Windows 8 could be ready in two years

Microsoft wasn’t kidding about its plans to speed up the Windows release cycle. Windows 7 hit stores about two years and eight months after Vista, and from the looks of it, Windows 8 will be with us some time around Windows 7’s three-year birthday.

At least, so one would think after reading this press release on Microsoft’s Dutch website—specifically the second-to-last sentence, which Google translates as, "But it will take about two years before ‘Windows 8’ on the market." (The press release, incidentally, celebrates the first anniversary of Windows 7’s retail launch.)

As Engadget points out in its coverage of this story, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer named the next release of Windows when asked about the "riskiest product bet that [Microsoft] is currently making." Ballmer wasn’t exactly very loquacious in his answer, though, so you’ll have to use your imagination on this one. Considering Windows 7 did little more than smooth out Vista’s rough edges, I would expect the upcoming release to bring some major new features—like some slate-friendly goodness, perhaps?

Comments closed
    • alex666
    • 9 years ago

    What will W8l give us that W7 is not? I think back over the years and how OSes have evolved. I’ve got an ipad right now, and its OS lacks multitasking, at least until November when they update to OS4. But it shows how we assume those basic sorts of things, and W7 is a pretty good OS now all things considered.

    So what new things with W8 offer? Personally, I think MS is on the verge of becoming irrelevant (don’t flame me, the ipad is my first apple computing device since 1986), especially Windows (at least in the consumer segment) as we seem to be shifting more and more to mobile devices and other non-MS OSes.

    • stmok
    • 9 years ago

    Windows 8
    Microsoft => *[<"Windows 8 is the most secure ever!"<]* Windows 9 Microsoft => *[<"Windows 9 is the most secure ever!"<]* Windows X Microsoft => *[<"Windows X is the most secure ever!"<]* (Since they are obsessed with Apple in recent times.) Windows XI Microsoft => *[<"Windows XI is the most secure ever!"<]* ....And so on. I wonder how many more layers of abstraction will be added in the name of "simplicity"...Dumb down so things become inflexible and useless for enthusiasts and experienced users.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 9 years ago

      Until it gets to the point when the user literally can not do anything with their computer. The End. You have lost the game, thanks for playing.

    • bcronce
    • 9 years ago

    You don’t use the start menu search feature? I don’t lick on almost anything. I just type in part of a word and it comes up.

    Need to change network settings? Start->”netw” and I got all of my network stuff

    Need to change display settings? Start->”disp”

    I can even search for sub-console settings if I know the name. eg. I don’t have to go to account management then add an account, I can just Start->”Add Acc” and it brings me strait to creating/adding an account.

    • designerfx
    • 9 years ago

    2 years from now for “win8” (whatever codename comes out, etc) isnt’ a speedup, that’s standard procedure for MS, which is typically a release every 3 years (Win7 = late 09)

    • jackbomb
    • 9 years ago

    My Win8 wish list.

    -x64 and UEFI required. Optimized for SSE3+, AVX, and SSDs.
    -Desktop, netbook, & slate versions included in the box. Home & Pro only; no Starter or Ultimate BS.
    -fully hardware accelerated GUI
    -database based FS
    -PDF, MKV, FLAC, RAR support; Blu-Ray playback in Media Center
    -A seperate audio playback application, kinda like Foobar2000.
    -An entry level PS-like image editor with .psd support. MS can buy Adobe if necessary. 😉
    -MSE included. Not enough people know about this gem.
    -Better battery life
    -No App Store.
    -Cheap(er): $80 upgrade. $130 full. (Home Edition pricing. Both SKUs include the Netbook & Slate versions.
    -anti-Apple wallpaper included (Ballmer said Win8 would be risky).

      • blastdoor
      • 9 years ago

      I think a database FS would be cool, but I’ve pretty much given up hope that anyone will ever do this. I think MS and Apple have decided that making a database FS would be too disruptive and that most users wouldn’t care anyway. They’re probably right, but I still think it would be cool and useful.

      • holto243
      • 9 years ago

      MSE is great but including it with windows would start another monopoly abuse lawsuit a la netscape/IE

    • blastdoor
    • 9 years ago

    Since Ballmer is more of a business guy than a tech guy, I’ll bet his comment just means that there will be an app store built into Windows 8. That would be a big change to how software is distributed on PCs, and it would be a big risk from an anti-trust standpoint.

    In terms of what Windows 8 looks like from a technology / UI standpoint, I doubt we can read much into his comment.

    • moog
    • 9 years ago

    Define slate-friendly goodness…

    If only that was it. Matter of fact, it’s such a huge change that everything I knew is useless, I’m not sure I like it.

    • anotherengineer
    • 9 years ago

    So I shelled out all that cash for Win7 and 2 yrs Win8 will be out, I wonder if how long they will support Win7 for???

    I don’t think I will be shelling out more cash for another OS in 2 yrs.

    • 5150
    • 9 years ago

    Yawn, wake me when Windows X is out.

      • Jigar
      • 9 years ago

      No, no, you told us to wake you up when solid states are at $1 per GB…

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        pretty much just wake him when anything happens, ever.

          • Kharnellius
          • 9 years ago

          WAKE UP 5150!!!! 😉

    • Voldenuit
    • 9 years ago

    I’d really like to know why (according to Anand) windows 7 gets half the battery life per W-hr of OSX and what can be done to fix this.

      • maxxcool
      • 9 years ago

      reverse engineer apples special battery pack. which would get them sues to the stone age and back.

      apple uses i negligent battery system that can access individual cells rather than address the batter in chunks or a whole. that gives them a huge edge. and since its apple specific they get the trademark and proprietary protection for it. then the software in osx addresses the hardware in the battery to stretch out the usage, and reduce charge times.

      there more in that osx is very aggressive in hardware manipulation as well. but mostly is thier “smart battery” which no-one gets to address except apple.

        • KoolAidMan
        • 9 years ago

        There is a similar performance delta running OS X on non-Apple notebooks. It isn’t the hardware, it is the software, OS X has been tuned bigtime for laptops. Makes sense since that is the bread & butter for the Mac for a very long time. Improved battery life will hopefully be one focus of Windows 8.

          • cygnus1
          • 9 years ago

          It’s not even that OS X has been tuned for laptops or for low power usage in general, it’s been tuned for the very specific hardware in macbooks. put it on other hardware and it kills the battery. put other software (linux or win7) on a macbook and the battery sucks.

          if you tweaked the hell out of the battery profiles, you can get really good runtime (much better than stock) out of most laptops. it’s not rocket science.

        • Voldenuit
        • 9 years ago

        No, it’s not a battery cell issue, as the macbooks drop back to comparable windows laptops when running windows.

    • BoBzeBuilder
    • 9 years ago

    I’ll wait for flip-mode’s take on this.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      flip says it’s dope.

    • Frith
    • 9 years ago

    Based on the recent trend and the comments from Microsoft I expect that the next Windows will be dumbed down to the level of a smartphone OS. Over the last few years Microsoft has been losing market share to Apple and they have obviously concluded that this loss is a result of the perception that Mac OS is easy to use (supposedly – I’ve never used it) and being more cool and stylish. They have therefore embarked on a campaign of simplifying the Windows user interface for novice computer users who are confused by things like menus, toolbars and files. To further enhance their image Microsoft have tried to make the interface more visually appealing, at the cost of wasting massive amounts of desktop real estate. This focus on simple user interfaces and style over substance seems to have gone down very well with novice computer users who don’t use their computers for serious work. However, the new interface elements introduced in Vista and Windows 7 lead to considerable reductions in productivity for more experienced users since options and functionality are now emended much further in the interface in order to hide them from novice users so they don’t get confused.

    It’s interesting that Visual Studio 2010 (a product aimed at experienced computer users) retains all of the old user interface elements of Windows XP (menus, toolbars, traditional dialogue boxes etc). This is a clear admission on Microsoft’s behalf that these interface elements work better for people who know what they’re doing. Despite knowing that the dumbed down interface elements introduced in Vista/7 negatively impact the productivity of experienced computer users it seems Microsoft just expect people to put up with it.

    To make matters worse Microsoft has totally locked down Windows 7 so very few aspects of the interface can be customised to the user’s preferences. Even developers of mods such as Classic Shell are having trouble getting the interface anything close to the superior classic shell. The thing that makes Firefox so great is that it is endlessly customisable though userChrome.css, userContent.css, about:config and extensions, so the user can get it working exactly how they want. Microsoft on the other hand don’t allow for customisation, but instead dictate to users how the software will be used instead of letting the user configure it to their preferences. If you don’t like something their attitude is “Deal with it. We’ve got a monopoly so it’s not like you can go elsewhere. We can do whatever we want and don’t have to worry about what users want.”

    I’ve tried Windows 7 and would be happy to upgrade if it weren’t for the user interface. Unfortunately, I will not sacrifice productivity by using an interface that has been developed with morons in mind. I therefore intend to continue using XP until Microsoft provides the classic shell as a secondary desktop environment for Windows or some other interface that’s focused on productivity rather than “wow” (e.g. the classic shell plus a VS2010 style makeover). Sadly, I can’t see this happening and expect the next Windows will be dumbed down further still while offering very limited options for customisation. Fortunately it seems users aren’t going to stand for this and that most people are sticking with XP, with the Windows breakdown currently standing at:

    XP 66.3%
    7 18.9%
    Vista 14.8%

    Given that Micrsofot are totally unwilling to give users what they want I expect that XP will still be the dominant OS by the time Windows 8 comes out. Microsoft’s stubbornness and steadfast refusal to allow users to customise their experience is the very reason why XP is going to live on for many years to come, long past the current April 2014 end of support date.

      • sweatshopking
      • 9 years ago

      “Fortunately it seems users aren’t going to stand for this and that most people are sticking with XP, with the Windows breakdown currently standing at:

      XP 66.3%
      7 18.9%”

      Sorry buddy, it’s not like that at all. 7 is the fastest selling os in history. people who whine about “it doesn’t look exactly the same as my os from 2001” are just as dumb as the people who can’t figure out how to use a computer and need it dumbed down. either way, you’re not able to adjust to change, and complain that it’s slightly different. when the start menu came along it messed up my grandmother. sucks you’re in the same group as her.

        • l33t-g4m3r
        • 9 years ago

        How much is Microsoft paying you? You’re too obvious and over-eager to defend the abysmal failure that is win7.
        Windows 7 is the Mojave Experiment. There is almost no better description, since 7 is really vista on crack.

        I have both vista and 7, and I’m currently using vista.
        That’s how bad 7 is. *shudders*

          • bcronce
          • 9 years ago

          Win7 is the best OS since XP, that MS has made.

          Win7 is faster, more stable, more secure and easier to use. It was harder to use for the first week, but after that I figured out where everything was and realized the Search feature can find anything and find it faster than I can navigate by any GUI.

          • Kharnellius
          • 9 years ago

          What in Hades name did you do to your computer to F win7 up so bad?!?! I love win7! Man I wish I was paid to say that too!

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 9 years ago

      OSX being “cool” and “simple” is also what keeps it permanently trapped in a few % market share. It will never appeal to large companies. MS don’t get “cool” because they don’t have to. For Apple, it’s all they’ve got.

        • KoolAidMan
        • 9 years ago

        Incorrect, the price of the hardware is what keeps it’s adoption rate limited. Well, that and entrenchment in enterprise.

        The OS X UI is far superior to Windows 7 in many many ways, and I /[

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 years ago

          Explain. what exactly is better. I’ve used both, and whilst they are different, i wouldn’t say either is better. just different.

      • Krogoth
      • 9 years ago

      What are you smoking?

      Windows XP is being phased out due to its growing limitations (no GPT support, 2-3GiB memory limit, no TRIM support, aging driver library with limited PnP support). It will only exist on legacy systems/applications like its 2000/9x predecessors.

      Windows 7 is being used on newer systems that aren’t tied to legacy applications. In the event, that you are forced to use them with older hardware running a XP setup that no longer works and you cannot get repair it. You could go the “virtualization” route.

      The real threat for 7 in business sector is actually the growing adoption rate of OSS solutions like *nix.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        krogs. he’s obviously high.

          • cygnus1
          • 9 years ago

          high, or possibly mildly mentally impaired

      • Sir Sagamore
      • 9 years ago

      If you strip out all of the Govt/Corporation computers still running XP compared to the actual amount of Home Users that 66% starts getting really small

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        Sssh, don’t tell him. Let him dream.

      • bcronce
      • 9 years ago

      “Fortunately it seems users aren’t going to stand for this and that most people are sticking with XP, with the Windows breakdown currently standing at:

      XP 66.3%
      7 18.9%
      Vista 14.8%”

      Kind of taken out of context. XP’s install base is huge, so percentage wise, it’s taking a bit to switch over. Win7 is the fastest adopted OS in history.

      Win7 has been out since Oct 22 2009, or 1 year to the week, and yet it has taken over 19% of the Windows install base.

      “Two weeks after its release, it was announced that its market share had surpassed that of Snow Leopard, released two months previously”

      “On October 21, 2010, Microsoft announced that more than 240 million copies of Windows 7 have been sold”

      OS X has taken 9 years to reach 5% market share. Win7 took 1 year to reach 17%.

    • jalex3
    • 9 years ago

    i will wait for beta before i say anything, but if it did turn out not a good os for my form factor(gaming beast), i will be happy sticking with w7.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 9 years ago

    I would certainly hope that this shortenting of time between Windows releases is permanent. There was far too much stagnation between XP and Vista (made worse by the fact that Vista wasn’t really all that hot at release). It used to be that MS’s OSes were roughly 3 years apart.

    • Firestarter
    • 9 years ago

    The comment concerning ‘Windows 8’ has already been deleted.

    • Chrispy_
    • 9 years ago

    Windows 7 is a click-fest. Someone needs to bash their interface team around with a cricket-bat: Having to go through a collection of information panels with links to get to things is great for novices, but it’s a real pain to anyone who actually knows their way around.

    If they’re pandering to novices and the ignorant, then they need dual GUI’s to prevent veterans from bemoaning changes that make their jobs slower.

    Each page in the journey of links and clicks to the management console of your choice takes too long, requires too much unnecessary disk and window access, and just wastes time. I’ve long since been reverting to CLI-style input into the start menu to get directly to what I want, because the GUI is to convoluted these days. Sure, it’s only a second or two of waiting and it’s only two or three more clicks than it used to be, but what the hell. Some of us do this hundreds of times a day and it’s just plain inefficient.

    “I’m a PC and windows 7 was my idea.”

    For windows 8, could they talk to people with sensible ideas please.

      • Byte Storm
      • 9 years ago

      But… 70% of computer users are permanent novices.

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 9 years ago

      Thank you! I also think that Windows 7 is too dependent on the Mouse. The mouse is a great input device, but Windows 7 makes me want to throw it in the trash. Too many clicks, and too many over-complicated dialogs. Windows 7 wasn’t a touchdown for Microsoft, more like a fumble recovery. With OS X Lion coming out next summer, Apple has possession of the ball again. If they can score with Lion, they may force Microsoft into it’s “Hurry Up” offense, (the one that gave us the XBox 360 and Vista)

      • indeego
      • 9 years ago

      Can you give an example? What exactly are you talking aboutg{

        • tay
        • 9 years ago

        I find changing the newtork settings to be a click-fest. There are a number of panels to go through before I can get to the TCP/IP settings. Just one example. I haven’t really played with the settings too much as it works wonderfully OOTB.

          • Scrotos
          • 9 years ago

          Workgroups? Homegroups? Where is this crap, now? Right-click My Computer, Properties, and change it? No? It’s somewhere else now?

          I’ve mainly used Vista but I think Win7 is the same with where they jacked around all the network settings. It’s a chore to look this junk up every time I need to futz with stuff. I’ve mostly given up tinkering with my Vista home install because of that. It’s just not fun anymore. XP I felt like I could get down and dirty and mess with things just to do it. Vista… I dunno. It feels like it’s forcing me to be insulated from everything to do with my computer.

          And no, I don’t want the pain of Linux for those who latch onto that “tinkering” comment. I said I want to ENJOY tinkering. 😉

          Also, to amend this, my problem with Vista and Win7’s GUIs are that Microsoft changed them for the sake of change, not for the sake of efficiency. I don’t mind relearning a GUI if I feel like it will make me more efficient or if it makes sense to me. The changes that MS wrought after XP, well, they don’t make sense to me. I don’t see how it’s any better than what XP or 2K did.

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 9 years ago

            To find homegroups, start->”homegroup”

          • BKA
          • 9 years ago

          Just type TCP in the start menu.

            • Scrotos
            • 9 years ago

            I guess I have a hangup about that kind of stuff too. Like Spotlight in OS X. I don’t want to have the OS magically find stuff for me, I like to know where it is. I guess I’m coming from the days where you search for something and you’ve got like 5 versions of it on your hard drive and invariably the first one you tries is the wrong version and jacks something up (reconfigures settings or what have you).

            I’m very untrusting of “oh yes here’s the thing you want!” I also suck at searching for stuff in general. No, seriously, my Google searches are horrible.

            Maybe I’m too old and cynical anymore but this feels to me like the “PC vs. Console dumbing down games” thing in a way. The OS is getting dumbed down in my eyes and while I guess most people would like that, as an enthusiast I don’t really like it.

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 9 years ago

      I agree. Windows 7 certainly has a less functional gui compared to XP, but of course nobody would admit this when 7 first came out. Paid shills for microsoft perhaps.
      Just because it looks new doesn’t mean it functions better, and 7 is basically a convoluted mess.
      Eye candy does not a proper gui make.
      Let’s just go back to the XP gui and add fancy effects.

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        Sorry boys, I like 7. I think it’s fine. the universal search removes most clicking for me, maybe you should try it. Yes it’s prettier, and yes, it’s easier for novices. My mom and wife now bug me less than ever about the computer, and it’s because they can figure out how to do what they want. So, whilst you may not like it, I find it great!

          • l33t-g4m3r
          • 9 years ago

          You’re only proving our point. 7 was designed for noobs and grandmas who can’t use a computer.
          But for anyone who actually wants to use their pc the way they want to, microsoft has said, “No, you use it the way we want you to.”
          I don’t want to save files to “My Documents” by default.
          I want to move my start menu shortcuts around, and organize my icons on the desktop.
          “No, you can’t do that anymore”, says Microsoft.
          Another thing, the search bar is nothing more than a CLI, and a step back to DOS.
          It is a crutch that is necessary only because the GUI is FUBAR.

            • derFunkenstein
            • 9 years ago

            Winkey -> type -> arrow down and hit enter. Look ma, no mouse!

            • cygnus1
            • 9 years ago

            agreed, this actually sped things up a bit for me, before i was hitting win+r to pull up the run dialog and you had to type the exact command you wanted, now with the search you can just put in keywords and get to the screens you need

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 9 years ago

            Viola, and here we have the old CLI addict.
            The “search bar” (dos prompt) is designed to appease the old CLI lovers, and also complete idiots, being it’s also a search tool.
            I rarely used the run prompt because it wasn’t necessary.
            The old GUI was easy enough to navigate.
            Windows7’s GUI is so bad you HAVE to use the CLI.
            I shouldn’t have to type out what I want to run, typing hasn’t been necessary since windows95 replaced dos, so why screw things up?
            I’m not saying it should be removed, but the GUI certainly needs to be cleaned up.

            If you really, really, really are stuck on CLI, switch to linux. Seriously.
            I want an OS with a proper, functional, CUA standardized and customizable GUI. (Common User Access)

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            lol, then windows is the wrong OS for you. you want to have a totally changable system, use linux. as you yourself suggested. all your argument is moot.

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 9 years ago

            Wow, you’re so far off, you’ve become the first -[

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            Don’t confuse “CLI” with “search”. Also, since most people apart from you /[

            • Meadows
            • 9 years ago

            Only noobs have desktop icons. Why would you even want to /[

          • anotherengineer
          • 9 years ago

          Do you let your wife use your “new” PC??? :O

      • MadManOriginal
      • 9 years ago

      Which system settings are you changing hundreds of times a day?

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        exactly. what are you talking about l33t? step back to dos? sorry, buddy, I don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s better in every way, shape or form. Don’t want to save to my docs? so don’t. where do you want to save them to? I hardly see your point.

          • ludi
          • 9 years ago

          /[

            • Suspenders
            • 9 years ago

            I had a similar feeling when using Win7, especially not being able to save files where I wanted to and dealing with the utterly annoying UAC. A little trick I learned is that 7’s default “administrator” account isn’t actually the full administrator account we’re used to in older windows, but a cut down version which makes admin access more difficult (so you don’t f*** things up). After a fresh install I go to Local Security Policy – Local Policies – Security Options – Accounts: Administrator account status, and set this to “enabled”. Reboot back into the real administrator account, delete the account your forced to create at install, and presto. No more “locked” folders, no more “run as administrator” or UAC prompts. Just the computer following my orders exactly. 😉

            • ludi
            • 9 years ago

            Thanks. If this works as advertised, I may finally buy an upgrade license for my main desktop.

            • Suspenders
            • 9 years ago

            I hope that works for you. Not being frustrated is worth so, so much 🙂

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            UAC is easy to disable, and was implemented fine in 7. vista, it was a good idea, but a pain, and 7 resolved most of the issues. turn it off. you’re done. Not being root is generally a good idea, from a security standpoint. do at your own risk

            • Suspenders
            • 9 years ago

            I agree, not being root is generally the best way to go, but dealing with permissions and whatnot just annoyed me too much. I’m the admin, dammit! In any case, the best defence against malware is using your own common sense

            • anotherengineer
            • 9 years ago

            +100

            I will be doing that on my next format (SSD for Christmas *keeps fingers crossed*)

            thanks!!

            • Suspenders
            • 9 years ago

            No problem, good luck 🙂

            • bcronce
            • 9 years ago

            Yes, running everything as root, the “best” idea ever.

            UAC should almost never prompt(except in Vista, UAC was aggressive) except for drivers/system changes. If UAC is prompting a lot, you’re probably installing malware, or the programmers of your software are horrible as you can easily make a program with a ton of features that doesn’t require admin elevation.

            I have UAC enabled and the ONLY time I see it when when I’m making system changes or installing software. So, like once per week?

            • sweatshopking
            • 9 years ago

            what are you talking about you can’t access the my pictures folder? I’ve never had it be “locked” in fact, windows 7 is AWESOME for pictures all over the place, because you can easily add them to the “pictures library” and then have all of them in one spot. it’s miles better than anything that XP had. I’ve had NO issues with being denied access. ever. and any system files that are controlled, i just use the registry tweak ‘take ownership’ and away i go. it’s a way better system in every way.

            nice touch on the “For a novice who likes defaults” point. Lol. novice? at least i have organized my pictures, and can figure out how to use a basic os….

            • ludi
            • 9 years ago

            /[

            • The Dark One
            • 9 years ago

            My sympathies. No OS should block someone from their porn collection.

            • anotherengineer
            • 9 years ago

            +10

            First thing I do with XP is put the whole “my docs” folder on a serparate partition or drive, so if a n00b messes things up at least all their “stuff” should be intact elsewhere.

        • KoolAidMan
        • 9 years ago

        Doing something simple like changing file permissions takes two steps in OS X. It takes six steps in Windows Vista and 7, and that is if you know exactly which tabs and option buttons to click on. This difference extends pretty much everywhere else.

        The Windows interface can be streamlined greatly without compromising functionality. As it stands it is unnecessarily convoluted.

          • sweatshopking
          • 9 years ago

          right click, properties, and then security. add what you want. done.

          • bcronce
          • 9 years ago

          How often do you have to change file permissions?

          Also, NTFS has A LOT more permission options and is geared more towards enterprise where you need to fine-tune permissions.

          NTFS has 14 atomic permission settings which can be applied to Local-Users/Domain-Users/Groups/Machines/etc

          OSX has 3 permissions that can be applied to 3 pre-defined groups, Owner/Group/Others

    • Hattig
    • 9 years ago

    People forget that there wasn’t an update between XP and Vista because Microsoft screwed the pooch with Longhorn.

    Aug 1995 -> Jun 1998 -> Sept 2000 -> Oct 2001 -> FAIL -> Jan 2007 -> Oct 2009
    Windows 95 -> 98 -> ME -> XP -> FAIL -> Vista -> Windows 7

    Apart from that fail, Microsoft averages under three years.

    Still, it makes getting Windows 7 worthwhile, if Windows 8 is a couple of years off still.

      • TEAMSWITCHER
      • 9 years ago

      ME, XP, and Vista should all be in the FAIL column. XP you ask? XP Serivce Pack 2 was good, but the original XP was a security disaster. And a very minor upgrade to Windows 2000. Fail Microsoft.

        • djgandy
        • 9 years ago

        XP was win2k home.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 9 years ago

          so what was XP Pro? Seems like your logic might have faltered a bit.

            • Peffse
            • 9 years ago

            XP Pro is still 2KHome.
            hahahaha…

        • odizzido
        • 9 years ago

        I remember the very first time I installed XP. It got infected with malware before I even loaded a program and then it self destructed and I had to reinstall. All because I had it connected to the internet without a router.

          • cygnus1
          • 9 years ago

          so… you connected an unpatched, unfirewalled, massive target of an OS to the internet and YOU got nailed… you don’t say?

      • bcronce
      • 9 years ago

      Actually, Vista was a fork from Win7(Longhorn). Win7 started after WinXP, but because of all the political crap going on in MS, they get set a few year behind schedule. To help recoup some of their costs and to get something out the door, they pushed Vista.

      Vista was based off of the Win7 codebase and framework, which is why the drivers are about fully compatible. Win7 extended many of the existing feature in Vista and Win7 is sporting a full new IO/Memory subsystem and a fully new kernel.

        • Meadows
        • 9 years ago

        Can I have some of what you’re smoking? Windows 7 came after Vista, and couldn’t come any other time, because Vista was “Windows 6”.

        Vista is a retard-fork off the hideously hardware-demanding Longhorn alpha, but it’s still a fantastic OS at that. However, if it weren’t for the spaghetti mash of .NET codebases in Longhorn, and the high hardware requirements, the initial vision would’ve been far better. Unfortunately MS had to fall back from the heavens and release a real OS, which then they tried to improve on it with W7 – which in fact screwed some things up, but that’s another story.

        Anyway, the notion that W7 is in fact “Longhorn” is so wrong that you couldn’t be more wrong even if Krogoth helped you out on that concept. Nothing out there _[

    • dragmor
    • 9 years ago

    I expected them to move to a two year cadence and break less stuff each time. It looks like my 5-6 year old XP machine will have to last longer than I thought….

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 9 years ago

      It’s overdue for an upgrade. Stop by the SBA forum and we’ll fix you up.

      • KoolAidMan
      • 9 years ago

      Why? XP is garbage, why subject yourself to that, just get Windows 7 and be happy.

        • odizzido
        • 9 years ago

        In a lot of ways XP is better than 7. Of course in a lot of way 7 is better than XP as well. It just depends what you do with your comp I guess.

    • ShadowTiger
    • 9 years ago

    I feel like Windows 8 will be bad… not as bad as Vista maybe, but definitely not going to do as well as Windows 7. Especially if they try to copy stuff from Apple.

      • Grigory
      • 9 years ago

      “Especially if they try to copy stuff from Apple.”

      Windows 8: Now with less multitasking! 😉

      (Don’t flame me, bros!)

        • sweatshopking
        • 9 years ago

        FLAMED

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This