Microsoft starting on Windows 8 [Archive]

god_43

04-20-2009, 05:45 PM

Microsoft's Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC) is just about out the door, with probably more excitement surrounding it than any of its previous operating systems, but already the corporation is looking for people to help make its successor.

http://www.neoseeker.com/news/10492-microsoft-starting-on-windows-8/

lkiller123

04-20-2009, 05:48 PM

wow, that's fast

AlterBridge86

04-20-2009, 05:52 PM

Nothing unusual really...work on Windows 7 also began once Vista hit RC1...

Although that job posting does bring some nice promises for Windows 8...:D

god_43

04-20-2009, 05:52 PM

lol ya really, they haven't even finished 7...and they are already on 8.

highoctane

04-20-2009, 05:53 PM

MS's ticktock strategy...

lkiller123

04-20-2009, 05:54 PM

If they are starting to work on Windows 8, that means that Windows 7 is not perfect at all since the 7 is not even out yet. This is kinda confusing to me...

Speederlander

04-20-2009, 05:54 PM

They sat on their asses forever with XP and then Vista didn't go well. They have to move to a faster release model.

Personally I'd rather see a modular OS that is a "pay to upgrade" approach, where the OS is cheaper and major performance/feature updates in the form of service packs are paid for. You could then effectively keep the same "version" with pressure to improve for everyone owning it every year or so.

god_43

04-20-2009, 05:56 PM

Warboy

04-20-2009, 06:14 PM

Also if anybody thinks that screenshot is real. You need help.

if work has began. The tag would be

Windows 8
Build 7.0 or 6.2
Build 76xx
With a time stamp of within the last month.

B.E.E.F.

04-20-2009, 06:22 PM

If they are starting to work on Windows 8, that means that Windows 7 is not perfect at all since the 7 is not even out yet. This is kinda confusing to me...

Nothing is perfect.

Windows 7 is done in terms of major features. The rest is just patching the little stuff as it comes in. That's why its an RC and not a full release.

Speederlander

04-20-2009, 06:24 PM

so you want us to start paying for service packs....im confused??

Not as they currently exist. Instead of rolling all new OS's, they update one base OS incrementally. Make the whole thing modular and built around upgrades rather than 2 to 3 year total replacements. Pay less for the OS initially, then pay for the upgrades, with small payments. People are incentivized to keep up to date and MS doesn't have to worry about mass OS migrations that no one wants to futz with. They also have a more continuous stream of revenue rather than worrying about the "big release" every few years. Just call it "Windows" and have build serials. No XP, no Vista, no 7, no 8.

Warboy

04-20-2009, 06:25 PM

Nothing is perfect.

Windows 7 is done in terms of major features. The rest is just patching the little stuff as it comes in. That's why its an RC and not a full release.

Rule number one of coding programs. Never finish it. That way you keep making money on releases. True story. Plus advances in tech need software upgrades. But basically nothing is perfect because nothing is really finished.

B.E.E.F.

04-20-2009, 06:28 PM

lkiller123

04-20-2009, 06:32 PM

Warboy

04-20-2009, 06:35 PM

So by that logic, don't release it until its finished. And it can never be truly complete, ever.

: /

Release doesn't mean finished, or else we wouldn't have service packs.

But I do like Speed's idea, Modular OS with a upgradable Kernel. That way it would be like buying a expansion pack that offered more/new featueres/upgrades/and engine for a game and not a redux version of the original game.

[XC] Lead Head

04-20-2009, 06:41 PM

Nice fake screen shot. Windows 7 is Kernel 6.1, and build 7000. Like Warboy said it would either be 6.2 or 7.0. Not 8.1

Take a look at the Ubuntu upgrade method. They have a new "small" release every 6 months, that you can upgrade to from within the operating system. Some add significant new features, sometimes its just a bunch of updates, but it is still a consistent new release method.

I however did hear a large problem why Vista took so long is that they got pretty far into it, and for some reason or another they had to start over from scratch. Adding significant delays.

It is also very common for companies to be working on the next generation technology even before the current is out. Take AMD for example, they had already begun working on K8 right around when the K7 was released.

Warboy

04-20-2009, 06:50 PM

Lead Head;3744560']Nice fake screen shot. Windows 7 is Kernel 6.1, and build 7000. Like Warboy said it would either be 6.2 or 7.0. Not 8.1

Take a look at the Ubuntu upgrade method. They have a new "small" release every 6 months, that you can upgrade to from within the operating system. Some add significant new features, sometimes its just a bunch of updates, but it is still a consistent new release method.

I however did hear a large problem why Vista took so long is that they got pretty far into it, and for some reason or another they had to start over from scratch. Adding significant delays.

It is also very common for companies to be working on the next generation technology even before the current is out. Take AMD for example, they had already begun working on K8 right around when the K7 was released.

That's correct, Vista, aka Longhorn was rebuilt 2 times if I remember. There was Pre-Build 4000, Build 4xxx which is the Longhorn videos then scraped again and We got Vista Pre-Beta 1.

Shintai

04-20-2009, 06:50 PM

LOL@Fake picture.

There is no Windows 8 OS yet. And anything tested will be on top of Windows 7 sofar.

Windows 8 is more on a drawing board with a wishlist of features and some prototype design tests.

[XC] gomeler

04-20-2009, 07:16 PM

How about.. Microsoft stops all compatibility with prior versions of Windows and actually codes an OS from the ground up?

kuhla

04-20-2009, 07:17 PM

Nothing unusual really...

Exactly. I'm sort of surprised by all the comments in this thread. I thought it was common knowledge that Microsoft has multiple software teams. They don't have every coder punching away at 1 OS at a time (much less one program).

B.E.E.F.

04-20-2009, 07:23 PM

gomeler;3744611']How about.. Microsoft stops all compatibility with prior versions of Windows and actually codes an OS from the ground up?

They can use the ReactOS source.

ericware

04-20-2009, 07:26 PM

Yeah i don't believe that either

gatecrasherlok

04-20-2009, 07:28 PM

Rule number one of coding programs. Never finish it. That way you keep making money on releases. True story. Plus advances in tech need software upgrades. But basically nothing is perfect because nothing is really finished.

Pretty much sums up most business's with long term goals. Your definately one of the guys I'd go into business with.

Speederlander

04-20-2009, 07:31 PM

gomeler;3744611']How about.. Microsoft stops all compatibility with prior versions of Windows and actually codes an OS from the ground up?

What would that gain them? They would have to maintain compatibility with all windows apps or no one would adopt, so the entire structure already in place would have to be in the "new" OS anyway. I mean, unless they just force all pre-new windows apps into virtual machines, but the average user doesn't have the hardware to support that. A ground up OS would be the biggest gamble MS ever undertook at this point. Look at how many years it took XP to because reasonably "safe". All the kernel gotchas would be coming back around. There would be no reason to redo from scratch unless there would be a major gain in performance or ease of use or business model. In my opinion, the best reason for ground-up recoding would be a modular pay-to-upgrade system like I described above, but that would not be altering the basic functionality of how things interact with the OS, just the underlying functionality to make upgrades/updates much more sophicticated and easier/safer to handle.

[XC] gomeler

04-20-2009, 07:45 PM

What would that gain them? They would have to maintain compatibility with all windows apps or no one would adopt, so the entire structure already in place would have to be in the "new" OS anyway. I mean, unless they just force all pre-new windows apps into virtual machines, but the average user doesn't have the hardware to support that. A ground up OS would be the biggest gamble MS ever undertook at this point. Look at how many years it took XP to because reasonably "safe". All the kernel gotchas would be coming back around. There would be no reason to redo from scratch unless there would be a major gain in performance or ease of use or business model. In my opinion, the best reason for ground-up recoding would be a modular pay-to-upgrade system like I described above, but that would not be altering the basic functionality of how things interact with the OS, just the underlying functionality to make upgrades/updates much more sophicticated and easier/safer to handle.

OS X.. drop all legacy support and instead focus on creating an OS that is incorporates all promised features and then some. A company shouldn't have to cut out features prior to launch. All those code monkeys insuring your Windows 98 application will run in Windows 8 could instead be working on perfecting new features. Make Windows 7 the last step for the Windows 95 legacy and move on. Start with DX11, only x64, and create useful bundled applications.

Speederlander

04-20-2009, 07:54 PM

gomeler;3744670']OS X.. drop all legacy support and instead focus on creating an OS that is incorporates all promised features and then some. A company shouldn't have to cut out features prior to launch. All those code monkeys insuring your Windows 98 application will run in Windows 8 could instead be working on perfecting new features. Make Windows 7 the last step for the Windows 95 legacy and move on. Start with DX11, only x64, and create useful bundled applications.

What doesn't windows currently offer that it needs badly enough to require scrapping all legacy support?

MS doesn't support Win95, Win98. No effort at compatibility is maintained beyond anything those OS's have in common with the NT-family. It is NT-style compatibility they protect, primarily XP/Win2003.

But that said, what exactly are they missing that would move them to abandon all legacy support?

[XC] Lead Head

04-20-2009, 09:07 PM

I suppose keep the Windows 9x/DOS backwards compatibility is getting a bit ridiculous, but microsoft can't drop backwards compatibility with 2000/XP/2003 because those are all built on the NT Kernel, like Vista and 7.

And lately, with each new version of the NT Kernel, Win9x/DOS support is getting worse and worse

NightCrawler™

04-20-2009, 10:53 PM

I like the idea of a modular Windows.. but I'd take a different approach..
Get a basic OS.. you can add modules for gaming, internet, media, office etc.. for those modules you'd have to pay extra.. That way you can decide what to add and what not.. It results in a faster basic OS tailored to your needs..

Shintai

04-21-2009, 01:30 AM

gomeler;3744670']OS X.. drop all legacy support and instead focus on creating an OS that is incorporates all promised features and then some. A company shouldn't have to cut out features prior to launch. All those code monkeys insuring your Windows 98 application will run in Windows 8 could instead be working on perfecting new features. Make Windows 7 the last step for the Windows 95 legacy and move on. Start with DX11, only x64, and create useful bundled applications.

That would be like cutting your own throat. Without Windows compability you would have an open competition. Then x86 could die aswell in the same go.

RazzleUltra

04-21-2009, 01:36 AM

That would be like cutting your own throat. Without Windows compability you would have an open competition. Then x86 could die aswell in the same go.

But they already look to be going to Apple route of having a virtualisation layer to handle the backwards compatibility:

http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/medv.asp

Will be interesting to see if they really push this to try and dump some more of the legacy code.

Shintai

04-21-2009, 01:44 AM

But they already look to be going to Apple route of having a virtualisation layer to handle the backwards compatibility:

http://www.winsupersite.com/vista/medv.asp

Will be interesting to see if they really push this to try and dump some more of the legacy code.

Med-V aint targetted as a complete backwards compability removal. More like runnign Office 2000, 2003 and 2007 the same time. Plus code that already fails on Vista. Specially 16bit.

Maybe in like Windows 10-12 or so you could have that dream. But it sure wont be Windows 8.

Even 32bit dont seem to die before some 20 years or more. Even 32bit Windows 8 got 16bit support. So we might need another 15-20 years before 32bit goes away in the OS.

RazzleUltra

04-21-2009, 02:07 AM

Med-V aint targetted as a complete backwards compability removal. More like runnign Office 2000, 2003 and 2007 the same time. Plus code that already fails on Vista. Specially 16bit.

Maybe in like Windows 10-12 or so you could have that dream. But it sure wont be Windows 8.

Even 32bit dont seem to die before some 20 years or more. Even 32bit Windows 8 got 16bit support. So we might need another 15-20 years before 32bit goes away in the OS.

Hasn't 32-bit already gone away (in a sense) in that it runs under wow32 (?) which is some kind of compatability layer?

Shintai

04-21-2009, 02:15 AM

Hasn't 32-bit already gone away (in a sense) in that it runs under wow32 (?) which is some kind of compatability layer?

Its far from a compability layer. Plus the CPU in long mode is real 32bit. There is in reality no compability. The only reason SysWow64/System32 coexist is to point applications to the right DLLs. 32 or 64bit. So by that definition 64bit runs in compability mode too...

RazzleUltra

04-21-2009, 02:27 AM

Its far from a compability layer. Plus the CPU in long mode is real 32bit. There is in reality no compability. The only reason SysWow64/System32 coexist is to point applications to the right DLLs. 32 or 64bit. So by that definition 64bit runs in compability mode too...

I'm going to have to take your word for that, as I've run out of knowledge.... :D

For a layman(ish), how does MED-V & SysWow64/32 compare to Apple's Rosetta business in terms of ditching legacy code?

Shintai

04-21-2009, 02:42 AM

I'm going to have to take your word for that, as I've run out of knowledge.... :D

For a layman(ish), how does MED-V & SysWow64/32 compare to Apple's Rosetta business in terms of ditching legacy code?

Rosetta is dualbinaries as far as I recall with both PPC and x86. I dont waste time on macs so I dont actually know.

SysWow64/System32 is nothing similar. Its basicly just 2 dirs where the OS points the application to the right DLL.

MED-V is simply to run a full blown XP with say Office 2003 on your Vista. Its nothing like any of the above. its simply a FULL virtualization with OS that just run with the applciation window only. Instead of the full system in a window and then the application inside that etc.

RazzleUltra

04-21-2009, 02:44 AM

Cool, thanks for the clarification.

Brother Esau

04-21-2009, 03:57 AM

WOW and yay for another half finished O.S Release:rolleyes:

Shintai

04-21-2009, 04:05 AM

WOW and yay for another half finished O.S Release:rolleyes:

Besides just whining/trolling. Perhaps you should explain what you consider half finished.

RazzleUltra

04-21-2009, 04:09 AM

Besides just whining/trolling. Perhaps you should explain what you consider half finished.

Can't beat whaling on pre-release OSs for being in a (shock-horror) unfinished state....

</sarcasm>

Singh400

04-21-2009, 04:17 AM

This is nothing new, Windows 7 development was started pretty much in the middle of Windows Vista Beta Program.

Early Windows 7 builds looked exactly like Windows Vista just with the build tag changed to reflect build date and time.

gomeler;3744611']How about.. Microsoft stops all compatibility with prior versions of Windows and actually codes an OS from the ground up?They tried a completely new code base with the original Longhorn betas. Builds 4074 and before were a completely new code base.

Shortly after that the development was reset, and they scrapped the new code in favour of building upon Server 2003 Code Base.

scotb75

04-21-2009, 05:19 AM

They sat on their asses forever with XP and then Vista didn't go well. They have to move to a faster release model.

Yup, before XP the model was every 2-3 years for a new Windows. I think Microsoft is back to that now.

Logos

04-21-2009, 05:33 AM

of course they're already working on the next OS release :D when do you people think they started to develop Vista, 2 days before it came out ? Symptom that Seven is not OK :rolleyes: lol

....

Personally I'd rather see a modular OS that is a "pay to upgrade" approach, where the OS is cheaper and major performance/feature updates in the form of service packs are paid for. You could then effectively keep the same "version" with pressure to improve for everyone owning it every year or so.

hmm...too bad I don't have the link. I read an article a while ago saying that was just what MS was planning to do after Win7...modular OS; they'd drop the name "Windows" at the same time...

Singh400

04-21-2009, 05:46 AM

hmm...too bad I don't have the link. I read an article a while ago saying that was just what MS was planning to do after Win7...modular OS; they'd drop the name "Windows" at the same time...Windows 7 is already going modular. You can pretty much remove anything and everything in Windows 7. Even Internet Explorer.

r4gm4n

04-21-2009, 05:48 AM

Rule number one of coding programs. Never finish it. That way you keep making money on releases. True story. Plus advances in tech need software upgrades. But basically nothing is perfect because nothing is really finished.

That is what we was taught in the first week when I started on my games dev course at Uni. You will get more revenue from extra 'free' marketing of releasing updates & patches.

Anyway it is not unusual for them to be already recruiting, infact I find this already abit late. I would of imageined it would of started back in 2008 when research would of been done to see what they would be aiming for. IIRC also it was mentioned they wanted to go to 24-36month lifecycles. I wouldn't be surprised if we see Windows 8 2011 Q4/2012 Q1.

Logos

04-21-2009, 06:07 AM

Windows 7 is already going modular. You can pretty much remove anything and everything in Windows 7. Even Internet Explorer.

no, a modular OS is a bit more modular than that. One program is not a module. It's more about graphics interfaces, network abilities, security stuff...desired orientated environment etc...

Shintai

04-21-2009, 06:17 AM

no, a modular OS is a bit more modular than that. One program is not a module. It's more about graphics interfaces, network abilities, security stuff...desired orientated environment etc...

That your definition. You can remove GUI etc if you want. Just like in Windows Server Core editions.

Singh400

04-21-2009, 06:35 AM

no, a modular OS is a bit more modular than that. One program is not a module. It's more about graphics interfaces, network abilities, security stuff...desired orientated environment etc...Then check out the Core editions of Windows Server ;)

Zaskar

04-21-2009, 06:47 AM

Isnt the next version of windows supposed to be the ones that is almost entirely recoded from scratch that removes almost all of the older legacy code/support?

Singh400

04-21-2009, 06:52 AM

Isnt the next version of windows supposed to be the ones that is almost entirely recoded from scratch that removes almost all of the older legacy code/support?There was rumours, but nothing was really confirmed.

Nomadsoul

04-21-2009, 09:50 AM

Well to be honest, today Vista 64 is more stable than Windows 7, Seven is buggy so far, Yes new interface rocks, gr8 features.

itznfb

04-21-2009, 09:56 AM

Nothing unusual really...work on Windows 7 also began once Vista hit RC1...

Although that job posting does bring some nice promises for Windows 8...:D

Vista and Win7 were actually started at the same time, they were originally codenamed Longhorn and Blackcomb. Blackcomb was renamed to Vienna, now Windows 7. obviously Longhorn was renamed to Vista.

i would expect to see win 8/9 migrate to internet delivery. i highly doubt the home pc will be around much longer.

Logos

04-21-2009, 10:01 AM

itznfb;3745739']Vista and Win7 were actually started at the same time, they were originally codenamed Longhorn and Blackcomb. Blackcomb was renamed to Vienna, now Windows 7. obviously Longhorn was renamed to Vista.

i would expect to see win 8/9 migrate to internet delivery. i highly doubt the home pc will be around much longer.

almost...Win7 is more or less what Vista should have been if MS didn't spend so much time on XP SP2...Win7 is Vista, just as a more advanced development stage.

Circaflex

04-21-2009, 10:07 AM

WOW and yay for another half finished O.S Release:rolleyes:

crying like a little baby already are we? it isnt even out yet and your already b*tching and moaning? geeze

RaZz!

04-21-2009, 10:18 AM

people call win7 unfinished because ms starts to work on the next windows? lol... if that's your logic EVERY single program is "unfinished trash"...

dan7777

04-21-2009, 10:23 AM

whens windows 8 due out anyone know ? lol windows 7 is doing fine mind :)

Godofwar424

04-21-2009, 11:33 AM

Not as they currently exist. Instead of rolling all new OS's, they update one base OS incrementally. Make the whole thing modular and built around upgrades rather than 2 to 3 year total replacements. Pay less for the OS initially, then pay for the upgrades, with small payments. People are incentivized to keep up to date and MS doesn't have to worry about mass OS migrations that no one wants to futz with. They also have a more continuous stream of revenue rather than worrying about the "big release" every few years. Just call it "Windows" and have build serials. No XP, no Vista, no 7, no 8.

Thats actually the best idea i've heard about future microsoft products. But most people need to reinstall at least every year or two at max so the upgrading is more of a bonus to reinstalling. I mean remember that windows still gets clogged fast and becomes slow and GRRRRRH and that aint gonna change any time soon so it probably wouldn't be worth it.