New
#30
Windows 8 in 2012, Beta as Early as 2011
-
-
New #31
Releasing new windows every 3 years will be the ending of Microsoft... big corporations will not migrate so easily if they already "got the way" with Windows 7... and the costs...
For me, a simple end user, is not a big deal to stay with Windows 7 and not migrating, just because I will have support (updates, new software like probable Internet Explorer 9 or 10, or Office 2014) I don't need to migrate yet, I have what I need with Windows 7.
The big bad point for me is that, if Microsoft still tries to release a new version every 3 years or less, piracy will then become more active than ever, is sad that I say this... but here in my country, for every original copy of Windows 7 sold, there are more than 100 pirated copies of it sold, and more that 1000 downloads of the original ISO uploaded in many sites... and is just because the price, here, Windows 7 Home Premium costs more or less $6999 MX (more or less $650 USD) while Professional and Ultimate go from $8999 MX to $9999 MX (without adding an special tax called IVA, which is about 15% + of the total product value) Other copies like Home Basic and Starter are not available (even though this country is considered an emerging economy) or when you have luck, Home Basic costs $4999 MX...
Maybe you say... "People there can afford that... don't they?"... I sadly say... "No". Just a lil' amount of people is able to buy original copies, and in that bare percentage, some better buy Mac, just because they think is better and simpler, or just for bloffing. The major part of people that buy a new PC, buy assembled ones, but the problem is that most of the shops that offer this great option, install non original copies or licences... instead they add "Golden serial keys" or validation/activation patches so the copy works as it should (besides the inconvenience of having to disable Automatic Updates bacause of Microsoft's anty-piracy updates and policy)... even worse, people that knows more about computing (advanced users) instead download a copy, install and patch so they can use it as well.
I'm not mentioning that the most part of the assembled machines sold (most of the times to people that knows NOTHING about PC's... only a few ones like me knows what to buy and WHERE to buy) even doesn't come with Windows 7... instead Windows XP is being installed on those new systems, breaking the posibility of that new hardware of working at his top most and used correctly. (Most of us here know that XP does not handle multicore processors correctly unless you install a driver for it, but only aplicable to dual-core systems, quads remain used ineficently)...
I think that, better than releasing tons of versions in no time, is better for Microsoft to take their time testing, fixing, adding more -really- usefull stuff, and getting the OS having it's time to get owned by people and without quick Service Packs after released... Some lower costs as well may help, I don't know how many people is getting paid in MS or how many expeses they have... but they really need to think their strategy with Windows, otherwise, we (3rd world countries) having no works or low salaries (because we do nothing to solve it and instead letting our government do whatever they want) will still doing the same over and over with every copy of new released OS, no matter how many protections will get... I'm not justifying this (I'm actually AGAINST this!) but, this new way Microsoft is willing to trace, will not give them the results they spect... Why not to take things a bit slow and think what they really want to do with the OS?
Just a personal opinion though...
See ya!!
-
New #32
Well, it's not a new way, it has always been what they wanted to do. But the failing of Longhorn and needing to start from scratch and putting development time into XP SP3 caused the delay and the reason for XP being around for so long. XP was never intended to last this long in the market place. And now it is so entrenched that it is difficult for many to make the jump to 7, but they are.
But yeah, I agree. A new OS every 3 years, with an overlap of the older OS dissolving after 5 years from release date (or 2 years after the release of the newest OS) is a very short time for anyone to actually get used to and develop for it.
But, the unified nature they are starting to take in the realm of security and forcing the no admin rules on devs, should help in standardization. Unfortunately, according to this, it doesn't seem to much matter.
Well, anyway, MS are going to do what they want to do, cause they can. Just as Apple and Linux do.
As for the corporate environment, this is also the reason that MS has what they call Software Assurance program. Gives these companies that buy into it the ability to stay with the latest of everything with minimal investment.
-
New #33
First of all, MS is fully aware that Enterprise organizations aren't going to upgrade every 3 years. But, it is very likely that there will be a large enough portion upgrading every upgrade cycle. Six years is definitely doable for most organizations. Let's face it, the time between XP and Win 7 has been almost 9 years, and frankly XP is really long in the tooth. Hardware advances greatly in three years and by producing a new OS, built on the previous one, of course, allows MS to keep up with current hardware advances. Most general home users don't upgrade their computer OSes, they buy a new computer with the new OS on it.
Geeks like us install everytime MS comes out with something new, but trust me, we are but a grain of sand in the solar system of MS's financials.
Look at Apple, OS X came out about the same time as XP and they've had 6 releases in the same time period and as much as I am NOT an OSX fan, 10.6 is much better than 10.1 (10.0 doesn't count, it was basically a beta). MS using a 3 year cycle is still less than Apple. And remember, MS actually cares about backwards compatability, so the chances are far greater that older software will work in newer OSes.
PhreePhly
-
New #34
Another issue with releasing every 3 years would be that they have to consider if they restructure their support. Do they have the manpower (or desire to have the manpower) to support an OS for as long as they currently do if they start releasing on schedule every 3 years?
-
New #35
I would rather spend my money every 3 years on a new Windows OS rather than pushing my hardware to its limits by using an OS that will after some time become old and outdated... just like XP was.
The structure of the OS itself needs to follow the changes and new improvements in both hardware and software development; after some time, the OS becomes unable to properly do that, because its structure is too old. Just installing new drivers for your hardware and depend on Windows updates is silly
-
New #36
Actually, MS's OS support policy (Microsoft Support Lifecycle Policy FAQ) is pretty well defined. I see no reason why they could't continue this.
PhreePhly
-
New #37
I think every 3 years is fine. Microsoft is already actively supporting 3 client editions of Windows. Many more than that is overkill.
-
-
Quote
Related Discussions