TechSpot

Microsoft: Windows 8 is about two years away

By Emil
Oct 24, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. In a blog post on its Dutch Web site, Microsoft not only referred to the next release of its PC operating system as Windows 8, which is the first time it has done so officially, but the company said it is about two years away from release. Microsoft has widely said that after the long time it took the company to bring Windows Vista to market, it would go back to a three-year cycle. The company managed to deliver early with Windows 7, in time for last year's holiday season. It is thus widely expected that Microsoft will have Windows 8 ready for the 2012 holiday season, but now the company has ...

    Read the whole story
     
  2. If they are planning on releasing every 3 years then they'll have to greatly reduce the price if they expect anyone to keep up.
     
  3. Emil

    Emil TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 154

    They did cut down the price with Windows 7.
     
  4. Wendig0

    Wendig0 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,076   +76

    How much cheaper do you want it? You can get Windows 7 Ultimate for ~$180, which is MUCH cheaper than what XP Pro, or any of Microsoft's other legacy operating systems were marketed for.
     
  5. OneArmedScissor

    OneArmedScissor TS Rookie Posts: 49

    Well that's funny considering that it was, what, $120, for the XP Pro OEM?

    The trouble is that that's still highway robbery compared to what the actual OEMs are paying for it.
     
  6. treeski

    treeski TS Guru Posts: 877   +130

    Go back to school and get it for $30 :)
     
  7. Wendig0

    Wendig0 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,076   +76

    Fascinating... You're comparing the retail price for Ultimate, to an end of life OEM version of XP Pro. Your post is so full of win I can't contain myself.
     
  8. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,727   +888

    OK, this is going to sound strange coming from me but, you people are arguing about nothing. Give or take ten bucks, the OEM price of Windows really hasn't changed much over the last three versions.

    Somebody is always going to run their mouth saying that it should be cheaper.

    I doubt that you will have to buy every version, unless you simply have to have the latest release. In which case, you'll pay dearly for your own impatience, and perceived need. If you have to have it that bad, that soon, whip out your credit card, buy it, and do it quietly.

    Well, if they're going to release a new OS every 3 or 4 years, M$ software engineers better get their acts together, since they had damned near 8 years to come up with Vista, and look how well that went.
     
  9. Wendig0

    Wendig0 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,076   +76

    Arguing? Me? Nah... ;)
     
  10. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,727   +888

    Yeah well, the first sign of anything, is denying it. :rolleyes: :haha: :wave:
     
  11. Emil

    Emil TS Rookie Topic Starter Posts: 154

    Vista didn't take eight years, it took five and a bit. It took so long because of the Longhorn reset in the middle.
     
     
  12. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 10,727   +888

    I stand "somewhat" corrected. With that said, if M$ is going to adhere to an accelerated timeline for Windows releases, they certainly can't afford any more, "bumps" (resets), in the roadmap, so to speak. The "Longhorn"project was essentially a flop, or turned into Vista, so it's fair to count it as a delay that indeed, could happen again

    This is probably the right time of the early morning for semantic discussion, so here goes. Windows 7, is what Vista pretty much was intended to be. I call Vista, "the public paid beta, of Windows 7, and I don't think I'm alone in this assessment. If you add the release delay between Visa and Windows 7 to your number, it actually is closer to 8 years, than it is to 5. With either set of numbers considered, yours or mine, M$ still needs to get, and keep, its act together, if it expects to have mature, stable, OS releases every 3 to 4 years, and at all costs, avoid any "resets".

    Windows 7's release was rather abrupt, and not in keeping with any published timeline. I believe this is by virtue of M$ apologizing for Vista, after realizing that they screwed up big time, or failed to precondition the public properly for Vista. These OSes are practically one and the same, with Win 7 being Vista properly tweaked and refined, certainly not totally rewritten.
     
  13. motrin

    motrin TS Enthusiast Posts: 155   +8

    i'l quote you!
     
  14. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 6,304   +52 Staff Member

    The real problem here is Microsoft is pushing out something that people don't NEED, but hoping you'll WANT it enough to forget that.

    I say this because -- and I do really like Windows 7 -- when you get down to the nuts and bolts of this stuff, Windows 2000 would work just as well in many respects (artificial limitations aside...).

    It's my belief that Windows upgrades should come in faster increments and at a greatly reduced cost. We should have yearly update packs that add features (similar to SP2 for Windows XP) that cost a fair amount ($25) but still have long-term, free support when it comes to patches/service packs regarding core elements like secure and compatibility.

    There is too much focus on trying to make huge changes every few years instead of gradual improvements... and each year, there is less and less to improve. The end result is messy, unnecessary and riddled with issues and bizarre decisions (Vista "Ultimate extras", anyone?).

    The platform that we work with on a daily basis should be as reliable, compatible, modular and modern as possible and by hitting the wallet a little bit at a time, people would be more receptive to shelling out cash for the latest and greatest.
     
  15. The price is too high considering the volume they shift, Microsoft have always been guilty of that with all their products. That said, no-one is forcing you to buy each and every new version, odds are Windows 8 isn't going to be radically different from Windows 7, so if you don't feel like forking out just skip it and maybe get the next one.
     
  16. Leeky

    Leeky TS Evangelist Posts: 4,378   +98

    True, but it will still be forced on you by OEM's selling new computers - So either way MS are guaranteed to make decent money by doing a short 2-3 year release cycle.

    Either way, my W7 licenses are the last I'm purchasing from MS, regardless of how good there W8 turns out to be. I'm hoping come 3 years time I'll be in a position to fully move over to Linux/Mac OSX.
     
  17. People, there always be discussion that leads to argument with captaincranky. Youll never win folks :p. Dont feed it.
     
  18. princeton

    princeton TS Addict Posts: 1,716

    He definitely lives up to his name.
     
  19. Archean

    Archean TechSpot Paladin Posts: 6,053   +76

    Well 'healthy discussion' can't be termed as an argument.

    There is a saying (which means something like this) --> Whoever stayed alive, was because of the (knowledge / factual weight of ) his logic, whoever died, happened to die because of the lack of these (i.e. knowledge/ facts) in their logic. So, as long as discussion is within these bounds, I see no harm in 'arguments' :p

    Now to the release of next Windows OS, I think MS can learn few things from perhaps hardware manufacturers and adopt such a release cycle which allows every one to settle, e.g. one major OS release every four years and 1-2 SPs during that period adding minor features + minor tweaks/improving stability + security. Personally I don't think there will be much difference between Windows and other OS if they stop supporting legacy hardware/software, but I'll say that they need to maintain a balance; where benefits of keeping compatibility shouldn't compromise anything else.

    That is one reason Windows is where it is today (+ in the corporate world), and I don't see any other OS taking much out of that anytime soon considering the enormous costs it can incur.
     
  20. nickblame

    nickblame TS Rookie Posts: 41

    I think that the lesson was learned for Microsoft after the Vista phenomena. If the new os sucks, it will be neglected. Apparently people don't buy everything ms releases which is great. The sad thing is that people do not turn to alternatives.. they wait for ms to catch up..
    don't they? Does any1 know if there was an impact to linux desktop users on the vista period?
     
  21. subglo

    subglo TS Rookie

    Windows XP was great, Vista was not so good, Windows 7 is great, Windows 8 will be??...
    I dont think we ll need a new OS for a long time...
     
  22. SEverard

    SEverard TS Rookie Posts: 18

    If it turns out even better than Windows 7 - I'm in.
     
  23. edison5do

    edison5do TS Rookie Posts: 239

    Well, I think they should not be promising something like that, I dont want they come out with a throwDown now that Win7 is donig so damm good!, if the just F#c% that up M$ will loose lots of $!...
     
  24. edison5do

    edison5do TS Rookie Posts: 239

    Note that I say this because 2 days ago Microsoft CEO says : "next Windows release is "riskiest product bet" and is on the HOME go and read it.
     
  25. grimm808

    grimm808 TS Rookie Posts: 30

    Are they serious? Another windows already? Why not just keep expanding off of Windows 7!?!? What the heck... Leave windows 7 alone for a bit longer. 2 years is too soon IMO.
     


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.