"No more gaps" says Steve Ballmer

By Justin Mann on July 28, 2006, 11:37 AM
In what increasingly hints at Microsoft moving to a subscription based distribution for all their software, MS CEO Steve Ballmer said that the 5-year gaps between each release of Windows is too long and won't happen again. While it's not always 5 years, it's still fairly long. This points towards subscriptions, because with major changes in Windows requiring upgrading comes the cost involved in doing such. You can much more easily convince a business to buy 150 licenses of “Windows 2010” if they get it for a subscription fee of some sort. This could mean that Vista's successor could come much sooner than Vista itself arrived:

Microsoft has not said when Vista's successor, code-named Vienna, might ship or what features it will contain. Despite the desire to make Windows releases more frequent, Ballmer said there will always be people trying to work on things that take years to make happen. "We just won't promise them to customers and hold up big releases," Ballmer said.

As an interesting tidbit, Ballmer said in the same speech that a miniature Sony, Yahoo and Google lived inside Microsoft, aspiring to come out. Sounds creepy.

User Comments: 7

Got something to say? Post a comment
djleyo said:
ill believe until i see it
DragonMaster said:
If I see new Windows releases coming out as fast as Fedora Core (Every 6 months), I'll be impressed.
zephead said:
"requires the cost"? god forbid microsoft should make a slightly less outrageous profit...
nic said:
I don't want to see my OS obsolete too quickly, as this will mean extra expense for software/hardware upgrades. A 3 year cycle seems good to me, so long as service packs and security patches keep coming as and when required.
DragonMaster said:
They don't need to require twice as powerful hardware everytimes. New FC releases are just more efficiently coded and have a few more features, that's all!If MS could just start a new OS from zero without backwards compatibility (And the bugs they need to add for this), Windows would be so much faster! (They could add better backwards compatibility than before with a virtual machine and the real old OS files - that you could install as an option)
spike said:
Well, Any new OS would have to be backwards compatible with XP and probably 2000, but no more than that. I rather think that it's time to ditch the old and bring in the new - isn't that what Vista is all about though?
DragonMaster said:
They add features, and probably threw out some of the backwards compatibility. I don't know if it should natively be able to work with XP, unless XP-compatibility wouldn't require the addition of too much bugs -> Some apps need some older Windows bugs to work... -> Why Windows is so buggy. The switch to UNIX for MacOS requiered people to get new apps (Or use OS 9 in a virtual machine) and that's why it's more stable. (Well, actually, I already saw OS X crash, but anyways...)With Linux, people can correct all the problems that older applications have since they got the source to make them compatible with newer compilers, kernels and architectures. Commercial programs for Linux that don't have the source available are a bunch of trouble since the companies don't really support them -- or at least don't compile the 64-bit versions, which causes problems with Mozilla browsers. (Flash when it was Macromedia, Sun Java, Adobe Reader)
Load all comments...

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.