Microsoft To Switch Focus To Windows 8 In July 2010 374
An anonymous reader noted a bit from Ars saying Microsoft will be switching internal focus from Windows 7 to Windows 8 in fiscal year 2010. Microsoft's fiscal year starts in July, which is only eight months away. According to Microsoft's roadmaps, the release of Windows 8 is scheduled for 2012."
Windows 8.. (Score:5, Funny)
The Ocho!
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:4, Insightful)
A company is planning ahead for their next version. News at 11.
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:5, Funny)
Windows Article
Apple Article
Linux Article
Any other Article
Beyarrifull! (Score:2)
That. Was. Awesome!
Bravo - you shouldn't have posted that AC.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot:
You must be new to Slashdot. This is how Slashdot works (insert stereotypical examples). Blah blah blah anyone remember when Slashdot was cool? GET OFF MY LAWN.
Collect instant +5 mod bonus.
You about 10 years out of date (Score:5, Insightful)
Ten years ago, I would have completely agreed with this post. Today, if anything, the Microsoft shills have taken over slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot: In Soviet Union, Windows switch focus to you
Does that mean I can escape KGB surveillance by Alt-Tabbing?
Re: (Score:2)
It is bothersome to read these but I think they are an important revenue stream for either Slashdot or the individual editor who sells them.
Apple leads the pack here but they seem to do less story buying between releases. The dailies, sometimes twice dailies, they buy in the weeks before an iPhone release make up for it though.
Re: (Score:2)
Well you didn't see any such stories a month after XP was released, did you?
Come to think of it, we didn't see anything of the sort until a while after Vista too. I guess this means that MS isn't sitting back this time. It's news in that they've finally returned to the competitors' block.
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:5, Insightful)
They should have been working on Windows 8 nine months ago, or whever they basically put Windows 7 into freeze. It was over a year ago that they decided certain major features weren't making it into 7.
The team that develops the OS should be focused on the new version right away.
Surely Microsoft is a well-run corporation with long term planning. Surely they have a future roadmap of where they want Windows to go over the next 5 years. Surely Vista and 7 were intentional stepping stones along their master plan.
I can't fathom the possibility that Microsoft has become this un-agile behemoth that no longer innovates, but rather has knee-jerk reactions to the OS market.
Re: (Score:2)
They probably were working on Windows 8 when they put Windows 7 into freeze. I suspect they've been working on new ideas and features (and misfeatures) for a couple of years now. But the article says that they'll be focusing more on Windows 8 next year, which gives them time to put out the major Windows 7 fires and plan for the next release.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree there is a problem. The shorter the release cycle, the more incremental the releases needs to be.
1. Users won't like having to shell out for a new windows every 6 months to a year.
2. Vendors won't like needing to re-write drivers for whatever the spread of hardware it is that they still update drivers for every year.
This means that at shortest a two-year release cycle at least makes sense, it is also about how often I'd expect a user who is serious about his IT to upgrade his notebook/pc.
The m
Re: (Score:2)
The Ocho Cinco!
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd think that constantly creating new versions of windows to create an income stream is getting
ridiculous now. What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7? I guess the trend may be
that the consumer/customer will update on every 2nd or 3rd windows version that comes out instead
of every year. The same goes for the browsers and office too. I think that it should be v7.1 and v7.2
etc to add additional functionalities for free vs. buying functionalities in increments. Also just
changing the GUI interface to look new improved shouldn't count either.
The only new version that should come out that would drastically be new that one can purchase
is the artificial intelligence version. That is, one that can improve itself!
Tell that to most of the linux distros, who have a written rule to release new major version every 6 months.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah. So if you give the product away, frequent releases make sense; but if you profit off the product, that allows us to believe that frequent releases are just a ploy to make money (even though nobody actually buys the upgrades that frequently), so you should be criticized if you release frequently (even though you probably also have the same reasons to release frequently as anyone else).
Yup, that makes perfect sense.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And on top of that, there IS monetization going on with the popular distros, since they are paid for by Google for internet searches and so on what their users generate.
Just because its free to you, don't think there's no any capitalization behind it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Many Linux distros run on just about any hardware you can load it on. Can the same be said about the last 2 versions of Windows?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Well, not all:
http://www.debian.org/News/2009/20090729 [debian.org]
Debian is on a 2 year cycle
http://news.opensuse.org/2009/03/05/112-roadmap-and-fixed-release-cycle-for-opensuse/ [opensuse.org]
Suse 8 months
I think Ubuntu and Fedora go for the 6 month, but I doubt 'most' go for 6 mos. I think the average is to attempt an annual release.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
openSUSE used to be a 6 month window. I think Mandriva still uses a 6 month window.
If you only count community distros, then Ubuntu, Debian, Fedora, openSUSE and Mandriva are the heavy hitters. Debian would be the exception.
However, this is a poor comparison to Windows. Windows wants you to pay money for the upgrade. Linux releases quicker, but it is a free upgrade. Many of these are more comparable to a Windows service pack.
If you count commercial distros like SLES and Red Hat, you'll see a much longer win
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't Mandriva a for-cost linux? I don't quite understand their model, so I usually ignore them.
Re: (Score:2)
Two years for freeze, when it stops getting new feature updates. It's only released when it's ready.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know which Linux distros your're referring to, but if you mean Ubuntu, yes, it has a release schedule of approximately every six months, but each release is supported for 18 months. These are more for casual use. The LTS versions are the 'major new versions' and are intended for large deployments: they're supported for a minimum of 3 years. FWIW, following the Ubuntu release cycle as it's intended, the last 'major new version' was 8.04 'Hardy Heron' released on April of 2008. The next LTS versio
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know which Linux distros your're referring to, but if you mean Ubuntu, yes, it has a release schedule of approximately every six months, but each release is supported for 18 months.
And Windows versions generally have support for 5-8 years, which is a lot more than 18 months.
Even if we take into account the distro's that make a major release every 1-2 years, Windows is still behind it. I was happy with XP for years. Now I'm using Vista and I'm happy with it too. I didn't jump on it first, so maybe they have improved it past the launch. But generally major Windows releases are a lot more polished than with Linux distro's.
Re: (Score:2)
You are aware that it is more than a year between windows releases, right? Since the year 2000, there have been 5 non-server releases (ME, 2000, XP, Vista, 7), and it's almost 2010, it is planned to be 6 at 2012.
That's one every other year.
Apple does the same thing, many software vendors do the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
ME was a kludge relesae, with 2000 being the proper release for that goal (merging the Windows 9x GUI with the NT kernel). And you can argue that Vista was a kludge release (trying to implement UAC and a better security model, but selling the OS to the masses with Live integration and Aero interface), with 7 being the proper release of Vista's goals.
If you throw out ME and Vista, Windows has had three major releases in 9 years, and plans the next in 3 years.
Re: (Score:2)
ME was still a DOS kernel, not an NT Kernel. It was the last of the DOS based Windows. XP was the proper merging of 9x and NT, although some basic stuff was available in 2k, that worked for most things. 2k's GUI wasn't that much improved over NT4, a little streamlined, but nothing major.
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:4, Informative)
What can Windows 8 do that can't be done with Windows 7?
128 bit, I think we heard previously.
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, some site called "Windows 8 News" just made up a fake Linkedin profile I couldn't seem to find in real life, citing a name that I am told by sources did not exist in internal company directories, with quotations mis-using the company jargon. But don't let that stop you from speculating about it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
To support all those 128-bit processors and 128-bit applications currently on the market? To support more than the 192 GB of main memory supported by Windows 7 64-bit? I thought 192 GB ought to be enough for anybody!
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:4, Funny)
192GB is going to be the minimum needed to run Win 8, so it will have to address more than that ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Shouldn't a 64-bit system support 2^64 bytes of memory, which would be something like 1.8x10^19 bytes of memory? Or are there other constraints? And even if there were, wouldn't it be easier to work on the other constraints?
Re:Windows 8.. (Score:5, Informative)
So going to 128 bits wouldn't help?
Addressing DRAM is not the problem 128-bits is being considered for.
128-bit addressing is being considered right now for the off chance that a technology like PRAM [wikipedia.org] catches-on. Once you have non-volatile RAM at much higher densities than typical DRAM, you can ditch the hard drive altogether.
This poses a problem, because disks and SSDs are currently I/O mapped and accessed via an SATA controller, which adds latency. But what people don't realize is how much memory-map space this arrangement saves us: consider that you can access TERABYTES of data in a device that requires less than 100MB of your memory map. And you don't typically care about the added latency, because the speed of disks is many orders of magnitude slower than DRAM.
Now, imagine the disk is replaced by something just as capacious, but also just as fast as DRAM. PRAM in the capacities to rival a hard disk would likely need to be direct memory-mapped I/O to achieve good performance, and for that we really need to consider 128-bit addressing, because current hard disks (single disk and storage arrays) are already pushing those respective 40 and 52-bit limits.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't update your OS then. I'm sure Window 2000 does everything you'll ever need. Why upgrade past that?
2012 (Score:5, Funny)
2012 OMG.... Always kinda knew it would be Microsoft to end the world...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They are creating Skynet I knew it.
time to start working on my underground bunker
Re: (Score:2)
actually like any good MS kerberos time calculation, the time and date are off. [slashdot.org]
And? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hey, I heard that Ubuntu going to be switching focus to 10.x next year as well! STOP TEH PRESSES!!!1!
Do we actually have anything to talk about regarding Windows 8, or is this just another thread where we trot out all the usual "ZOMG evil Micro$oft abandonware bloated faked figures blah blah blah"? Because that's getting kind of old.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. We've seen this same so many times. OMG, companies are planning 3-4 years forwards to ship their next product then. The world is falling.
Re:And? (Score:5, Insightful)
When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off. If Microsoft is unwilling to provide all the features in one simple install, 2010 will be the year of Linux on the Desktop.
We need something like Poe's Law [wikipedia.org] for Linux zealotry, because I think you're being facetious, but I'm really not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
When people get fed up with crippled "home" versions and paying more for "ultimate" versions, Linux will surely take off.
So that's never then. Most users don't pay for Windows, it comes with a PC they buy. Most users don't know there are multiple versions of XP, Vista and 7. Most users also don't care.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not just that, we need an all purpose version for all the other stuff that may or may not be a parody. There's a lot of crazy [infowars.com] out there, and sometimes you really have to ask yourself if they really buy what they're selling or if they're just doing it for the lulz.
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how Windows 7 Home Premium (the only Home version I can find on sale in the UK at least) is crippled compared to either Professional or Ultimate.
Note that "crippled" in normal parlance "describes someone with serious injuries that affect their ability to walk or move" (from the CALD [cambridge.org]) - in this case, you'd be talking essential features that are missing or broken, seriously affecting the usefulness of the OS.
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone will miss all those features, but I'm guessing most people will miss one or two. And it's particularly insulting to have them charge more for
Re: (Score:2)
Professional is designed to work in a domain. Home users won't be running a domain unless they have purchased Windows Server to run a domain controller. Ulimate seems really unnecessary. I say that running Windows 7 Ultimate. The only need for Windows 7 Ultimate I can imagine is getting the free VM of XP inside of 7 Ultimate (which doesn't ship on the DVD, you have to download it). And even that you can replicate with an existing XP license.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's limitations and hardware requirements to how well virtualization works. A home user isn't going to be happy or probably understand why they don't have advanced 3D rendering for their game in XP mode. XP Mode is designed to help businesses transition from legacy code and make Win 7 a viable business platform. Win 7 Home Premium users can still install Windows Virtual PC, etc.
Domain access is a similar tree you're barking up. It's meant for business not home. Win 7 has Home Groups which is a way
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To use a line from The Patriot:
You dream, General.
People, average people, don't care that there are different versions of Windows. People, average people, want something that allows them to get on to the internet, send email, maybe play some online games and a few other things.
People, average people, just want something that works. They don't want to have to go to a
HAHAHAHAHA! (Score:2)
I don't know whether to reply with a sincere criticism or a joke. So... I'll do both.
So, we'll start with the fact that the "ultimate" version is not required by, and not lusted after by, well, the vast majority of users. With Windows 7 you don't need Ultimate for much of anything. Hell, I was a Vista Ultimate x64 user and when I picked up Windows 7 I got "Professional" instead.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux isn't some kind of alternative to windows where you get the same deal but with less hassle - it's a completely new environment. If you don't understand that, please cease with the FUD pretending it is a piece for piece replacement for it. It was never intended to be and it isn't , and who fucking cares anyway ? Only windows users who need to be told what is a good idea, because they have no idea for themselves. I would rather people like you stayed where you are and didn't pollute our environment
End-of-the-world-screen-of-death (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah - you were thinking it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it'd be:
Blue Screen of DOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!
(said in the voice of Invader Zim)
Price Appropriately (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Price Appropriately (Score:5, Insightful)
When you discover Austrian economics, you'll learn that there is no such concept as intrinsic value. So this statement is meaningless about any good or service. It might be meaningful for YOU for RIGHT NOW, but the notion of value is time and observer dependant.
And all miss certain desktop scenarios that windows nails, which is why everyone on the planet hasn't simultaneously said "OMG -- why do i keep paying money for windows when *nix does EVERYTHING I NEED EXACTLY THE WAY I WANT"
Given the amount of inflation between now and then, even paying $250 for an OS today is "so 1990s".
The idea that the operating system on your computer -- the thing that actually lets it do useful things -- isn't worth dinner for 2 at a national-chain resturant (your $30 figure) is completely hillarious. You honestly would rather forego the last 30 years of personal computer history and instead have 1 dinner for two?
I think "an" OS is easily worth $100 or more per year to me. I'd skip dining out 4 times a year to have one. It's nice that there are free choices available, and in some cases I use those free choices since the marginal utility benefits of pay-ware doesn't justify the marginal cost increase for my scenarios.
I think it must be a common fallacy amongst f/oss zealouts that they feel like the only people that must be clued-in, and that if only the rest of the planet would "discover" that there are free operating systems out there, Windows and other commercial operating systems would vanish.
I suspect that the major vendors and Fortune 500 companies are very well aware of free software and what its advantages and disadvantages are, and have conciously chosen to continue using Windows for the majority of what they do based on a value analysis. I also suspect that they continually re-visit this analysis [and this accounts for things like the Wal-Mart and Dell linux machines..]
I think it's fair to guess that most people paying for windows figure it is worth 75% or more [to them] of what they're paying for it.
So I don't find your post insightful at all. You don't understand economics, and your assessment of value seems very contrived to me... based on ideology rather than reality.
Re:Price Appropriately (Score:5, Insightful)
That's kind of a foolish statement. Windows doesn't do things the way people want either, which is why the average user can emit an impressive stream of complaints about their computer if you let on that you're in any IT-related field. The reason people don't switch is a combination of some or all of these factors:
The idea that the operating system on your computer -- the thing that actually lets it do useful things -- isn't worth dinner for 2 at a national-chain resturant (your $30 figure) is completely hillarious. You honestly would rather forego the last 30 years of personal computer history and instead have 1 dinner for two?
What are you talking about? Linux and others have been around forever. In the past five years or so Linux, particularly desktop-focussed distros like Ubuntu, have gotten to the point where you could give one to Your Mom and she'd be able to install it. These are free operating systems. They're also completely gratis. There's no law that says an OS has to cost money, and there's not that much support in the history books for such a notion either.
You say that for you, an OS is worth about a hundred dollars. That's fine, but understand that's your perception of value, something about which you just finished lecturing that other guy. Neither history nor economics support the idea that an OS must have a pricetag.
Finally,
I think it's fair to guess that most people paying for windows figure it is worth 75% or more [to them] of what they're paying for it.
That's patently absurd. Most people don't realise they're paying for Windows at all. Remember, to them, "it came with the computer". To an extent they are paying very little for it since OEMs subsidise the cost with the idiotic crapware they also pre-install. But the point is that most people do not go out and buy a Windows disc. They use whatever the hell is on the computer and give zero thought to the price or value of the OS.
A more realistic scenario would be to talk to a real user. You know, that nice lady next door who has been pulling her hair out for the past two weeks because Windows has getting less and less stable. At first it was just throwing Dr Watson stuff in her face she didn't understand. Then Explorer would crash practically every time she booted the thing and she's had to learn to reboot seven or eight times before it would come up and stay. Then McAffee started throwing a hissy fit, often crashing and taking down Windows with it. IE is taking forever to open and half the time, when sh
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That isn't what I said at all. I said that most people don't know or don't care enough about computers or operating systems to change, even if they're aware of the options, which most are not. But if you really want to put those words in my mouth, fine. I think most Windows users are fundamentally ignorant about computers and operating systems. T
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
posting my credentials would be irrelevant; in the best case it would be the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority", in the event that you assumed i was an authority on relevant matters. I mentioned Austrian economics only because I find it to be the most compellingly rational treatment of the subject at hand, and rather than try to re-create all of it here unattributed and with the possibility of the introduction of mistakes, I figured I'd [indirectly] point readers at the source literature.
But s
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There isn't an actual value.
There is a _price_ at which the two parties in question: buyer and seller, are willing to conduct an exchange at a given point in time.
You know how stores have sales? "15% off -- only today!" Is the product 15% less valuable today, and then tomorrow it reverts to being more "valuable"? If so, what is that value changed based on?
For all actors in the market and for all non-coercive transactions [i.e. where force or fraud are not involved], "value" is determined independantly by
Odd - even cycle (Score:4, Funny)
Is it going to be like the Star Trek movies, where whether it sucks or not depends on whether it's odd or even?
If so (Score:5, Funny)
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATES!!!!
Sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
The theory makes sense if you apply it to operating systems. DOS was the good one; oh sure, it's warty, but it's still here and that tells you quite a bit. Windows, not so good. Maybe Microsoft's next OS will be worth running.
So what're they focusing on now? (Score:2)
If they're concentrating on fixing/improving Windows 7...will they stop?
If they're not going to stop fixing/improving Windows 7, what's the difference?
What microsoft Really needs to do (Score:3, Insightful)
NOTES! [mil-embedded.com]
bells and whistles do not sell in the real world were work needs to be done.
People want a system/car/airplane/appliance that works, always. Not part of the time.
If you want to dick around get a Mac Book Wheel [theonion.com]
Re: (Score:2)
some Standards similar to DO-178B to insure things work would be nice.
Besides, the Mac comment was a sarcastic joke which, I think you missed.
Re: (Score:2)
Just like Vista?
* Congratulations, I'd go the entire day without posting anything if it wasn't for this sentence.
*ONLY* 8 months? (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, though. Good for them. I think XP was out way too long and while I never really had a problem with it that wouldn't be inherent in any type of Windows (I'm just old enough to have missed out on needing to learn much about DOS, and PowerShell pisses me off by not being tcsh), and I think people got complacent with it. The long run of XP probably had as much to do with Vista fears as early bugs did. I purchased a copy of Vista Ultimate a few months ago, and I had no problems with it at all, other than shitty command line, but I was never really an XP user at home anyway.
The story yesterday with regards to Win 7 stealing more XP market share than Vista market share, I think backs this up. The XP users who were still hanging on were doing so because of perceived issues with Vista, which may or may not have been valid, so Win 7 is more for them than for anyone currently using Vista by choice. Kicking up the Win 8 cycle should keep interest higher, and hopefully they'll be able to deliver on time (yeah, yeah...), because 2 years plus 8 months is still sort of slow compared to Apple's releases, and like a glacier compared to some of the major Linux distributions or BSDs which are on might tighter release schedules.
Focus Shift? (Score:2)
Will this be anything like the Be Focus Shift [macobserver.com] at all?
Summary fiscal year incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
Which version will Windows 8 be? (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 7 is Windows version 6.1
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600] Copyright (c) 2009 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Tim S.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends how much of a service pack it is. XP->Vista made some pretty big kernel changes, enough to justify the version. Vista->7 really didn't change anything much, so it's like a service pack.
Isn't XP SP2/3 Windows 5.1?
Essentially, it depends how ambitious they are.
Taking bets on infinity (Score:2)
More Frisbees For My Dog (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, I'm sure he cries real hard each time he hears about someone who buys his product but does not use it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I must've missed your posts in other stories, but could you please enumerate the number of major releases of other operating systems that you haven't used? Be sure to cover OS X, the various BSDs and Linuxes, OS/2, BeOS, real-time operating systems, and so on.
I see no reason for Vista or 7. We'll see about 8. (Score:4, Insightful)
I started with a home computer in the 80s. Quite fun but cassettes were slow, so I got a PC with MS DOS 3.3
I upgraded to DOS 5 because of its memory management. I then installed Windows 3.1 upon DOS 5 because of the truetype fonts and word processing. It made me more productive.
(I also started using Linux because it allowed me to have a Unix at home without suffering that asshole sysadmin at the university, but this posting is not about Linux)
I upgraded DOS5+Win3 to Win95OSR because it was more stable and easier to use than 3.1, it had font smoothing, native TCP/IP and it was generally an OS vs DOS and a windowed shell. It made me more productive.
I skipped Win98 and WinMe because they offered nothing new.
I started using Win2000 because it was a real OS, much more stable and secure than Win95. It made me more productive.
I started using XP when nLite matured because I could remove the useless crap and XP is optimized for speed and supports network bridges and, most importantly, cleartype. It made me more productive
I've tried Vista and 7 but they have not made me more productive. I wonder if Microsoft can change that with 8.
Missed something (Score:4, Informative)
But Windows 8 will solve all those problems, and be faster and more secure!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Timed with corporate PC replacement cycles... (Score:4, Insightful)
Most large corporations have 3-year PC replacement cycle, and get pissed when the new thing is the same as the old thing except for the hardware.
Most large corporations have a staggered, consistently employed 3-year PC replacement cycle, couldn't care less about what software is installed since they're all imaged in-house, and prefer hardware to remain consistent as long as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing what the IT department wants with what the guys in the suits who cut the checks want.
The suits want something new and shiny or they feel like they wasted money. Making the IT department's job easier is never a concern.
Re: (Score:2)
Most large corporations have a 3-year PC replacement cycle where the bosses' 3-year old, that was $5000 when new, gets some black masking tape to repair the cracked screen, a quick delete of "My Videos", and are then given to the rest of the employees, who don't really
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't this late 2009? How is late 2012 four years later?
Are you doing math on a Pentium?
Re:Scheduled for release in 2012? (Score:5, Funny)
Isn't this late 2009? How is late 2012 four years later?
Are you doing math on a Pentium?
Isn't this late 2009? Are you still telling jokes about the original Pentium?
Re: (Score:2)
This is /.
I'm just warming up for my Trash-80 jokes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Look at the kernel changes between Server 2008 and Server 2008 R2 and tell me it is the same kernel. It is easily twice the change of 2003 to 2003 R2.
Microsoft is HORRIBLY inconsistent with their naming. Windows 7 reports it runs kernel 6.1, but the entire purpose of naming it Windows _7_ is that is the 7th major iteration of the NT kernel.
Then again, Windows 2000 through Windows Home Server all are NT 5.x kernels. You're not going to suggest that XP was merely a point release and not a major release were y
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously. Do you even think about what you say before you say it?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you not know the length of time between XP and Vista?
XP and Windows 7? What's Vista?
Re: (Score:2)
Time to start planning another release party! Man, where does the time go!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, its going to be one of the 37 editions of windows 8.. I'm just making sure I get "Windows 8 - Solitare edition" to make sure that the one I get doesn't have my favorite time killer removed!
Re: (Score:2)
Actual multiuser support with decent file protection (NTFS vs. FAT).
Re: (Score:2)
This is an impressively stupid comment. I mean, really impressively stupid, which is saying something on ./
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see Windows adopt an Apple-like schedule of smaller, cheaper updates released on an approximately eightethien month schedule
I would hate it. The quick Apple release cycle helped me quit using their products, and move back to Windows and Linux. Half the time I couldn't find an actual reason to cough up the money for a meaningless upgrade which did nothing but add functionality that third parties already supplied (dashboard, spaces, time machine). Often they would make a minor change to the