Roadmap May Reveal Windows 8 Date

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

dheadley

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2006
171
0
18,680
0
What the point of calling the next server release Windows Server 2008R2. Just call it Windows Server 2009 or 2010 and be done with it. That is why I hate it when they use the year in the name. Then you run into the problem with talking to people, especially on the phone, and they say "I'm running 2008". Then you have to ask is it 2008 or 2008R2, to which they say "......" It's the 95SR2 thing all over again.
 

dheadley

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2006
171
0
18,680
0
I meant to say if you have to use a date call it 2009 or 2010 to differentiate it. Would rather they call it something like Windows Server 7, and an R2 instead be 7.5. They used to do that with NT, not sure why they had to change things with 95, 98, 2000 etc..
 

Upendra09

Distinguished
Mar 4, 2009
3,174
0
20,960
52
[citation][nom]Upendra09[/nom]I do but i care, I have a tualitin celeron 1.2 ghz and onboaord 8mb of VRAMBut i also have a C2d laptop with a 9600m GT w/ 512mb of VRAM and VIsta with 4 mb of RAM[/citation]

i meant 4 gb of RAM
 

chaohsiangchen

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2008
479
0
18,780
0
[citation][nom]mikeyman2171[/nom]Exactly what I mean, Its about time to pull the plug on the whole WoW thing. There is no need to keep dragging out the legacy software/hardware anymore its just holding back progress. [/citation]

It's easy for you to say, but hard to do in practice. I've seen some really expensive hardware and software that doesn't work with Windows Vista. Those are usually high speed AD/DA card, high speed image graber card, high speed gating signal generator etc. These equipments cost so much that Core i7 975 is so cheap by comparison. Companies, national and university labs can't just throw them away and buy new hardware every 3 years. Same can be said about some software suite. For example, Matlab 6.x don't run under Vista. In some cases, where you have paid $500 or more for old license, it makes sense to stick with it. LabVIEW is just another pile of BS. Some newer hardware came with LabVIEW codes that doesn't run on older version, and we have to pay like $4000 for just one professional license. Legacy software/hardware support IS important when you invest that amount of money into your system. Since computers are center of most complex experiments and industrial control/monitoring, it is really PITA to deal with license and compatibility issues. That's why more and more people are migrating to Linux. They are forced to develop their own drivers in C/C++ and use Python or Perl to link C/C++/Fortran libraries. Pain, but at least you can always recompile from source codes.
 
so in the future how many people are going to choose to stick with windows vista/7 and rant on about how windows 8 is too resource hungry and good old windows vista/7 is just doing it for you etc etc this round?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Windows 98, 2000, and XP were basically the same thing, the older releases just get less new-feature love on the automatic updates. Vista is XP with a nicer looking desktop, and a bunch of either ill-conceived or poorly executed new features, Win7 is Vista with some sanity applied to the crappy new features in Vista, the rate of progress is dismal at best, which is why WINE for Linux is catching up so damn quickly.

Ubuntu gets an update every April(x.04) and October(x.10), and they manage to add more and better stuff every time than Windows does in 2 years.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
[citation][nom]mikeyman2171[/nom]Maigo I think the good-bad-good cycle is just Microsofts version of intels tick-tock cycle so we are just going to have to live with it until they get it right. I just hope this next release is pure 64bit and adds in WinFS as well as a better network stack.[/citation]

The biggest reason I wanted Vista was for WinfFS. Looked so much better than NTFS and seemed faster too. But alas its not even in Windows 7.

[citation][nom]Cryogenic[/nom]What do you mean "pure" ? A 64 bit version without WoW (Windows on Windows, the 32 bit layer)?That's seems pretty stupid to me.I'd hate it if my 32 bit apps would stop running all of a sudden ...[/citation]

I think what he meant was as in no 32bit version. Meaning they will only have 64bit like Windows 7 was supposed to be. Of course we wtill want 32bit and even some 16bit support left but I mean look at it this way: Most PCs come with 4GB and now Intels top ends are normally 6GB+. So whats the use of 32bit with so much memory, not to mention the 1GB+ GPUs we have now?
 

bardia

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2007
159
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]I wonder if they will break the good-bad-good-bad release cycle.[/citation]

Oh they already have. The real question is whether they'll break the "popular-unpopular-popular" public opinion caused by poor marketing and public perception.

 

matt87_50

Distinguished
Mar 23, 2009
1,150
0
19,280
0
"but if Windows 7's development is exemplary of how future versions of Windows are to be developed"

there are a few reasons why the time frame between vista and 7 is NOT the norm.

firstly, there was never going to be vista, it was going to go strait to win7, but as it got delayed more and more they decided to just take what they had and release vista.
secondly, despite the major differences between win7 and vista, you can't deny that they are trying to rid them selves of the (generally unjustified) bad publicity of vista as quickly as possible.
if it turns out to be as awesome as XP i don't see why I wouldn't last as long. the other problem with vista was, people, especially businesses didn't need a new OS yet.
 
in a perfect world you can do something like switch an OS over to totally 64-bit but the issue is businesses in how they do not update there old software for a newer OS. there are still places that use windows 95 because they have no way to update there old software they have been using for more than 10 years

MS wouldn't do it anyway. making an OS pure 64-bit would mean writing the whole OS from scratch which they have never did since moving from DOS
 

igot1forya

Distinguished
Jun 27, 2008
590
0
18,980
0
Microsoft should name the new OS "M.A.C OS 11" (Microsoft Advanced Console) and make it work on PCs and Mac's... just to stick it to Jobs!
 
[citation][nom]Igot1forya[/nom]Microsoft should name the new OS "M.A.C OS 11" (Microsoft Advanced Console) and make it work on PCs and Mac's... just to stick it to Jobs![/citation]

ummm..........windows already works on macs :)
 

xanubisx

Distinguished
Jul 28, 2009
8
0
18,510
0
I think what Microsoft should do for windows 8 is have all apps run the same way vmware thin app works aka when you open the program it runs a small virtual machine based on the programs compatibility also optimized for what the app does aka games, video editing or compiling. Yhat way most of the current viruses spyware botnets will no longer effect you until they are rewritten, that will improve overall security and i am sure everyone in the server department would upgrade for the security.

my 2 cents

-XAnubisX
 

kingnoobe

Distinguished
Aug 20, 2008
774
0
18,980
0
Not true at all v3nom. I could care less about wins 8. Look how long xp lasted. And really if it wasn't for dx 10+ there wouldn't be much of a need to go up to win7. And I personally don't see why unless you jumping to 64bit to upgrade anyways.

And I diffently got a feeling microsoft isn't gonna change it's cycle one bit. Win 8 will probably suck, and people will vomit on it like they did vista.

And 3 years is to soon. Ya, tech is always rising, but there's nothing that I've seen that would suggest any reason to upgrade from win7.. If things stay on this same route it has been only reason to upgrade would be if Microsoft say hey dx 12 *w/e it is at the time* will only be released for windows 8 lol.
 

neiroatopelcc

Distinguished
Oct 3, 2006
3,079
0
20,810
9
[citation][nom]tipoo[/nom]I wonder if they will break the good-bad-good-bad release cycle.[/citation]
I'm not so sure about that cycle!
It's more like bad-bad-bad-good-bad-good-bad-bad-good
(win3-win3.11-win95-win98-winme-win2k-winxp-vista-win7)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS