It's Never Too Early for Windows 8 Rumors
Posted 09/23/09 at 08:54:02 PM by Ryan Whitwam
Comments
Print
Email
Even though Windows 7 just went to manufacturing in July, there are already rumors about Windows 8. Microsoft’s Anders Vindberg confirmed that planning sessions were already being held for Windows 8, and 12 different working groups had been created. Most of these groups are currently management related.
Some recent job postings have hinted that Microsoft will be implementing a new “TLZ file compression engine” to improve Hibernate performance. So if you crave a quicker resume after Hibernating, you could get your wish. There may also be additional kernel protections using PatchGuard. These protections should increasingly hamper the efforts of malware designers.
Microsoft will almost surely be strengthening their server offerings in the next OS iteration. Microsoft’s Dublin application is likely to find its way into Windows Server. Some sort of cloud based services are also possible with the upcoming Windows Azure. We most likely won’t see Windows 8 until 2011 at least, but the Redmond giant may already be hard at work.
Because Microsoft said so
Submitted by cretony38 on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 8:29am
Do as youre told. or they'll infect your computer, steal & sell all your information. oh too late.
Keep fingers away from moving parts
Always
Submitted by mesiah on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:29pm
MS is always in development of their future OS, even before the current one launches. Its always been that way. I highly doubt 8 will release in 2011. 2012 maybe. You'll get at least a year out of 7 before they release a service pack, and then another year or two before they ramp up for their next OS release. That is always been the MS schedule. The pushed things forward a little with 7 because vistas credibility was irreparably damaged, and they did it before with windows Me because well, it was junk. But unless vista is a total flop, which we know it wont be, they have no reason to release 8 early while sales for 7 are still going strong. Usually headlines like this are just to make people think twice about upgrading, but in this world there will always be something bigger and better around the corner. You shouldn't base your upgrade on what you want or whats coming, you should base it on what you need now and what you will need in the foreseeable future.
Submitted by LatiosXT on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:25pm
Well hopefully this wouldn't be any different than Apple. Granted I'm sure upgrading from one version of OS X to another is less painless, all Windows is from here on are updates to NT. Heck, we could say that Windows 7 isn't even a new OS, it's just Vista redone. I mean, Windows 2000 was NT 5.0. Windows XP was NT 5.1 to 5.2. Windows Vista was NT 6.0, Windows 7 is NT 6.1.
As long as Microsoft keeps the core components of Windows similar, upgrading shouldn't be a problem. A good chunk of why Vista was such a hassle for people was that Microsoft redesigned everything to the point where the older versions of NT couldn't use the new components.
Alright, here's a great
Submitted by I Jedi on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 10:39pm
Alright, here's a great question for me to ask the community. Why is it that Microsoft wants to push a bunch of different OS's out as of late? I understand that Microsoft is a business, and that they have to make products in order to rake in the cash; however, why Windows 7 in 2009, then Windows 8 in 2011?
To me, it just seems like this is going to somehow make it harder for programmers to make sure that their programs work on all these new OSs. You have Windows Vista (which is steadily becoming a bit more popular), Windows XP, and now Windows 7. Consumers are going to be frustrated that their shiny new 2 year old OS is now being replaced by a new version. I'm willing to bet that a good chunk of them won't upgrade their OSs with only a minimum of 2 years use. I know I would be a bit cautious to upgrade with having spent $200 dollars on a new piece of software.
So, again, what is the reasoning behind Microsoft's madness???
Submitted by MeTo on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 8:27am
You should not have to think about it to hard. Plain and simple more money.
Submitted by I Jedi on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:38am
And I agree with you on that point. However, I see this as a bad move on Microsoft's part because, in my opinion, Microsoft is hurting its name and brand by pushing out too many OSs too fast. It makes the end-consumer feel like they've been cast aside with their only two year old OS, and I would also say that it makes tech industry leaders/IT departments more hesistant and resistant to upgrading their infrastructures. Microsoft had the right idea by building Windows XP and developing on it, then coming out with a new OS many years later. There was a standard in place.
Submitted by MeTo on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 8:28am
Edit
onnnnnnne small thing XP
Submitted by nekollx on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 8:12am
onnnnnnne small thing
XP is on its End Of Life so it's not really "out there"
But i will ceed a new OS ever 2 years is a bit insane. 5 seems a bit more pratical to me.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Submitted by sallystudios on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 8:13pm
Damn, next thing you're going to tell me is a new Madden will come out next year
Submitted by MeTo on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 8:39am
Games are different then operating systems. Games are built to run on a system and takes a couple years or more to build. If the OS changes faster we will have more compatibility issues. EA yearly releases are minor changes not major builds.
Fk!
Submitted by 010000100110010... on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 8:02pm
Windows 8... fk! I just pre-ordered Windows 7 a week ago? And now they're telling me that they're planning a Windows 8? Microsoft is sure REAL good to it's customers...just like the version overload they had for Vista, and a even crazier one for Win. 7. Though I can't say I surprised... MS has always been this way.
-Ben
Submitted by HeartBurnKid on Thu, 09/24/2009 - 11:46am
Microsoft has always worked on a 2-3 year cycle between major OS upgrades. Windows XP's five-year lifespan was an anomaly
Submitted by Jono on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 7:10pm
ugh.. all the more reason to avoid upgrading. I finally upgrade to Vista and Windows 7 is on the horizon.. What happens when I upgrade to that? Windows 8 will probably already be out... This is about as anoying as all the super hero flcik sequels. Just another case of trying to squeeze our last pennies from an already hurting economy... Thx windows your neglect for consumers is growing more and more evident... why dont you just let us buy a single version of the OS and purchase a reduced price... patches =/ We shouldn't have to pay extra for all of your security mistakes
Submitted by I Jedi on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 10:33pm
Well, perhaps a good idea is to skip every other OS that Microsoft comes out with. For example, if you have Windows Vista, then skip Windows 7 and wait for Windows 8 to come out.
Submitted by snapple00 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 7:38pm
Why not just stay with Vista and stop crying?
If it took you this long to upgrade, you obviously don't care too much about it. And yet you complain?
Logic FAIL.
Submitted by bipbipbip on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 6:07pm
"We most likely won’t see Windows 7 until 2011 at least"
Submitted by Drakaun on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 11:33pm
Ummm,it comes out this year,I beleive it was October 22nd? Either way,this year.I too have had it with software and hardware becoming a "consumable" market like toilet paper,just costs less to wipe my ummm.Im currently on Vista and am finally happy with it,after all the service packs, and tweaking of my own.But,from what I hear windows 7 is vista ,done right.In any case,it is funny to release a OS 2 years after you just released one.
Like, for example ,little over a year ago I built my rig,it has a core 2 duo 8400 in it.Now thats considered old off course.I was thinking later of going to core i7,due to little more games are starting to support quad cores.Even tho,with my current build,I run every game max,and smooth,Exept for stalker CS still has some lag,but those games have never been known for being stable lol.Weel the first core i7's were 1366,so i9 knew I had to change mobo,and ram to accomadate.Now they just came out with the 1156 lynnfields.I have yet to figure out whether the newer ones are better or are just a budjet version.All I know is they support dual channel memory,instead of triple channel.Frmo what little I read,they are better?So iIF thats true,then,what a joke to buy a core i7 set up,to only 6 months later to have to buy another mobo,to switch to newer processor lol.
Companys do this cause most want to keep up with the jones,nect door hehe.I myself,really like having the latest and greatest.Me and my dad compete with who has the best rig(like guys with hot ords,which ones faster lol).I have finally drawn a line.My PC is only 1 year old.I will probably wait another 6 months and see where these processors end up,and more games support quads.Fact is we are gettingmore and more ports from console,that are generally easy to run max.With exeption of a few games.hell if crysis 2 is going multiplatform with cryengine 3.
Must Read Articles
Feature
Review
Feature
Feature
Feature
Most Popular Articles
This Month's Issue
FEATURE How to Get FREE Programs, Services, Software & MoreFEATURE Digital Photo Printer RoundupHOW TOBuild a 3D CameraFEATUREDIY Arcade PCWHITE PAPERHow TRIM Works
Technology News
Computer Cooling Fans
Computer Cases
PC Game Controllers
PC Games
Computer Hardware
Headphones
MP3 Players
Stream Video
Computer Mouse
Monitors
Motherboards
NAS Storage
Networking
Laptop Computers
DVD Burner
Digital Cameras
Portable Storage
Computer Accessories
Smartphone
Antivirus Software
Sound Cards
Speakers
Computer Systems
Thumb Drives
Video Cameras
Video Card Reviews
Water Cooling
Gadgets
- Keyboards
© 2009 Future US, Inc. All Rights Reserved.