Ballmer: Next Generation of Windows is Coming 2012; Microsoft Confusingly Says I

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
[citation][nom]NoCaDrummer[/nom]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.[/citation]
I see you either missed or chose to ignore the point of my post to let out a boring unoriginal FOSS rant. Wonderful.
 
[citation][nom]260511[/nom]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.[/citation]

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. 😉

[citation][nom]matt_b[/nom]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.[/citation]

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".

[citation][nom]malphas[/nom]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.[/citation]

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.
 
How did that sentence get misinterpreted as Windows 8 will come out next year?

Seems like people are forgetting how to read sentences. 😛
 
I would look at Microbloat if they did what Apple did, drop their current crap and embrace a Unix foundation. MS will never go that route because they are in bed with the FEDS and their NSA co-authored OSs have built in back doors for the USSA (United Socialist States of Amerika) police state.
Long Live Ubuntu
 
Win7 was an orgy of stupid design choices and a rehashing of XP with a modern hardware support kernel. If Win8 keeps building on the stupidity by putting everything in the cloud and making everything have the oh so "productive" ribbon interface then I won't mind pirating it for games and using Linux as my primary.
 
[citation][nom]NoCaDrummer[/nom]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.[/citation]You do not "Buy" ubuntu at all.
 
I'm going to go against the crowd and say that Windows Vista WAS a good OS. Not only was it the first true x64 OS that people could actually use without completely crippling their software library but it brought alot of polish to Windows. If I'm going to use a OS for 2-3 hours a day then I want it to look nice and to be frank Windows XP looks like crap (although pretty good for its day). The reason Vista failed was because RAM was so expensive at the time- that was really the only major reason. Sure they had some driver issues (which wasn't really even MSFT's problem because OEMs should support their products longer) and there wasn't a ton of new changes to the under-the-hood mechanics, but it was still a solid release. Vista was a success in software creation and a failure in marketing and communication with OEMs. I can still understand if you hate Vista- that's totally fine. I myself had a HP laptop with 1 GB of RAM (shared with the GPU, mind you) with Vista and it was pretty bad (I think I actually had one of nVIDIA's faulty GPUs) yet in the evolution of the OS I still think it was a solid release. Now all of you that are mad at MSFT because they are trying to make you update to 7 (partly through not offering any more security updates) need to realize that you're running a 10 year old OS and that's ancient in technology land- why should MSFT support you anymore? As far as Windows 7 is concerned- the OS is beautiful, secure, and for the average user makes sharing files easy with Homegroup- it just works just like Windows XP did.
 
[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]Windows 7 is just a reshuffle of XP? You are truly an idiot.[/citation]

Not really. Most of the underlying OS apps are almost all identical to XP. Some of the interface response, draw, and theme layout changed from Vista. It wasn't ever its own OS.

[citation][nom]otacon72[/nom]If you can't see Windows 7 is their best OS since XP you are truly clueless. Linux will NEVER EVER be mainstream give it up. Just another scumbag pirate and Linux funboy...funny how those go together so often.[/citation]

Linux is actually mainstream already. If you don't believe me, go talk to Microsoft about what OS dominates the webserver market, and is taking over the RDBMS market now. It's only mainstream in the business world...for now. 😉

[citation][nom]iamtheking123[/nom]Win7 was an orgy of stupid design choices and a rehashing of XP with a modern hardware support kernel. If Win8 keeps building on the stupidity by putting everything in the cloud and making everything have the oh so "productive" ribbon interface then I won't mind pirating it for games and using Linux as my primary.[/citation]

Yeah, I liked the boot and shutdown speed of Win7...but, the interface actually got more difficult to use. From changing the base function of the task bar to shrinking things and making them harder to click on when working rapidly. Ribboning felt more like I was getting ribbed. More easy to use interface? Yeah right.

I don't use Win7 at all right now. Games I play run fine on XP x64.
 
[citation][nom]jknouse[/nom]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.[/citation]
[citation][nom]jknouse[/nom]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.[/citation]
Right, it doesn't coast $150 for an upgrade because it's FOSS software, well done, how is that relevant to how long an appropriate release cycle is? The fact their LTS releases are only 2 years apart just further illustrates my point, that it's not the defacto situation for a company to wait six years between OS versions - which is what a lot of people have got stuck in their heads after the gap between XP and Vista (which was because the development process was a chaotic mess beyond what's possible to fit into a comment post - as well as the simplistic reasoning you've put forward - see Paul Thurrott's "Road to Gold" for an in-depth detailing of the various issues involved), and as for the 3 year LTS support of Ubuntu; you realise Windows XP support is over a decade?

For someone who prefaced his comment with the insistence that he's not a "noob" to tech, you're certainly doing a good impersonation of one. Really, there's no rational argument for backing up the people whining that Windows 8 is being released to soon. No-one whines when Intel releases a new line of processors 18 months after the last ones, or when a car manufacturer releases a new version of their car - it's called progress. If you're whining purely on cost issues (Microsoft software is overpriced you say? Who would have thought) then just skip a version or two and upgrade as and when you feel like it, like a normal person. Complaining that a newer version of your OS exists, when your current one is still supported is asinine.
 
So Microsoft has been actively trying to "break" my decade old Win XP OS so I had to buy Win Vista or Win 7???

Really?

I'm currently using a decade old hp pavilion that was shipped with the original Windows XP (NO service pack version) and of course since then have regularly updated using Win Updater so that now I am at Win XP service pack 3 with MSE security.

This PC performs very nicely in every way. The OS works perfectly and seamlessly as well.

MS even is offering to continue to support XP (sp3) until 2014, honestly considering the forward march of computer tech it is really a good faith effort on the part of MS to do that, when they could have just hung XP users out to dry YEARS ago. Maybe they aren't as money grubbing as we thought.
 
Oh dear god, jknouse, I'm beginning to feel embarrassed for you.

A) I'm not sure what your definition of "reshuffle" is, but it's not one the rest of the world shares I think. Windows 7 is obviously closely tied to Vista that's why Vista is version 6.0 and Windows 7 is version 6.1, XP was 5.1 There are massive architectural changes between 5.1 and 6.x Plenty of this is common knowledge and would take forever to list, so I wont go into it, but it's fairly obvious to anyone sane that XP to Windows 7 is a big jump.

B) Again I think your ideas about what constitutes "mainstream" differs from everyone else again, Windows has always been first and foremost a desktop OS, and 99% of the context on Tom's as such as well. No-one here (or anywhere) cares what OS is used on servers. Linux zealots have been using this as validity of their claims for even longer than they've been claiming that it's the "year of Linux on the desktop", it's embarrassing.

If Linux ever gains serious traction on the desktop market it wont be the fragmented mess of distributions the FOSS crowd love so much that we have right now, it'll be from a large organisation putting time and money into it and exerting a reasonable level of control, someone like Google or Canonical.

C) The fact you have problems with the Windows 7 interface and the Ribbon is a subjective experience and not an empirical truth, as comforting as it might be for you to think otherwise the world will move on whether you like it or not.
 
[citation][nom]11796pcs[/nom]I'm going to go against the crowd and say that Windows Vista WAS a good OS. Not only was it the first true x64 OS that people could actually use without completely crippling their software library but it brought alot of polish to Windows. If I'm going to use a OS for 2-3 hours a day then I want it to look nice and to be frank Windows XP looks like crap (although pretty good for its day). The reason Vista failed was because RAM was so expensive at the time- that was really the only major reason. [/citation]

Vista had/has major issues that are not fixable (or at least MS wont bother - why? They have Win7) And memory is the big thing, especially back then when a typical bottom end XP ran fine with 512mb... and Vista NEEDED 4GB just to be functionally usable!

Look up an article on this site... Vist ate memory, each open window sucked memory. The video memory was duplicated to system memory. Hence, Windows7 runs better with 1GB of RAM than Vista with 3~4GB. The Taskbar on Vista is the same as XP, mostly. Look up screen shots of XP-MCE vs Vista. (XP-MCE should be considered as XP2.0 or 6.1 since it has a nice looking new skin)

Windows7 actually added quite a bit more modern features over vista, but didn't fix all of vista's flaws.

When the last Vista PC has shut down, there will still be millions of XP users still running.
 
Please wait another few years before releasing Win 8..
Users are trying to make the big jump from XP to Win 7, and you're just making things harder for them.

[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]Its gonna be Windows VIII[/citation]
That'd be a cool name.

 
[citation][nom]malphas[/nom]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.[/citation]
Let me rephrase that since you read entirely too in-depth to that statement:
The operating frequency wall has been hit years ago (yes the GHz wars), that statement having absolutely nothing to do with calculations or I/O per clock cycle. If this were not true to begin with, than why the heck did I buy an Intel 940 to replace a P4 at the same speed?!?!

Not a terrible analogy if you read the statement as it is written (not interpreted)!!!
 
[citation][nom]spammit[/nom]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)[/citation]

No it won't. Besides, anything more than 3-4 years creates stagnation as shown by Windows XP reign of 2001~2009. MS, developers and users become used to the system and are more prone to NOT upgrade to newer features and abilities.
But also how this is MS's fault is that with the release of XP (which MS considered a best OS ever) that they would switch to a license-rental system. ie: Why spend XXX for an update every 2-3 years when you can pay a bit less EVERY year - updates or not. Yep, they even had a version of OfficeXP with a yearly license.

Now Vista came out of the gate as crap... and will always have its built-in problems and so they fast-tracked its replacement... basically 2 years.

What I have major issue with MS is charging $200~300 for the retail versions of their OS and $100~150 for the "upgrades" which creates problems. A simple $100 Home Retail version would make life easier for everyone... when it comes to rebuilding systems, etc... Of course, there is always Linux.

 
[citation][nom]jknouse[/nom].. 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.[/citation]

YES!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom