# Windows 8?



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

here is anrticle that I found interesting.

http://www.infopackets.com/news/bus..._8_in_2011_says_former_microsoft_employee.htm


----------



## DoubleHelix (Dec 10, 2004)

Anyone can post whatever they want on the Internet.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Dates can be slipped too.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

If they made Windows 8 now, it wouldn't be that good. They'd probably make another OS between 7 and 8 first. The reason for this is simple. Microsoft follows a strict scheduling release plan for their operating systems, in the format of:
Major, Minor, Major, Minor, Major, Minor, Major, Minor, etc.
XP was a major release, Vista was a minor release, 7 is a major release.
Their next operating system will be a minor release. I doubt they would name it "Windows 8"
Minor releases tend to have more bugs than major releases, which is one reason I tend to avoid installing them.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

namenotfound said:


> If they made Windows 8 now, it wouldn't be that good. They'd probably make another OS between 7 and 8 first. The reason for this is simple. Microsoft follows a strict scheduling release plan for their operating systems, in the format of:
> Major, Minor, Major, Minor, Major, Minor, Major, Minor, etc.
> XP was a major release, Vista was a minor release, 7 is a major release.
> Their next operating system will be a minor release. I doubt they would name it "Windows 8"
> Minor releases tend to have more bugs than major releases, which is one reason I tend to avoid installing them.


What is your definition of major and minor.

If you go off of the version numbers, Windows 7 (ver 6.1) was a minor release but I think we would all agree that it is a Major release.

If you go off of the version number for Vista, it is a Major release because XP is Version 5.1 and Vista is 6.0.

And you might as well call Windows 98 SE a Service Pack because it went from 4.10.1998 to 4.10.2222.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

Squashman said:


> What is your definition of major and minor.


My "definition" is Microsoft's definition. THEY are the ones that announced that's how they released operating systems! It's been a known fact for quite a while... 

It has NOTHING to do with version numbers. The reason Windows 7 got 6.1 is because they didn't want to break apps that worked for Vista.


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

first heard about this in april of last year.........it's not new news.........

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2559


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I would rate Windows 7 as being more of a minor release than Vista was. Now, Vista wasn't all that good, but it was a major change from XP!


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

wow.........I wouldn't at all. I would equate vista with ME, and w7 as a complete overhaul of all that was wrong. I'm extremely impressed with 7, especially the ease of networking and the firewall. I think MS nailed it with this one.


----------



## dustyjay (Jan 24, 2003)

I was wondering when I would hear someone equate ME and Vista. I was not at all impressed by Vista. Which is why I ditched it and went back to XP. Win 7 I think is easier that Xp and is for me more polished than XP or Vista. But this is just my opinion.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

namenotfound said:


> My "definition" is Microsoft's definition. THEY are the ones that announced that's how they released operating systems! It's been a known fact for quite a while...


I wouldn't agree that is it a known fact. More of an opinion if you ask me. So going on your matter of fact.
Windows 95 was a Major.
Windows 98 was a Minor
Windows 98 SE was a Major
Windows ME was a Minor.



namenotfound said:


>


What did I do to deserve an eye roll!



namenotfound said:


> It has NOTHING to do with version numbers. The reason Windows 7 got 6.1 is because they didn't want to break apps that worked for Vista.


Yes, this is a known fact.


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

Squashman said:


> I wouldn't agree that is it a known fact. More of an opinion.


An opinion? Microsoft announced this themselves way back when they released Windows 98! I remember reading an article about it in the 1990's


----------



## namenotfound (Apr 30, 2005)

JohnWill said:


> I would rate Windows 7 as being more of a minor release than Vista was. Now, Vista wasn't all that good, but it was a major change from XP!


Well you have to think of it this way. Minor releases are "major changes" to the aesthetic look and feel of the OS. While Major releases fine tune the changes.

XP fine tuned what was in ME/2000.
7 fine tuned what was in Vista.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

namenotfound said:


> Well you have to think of it this way. Minor releases are "major changes" to the aesthetic look and feel of the OS. While Major releases fine tune the changes.
> 
> XP fine tuned what was in ME/2000.
> 7 fine tuned what was in Vista.


You are confusing me. Do you think XP was a Major or Minor release.

You can't put ME and XP in the same path. Different Kernel.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

namenotfound said:


> An opinion? Microsoft announced this themselves way back when they released Windows 98! I remember reading an article about it in the 1990's


So how are we to categorize these?
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows for Workgroups 3.1
Windows for Workgroups 3.11


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

valis said:


> wow.........I wouldn't at all. I would equate vista with ME, and w7 as a complete overhaul of all that was wrong. I'm extremely impressed with 7, especially the ease of networking and the firewall. I think MS nailed it with this one.


Actually, Vista was a radical change under the hood from XP, and Windows 7 is a lot of the Vista underpinnings with a better user interface. There was a lot more code changed from XP to Vista than there was from Vista to Windows 7.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Squashman said:


> So how are we to categorize these?
> Windows 3.0
> Windows 3.1
> Windows for Workgroups 3.1
> Windows for Workgroups 3.11


Obsolete.


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

JohnWill said:


> Actually, Vista was a radical change under the hood from XP, and Windows 7 is a lot of the Vista underpinnings with a better user interface. There was a lot more code changed from XP to Vista than there was from Vista to Windows 7.


yeah, I'm aware of all that.........winFS not working out, vista being pushed back, what, 16 months or something? I still feel as though vista was a rush job, and 7 is bulletproof.

maybe it's just me. who knows..........


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

JohnWill said:


> Obsolete.


I certainly cannot argue with that logic!


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I was disappointed that WinFS never saw the light of day, that was one of the biggest major changes envisioned for Vista. It was apparently totally abandoned, I don't hear anything about it anymore.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Vista was Major, in every aspect. New GUI, brand new Kernal that Server 2008, 7 and 2008 R2 all share. DWM was also a major release, as well as the basic OS kernal interation (UAC).

7 was a minor release, and was really the polish that the Windows team skipped to get Vista out after a long 5 years of XP's life. 2 Years is closer to what Microsoft has said it expects the life cycle of an OS to be. 95 - 98 (Major minor) ME was sort of a Windows 98/ sort of NT. 2000 was Major, XP was minor but polished.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

JohnWill said:


> I was disappointed that WinFS never saw the light of day, that was one of the biggest major changes envisioned for Vista. It was apparently totally abandoned, I don't hear anything about it anymore.


Did they remove it from MSDN yet? I hope it sees the light of day, and Singularity/ Midori too!


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

JohnWill said:


> I was disappointed that WinFS never saw the light of day, that was one of the biggest major changes envisioned for Vista. It was apparently totally abandoned, I don't hear anything about it anymore.


from what I've heard, it's been betamaxed. This is not to say that we won't see it in some incarnation down the road; but the version that was supposed to ship with vista has been shelved.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Yep, I don't see it mentioned anywhere on the Microsoft site anymore.


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

Could they please just get rid of the stupid Drive Letters!


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Squashman said:


> Could they please just get rid of the stupid Drive Letters!


And replace it with what? I would hate to have to do CD LongDriveNamewithPoorSpeelngInstead


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

hahhahhahahahhah................rough day there, loser?


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

SquashFS, anyone? The universal file system used by Knoppix is prettry fascinating (UnionFS). All files from all devices are located in a single file system, whether they are on CD/DVD, USB, virtualized, from the network, or on hard drives. It really does make life easier.

WinFS is still a download at TechNet.

Windows 8 has been in the works for almost 2 years now. The work on an OS begins well before the release of its predecessor. Windows "Blue Danube", anyone?


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

Elvandil said:


> SquashFS, anyone?


No Pun Intended!


----------



## Squashman (Apr 4, 2003)

loserOlimbs said:


> And replace it with what? I would hate to have to do CD LongDriveNamewithPoorSpeelngInstead


I would like the entire file system setup more like linux where you can make separate partitions for everything.

/.
/boot
/windows
/users
/temp


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

loserOlimbs said:


> And replace it with what? I would hate to have to do CD LongDriveNamewithPoorSpeelngInstead


Actually, the main idea behind a lot of new file systems is to eliminate paths as we know them. Just like in Vista/7 (same thing as far as I can see kernel-wise), there are sometimes 4 or 5 "paths" that lead to the same files and folders through symbolic links. That may have been the doom of WinFS since it may be possible to do what it did without too much new technology.

I like squash.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Elvandil said:


> Actually, the main idea behind a lot of new file systems is to eliminate paths as we know them. Just like in Vista/7 (same thing as far as I can see kernel-wise), there are sometimes 4 or 5 "paths" that lead to the same files and folders through symbolic links. That may have been the doom of WinFS since it may be possible to do what it did without too much new technology.
> 
> I like squash.


Perhaps this is one of those times when I vary from the average user, but I like logical paths and drive names.

/boot
/Windows is fine... but you can't have a virtual folder for everything... When I need to delete a config file for ProgramX for example, its nice to have it it a common easy to find place...

Or to UNC for example, you can't easily UNC someone's virtual folders, like My Documents without having a path to check (Not sure of the spelling of a username, and speaker has a thick accent)

I also dislike all the jump stuff in 7... I need to find a way to turn it off.


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

loserOlimbs said:


> Perhaps this is one of those times when I vary from the average user, but I like logical paths and drive names.
> 
> /boot
> /Windows is fine... but you can't have a virtual folder for everything... When I need to delete a config file for ProgramX for example, its nice to have it it a common easy to find place...
> ...


I hear you. But that is all due to familiarity and we at one time had to become used to this way of doing things, too. I'm still a bit boggled by symbolic links, though I have put them to good use extensively in Vista and even have a special properties page and icon for linked files and folders. But still somehow the idea of "bilocality" seems harder to grasp for files than for St. Francis.

If it comes along, we may need to adapt. Having both will likely be the transition to any new file system paradigm. We may have to keep up. If quantum computers ever come to be, being in more than one place at the same time, and being part of the wave-function that contains the solution, computer+user as a unit, may all become second nature to us.


----------



## loserOlimbs (Jun 19, 2004)

Well, maybe I don't like change! 

I can grasp most of the new system, just seems backwards to me yet. I love the start search and start UNC... and remote desktop system... I can type 'remo' in start search, it gives me remote desktop with a right arrow, I click it and lists all my machines! Great work!


----------



## Elvandil (Aug 1, 2003)

loserOlimbs said:


> Well, maybe I don't like change!
> 
> I can grasp most of the new system, just seems backwards to me yet. I love the start search and start UNC... and remote desktop system... I can type 'remo' in start search, it gives me remote desktop with a right arrow, I click it and lists all my machines! Great work!


OK. So some things aren't perfect yet. There are other ways of doing things that you might like better. It looks to me that UnionFS used in Knoppix retains that path attitude while still making everything in sight appear under one roof. So you may like that direction, too. Jeeze, among my customers, I still meet a lot of people who still don't even understand folder hierarchy and that one thing can be stored inside another. For people like that, a file system that stores things according to "whims", keywords, clouds, or anything else would be more useful to them that what we have now. But I couldn't stand the arbitrariness and subjectivity of it all. How would I ever find something on their machine if I had to look for it according to some passing thought they had 6 months ago?


----------

