New Windows OS May Launch by 2013

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Fanghawk:
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.

And that right there, assuming this is true, is where Microsoft has made a /major/ mistake. If they want to compete with Apple and Google on that, they have to at least /try/ to avoid fragmenting the market that badly. Android is currently on version 4.2, but there are few if any apps that actually require a version higher than 2.2. I don't have much experience with iOS, but I'd imagine it's got similar amounts of compatibility between app and OS versions.

Also, both Google and Apple give away the updates to their phone OSs for free, if I'm not mistaken. Apple charges for upgrades to their desktop OS, but that lasts longer than a year and doesn't create major incompatibilities.

Ugh... why? Okay, no, look, Microsoft, if you start charging under $100 (preferably something more like under $60) for every one of your OS', then maybe this wouldn't be a stupid idea. But since we all know that won't happen and every single OS they release will probably cost over $120 to get, this is a stupid idea.

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?

I actually wonder if that's actually true. Maybe Microsoft realized they can make more money if developers focus on making games for their consoles rather than their Operating system, so they're basically trying to steer them towards console development.

So we can see the "Shitty Windows" cycle speed up? Now it'll be every other year instead of every 4?

And as many have said before me, this'll be a nightmare for every software producer on the planet.

This is the same disease that makes me turn away from other software, like antivirus programs. When somebody switches from "mysoftware 3.4" to "mysoftware 2013" it just makes me think they are looking to cash in as much as possible without making significant and useful upgrades to whatever it is they make.

I really think that faster release cycles make for serious waste on the part of development quality. I also agree with the earlier comment that this will cause serious issues for both backward and forward compatibility for programs. While smartphones may be a very volatile system, PCs are valued among people who use them for fidelity. That core advantage of non-mobile computing might be harmed by this system.

zehydra:

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?

I actually wonder if that's actually true. Maybe Microsoft realized they can make more money if developers focus on making games for their consoles rather than their Operating system, so they're basically trying to steer them towards console development.

Nah, I doubt that their major business is in consoles; not insigninficant, mind you, but most likely nowhere near the money they get from all the businesses that use Windows. Whatever reasoning they used for their new business model can't have much to do with video games.

Baresark:

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.

-snip-

Too true. If this news is correct I can barely imagine what that would mean for local government and entire school districts. Enterprise level organizations like school districts that buy CALs by the tens of thousands. They're all hurting for money as it is. There just might be a reckoning--a contractually obligated reckoning for Microsoft down the road.

thesilentman:
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.

Poacher XD

I'd like it if they keep their apps to a standard that the rest of the web uses *cough* IE *cough*

Kinitawowi:

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 would be my hope. Windows 8 just kinda has a "Windows ME" feel to it.

sleeky01:

Kinitawowi:

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 would be my hope. Windows 8 just kinda has a "Windows ME" feel to it.

Windows 8 just kinda has a "Windows MEh" feel to it. Fixed! :P

Anyhow, Windows 7 is going to become the new Windows XP for me. I'll use that shit 'til it stops working.

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.

The costs are what stops many from upgrading; plus there may have to be training for the new features that are there for people who haven't used them before which costs more money and time. Heck most of my university still has Windows XP on them and they don't seem to be upgrading anytime soon.

OT: Sorry Microsoft but I'll be sticking with my lovely Windows 7 for quite a long time. Although having a update every year seems good on paper if it is not free or cheap then people aren't going to upgrade. Not to mention the potentiality of screwing up backwards compatibility.

...And are they planning to charge us a $100+ a year "subscription"? Because if you wanted to facilitate a massive migration to Linux, that would be a great start.

Also seems like a terrific way to imply a lack of confidence in this year's release, MS.

If anything, this sounds like the start of what Gabe and Notch were talking about. More control over your PC and the options you are allowed.

Well of course they are. Come on now. The precedent has been set by the gaming industry and the gamers who allowed it... Why WOULDNT they try to get in on yearly rehashes for the same thing only minus less customer value, usability and control. I mean honestly they should be ashamed of themselves for waiting this long.

/sigh

To be honest, I'd say it's far more likely that Microsoft has seen the tepid response to Windows 8 and is trying to make a product that people will want to actually buy.

Man, I need to go buy a Windows 7 install disc quickly.

Oh great, now my OS is taking after Call of Duty.

I think we might be reading too much into this, what this looks like to me is damage control for Windows 8.

MS is already having to cut back production of the ARM based Surface RT tablets (by 50%) as a result of low sales, and the Surface Pro is going to cost more than a Macbook Air without a keyboard and with only 64gb of storage. The RT version was the one Microsoft were hoping would push Windows 8 - despite it being software incompatible with the desktop version. If sales of RT are already bad then it bodes badly for the desktop version.

Put simply, if customers aren't buying it for the platform it's designed for - they aren't likely to buy it for another platform when they already have an arguably better OS already available in the form of it's predecessor. And if people aren't being exposed to MS's touchy-feely-for-the-love-of-god-don't-call-it-metro-or-we-get-sued interface on a touch platform, they aren't going to get a favourable feel for it.

So what we are likely looking at here is MS rushing out a de-metrofied version of 8, with the metro interface as a backup - or running metro apps in a window (oh please be this one, I want to experience he level of lol this will cause.) They might say "Oh yes this is what we plan to do from now on." But really they just want to bury Win 8/Vista 2/ME 3/MS Bob 4 and get back to feeding the average consumer a standard desktop OS instead to trying to make them use a touchscreen UI without a touchscreen.

Callate:
...And are they planning to charge us a $100+ a year "subscription"? Because if you wanted to facilitate a massive migration to Linux, that would be a great start.

Also seems like a terrific way to imply a lack of confidence in this year's release, MS.

shrekfan246:
Ugh... why? Okay, no, look, Microsoft, if you start charging under $100 (preferably something more like under $60) for every one of your OS', then maybe this wouldn't be a stupid idea. But since we all know that won't happen and every single OS they release will probably cost over $120 to get, this is a stupid idea.

I agree with every poster that said this is a monumentally stupid move from Microsoft and it can be summed up with two words: "Apple envy".

However, you two are just bashing the one thing that doesn't need it and is just plain wrong. Windows 8 Pro costs a whopping 39.99$ to upgrade from Win 7 until January and 69.99$ after that. Feel free to complain about all the legitimately stupid shit Microsoft seems to want to pull, instead of this.

Mr.Tea:

Callate:
...And are they planning to charge us a $100+ a year "subscription"? Because if you wanted to facilitate a massive migration to Linux, that would be a great start.

Also seems like a terrific way to imply a lack of confidence in this year's release, MS.

shrekfan246:
Ugh... why? Okay, no, look, Microsoft, if you start charging under $100 (preferably something more like under $60) for every one of your OS', then maybe this wouldn't be a stupid idea. But since we all know that won't happen and every single OS they release will probably cost over $120 to get, this is a stupid idea.

I agree with every poster that said this is a monumentally stupid move from Microsoft and it can be summed up with two words: "Apple envy".

However, you two are just bashing the one thing that doesn't need it and is just plain wrong. Windows 8 Pro costs a whopping 39.99$ to upgrade from Win 7 until January and 69.99$ after that. Feel free to complain about all the legitimately stupid shit Microsoft seems to want to pull, instead of this.

Yes... but how much does it cost to buy if you're not upgrading from Windows 7? And for that matter, look at how much Windows 7 still costs to either buy or upgrade to.

Mr.Tea:
However, you two are just bashing the one thing that doesn't need it and is just plain wrong. Windows 8 Pro costs a whopping 39.99$ to upgrade from Win 7 until January and 69.99$ after that. Feel free to complain about all the legitimately stupid shit Microsoft seems to want to pull, instead of this.

On Windows 8, I stand corrected.

I would point out, however, that the MSRP for Windows 7 Upgrade is $119.99. That's for Home Premium; powers help you if you wanted Ultimate ($219.99).

One year of relatively low pricing isn't enough to indicate a trend, or predict whether it will set the standard or simply test the waters to find out what they can get away with.

shrekfan246:

Yes... but how much does it cost to buy if you're not upgrading from Windows 7? And for that matter, look at how much Windows 7 still costs to either buy or upgrade to.

Well, upgrading from Vista counts too, if you have that (Also, the upgrade check isn't very thorough and will upgrade pirated copies)

It's true, Win 7 is still expensive. But I thought the problem here was them starting to upgrade more frequently but still charge Win 7 prices, which isn't what they're doing.

Actually, it's pretty clear they intend to keep this pricing model going forward, especially if they update this quickly. So they are, in fact, starting to charge <100$ and even <60$ for Windows like you said you wanted them to.

For reference, the OEM version (i.e: non-upgrade) of Win 8 is 99$ and Win 8 Pro is 139$

Baresark:
Says the man who doesn't work in the corporate IT world.

Says the man who makes sweeping generalisations based on his bad experiences.

Yes, I appreciate some companies are stuck on XP or with shonky infrastructures - only two years ago I had to do work a few of the UK NHS PCTs that refused to upgrade from Internet Explorer 6/XP due to a certain web app they used and the cost of updating just being too great.

However. If you're the type of company putting in Windows 8 now onto all your end user devices and you have a decent infrastructure then updating a yearly OS will be nothing.

And yes, I do work within the IT world and very extensively at that.

I think a lot of people here are over reacting.

I highly doubt these will be ground up updates, requiring new hardware drivers etc.

Everyone should just chill.

Mr.Tea:
Actually, it's pretty clear they intend to keep this pricing model going forward, especially if they update this quickly. So they are, in fact, starting to charge <100$ and even <60$ for Windows like you said you wanted them to.

Suffice it to say I'm not convinced this new pricing model is a certain lock for the future. And even if it's "only" $60 a year, there's nothing to say they won't, say, decide that you can't upgrade to 9 from Vista, or even 7. A yearly update is a great excuse to claim that the core code has changed too much in two versions to make an upgrade from the earlier versions possible. They could easily say: Buy the yearly change-over, or cough up for the full version and weep when you finally get tired of not being able to find drivers, Mack.

And what happens to the support for the poor saps who decide to cling on to the older versions? There was a solid base for XP (particularly in the wake of Vista's missteps) to keep Big M providing support for the much-loved version. What's to say the new strategy, if true, isn't an excuse to declare older versions obsolete at a faster pace?

Such speculation may seem pessimistic, if not paranoid, I'll grant. But I'd argue there's at least as much ground, based on Microsoft's past maneuvers, to make a case for such tactics as to believe that a $60 is the new face of pricing rather than the bait before the switch.

PROBLEM: Software incompatibility with newer version of OS.

SOLUTION: Do not upgrade OS.

Pay me $500,000 for this IT consultation.

Good. Windows 8 is terrible.

Fasckira:

Baresark:
Says the man who doesn't work in the corporate IT world.

Says the man who makes sweeping generalisations based on his bad experiences.

Yes, I appreciate some companies are stuck on XP or with shonky infrastructures - only two years ago I had to do work a few of the UK NHS PCTs that refused to upgrade from Internet Explorer 6/XP due to a certain web app they used and the cost of updating just being too great.

However. If you're the type of company putting in Windows 8 now onto all your end user devices and you have a decent infrastructure then updating a yearly OS will be nothing.

And yes, I do work within the IT world and very extensively at that.

That's weird, the part where you assume my experiences are bad. They certainly are not, they are actually very good. I just understand how prohibitive the cost of a yearly OS upgrade can be and how servicing almost 15000 end users can be a problem. I also don't see the advantages to doing it as as the act of simply having the newest software most of the time does not benefit the end user. But on that note, I do see you have had some of the similar experiences, so I do apologize for my sweeping generalization. But your generalization is, at very least, equally sweeping. I think my point also comes from the angle that Microsoft is not good at fixing issues within it's OS in a timely manner. It took almost a full two years a few Microsoft created applications to be compatible with Windows 7 without jumping through a long series of hoops (I am pointing at you Zune software (my personal experience)).

Yay! Finally something to give people an even bigger urge to convert to Linux.

As things are going, Windows is a dying platform that gives life to newer, better ones.

 Pages PREV 1 2

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
Register for a free account here