Microsoft Already Starting on Windows 8

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
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
 
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.
 
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! :)
 
[citation][nom]Mr_Man[/nom]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.[/citation]
Hah! Don't forget Windows 3.0, NT, etc!! Don't have a clue where they came up with their numbering scheme.
 
[citation][nom]Mr_Man[/nom]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.[/citation]

And 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)
 
[citation][nom]Tuan Nguyen[/nom]That's a great thing to hear because Microsoft is actually already starting to work on Windows 7 Service Pack 1. [citation]

Fixed. =D
 
[citation][nom]eddieroolz[/nom]And 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)[/citation]

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).
 
[citation][nom]deltatux[/nom]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.[/citation]

Shhhh, you can't reveal Intel's secrets!
 
[citation][nom]solymnar[/nom][citation][nom]Tuan Nguyen[/nom]That's a great thing to hear because Microsoft is actually already starting to work on Windows 7 Service Pack 1. [citation]Fixed. =D[/citation]

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


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

 
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.
 
[citation][nom]Cryogenic[/nom]Since when rewriting the OS core is called a service pack?> The core engine is also being reworked to provide dramatic performance improvements[/citation]

That was a friendly jab, dude.
 
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!"
 
"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.
 
[citation][nom]arvedui[/nom]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!"[/citation]

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.
 
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.
 
[citation][nom]Mr_Man[/nom]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.[/citation]

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)
 
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
 
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...
 
[citation][nom]Mr_Man[/nom]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.[/citation]
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_ 😀
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom