Print 147 comment(s) - last by decapitator666.. on Feb 23 at 1:53 PM

A Microsoft employee recently aired a MSDN post, which describe the upcoming Windows 8 as "completly different [sic]" from past versions of the OS. They say that Windows 8, possibly set to air in 2012, is being referred to internally as "Windows.Next".  (Source: Gnome Look)
Don't expect more of the same with Windows 8, they warn

With Windows 7, Microsoft appears to finally have hit the sweet spot in terms of public reception.  Now that it has put the painful Vista years behind it and found a formula that works, you would think it would stick to the newly proven formula that's earning it boatloads of cash.  And yet Microsoft is hungry for more and willing to take more risks.

A Microsoft employee recently posted an MSDN blog describing just how revolutionary Windows 8 will be.  They describe, "So how am I referring to the next version of Windows without saying that many words – well simple – This is definitely not the official version but a version that is becoming common along my circle."

He continues, "The minimum that folks can take for granted is that the next version will be something completly [sic] different from what folks usually expect of Windows – I am simply impressed with the process that Steven has setup to listen to our customers needs and wants and get a team together than can make it happen. To actually bring together dozens and dozens of teams across Microsoft to come up with a vision for is a process that is surreal! The themes that have been floated truly reflect what people have been looking for years and it will change the way people think about PCs and the way they use them. It is the future of PCs…"

Doing something "completely different" with the next version of Windows would be a bold move for the world's largest software firm.  Set to air in 2012, according to recently leaked roadmaps, Microsoft may be planning a whopper of a surprise for the public.  Microsoft has previously stated that in July it will be turning its focus onwards from Windows 7 on to designing and refining the next version of Windows.

The MSDN blog that contained the Windows 8 details currently is down; it may well have been pulled.  However, the full text is available here, cached on Google.

However and whenever Windows 8 approaches the market, we certainly hope that Microsoft continues with one of the key programs that made Windows 7 such a huge success – its unprecedented public test candidate program.  With Microsoft following similar practices with Office 2010 and other products, it seems likely it will.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Judguh on 2/11/2010 9:53:36 AM , Rating: 5
It would be nice to see a 64-bit only OS. It would be a nice nudge for software companies to start moving forward would be awesome.

RE: 64-bit
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 10:14:20 AM , Rating: 5
It's too early to know or say for sure, but I highly expect All of Microsoft's operating systems to be 64-bit only from 2012 on. We'll probably stop seeing 32-bit software from Microsoft by 2015 or so. Third parties will probably take longer, however. The transition to 64-bit has been a long, arduous one, and it's far from over.

As a user of 64-bit Vista for nearly two years and 64-bit 7 for several months, I can attest that hardware manufacturers are largely where they need to be in the driver department. Software does need to catch up, but admittedly the advantages of 64-bit software are virtually non-existent in most, but certainly not all applications.

RE: 64-bit
By Oregonian2 on 2/11/2010 1:24:46 PM , Rating: 3
but admittedly the advantages of 64-bit software are virtually non-existent in most, but certainly not all applications.

Undoubtedly why things are moving so slowly to 64-bit. 16->32 was pretty fast because it was really needed by about everything. Not so with 64 bit (yet).

RE: 64-bit
By ViRGE on 2/11/2010 7:44:17 PM , Rating: 5
How the heck was 16->32 fast? The first 32bit processors: 1985. The first 32bit Windows home user OS: 1995. 16bit Windows binaries were common right up to 1997 or so.

RE: 64-bit
By quiksilvr on 2/12/2010 1:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
Considering we had the first 64 bit computers in the 1960s and 64 bit servers since the 1990s, the transition has been astronomically slow when compared to 16 -> 32.

RE: 64-bit
By Pauli on 2/12/2010 2:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
True dat. It took forever to go from 16 to 32. I still have nightmares about code and data segments being too large!

RE: 64-bit
By JediJeb on 2/16/2010 3:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
Believe it or not Agilent( a split off of HP) still sells control software for their analytical instruments that use 16 bit code. Maybe the latest version that came out last year is different but all up till then still needed the WOW service running to allow it to work. They did once try to put out some 32 bit versions but they were so bad noone used them, so the 16 bit stuff has hung around for nearly 20 years.

I think it was mostly due to the programmers they have now. Seems the old one just made the software interface simple and put most of the effort in how it worked with the equipment, the new programmers see more worried about how it looks and not enough about how ti works with the equipment. The new stuff had tons of clicky buttons that effected the appearance and made nice forms and such, but it kept losing control of the equipment.

RE: 64-bit
By uibo on 2/17/2010 7:55:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think if it were up to the programmers, we would be using command-line programs.

RE: 64-bit
By inighthawki on 2/11/2010 10:25:47 AM , Rating: 1
Scrapping 32-bit support certainly forces software developers to venture where they should have been years ago, but the major problem lies in the "legacy" software that many businesses and persons use. There are plenty of 32-bit only applications that will never be ported to 64-bit that many people use on a daily basis, not even to mention games as an example. Even modern pc games are 32-bit despite 64-bit support in directx libraries, and plenty of 64-bit compilers. I'd love for microsoft to find a way to push 64-bit applications, but i would still like to see they keep wow64 subsystem in future versions, as opposed to 64-bit only.

RE: 64-bit
By FITCamaro on 2/11/2010 10:49:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well yes they should maintain the ability to run 32-bit code but the OS itself should be 64-bit. Would be nice for games to move to 64-bit finally.

RE: 64-bit
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: 64-bit
By Spivonious on 2/11/2010 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 5
Supreme Commander routinely hits the 2GB memory limit. Anandtech did an article about it a couple years back.

RE: 64-bit
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: 64-bit
By Belegost on 2/11/2010 5:45:53 PM , Rating: 5
"The poorly coded ones go beyond 640KB and crash. Usually those should be fixed in patches." ~ circa 1989

RE: 64-bit
By MrPoletski on 2/12/2010 5:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
Why? Do games really need that much more system memory? They won't get faster, that depends upon the video card. Do you even understand the need/reason for 64-bit?

Short answer: Yes they do.

RE: 64-bit
By Akrovah on 2/16/2010 5:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, Imagine playing Mass Effect 2 and having the entire Normandy loaded at once so you didn't have to hit two load screens just to feed your fish. (though I suppose that probably has alot to do with the Xbox 360 memory capacity)

RE: 64-bit
By porkpie on 2/11/2010 12:27:18 PM , Rating: 4
"Scrapping 32-bit support certainly forces software developers to venture where they should have been years ago"

In the real world of business, companies provide what their users want. They don't venture into new territory simply because its cool.

"Years ago", 64 bit software was for nearly all applications an enormous risk for no gain..and in many cases, an actual loss in performance, especially on machines that had 2GB or even less in RAM.

Even today, there's a tremendous amount of software that just plain won't benefit at all from a switch to 64 bit. Those developers will only change over when 32 bit support appears to be nearing an end..and for most of them, that's probably a very wise decision.

RE: 64-bit
By gamerk2 on 2/12/2010 10:12:18 AM , Rating: 2
My work uses a 16-bit telnet client for communicating between remote sites (Its a secure line). That means, we are locked in XP32, as there is not 16-bit support.

Heck, we have a Win3.1 machine in the back for legacy reasons. Point is, business will always be the last to upgrade.

RE: 64-bit
By Smilin on 2/12/2010 10:43:05 AM , Rating: 4
WHY? Dear god why? All the IT guy inside me is just barfing everywhere at this.

There are FREE telnet clients and there is nothing that can possibly be of value that you need Windows 3.1 to run.

RE: 64-bit
By namechamps on 2/12/2010 12:29:54 PM , Rating: 4
I second that.

I mean I can understand hanging on to custom 16bit software buried deep inside a business process where the source code is long since forgotten and there has been a loss of knowledge.

However keeping a 16bit client around for telnet. Telnet? There are plenty of 32bit telnet clients. command line clients, gui clients, clients that can accept scripting commands, clients that can read a text file and operate in batch mode.

Staying stuck in 1997 over 16bit telnet client is the height of stupidity.

RE: 64-bit
By Murst on 2/11/2010 11:18:51 AM , Rating: 2
It would be nice to see a 64-bit only OS. It would be a nice nudge for software companies to start moving forward would be awesome.

Software companies are already switching. For example, I believe the next version of After Effects will be 64 bit only. For most applications, you will not see any benefits though.

RE: 64-bit
By Oregonian2 on 2/11/2010 1:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, generally speaking, Adobe's "power" programs including their video and photoshop programs probably are the MOST beneficial of 64-bit for applications use. Programs with very large datasets.

RE: 64-bit
By tfk11 on 2/11/2010 4:52:01 PM , Rating: 5
Or... The additional headroom for bloat that a 64bit environment creates could be the death of Adobe.

RE: 64-bit
By Oregonian2 on 2/12/2010 4:18:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, "bloat" is always lambasted but in truth I think most people are for it. Given a choice of having apps a couple years sooner and probably more reliable vs. later and bloat optimized out, I think most people actually would take the bloat. Takes effort, time, and engineering money to remove or avoid bloat.

Pragmatically, I don't think most customers are in favor of the additional time and money for the apps to be shaved down just to save a couple bucks worth of memory in their PC's. I could be wrong, but I'd pay the extra couple dollars to buy another gig of memory (or pennies for additional hard disk to hold the apps).

RE: 64-bit
By gstrickler on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: 64-bit
By Spivonious on 2/11/2010 12:45:09 PM , Rating: 4
VT is not needed in consumer CPUs.

Every Intel CPU has supported x64 since 2006.

Most Intel chipsets have supported >4GB memory since 2006. The ones that support only 4GB are meant for entry-level systems (945, G31, G41, etc.).

RE: 64-bit
By BobT on 2/11/2010 4:49:57 PM , Rating: 2
Not exactly. The Atom processors just got 64 bit support with the latest releases that just came out last month.

RE: 64-bit
By OCedHrt on 2/11/2010 8:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure why you are being rated down on this one. Also, many Intel chips do not have VT as well.

RE: 64-bit
By namechamps on 2/12/2010 12:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
Which is major reason why Windows 7 was 32bit & 64bit.

That combined with lot of upgradable machines are 32bit or don't support >4GB of ram.

However 2012 is a long time in computer years. By 2012 I think all cpu from AMD & Intel will be x64 and 90%+ of upgradeable hardware that could support Win8 will be x64 too.

It will be a good time for Microsoft to make that final switch.

RE: 64-bit
By Akrovah on 2/16/2010 6:05:51 PM , Rating: 2
Well thats why we have system requirements. Those non 64 bit platforms are already the lowest of the low. By the time Win8/next is released they will be even more so. It is a simple matter for MS to just say "We don't support those platforms." Problem solved.

The chipsets however are not quite the problem you seem to think. They may only support 4 gigs of RAM, but they still support a 64-bit OS. Like the 945 chipset a friend of mine has. He runs 64 bit windows on it, but it does not recognize more than 4 gigs of memory.

RE: 64-bit
By poohbear on 2/11/2010 5:42:54 PM , Rating: 1
im sure it will be only 64-bit by 2012 for 1 simple reason: u need it to have 4gb of ram in a system. by 2012 im pretty sure the avg comp will come w/ 8gb of ram, so 64bit would be a requirement.

RE: 64-bit
By jconan on 2/12/2010 2:08:10 AM , Rating: 2
it would be even better if the next version supported ARM processors... Windows everywhere.

RE: 64-bit
By Silver2k7 on 2/12/2010 11:21:43 AM , Rating: 1
"It would be nice to see a 64-bit only OS."

I don't see any reason for a 32-bit version.
But it might be that there is a 128-bit and a 64-bit version of Win8.

RE: 64-bit
By Kaleid on 2/15/2010 2:22:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well it won't be, since MS main goal is to make money.

RE: 64-bit
By Lerianis on 2/15/2010 11:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
If you mean by 64-bit only, you mean 64-bit OS only AND 32-bit programs will run with the aid of compatibility programs on 64-bit.... yeah, that is the way that we should be going.

I would not want them to EVER get rid of 32-bit compatibility, there are just too many programs out there that use 32-bit (like games) and unless someone makes something like DosBox for 32-bit programs..... people would get angry if Microsoft dropped support for 32-bit programs totally.

Wait for Windows 9!
By nafhan on 2/11/2010 10:50:38 AM , Rating: 5
If Windows 8 is truely "revolutionary", you'll probably want to wait until Windows 9 (i.e. Windows 8 + bug and UI fixes). Kidding of course, Vista was great!

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By Sulphademus on 2/11/2010 7:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 95: new architecture
Windows 98: refinement

Windows 2000: new architecture
Windows XP: refinement

Windows Vista: new architecture
Windows 7: refinement

Windows 8: new architecture
Windows 9: refinement

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By norjms on 2/11/2010 9:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry to burst you bubble, but Windows 200 was an extension of the NT4 not the mainstream consumer OS.
Windows 95: new architecture

Windows 98: refinement

wrong - Windows 2000: new architecture

Windows ME: Additional refinement of Windows 98

Windows XP: new architecture

Windows Vista: new architecture

Windows 7: refinement

Windows 8: new architecture
Windows 9: refinement

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By icanhascpu on 2/12/2010 4:06:25 AM , Rating: 2
What did they use for the Windows ME refinement?


RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By MrPoletski on 2/12/2010 6:01:10 AM , Rating: 2
The WDM driver model.

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By Aloonatic on 2/12/2010 4:29:38 AM , Rating: 2
Whilst Win2000 (did it ever make it into the home user/mainstream market in the USA by the way? It didn't here in the UK) was based on NT4, was XP not based on (or a refinement of) win2000 at all?

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By clx12 on 2/12/2010 5:26:22 AM , Rating: 2
wrong - Windows 2000: new architecture

Actually, Windows 2000 was a new architecture.

Windows NT family:

Windows NT 4 (Windows_NT 4.0)

Windows 2000 (Windows_NT 5.0)
Windows XP (Windows_NT 5.1)
Windows 2003 (Windows_NT 5.2)

Windows Vista (Windows_NT 6.0)
Windows 7 (Windows_NT 6.1)

MS Windows Family

Windows 3.11 (Windows 3.11)

Windows 95 (Windows 4.0.950)
Windows 98 (Windows 4.0.1998)
Windows 98 SE (Windows 4.0.2222)
Windows Me (Windows 4.9)

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By piroroadkill on 2/12/2010 7:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
Crock of shit.

Windows 2000 was a LOT different than NT4 in SO MANY FUCKING WAYS


Windows 2000 was definitely not just a spruced up NT4 but any possible definition

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By piroroadkill on 2/12/2010 7:15:10 AM , Rating: 3
*by any

XP was a refinement of Windows 2000, it barely added anything over it.

I could also mention than 2000 had FAT32 support, NT4 didn't. USB support, NT4 didn't. First introduced the management console. Oh god, the list goes on and on and on.

You speak like somebody who never used NT4. NT4 is basically unusable as a desktop OS, 2000 is still perfectly usable. It's night and day.

RE: Wait for Windows 9!
By namechamps on 2/12/2010 12:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
Not even close.

Under the hood 2000 & XP were far more similar than Win NT & Win 2000.

Gentoo Linux
By Shining Arcanine on 2/11/2010 8:32:58 PM , Rating: 2
I installed Windows 7 RTM on my laptop last year in September. I wiped my laptop's hard drive clean and installed Gentoo Linux in January. I think Gentoo Linux is a much better OS and there is no need for Windows. It boots quickly, it uses very little memory, it can make very effective use of unused memory and it only has the things I specify (i.e. there is no bloat).

I do not think Microsoft can make an OS better than this and I think it is marketing that keeps people using Windows. If people ignored the marketing and went back to the old days where there was no default choice (aside from the OS being UNIX), all choices would be equally evaluated and people would choose Linux more often and as more and more choose Linux, the developer support that helps to solidify Windows' hold on the market would erode away, as DirectX developers go to OpenGL for making games and accessories like media center extenders and cablecard tuners are released for Linux. Not to mention other office suites would no longer need to be Microsoft Office clones, but would become fully fledged platforms in their own right with formats that Microsoft's Office developers would need to support.

Anyway, I recommend that everyone here try Linux. I really recommend Gentoo Linux, but if you do not want to dive head first into the world of Linux, you could try Ubuntu Linux via Wubi to become familiar with Linux before going with Gentoo Linux.

RE: Gentoo Linux
By rudy on 2/11/2010 11:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree, I have not used gentoo recently but I do use ubuntu now. The reality is that linux distros are always behind the times. It feels like you are running windows XP when everyone else is running windows 7.

I always say its really simple. The linux community gives their stuff away for free and people still don't use it. So what does that mean? It is pretty rare to find a product you cannot even give away. The linux community needs to rally behind a single distro and really move it forward. They just are not there right now.

RE: Gentoo Linux
By espaghetti on 2/12/2010 1:40:48 AM , Rating: 3
Let them commune and share their OS.
I prefer an OS that I don't need to learn frickin code to make my network printer work. I've got more important things to do.

RE: Gentoo Linux
By Shining Arcanine on 2/13/2010 9:33:44 AM , Rating: 1
I think you would like Gentoo. Add ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" (or whatever corresponds to your architecture) to /etc/make.conf and it will install all of the latest stable packages from the upstream developers when you do updates. This puts Gentoo six to twelve months ahead of Ubuntu in terms of software updates. It also runs like a charm.

I am not sure what you mean by "it feels like running Windows XP" especially since Windows XP is an awesome operating system, however, if you mean boot time and shutdown times, I have had Windows XP, Windows 7 and Gentoo Linux installed on my laptop on different times (in that order) and Gentoo Linux is the fastest. According to my stop watch, the time it takes from pressing the power button to being at KDM is 14.30 seconds. Shut downs I have not taken a stop watch to measure, but they are only a few seconds like Windows 7. Stuff is cached in memory like on Windows 7 (although it does a better job in my opinion) and software starts nearly instantaneously.

I will admit that it did take a bit of work to get it to be that good. After a experimenting for a while, I had to strip the bloat (debugging options) out of the kernel, stick with kernel 2.6.31 (performance regressions in ext4 are in newer kernels), turn on Kernel Preemption and RCU Preemption in the kernel, put kernel drivers not explicitly needed for the system to boot into modules so they load after the system INIT scripts start to load, use nobarrier=1,noatime in my mount options in fstab (note: only use nobarrier=1 on systems that are battery backed-up, like laptops), format my root partition ext4, add ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" to make.conf to get the latest software, configure OpenRC for a parallel boot and optimize my CFLAGS for my processor while turning on GCC's graphite optimizer, which does not do much, but in theory it helps. You can do all of these things during an installation of Gentoo, but the manual does not specify that you do them.

The result is a system that runs either as smoothly or more smoothly than Windows 7. At least it was for me anyway. Windows 7 is horribly bloated compared to Gentoo Linux, so Gentoo Linux will make much better use of the 2GB of RAM in my laptop. I am typing this on my desktop which runs Windows 7 because it functions as my home's media center PC. Comparing the memory footprint it has to my laptop's memory foot print (after cached memory is subtracted from the equation), it uses roughly 5 times the memory just to run, which dramatically reduces the memory available for caching stuff.

Lastly, I am running KDE 4.4.0 on my laptop, which was released a few days ago. Ubuntu Linux will probably not have it available to the average user for at least a year, but it was easy to get within 24 hours of its release with Gentoo. I just had to run emerge -avDuN world and it asked me if I wanted to install it. KDE 4.4.0 is an advanced desktop environment that supports many things that Windows 7 does not, such as tabbed Windows (taking arbitrary windows and gluing them together in a single one with tabs) and multiple desktops. It supports the page flip functionality introduced in Windows Vista and allows you to search your task menu for software rather than having to navigate through it, a feature I believe it has had much longer than Windows has had it.

Anyway, Gentoo Linux is great. It will have a learning curve if you are used to using something else, but it is no more than the learning curve for becoming used to working with Windows. No one has succeeded in making a computer that people, having never experienced it in the past, can just begin to use effectively without any prior knowledge of how things are done in it and it is the same for Gentoo Linux.

RE: Gentoo Linux
By FlyTexas on 2/11/2010 11:51:37 PM , Rating: 5
Let me know when I can get MS Office, Quickbooks, Adobe, etc. on Linux...

OpenOffice, BANAL, and Gimp are NOT acceptable substitutes. I can't send BANAL files to my CPA (and conversion isn't worth the risk in business, OpenOffice files are not 100% compatable with Office 2007, and Gimp is NOT Adobe, if you are using it for work.

The OS might be better, but we don't buy computers to run the OS, we buy computers to run programs.

Windows is so wide spread because of the range of software written for it, not because it is a good or bad OS.

In addition, employees know how to use Windows. They generally do not know how to use Linux.

RE: Gentoo Linux
By jurassic512 on 2/13/2010 4:05:59 AM , Rating: 2
That "bloat" everyone speaks of, is what allows the OS to support the thousands of hardware and software configurations. Whats that? Linux is known to lack basic hardware support like something as simple as a video or wifi card? You don't say!

RE: Gentoo Linux
By Shining Arcanine on 2/13/2010 9:09:53 AM , Rating: 1
Those work for me.

64 Bit Rumors
By btc909 on 2/11/2010 2:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
I've heard for 2 years this version of Windows is suppose to be 64 Bit only. Microsoft better emulate all of the old "crap" & finally get away from it. It is possible to have a 32 bit OS that doesn't have a 4GB memory limitation but because Windows is written for backwards support you are stuck at 4GB. MS needs to do what Apple did & get away from the old OS architecture.

In the future: "you only have 8GB if RAM?"

RE: 64 Bit Rumors
By Alexvrb on 2/11/2010 11:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
Technically you can address more than 4GB in a 32-bit OS using the PAE functionality of many x86 CPUs. The usage of PAE (also used for NX) and resulting memory limits varies, the Windows versions that benefit the most are the Server editions. But it has drawbacks, which is part of why the non-server editions don't normally use it to extend addressable memory. Generally it is better to run a 64-bit version of the OS if you need to address more memory. Note that 32-bit applications, even on a system able to address lots of memory, are still limited to 2GB per process.

Regarding backwards compatibility, the 64-bit versions of Windows all have WoW64. It works pretty damn well, for the majority of apps. Therefore they already "emulate all the old crap" to a large degree. Not to mention the limited-but-useful WinXP VM in Win7 Pro (and up). The only way to get "better" backwards compatibility would be to emulate an entire x86 machine and 32-bit Windows enviroment (like DOSbox does for DOS). It would be very complicated and resource intensive. Not something MS would waste their time on - maybe some day a group of leet coders will attempt it.

There is still some software that doesn't play nice with WoW64. So they held off on the 64-bit-only OS until the next gen. Shoot, you can buy some Atom CPUs that can't run 64-bit software.

RE: 64 Bit Rumors
By jurassic512 on 2/13/2010 4:08:52 AM , Rating: 2
Did you not read the article?

By chagrinnin on 2/12/2010 7:26:24 PM , Rating: 2
"No more soup for you,...NEXT!"

By decapitator666 on 2/23/2010 1:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
I remember those neXt boxes.. black in a period when all PC hardware was cream coloured.. very expensive, but for it time a heck of a lot more advanced and progressive than any mac available today..

My Bet: Virtualization of all apps
By Mike Acker on 2/13/2010 6:47:39 AM , Rating: 2
If I were a Betting Man my wager would be: they will virtualize all application programs. It is interesting to contemplate the implications: the O/S simply ducks the security problem* leaving the virtual machine vulnerable while protecting the Windows Master System. This could very well be quite effective: IE8 already runs each browser tab as a separate task. If we make each one a separate VM it is going to be hard to plant malware which would operate beyond the scope of its own tab. It would probably kill malware as we know it today although think the purveyors of malware would give up is foolish. They will have to attack the Windows Master itself.

Hopefully MSFT will deliver all updates with signatures -- and issue new keys for each update. This would make it difficult for attacker to factor the keys before people get done applying the updates.

*Malware is the Number One problem in computing today.

By Lerianis on 2/15/2010 11:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, but the problem is that virtualization is slower.... more they might SANDBOX the applications and force developers to write their applications for a sandbox environment.

Vista was completely different!
By jbwhite99 on 2/11/2010 9:42:55 AM , Rating: 1
As a previous poster said, Win FS, 64-bit, lots of other pieces. If they really deliver in 2 years, they have lots of work to do to get a public beta out by the end of this year.

MS would be better off going back to what they did with Win 3.1 - $49 upgrade, and making it a small upgrade.

RE: Vista was completely different!
By Vagisil on 2/11/2010 10:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
Id rather pay every few years than have paid updates.

Paid updates could add a lot of extra costs compared to a boxed copy by the time the OS is considered defunct.

There's the issue of innovation how is Microsoft going to get people to update? Nobody is going to pay for an update if it only includes security fixes, an insecure version of flash and a copy of turtle solitaire complete with screensaver.

Then there's security what do you do when you need a major security overhaul? What if a fix depends on something implemented within an update? Do you force your userbase to pay for an upgrade leaving those that can't afford it insecure because there's no money in it?

Service packs and a new OS every two to three years makes much more sense to me.

Pure Garbage
By sentinel3810 on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: Pure Garbage
By Fitzmogwai on 2/11/2010 11:40:06 AM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm all for that if google's $50 netbook can run Battlefield 3 at 2560×1600, but excuse me if I don't hold my breath.

RE: Pure Garbage
By thekdub on 2/11/2010 1:18:47 PM , Rating: 1
Holy crap, Windows 7 is available? So thats what all those "Windows 7 was my idea" ads that I keep seeing are all about?


By borowki2 on 2/11/2010 3:45:24 PM , Rating: 3
When programmers are excited about something, usually it's an architectural change that brings zero benefit to the end-user. My guess is that they're going to move two-decades' worth of Win32 stuff into a virtual machine, allowing the new OS to be legacy-free. From a MS programmer's POV this is going to be great, but I expect end users will end up with all of grief associated with Terminal Service.

Screw that
By Freezebyte on 2/11/2010 12:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
I just got into Win 7, I aint gonna switch for another several years.

By bupkus on 2/11/2010 1:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
I know I'm guessing but if you want a clue as to what Windows 8 will be you first should take a look at Microsoft's virtualization product Hyper-V.

By 91TTZ on 2/11/2010 6:55:19 PM , Rating: 2
What made Windows popular is maintaining that common look and feel across different programs and versions of the OS. Arbitrarily moving buttons around and changing the UI just to "be different" is not very productive and is very annoying.

nice one M$
By MrPoletski on 2/12/2010 5:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
This is the opposite of FUD (Fear, uncertaincy and doubt) which is used to harm confidence in a product (see how vista did that with OGL?)

The opposite possibly being called 'Speculation, Excitement and Dreaming). SED.

This post from an M$ rep was a simple case of SED.

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 2/12/2010 7:48:02 AM , Rating: 2
Oh I hope they bring back the Bob interface. That was truly revolutionary - as MS told us at the time. </sarcasm>

I don't know about anyone else...
By FoxFour on 2/13/2010 2:18:29 AM , Rating: 2
... but I don't WANT a "completely different" Windows.

I want the current one, with all of the bugs fixed and deleted user customization options restored. No more, no less.

Join my revolution?
By siuol11 on 2/14/2010 4:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
I like how the article presents the sensationalist as "former MS employee" instead of "cheaply paid PR hack".
Please... No details, no firm release date, not even sure if it's going to be an update to Win7 or based on a new kernel, and yet it's going to be "revolutionary?"

new features
By uibo on 2/17/2010 8:29:12 AM , Rating: 2
My vision on new features:

- New filesystem (WinFS?) - allows you to better index your files. It does not matter in which folder they are located but it matters how they are tagged.

- Touchscreen optimization

- Speech optimization (talk with your computer, create Macros easily) - Example commands "Copy the pictures I took yesterday at my mothers house (pictures GPS tagged) to the USB stick and also send them to my sister and mother via email"

- Direct Neural Interface integration (Like the OCZ product) - maybe we could use this to give quick answers to some simple (yes or no) questions.

By notposting on 2/11/2010 9:41:10 AM , Rating: 1
along with an XP virtual machine :D

What the mother#!*$!?
By Griswold on 2/11/2010 4:56:53 PM , Rating: 1
He didnt say "magical" even one single time! Windows 8 clearly cant be any good without being described with Jobs-coined phrases such as amazing, exciting, fantastic and the newly added magical!!

By UncleRufus on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
You'll even win at irony
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: You'll even win at irony
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
RE: You'll even win at irony
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
By mydogfarted on 2/11/10, Rating: 0
So....are we going to see WinFS?
By Leper Messiah on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: So....are we going to see WinFS?
By Spivonious on 2/11/2010 9:36:51 AM , Rating: 5
WinFS morphed into the integrated search and libraries in Windows 7. WinFS was never more than just a query layer on top of NTFS.

RE: So....are we going to see WinFS?
By TheMouse on 2/11/2010 12:49:52 PM , Rating: 2
I believe he was referring to NTFS and not WinFS. NTFS seriously needs to be revamped. I'm not going to get into the entire EXT vs NTFS debate, since I feel neither is clearly superior... But EXT certainly has some benefits that should be incorporated into Windows without sacrificing the dynamics of MFT and the versatility of their ACL implementation (SID + flag).

By omnicronx on 2/11/2010 1:54:54 PM , Rating: 1
No, he was talking about WinFS which was supposed to debut with Windows Vista. That being said, only small bits and pieces of WinFS were implemented in Windows 7, yes we now have libraries, but these new locations still are still found within the original shell namespace.

That being said WinFS is not dead, it is part of the core technology within MSSQL server.

By R6Raven on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Different?
By Spivonious on 2/11/2010 9:34:32 AM , Rating: 5
Can you really not afford $100 to use an OS for 3-5 years?

RE: Different?
By HotFoot on 2/11/2010 9:54:10 AM , Rating: 1
Hey, you can always use Linux for free, and set up WINE etc. etc...

Of course, that may require you put in upwards of 40 hours to get it figured out and working properly.

RE: Different?
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/2010 9:54:54 AM , Rating: 3
And of course it will never work properly like the real thing.

RE: Different?
By therealnickdanger on 2/11/2010 10:21:24 AM , Rating: 2
I bet the next Windows will be subscription-based and require an Internet connection to function (at least to check in and verify every couple days).

RE: Different?
By bupkus on 2/11/2010 12:36:39 PM , Rating: 3
Shall we call it Windows Steam?

RE: Different?
By Slyne on 2/11/2010 2:31:12 PM , Rating: 2
How about Windows Weave? (as in Mozilla Weave)

RE: Different?
By MrPoletski on 2/12/2010 6:04:29 AM , Rating: 2
...or just steamy windows?

RE: Different?
By gstrickler on 2/11/2010 12:08:15 PM , Rating: 2
... may require you put in upwards of 40 hours to get...
And according to MS, it might take up to 20 hours to install Win 7. That doesn't count time to install/upgrade applications. Not really that much difference in time.

RE: Different?
By HotFoot on 2/11/2010 1:06:20 PM , Rating: 2
Both Win 7 and Ubuntu install in what I think is a very short amount of time: < 20 minutes for me. That's not the issue.

I think Ubuntu and the like are completely viable options. It's just, for me, it came down to effort to get my system doing what I want it to do thrown in along-side the cost. I spent a lot of time learning about Linux, and that's not wasted time - it's very educational. However, cost of the operating system is not the reason to use Linux. It may be free in terms of time spent, but you have to be willing/wanting to do the learning curve and expect to spend some extra time getting all your hardware drivers working properly, etc.

RE: Different?
By drycrust3 on 2/11/2010 3:37:08 PM , Rating: 2
However, cost of the operating system is not the reason to use Linux. It may be free in terms of time spent, but you have to be willing/wanting to do the learning curve and expect to spend some extra time getting all your hardware drivers working properly, etc.

It is probably true that most people won't switch to Linux because it is free, which raises the question of why do they switch at all? The simple reason is they perceive there are long term advantages. So what could those long term advantages be? Well, for one, pretty well all Linux distributions are much more secure than any of the Windows versions currently released for regular users. It is arguable that there aren't any viruses that target Linux distributions, and it is arguable that Ubuntu alone rivals Apples OSX in terms of users, so saying it is lack of users isn't a reason for lack of malware that targets it.
Indeed, one could go further and suggest that malware is probably the major motivation for people to switch. I suspect malware was the reason for my switch, although it may have been I was using the wrong network driver.
Yes, there are disadvantages in switching, such as learning where things are, why the system doesn't come with antivirus software, why I can't have IE, the Instant Messenging capabilities, and what range of options there are for screensavers and the like. But some of those can be an advantage as well. Why do you need to know where the control panel is? Why do you need to get antivirus software? Why do you need IE?
In regards to hardware drivers, my experience (I have tried a lot of Linux distributions besides Ubuntu e.g. Simply Mempis, Fedora, Mandriva, OpenSolaris, PCLinuxOS, Zenwalk, Blog, and Freespire (I was flicking through the Live CDs)) and my experience is drivers aren't a problem. The distribution will correctly identify the hardware and install the right driver. Indeed, the fact you even mention them suggests to me you don't use a Linux distribution.
As you can see from the large number of distributions I have tried that I'm not even 99% happy with Ubuntu, but I live with the disadvantages, which to be honest are either cosmetic or mostly niggles, because even for the things that to me are "big deals", they are so small compared to the disadvantages I would have of going back to Windows.

RE: Different?
By HotFoot on 2/11/2010 4:13:23 PM , Rating: 3
Assume what you will about my personal use of Linux. I've used Ubuntu for about four years now - it's the operating system on my HTPC. I have had a few hardware driver related issues, especially regarding the on-board graphics (an AMD part on the 690G board) and various brands of wireless cards. All these issues were resolvable, but I had to put in a good amount of time to learn about the problems and find solutions. For the wireless, the solution ended up being buying a different card that was listed for having better compatibility with Linux.

Listing off "features" like not knowing where the control panel is doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I can find where to access/alter the configuration files on the UI no problem - and more and more this configuration can be done through a GUI. I'd go as far as saying that the number one reason I've used Linux distributions is because I have complete, unfettered access to everything, and I can go to the online community and learn a lot about what makes my computer tick.

I kind of think of a spectrum of user type and operating system. Some users want a very simple environment and some want something more open with a wider range of possibilities but requiring more user expertise. On this spectrum I'd put Mac's OS's on the simple side, Windows in the middle, and Linux on the experienced user side. Each part of the spectrum has its advantages and disadvantages.

So, while I'm sure it's wonderful you've never had a hardware support problem using Linux, I think it's overstepping it a little to suggest that anyone who says they have is outright lying.

RE: Different?
By drycrust3 on 2/11/2010 5:57:32 PM , Rating: 2
My apologies, I made several assumptions which you have shown to be incorrect.
While it was never my intention to suggest you were lying, the fact that I (arguably) did is, again, something I apologise for.

RE: Different?
By 306maxi on 2/11/2010 9:58:01 AM , Rating: 2
The type of person who complains about Windows being expensive has either never heard of an OEM copy or just forgets it so they can make their lame point.

RE: Different?
By SunAngel on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Different?
By amanojaku on 2/11/2010 10:02:51 AM , Rating: 3
Newegg has Ultimate 32 and 64-bit for $180. Not $100, but not $300, either.

RE: Different?
By IdBuRnS on 2/11/2010 10:21:27 AM , Rating: 4
This is me laughing at you because you think you need Ultimate.

RE: Different?
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/2010 10:43:54 AM , Rating: 3
Do you need Ultimate? Is BitLocker that important? Do you need 35 different language choices?

I got Windows 7 Home Premium because I didn't need that, nor the extra features that Windows 7 Pro provides such as ability to RDP into it, running Windows backup to network locations, EFS, etc. So it only cost me $109 for an OEM license, which is perfectly legal.

Saying that Windows 7 costs $300+ is making up excuses.

RE: Different?
By thekdub on 2/11/2010 1:12:46 PM , Rating: 1
Go to college. I got Win7 Ultimate for about $8.00 after tax when I bought it from the school's book store.

RE: Different?
By namechamps on 2/12/2010 2:26:16 PM , Rating: 1
By that logic there are no cars available at $20,000 because the BMW I want is $50,000.

Why do you need Ultimate? Also if you "need" it then except to pay more.

You can get home premium for about $100 and professional for $30 more.

That being said I really hate Microsoft OEM vs upgrade vs retail in 5 different flavors nonsense.

How about:
Home $99
Professional: $199

No upgrade vs oem vs retail. Just 2 SKUs at reasonable prices.

Given only a tiny fraction of windows users upgrade or buy retail the revenue loss would be negligible.

RE: Different?
By bug77 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Different?
By therealnickdanger on 2/11/2010 10:10:46 AM , Rating: 5
Except that it doesn't cost $100. A proper license costs twice as much.

It doesn't?


$299/3 = $100 each

Those are the licenses that I buy... seems "proper" to me...

RE: Different?
By bug77 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Different?
By Murst on 2/11/2010 11:12:11 AM , Rating: 5
OEM doesn't cut it if you plan to upgrade your system

You can upgrade your system if you have an OEM version.

You might get activation issues if you *replace* your system, but it isn't anything that a call to Microsoft won't fix ( you'll find they're pretty flexible when dealing with paying customers ). Also, I've personally never had an activation issue with an OEM version that was installed more than once when I upgraded my PC, although I did hear of people having issues when they tried to install an OEM version on a different PC in the same week.

Or, God forbid, need support

If you need support or think you might need support, you're the type who should go to dell/hp/etc, and not be building your own PC. Honestly, I can't even think of what you might need Microsoft support for, at least when it comes to a Windows installation for a single PC at home.

RE: Different?
By kroker on 2/11/2010 11:24:29 AM , Rating: 5
Except not everyone lives in the USA and can buy from Newegg.

I live in Eastern Europe, and these are the cheapest online prices:

- Windows 7 Home Premium OEI: 140$ (not sure what difference there is between OEM and OEI, but you can only buy an OEI version with a new PC)
- Windows 7 Home Premium Retail: 240$
- Windows 7 Proffesional Retail: 324$

Do Newegg prices include VAT? Or is 104$ the final price?

Here most people don't earn more than 700$ / month and average wage is below that. Also, most hardware you can buy here is 20% to 50% more expensive when bought online (and even more expensive in local hardware stores) than the prices I see on Newegg. We just have to put up with that because there nothing we can do about it.

But the fact that software is also more expensive is just a slap in the face. A little more than a year ago I bought Crysis: Warhead from Steam for 36$ (the USA version was 30$). Later, Steam changed the currency from dollars to euros in Europe without adjusting the prices (so a 30$ game is 30 euros here, all the 10$ or 5$ offers are 10 euro or 5 euros etc), so now all the software is 30% more expensive here than it is in the USA. It's not even about the money, it's about the discrimination. If you're gonna apply price discrimination based on the zone where you live, then why can't you practice LOWER prices for poorer countries with high piracy rates? Top that all with SECUROM and install limits and it's simply not worth it to buy software here.

RE: Different?
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 12:02:17 PM , Rating: 2
I live in Eastern Europe, and these are the cheapest online prices:

Do Newegg prices include VAT? Or is 104$ the final price?
The problem with most (all?) of Europe is the outrageous VAT, sales, and/or import taxes. Newegg only charges sales tax -- as I understand it -- if you live in California. Most web retailers operate similarly -- they only ask for state sales tax for customers in the same state. (I've been told that legally, the customer is supposed to report the sales tax not paid on his/her/its tax returns, but that is largely unenforceable). Even with state sales taxes, they are so much lower than most European taxes that it explains the difference.

Our neighbors to the north have the same problem as Europe, actually.

There are of course other reasons many (most?) products are less expensive in America than Europe, but taxation is a big part of it. That said, we have huge deficits and underfunded federal mandates to compliment our slightly-less-expensive retail goods -- but the grass is always greener on the other side, innit?

All that said, I completely agree with you in regards to Microsoft's pricing specifically. It's one thing if you're complaining about the pricing on a game console or similar piece of hardware (profit margins on hardware are much, much lower than software), but on an OS Microsoft can and should engage in discriminatory pricing based on the region in question. Microsoft in fact does, but not sufficiently in many European and Asian countries.

It would be in Microsoft's (and other software companies') best interest to charge you less, without a doubt.

RE: Different?
By Ratinator on 2/11/2010 1:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
Our neighbors to the north have the same problem as Europe, actually.

It's actually not that bad when it comes to electronics. We have and NCIX here to help us out a lot. NCIX has Win 7 Home Premium for $99 CDN and Windows 7 Pro for $149 CDN so those prices are relatively good.

Vehicles however are a completely different story.

RE: Different?
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose things have changed on the Canadian side of things in the last couple years, especially with Newegg. In the not too distant past, though, virtually all PC-related components were outrageously priced. I remember offering to "smuggle" (ship without declaring the true contents) some computer parts (RAM and a video card, IIRC) to a Canadian friend at a 25% markup because comparable parts at Canadian stores was 200% to 300% more expensive, after accounting for currency conversion. That was several years ago, though.

RE: Different?
By kroker on 2/11/2010 3:53:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the info.

I don't know why you got rated down, you are completely right. Our VAT is 19%, though I don't know what the import taxes are.

RE: Different?
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 4:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
I took minor, completely accurate and reasonable swipes at the problems with both Europe's high taxes and America's low taxes. That's bound to piss off somebody.

RE: Different?
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/2010 12:37:25 PM , Rating: 1
Holy crap! What are you using a computer for then? You should stick with an abacus if you make that little!

RE: Different?
By kroker on 2/11/2010 3:36:28 PM , Rating: 3
Holy crap! What are you using a computer for then? You should stick with an abacus if you make that little!

I need it firstly because I'm a computer programmer.

We may be poorer than you, but we're still crazy about tech. It took me 6 months of saving money to buy my computer. I'm surprised you think 700$ is little, because I earned 340$ / month when I first started saving money, and three months later my wage got up to 500$ / month (because I graduated a computer science University).

There is an upside though - Internet here is cheap because of fierce competition. You can get 50Mbps (+ extremely cheap phone calls, free if you're calling someone in the same network) all for 9$ per month, and 100Mbps for 13$ (no caps or any limitations). So we have low wages + love for tech + expensive software + cheap and fast Internet... hmmm, if this isn't the perfect recipe for piracy, then I don't know what is.

As for me, I quit my job a year ago and now I'm a freelancer, working from the comfort of my own home using the computer I spent 6 months to build. I can earn up to 1000$-2000$ / month.

But the thing is, when you know you can afford something, you don't want it nearly as much, you just want the next thing you can't afford...

RE: Different?
By Mike Acker on 2/13/2010 7:15:46 AM , Rating: 2
="I need it firstly because I'm a computer programmer."

why would you want to do that? it's almost as disreputable as being a used car salesman.

I do trouble analysis. believe me: I know.

RE: Different?
By awaken688 on 2/11/2010 1:55:44 PM , Rating: 2
Just to answer your one question.

In the US, prices do not include Sales Tax (similar to VAT). If you order online for personal use from another state, there is no sales tax. So for most people in the US, the price is $104 total. In Europe, I am guessing it includes VAT rates, but I am not sure since different cities have different rates. I know it is like 15% in many places or even higher in some, so that definitely hurts. I also would assume there are some import taxes as well.

I doubt the major companies like Microsoft, Adobe, or Canon are actively trying to screw Europe. It is just a matter of VATs, import taxes/fees, etc...

Of course Microsoft has to pay lots of legal fees for dealing with the EU, so you never know... just kidding.

I know people who have flown over to the US to buy their camera gear and flown back to save money. Compare a pair of Canon 1D Mk IV's in dollars and Euros and it makes perfect sense.

RE: Different?
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
On topic: can anyone remember a version of Windows that wasn't touted as revolutionary?
Most of them? I don't recall that claim with 7, XP, ME, 98, or any other incremental upgrades. Even so, I would argue that XP/2000, Vista, and 95 were revolutionary changes.

RE: Different?
By n0nsense on 2/11/2010 11:26:47 AM , Rating: 1
According to Forbes, Microsoft's profit margin is about 1/3 of total revenues. IMHO, since we are talking about 20 billion USD profit, they can be cheaper.

RE: Different?
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 11:42:12 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft could also be more expensive.

Profit margins are not supposed to be as low as is sustainable by the business. Few businesses would exist if they were. Pricing is driven by what the profit-maximizing margin is. Higher margins should decrease quantity demanded, while lower margins will increase quantity demanded. Microsoft's pricing is at the point Microsoft believes hits the profit-maximizing point of the demand curve.

I'm inclined to believe, if anything, Microsoft could afford to charge more without decreasing total profits. That said, Microsoft should engage in more elaborate discriminatory pricing schemes, giving not just college students but IT professionals and providers of IT-related learning materials discounted costs. This applies to a lot more than Windows desktop OSes, though.

RE: Different?
By albatrozz on 2/13/2010 3:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
That said, Microsoft should engage in more elaborate discriminatory pricing schemes, giving not just college students but IT professionals and providers of IT-related learning materials discounted costs.

They do. There's TechNet for IT professionals, MSDN for Developers, and educational programs for "providers of IT-related learning materials."

There's also Microsoft Dreamspark which provides free access to Visual Studio for college & high school students, and while I'm no longer in either of those categories, I have friends who are, and kids who soon will be. ;)

There are also free Microsoft events in most major cities in the US, and typically some or all attendees receive gratis copies of new software.

Basically it comes down to time vs money. A few years ago, dropping a grand for multiple copies of Windows was no big deal, so I just Googled for the lowest price and that was that. These days, with finances being tighter, I researched a bit more thoroughly and I was able to find all of my core MS OSes and software for a total outlay of $83. I probably spent about 8 hours in total, and easily saved $1000, which is more than I earn in most 8 hour days.

RE: Different?
By albatrozz on 2/13/2010 3:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
I should also mention that I have 7 physical PCs and several VMs. For single system owners, YMMV.

RE: Different?
By Suntan on 2/11/2010 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 3
What company do you have stocks in? I say that company should make less money. They should pay you less so that they can then charge less for their products…

…See where I’m going with this?


RE: Different?
By Belard on 2/12/2010 1:46:34 AM , Rating: 2
If a house hold has 3~5 computers... then YES... its rather expensive. Especially considering:

1 - Linux is free
2 - MAC OS family pack (5) is like $60
3 - Microsoft owns about 95% of the desktop market
4 - Would help prevent piracy
5 - More active upgraders
6 - Perhaps spur more PC Clone companies (Dell, HPaq, Gateway pay about $30~40 per desktop - yet small-OEM shops pay $100 for Home)

I think Windows will also continue to lose some value as:
1 - AA type Games keep being Console only
2 - Open Office gets a lot better
3 - they start losing market share

Windows7 is mostly nicer than XP (still does some stupid things)... Like XP, it too can be used for the next 5+ years. With PC gaming dying (always) - DX 12~13 become unimportant.

RE: Different?
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/2010 9:54:23 AM , Rating: 5
Oh no, more trolling "Windows should be free" rants!

RE: Different?
By ibarskiy on 2/11/2010 10:26:00 AM , Rating: 2
To all those who bitch about MS products being too expensive I present...(drumroll):


Have you seen pricing on their products? You should worship at the feet of MS, pricing wise. Microsoft produces stuff that does an order of magnitude as much at a fraction of the cost. And I am not your MS fanboy; but seriously, have you ever bought any serious software?!

(PS. Even when you think about games being priced at $50 a pop, an OS costing even $300 seems reasonable; think about the use time you get out of an OS vs. a typical game).

So, like mosspuppet would say, Shut up.

RE: Different?
By jonmcc33 on 2/11/2010 10:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
No, they probably use open source programs like GIMP as opposed to Photoshop.

Heck. It costs $50 for a PC game. Considering the number of games I have purchased over the years, a Windows OS license is an insignificant price to pay.

Anyone that says otherwise is a Linux troll or lives with mommy and daddy still.

RE: Different?
By Yawgm0th on 2/11/2010 11:48:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, they probably use open source programs like GIMP as opposed to Photoshop.
No, they probably pirate Photoshop rather than paying it. GIMP, to this day, remains a poor alternative IMHO.

RE: Different?
By Donkeyshins on 2/11/2010 1:12:10 PM , Rating: 2

Have you seen pricing on their products? You should worship at the feet of MS, pricing wise. Microsoft produces stuff that does an order of magnitude as much at a fraction of the cost. And I am not your MS fanboy; but seriously, have you ever bought any serious software?!

Hell - try AutoCAD. Talk about expensive.

RE: Different?
By EasyC on 2/11/2010 12:13:04 PM , Rating: 1
You're right!!!

MS should charge for service packs and royalties on the hardware Windows came on. While we're at it, how about we close off the applications you can use on it and hardware you can use with it. That would give them enough time/resources to concentrate on more important things like blatantly false celebrity commercials, or aluminum chassis', or yellow screens.

Then Windows would definitely be cheaper *rolleyes*

By shin0bi272 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: 2012?
By Etern205 on 2/11/2010 3:17:36 PM , Rating: 5
MS has gone back to their same route as they've always released a new OS every 2-3 years. There was a delay with Vista launch thus made you think they released a new os "so damn fast".

If Vista didn't have such a long delay, Windows 8 probably would have already been released.
e.g. new OS for every 3 years

RE: 2012?
By Azsen on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: 2012?
By WW102 on 2/11/2010 5:15:57 PM , Rating: 2
Read the post, he was saying Windows 7 should of been released in 2007 to keep with the 3 year OS life span.

RE: 2012?
By Runiteshark on 2/11/2010 5:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
You kinda didn't read his post did you? MS used to release a new OS every 3 years. He was saying that by now we would already be at 8 if there wasn't delays with vista.

Closed platform?
By reader1 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Closed platform?
By Spivonious on 2/11/2010 9:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
This will never happen. Microsoft was built on the idea of an open platform. Anyone and everyone can develop applications for Windows for free.

RE: Closed platform?
By HotFoot on 2/11/2010 9:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Truly, in a desktop environment, it's not that cumbersome to actually visit the developer's website to download the application you want - whereas I think the app-store (and similar, non-closed systems) works nicely on a smart phone type device.

On the other hand, one thing I did really like from my Ubuntu experience was the application manager. That's probably a great example of how it should be done for open-platforms.

RE: Closed platform?
By reader1 on 2/11/10, Rating: -1
RE: Closed platform?
By drzoo2 on 2/11/2010 10:42:40 AM , Rating: 2
Where do you come up with this? Are you a dictator pushing your agenda, RIAA perhaps? While a closed society maybe in some cases more comfortable, the only person(s) with any power is the one(s) in controlling of that society. The ideas of what is right and what is wrong come from the single entity in control. (I'm looking at you Steve). While I have my own issue with Windows, at least the user has some ability to choose for himself.

You seem to have no problem with others deciding your fate. I will decide my own fate thanks. Keep your communistic ideas to yourself.


RE: Closed platform?
By killerclick on 2/11/2010 11:48:18 AM , Rating: 1
Exactly. Closed platforms are the future. That's why I eagerly await the demise of the Internet and the return of Compuserve! (at $250 a month)

RE: Closed platform?
By drzoo2 on 2/11/2010 12:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
You joke but could you imagine if net neutrality was destroyed by the media conglomerates and we were left with a nice closed network? What would Time Warner service be like?

You could no longer use Skype because they already provide VOIP telephony. (Included with your TW bundled account.)

Netflix, Youtube, Hulu. Not required because you already have instant movies with iControl. (Also included with your TW bundled account)

Program your DVR through internet? Blocked and you already have cable, right? You must be rich.

A nice 100MB cap because legit users will never eat this much bandwith. If you need more you are probably violating the TOS or are a pirate.

Each machine with the new IPV6 rules get there own IP address, with a $10 fee per machine.

Hey it's all convenient because I oly get one bill!

RE: Closed platform?
By bug77 on 2/11/2010 10:02:13 AM , Rating: 1
*cough* linux repositories *cough*

RE: Closed platform?
By CU on 2/11/2010 10:45:20 AM , Rating: 2
An app store for the desktop would be harder to sale than it is for the mobile market. Most desktop software does alot more than any app for the iphone, thus making them a much larger download. It is OK to download a small simple app for a small device like the iphone. But downloading a mult. gig software application is beyond what most people can do given the current broadband adoption rate in the US. Not to say it is not impossible, look at steam and impulse for where it starting to work for the gaming sector.

However, as for closed platform. Forget it. Open systems are better. They allow everyone to try and do things better, and not just one company or person (Jobs) telling you what you can and cannot do. But hey if you don't like freedom of choice buy a closed system.

RE: Closed platform?
By Etsp on 2/11/2010 1:14:41 PM , Rating: 1
Steam is an App store, and it certainly predates Apple's iPhone, and it is quite popular. I'm not calling it the first app store, but I am saying that the iPhone's App store was not the first.

"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
No More Turtlenecks - Try Snakables
September 19, 2016, 7:44 AM
ADHD Diagnosis and Treatment in Children: Problem or Paranoia?
September 19, 2016, 5:30 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
Automaker Porsche may expand range of Panamera Coupe design.
September 18, 2016, 11:00 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki