Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Windows Technology

Will Windows 8 Be Ready For Release In 2012? 504

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the too-little-too-late dept.
MrSeb writes with an excerpt from an Extreme Tech article on the Windows 8 release timeline: "...A Microsoft vice president announced that the Windows 8 beta would begin in late February 2012. The beta will be feature-complete and will allow developers to begin listing their apps in the Store. The timing of the beta is curious, and ultimately quite telling. ... The first public build of Windows 8 ... emerged in mid-September 2011; by the time the beta rolls around, it will have been ruminating for more than five months. If we follow the timeline forward — it took 10 months for Windows 7 to go from beta to public release — then it's possible that Windows 8 might arrive just in time for Black Friday 2012, or perhaps not in 2012 at all. Will its late arrival affect its chances of cutting out a swath of the tablet market from Apple and Android? Or will Windows 8 be different enough that it will do well, no matter when it arrives?" In related news, an anonymous reader notes that IDC predicts Windows 8 will be irrelevant to the traditional PC market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Will Windows 8 Be Ready For Release In 2012?

Comments Filter:
  • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn@nOspAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:05PM (#38293086) Journal

    In related news, an anonymous reader notes that IDC predicts Windows 8 will be irrelevant to the traditional PC market.

    Yeah but have you seen how cheap the report is from IDC? It's a mere $3,500.00 [idc.com] which is a steal considering I just shelled out twelve and a half large for their forecast on computing devices [amazon.com]. My god, the forecast I bought was a piddly 27 page PDF while this Windows 8 report is a weighty tome totaling 17 pages in girth and might even result in a printed copy that that I can set on my desk and hold down with a real human skull paperweight completely encrusted with diamonds. At this price, I am buying one copy for every member of my extended family -- these things will make great stocking stuffers next to moon rocks, 1913 Liberty Nickels and the keys to each person's personalized yacht. Of course he tweeted the meat and potatoes of this report -- they're practically GIVING it away on their site already! Be sure to stock up on these before they sell out!

  • Still dont understand why they put the windows concept in a separate app, and converted most of the OS to a single app on screen format
    • Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Informative)

      by gcnaddict (841664) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:12PM (#38293178)
      It's a data-centric UI v. a function-centric UI. The premise is to put what the user needs most right in front of him quickly. Mail, meetings, weather, contacts, etc. can be readily accessible with minimal effort.

      The idea is that most people might not even end up needing to use the desktop.
      • But, are the users who prefer to have say, a PDF or browser window taking up one half of the desktop and say VS taking up the other half, reading reference material and trying it out practically
        Or VLC(or any other video player) and a web browser open side by side,etc
        or even a web browser and a chat client
        a real minority?
        • Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SpryGuy (206254) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:31PM (#38293374)

          They can certainly do all of that in Windows 8.

          Are you under the impression that they can't?

          • Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Interesting)

            by mehrotra.akash (1539473) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:39PM (#38293492)
            That was what my (admittedly short) experience with Win 8 seemed to saw
            Unless I moved apps to the desktop app, I was unable to have more than 1 onscreen at a time. Had to swap the whole app in and out of view
            Perhaps I'll try it out again
            • Re:Windows 8 (Score:4, Informative)

              by Missing.Matter (1845576) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:52PM (#38293712)

              In the metro interface you can have windows side by side: http://youtu.be/p92QfWOw88I?t=2m04s [youtu.be]

              Now, this apparently only works for higher resolution monitors (although a simple registry hack [mywindowsclub.com] removes this restriction), so maybe that was why you couldn't do it.

              However, this is beside the point that any user can go on the desktop and run any number of apps side by side (PDF, browser, VS, VLC, or otherwise).

            • Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Informative)

              by SpryGuy (206254) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:53PM (#38293730)

              There are regular Windows desktop apps (just like now, including every Windows app out tehre).

              And there are new "Metro" apps, which are targeted at touch-tablet devices... but can run on desktop systems.

              Metro apps can run one or two on a screen at once. They're full screen (like iPad apps), but you can "dock" two of them side-by-side as well. They're designed for tablets though. You CAN run them on a desktop, and I'm sure there will ultimately be many "Metro" apps people will want to run on Desktops... ... but most desktop people will stay in desktop. I knwo they've called it an "App", but that's just a silly way to think of it. You sit at the desktop just like you do now in Win7. Instead of the small Start Menu, you have a big Start Screen. Hit escape and you're back on the desktop just like with the Start Menu. You still have the task bar for windows apps, and you can flip full-screen metro apps in if you like and cycle through them (or switch to them with Task Manager).

      • by KlomDark (6370)

        Huh?

        How is displaying something on the screen not using the desktop?

        This whole Windows 8 thing is giving me a bad feeling. I think it's gonna flop hard. Windows 7 is great, other than the fatal flaw of /Windows/WinSXS, but Windows 8 seems like a a major step backwards. I want a mobile interface on my phone, not on my desktop.

        Maybe they should call it Windows Me Too! Both because it's a lame copy of an iPad, and it will be the sequel to WinME.

        • Re:Windows 8 (Score:4, Informative)

          by SpryGuy (206254) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:33PM (#38293406)

          You aren't getting it.

          Windows 8 is a super-set of Windows 7, with some really amazing advances on the desktop side (from a vastly improved Task Manager to impoved large disk management, to faster boot times, faster/better file copies, etc).

          Metro apps are a bonus. Everything that ran on Win7 will run on Win8.

          • Nonono (Score:5, Funny)

            by symbolset (646467) * on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:42PM (#38293558) Journal
            It's Windows Phone - on your desktop. Like who wouldn't want that?
            • by omnichad (1198475)

              In their defense, they aren't the only one doing stupid things like that. OS X now has an app launcher screen that's literally no different than the way the apps are displayed on an iPhone screen. It's useless.

        • Re:Windows 8 (Score:5, Informative)

          by gcnaddict (841664) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:42PM (#38293554)
          Like SpryGuy said, you aren't getting it.

          In Windows, the desktop is actually an app in and of itself. When explorer.exe is first run, it loads the desktop (all icons that go on it) and the taskbar. If you never run Explorer, you'll never get the desktop. It's the same thing here; a person doesn't actually have to run Explorer, and if they don't, then the desktop will never load. The first UI the user will see will be the Metro UI, not Explorer.

          Now, the second a person runs a traditional windowed application, the desktop will load as well for UI consistency, and all applications (graphically) will be contained within that layer. However, not every windowed application has to be paired with the desktop. If you run the task manager, for instance, it will float above everything else even if you switch back to the Metro UI or use a Metro application.
    • by adonoman (624929)
      They didn't - it's just a full-screen start menu that happens to be able to run apps.
  • Not in 2012 for me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GeneralTurgidson (2464452) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:10PM (#38293132)
    Ill be waiting for SP1. Server 2008 R2 has shown (at least to me) that Microsoft is trying to make server tasks more accessible at the cost of options and tweaking. Instead of having a nice GUI with lots of options, it's a purdy GUI with few options and the rest buried in some power shell syntax. Server 8 doesn't look like its helping their case.
  • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudsonNO@SPAMbarbara-hudson.com> on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:12PM (#38293166) Journal

    The "traditional market" is a combination of consumers and bulk business users. The consumer market doesn't use XP much any more (outside of the Asian pirate community). The businesses still stuck on XP are slowly migrating as their old hardware dies, or switching to other devices ... BUT ... (there's always a "but") Windows 8 fulfills Microsoft's goal of moving back to a more frequent release model, thereby enabling them to EOL earlier versions quicker.

    They don't want a repeat of XP, where an old OS cannibalizes future sales, ever again. You'll see annual "new versions", same as the iPhone (Balmer steals another Apple trick).

    • by Attila Dimedici (1036002) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:55PM (#38293742)
      The problem with this "more frequent release" model is that it is going to push businesses to some other OS. The company I work for should have just about completed the process of preparing to migrate to Windows 7 by the time Windows 8 comes out. This is a result of having to ensure that everything that is essential to business operations will work on Windows 7 before starting to roll it out. They do not want to be in the position of having to support multiple versions of the OS depending on what software the users need. In addition, because of regulatory requirements it is not practical to just upgrade the software to a version that is compatible with the new OS version.
      • by joeyspqr (629639)
        this, a thousand times this.

        We'll be lucky to be halfway off XP on the desktop by 2013. Between user resistance, licensing restrictions, compliance requirements, tight replacement budgets, and vendors dragging their feet, I'll be supporting thousands of XP installs until 2014.
      • by Kjella (173770)

        The problem with this "more frequent release" model is that it is going to push businesses to some other OS. The company I work for should have just about completed the process of preparing to migrate to Windows 7 by the time Windows 8 comes out.

        Oh please, enough with the FUD. Microsoft guarantees a minimum 10 years of support on professional/enterprise versions. Check it out, extended support will end in 2020 [microsoft.com]. What else are they going to move to that offers longer support? If your answer to that is "Linux, because they have the source code and can support it forever" you've been listening too much to RMS.

    • by Aryden (1872756) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @03:01PM (#38293810)
      I work for one of the larger corporations world wide. Our company standard OS is XP... They have no plans to upgrade to 7 any time soon.
  • Phone UI Hell (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Beelzebud (1361137) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:13PM (#38293192)
    Who would have guessed that phones would completely be the thing to mangle and ruin PC user interfaces... It's crazy but I've come full circle to thinking KDE4 might actually be the only sane desktop team left. Unless they're planning on turning it into a tablet/phone UI as well.
  • by Machtyn (759119) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:19PM (#38293246) Homepage Journal
    Well, of course, it will be irrelevant to the traditional market. Most of us have barely upgraded, businesses are barely turning the corner off of WinXP, and, from what I've observed, this is marketed for the mobile arena. I could be wrong on that last point, but that is my perception.
  • Win8 is a non-event (Score:5, Informative)

    by vinn (4370) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:20PM (#38293256) Homepage Journal

    Three things:

    1. Everyone knows that every other release of Windows is good (Win 3.1, 98, XP, 7) and every other one sucks (Win 3.0, 95, ME, Vista.) No enterprise is going to jump on this release.
    2. Enterprises are in various states of completing their transition to Win 7. Very few enterprises are going to begin another rip and replace cycle next year, so no one is going to jump on this release.
    3. Everything in the press has stated how Microsoft has taken a different direction for this user interface (but lately admitting the old one is still there.) No enterprise is going to jump on this release.

    With regards to tablets and phones.. I really don't care what OS mine runs other than I want to to work exactly the way I want it to work. I doubt Win8 will.

    • by pclminion (145572)

      1. Everyone knows that every other release of Windows is good (Win 3.1, 98, XP, 7) and every other one sucks (Win 3.0, 95, ME, Vista.) No enterprise is going to jump on this release.

      Oh quit it with this superstitious "every other release" bullshit. The fact is, 3.0, 95, and Vista were all releases which introduced new technology into core parts of the OS. Those releases certainly had major problems because of that. But because of their position in a sequence? Are you for real?

    • by Nimey (114278) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @03:02PM (#38293826) Homepage Journal

      You're wrong on Win95. 95 was a revelation when it was released; a much better user interface than 3.1 and preemptive multitasking, and more stable (given good drivers) than 3.1, plus built-in TCP/IP. Sucked that they didn't give OSR2 as a free upgrade (or indeed at all except to OEMs) so that we could have had FAT32 sooner.

      98 sucked when it came out, so you're wrong there as well. 98SE was pretty awesome in its day, though.

  • more importantly... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:24PM (#38293302) Journal

    Do we care?

  • by gmuslera (3436) * on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:26PM (#38293334) Homepage Journal
    December 22, 2012. Unless there is no end of the world the previous day, in that case could be delayed,
  • by catbertscousin (770186) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @02:27PM (#38293340)
    No wonder the Mayans thought the world would end in 2012. Either that or their calendar software wasn't Win8 compatible.
  • by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @03:14PM (#38293954) Homepage

    "Or will Windows 8 be different enough that it will do well, no matter when it arrives?"

    I think Windows 8 will be different enough that it will do badly, no matter when it arrives.

    A huge population of computer users do not want "new and different". This is a large part of why Windows XP has remain entrenched for so long, not just in businesses but also in people's homes. I made a point of replacing my parents' aging XP computer with a new one while XP was still available because I knew they'd hate learning whatever changes there were in Vista. On the other hand, now that XP is no longer a realistic option for new systems, I'll be watching the release date of Win8, so I can get them their next computer with Win7 on it, because it'll be less drastic a change than Windows 8 would be. I'd even undertake the effort of switching them to OS X or Linux before I'd try to switch them to Win8. (It's the same reason I find people familiar with ye olde MS Office tend to prefer switching to Open/LibreOffice rather than to MS Office 2007/2010.)

  • I'll pass on it! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wfstanle (1188751) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @04:13PM (#38294696)

    With their (MS) history of every other version flavor of Windows having problems, I'll wait for the successor to Win 8. Consider the history...

    Win 95 - Win 98
    Win NT - Win 2000
    Win Me - Win XP
    Win Vista - Win 7

    Granted, the second one of each pair had problems but not nearly as much problems as the first. Is there a pattern here?

  • by BlueCoder (223005) on Wednesday December 07, 2011 @04:32PM (#38294912)

    I'm wondering if Microsoft is contemplating giving windows away more or less free and then locking down the platform and go for an app store model where they take a cut of the software pie. A more secure DRM'd platform... Certainly takes away most of the threat of viruses and trojans and that could be used to sell the idea to the public.

Wherever you go...There you are. - Buckaroo Banzai

Working...