New Windows OS May Launch by 2013

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

New Windows OS May Launch by 2013

image

Microsoft may be switching to annual operating system upgrades as early as this summer.

Just last month, Microsoft finally launched its Windows 8 operating system after three years of development. Some reviewers love it and some game developers hate it, but most people probably expect Windows 8 to be the default Microsoft OS for at least a few years. According to recent reports however, Microsoft may actually be planning to launch a new Windows client as early as 2013. The potential OS, code-named Windows Blue, could replace Windows 8 by mid-2013 and kick off a series of annual OS upgrades from Microsoft.

Windows Blue was first uncovered by ZDNet last August, but new sources for The Verge are confirming a great deal of the original information. According to the sources, Blue will be released as a low-cost or free upgrade for pre-existing customers that changes the Windows UI and alters the entire platform. The upgrade will reportedly continue to support Windows 8 apps, but Microsoft is expected to update the Windows SDK and stop accepting applications for apps designed specifically for Windows 8.

If this is accurate, then why would Microsoft launch a new OS client less than a year after Windows 8? According to both ZDNet and The Verge, part of the reason may be a new focus on annual upgrades. Previous versions of Windows have generally been released every few years, but in a world where competitors Apple and Google frequently upgrade their own clients, Windows may need the shorter development cycle to keep its edge.

There's been no confirmation from Microsoft on anything relating to Blue, so the above should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it's possible Blue will act as little more than a service pack instead of an entirely new Windows platform. Still, considering the increased competition from Android and iOS in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft's release schedule fall in line with its rivals. Whether that will be successful or not for the company remains to be seen.

Source: The Verge

Permalink

It could work, I mean alot of Linux operating system have release cycles of about a year or even less in some instances. If the upgrade are cheaper or free then I have little problem with it. But then I have to wonder whether I would want to upgrade every year for small incremental improvements. Also how would support work for users who don't upgrade every year? Would it be mandatory so the latest drivers and games to work or will there be some sort of long term support for previous versions?

They sure want the game developers abandon PC, it seems. Not only the game makers will have to consider the Windows Market (or whatever that idiotic idea is called), making games fit for different hardware builds, but also several OS.

Microsoft, please, I don't want another Linux/iOS/Android, I already have those.

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

Mechalynx:
Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

Better get those apps in while you can developers. That's the real downside I see here, as long as they have enough upgrades to justify a new OS.

Fasckira:

Mechalynx:
Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

I can only assume that you are working at a wonderful place that constantly updates to the latest and greatest. My workplace still runs XP, most of the places I worked at rarely upgrade their OS, because it raises merry hell with all VPN solutions they halfassedly put together.

Think surveilance operations and stuff. I am telling you from experience, that it takes planning and money to upgrade an OS run across over a minimum of 1000 PCs.

Mechalynx:
They sure want the game developers abandon PC, it seems. Not only the game makers will have to consider the Windows Market (or whatever that idiotic idea is called), making games fit for different hardware builds, but also several OS.

Microsoft, please, I don't want another Linux/iOS/Android, I already have those.

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

Time for far more then you wanted to know about how businesses obtain Windows (the OS)
on the thing of the businesses part you do realize that there is no actual requirement for a business to upgrade their workstations every time there is a new OS, and considering the cost of the corporate packages (usually comes in multiples of 10, but the company only pays for about 6.5 of them, and at last check it was the Ultimate/enterprise edition only) and it is the company that chooses when to do these switches, and when Microsoft state "support cycle" they include their business packages too, but there is a high expectation that these business packages (except for direct Microsoft partners) will be purchased in a leap frog fashion (98, XP, Windows7... Blue), and still takes place a few months if not a year after the OS publicly releases. So it might effect those businesses, but would probably just increase those leap frog jumps.

Fasckira:

Mechalynx:
Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

blink, blink, blink....
not exactly. yes if the company also fundamentally integrates into the Windows paradigm they can, and many times do this, but in many cases the IT sections of these companies prefer a Linux/Unix (because the level of control, and the ability to still have unrestricted access even to native Windows) they might have all files, or at least backups there of of the servers, but the individual workstations can still be considered standalone, and would still have to be backed-up, upgraded, and re-integrated into the hierarchy.

Mechalynx:
Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

They dont need to update, my mother tells me that most of the computers used by the NHS still run Windows 98.

This is the first time I have regretted upgrading to Windows 8. What was the point if they are just going to replace it in less than a year?

If they do this, I won't be on board.

'We here at Microsoft really, really want to be Apple.

Like, a whole lot.'

I don't think that strategy will work for Windows. Heck, it's not really working for Google or Apple. The constant upgrade cycle has made Apple not be the epitome of stability it used to be, as the new upgrades don't seem to have the right amount of testing. A bunch of people I know who own Macs have started to resist the yearly update because their user experience is suffering from glitches, slowdowns, random freezing. On the other hand, Google has generated an extremely fractioned Android ecosystem that confuses consumers and developers alike. What will this devices have, will it run my app, for how long will it work, etc.? Windows 8 just came out, not many people have switched yet (and I know a lot who have switched back to Windows 7), and they'd want to switch again? Nuh uh, not going to happen. I know all of this is based on the speculation in the article, but even it holds a grain of truth it's worrysome. Not even all Linux distros to it that often. Ubuntu, by far the most used linux distro, has many intermediate updates which it uses to test changes, but always has the Long Term Support versions that go on for years and you don't need to update so frequently unless you want to be on the bleeding edge.

...but in a world where competitors Apple and Google frequently upgrade their own clients, Windows may need the shorter development cycle to keep its edge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the frequent OS upgrades that Apple and Google do more akin to, say, Service Packs rather than full blown OS releases?

This whole thing will likely blow up in MS's face. Who exactly is the target audience here? People hate upgrading their OS and will only do so if there's a substantial benefit to it. The only way they could get people to do it might be by forcing them by restricting features (see the recent DX11.1 debacle), but that isn't a viable strategy in the long run...

I'm hoping they'll be smart and do alternating OS stuff; one year they make one focused on the tabled crap we're seeing with Win8 and the next year they do one focused for regular computers.
Ah, who am I kidding.
I'm still gonna keep my fingers crossed and hope for something more useful if this rumour is indeed true.

its not a new os, it will be more like a service pack.

Oh yeah, this'll surely work. It's not like they have to worry about bugs in the system or in fact coming out with a really crappy OS on each alternative step.

OH WAIT.

Microsoft don't want people getting hold of an OS and then sitting on it for ten years. They're having a monumental job right now trying to kick people off Windows XP and Office 2003; this is why Windows 8 is so cheap.

I read some while back that their dream solution for the OS is probably an annual subscription model, akin to the likes of most antivirus programs. It'll never happen. But obviously they think they need to break up their revenue stream somehow, and if slashing the price of the OS and releasing a new version every eighteen months is their solution then they're going to try it. It'll fail, of course - upgrading the OS is a monumental pain in the arse even for experienced users, most inexperienced users wouldn't even contemplate it, and software developers would be up in arms.

The only other explanation is that they've realised that Windows 8 is pants and they want to bail out as quick as they can and cut their losses before they end up with another Vista.

This is just wrong and stupid of them. I don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 8. Why would I want to upgrade to a "Win 9"?

Just a few days ago I reinstalled Windows 7 after upgrading my hardware (it was really necessary because of a new SSD in my PC) and the last time before that I installed the Windows 7 when it was released. So there were several years between a system reinstall/upgrade). My system runs fine now and the saying goes "never touch a running system" especially when it actually runs well and when there isn't even a major game changer on the horizon.

They may want people to switch OS every year, but it won't work, because as was said before people don't want to screw around with their system on a regular base (about 99.99% won't do that).

Even if you get Windows Blue, you'll also have to pick up Windows Red if ya Gotta catch'em all!

I still don't see a reason to switch from 7 right now.

FargoDog:
'We here at Microsoft really, really want to be Apple.

Like, a whole lot.'

"I heard if you continue digging, you can dig your way out" : D
that's pretty much the only quote that comes to mind right now, on the whole topic.
wtf microsoft, I'm so going linux by next year... O_o

Zombie_Moogle:
Even if you get Windows Blue, you'll also have to pick up Windows Red if ya Gotta catch'em all!

also this

I have a feeling I'll be sticking with 7 for at least 4 or 5 years.
Possibly more, and if no reasonable version of windows has been released by that point, I'll just go ahead and stick with 7.
Or possibly move on to some linux distro.

Considering Windows 8 is not exactly an upgrade from Windows 7, I suppose it is best to get it out of the way quickly. Though I hope Windows Blue isn't even worse...
Maybe Blue will be a bit more lenient to dual booting than 7. It took me a while to get Linux on my new PC that came with 7, and I was a bit frustrated with it for a while.
Because, I mean really:
image
What's cooler than that?

I suspect we are talking about the Win8ARM version rather than the Win8x86 version. They are not going to over throw their entire volume licencing model to copy OS X, which accounts for about 9% of the desktop market. It makes sense to copy the android/IoS model for Win8ARM because Microsoft have no real presence in that market.

Honestly I'm not even upgrading from windows seven seeing how windows 8 is a closed platform. I like my little indie games, and even though I have to worry about viruses it is a fair trad in my eyes. I'll keep an eye on windows blue, if it is an open platform I will upgrade, if not windows 7 is still awesome for me.

Rainforce:
wtf microsoft, I'm so going linux by next year... O_o

Try Ubuntu, it's the easiest to get into while still having all the customization of a typical Linux OS.

I've already been running Ubuntu as my main os for years now, I've only had windows out of necessity as I'm a PC gamer, but you'd be surprised how many games run, and run well, in Wine. With the incoming support for linux from Valve for steam, and a lot of devs stating their distaste for windows 8, there's a good chance that a lot more linux support for games is on it's way.

A few of my friends have already started learning linux because of the problems with 8.

Matthewmagic:
Honestly I'm not even upgrading from windows seven seeing how windows 8 is a closed platform. I like my little indie games, and even though I have to worry about viruses it is a fair trad in my eyes. I'll keep an eye on windows blue, if it is an open platform I will upgrade, if not windows 7 is still awesome for me.

Windows8 on the pc isn't a closed platform. The only non API changes are a new UI and a shop THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE. All the windows installers work in the same way as win7. The Win8ARM is closed platform only to the same degree as Google play and the apple app store.

Are they actually remaking their OS each year, or just mashing lines of code into a previous OS to "upgrade" it, like a monkey at a typewriter?

For all you people wanting to jump onto Linux and have no clue about how to get started, we have a Linux User Group here. Feel free to drop by and ask questions!

OT- 0.o Yep. I'll forever remember 2012 as the year when MS forgot to stay away from Apple. I'm never living it down.

Waaghpowa:

Rainforce:
wtf microsoft, I'm so going linux by next year... O_o

Try Ubuntu, it's the easiest to get into while still having all the customization of a typical Linux OS.

I've already been running Ubuntu as my main os for years now, I've only had windows out of necessity as I'm a PC gamer, but you'd be surprised how many games run, and run well, in Wine. With the incoming support for linux from Valve for steam, and a lot of devs stating their distaste for windows 8, there's a good chance that a lot more linux support for games is on it's way.

A few of my friends have already started learning linux because of the problems with 8.

while Ubuntu WAS a choice of mine some years ago, the recent changes/upgrade of the Gnome desktop as a whole and Ubuntu's new Unity thing are real turnoffs for me (no fan of the pseudo OSX style), which means I will probably go for Mint next.
(have been using both windows and ubuntu for some time now)

thesilentman:
I'll forever remember 2012 as the year when MS forgot to stay away from Apple. I'm never living it down.

which is pretty interesting considering how the whole gnome thing was almost '12 as well...

I will forever remember this as the apple year as well.

Olrod:
Are they actually remaking their OS each year, or just mashing lines of code into a previous OS to "upgrade" it, like a monkey at a typewriter?

The hardware cycle on tablets/phones is much quicker than for PCs these days, so a new API is need much sooner on the ARM based machines. Its the same reason why IoS and android gets a new API on the same cycle. I doubt they are going to do same on the Win8x86 platform. Apple upgrades every 2 years or so on OS X. Seeing that OS X only accounts for 9% of the desktop market, I don't see Microsoft throwing out the most successful desktop sales model in favour of less popular one.

Rainforce:
while Ubuntu WAS a choice of mine some years ago, the recent changes/upgrade of the Gnome desktop as a whole and Ubuntu's new Unity thing are real turnoffs for me (no fan of the pseudo OSX style), which means I will probably go for Mint next.
(have been using both windows and ubuntu for some time now)

Though I do understand that some people don't like it, I don't understand how it's a problem. You can turn off unity entirely and revert to the older gnome ui style which I've done.

I hear mint is fairly decent, though I've never used it, and it's basically Ubuntu with a lot of software pre installed.

Is it just me or will this royally fuck with backwards compatibility?

I will not replace win7 on my computer anytime soon, that's for sure. I held onto XP until my computer was choking on its own cpu cycles and new games simply refused to start. Thats the kinda situation the industry has to put me in to make me even remotely consider upgrading.

And whatever I'll be upgrading to better have user approved [Certificates of Not Shit]™ plastered all over it, or I'd rather suffer the old software even longer.

Fasckira:

Mechalynx:
Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

Says the man who doesn't work in the corporate IT world. I work at an international company and while the field gets the latest greatest OS, we are still using Windows XP. Why you ask? I'm glad you asked that. It's because when you upgrade operating systems it often times means upgrading a lot of your IT and server infrastructure which costs a lot of money. We are stuck on XP at the moment because many of the infrastructure applications we use are not up to date because iterations of some point were major changes or substantially expensive. As you said, most of the important settings and files are stored in a central area, but compatibility is the biggest issue involving OS upgrades. If you update something on the server side, it may mean you have to update everyone in the system with new OS licenses. If you upgrade all the secondary and tertiary equipment, it means that they will have compatibility issues with with information on the servers.

OT: This would make sense for their mobile platform, but this doesn't make sense for the PC platform. Mac OS's do not get released annually and Google only makes mobile platform OS's. iOS gets upgraded regularly but that is once again a mobile platform.

This could mean something else. It could mean that Windows Blue is going to be a mobile divergent from the PC OS, at least for now. They could be getting a lot of feedback from PC users and a lot of it may be negative. Perhaps they are pushing back the unified platform for now, which would be a smart move.

Microsoft is shooting itself in the foot with this. Why would anyone buy a new OS every year? Especially gamers? Valve is already doing a great job at adapting Steam and it's games to Linux. And nvidia just recently released some drivers that increase the performance on Linux drastically. If this trend continues, PC gamers will simply switch to Linux. It's not that hard to create a dual booth machine with Windows 7 for older titles and Linux for new ones. Fuck Microsoft and their greedy anti-consumerism.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here