dffeitlstp

October 25, 2010 at 10:09am

Hmmm...

Windows 3.0  unfinished product
Windows 3.1  finished product

Windows 95   unfinished product
Windows 95b  finished product

Windows 98    unfinished product
Windows 98se finished product
Windows Me    (let's kindly block from memory)

Windows 2000 unfinished product
Windows XP    finished product

Windows Vista  unfinished product
Windows 7       finished product

The gist is that Microsoft has been doing this for two decades and we are on to them.  Of course Windows 8 is a risky product because every new generation of MS product is unfinished and requires a re-release to corrent the havoc. 
If MS is really serious about getting Windows 8 right, they will open their beta test for a year like they did with Windows 7 and get the feedback they need to have a product that works for everyone.  Also, I don't know any enterprise that is thrilled with a three year O/S release cycle.  Most businesses want to get 5-6 years out of a platform change and Microsoft got themselves in the XP dilemna by trying to force something by taking the keys to the car away.  That is not going to work in this economy.

domo

October 25, 2010 at 7:06am

Ballmer is awesome. All you Windows fanboys are just uneducated poor people. Sure you won't shell out for a Mac, because you can't. You're all welfare babies that can't dish out the cash for the best computers and devices known to man. I own an Ipod, Iphone, Imac, and a Macbook pro! Nothing can touch Apple! Sorry that you are on foodstamps, but I'm not sorry I am better than you.

Lhot

October 25, 2010 at 2:38am

....had the capacity to use such a clever and NEW (for him at least) marketing ploy as this.   By his statement he is challenging you to (ofc) buy his next product to prove him wrong....as he has already taught us that he is not to be believed.  LOL This is quite subtle for Steve.  I won't fall for it though.

IF you (the people) store anything online or in the CLOUD, you are just going to make every hackers wet dream come true...wise up people...they can ONLY sell you what you are willing to buy.

Sparx10

October 24, 2010 at 10:36pm

I have a feeling he thinks its risky because it will only be sold in 64-bit and 128-bit versions (so I've heard). If that is correct, then that is a very risky thing indeed.

burgesjl

October 24, 2010 at 5:29pm

First, one has to hope that MS will not force everyone to try and use a userid that will require access to the 'Cloud'. This seems to be the way they want to go, and if so, they need to be advised that this is not a valid approach in many businesses such as Government and Defense that require this information is not allowed outside the firewall.

Second, we have to hope they don't think the right way to do this is by having an App Store, and forcing all publishers to use it. Whilst on the one hand it's annoying to have all publishers using different installer software and especially updater software, which you have to search hard for to find in the Registry to stop it auto-updating just when you don't want it to, the best way to address this is create some standards, rather than forcing people to go via MS sites where they can track your behavior.

Finally, and the big kicker, is that MS is a convicted monopolist. This means they have to be VERY careful about not setting off another round of Government investigation to their business practices, and be found guilty again. First, the fiscal penalties could be very severe: billions of dollars. Second, there are other remedies which could be employed, most specifically, that they would be broken up into many pieces. If that happens, MS is dead and the individual components could be in real trouble. Forcing people through their Cloud infrastructure would be just such a violation, even if they tried to use the "Apple is doing it" defense. I for one would be very keen to complain to the Government should they make such a system come to pass, for either the basic user authentication, or forced to use their App Store. 

legacy2013

October 24, 2010 at 3:22pm

Most of the people commenting here don't seem to understand the rate at which technology is changing. I mean XP lasted wayyy to long, but it had to because Vista got such a bad reputation and did not do a good job managing memory and applications. Vista's core architecture was changed from what XP and all other Window OSes had had previously. 7 improved on that and made an amazing operating system that everyone loves. Backwards compatability is not possible on everything even though people b@!$% and moan about it all the time. Having to code an operating system so that technology from today and technology from 10 years ago work together is an extremely strentous process that takes way too long and doesnt always work. I mean, thats like asking for your smart phone now to be compatible with some random app you had on your flip phone ten years ago, its just not possible with the shift in technology.

Caboose

October 24, 2010 at 11:13am

I love all the comments from people bitching and complaining about "having to upgrade". No one is forcing you to upgrade. If you're happy with Windows 7, then there's no real need to upgrade to the next OS.

It's not a life or death type of situation.

tonymus

October 24, 2010 at 10:19am

 

     It's not mentioned in this article, but I remember reading that a major feature in Windows 8 is supposed to be that all applications run in their own virtualized OS.  This "sandbox" approah is supposed to almost eliminate the effects of computer virii and other malware.  The flip side is that it might break a lot of legacy applications.  Plus, it'll be the first implementation of the feature, and I believe that Balmer smells Vista all over again.

     Windows 8 should take its sweet time to come to market - Windows 7 is a great operating system, and all of the advanced features planned should be programmed, tested, tweaked for performance and security, and retested until "Version 2.0" of Windows 8 is at least at fast and stable as Windows 7.

     Microsoft is really in a race with Apple now, and they can't afford another misstep as they had in Vista.

 

tedster98

October 24, 2010 at 9:19am

Windows 7 is great. It took me a LONG tome to swtich from XP. But, I still don't have full functionality of many peripherals - especially my scanner and camera. I'm not going to upgrade again if I constantly have to junk all my hardware because manufactuers won't or can't update drivers. It's a real waste of money. Provide BACKWARDS driver support.

Victek

October 24, 2010 at 9:08am

It's hard to have an opinion about Windows 8 since we know virtually nothing about it.  Hopefully it will go through a public beta phase as did Windows 7, so we can get a clear idea long before we have the option to buy it. Obviously it will need to bring something compelling to the table and it will take a while to figure what's actually needed. 

It makes me sad that to this day people whine about Windows Vista being a "mistake" when it was in fact necessary.  People claim they want innovation and security, but in the end most want perfect backward compatibilty.  How many people went nuts because their ten year old scanner or printer wasn't support in Vista and blamed Microsoft instead of the manufacturer?  The only real mistake Microsoft made with Vista was understating the memory requirements.  The poor performance of the first generation of Vista machines with only 1gb of ram had a lot to do destroying Vista's image.  32 bit Vista runs just fine with 3gb-4gb of ram.  One reason Windows 7 is popular is it's not being sold on underpowered hardware.

joepullin

October 24, 2010 at 7:17am

Going all the way back to some nerdy college kid plunking down a bit of his own money for an OS that only the brainiest of brainiacs could use. Then hoping that he could sell that to a major American corporation and at least get his money back.

Think of the millions of dollars spent on developing Windows 1, 2, and 3 before 3.1 was a hit. Why plunk down all that time, resource, and money in 1994 and 1995 into making a new OS when 3.x was just fine? What if Win 95 had bombed?

From office software to keyboards and mice, video games and video game machines. Every effort is a risk. Hopefully the reward for taking each risk pays off. I think Steve-O was just engaging in some hyperbole to get some attention. I mean, Windows 2 was the riskiest bet since Windows 1.

band geek

October 24, 2010 at 7:16am

Maybe Windows 8 is where the registry will finally cease to exist. That would be a pretty risky bet on Microsoft's part.

That said, I love Windows 7, even though it still has the registry.

M1K3Z0R

October 23, 2010 at 10:35pm

If windows 8 turns out to be a dud, it's probably safe to say Win7 will last for a long while, just like XP did.

Considering Microsoft has had a rough time with every other consumer windows version since 98 (ME, Vista), I am not expecting windows 8 to be all that epic. Besides, Windows 7 doesn't leave alot of space for improvement in critical areas, and considering the rate of adoption, don't expect it to go away quickly

Keith E. Whisman

October 23, 2010 at 9:55pm

At least MS doesn't usually sell Service Packs as whole new OS's like Apple does, so I hope any changes are going to be major and not just a Service Pack being sold as a whole new OS like Snow Leopard. 

As long as the major changes are useful and awesome and bring new exciting and magical functionality to the OS will it be worth it. I can't see purchasing a whole new OS because of enhanced deaktop search functionality and an extra Toolbar option for open windows. 

Now if there is an app store and MS blocks all other avenues of installing software but through their app store then there will be a reason to scream and hence the reason why I don't like the thinking behind Cloud OS's and Web based apps with no option to actually install the software onto the home computer. 

The main reason why I'm against it is because not everyone has access to high speed internet and lets say you want to do work on your laptop but your in an area without any WiFi and your 3G isn't working either. Your screwed. Besides using anything big on 3G speeds really suck anyway for anything beyond browsing the web. Videos just take too long and are extremely choppy at 3G speeds. 

So I hope Windows 8 isn't the cloud OS that everyone has been dreaming about except me for a while now. I have heard that Windows 8 will only be available in 64bit so that means Intel needs to quit selling 32bit only processors like the Celleron and Pentium processors. Atom processors are going to need 64bit support built in as well. Intel needs to get with the game and quit dragging their feet. 

Also, a version of Windows that is built from the ground up for making tablet use awesome would be nice. I know MS has the resources to do something like that to blow Google Android and Iphone OS out of the water.

Gezzer

October 23, 2010 at 5:52pm

Think about it, even though XP was very long in the tooth when Vista came out many waited to upgrade. For a lot it was till Windows7 came out.

I've been using windows like many others since the 3.1 days. Each new version was the promise that we'd finally have the windows Microsoft was promising us. Some were close like 98SE or 2000, others missed it completly, WindowsME anyone?

XP was the first real light at the end of the tunnel, the only reason I jumped to Vista was the threat I wouldn't be able to play bleeding edge games anymore. I dual booted Vista and XP, and only used Vista when it was a DX10 game I wanted to play. I now have Win7 only on all my systems and love it.

So why do I need to upgrade? How many people will need or want to upgrade? Windows 8 could end up being the product nobody needs or wants no matter how great or revolutionary it is. So considering how much MS has invested in the Windows brand, yeah I'd say Windows 8 is a risky bet.

Neufeldt2002

October 23, 2010 at 5:15pm

There are some features in the pipe that to me would make upgrading to Windows 8 worth the money. One button reinstall is one of those features, but I want to see the finished product before I decide whether I am going to spend money on it.

Mighty BOB!

October 23, 2010 at 4:35pm

I have no intention of plonking down another $100-$300 for a new OS until 2013 at the earliest, and even then I think I will probably be skeptical about it.  I'm not expecting Win7 to have some unnaturally long product cycle like XP did, but I don't plan on using it for only two years.  Heck I've only had it for 9 months, and it has only been available at retail for 1 year and 1 day.

igoka

October 23, 2010 at 3:52pm

I think it is " riskiest bet " . I'm happy with Windows 7 . Win 7 is pretty darn good . What else can they give us new that we would switch to new OS ? DirectX 12 ? Mind reading ability ? They have created good OS now they have to prove that new OS even better. In this situaton I'm gonna be very careful switching to new OS probably gonna wait and see .