Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Windows 8 (Windows vNext) Riskiest Product Bet for Microsoft


22 Oct 2010   #1
JMH

Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit. SP1.
 
 
Windows 8 (Windows vNext) Riskiest Product Bet for Microsoft

Quote:

Microsoft Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer is considering the next version of Windows as the riskiest product bet by the Redmond company, according to a Mary-Jo Foley report.

Windows 8, or Windows vNext as Microsoft would prefer it, is for the most part a great unknown.

In the post-Longhorn/Vista era, the software giant is extremely careful with the details it shares about Windows operating systems still in planning or in development.

The public should expect Windows 8 to be treated no differently from Windows 7, and some might still recall that Microsoft only started revealing information on the successor of Windows Vista quite late in the development process, when the feature set was all but set in stone.

However, every once in a while, there are glimpses into what exactly is coming, and the small comment from Steve Ballmer is exactly this.

Ballmer is not discussing a roadmap, features, capabilities, etc., hes simply stating that out of all Microsoft products planned over the next years, Windows 8 is the riskiest bet.
More -
Windows 8 (Windows vNext) Riskiest Product Bet for Microsoft - Softpedia

My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

22 Oct 2010   #2

Windows 7 Home Premium x64 SP1
 
 

Agreed about the risky bet. Microsoft doesn't want another Vista (even though I like Vista )
My System SpecsSystem Spec
23 Oct 2010   #3
JMH

Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit. SP1.
 
 

My System SpecsSystem Spec
.


23 Oct 2010   #4

Win7 HP (x64)/Win7 Ultimate (x64)
 
 

Maybe they will offer free upgrades to Windows 8 for those who are still on Windows XP
Vista and 7 users will still need the normal upgrade route
My System SpecsSystem Spec
23 Oct 2010   #5

Windows 7 Ultimate x64
 
 

The real risk is weather or not users will agree to go back to Microsoft's 3 year cycle. I would not be willing to bet that this will be a successful road-map on OS upgrades from this time into the future.....people are just a little bit less willing to continue with the disposable society than they were a couple of years ago.

Today's consumers are getting to be more corporate in their financial decisions and asking where is the ROI that justifies the cost of the upgrade.....currently the majority of XP users (50+ % of all Windows users) are totally unwilling to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7. The benefits do not outweigh the costs involved and their computers are still getting the job done just fine.

The upgrade path includes just too many incidental side effects like the need to buy new 3rd party apps to replace working software that is not compatible with the Vista/Windows 7 kernal as well as hardware and OS which money conscience consumers are less and less willing to part with without a good reason.

Mr. Balmer is right to be concerned.....Push too hard and it could cause a revolt among consumers just when Smart-phones and tablets are beginning to change the landscape of the next few years and not necessarily in the Desktop/laptop direction where Microsoft OS/Office dominate......Lets not forget that more and more companies are beginning/continuing to require employee's to provide their own IT equipment and that this will inevitably lead to a change in the way business is accomplished, weather by smartphone, internet tablet, some device currently unknown....

The server environment will continue as is for some time to come but the front-end is changing frighteningly fast where traditional companies like Microsoft are concerned.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
23 Oct 2010   #6

W7 Pro 64
 
 

I don't think the 3 year cycle is bad itself. This ensures less dramatic changes with each iteration. Like with vista it was so far away from XP that the changes were so big that MS (and hardware manufacturers) couldn't handle them till SP1/2.

IT departments not wanting to switch frequently can skip one iteration and be on a 6-year cycle. (not that I agree with using outdated software......). Dang, it is 2010 and people still using XP are on a 9+ years cycle...

We won't get Windows 7 at work before 2010 if at all then. Probably right before W8 comes out (we got Office 2007 right before 2010 came out). But how much money does it save to switch so late? The change must happen one way or another. It is better to make it as quick and painless as possible and not to extend the suffering needlessly. Since W 7 will lose all support in 2019 switching to Windows 7 now would have given us 9 years of service at the same cost. since we get Windows 7 next year or 2012 we have the same cost of change, but only 7 or 8 years of use.
Edit: when we purchase new laptops and desktops they come with a Windows 7 license. Our IT department then installs XP since we "can't handle" such new software like Windows 7. so we pay for Windows 7, but don't even use it.

Of course there is a cost to upgrade. But there is a cost to not upgrade as well. that cost isn't seen easily, but exists and can be huge.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
25 Oct 2010   #7

Windows 7 x64 / Same
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by Article
Could Windows 8 become a second Vista? We are not sure what Mr. Ballmer meant when he answered the question, but he surely must have known something at this point that the public does not.
Oh reallllly? You think? I mean, he's only the CEO.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
25 Oct 2010   #8

Microsoft Windows 7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit Build 7600 / Microsoft Windows XP Professional SP3
 
 

The problem itself with SO upgrades is the new stuff added, XP had some issues too before it's first SP... Vista had problems because of performance, most people wanted to install that OS in a 512 MB RAM Machine with an **ugh** Celeron D Processor and an onboard VGA that barely mannaged to show pixel shaders v1.1, even with greater systems Vista had performance issues until SP2 (SP1 was still slow, I tested on many machines)

Instead, with more dedication and love we got Windows 7, faster, safer and reliable, and it EVEN runs with 512 meg systems (tested against Vista)... What Microsoft need is not a 3 year cycle that results on hot-made not reliable OSes, they need to test extensively and release a solid product, like now is Windows 7...

JUst my point of view though...

See ya!!!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
26 Oct 2010   #9

Windows 7 Home Premium 64bit
 
 

Windows 7 is fine but so is XP. I have Windows 7 on my new HP laptop because it came preinstalled/OEM. I have four older PCs all running XP and until it comes time to replace the hardware, there's just no reason for me to upgrade the OS on these machines.

I deliberately waited to buy a new laptop until Windows 7 was out and had been out for a while, skipping over Vista when I heard about the negative feedback.

The main applications in our family are word processing + web browsing. My son has started gaming but on the Xbox360 platform.

One thing I have to say that also might be relevant is that some of the Linux live distros seem to have finally gotten to the point where they actually run reasonably well for ordinary Joe consumer. I tried a few a couple of years back and could never get them to work right. Now however I've got Ubuntu 10.10 and a couple of other distros and they seem to be able to set up a desktop which allows basic/standard apps like web browsing, file copying and word processing to occur in the event of some horrible unrecoverable MS OS crash (which actually has never happened to me anyway).

I have one of the Linux distros running live off a USB flash drive and at this point, although I'm certainly not an Open Source fanatic, if Microsoft pushed too hard trying to sell me an OS that I really don't need, I feel reasonably confident that I could run everything I need (i.e. software apps) off one or the other Linux distros. I haven't actually installed any Linux distros primarily because when I first got the new laptop I messed around with the recovery partition (curses you HP recovery partition!) and ended up creating a few dynamic drives on the C: drive.

I've idly thought about trying to create a dual boot with a Linux distro and Windows 7 but just don't feel like messing around with wubi or doing anything that might make me need to do a clean install or mess around with bcd or restoring MBR or anything like that. (If I need to I would just check out the tutorials here of course.) I have an external USB hard drive and have been using Windows 7 backup including imaging to backup the hard drive, but I also have been using Clonezilla for redundancy which seems to work fine.

MSE also seems to be a pretty big improvement and with its availability lessens the need for a new OS just for security purposes.

In terms of my web browser I have to say I use IE virtually not at all. At some point a while back I started using Firefox and it generally works fine.

All this stuff is really just commoditized (is that a word?) and unless someone needs really cutting edge/high performance it doesn't seem apparent that thee year changes every year to the average user's OS is really necessary.

That is not to say Windows 8 won't be a great product and an improvement on Windows 7 but there has to be something pretty clear that I need that exists in Windows 8 but not in 7 or XP for lay down the cash for it. Otherwise I guess I will get it the next time I need to buy hardward, assuming I don't buy a used 7 or XP system on E-bay.

By the way I just wanted to say this is a GREAT forum.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
26 Oct 2010   #10

W7 Pro 64
 
 

Marco100:

you are correct in that for your applications XP is fine and probably W2000 would do too. Same for the Linux OS you have. But the same I could say about a 1975 car which did the same as today's cars, bring me from A to B. But you probably find 1000 more reason here why Windows 7 is useful and why updates (whether as new OS or SP) are needed.
- Windows 7 (and vista) have better Taskamanger taking advantage of multi-core CPUs, even in single-threaded software. for some of my software thsi is 20% faster than in XP due to using multicore better. You need to consider, XP was designed in a single core 32-bit world.
- 64 bit really works well
- driver install automatically (for the most part)
- with new wide screen monitors aero snap makes working on multiple documents more productive, almost like dual-monitors
- inherently safer (yes, even if XP uses MSE, Windows 7 with MSE still is safer)
- better with SSD (TRIM)

So you see with the progress in technology there is a good reason to upgrade. Of course, the competition of Apple and Linux forces MS to upgrade as well. Again, when you have an old existing system and are happy with it, XP is not a wrong choice. but for newer hardware, sophisticated productivity applications, Windows 7 is much better.
When you buy a new PC with OS, you pay for the OS either way. Then you might as well get the most up to date one :-) It costs the OEM $ 30 to buy the XP license, to buy a Vista license or to buy a Windows 7 license (I'm making up the amount, but $ 30 s a good guess)
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Windows 8 (Windows vNext) Riskiest Product Bet for Microsoft




Thread Tools




Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 AM.
Twitter Facebook Google+



Windows 7 Forums

Seven Forums Android App Seven Forums IOS App
  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33