Ballmer: Next Generation of Windows is Coming 2012; Microsoft Confusingly Says It's Not Windows 8
Windows 8 next year? Ballmer says...
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was speaking at a developer forum event in Japan and made an open mention about "Windows 8," marking perhaps the first time he's publically referred to the next OS with that name.
Microsoft's own transcript that's published on its PressPass site quoted Ballmer saying:
“We’re obviously hard at work on the next version of Windows. Windows 7 PCs will sell over 350 million units this year. We’ve done a lot in Windows 7 to improve customer satisfaction. We have a brand new user interface. We’ve added touch, and ink, and speech. And yet, as we look forward to the next generation of Windows systems, which will come out next year, there’s a whole lot more coming. As we progress through the year, you ought to expect to hear a lot about Windows 8. Windows 8 slates, tablets, PCs, a variety of different form factors.”
At first glance, it appears that Ballmer just confirmed that Windows 8 will be coming out in 2012, but a representative from the company later issued a correction to ZDNet. It read:
“It appears there was a misstatement. We are eagerly awaiting the next generation of Windows 7 hardware that will be available in the coming fiscal year. To date, we have yet to formally announce any timing or naming for the next version of Windows.”
Essentially, a Microsoft spokesperson just nullified any interesting "Windows 8" news from what Ballmer said. Still, it's hard to believe that Ballmer would misstate what the next version of Windows will be called, seeing that he is the CEO.
- Microsoft Windows,
- windows ,
- win8 ,
- next ,
- generation ,
- systems
- Chip Industry Grew By 11-Percent in Q1, 2011
- Hell Froze Over, Part 1: DNF Has Gone Golden
- GlobalFoundries VP Quits, Joins Intel In Battle Against ARM
- AMD Announces Low-power G-Series APUs
- First Chrome OS Desktop PC Announced
- Intel Launches Sandy Bridge Pentiums
- Deals for May 23: Alienware m11x Core i5 $924
- Intel Looks to Apple for Future Tech Direction
- AMD Preps Fusion-based Quad-core A8-3530MX
- Age of Conan goes F2P, Unrated This Summer
- Deals for May 25: New Phones & Tablet Category
- Cray Launches XK6 Hybrid Supercomputer
- Confirmed: GameFly Purchased Direct2Drive
- Carmack: Cloud Significant Part of Landscape
- Apple Pledges to Take Care of Malware for Macs
- Google Cooling Entire Data Center With Seawater
- Nvidia 3D Vision Now Compatible With YouTube
- Yes! Dungeon Siege 3 Demo Coming Soon
Eh, I would enjoy something clever, like Windows Vista ME.
It's loading screen is the blue screen of death.
I hope it's not 2012; I feel like it would be too soon. Some people have barely started using Windows 7 and others haven't even migrated yet (which may not be such a bad thing for Windows 8). I feel that releasing it this early will just cause confusion and frustration among plenty of people as most people think Windows 7 just came out (which, really, it did)
whatever...
it's all games and propaganda.
greedy MS bastards.
he's probably speaking on the mobile department and/or the on-going battle about ARM.
still I refuse to pay for MS if I can..
I heard that they are releasing it on December 21, 2012.
Windows 7 r2 cloud arm?
Wouldn't this really just be another update to the Vista structure? Win7 is regarded as a service pack update to that architecture? So, Ballmer was just highlighting another update to this package, not another new platform? Confusing either way....
I think the versioning issue has already been addressed earlier this year when they announced Windows 7.5 (Windows 7 with big Service Pack changes) releasing early next year.
Unrelated, mostly, but funny thread:
http://forums.steampowered.com/for [...] ?t=1843924
With the title: Proof GlaDOS is a Microsoft Product
Which brings the question of what is called the next next MS product, since it's not windows 8 the title says.
I wish Ballmer would just shut up and went back to what he does best, which is.....
BTW, what is it that he does best? Oh yes, enjoying the taste of his foot.
This dude has done nothing original/positive for MS since he took charge. I think he does not understand the company he's running. Maybe Gates could look into replacing him. Miss the good old days.
well we wouldn't be needing Windows after the year 2012...
Windows Maya
Windows ARMageddon
Windows Octagon
Windows Octopussy
Windows 008
Windows Pane
if the top honcho says Windows 8, Windows 8 it is. Capish?
So basically this means that they are targeting next year and they are internally calling it windows 8, but marketing does not want that name or date official.
I think it will be: Windows 8: The "Ocho"!
Well they have to call it something for now and 8 is more logical than 6.1.7850.0.winmain_win8m1.100922-1508_x86fre_client-enterprise_en-us.
I'm cool with Win8 as the official name. I would hate for Microsoft to try to be like so many car manufacturers and come out with more and more ridiculous names year after year lol
whatever the name scheme is, I'm certain that I will be skipping on windows 8 or whatever name it comes out.
just like I skipped the silly vista.
now as for Windows "9" or "10" it will depend a lot to me if they go the "cloud way", then Windows 7 would be my LAST M$ operating system then.
But if they make up their minds and produce a "normal _ on my hard drive" of my choice OS then I might upgrade when is time.
Simply put I will never use a "cloud" based OS, I rather have my files on MY own PC.
I hope it's not 2012; I feel like it would be too soon. Some people have barely started using Windows 7 and others haven't even migrated yet (which may not be such a bad thing for Windows 8). I feel that releasing it this early will just cause confusion and frustration among plenty of people as most people think Windows 7 just came out (which, really, it did)
Get serious. W7 is nothing but a re-shuffle of XP to the user. I still use XP Pro along with most of the world and will continue to use it until it until it no longer does what I need an OS to do. I hope W8 has something useful and worth the money it costs but I seriously doubt it. The truth is software innovation has plateaued. The days of revolutionary leaps have been replaced by evolutionary creeps and it's difficult to justify the expense of a "new" OS when all you get is a few minor tweaks. Yearly subscriptions are just around the corner.
I hope it's not 2012; I feel like it would be too soon. Some people have barely started using Windows 7 and others haven't even migrated yet (which may not be such a bad thing for Windows 8). I feel that releasing it this early will just cause confusion and frustration among plenty of people as most people think Windows 7 just came out (which, really, it did)
So sick of hearing this from people who's formative years were during the Windows XP period and have a distorted view of the Windows release schedule. Windows 7 came out in 2009, "Windows 8" is going to most likely be released in 2012, that's 3 years apart, whilst Ubuntu for example is updated every 6 months, OS X every 2 years on average, etc.
Every Windows version besides Vista has been released after its predecessor in less than 4 years (e.g. Windows 2.0 through to 3.1, Windows 95 and 98, Windows Me, Windows XP and Windows 7). Windows Vista wasn't the norm, it was the final result of the Longhorn project that was meant to be originally released in 2003 (2 years after XP) but became inundated with setbacks.
Get serious. W7 is nothing but a re-shuffle of XP to the user. I still use XP Pro along with most of the world and will continue to use it until it until it no longer does what I need an OS to do. I hope W8 has something useful and worth the money it costs but I seriously doubt it. The truth is software innovation has plateaued. The days of revolutionary leaps have been replaced by evolutionary creeps and it's difficult to justify the expense of a "new" OS when all you get is a few minor tweaks. Yearly subscriptions are just around the corner.
Get serious, that is because you only use your computer to surf the web, and edit documents, while I agree that you wouldn't need anything more than XP for that, there are many people out there that use their computer for more intensive work (3D modelling, animation, rendering, gaming etc) such as myself. XP 64bit isnt widely supported by many software, so Windows 7 64bit is really your best choice for basically anything that runs on 4GB+ of RAM, DirectX10+ and SSDs, not to mention that Win7 is much more secure than XP, just on the security front along should be the reason for everyone to upgrade.
well that's fine, I guess your head will remain in the sand while everyone else move ahead. Its your loss really.
I wish Ballmer would just shut up and went back to what he does best, which is.....
Which are the infomercials!!! Seriously, this guy gets just as animated today as he did in those pathetic sell-bits he used to star in selling Windows.
I too feel Windows releases come a bit too fast. Like someone else said, we're at the peak for OS capability. We're past, input, GUI, mouse control, networking, video/graphics and gaming, touchscreen, and so on. There aren't many revolutionary things that can be done with an OS, possibly within it though like code rework or file structure. To me it's like CPU's, there's a reason core speed has been around 3 GHz for years (where are the OEM 4+ GHZ chips already?) - they've simply hit the proverbial wall. Like with Windows 8, I won't upgrade until I see something revolutionary or until Ballmer tells me I'm SOL on my update/security subscription.
Just another incompetent, grossly overcompensated, CEO.
I agree, what does this guy REALLY contribute to Microsoft?
The biggest mystery is WHY do these companies insist on hiring such buffoons, they do it over and over and over again, gaining nothing in the process. I think US companies should start outsourcing executive management and bring the truly productive jobs back to the US again.
To me it's like CPU's, there's a reason core speed has been around 3 GHz for years (where are the OEM 4+ GHZ chips already?) - they've simply hit the proverbial wall.
Terrible analogy, no such wall has been hit. A Pentium 4 Extreme Edition at 3.2ghz performed 9,726 MIPSm whilst an i7 Extreme Edition performs 147,600 MIPS at 3.3 GHz, the Ghz wars were a marketing gimmick, not a true indicator of performance or progress.
What's wrong with Windows 8? That will let people know that if they have Windows 7, Windows 8 is newer. If they name it something stupid like Windows Cirrus (for cloud, get it?), average users will be terribly confused. Of course, average users probably buy whatever computer the guy at Best Buy tells them too, so they probably won't care either way.
But at least Ubuntu (and other Linux distributions) don't try to charge you for a "new" operating system every time they release. Nor do they actively work to break your older software so you MUST buy newer versions of that as well. Besides, if you happen to not like the way the FOSS software works, you're FREE to modify the code.
Wow...this turned into quite the discussion. Maybe we can just wait until it's closer to release to get really upset about features that will or won't be included.
Can't companies just stick to regular naming? How did it go from Windows 1.0-3.1 to Windows 95-2000 to Windows ME to XP then to Vista then back to Windows 7.0?! WUT THE EFF
"Still, it's hard to believe that Ballmer would misstate what the next version of Windows will be called, seeing that he is the CEO."
Yes, but as we all know, he is a dumb###.
Too soon. 2013 would be a better date to allow more Win7 migration.
But at least Ubuntu (and other Linux distributions) don't try to charge you for a "new" operating system every time they release. Nor do they actively work to break your older software so you MUST buy newer versions of that as well. Besides, if you happen to not like the way the FOSS software works, you're FREE to modify the code.
I see you either missed or chose to ignore the point of my post to let out a boring unoriginal FOSS rant. Wonderful.
Microsoft raped my father and murdered my mother
Get serious, that is because you only use your computer to surf the web, and edit documents, while I agree that you wouldn't need anything more than XP for that, there are many people out there that use their computer for more intensive work (3D modelling, animation, rendering, gaming etc) such as myself. XP 64bit isnt widely supported by many software, so Windows 7 64bit is really your best choice for basically anything that runs on 4GB+ of RAM, DirectX10+ and SSDs, not to mention that Win7 is much more secure than XP, just on the security front along should be the reason for everyone to upgrade.well that's fine, I guess your head will remain in the sand while everyone else move ahead. Its your loss really.
Okay, then take me for example. I'm a programmer/analyst. I also do music recording/editing. I've done 3d rendering/fractal imaging on my own too.
I use XP Professional x64 for all of it. Why? All of my 32-bit and 64-bit apps run under it. Why spend $150 on the Windows 7 upgrade for OS functionality that I don't need to play the games, do the work, and enjoy the hobbies that I do? 3d rendering, animation, etc., doesn't require DX11 (the first Vista-or-better OS required graphic...because Microsoft won't integrate it to XP). My quad core with dual 5850s will do animation and rendering quite well.
And, I have 3 XP x64 rigs running 4-16GB of ram and SSDs (one in RAID config) quite well.
BTW, the *need* for Win7 is driven by one company: Microsoft. They push their "partners" to develop for their latest tech so they can force you to move to their latest offerings to use the latest software. It's not that software companies are developing for Win7 because it's better. It's because Microsoft gives them an ultimatum: Write for our latest product, or lose your Microsoft certification/partnership.
And...my head's not in the sand...mine just isn't up MS's backside.
Which are the infomercials!!! Seriously, this guy gets just as animated today as he did in those pathetic sell-bits he used to star in selling Windows.I too feel Windows releases come a bit too fast. Like someone else said, we're at the peak for OS capability. We're past, input, GUI, mouse control, networking, video/graphics and gaming, touchscreen, and so on. There aren't many revolutionary things that can be done with an OS, possibly within it though like code rework or file structure. To me it's like CPU's, there's a reason core speed has been around 3 GHz for years (where are the OEM 4+ GHZ chips already?) - they've simply hit the proverbial wall. Like with Windows 8, I won't upgrade until I see something revolutionary or until Ballmer tells me I'm SOL on my update/security subscription.
All Ballmer ever was anyways was a tech-based car salesman. He was never a geek like Gates or Allen. In fact, he reminds me of "Family Auto Mart Guy" from Florida. Check him out sometime.
Vista was Windows 7 Beta really. And for the prices that they charge for the OSes, Win 7 should have been a free upgrade to Vista. There was not an incredible core technology boost within the OS itself. Lots of interface changes tho. I guess remapping where apps are called from is "innovation" nowadays in Redmond.
I believe James May calls it "fluff".
So sick of hearing this from people who's formative years were during the Windows XP period and have a distorted view of the Windows release schedule. Windows 7 came out in 2009, "Windows 8" is going to most likely be released in 2012, that's 3 years apart, whilst Ubuntu for example is updated every 6 months, OS X every 2 years on average, etc.Every Windows version besides Vista has been released after its predecessor in less than 4 years (e.g. Windows 2.0 through to 3.1, Windows 95 and 98, Windows Me, Windows XP and Windows 7). Windows Vista wasn't the norm, it was the final result of the Longhorn project that was meant to be originally released in 2003 (2 years after XP) but became inundated with setbacks.
My formative years (technologically) were spent on Commodore 64s and Apple IIs. So, I'm no noob to tech.
Microsoft has tended to release major updates (now called "newest OS") about every 2-4 years. But with the advent of them sticking their finger into every pie that they can, their development has slowed to a crawl. Now, major updates come out every 3-5 years and a new (partial) OS retool about every 8-10...and recently, none have been that major.
Microsoft tends to want to be everything to everyone, which is one of their current shortcomings: rather than being a tech company driving technology to make sales, they are trying to be the fastest thing to market that the most people possible will buy.
Microsoft is now a sales machine more than a technology innovator. Letting Ballmer run the corporation is proof of that.
BTW: Ubuntu releases minor to moderate updates every 6 months. Their product releases for their LTS OS is about every 2 years and they support them (on the desktop) for a 3-year period.
And, it doesn't cost $150 for an upgrade.
windows 8 will prob be the last version of windows os. sound like they worked on a new os that windows os apps will still be compatible but with a better interface and optimized programmation for dev.