Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Microsoft Already Starting on Windows 8

Last response: in News comments
Share
April 17, 2009 11:11:41 PM

I think they are doing this just because they don't want people getting too comfortable with one OS, like with what happened to XP.

Not that i will complain. I tend to enjoy shiny new things
Score
12
April 17, 2009 11:30:00 PM

One small complaint: I'm pretty sure Windows 7 isn't the 7th edition of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista make 8 already, not counting other point releases or Server/mobile types), so the next one will not necessarily be Windows 8.
Score
-15
Related resources
April 17, 2009 11:31:29 PM

Nope...you start planning the next version as soon as the newest version hits the field. Depending on how long all the innovation takes to develop will more than likely determine how long windows 7 will stay around. Doesn't matter which OS you like, they all have to innovate and improve over what's currently available, or noone will want it. Time for some COD5! :) 
Score
5
April 17, 2009 11:33:43 PM

Mr_ManOne small complaint: I'm pretty sure Windows 7 isn't the 7th edition of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista make 8 already, not counting other point releases or Server/mobile types), so the next one will not necessarily be Windows 8.

Hah! Don't forget Windows 3.0, NT, etc!! Don't have a clue where they came up with their numbering scheme.
Score
-5
April 17, 2009 11:40:19 PM

man they should give it a rest for like 1 year between os's :D 
Score
0
April 17, 2009 11:46:56 PM

Mr_ManOne small complaint: I'm pretty sure Windows 7 isn't the 7th edition of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista make 8 already, not counting other point releases or Server/mobile types), so the next one will not necessarily be Windows 8.


And Intel's Core i7 isn't exactly the 7th generation either, but they got away with the naming ;) 

It should be...Core i12! :D  (486 = 4, Pentium = 5, Pentium 2 = 6, Pentium 3 = 7, Pentium 4 = 8, Pentium D = 9, Core = 10, Core 2 = 11, Core i7 = 12)
Score
-5
April 17, 2009 11:53:35 PM

Tuan NguyenThat's a great thing to hear because Microsoft is actually already starting to work on Windows 7 Service Pack 1.


Fixed. =D
Score
3
April 18, 2009 12:06:32 AM

eddieroolzAnd Intel's Core i7 isn't exactly the 7th generation either, but they got away with the naming It should be...Core i12! (486 = 4, Pentium = 5, Pentium 2 = 6, Pentium 3 = 7, Pentium 4 = 8, Pentium D = 9, Core = 10, Core 2 = 11, Core i7 = 12)


Actually, Pentium D and Core are part of the Netburst architecture, so it'll be i886 while Core 2 is i986 and Core i7 would be i1086 if we were to put it this way.

Windows Vista is technically Windows NT 6.0 and Windows 7 is NT 6.1. Windows 2000 was Windows NT 5.0, Windows XP was Windows NT 5.1 and Windows 2003 was Windows NT 5.2.

So, that's how the numbering kind of came to Windows 7. However, I would rather they just call it Windows 6 just because it's NT6.1 not 7.0.

Plus, even when Windows 7 comes out, 95% I'm sticking to Windows Server 2008 because it works, I pretty much like it and I hate the new taskbar and having transparency on the window border even when maximized. Windows 7 doesn't look like much of a step forward. Not worth the money to invest (and won't use it on any of my computers if my college ends up giving the license to me for free).
Score
-5
April 18, 2009 12:10:00 AM

deltatuxActually, Pentium D and Core are part of the Netburst architecture, so it'll be i886 while Core 2 is i986 and Core i7 would be i1086 if we were to put it this way.


Shhhh, you can't reveal Intel's secrets!
Score
1
April 18, 2009 12:10:20 AM

solymnar
Tuan NguyenThat's a great thing to hear because Microsoft is actually already starting to work on Windows 7 Service Pack 1.
Fixed. =D


Since when rewriting the OS core is called a service pack?


> The core engine is also being reworked to provide dramatic performance improvements

Score
1
April 18, 2009 12:23:18 AM

What about the 8088, 8086, 80286, 80386.....that's up to 986 or so.
Then win 1.0, win 2.0, win 3.0, win 3.1, win 3.11 (my fav), nt 3.0, nt 3.5, nt 4.0, 95, 98, 98se (second fav), me, 2k, xp, 2k3, 2k8, vista, 7....that's up to Win19 not 8! Course if we ignore the divergence of nt and win32, we'd only be up to 16 :) 

Pretty sure I missed a few also.
Score
-7
April 18, 2009 12:25:05 AM

Windows 8?!? DX12 anyone?
Score
-5
April 18, 2009 1:01:42 AM

CryogenicSince when rewriting the OS core is called a service pack?> The core engine is also being reworked to provide dramatic performance improvements


That was a friendly jab, dude.
Score
-5
April 18, 2009 1:02:03 AM

Windows 7 is the seventh gen 32-bit windows, just like core i7 is seventh gen 32-bit processor.
Score
5
April 18, 2009 1:26:42 AM

One of the main things I want is pure x64 versions, no more of this "Do you want 32 bit or 64 bit - oh, 64 bit isn't available, too bad! Now you can't use the full 6 GB of RAM you have!"
Score
7
April 18, 2009 1:33:44 AM

"Mr_Man

One small complaint: I'm pretty sure Windows 7 isn't the 7th edition of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista make 8 already, not counting other point releases or Server/mobile types), so the next one will not necessarily be Windows 8."

No its not, but it is NT 7.0, Vista was either 6.1 or 6.0 with server2008 being 6.0 too. XP was 5.1, 2k was 5.0, NT was 4.0 and so on.
Windows 98 and 95 were some variation of the 3.something or 4. something, not sure TBH. In this light the naming DOES make sense, but I understand that it is a rather confusing system. By all rights 7 should be NT6.5 because its so evolutionary instead of revolutionary, but they wanted to start anew with the naming scheme.
Score
0
April 18, 2009 1:38:11 AM

arveduiOne of the main things I want is pure x64 versions, no more of this "Do you want 32 bit or 64 bit - oh, 64 bit isn't available, too bad! Now you can't use the full 6 GB of RAM you have!"


What I want is: 64-bit only OS with virtual/sandbox/whatever-you-want-to-call-it 32-bit legacy PRINTER driver support and 32-bit legacy software support.

I can live without 64-bit only drivers for everything except printers. Sometimes, you end up with an office scenario where the cool $50,000 photocopier with 15 paper trays, scanning, binding, stapling, envelope stuffing and automatic coffeemaker is missing a 64-bit print driver.
Score
9
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
April 18, 2009 1:55:20 AM

Dudes the version of 7 in Windows 7 represents the kernel versions that was traversed since the 1st Microsoft OS. So Windows 7 has the 7th kernel version.
Score
5
April 18, 2009 1:57:12 AM

thats normal, hope they start from scratchm, but i fear it will be just another tweak on windows vista...
Score
1
April 18, 2009 2:04:51 AM

Mr_ManOne small complaint: I'm pretty sure Windows 7 isn't the 7th edition of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista make 8 already, not counting other point releases or Server/mobile types), so the next one will not necessarily be Windows 8.


1- Windows 1
2- Windows 3.##
3- Windows 9x/ME
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7 (Which of 95,98,me holds to the 3rd edition, Windows 7 should still be 6th edition)
Score
-4
April 18, 2009 2:09:22 AM

There are two lines of version numbering, the Home line and the NT line. For the Home line:
Windows 3.1 (3.1), Windows 95 (4.0), Windows 98 (4.1), Windows Me (4.9)

For the NT line:
Windows NT 3.51 (3.51), Windows NT 4 (4.0), Windows 2000 (5.0), Windows XP (5.1), Windows 2003 (5.2), Windows Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (6.1)

So if anything, Windows 8 will either be v6.2 or v7.0
Score
-1
April 18, 2009 3:00:40 AM

This time I'll wait for the second windows to be used on the new kernel so I don't get fucked over like with Vista >_>
Score
-3
April 18, 2009 3:07:09 AM

If Microsoft charged less for their OSs, than I would consider a good thing to have a new one every 2 years, but I don't believe it's going to happen, so I would prefer them to focus on bringing a Win7 bug-free, offer good updates when necessary and then go to a new one.

And don't tell me I could buy any less than the best home version, because it would be cheaper. Yeah, it would be cheaper AND crappier. God, I hate those millions versions of Windows...
Score
2
April 18, 2009 3:13:07 AM

Mr_ManOne small complaint: I'm pretty sure Windows 7 isn't the 7th edition of Windows (1.0, 3.1, 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista make 8 already, not counting other point releases or Server/mobile types), so the next one will not necessarily be Windows 8.

Who cares microsoft just figured out a way not to spend jack loads of money on tring to make an attarctive naming scheme for every release Windows _insert number_ :D 
Score
0
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
April 18, 2009 5:20:18 AM

Dman7 wrote:
"Dudes the version of 7 in Windows 7 represents the kernel versions that was traversed since the 1st Microsoft OS. So Windows 7 has the 7th kernel version."

This is correct. There is even a video of the first demonstration of Windows 7 where they explained it.
Score
0
April 18, 2009 7:28:00 AM

arveduiOne of the main things I want is pure x64 versions, no more of this "Do you want 32 bit or 64 bit - oh, 64 bit isn't available, too bad! Now you can't use the full 6 GB of RAM you have!"


I agree, and they should have done it with Windows 7 already. But they ARE doing it with Windows Server 2008 R2 - it is 64bit only. 32bit apps mostly run just fine on those PCs, and by the time Win8 is out application virtualization will be common enough to be included in base OS (I hope).. So it won't matter if you're running 64bit Windows 8 - any application from older version of Windows will work just fine.

But let's first wait and see what RTM Windows 7 brings us, shall we? :) 
Score
2
April 18, 2009 8:29:50 AM

m$ started the work on the "next" windblow$ version after the monumental vi$hta (aka DRM o$) flop. "$even" is just an interim contingency plan (aka vi$hta SP2 w/lipstick - 6.1 means exactly that) for the dumb con$umer - maybe he'll gulp the bait - hook, line, and sinker - and shell out some more $$$.
Maybe, by just an extremely slim chance, if m$ would let away it's characteristic greed - don't really count on that - "8ight" won't be 6.2.
Score
-15
April 18, 2009 9:29:42 AM

project greed
Score
-1
April 18, 2009 9:59:40 AM

I hope win7 will have a built in dosbox like thing - but for running 16bit windows applications. I've recently realized that despite most of my older games being 32bit, many of the installation programs are still 16 bit, so I can't actually install the games.

Good thing there's vmware - but not everything works in vmware. Heroes of might and magic 4 works just fine, but need for speed 3 only works in software mode, and quite a few games not at all.
Score
0
April 18, 2009 11:24:38 AM

If you built a light bulb that lasted 1000 years, how long would light bulb companies be in business? If you build an OS that does everything you need it to for the next 1000 years, how long would OS manufacturers be in business?

Planned obsolescence is the nature of commercial enterprise. Do they want to make something that lasts a life time? Heck no - they only want to make something that will barely outlast the competition.

This is why open source software is becoming more and more appealing to me. They step out of the traditional closed commercial enterprise that dominates software. Also, doesn't open source represent the ideal that people want - free, modifiable, customizable, anti-DRM, and utilitarian? (Yet everyone still wants to play their DRM loaded games and movies, so they stick with funding what they are opposed to rather than telling manufacturers to make content for the platform they want or go without the sales income...)
Score
5
April 18, 2009 1:24:11 PM

Most of the stuff that they are talking about in terms of Windows 8 seem to be things that the normal consumer would never use. It seems to me that people are getting in a fuss about the next Windows OS when it is pretty clear that what they are working on is the successor to windows server 2008. How many in home customers will have the need to replicate one way. The article even said that it would revolutionise file access in BRANCH OFFICES. That alone screams server edition.
Score
0
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
April 18, 2009 2:40:33 PM

O-ow!
When Windows says they're onto something revolutionary, that means you better go with Win7!
Everything they called 'revolutionary' has been nothing but a flop, or resource eating tools that prove totally worthless!

I suspect MS is definitely not going for a minimalistic approach in 8.
And most likely it'll result in an OS with larger footprint than win7; perhaps even larger than Vista.

Unfortunately I see absolutely no benefit in any OS above XP as far as office is concerned.
Score
2
April 18, 2009 3:13:11 PM

I'm neither surprised nor upset. Microsoft released Windows 95 in like '98 or '99 then we got Windows 98, then Windows ME, and finally XP all in a span of about 4 years.
Score
-2
April 18, 2009 4:19:43 PM

Good news, IMHO. All it realy means is that they will have lots of time to tweak Windows 8.
Score
0
April 18, 2009 6:50:57 PM

If Windows 7 is supposed to better than vista, then it will be like XP right? All more reliable and such. Then using the same scenario, won't Windows 8 also be a flop?
Score
2
April 18, 2009 6:53:03 PM

Upendra09If Windows 7 is supposed to better than vista, then it will be like XP right? All more reliable and such. Then using the same scenario, won't Windows 8 also be a flop?



It would seem so, following their "sucks, good, sucks, good" release cycle.
Score
5
April 18, 2009 7:48:55 PM

Whelp, they started on Vista soon after they released XP, and XP wasn't usable for many before SP1. Of course, even though they started that early their original direction was a mess and despite numerous delays many promised features were/are absent from Vista. Now that they've somewhat organized the chaos I hope that an early start with Win 8 will make their next OS stable and have a more positive, rather than negative, reaction on its release.
Score
2
April 18, 2009 8:00:25 PM

The reason Windows development takes so much longer than other OSes (including Mac), is because it needs to be everything to everyone (or at least 90% of users). One of the great things to come out of Vista that addresses this is the Basic>Premium>Ultimate Edition model.

Now Redmond can crank out features fast and furious (i.e. potentially buggy, but who cares as long as they patch it later) and simply divvy them up according to Edition.

One thing that would help a lot is cutting legacy and 32-bit support, but they can't do that, yet. IT departments everywhere would cry foul, along with 50% of home users. What they should do is emphasize educating the users so that they can finally be weened off of XP. The future is now, adapt or die...
Score
1
April 18, 2009 9:09:16 PM

Anyone know if Windows 7 alleviates issues people were having with Vista? I saw a lot of people complaining that their old printers and scanners were not compatable with Vista.
Score
-1
April 18, 2009 9:33:35 PM

We should start a petition to make Windows 7 64bit only. And Microsoft should only make new OSs for every bit upgrade.
Score
4
April 18, 2009 10:29:41 PM

Master ExonWe should start a petition to make Windows 7 64bit only. And Microsoft should only make new OSs for every bit upgrade.


That would put them out of business since they aren't wizards that need one time money. think about it before u post
Score
-2
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
April 18, 2009 10:36:39 PM

I'm just worried with what crap Windows will bloat Win8 this time.
More aero? Something else we've been doing perfectly fine living without?
More inventions for inventions sake?

I think they better work on improving paint, making Windows Media player light and quick, getting some better visuals on defrag, scandisk, work on a decent firewall built in and perhaps even a basic anti-virus.
Not every pc needs to be protected against the newest viruses. Some older anti-virus packages might be strong enough to prevent basic viruses created through a network or disk error.
The more advanced, more on-purpose created viruses by virus companies are not really a threat unless they are infused in a machine (meaning out of regular day to day job you won't ordinarily get those viruses, unless hacked, infected by a worm, or going on suspicious sites or being infected by infected banners or commercial (commercial = SPAM STALKING in 99,999%).
Score
0
April 18, 2009 11:37:42 PM

ProDigit80I'm just worried with what crap Windows will bloat Win8 this time.More aero? Something else we've been doing perfectly fine living without?More inventions for inventions sake?I think they better work on improving paint, making Windows Media player light and quick, getting some better visuals on defrag, scandisk, work on a decent firewall built in and perhaps even a basic anti-virus.Not every pc needs to be protected against the newest viruses. Some older anti-virus packages might be strong enough to prevent basic viruses created through a network or disk error.The more advanced, more on-purpose created viruses by virus companies are not really a threat unless they are infused in a machine (meaning out of regular day to day job you won't ordinarily get those viruses, unless hacked, infected by a worm, or going on suspicious sites or being infected by infected banners or commercial (commercial = SPAM STALKING in 99,999%).


Are you ok? Smoke something bad? Might need to get more sleep.
Score
-1
April 19, 2009 12:26:48 AM

What windows should do is make their OS less demanding on the processor and have it be more efficient. They also need to stop making so expensive, Vista ultimate costs almost $400 and that was before the SP, why spend $400 on an OS that is total crap!!??
Score
3
Anonymous
a b $ Windows 7
April 19, 2009 6:54:37 AM

FlayerSlayer is right. But let me get this 100% correct:

The DOS line:
1.x, 2.x, 3.x, 4.0 (95), 4.1 (98), 4.5 (Me)

The NT line:
NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, NT 5.0 (2000), NT 5.1 (XP), NT 5.2 (S2003 & XP64), 6.0 (Vista & S2008), 6.1 (7 & S2008 R2)

Windows 8 will not have the NT kernel anymore as the article stated.
Score
-1
April 19, 2009 11:38:01 AM

eddieroolzAnd Intel's Core i7 isn't exactly the 7th generation either, but they got away with the naming It should be...Core i12! (486 = 4, Pentium = 5, Pentium 2 = 6, Pentium 3 = 7, Pentium 4 = 8, Pentium D = 9, Core = 10, Core 2 = 11, Core i7 = 12)


486 = 4
penta = 5, so pentium 1 - 4 was like 5.1 - 5.4
core = 6 so c2d was 6.2
i7 = 7, but now i'm screwed, i5?
Score
-2
April 19, 2009 4:18:04 PM

CryogenicSince when rewriting the OS core is called a service pack?> The core engine is also being reworked to provide dramatic performance improvements


The Core / Kernel is re-worked all of the time in the Linux world... If they called it a new Windows OS every time they re-worked the core/kernel they would be on Windows 7,637,528,984b. Just my thoughts.
Score
2
April 19, 2009 6:23:23 PM

Upendra09That would put them out of business since they aren't wizards that need one time money. think about it before u post

Are you retarded? Microsoft makes revenue on almost every retail computer sold.
Score
1
April 19, 2009 7:52:26 PM

For those complaining about aero, turn it off and stop complaining about microsoft coming out with new features. I agree in that for me personally, i don't need aero so i turn it off. But other people do like it, and should we tell microsoft to stop being innovative and stop bringing new ideas and features into their OS? I think that is a big NO. Why do game developers keep trying to improve upon graphics? It's all just "eye candy" right? I think not. There is no inventions for inventions sake. Everything was done with a purpose, and that purpose was to draw more appeal to people (just like awesome looking video games). So telling microsoft to stop being innovative is not the path to take, unless you insist upon living in the year 2001.

Instead, we just need to make sure that future OS's give the user the ability to customize which features are taxing his/her system. If we don't want any of the eye candy, we should be able to turn it off. I can use vista with all of the little extras without any hiccups, but i choose to disable them because it does feel snappier.

I know this has been discussed before, but wasn't xp a very poor performing OS for a long long time? What service pack is it on, SP3? So yes XP should be very stable, but if your hardware is somewhat decent, you should be able to run Vista fine. IMHO, windows 7 is just the next SP that Microsoft isn't going to call a SP so that they can charge all of the vista owners for the better performing OS By the way where is SP2 for vista? Is it ever going to come out?

And as for Win8, it does seem like a server edition. But i would not be surprised if Microsoft is already working on Windows8/next home version of windows. They should be, as long as it is not interfering with their optimizations of vista and windows7(we need good SP's, or just perfect OS's on the first try)
Score
2
!