Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Windows

Windows 8 To Be Released In October 2012 337

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the save-the-date dept.
dkd903 writes "Microsoft has been very secretive about the next version of its Windows operating system. After the success of Windows 7, everyone is very interested in the next iteration – Windows 8. A few leaks have been the only source of news about Windows 8 till now. However, a slip up from Microsoft Netherlands has put the release date in October 2012."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 8 To Be Released In October 2012

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Woot!

  • 2012-10 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jo42 (227475) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:18AM (#34011688) Homepage

    I wager 1,000,000 quatloos that it won't be released that month.

    • by Joce640k (829181)

      I was just going to make the 'end of the world' joke...damn.

      Still ... aren't we supposed to skip every other version of Windows (because they're usually only half-cooked)?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Okonomiyaki (662220)

        Still ... aren't we supposed to skip every version of Windows (because they're always only half-cooked)?

        There. Fixed that for ya.

        • No, sometimes an odd 3rd version comes out half-cooked too. And it depends greatly on whether or not you count service packs as versions (by SP 3, Windows XP had so many of its original wrinkles ironed out that it can hardly be considered the same version).

      • s/other//
    • by Ynot_82 (1023749)

      Oh I don't know
      Call me cynical, but I think it'll be released then, whether it's ready or not
      I think it's a good bet that they want to release at the same time as Ubuntu's next LTS (in October '12) to try and steal their thunder

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      No, it's actually going to be released on December 21, 2012, just in time to bring about the end of the world.

      • by FooAtWFU (699187)
        Apocalyptic superstition and nonsense! I mean.... Didn't you see the study where they looked at our interpretations that calender and determined that, astronomically, the apocalypse would be about 9 months later, in February 2013?
    • I wager 1 quatloo that Kirk will rip his shirt sometime during this episode.

      No takers? Oh well.
      I guess that's obvious.

  • by e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:22AM (#34011750)
    that can match past successes, such as Vista, Zune, or Kin.
  • nope (Score:4, Informative)

    by The MAZZTer (911996) <[moc.liamg] [ta] [tzzagem]> on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:22AM (#34011754) Homepage

    Furthermore, Microsoft is of course the next version of Windows. But it will take about two years before “Windows 8 ‘on the market.

    Yeah, this is hardly a concrete release date. It's probably one person's very rough estimate, he might not even be close to the project for all we know.

    • Re:nope (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Joce640k (829181) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:37AM (#34012002) Homepage

      The exact same journos are writing that there'll be a 128 bit version as well, demonstrating:

      a) Somebody's feeding them horsepoo

      b) They really are as clueless as people say.

      • Re:nope (Score:4, Interesting)

        by postbigbang (761081) on Monday October 25, 2010 @11:21AM (#34012708)

        It's a time-honored way to get unique page hits--> speculating about the next Windows release from Microsoft.

        The entire piece was so much fluff. Microsoft is scared to death that we'll forget about Windows, and with good reason. At no point in history has Microsoft been this vulnerable. Controlled leaks to the press will be common place. Little rumors about this and that. Then there'll be leaked releases, first looks, and so on. It's the same formula that Microsoft has used for 20+ years.

  • I want Windows 7.1, not Windows 8.

    Windows Vista sucked horribly. Windows 7 fixed some suckage with Windows Vista. But just stop this runaway train and fix all the problems, not just a few with each new Windows version. There's a very good reason why 61% of Windows users still use XP. Give them a reason to want something new. Otherwise, you'll just create more division and confusion by creating another version of Windows that PEOPLE JUST DON'T WANT.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 91degrees (207121)
      It probably will be. Windows 95 was Windows 4.0. Windows 98 was Windows 4.10, and ME was 4.90. Same basic OS with minor revisions. Windows 7 is version 6.1. This does suggest it's actually Windows Vista.1 but version numbers are pretty arbitrary. Still, Windows 8 doesn't have to be a complete rewrite. Simply an update.
      • by jaweekes (938376)

        I actually believe that they started using the NT scheme after ME, as the consumer version switched to the NT kernel. So Windows XP = 5, Vista was 6, and Windows 7 is, well, 7. But we could argue about this all day long...

      • by Jugalator (259273)

        This does suggest it's actually Windows Vista.1 but version numbers are pretty arbitrary. Still, Windows 8 doesn't have to be a complete rewrite. Simply an update.

        Actually, MS has refuted this and told that they only called it a minor update in the version number for backwards compatibility reasons. MS consider Windows 7 a major kernel revision. I'm not sure I do though. I rather consider that move being MS going "Well, this OS is basically Vista architecture-wise, so ensure apps see it as that too if they only look at the major version number". In that sense, Windows 7 is a more "minor" upgrade.

      • I think the parent is talking about why MS is trying to get us to buy an upgrade as if it is a new release with all the problems of switching.

        Win95 and Win95SE was its upgrade. Windows 98 and Windows 98SE was its upgrade. NOT ME. That was a new release and it showed because it totally changed things.

        But should we pay the price of a new release. Even with upgrade discount it is high. Far higher then OSX's point upgrades and of course far more expensive then Ubuntu releases. About a gazillion times more.

        An

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Sir_Sri (199544)

          What exactly is NEEDED in Windows 8.0 that I should buy a license for? Until MS can answer that, they won't be making many sales from people who aren't buying their PC in the shop or must have the latest shiny. That is a LOT of people, but MS has always been a company that burned through cash. They NEED more sales. Vista hurt them bad. Windows 7 was better but not back to old form. I see no reason 8 should change this.

          What exactly is needed in windows vista, or 7. Or Ubuntu anything greater than about 6? How about anything newer than OS 10.2? That's why people aren't upgrading. You only upgrade OS's when you buy a new computer. We're at the point where operating systems basically do what they're supposed to properly, and have been for a decade. That is to say, they generally don't crash unless you really torture them (or bad hardware), they generally run programs without getting non- recoverable stuck. Everything

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by drsmithy (35869)

          Far higher then OSX's point upgrades and of course far more expensive then Ubuntu releases. About a gazillion times more.

          OS X upgrades typically cost $129. There have been a couple of exceptions to this but the pattern is clear. Windows upgrades typically cost slightly less than than (about $120).

          Of course, the cost of a Windows upgrade is largely irrelevant, since the vast, vast bulk of Windows users get new versions of Windows either a) when they buy a new PC or b) when their corporate IT department

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Yeah, like perhaps doing something noteworthy with the new release. Not many people want to buy (or even move to, even for free) a new OS that barely does anything that their old one can't. It's simply a waste of time and money for a lot of people, including me.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Pojut (1027544)

      I can fully understand people not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 due to hardware/driver constraints or program compatibility...but if neither of these things are problems, I say why not? Windows 7 is much more user friendly and easier to navigate (not to mention much more stable and secure, in my experience.)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by UnknowingFool (672806)
        Money. If something works now, why replace it if there is no need. Unless there is a feature of Windows 7 that people really, really need, most people will just keep XP until they get a new computer that comes with Windows 7 or 8 already installed. For businesses, it's a little more complicated as they have enterprise licenses and such but the goal of saving money is probably more pronounced.
        • I wouldn't mind paying $150 to upgrade to 7 from XP, but having to pay anything to upgrade to 7 from Vista is unacceptable. In fact I think Microsoft should probably pay people in the form of vouchers or edition upgrades when upgrading from Vista to 7. The amount of wasted time due to Vista is real, mesurable and material. I know that there area a lot of ./ers that had no issues with Vista, but I had it on 3 machines (all brand new dells (different machines), pre-installed) and I had all kinds of issues

      • And still nothing new. Yes I changed from xp to win7 because it is better but, in 2 more years there will be nothing new. This is just marketing that people don't buy into anymore. Oh, one thing the will do is: no more 32 bit version.
      • Program compatibility is the only real problem we have at our work - everything worked fine under XP so we're slow to upgrade.

        However - Dell stopped selling us XP's so now we've got about 40 XP's left before we have to jump to 7.

        One of the annoyances is that yes: it will work if you set the application to "XP SP3" in the compatibility mode. Problem is, there's about a dozen applications we have here that require it, so that means every time we do a PC set up that needs to be changed each time. We don't have

        • by mlts (1038732) *

          I'd like to see MS work on virtualization on the app level. This way, a Web browser (or more specifically a Web browser instance) has its own instance of everything in the OS. If the instance gets compromised. malware can happily scribble on the Registry, drop files into SYSTEM32, etc. However, those changes are mapped to a temp directory and as soon as that window is closed, those changes all drop. Of course, saved files that the user wants would be set aside somewhere so they don't get erased on the V

          • by wbo (1172247)

            I'd like to see MS work on virtualization on the app level. This way, a Web browser (or more specifically a Web browser instance) has its own instance of everything in the OS.

            That is exactly what Internet Explorer's Protected Mode does when running on either Vista or Windows 7 with UAC enabled. When Internet Explorer is running in Protected Mode it can only access a small handful of directories and certain registry locations even if the user running it is an administrator.

            Microsoft calls applications

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by brunes69 (86786)

        Why fix what is not broken?

        I have two PCs at home that run Windows XP. Everything I use them for works flawlessly. They are totally stable and usually have an uptime measured in weeks. A large part of this is probably because I do must of my stuff in the cloud.

        Why should I pay $50,$100,$150 to upgrade to Windows 7? What is in it for me?

        Now substitute "me' with those other 61% of people. Why should someone upgrade if XP is doing everything they need?

    • I want Windows for Workgroups 7.11, been waiting on a new version of WfW for a long time.

      • by RulerOf (975607)

        I want Windows for Workgroups 7.11, been waiting on a new version of WfW for a long time.

        While that's obviously a joke, the version of Windows you're looking for is called Windows Enterprise. Stuff like Branchcache and the like are features designed explicitly for workgroup settings. And of course, they're mostly features that exist in a domain environment, hence the enhanced price tag when foregoing Windows Server ;)

    • I don't know why they would go and release a whole new version when 7 isn't a flop like Vista. Seriously, the mainstream support for Windows 7 is still for another 4 years and the extended support is 9.

      What will be accomplished in Windows 8 that a simple Service Pack couldn't fix - and what UI elements could they possibly offer thats worth upgrading if I've got windows 7?

      • by denis-The-menace (471988) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:41AM (#34012066)

        RE: What will be accomplished in Windows 8 that a simple Service Pack couldn't fix"

        Profits!

      • Service packs = free
        New releases = fat, greasy wads of cash
      • by hedwards (940851)
        It's about profits. If they don't release a new version then the only people that will pay for new copies are people who are buying new computers and too lazy to reject the EULA on the new copy and recycle their old license.

        Additionally, MS for practical reasons limits the amount of functionality that they're willing to add to the OS after it's been released. Which means that it can be quite a challenge to add support for some things later on, and without any profit motive for doing it either.

        I'm pers
        • Businesses, hardware buyers A.K.A. Microsoft's installed customer base, only make software changes when absolutely FORCED to.

          I was working at a financial services firm which still had O/S2 boxes handling their fax communications YEARS after IBM has stopped selling O/S2. Its called "If it ain't #$^ing broke, don't #$^ing fix it!" As long as the hardware/software could handle (send/receive/OCR faxes, it was going to stay inviolate. For all I know, the machines are still there, chugging away...

          Windows buyers,

    • Windows Vista sucked horribly. Windows 7 fixed some suckage with Windows Vista. But just stop this runaway train and fix all the problems, not just a few with each new Windows version.

      Fixing bugs and releasing free service packs is work without profit. Releasing flashy new versions that cost hundreds of dollars, but are shoddily designed, is profitable. Make it full of bugs and people will be happy to pay for an upgrade, too.

    • If only you were the first !

      You clearly haven't had the pleasure of watching MS add layers of idiocy onto DOS.

      Dave Cutler is the only guy MS ever employed to write a new OS, the rest were hired to plaster over the old ones.
    • by Jugalator (259273) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:43AM (#34012104) Journal

      I agree, this isn't a bad idea IMHO. They could use Windows 7 as a base for incremental improvements for some time. It's rare for MS to get as many things right as there after all is in Windows 7, so why not make carefully move from there?

      People may say "but where's the money in that!", but if 7.1, 7.2, etc would still be paid for, and more often than the major releases, people might be *more* willing to upgrade since they'd know that they wouldn't get something huge at once, and maybe even use the old rule of wanting to wait for the first service pack. Less such risks with smaller updates. Also, smaller updates would be able to be more frequently released, and they could compensate for this somewhat by selling them for less.

      If this all sounds wild & crazy -- Apple is pretty successful with their systems, and they've been doing exactly this since OS X 10.0...

    • >>>I want 7.1 not 8

      Microsoft is trying to catch-up to Mac OS 10... um. Where are we now? 10.60? No, no that's opera. Maybe its 10.11? Nah that's Ubuntu. Ahhh forget it.

      BTW Windows 7 isn't really 7.0.
      It's NT 6.1 so what you desire
      is 6.2 (+0.1 bugfix).

      Ugh. My head hurts.

      • If windows was like opera, you wouldn't be able to run 3rd party applications until Windows 11. You'd be stuck with notepad, paint, and solitaire until then.

    • by Dracos (107777)

      The trouble is, due to Windows' ubiquity, people don't realize that Windows isn't what they want. It's simply what they are used to.

      Plus, many people are so afraid of "breaking their computer" that they don't dare change much on it.

  • by balaband (1286038)
    Looks like the Mayans were right...
  • How about that's when they first slip the delivery date?

  • Well, of course. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Orsmo (976)
    Everyone knows that's why the Mayan calendar stops there. Windows 8 comes out. The world ends. Apocalypse explained.
  • by toby (759) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:32AM (#34011926) Homepage Journal

    everyone is very interested in the next iteration

    You keep using that word but I do not think it means what you think it means.

  • by MindStalker (22827) <mindstalkerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:34AM (#34011946) Journal

    "Two years from now means October 2012. If this is correct and Windows 8 is supposed to be released In October 2010, we should see the first beta in early 2012"

    From the link from the article..

  • Better translation (Score:5, Informative)

    by Barryke (772876) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:35AM (#34011968) Homepage

    Verder werkt Microsoft uiteraard aan de volgende versie van Windows. Maar het zal nog zo'n twee jaar duren voordat 'Windows 8' op de markt komt.

    Correctly translates to:

    Furthermore Microsoft is ofcourse working on the next version of Windows. But it will take about two years before 'Windows 8' will arrive on the market.

    I'm dutch. The translation was engrish, i thought this might help.

  • It quotes a translation from a Dutch press release that says "about two years" after Windows 7. Since when did "about" suddenly become a definite statement of a release time frame??
    • Since when did "about" suddenly become a definite statement of a release time frame??

      This is slashdot, you should know it means for very small values of "about". Geez, who let this guy in? :P

    • I've been reading Slashdot for a few years now and for some reason I'm amazed every time this happens where I see a headline and/or read a summary, then later on when I read the article I find out that the original information was either misleading or completely inaccurate. You'd think I'd have learned by now.
  • So, 2012 (Score:4, Funny)

    by Smivs (1197859) <smivs@smivsonline.co.uk> on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:40AM (#34012042) Homepage Journal
    will finally be the year of the Linux Desktop!
  • October you say? How apropos.

  • by digitaldc (879047) * on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:46AM (#34012162)
    "Liger"
  • by MikeRT (947531) on Monday October 25, 2010 @10:52AM (#34012262) Homepage

    this would be the perfect time.

    Google, Apple and Oracle, their biggest competitors, are in a major shoot out.

    What Microsoft needs to do is exploit the patent conflict by publicly ending its patent threats against FOSS. Completely, no exceptions.

    While it does that, it should make Windows 8 the first release that breaks with the past by moving all legacy technologies into a sandbox a la what OS X originally did.

    Finally, they should work on extending whatever POSIX compatibility they still have left until Windows 8 can reliably run code originally written on Linux and OS X. Why? Because it would bridge one of the last gaps between Windows 7 and OS X.

    Apple is getting increasingly controversial. Microsoft could exploit by becoming the first vendor to make peace with everyone.

  • Here's the basic summary:

    - Some website guy found an article from the Netherlands branch of Microsoft which conjectured Windows next version will be released in ABOUT two years.

    I could have told you that.
    Not news; guessing.

  • Even though no information has been released yet, I would expect to see something in the next 2 years. That would put Windows 7 at 3 years old. If we don't see a release, we should be seeing some betas by then. They will not wait 5 years again like they did from XP to Vista and the Vista to Win 7 timeline was 3 years.

  • wasnt it just new ? what is going on ?
  • everyone will be playing Call of Duty: Caracas on their 3D monitors and complaining on slashdot about the lack of linux support for their Kinect microsoft gesture devices

    because the only thing lamer and more tired than predicting microsoft's survival, is predicting microsoft's imminent demise

  • Cause and effect here?
  • by tompaulco (629533) on Monday October 25, 2010 @07:17PM (#34019232) Homepage Journal
    It had better be faster on the same hardware or I am not interested. Windows Vista and 7 are both slower on the same hardware as Windows XP. I don't call that an improvement. Yes, they have added many, many new features, 99% of which I don't want or care about and all of those features slow down the system. Figure out how to make those features load on demand or something so that my system performs better under the new OS than it does now.

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Working...