The Problem With Microsoft’s Windows 8 Timetable.

[JMH]

The Problem With Microsoft’s Windows 8 Timetable.

News of Windows 8 is scarce and uncertain, but most of what we know about it points to a release in 2012, some three years after the release of Windows 7. While this three-year release cycle worked well with Windows 7, making it the norm might not be the best plan for Microsoft, its business and home users, and its software developers.

Source -
The Problem With Microsoft's Windows 8 Timetable | Windows 7 News

 

[smarteyeball]

MS shot themselves in the foot and created a catch-22 by allowing XP to exist and support it far longer than they should have.

With a 2012 Win 8 release, and continued XP support till 2014 (albeit limited) - where is the incentive for companies using XP to roll out when a new release is 'always just over the horizon' ? The same applies to non-commercial end users.

To maintain such a short 3 year turnaround, they really do have to look at lowering prices for their releases to entice more companies and end users to keep abreast of the latest release schedule.

Otherwise they will still have the dichotomy of supporting a superseded OS as well as maintaining support for the latest OS.

 

[alphanumeric]

Smarteyeball, I was thinking the same thing. Like you said it could remove the incentive to upgrade. I also agree if they go that route they have to bring prices down. It's going to make a lot of work for Microsoft too, patching X number of OS's. They should do a one time deal where if you mail them your Microsoft XP CD (and product code) they mail you back an equivalent windows 7 DVD. It's not like they can't afford it.

 

[Barman58]

3-4 years is the normal timeframe for a windows OS release, it's only the exceptionally long life of XP, due to the Longhorn Re-think, that is clouding the issue now.

And microsoft actually did quite well in the market, with this schedule

 

[Adamd]

In my opinion I don't really think it matters how often they release a new OS.

I walk into businesses and notice they are still using Windows 2000, sometimes 98 etc and think they will only upgrade when the computer dies and well some computers can last a very very long time. May get outdated but they still work the same as they did when they were new.

This also is the same with consumer computers as well. Only a select few people run out and buy a new version of Windows just because it is new.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

After XP, MS introduced the 10 year support for OS (5 years mainstream support with service packs, 5 years extended support with security patches only). Obvioulsy someone switching to the new OS 2-3 years after release only will have 7-8 years of support left. This is not a bad idea since it coincides with increasing hardware requirements and longevity of equipment.

Businesses that run outdated OS are bad businesses. The little money they save on OS and hardware they spend on added support cost (W7 is easier to maintain than XP etc.) and wages. Imagine the old hardware they have whne they run W98. Losing just half a workday per year to lack of computing power, and losing some data due to the lack of any security I assume they use IE 5 etc. then) is the most foolish thing a business can do to save $ 100 on an upgrade every year.

Software subscriptions alone cost more than hardware and OS annually.

 

[alphanumeric]

Legacy apps are one the biggest reasons for companies not updating their OS. If it won't run on a newer OS and you can't get the company that wrote it to update it, you get stuck in the dark ages. Its not that they don't want to, it just that sometimes they can't go bigger better faster. I've seen it first hand, its not a pretty picture.
The other side of the picture is training. Productivity can actually go down if you update Windows and say Office, and it's a big change in the user interface. You may have to spend money on training staff on top of the money spent for the new software and hardware. Its big bucks for a large company and a small company with a small budget may not be able to afford to upgrade.
I think most people that are non technical and don't build their own systems aren't going to run out and buy windows 7. When the time comes that they need a new PC they will buy one pre-assembled with the OS already installed and move on then.

 

[Rockfella]

U said it

In my opinion I don't really think it matters how often they release a new OS.

I walk into businesses and notice they are still using Windows 2000, sometimes 98 etc and think they will only upgrade when the computer dies and well some computers can last a very very long time. May get outdated but they still work the same as they did when they were new.

This also is the same with consumer computers as well. Only a select few people run out and buy a new version of Windows just because it is new.

 

[Product FRED]

They shouldn't be releasing 8 so soon. Windows 7 is going to be the next XP, lasting longer than it should. They should release 8 as a paid service pack or something, like Apple does with OSX. It can't be that much of an improvement.

 

[Rockfella]

AFAIK it is a fully 64 + bit OS.

They shouldn't be releasing 8 so soon. Windows 7 is going to be the next XP, lasting longer than it should. They should release 8 as a paid service pack or something, like Apple does with OSX. It can't be that much of an improvement.

 

[Product FRED]

Well either way, it should be provided at a subsidized price for Windows 7 users since the OS will not be that old by the ETA of 8. Just like I said before, 7 is the beginning of the transition to 64-bit and there's no reason, other than running legacy applications, to keep running a 32-bit OS.

 

[valtonray]

i think the 3 year cycle is actually a pretty good plan. however i would much prefer MS to create a new OS from the ground up getting rid of some of the things that are no longer necessary. of course the problem with this is that it could potentially kill backwards compatibility. but it is time to do away with the registry and a new file system could make for a better user experience. if you go through the windows folder you will still see remanants of old tools left behind which are no longer needed in today's computers. we need a more modular OS and i do think that is the future for MS but not something we will be seeing soon.

 

[HerrKaLeun]

3 years probably is a good cycle. short enough to not having too many changes at once, but long enough to have new hardware etc. to make it worthwhile to switch. with that the old OS still is under full support and one always can use the newest hardware. (service packs)
Even if a company skips every other OS (which isn't such bad policy, since OS are already pretty good), this leaves 6 years, still pretty up to date then.

One of the Vista problems was that it took too long after the XP release and the changes were so drastic, that people and hardware manufacturers had a hard time adjusting (or were too lazy). If OS are released too early, no one will adopt them (except for freaks like us). It takes companies some time to make changes, since it involves employee training etc. (I know, we here don't need training, but most people who work with computers are computer-illiterate). also, too short cycles require MS to invest too many resources in keeping too many OS up to date at the same time.

 

[Coco15]

I don't really care. long as they bring out something like XP and 7. Hopefully not another vista

 

[zezasu]

Everyone seems to talk about software that wont work on Windows 7. Can someone list programs that do not work because I never seen anything. My school runs some Windows 7, and vista and while a lot use XP all the software works across all of them. Maybe since my school just focus's on more Tech'y stuff could be a reason but it still is a business since its private,etc. gets money from students,etc. I don't mean to be a doubter just want to know what type of stuff would not work.

The biggest issue I can see is linking everything with printers and more connecting everyone and the servers. The hardware
would kill a lot of the gear at my school or would require graphics cards which use more power, and new psu's etc, even though they use Core 2 duos (2.0ghz).

 

[Coco15]

Software I have that don't work is:

Kodak Easy Share. (Camera Software)
PowerDVD XP
Malware Mbytes

 

[WindowsStar]

Quick List:

Destination 3000
Enterprise Client
Whisper
Millennium Client
Connection Client
T2 Systems
Cisco VPN Client
Dell IP KVM Software
Casper v4.0
Paragon Drive Backup Pro v8.0
Canon CD Label print and Scangear toolbox
Live Mesh - disables Aero

 

[arkhi]

In my opinion I don't really think it matters how often they release a new OS.

I walk into businesses and notice they are still using Windows 2000, sometimes 98 etc and think they will only upgrade when the computer dies and well some computers can last a very very long time. May get outdated but they still work the same as they did when they were new.

This also is the same with consumer computers as well. Only a select few people run out and buy a new version of Windows just because it is new.

That's true. At Macy's, they still use a terminal which seems to be a 1990 PC. It has 20 F-keys, is made by IBM, has a green and white 11-inch "huge" monitor, and the keyboard is damn thick like a typewriter. They use it for some order processes or something, maybe item look ups too, and also for clocking in and out on the non-selling areas.

I've seen the registers are running Windows XP Embedded, and the price checkers are running Windows CE 4.x (its interface looks like a WinXP desktop but I'm pretty sure it's CE since it has PocketIE instead of the normal one).

 

[valtonray]

naturally there will always be software that doesn't work on a new OS, with 7 a lot of the old media burning suites wouldn't work and had to be either updated or replaced, however i feel that it's unreasonable that some people expect software that sometimes goes back to the early xp days and at times even programs or hardware to work on a new OS. if you're still using a printer you bought with a windows 98 machine instead of complaining that it doesn't work maybe you should consider updating, with software this is especially important for security reason. a 3 year cycle is very reasonable and as suggested above im sure many would upgrade every other OS cycle keeping cost of both new hardware and software down.

 

[Coco15]

naturally there will always be software that doesn't work on a new OS, with 7 a lot of the old media burning suites wouldn't work and had to be either updated or replaced, however i feel that it's unreasonable that some people expect software that sometimes goes back to the early xp days and at times even programs or hardware to work on a new OS. if you're still using a printer you bought with a windows 98 machine instead of complaining that it doesn't work maybe you should consider updating, with software this is especially important for security reason. a 3 year cycle is very reasonable and as suggested above im sure many would upgrade every other OS cycle keeping cost of both new hardware and software down.

I have some programs that were compatible with Windows XP and Vista and work with Windows 7