any of the earlier versions, and then messages came up that I have to change, or my YouTube won't be working as well as it should.
Not all users of Microsoft share the same viewpoint as you. For example, I, and I imagine a good percentage of the world, have a very, very different one.

You know why YouTube won't work properly in IE6 anymore? Because it's coming up to ten years old. Ten years ago, websites also did virtually nothing compared to what they do today. YouTube doesn't support IE6 anymore because Google's developers are tired of supporting IE6. It's a significant problem if people don't upgrade. Ask anybody on this forum how long's generally required to do IE6 support on an advanced, JavaScript-heavy site -- it can about half the overall time of making the site. Look at HTML5 and CSS3: neither of these exists in IE6, but Microsoft is adding them to the latest IE versions as quickly as possible.

Office 2003 is defunct as opposed to Office 2007, and 2010 (which you can actually download the beta for, free). If I want a graph copied from excel to word, it shouldn't be converted to an image. It should remain a graph: which is exactly how it is in Office 2007. If you don't like Office 2007, you don't have to use it. The same applies to Windows 7. The same applies to Windows 8. Versions of IE can't be considered money-oriented at all, because Microsoft doesn't make money from IE anyway! I'm not going to argue agains your "I hate Microsoft, because they update things and I'm overly conservative" opinion any further. It doesn't get us anywhere, and for what it's worth I honestly believe Windows 7 is a very good OS, and I believe Windows 8 will follow in that pattern
hersandal
What? is this for real? I just use Windows 7 and now they already have a plan for the user to switch to Windows 8? That's about 2 years maybe that will help the user in the future and not just help the proprietor hanging all his money on his pocket...
Hogwarts
hersandal wrote:
What? is this for real? I just use Windows 7 and now they already have a plan for the user to switch to Windows 8? That's about 2 years maybe that will help the user in the future and not just help the proprietor hanging all his money on his pocket...

They're not making you switch. You'll still be able to use Windows 7 in two years; it won't suddenly die Rolling Eyes

Windows 8 will be offered on new computers, yes, but it'll cost the same as Windows 7 anyway.

Seriously, where do you spend more money? You only need to upgrade if you want to.
missdixy
Windows 8 is already in the works? Dang! Haha It just never stops!!!
HalfBloodPrince
missdixy wrote:
Windows 8 is already in the works? Dang! Haha It just never stops!!!

It was supposedly on the drawing board months before Windows 7 RTM'd (in July 2009 when they made the final build), and in the works already between July and September when 7 was released. I'm sure they've already made considerable progress by now, and the leaked alphas should be coming by any time now.
coolclay
My GF has Windows 7, and the other day one of our friends was sitting beside her, and glanced over and thought she was using a Mac.

This for one is probably the largest reason why I won't be switching from XP to anything else for quite sometime. Even if I do get a new computer, there is just not enough reason for me to learn an different OS. I mean XP does every single thing I want it too, it doesn't take up massive amounts of resources nor space. I know pretty much everything about it. For me upgrading seems to be only because it's "pretty". I mean functionally what does Vista or 7 or 8 do for me that I can't do already.

I look back and I did say the same thing when I switched from Dos, to 3.1 to 95 to 98 to XP, so maybe I'll change my mind but for now I am still happy with XP.

Plus my Alma mater hasn't upgraded yet so I can still only get XP discs for $7 but once they switch over then I might be more tempted to upgrade when they have $7 windows 7 discs. It's pretty nice I just email some current student and ask them to send me a couple.
deanhills
Hogwarts wrote:
deanhills wrote:
You must be joking

I'm really, really not. You must be joking, to be admitting to have been recently using IE6.
I'm quite OK with admitting that. And to be truthful, I have not seen any benefits from IE8 at all. What are the benefits supposed to be? As right now I can't even get YouTube up any longer. I use ADSL 500kbs so in the past it was adequate to play Youtube, but after IE8 it is a miracle to get YouTube up. I do other things for a half an hour, and then it may, or may not be ready to play. At least with IE6 it took 5 to 10 minutes.

Hogwarts wrote:
Not all users of Microsoft share the same viewpoint as you. For example, I, and I imagine a good percentage of the world, have a very, very different one.
I have no problem with that. But I thought the discussion was that it is the consumer who is creating this need for changes. If you have a look at some of the other postings, your average consumer, myself included, is probably too uninformed about future progress to even have a good opinion about it, enough to ask for changes. The demand and opinions for changes have to be more from people like you who are working in the industry. Not the fairly IT illiterate ones like me.

Hogwarts wrote:
You know why YouTube won't work properly in IE6 anymore? Because it's coming up to ten years old. Ten years ago, websites also did virtually nothing compared to what they do today. YouTube doesn't support IE6 anymore because Google's developers are tired of supporting IE6. It's a significant problem if people don't upgrade. Ask anybody on this forum how long's generally required to do IE6 support on an advanced, JavaScript-heavy site -- it can about half the overall time of making the site. Look at HTML5 and CSS3: neither of these exists in IE6, but Microsoft is adding them to the latest IE versions as quickly as possible.
Thanks for the explanation, interesting to note. But as mentioned above, I now can't download YouTube at all, unless I have enough patience to wait 30 minutes. I have gone from a bad to an impossible situation. Solution is probably now to upgrade my ADSL, which obviously will make my provider very happy, as it will be double the cost. IE6 worked better for me.

Hogwarts wrote:
Office 2003 is defunct as opposed to Office 2007, and 2010 (which you can actually download the beta for, free).
I was unaware of the latter. What does beta mean, and can I download it from Microsoft Website?

Hogwarts wrote:
If I want a graph copied from excel to word, it shouldn't be converted to an image. It should remain a graph: which is exactly how it is in Office 2007. If you don't like Office 2007, you don't have to use it.
That is not entirely true. I work for a large organization. We genuinely had no choice in this. This large organization is still using Windows XP. If it decides to go for Windows 7, then obviously I will have to change to Windows 7 too. I always prefer to have my home computer the same as at work as I do a lot of work at home. Etc.

Hogwarts wrote:
It doesn't get us anywhere, and for what it's worth I honestly believe Windows 7 is a very good OS, and I believe Windows 8 will follow in that pattern
I've heard very good reports about Windows 7 as well. But Windows XP works well for me right now. When I was looking at Windows 7 my eyes almost crossed over with the variances in different versions of Windows 7. And the prices as well. Why does it have to be that expensive? And why can't they standardize it? Anyway, like coolclay, the day when they introduce Windows 7 at work, or maybe Windows 8 as we are now getting beyond Windows 7, then I probably will match the version at work with my home computer. No doubt when all the updates are happening, I will have to upgrade my computer too, including my ADSL etc etc. Sort of a running spiral. Probably the reason why they have not changed our operating software at work, as as soon as they do that, they need to replace the hardware as well.
nashelos
At least microsoft offers for students free versions of every new release of windows from MSDN.
At least in Poland, but I think that in other countries it is also available xD. So every student can download for free new version of windows as soon as it is released Smile
Fire Boar
deanhills wrote:
I'm quite OK with admitting that. And to be truthful, I have not seen any benefits from IE8 at all. What are the benefits supposed to be? As right now I can't even get YouTube up any longer. I use ADSL 500kbs so in the past it was adequate to play Youtube, but after IE8 it is a miracle to get YouTube up. I do other things for a half an hour, and then it may, or may not be ready to play. At least with IE6 it took 5 to 10 minutes.


That's got nothing to do with the web browser: Youtube videos are now mostly higher quality than before and hence larger in size. Also some servers are very slow due to problems with load balancing.

As for the topic... I can't believe people are actually believing this crap is genuine. The screenshot alone should be ringing alarm bells: "Windows 8 professional editions"? That's poor grammar in the context, and given the new Windows vision of "ultra shiny" I can hardly see a simple mistake like that getting past the graphics department.

Then we hit another problem. 128-bit processing... doesn't exist in the consumer market. No, seriously, look it up. 64-bit is just coming out of its infancy, and to give you an idea of the scope, it is capable of addressing enough data to cover all the printed material ever produced, and still have 40% of addresses left. So... until computing makes a massive leap, which is not happening for a very long time, 64-bit will remain the obvious choice.
Ankhanu
Hogwarts wrote:
For this day and age, Windows 7 is perfect...


That's quite the assertion Razz Can't say I agree with that... else I'd be much happier when I am forced to use Windows 7!

Ya know, I quite liked the model that Microsoft used with XP; they maintained and improved that OS for nine years and it was quite successful. Sure, it didn't handle 64-bit so well... but neither did MacOS 10.4. Apple was able to incorporate 64-bit processing quite nicely within their existing version without alienating their user base (yeah, even Mac zealots get attached to their old versions). Kinda seems like Microsoft is pushing version changes simply to cause change.
Yeah, there are some improvements in Office 2007 over 2003, but, they made a lot of unnecessary changes to the interface as well.

Like deanhills, I know I didn't ask for any of the major changes to the OS and software that Microsoft implemented with Vista, 7, IE and Office (among others, but these are easy examples). I mean, due to the changes they've made in a lot of their products, I've been slowly weeding them out of my use. First to go was IE, then MSN Messenger, except in a couple cases (work related), I've gotten rid of Office... Hell, they're weening me off of their OSes as we speak. I'd rather buy more expensive hardware to get a solid, functional OS like MacOS, or use "lesser" hardware and run a Linux distro for free just as well as Windows runs on a more powerful system.

Yeah, that sounds just perfect to me! College Humor parody ad
Fire Boar
Ankhanu wrote:
Yeah, that sounds just perfect to me! College Humor parody ad


You, sir, are my hero.
silverdown
I just got my win7 PC today lol, im not ready for 8 yet rofl.... oh boy.... i guess i got 2 years lol Laughing
snowboardalliance
Eh, personally I'll just get whatever flavor of Windows comes with the next PC I get. I'm not a huge fan of Windows but I use it as a necessary evil. Still wish Linux had more software support from certain companies (sure the OSS stuff is awesome, but not everything is open source).

So I'll get a computer with Windows 7 if I get one soon, or I'll end up with the next version. Either way, I would never buy the operating system itself.
LostOverThere
Quote:
At least Bill Gates has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

aka the Bill and Melinda "We Can Claim Tax on This" Foundation. Wink
Hogwarts
LostOverThere wrote:
Quote:
At least Bill Gates has the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

aka the Bill and Melinda "We Can Claim Tax on This" Foundation. Wink

Besides the fact that they lose money to this foundation? Regardless of "claiming tax on [it]"? Rolling Eyes
menino
Almost every alternate release of windows seems to be stable.
At the moment, windows 7 seems to be quite stable, vista wasnt, XP was, windows ME wasnt, Windows 98 was, windows 95 wasnt, .... you get the drift.

We can only wait and see, and obviously MS, will incorporate or force to use windows 8, to avail of features.

btw.. haha on the "we can claim tax" foundation.... nice one.
LostOverThere
Hogwarts wrote:
Besides the fact that they lose money to this foundation? Regardless of "claiming tax on [it]"? Rolling Eyes

Guess I forgot the "/s" at the end of it. Smile
menino
If windows 8 turns out to be bad, we could call it windows hate. Laughing
Ankhanu
menino wrote:
Almost every alternate release of windows seems to be stable.
At the moment, windows 7 seems to be quite stable, vista wasnt, XP was, windows ME wasnt, Windows 98 was, windows 95 wasnt, .... you get the drift.


98 wasn't terribly stable until 98SE and XP wasn't very stable until SP1, and, really, SP2. Once they got it right with those two OSes, however, they were super pieces of software. Even their hits took a few ranging shots to figure out how to hit the target.
7 is doin alright thus far... it IS a GREAT improvement over Vista, but it's not as stable as I want an OS to be. But, certainly, in the history of MS OSes, it's off to a really solid start.
misterXY
Ankhanu wrote:
menino wrote:
Almost every alternate release of windows seems to be stable.
At the moment, windows 7 seems to be quite stable, vista wasnt, XP was, windows ME wasnt, Windows 98 was, windows 95 wasnt, .... you get the drift.


98 wasn't terribly stable until 98SE and XP wasn't very stable until SP1, and, really, SP2. Once they got it right with those two OSes, however, they were super pieces of software. Even their hits took a few ranging shots to figure out how to hit the target.
7 is doin alright thus far... it IS a GREAT improvement over Vista, but it's not as stable as I want an OS to be. But, certainly, in the history of MS OSes, it's off to a really solid start.

l find some features of W7 very annoying, and once l had WV tweaked out, it was awesome but l wouldn't use it on a laptop.
metalfreek
New release of M$ is not that exciting compared to linux. Windows 7 is a good one after XP but I don't think M$ will come up with good OS soon.
surdy
jwellsy wrote:
Another good reason to switch to Linux. Continuing to give Bill Gates $100 - $150 every couple of years is ridiculous. Get off that treadmill!


Yes it is always good not to pay up MS for another crappy OS but it is hard to find good computers without Windows. Lenovo(thinkpad) and Dell had started selling Linux systems but did not continue for long or kept it to very few models.

There are smaller player who offer computers without OS ... but with bigger vendors coupons and deals i find myself paying less for a windows computer and hence unwillingly end up contributing some money to MS
ssweat
they really turn these operating systems out, I really enjoy windows 7, the first windows I have really appreciated in along time, I love how the drivers set themselves up pretty much effortlessly, but windows needs to really focus on an operating system that you dont have to reboot every time you install something, it gets really old seeing this blah blah requires the system to reboot messages.
Da Rossa
Well, the world is a little (and fortunately) more complex nowadays. @Dean:
Quote:
I'm quite OK with admitting that. And to be truthful, I have not seen any benefits from IE8 at all. What are the benefits supposed to be? As right now I can't even get YouTube up any longer. I use ADSL 500kbs so in the past it was adequate to play Youtube, but after IE8 it is a miracle to get YouTube up. I do other things for a half an hour, and then it may, or may not be ready to play. At least with IE6 it took 5 to 10 minutes.

The point is not about Internet Explorer, but that from five years back from now we had a better alternative called Firefox. This if we're talking about browsers.

And just a testimony: Office 2010 is good. I'm sure not upgrading from 2003 is a waste of time. People think they'll take time to get used but that's a mistake; 07 and 10 can use the same sequences of keyboard shortcuts as 03 and earlier. What frightens the old user is the ribbon.

Quote:
Then we hit another problem. 128-bit processing... doesn't exist in the consumer market. No, seriously, look it up. 64-bit is just coming out of its infancy, and to give you an idea of the scope, it is capable of addressing enough data to cover all the printed material ever produced, and still have 40% of addresses left. So... until computing makes a massive leap, which is not happening for a very long time, 64-bit will remain the obvious choice.


What about the exponential development of technology? There are processors from Intel and AMD that were unthinkable two years ago. What if they're already working on it?
weableandbob
Dear God. Will Bill Gates ever stop taking our money?
Da Rossa
He doesn't TAKE your money. You give your money to him if you want. You have no obligation.
Fire Boar
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
Then we hit another problem. 128-bit processing... doesn't exist in the consumer market. No, seriously, look it up. 64-bit is just coming out of its infancy, and to give you an idea of the scope, it is capable of addressing enough data to cover all the printed material ever produced, and still have 40% of addresses left. So... until computing makes a massive leap, which is not happening for a very long time, 64-bit will remain the obvious choice.


What about the exponential development of technology? There are processors from Intel and AMD that were unthinkable two years ago. What if they're already working on it?


What if...? Don't you think they'd rather make 64-bit a good, viable, stable option before leaping to the next thing? 64-bit when it came out was a disaster: it took too long for people to adopt it and had significant disadvantages when it came out (that are now being addressed). The only advantage to choosing 64-bit over 32-bit right now is the ability to address more stuff: more memory and more hard disk space. There are still significant disadvantages, like the inflated size of 64-bit executables.

What would the possible advantage be of an upgrade to 128-bit? Technology is still way, WAY off anything needing close to that bus width.

As for exponential growth, that may have been the case a few years ago, but no longer. Technology is now starting to become more advanced linearly. Why? Because with the current processor model, we have reached the maximum heat capacity possible: making processors any faster means cramming more power into the same space, increasing heat. To back that assertion up, most processors are around 2-3.5 GHz. The same was true 4 years ago.
Da Rossa
Quote:
What if...? Don't you think they'd rather make 64-bit a good, viable, stable option before leaping to the next thing? 64-bit when it came out was a disaster: it took too long for people to adopt it and had significant disadvantages when it came out (that are now being addressed).


Maybe this comparison is too newbie, but there are things that are released and then forgotten, but reminded as a necessary step to the higher level. One example? Windows Vista. I say it was just the preparing for Windows 7. But, as you can see, Vista was necessary.

This may not apply to processors or hardware in general. But never lose faith; as you maybe right about the now-linear growth of technology, this can become a curve again in a few months. We just don't know what Intel and AMD have planned. Maybe a new generation, or even the architechture will drop down to 4nm quickly?
Fire Boar
Da Rossa wrote:
Quote:
What if...? Don't you think they'd rather make 64-bit a good, viable, stable option before leaping to the next thing? 64-bit when it came out was a disaster: it took too long for people to adopt it and had significant disadvantages when it came out (that are now being addressed).


Maybe this comparison is too newbie, but there are things that are released and then forgotten, but reminded as a necessary step to the higher level. One example? Windows Vista. I say it was just the preparing for Windows 7. But, as you can see, Vista was necessary.

This may not apply to processors or hardware in general. But never lose faith; as you maybe right about the now-linear growth of technology, this can become a curve again in a few months. We just don't know what Intel and AMD have planned. Maybe a new generation, or even the architechture will drop down to 4nm quickly?


That's quite feasible, but simply too hot. For processors to get any faster, a completely new approach needs to be taken. Something like quantum computing, though perhaps not that big a leap.

Still, that doesn't change the fact that 128-bit technology effectively does not exist (the word "effectively" used there for the benefit of nitpickers who will find one example and call my argument moot), rendering the original article just one of those rumours that people spread on the internet for kicks.
mOrpheuS
Da Rossa wrote:
This may not apply to processors or hardware in general. But never lose faith; as you maybe right about the now-linear growth of technology, this can become a curve again in a few months. We just don't know what Intel and AMD have planned. Maybe a new generation, or even the architechture will drop down to 4nm quickly?

The main driver for progress is business.

How much sales do Intel/AMD get it they reach, say, 32nm process ?
Now how about if they reach 11nm ?

About the same !
So why not milk the current architecture dry before releasing the newer one in the market (they develop it years in advance) ?

There's just no incentive to hurry up about it.
They just need to try and stay ahead of the other company.
tamilparks
thanks for the informations
Iguleder
I don't really see any reason to use Windows 8 or any other Windows. I really don't.

What's next after Windows 7? Integrated social networking? Someone did that already Smile
Fire Boar
Iguleder wrote:
What's next after Windows 7? Integrated social networking? Someone did that already Smile


Eh, the Windows 7 desktop doesn't offer anything above and beyond KDE 4.4, whereas while the KDE 4 project is still relatively young in comparison, KDE 4.4 offers tons of features, customization, stuff that Windows can only dream of. Including, yes, integrated social networking via "plasmoids" if you want it. I get the feeling that if Microsoft were to do integrated social networking, it would end up being blown way out of proportion, a huge feature that suddenly alienates the users who don't use social networking.
misterXY
Fire Boar wrote:
Iguleder wrote:
What's next after Windows 7? Integrated social networking? Someone did that already Smile


Eh, the Windows 7 desktop doesn't offer anything above and beyond KDE 4.4, whereas while the KDE 4 project is still relatively young in comparison, KDE 4.4 offers tons of features, customization, stuff that Windows can only dream of. Including, yes, integrated social networking via "plasmoids" if you want it. I get the feeling that if Microsoft were to do integrated social networking, it would end up being blown way out of proportion, a huge feature that suddenly alienates the users who don't use social networking.

i love KDE but l find its over-complex in keeping things simple aswell, any XFCE/KDE options available?
Fire Boar
misterXY wrote:
i love KDE but l find its over-complex in keeping things simple aswell, any XFCE/KDE options available?


Well, KDE is the power-user's desktop, so it's understandable that it wouldn't be kept simple. If you want simple, go for Gnome, which caters more to the average joe, hiding most of the less frequently used options.

But this is getting a bit off-topic, that's my fault I guess. Windows 8. 2012. Microsoft would be insane to try it, but who knows, it could happen. Whatever happens though, 128-bit support simply isn't going to be a feature. It would be pointless to support mind-blowingly powerful hardware before it exists. How many people do you know with petabytes of RAM?
BlueDeath
Hope Windows 8 is better than other M$ Window$e$, in my opinion Linux is now the best.
Iguleder
That's right, KDE isn't a toy for people who want to use their computers and don't have enough will to learn. GNOME is the answer for that audience, but power users may appreciate the complexity and great level of detail in KDE.

I don't like Windows myself, it's really hard for me to find my way in Windows 7. It feels just stupid, it's so lagging behind GNOME and KDE, it just feels bad. It's all based on 20th century technologies. C'mon, Microsoft, you can't expect people who use free software to see that as competition. Windows is no match for my great Arch KDE desky.

That's what I love about free software, it's free for everyone and puts the user in the center.
welshsteve
I personally think that every Windows product should have something like a 5 year shelf life, with interim upgrades if necessary given out for free.

I just think Microsoft are trying to make as much money out of their operating systems before the move to cloud computing becomes a reality for most people. With less and less reliance on the operating system, cloud computing could spell the end for Microsoft's dominance of the desktop operating system.

Linux just needs to be made a little simpler for the non-tech savvy people out there now. It's a lot simpler than it was a few years ago, but some aspects of Linux still make it a no-go for some people.

And as for Apple, well, they are just over-priced aren't they! Wink
Fire Boar
Microsoft have certainly been doing a lot to make themselves less... viable. Huh. Why might they do that? Goodness knows. There really is only one reason to use Windows in this day and age: for games that don't run with Wine. And with the upcoming release of Wine 1.2, they're becoming less and less common.

Windows 7 offers nothing new besides a few usability changes, some of which are clearly for the better, some are debatable and some are outright confusing. It simply looks prettier than XP. Sure, Windows 7 was a big success, but nothing like as big as XP was. And its success can probably be attributed to the almighty catastrophe that Vista was. Windows 8? I don't think anyone cares, to be honest. If all they offer is "more shiny" and "more ways for publishers to make life more difficult for you", only a fool would pay money for that.

While the main players in Linux and Mac are consistently coming up with new, genuinely useful things, Windows is simply not keeping up. It's only the foothold that Microsoft already have that's keeping them alive at the moment. Fortunately for them, it's an extremely stable foothold that will take a long time to dislodge. Still... anyone who has not used Linux since last year will be amazed at the recent leaps and bounds.
Nick2008
I run on Vista, well not really running, seems like I'm crawling most of the time, but I will not be upgrading to a new operating system.

All of the computers I have use their original operation systems, I've never done OS upgrades nor do I intend to, I find it as an expensive, unnecessary novelty; if it ain't broke don't fix it.

I don't remember where, but I read a statistic that said that the average American bought a new computer every 5-8 years. So based on the way windows is released, every time you buy a new computer, it will probably have a newer operating system, so buying an operating system separately and installing it on an older system is not worth it when you will probably get a new computer with a new operating system in a few years.

Just my 2 cents.
Cliffer
just now find this news. windows runs so fast! but we need to update hardwares again?
bjornhoogeveen
Hmm... I love computer, but hadn't seen a screen yet. Moreover: hadn't seen it was a 128bit version! Must be very fast.. Can't wait! Windows 7 is already a great update from Vista. Vista was a bit wel... crappy. I skipped Vista and used XP before. Now I'm running at windows 7, and I love it. Coudn't wait till windows 8 Very Happy!
Fire Boar
bjornhoogeveen wrote:
Hmm... I love computer, but hadn't seen a screen yet. Moreover: hadn't seen it was a 128bit version! Must be very fast.. Can't wait! Windows 7 is already a great update from Vista. Vista was a bit wel... crappy. I skipped Vista and used XP before. Now I'm running at windows 7, and I love it. Coudn't wait till windows 8 Very Happy!


Ugh... as I've already said, Windows 8 is not going to be 128-bit compatible. It's a hoax. In any case, 64-bit is not much faster than 32-bit and requires larger executables.
Rajiev
hogwarts and dowmhill,
Pls stop fighting guys :p

The competition of OSs are in a good stage than never before. Although Linux destros were the choice of tech wizes and geeks, it never prooved easy enough for n00bs. you still needs to run commands once in a while in terminal which freaks out most of the users ;p

But Ubuntu and other GUI based linux destros cought up with Windows and i think winds can feel the heavy breaths of Ubuntu on its shoulders now Smile One theu got all the common commands bound in to buttons, windows will evantually loose the race. but he most difficult to develop is the general users mind, to change and get used to something new Sad
recked
Windows 8 already?
IMHO, by then everyone will be transferred over to Apple, MAC FTMFW!!

I was once a windows user, but now a MAC user, and loving it ever since
silverdown
whatever happen to free updates? oh yea the word upgrade was born....
misterXY
recked wrote:
Windows 8 already?
IMHO, by then everyone will be transferred over to Apple, MAC FTMFW!!

I was once a windows user, but now a MAC user, and loving it ever since

l smell a fanboy........ much has changed since Win98"
Windows 7 is good OS by MS, Windows 8 might have some new features but we don't even know the main differences yet, most of the RC l've seen just seem like people from devainart mocking up W7.
ProwerBot
.....Aaaaand apple is still working on OS 10 (X), which is still better than windows.


I honestly prefer Linux (which is what I'm using) and Mac over Windows, though I have to agree Mac and Linux are shit for gaming lol.
loyal
Well, IE6 is better than the previous ones because it added more features. That's ideally why you need a new version. But the problem is that windows 7 didn't add that many features for the average user; some improvements to the GUI, etc. but not that many new features. Windows 8 looks, at the moment, like it'll have hardly any new features. I think Microsoft should concentrate on improving the speed and performance of Windows. I would love Windows if it actually wasn't so slow. No idea why, but after a year of Windows 7 being installed, it's so incredibly slow. Which frustrates me. It tempts me to boot into Ubuntu... Performance has always been the main issue. It's a key reason why Vista was hated.


Peace.
weableandbob
Not quite sure that we need another version of Windows so soon after 7.... Microsoft really needs to just slow down and perfect the ones they have before moving on to a new one.
Flakky
jwellsy wrote:
Another good reason to switch to Linux. Continuing to give Bill Gates $100 - $150 every couple of years is ridiculous. Get off that treadmill!
They don't really force you to buy the next version, come on...
They only launch a new product. Unless that product is toxic, damaging the the environment, life, leads to catastrophies or kills a mitten in the process, it is no problem a product should be released.

And let's also make things such as 128-bit not happen because you don't like it. OSs and technology get better and better and you are complaining it's happening too fast.
Fire Boar
Flakky wrote:
And let's also make things such as 128-bit not happen because you don't like it. OSs and technology get better and better and you are complaining it's happening too fast.


It's not because someone doesn't like it, it's because it doesn't exist. It's a hoax.

And it's a well-known fact that Windows kills small furry animals! A bird broke its neck flying into one of mine, it was very sad and I blame Bill Gates entirely. Sad
Flakky
Fire Boar wrote:
Flakky wrote:
And let's also make things such as 128-bit not happen because you don't like it. OSs and technology get better and better and you are complaining it's happening too fast.


It's not because someone doesn't like it, it's because it doesn't exist. It's a hoax.

And it's a well-known fact that Windows kills small furry animals! A bird broke its neck flying into one of mine, it was very sad and I blame Bill Gates entirely. Sad

I thought the furry killing was never known to the general public D: You should keep it a secret Wink
lynxnoon
win7 has not even ran its full course and now win8?
PLSSSSSSSSSSSS Mad Mad
Rajiev
weableandbob wrote:
Not quite sure that we need another version of Windows so soon after 7.... Microsoft really needs to just slow down and perfect the ones they have before moving on to a new one.


so true. Win 7 seems to be loved by most of the users and its like the same days where win98 was there. I think the hatred towards win vista also has something to do with this :p

aw, MS should be determine to produce lesser buggy software when they do release Smile IMHO
mukesh
i think not more different between Windows 7 and Windows 8. Like Different between Xp and Windows Vista or Windows 7.
achowles
The screenshot looks fake anyway. True enough, Microsoft's OS tend not to have anything like the UI that they will in the final version until it's in beta. But bad grammar? I hope they'd avoid that.

Still, who cares? The only reason I needed to be worried about Windows 7 was that Microsoft botched Vista enough that I decided to skip it. I couldn't realistically be expected to jump from XP to Windows 8 as that would have meant making numerous sacrifices as XP support declines. As it stands, 7 is fantastic and there won't be any need to switch for some time to come.
Rajiev
achowles wrote:
The screenshot looks fake anyway. True enough, Microsoft's OS tend not to have anything like the UI that they will in the final version until it's in beta. But bad grammar? I hope they'd avoid that.

Still, who cares? The only reason I needed to be worried about Windows 7 was that Microsoft botched Vista enough that I decided to skip it. I couldn't realistically be expected to jump from XP to Windows 8 as that would have meant making numerous sacrifices as XP support declines. As it stands, 7 is fantastic and there won't be any need to switch for some time to come.


Yes, I don't think that Microsoft will be stupid enough to do the same mistake as they did on Vista, releasing the OS just for the sake of releasing it. I think They will take there time on their next release. they have done teir time taking on Vista, more than 5 years time. but I hoe the next "windows" will be worth enough to spend and take the trouble of migrating.
achowles
[quote="Rajiev"]
achowles wrote:
Yes, I don't think that Microsoft will be stupid enough to do the same mistake as they did on Vista, releasing the OS just for the sake of releasing it. I think They will take there time on their next release. they have done teir time taking on Vista, more than 5 years time. but I hoe the next "windows" will be worth enough to spend and take the trouble of migrating.


Even with Vista they overestimated people's willingness to upgrade, even after all that time. Although that was in part down to the price tag they stuck on it. Which simply wasn't realistic.

So yes, I think they need to realise that releasing a new version of Windows without some major improvement in functionality would only prove to be another mistake.
Rajiev
[quote="achowles"]
Rajiev wrote:
achowles wrote:
Yes, I don't think that Microsoft will be stupid enough to do the same mistake as they did on Vista, releasing the OS just for the sake of releasing it. I think They will take there time on their next release. they have done teir time taking on Vista, more than 5 years time. but I hoe the next "windows" will be worth enough to spend and take the trouble of migrating.


Even with Vista they overestimated people's willingness to upgrade, even after all that time. Although that was in part down to the price tag they stuck on it. Which simply wasn't realistic.

So yes, I think they need to realise that releasing a new version of Windows without some major improvement in functionality would only prove to be another mistake.


talking aof pricetags, I hated the way they treated the vista users on Windows 7 release. It was around 200 $ for the upgrade and the new version was 300 $. What the hell?

We, paid a large some for their crappy OS and provided constant feedback to improveit.
We made our lives hell using it.
We hated our new machines cos they didn't just deliver with the heavy load of Vista.
We were the lab rats of thier failed experiment.

yet they didnt proved a reasonable upgrade price :S That is so unfair IMHO Mad

They should have given the Windows 7 free for all the vista users
achowles
Rajiev wrote:
talking aof pricetags, I hated the way they treated the vista users on Windows 7 release. It was around 200 $ for the upgrade and the new version was 300 $. What the hell?


Upgrade versions aren't so great anyway. You're basically required to install the old OS (in this case Vista) then install the new one over the top.

So you'd have to do that every time you wanted a clean install. So the upgrade version is worth even less when you take that into account.

Rajiev wrote:
They should have given the Windows 7 free for all the vista users


To be fair, they did actually do that if you bought Vista (or received it with your computer) between certain dates around the time Windows 7 was launched.

But don't expect Microsoft to make any grand gestures when it comes to acknowledging their failures.
Rajiev
achowles wrote:


To be fair, they did actually do that if you bought Vista (or received it with your computer) between certain dates around the time Windows 7 was launched.

But don't expect Microsoft to make any grand gestures when it comes to acknowledging their failures.


Ya, They did. Within the last one year of the date of windows 7 release. But My point is that its not enough.

For a example, I bought My Acer aspire 6000 series notebook and Vista came tagged along with it. I didn't ask for it. I didn't want it. But I had no option. The hardware i was looking for came nicely bundled in this certain machine and i had to buy it Sad So I had paid for windows along with the hardware ( not as much as you buy it separately). Aw, when windows 7 was released, I wasn't he time period to receive the free upgrade. Damn... So should I stay with Vista forever and make my life ( and my notebook's "life" ) miserable till the end ???

And yes, perhaps Microsoft had made the upgrade price tag a bit higher just to state that they are not accepting the fact that Vista was a total foliar :p
achowles
Rajiev wrote:
So should I stay with Vista forever and make my life ( and my notebook's "life" ) miserable till the end ???


Vista and laptops... Such a miserable combination. The last thing a laptop needs is such a resource hogging OS.

I'd definitely recommend you get a new OS when you can afford to. Although if there really is going to be a new Windows in 2012 (which I doubt) then it might be worth waiting a while longer.

Alternatively, depending on your needs, you could give dual booting with Linux a try.
Rajiev
achowles wrote:
Rajiev wrote:
So should I stay with Vista forever and make my life ( and my notebook's "life" ) miserable till the end ???


Vista and laptops... Such a miserable combination. The last thing a laptop needs is such a resource hogging OS.

I'd definitely recommend you get a new OS when you can afford to. Although if there really is going to be a new Windows in 2012 (which I doubt) then it might be worth waiting a while longer.

Alternatively, depending on your needs, you could give dual booting with Linux a try.


I'm already running windows 7. But Its through Uni and I didnt pay for it. I wont cos I frankly dont think I should since I decerve a free copy after paying for Windows Vista.

And yes, I was on Dual boot with Linux for sometime. As a matter of fact, I was on Dual boot for longer than that. but it was with Win 98 and XP. But At the Moment I'm having
Windows Vista ( for recovery)
Windows 7 (primary)
Ubuntu Linux 10.04 ( Primary Linux destro)
Puppy Linux (just for plugging suspicious removable media )
achowles
Rajiev wrote:
I'm already running windows 7. But Its through Uni and I didnt pay for it. I wont cos I frankly dont think I should since I decerve a free copy after paying for Windows Vista.

And yes, I was on Dual boot with Linux for sometime. As a matter of fact, I was on Dual boot for longer than that. but it was with Win 98 and XP. But At the Moment I'm having
Windows Vista ( for recovery)
Windows 7 (primary)
Ubuntu Linux 10.04 ( Primary Linux destro)
Puppy Linux (just for plugging suspicious removable media )


Whoa, that's a lot! Personally I've settled on just using Windows 7 now. I was dual booting with XP as I didn't think Windows 7 was going to be up to much until the first service pack was released. But as it turned out I never used XP for anything. So I removed it.
soljarag
Uhhh... I think they need atleast 5-8 years between releases, I'm not paying $100+ every 3 years and go through the hassel
Abhishukla
thank you for your information.
what are the new features which will be available in windows 8??
any idea??
LostOverThere
Quote:
I'm already running windows 7. But Its through Uni and I didnt pay for it. I wont cos I frankly dont think I should since I decerve a free copy after paying for Windows Vista.

So what, we can just choose which software we're going to pay for now? Give me a break.
ProwerBot
I'm still using XP.

And for christmas I'm getting a vista laptop ):

Hopefully sooner than 2012 I will be able to build a new pc with windows 7.
alvarorojas4
This is stupid.
Windows 7 it's really really fine and have to stay a lot of years how XP...
This is the bussiness of microsoft :l
bjornhoogeveen
Looks very much similar to windows 7, but I can't wait to give it a try. I must say for now windows 7 is fine, so it could be windows 8 gives more driver errors ect. Unless everything works ok and it's even faster than win 7 or more security or whatever, I'll keep it.. I'll try it for sure Smile
socials
It really looks nice, but the wear thing is that microsoft has not talk about it. So we are expecting in 2012 the new OS
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Computers -> Operating Systems

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.