Microsoft: Windows 8 is about two years away

By on October 24, 2010, 10:10 PM
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 gone on record saying that it should arrive two years from now.

Microsoft Netherlands released the information in a blog post that was celebrating Windows 7's first birthday. At the time of writing, the blog post (via winrumors) was still available. Microsoft has yet to take it down, but in case it does, we took a screenshot of the Google Translate version:

In case you can't see the image, the translated text is as follows: "Furthermore, Microsoft is of course the next version of Windows. But it will take about two years before "Windows 8 'on the market." Microsoft is of course refusing to comment on the information and the company's American blog posts celebrating Windows 7's anniversary do not mention Windows 8 at all. Sometime next year we will hopefully see an official announcement, followed by beta versions of the new OS.





User Comments: 87

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

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.

Emil said:

Guest said:

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.

They did cut down the price with Windows 7.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Guest said:

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.

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.

OneArmedScissor said:

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.

treeski treeski said:

Go back to school and get it for $30

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

onearmedscissor said:

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.

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.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

captaincranky said:

OK, this is going to sound strange coming from me but, you people are arguing about nothing.

Arguing? Me? Nah...

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Yeah well, the first sign of anything, is denying it.

Emil said:

captaincranky said:

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.

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

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

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

motrin said:

treeski said:

Go back to school and get it for $30

i'l quote you!

Staff
Rick Rick, TechSpot Staff, said:

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.

Guest said:

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.

Leeky Leeky said:

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.

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.

Guest said:

People, there always be discussion that leads to argument with captaincranky. Youll never win folks :P. Dont feed it.

princeton princeton said:

Guest said:

People, there always be discussion that leads to argument with captaincranky. Youll never win folks :P. Dont feed it.

He definitely lives up to his name.

Archean Archean, TechSpot Paladin, said:

People, there always be discussion that leads to argument with captaincranky. Youll never win folks :P. Dont feed it.

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.

nickblame said:

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?

subglo said:

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...

SEverard said:

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

edison5do said:

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 $!...

edison5do said:

edison5do said:

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 $!...

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.

grimm808 said:

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.

xcelofjkl said:

with how good windows 7 is, making windows 8 an improvement is a tall order in itself.

Johny47 said:

This is good but I think new Windows operating systems(especially if they're good quality like I think 7 is overall) should be released about every 5 years.

It gives developers and others a chance to really make the most of it. I'm honestly only thinking of gaming right now and just as a example Windows 7 has been out quite a while now and there's been almost no games with serious DX11 support(like what the Unigine Heaven benchmark shows).

I'm just going to guess that the next windows OS will have DX12 =P so a good lifespan will make sure the potential of the OS is reached in my opinion =)

bakape said:

motrin said:

treeski said:

Go back to school and get it for $30

i'l quote you!

On that note, why not get R2 for free?

(dreamspark)

stensland said:

Honestly I don't see three years being fast enough to keep up with the growing market of OS's. Companies like Google with their new Android OS are bound to spur innovation amongst smaller groups to produce their own customizable operating systems. Microsoft's reach extends quite a long ways and dominates the OS market, but smaller companies are far more maneuverable and have less to risk if they botch an OS like Microsoft did with Vista. I see it as this, smaller companies are going to emerge and take back the market unless Microsoft can keep up with their maneuverability and flexibility in the market place. In the long run Microsoft might have to churn out a new OS once every year, god forbid if they keep the prices as outrageous as they are. If they can drop the price and watch their step I can see Microsoft dominating the market and keeping a firm grasp on the GUI based OS market for at least another decade.

BasiX12 said:

well.....first of all Microsoft have to work on the operating system requirements to be likely more like a XP operating system in terms of versatily and compatibility, because the two reason what people buy windows 7 is.....1) because they come pre-installed in almost the 85% of the laptops or dekstop pc. 2) because people wanna get rid of Windows Vista of course....... Microsoft have to keep in mind to do this operating system not equally to windows 7 in terms of software because that means, it will be just another windows 7.1

milford50 said:

I believe they should concentrate on getting better service packs rather than just releasing new windows. It would be counter-productive.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Oddly, this could be interpreted as a "compliment"! Now if you will, allow me to thank you....

People, there always be discussion that leads to argument with captaincranky. Youll never win folks :P. Dont feed it.
And this is relevant to the M$ timeline for their next OS releases how? This is the topic; " Microsoft: Windows 8 is about two years away", this is the topic I responded to, " Microsoft: Windows 8 is about two years away". Your next post will presumably, and perhaps tragically, arrive much sooner, while still being fixated on me, rather than the topic.

In the meantime, why don't you put a bit of effort into learning how to spell ...,"don't"...correctly. Then you might consider moving on to ..."you'll".

Have a nice da-ay

BTW, will you be rushing out to find a torrent of Windows 8 when it arrives?

fritz123 said:

we'll that's pretty nice to hear. i hope it wont take almost a decade to produce like what happened to vista. well right now i'm really content with windows 7 and making improvements over that will be really awesome.

mattfrompa mattfrompa said:

As much as I do like using Windows 7, there is also something to improve or add. A few things I would already like to see:

Improved boot time -it is better, but can never be fast enough

Ability to mount .iso files-we can burn them but not mount them? ok...

Multiple Desktops- I do like the enhanced window management in 7, but come on...

Enhanced Problem Steps Recorder-This one would really be more of a security risk than anything, but it would still be amazing to be able to use the recorder to not only create a list of screenshots and a log of mouse clicks, but also replicate these actions on remote machines. It could potentially ease repetitious tasks, but I also acknowledge the other edge of the sword.

Enhanced Task Scheduler- This one is more of a dream, but I would love to see more implementations of ubiquitous computing. For instance, let's say I have my laptop with a webcam and a tv tuner, as well as a second monitor attached. It would be great if it could use the webcam to recognize me (facial recognition) as I walk in, turn on, login and know that if it is between let's say 6pm-12am, that I want outlook to open on screen one and the latest dvr recording to start on screen 2. Or that at 7:30am I want screen 3(a third, wireless monitor using DNLA) to start playing the morning news, with other monitors off. This is obviously a very demanding feature, but it does not mean that I don't want it.

kaonis92 said:

Since their customers are not forced to upgrade to win 8 (dx12 etc) evolution is welcome in my opinion.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Ability to mount .iso files-we can burn them but not mount them? ok...

Well, there's always "ImgBurn". M$ shouldn't answer every software whim with an OS. Admittedly, ImgBurn is free, but I don't think that M$ should summarily lock them out of the market.

Although, MSE is certainly good enough to keep the security software houses more than honest, and IMO, this is the segment of the aftermarket, that most needed attacking. Good job, Redmond.

63Jax said:

if win8 will be as good as 7 is a winer for me. i like this new road microsoft chosen...

f111 said:

They are gonna have to do introduce something brilliant if they want people to buy it, dropping support for the last OS and making the new one shiny isn't enough to get people to buy it. I doubt Microsoft will have enough time between releases to come up with something innovative. They should focus on a larger release every four or five years and give us decent sevice packs with more than security updates.

sMILEY4ever said:

xcelofjkl said:

with how good windows 7 is, making windows 8 an improvement is a tall order in itself.

I agree even though my guess is windows 8 will be worse, just like vista was.

tonylukac said:

I got my windows 7 ultimate free at a microsoft event. Never used it.

tonylukac said:

I heard that win8 will have kinect like features.

poertner_1274 poertner_1274, secroF laicepS topShceT, said:

It's funny how they announce things so far in advance, but I guess like anything it takes time to develop. I still haven't upgraded to Win 7 yet. Too cheap, and XP is still rock solid.

polowise1 said:

I was going to say its about time but never mind. What a tease, cant wait for system 8, wish it could be this holiday season. wheres my Jeopardy song ?

JMMD JMMD, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

All I want is superior security and no bloat. I don't want added all the added crap I want a lean, secure and fast operating system. Just offer a stripped down minimal install.

SNGX1275 SNGX1275, TS Forces Special, said:

On that note, why not get R2 for free?

(dreamspark)

Problem with that is it takes a fair bit of tweaking to get it to run like 7. Once you accomplish that, good luck finding a free antivirus, getting your 'consumer' printer to work, and a host of other things that you take for granted.

If you don't need to print from that machine, and like working with your OS before you can comfortably use it, then go ahead. I'm running it on my secondary PC and its fine, but I couldn't run it as my main PC and OS.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

All I want is superior security and no bloat. I don't want added all the added crap I want a lean, secure and fast operating system. Just offer a stripped down minimal install.
Then you're one of the few people that do. A big part of the reason for advancing the OS, is to provide a more human like interaction between us and the machine. Friends, Romans, and countrymen, the term is "anthropomorphization"...! We're apparently not there yet, because I can spell that from memory, and Firefox hasn't learned it yet.

mattfrompa mattfrompa said:

Well, there's always "ImgBurn". M$ shouldn't answer every software whim with an OS. Admittedly, ImgBurn is free, but I don't think that M$ should summarily lock them out of the market.

Although, MSE is certainly good enough to keep the security software houses more than honest, and IMO, this is the segment of the aftermarket, that most needed attacking. Good job, Redmond.

ImgBurn is what I use actually. I just considered image mounting to be basic enough that it should be included. I'm not too upset about it's exclusion though.

tacobfm said:

Hopefully windows 8 deals with a lot of the background crap that windows 7 has.

bakape said:

Problem with that is it takes a fair bit of tweaking to get it to run like 7. Once you accomplish that, good luck finding a free antivirus, getting your 'consumer' printer to work, and a host of other things that you take for granted.

If you don't need to print from that machine, and like working with your OS before you can comfortably use it, then go ahead. I'm running it on my secondary PC and its fine, but I couldn't run it as my main PC and OS.

My brother was the one to put it to the test, so this might not be fairly accurate, but with a search engine and a loose conscience, things theoretically can be done, or so he says. Sounds somewhat masochistic, but I enjoy my dose of Linux, so am not the one to speak. The scanner is now plugged into my netbook though hehe

Hopefully windows 8 deals with a lot of the background crap that windows 7 has.

Bloat floats, among other things

bakape said:

All I want is superior security and no bloat. I don't want added all the added crap I want a lean, secure and fast operating system. Just offer a stripped down minimal install.

I think vLite works with Windows 7, so there's an option.

B00kWyrm B00kWyrm, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Another excuse for bloat!

and feeding the accelerating cycle ...

1. Software we don't need and requiring hardware that hasn't yet been made.

2. The new hardware will then need new software that hasn't been developed : return to step one.

But there is no profit in simply perfecting the existing.

The system is driven by sales.

Sales require new product, not product updates/ patches.

And, ?$oft's philosophy has always been "new bells and whistles", not refinement/perfection of the existing.

"There are no significant bugs in our released software that any significant number of users want fixed... The reason we come up with new versions is not to fix bugs. It's absolutely not. It's the stupidest reason to buy a new version I ever heard... And so, in no sense, is stability a reason to move to a new version. It's never a reason."

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.