They barely have Windows 7 going. I personally am still trying to get to grips with Windows 7 and finding it slightly awkward to Vista and EX which i am normally used to. How the hell can i get to grips with Windows 8? How much more can they do?
windows 8, wtf?
- Thread starter shadowstriker86
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree that windows has severe security issues, but--shutting up now. Man, sometimes you just want to hijack the thread and start a flame war, you know?achilleas.k said:
I like to think every software developer has things queued up in the pipeline. It means you're going to see new products and new features a couple of years down the road, and it also means that the programmers have steady work. I think if they weren't working on Win8, they'd have to lay off the programmers who made 7, and just keep a skeleton crew around to deal with issues. Then they'd rehire once they thought the market was ready for a new OS.
If you think about it, car companies do the same thing. You see everyone come out with concept cars every year, and those always have features a few years from the assembly line. I wouldn't be surprised to learn Toyota was sketching out a 2013 or 2014 lineup already, so I'm not surprised Microsoft is putting in hours on a new OS already.
Really, there's no money in looking back. Those security updates and hotfixes keep people from leaving to Linux, but they don't sell discs. I think we'd all be rocked out of our office chairs if MS had said they were going to spend a couple years streamlining Vista or improving on 7. Actually, isn't this how that L4D2 boycott started?
I dunno, seems pretty standard to me...
When the software company I work for branches and builds a major version the next trunk version is given the next logical numerical name on a project. Doesn't mean the branch (Windows 7) will not get any support work done in it.
When the software company I work for branches and builds a major version the next trunk version is given the next logical numerical name on a project. Doesn't mean the branch (Windows 7) will not get any support work done in it.
I never even thought of that, but I would probably consider legitimately buying them if they had names like that.
Yeah, but Apple have always designed their system updates as just that, an update. They also have much lower prices meaning people can actually afford to upgrade every 2-3 years, snow leopard was only around £20 for instance and i believe it was a £20 well spent. On the other hand, anyone who spent that stupid amount on vista wasted their money.Woem said:
I'm not surprised. It'll take them a good couple of years to come out with their new OS and why not. Mobile phone companies change phones like no tomorrow. Take Nokia for example. I have the 5800 when it was new which was only about 8 months ago and there is already a replacement for my phone and they have started to advertise the upgrade from that one to mobile phone companies.
It doesn't have to topple the mighty Microsoft empire. It just has to be better than Windows.Ushario said:Ubuntu seems pretty good, and with more users it will get more support. It will never topple windows thoughlodo_bear said:
MS Paint: My Hed Iz Pastede On YayDr Faust said:
All your Visual Basic are belong to us
Adblock: Invisible Ads
Pinball: The Balls Are Inert
Yo dawg I heard you like emulators so we put an emulator in your emulator so you can emulate while you emulate
THIS! IS! ENCARTA!
Of course there will be a windows 8 and a 9 and a 10. By then they may go back to fancy names for marketing like XP or Vista.
Computers and their software will always evolve like all technology does and ultimately must. Their will never be a perfect, only a subjective most functional at the moment.
People think the XBOX 360 is the bomb. How many times have they had to update hardware and firmware. Xbox live today is far from what it was at launch. Does anbody believe MS doesn't aready have the next gen console on the drawing board to replace the XBOX 360? As an example of how tech constantly evolves.
The new car you bought today is a function of what somebody created maybe four years ago. That car maker has a drafted replacement on the drawing board already for four years from now.
I am not suprised they are working on a windows at all. I expected it.
Computers and their software will always evolve like all technology does and ultimately must. Their will never be a perfect, only a subjective most functional at the moment.
People think the XBOX 360 is the bomb. How many times have they had to update hardware and firmware. Xbox live today is far from what it was at launch. Does anbody believe MS doesn't aready have the next gen console on the drawing board to replace the XBOX 360? As an example of how tech constantly evolves.
The new car you bought today is a function of what somebody created maybe four years ago. That car maker has a drafted replacement on the drawing board already for four years from now.
I am not suprised they are working on a windows at all. I expected it.
Ah, but can they afford the hardware upgrades? That's the big difference between MS and Apple isn't it? (no I'm not flaming, just throwing that into the mix as well). Apple knows that if you're buying OSX, you've already paid them for your lovely, overpriced hardware. MS on the other hand can only drink your blood through their OS releases.tk1989 said:
Also, (and this is mostly speculative, I would love for someone to correct me if I'm in any way mistaken) I'm guessing the OSX's Unix style architecture makes it easier to upgrade, replace modules and in general keep up to date with current trends without requiring a whole new release, similar to Linux distribution upgrades. Windows on the other hand is bit messed up. They rework lots of stuff that has been outdated for years (XP to Vista probably saw the biggest changes from one version of the OS to the next). Not that I'm undermining OSX upgrades, I'm just under the impression that those upgrades are more frequent and have less impact (am I right?) than, say going from Win ME to XP and then to Vista. Which is better or worse is another story. Everyone knows Windows 7 was a much smaller upgrade on Vista than any other pair of versions. That was mostly because everyone hated Vista so much, MS wanted to get passed the Vista era ASAP, which is why they had so many upgrade programs that sold Win7 cheaper.
What's the deal with new system every few years ? With current progression of technology and hardware it is quite good pace. The real problem as i see it is MS products price.
Correct!achilleas.k said:
You got it 100% correct. Whilst OS10.5 Leopard was a bit of an exception to the rule in that it brought a wealth of changes to the mac platform, its architecture remained fairly similar to previous incarnations and many aspects of it remained fairly unchanged from OS10.4. The latest incarnation, OS10.6 Snow Leopard was a small update to be totally honest; since installing it some of the base programs have received some welcoming upgrades, the system runs a lot faster and more efficiently, and some hard drive space was freed up but that was it really. The transition from XP to Vista was much much more significant, but considering the time people had to wait from the release of XP in 2001 to Vista in 2007 one would expect the new OS to be heavy with the upgrades. Similarly, in that space of 5-6 years or so i am sure that the Mac operating system had been overhauled to a similar extent as Windows had been, Apple just had done it in small increments. In the end the pricing was probably the same, if not more for Mac users, but the update experience was probably a lot more free flowing and effective for them too
I guess smaller, more frequent updates are easier for the user to get used to as well. Less changes -> easier transition. At least that's the feeling I get from my experience with Linux.tk1989 said:In the end the pricing was probably the same, if not more for Mac users, but the update experience was probably a lot more free flowing and effective for them too
I'd not be surprised if windows 8 is a code for a new server-dedicated operating system. There's been hints and nudges floating around the sys-admin circles for a while that MS was working on something specifically for servers, since technically there hasn't been one since windows NT4 (I don't count that shitty windows server 2003, just like gamers ignore windows ME and *nix people ignore RedHat).
Would be nice to see.
Would be nice to see.
Odin forbid you want to actually install anything, though. I threw Ubuntu on my laptop about a month ago, and it's great and all, but after spending hours lobbying around forums and search engines, I had yet to figure out how to update a driver.lodo_bear said:
And that's not to mention the Terminal Hell that is required to install anything else...
