[Burned Phoenix]

The final version of Windows 7 has yet to be released to manufacturers and the public later this year but Microsoft has already started working on Windows 8. I first read about Windows 8 a few months ago when a WinMatrix user posted about it here, but now Windows 8 has started to come into focus.

The “Codename Windows” blog reported on April 14 that Microsoft is starting to hire developers specifically for Windows 8. There’s another Windows 8 job posting from April 16 that focuses on Windows 8 Server (a k a Windows Server 2011).

According to Mary-Jo Foley if Microsoft sticks to the kind of schedule to which it has adhered with Windows 7, Windows 8 will be released around 2011 (with Microsoft publicly promising a 2012 delivery target).

Now when Windows 8 is confirmed, we will see more of these type of cool concept videos on the net.

[SamiWiecieKto]

Burned Phoenix, on Apr 22 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

(...)

I prefer fruit company strategy - not talk about their future products: it's like giving User a feel that something what is released now isn't as good as could be. Of course sometimes one can do so - but those are minor cases and in my opinion it's not for OS.

[yanike]

Who cares, damn Microsoft finish Windows 7 with all you can and then work on 8. I hope this 7077 build isn't all that Windows 7 is introducing. If it is, then you mine as well release it as an Service Pack or Windows Vista Plus! pack.

To tell the truth that's what Microsoft is just doing. Charging full OS price for a Plus! pack they used to sell. Damn, even Apple gives out new fixes, features and performance enhancements for free through the updates.

Again, expecting a lot and receiving less.

This post has been edited by yanike: 22 April 2009 - 10:21 PM

[InlineSkate]

SamiWiecieKto, on Apr 22 2009, 05:57 PM, said:

Burned Phoenix, on Apr 22 2009, 11:50 PM, said:

(...)

I prefer fruit company strategy - not talk about their future products: it's like giving User a feel that something what is released now isn't as good as could be. Of course sometimes one can do so - but those are minor cases and in my opinion it's not for OS.

Totally agree it just opens Apple to damn we need to get our shit out first.

Eh if Windows 7 is just a service pack with all it has added then that must make Snow Leopard just a service pack because I can't say it really is adding that much either.

Just my 2cents

This post has been edited by InlineSkate: 22 April 2009 - 10:22 PM

[PurplePeopleEater]

Looks like they're trying to do yearly releases, I dont like the sound of that because quality will deplete

[Merforga]

Win8 talks were ongoing before Vista was released, so if they're hiring now, it's kind of late

[Frylock86]

PurplePeopleEater, on Apr 22 2009, 06:25 PM, said:

Looks like they're trying to do yearly releases, I dont like the sound of that because quality will deplete

Every two years. BTW, this is nothing new. Windows 9x was done bi-yearly as well.

[Gragier_521]

Two years of time is normal with operating systems.

[Freka]

I agree with Yanike. Windows 7 feels more like an addon pack rather than a new OS. Microsoft should finish off Windows 7 and hopefully add new features for RTM. They should also be more secretive, I would like to hear these kind of news months after the release of 7, not now.

[CommonSense]

Freka, on Apr 22 2009, 10:31 PM, said:

I agree with Yanike. Windows 7 feels more like an addon pack rather than a new OS. Microsoft should finish off Windows 7 and hopefully add new features for RTM. They should also be more secretive, I would like to hear these kind of news months after the release of 7, not now.

Agreed. What is the point of having an OS release than having news about the next one - that could be even better - when the current isn't out for release? I don't know if it's just me, but I wouldn't buy Windows 7 knowing that Windows 8 is right around the corner. But it all comes and goes, especially with tech.

New hardware comes out, new software is needed to give that hardware the ability to work to its potential. And even though there is support for terabytes of RAM, no one has hit near a quarter of that, yet it's developed.

[The Flashing Fish]

yanike, on Apr 22 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

Who cares, damn Microsoft finish Windows 7 with all you can and then work on 8. I hope this 7077 build isn't all that Windows 7 is introducing. If it is, then you mine as well release it as an Service Pack or Windows Vista Plus! pack.

To tell the truth that's what Microsoft is just doing. Charging full OS price for a Plus! pack they used to sell. Damn, even Apple gives out new fixes, features and performance enhancements for free through the updates.

Again, expecting a lot and receiving less.

Why should Windows 7 be a service pack or a "plus" pack when it's far more than that. Windows 7 introduces new GUI improvements and many improvements to the kernel and other stuff under the hood (although no radical changes)?

It's not like Apple differs from that at all. Sure, Apple provides updates with fixes and performance improvements and a few features. MS does this too. Vista SP1 updated the kernel (used the one from Windows Server 2008), provides performance improvements (like an updated desktop search) and numerous bug fixes. And MS every month releases security updates and bug fixes.

And what do you call Leopard? It offered numerous GUI improvements and features. How does Windows 7 differ from that?

And to me, it looks like Apple's and Microsoft's development schedules are reversed from one another.

MS first releases an OS that introduces new developer features and many improvements and features under the hood. The next release doesn't focus as much on features and such under the hood, but rather GUI improvements and further fixes and improvements under the hood. It uses the foundation the previous OS lays down and makes it better. MS has a Major release (Vista) and a Minor release (Windows 7), in terms of what's under the hood.

For Apple, they do it backwards. They first make improvements to the GUI and then the next OS is improved, with more focus on developer improvements. Look at Leopard, it mainly consisted of GUI improvements and features (new Menu bar, new Dock features, Time Machine). Snow Leopard really won't add to that. It will refine Stacks so you can browse through folders, but the real improvements are under the hood (64-bit Kernel, finally, OpenCL, and a couple other things I'm to arsed to look up). Sure, Apple is supposedly going to introduce Marble to replace Aqua, but that's more or less a new skin, and really doesn't "improve" anything. It just changes the looks and gives the appearance of a new OS (much like Luna in XP, when XP really didn't differ a heck of a lot from Windows 2000 under the hood, but on the surface, it looked like a new beast).

[yanike]

The Flashing Fish, on Apr 22 2009, 09:42 PM, said:

yanike, on Apr 22 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

Who cares, damn Microsoft finish Windows 7 with all you can and then work on 8. I hope this 7077 build isn't all that Windows 7 is introducing. If it is, then you mine as well release it as an Service Pack or Windows Vista Plus! pack.

To tell the truth that's what Microsoft is just doing. Charging full OS price for a Plus! pack they used to sell. Damn, even Apple gives out new fixes, features and performance enhancements for free through the updates.

Again, expecting a lot and receiving less.

Why should Windows 7 be a service pack or a "plus" pack when it's far more than that. Windows 7 introduces new GUI improvements and many improvements to the kernel and other stuff under the hood (although no radical changes)?

It's not like Apple differs from that at all. Sure, Apple provides updates with fixes and performance improvements and a few features. MS does this too. Vista SP1 updated the kernel (used the one from Windows Server 2008), provides performance improvements (like an updated desktop search) and numerous bug fixes. And MS every month releases security updates and bug fixes.

And what do you call Leopard? It offered numerous GUI improvements and features. How does Windows 7 differ from that?

And to me, it looks like Apple's and Microsoft's development schedules are reversed from one another.

MS first releases an OS that introduces new developer features and many improvements and features under the hood. The next release doesn't focus as much on features and such under the hood, but rather GUI improvements and further fixes and improvements under the hood. It uses the foundation the previous OS lays down and makes it better. MS has a Major release (Vista) and a Minor release (Windows 7), in terms of what's under the hood.

For Apple, they do it backwards. They first make improvements to the GUI and then the next OS is improved, with more focus on developer improvements. Look at Leopard, it mainly consisted of GUI improvements and features (new Menu bar, new Dock features, Time Machine). Snow Leopard really won't add to that. It will refine Stacks so you can browse through folders, but the real improvements are under the hood (64-bit Kernel, finally, OpenCL, and a couple other things I'm to arsed to look up). Sure, Apple is supposedly going to introduce Marble to replace Aqua, but that's more or less a new skin, and really doesn't "improve" anything. It just changes the looks and gives the appearance of a new OS (much like Luna in XP, when XP really didn't differ a heck of a lot from Windows 2000 under the hood, but on the surface, it looked like a new beast).

You like me knows Vista wasn't a great OS. Straight up, it's a slap in a face to Windows users who expected more from a company that they gave money to over the years. It's just said that Microsoft couldn't release an update that will give Vista users the speed of Windows 7. A new OS should have great speeds, but as a corporation, Microsoft should have done something for Vista to give it more speed. I'm forced to use Windows 7 beta just to develop on a more stable and faster system.

The funny thing is, is that Windows users should look forward to beta releases of the OS to get normal functioning system then the main release. Once Windows 7 comes out, Windows users should look forward to download Windows 8 beta because it's going to have more to offer then the Windows 7 final.

To me, speed and stability shouldn't be what users have to pay an arm and leg for. An Operating... again... OPERATING System should perform great. Now, it's up to Microsoft to release the next OS with just a bit or more faster speeds then the last, but still after the final work on ways to make the OS faster(like Windows 7 compared to Vista) through updates. You shouldn't leave users with turtle speeds and have them wait 2 years to kick it up to rabbit speed, which by then Unix systems will going Horsepower speeds.

It's not like I'm constantly wanting to use Mac as an example, but it is a great system to use it for one. From 10.5.1 to 10.5.6, you can notice lots of speed and stability fixes and OSX users didn't have to pay for them either.

Right now, I'm using Windows 7 full time and loving it, but I fear when the release comes and new hardware and software is released, will this system still perform as fast as it is now. Will Microsoft maintain it with updates as they should, for new software and hardware. To be safe, I will still keep OSX around, just because I love it and just incase Windows 7 doesn't come out the way it should.

This post has been edited by yanike: 23 April 2009 - 03:36 AM

[Abhi]

The Flashing Fish, on Apr 23 2009, 08:12 AM, said:

yanike, on Apr 22 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

Who cares, damn Microsoft finish Windows 7 with all you can and then work on 8. I hope this 7077 build isn't all that Windows 7 is introducing. If it is, then you mine as well release it as an Service Pack or Windows Vista Plus! pack.

To tell the truth that's what Microsoft is just doing. Charging full OS price for a Plus! pack they used to sell. Damn, even Apple gives out new fixes, features and performance enhancements for free through the updates.

Again, expecting a lot and receiving less.

Why should Windows 7 be a service pack or a "plus" pack when it's far more than that. Windows 7 introduces new GUI improvements and many improvements to the kernel and other stuff under the hood (although no radical changes)?

It's not like Apple differs from that at all. Sure, Apple provides updates with fixes and performance improvements and a few features. MS does this too. Vista SP1 updated the kernel (used the one from Windows Server 2008), provides performance improvements (like an updated desktop search) and numerous bug fixes. And MS every month releases security updates and bug fixes.

And what do you call Leopard? It offered numerous GUI improvements and features. How does Windows 7 differ from that?

And to me, it looks like Apple's and Microsoft's development schedules are reversed from one another.

MS first releases an OS that introduces new developer features and many improvements and features under the hood. The next release doesn't focus as much on features and such under the hood, but rather GUI improvements and further fixes and improvements under the hood. It uses the foundation the previous OS lays down and makes it better. MS has a Major release (Vista) and a Minor release (Windows 7), in terms of what's under the hood.

For Apple, they do it backwards. They first make improvements to the GUI and then the next OS is improved, with more focus on developer improvements. Look at Leopard, it mainly consisted of GUI improvements and features (new Menu bar, new Dock features, Time Machine). Snow Leopard really won't add to that. It will refine Stacks so you can browse through folders, but the real improvements are under the hood (64-bit Kernel, finally, OpenCL, and a couple other things I'm to arsed to look up). Sure, Apple is supposedly going to introduce Marble to replace Aqua, but that's more or less a new skin, and really doesn't "improve" anything. It just changes the looks and gives the appearance of a new OS (much like Luna in XP, when XP really didn't differ a heck of a lot from Windows 2000 under the hood, but on the surface, it looked like a new beast).

Finally, someone who really knows what he's talking about.

[Syzygy]

This is too much too soon

[The Flashing Fish]

yanike, on Apr 23 2009, 03:26 AM, said:

You like me knows Vista wasn't a great OS. Straight up, it's a slap in a face to Windows users who expected more from a company that they gave money to over the years. It's just said that Microsoft couldn't release an update that will give Vista users the speed of Windows 7. A new OS should have great speeds, but as a corporation, Microsoft should have done something for Vista to give it more speed. I'm forced to use Windows 7 beta just to develop on a more stable and faster system.

First of all, I had to get rid of the other quotes. I don't like the clutter.

Anyway. I personally enjoy Vista. I have Windows 7 installed on my Mac through boot camp. I had Windows Vista and Windows Vista Business on it before Windows 7, and honestly, I really don't notice a difference in speed. Start up times are a bit better, but I think that's more to do with Sidebar being integrated into explorer. In Vista, sidebar loads very slowly at startup, so if there's one thing I think MS can do for Vista is to improve sidebar's startup speed. But by no means does it make me hate Vista or make me think it's slow.

And really, Microsoft did do something to give Vista more speed. It's Service Pack 1, and they did more with that Service Pack than MS has ever done with a Service Pack. It's the only time MS has provided a kernel upgrade in a Service Pack and benchmarks showed that it brought gaming performance up to the same pace of XP (although, I didn't see much of a difference as performance in HL2 based games gave me better performance in Vista than in XP, even after trying multiple drivers and such).

But you also have to remember than MS is in the business of making money. If they updated everything underneath Vista to that of Windows 7, then there's not much incentive for anyone to upgrade to Windows 7 (whether it be to buy a new OS or a new computer).

The funny thing is, is that Windows users should look forward to beta releases of the OS to get normal functioning system then the main release. Once Windows 7 comes out, Windows users should look forward to download Windows 8 beta because it's going to have more to offer then the Windows 7 final.

Quote

To me, speed and stability shouldn't be what users have to pay an arm and leg for. An Operating... again... OPERATING System should perform great. Now, it's up to Microsoft to release the next OS with just a bit or more faster speeds then the last, but still after the final work on ways to make the OS faster(like Windows 7 compared to Vista) through updates. You shouldn't leave users with turtle speeds and have them wait 2 years to kick it up to rabbit speed, which by then Unix systems will going Horsepower speeds.

What's not stable about it? I've personally tried Vista on three different computers, my old Acer laptop, my MBP and my desktop, and Vista never gave me problems. Performance was great on my Acer laptop (made in 2006, before Vista was even out) and I can only recall of one BSOD a year ago due to a bad Nvidia network driver. I have never gotten a BSOD since. Vista has been rock solid for me. I've gamed for hours, kept my computer on for days, and never a BSOD and never a hiccup.

Speed is great on my computers. On my MBP, I really didn't notice any increase, asides from that "new" OS smell, but after you start loading in your programs and anti-virus, it quickly loses that "new" smell. I experienced the same thing with Leopard. I've considered reinstalling, but it's sooo much work. Honestly, I can't complain much about speed with either Vista or Leopard. Both have been rock solid for me. Speed is great. You can't expect MS or Apple to take improvements they made in a new OS and backport it to an older OS and offer the improvements for free. It costs money and they have to give you a reason to upgrade to the next OS.

Quote

It's not like I'm constantly wanting to use Mac as an example, but it is a great system to use it for one. From 10.5.1 to 10.5.6, you can notice lots of speed and stability fixes and OSX users didn't have to pay for them either.

For me, I found that Leopard was slower than Tiger and that up until 10.5.5 they made up that speed they lost to Tiger. However, for me, 10.5.6 made Leopard worse. Things seem slower, although If 10.5.7 doesn't bring this back up to speed, I'm going to reformat. But it's also worth mention, that in each of the updates, they still haven't updated the f**king drivers for the 8600M GT. It seems like I'm going to have to get Snow Leopard just for updated 8600M GT drivers (which they have to redo as the kernel is going to be 64-bit, and current drivers won't work).

Anyways, you didn't have to pay for Service Pack 1 for Vista either and you're not going to have to pay for Service Pack 2.