Waiting for Windows 8 to replace my Intel iMac - wise idea or not?

[wrldwzrd89]

Based on what everyone around here knows, would waiting until Windows 8 ships (then waiting for Apple to ship compatible Boot Camp drivers) before buying a new iMac to replace my current Intel iMac be a wise idea?

Here are my reasons:

I'm going to upgrade to Windows 8 anyway when it becomes available.
By 2012 (which is when Windows 8 is expected to ship), my current iMac will be 4 years old, and it'll be time to replace it anyhow.
It will be simpler to replace Windows 7 with Windows 8 if I get a new computer at the same time, at least given my usage habits.

[Zelnaga]

Windows 8 by 2012? Very unlikely.

[Hellhammer]

Simply, buy it when you need an update. You should be able to install Windows 8 on any Mac what supports Boot Camp so it shouldn't affect your decision. Also, there will likely be betas of W8 available late next year, depending on when it will be released.

Hardware wise, it's best to buy in 2011 as Sandy Bridge comes then or wait till 2012 and you will get Ivy Bridge and likely USB 3.0, possibly LightPeak as well.

[Btom]

....Hardware wise, it's best to buy in 2011 as Sandy Bridge comes then or wait till 2012 and you will get Ivy Bridge and likely USB 3.0, possibly LightPeak as well.

Wasn't the USB 3.0 mentioned already on the refreshed iMac line, due later this summer?

Tom B.

[wrldwzrd89]

Thanks everyone, 2011 it is then!

[bas-macfan]

Wasn't the USB 3.0 mentioned already on the refreshed iMac line, due later this summer?

Tom B.

It is a rumor and not a very strong one....

[spinnerlys]

Will it be really called Windows 8 and be actually Windows 8.x or just be Windows 7.x?

[aedraste]

Just out of curiosity, what is it about Windows 8 that you're looking forward to?

I honestly don't know too much about it, but given how many things Microsoft got very right with Windows 7, I can't imagine it will be significantly different.

Windows 7 runs perfectly on my MacBook, and I wouldn't change anything about it.

[Vylen]

Windows 8 is the codename for... uh.. Windows 8...

Not much is known about it outside of Microsoft - it has been said though that aside from USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 3.0 support, it'll have faster startup and just be generally faster in other things.

So as of now, there isn't really any reason to sit around waiting for something that no one knows anything about.

Plus, USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 3.0 support will most than likely be pushed onto Windows 7 as an update (they did that to give USB 2.0 support in WinXP).

And Windows 7 has mainstream support till 2015. No worries till then.

[Woodcrest64]

USB 3.0 is going to be awesome with an iMac. You'll be getting internal desktop hard drive performance via an external option :)

I can foresee 2012 iMacs with 8 core processors, 32gb of memory, 500GB SSD options, USB 3.0. :)

In the mean time I'm going to enjoy my i5 HackMac & iPad.

Windows 8 is the codename for... uh.. Windows 8...

Not much is known about it outside of Microsoft - it has been said though that aside from USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 3.0 support, it'll have faster startup and just be generally faster in other things.

So as of now, there isn't really any reason to sit around waiting for something that no one knows anything about.

Plus, USB 3.0 and Bluetooth 3.0 support will most than likely be pushed onto Windows 7 as an update (they did that to give USB 2.0 support in WinXP).

And Windows 7 has mainstream support till 2015. No worries till then.

[Stan Mikulenka]

Unless Microsoft re-vamps the OS COMPLETELY & gets rid of DOS+Registry,(a la Mac and 'Classic'), it'll NEVER be a Modern operating system.
Hiding crap with pretty GI is NOT a way to go...

[Hellhammer]

Wasn't the USB 3.0 mentioned already on the refreshed iMac line, due later this summer?

Tom B.

There was a rumor about it but 2012 is the time when USB 3.0 will be integrated into Intel's mainstream chipsets so if we don't see it before, that's the deadline for it

[Neil P]

The big question of course is will Windows "8" actually be Windows 7.0 or just 6.2 given that "windows 7" is actually NT 6.1 according to the registry (as I take great pleasure in pointing out to 'doze zealots who get on their high horses about Apple charging for OSX point updates :) )

[Gregintosh]

Unless Microsoft re-vamps the OS COMPLETELY & gets rid of DOS+Registry,(a la Mac and 'Classic'), it'll NEVER be a Modern operating system.
Hiding crap with pretty GI is NOT a way to go...

Agreed! They should cut support for any and all apps not made for at least Windows XP. There is no reason why Windows 3.1 DLL's should still be present on any modern computer.

Business users who rely on legacy software to get their work done certainly don't need the latest OS anyway (or they can dedicate a few old machines to their legacy software and upgrade the rest of the office).

I really dislike how Microsoft upgrades for the sake of upgrading, and not because they are offering compelling features. It is purely a money game, because Windows & Office revenues help prop up the rest of their failed projects (someone has to pay for Kin, after all).

[wrldwzrd89]

Agreed! They should cut support for any and all apps not made for at least Windows XP. There is no reason why Windows 3.1 DLL's should still be present on any modern computer.

Business users who rely on legacy software to get their work done certainly don't need the latest OS anyway (or they can dedicate a few old machines to their legacy software and upgrade the rest of the office).

I really dislike how Microsoft upgrades for the sake of upgrading, and not because they are offering compelling features. It is purely a money game, because Windows & Office revenues help prop up the rest of their failed projects (someone has to pay for Kin, after all).
The question then becomes one of how to implement such massive changes. I think it's high time drive letters in Windows went away - few people run into the 26 drive limit Windows imposes due to its drive letter mechanism, but it's still an artificial barrier. Windows NT and later use something called the NTVDM (NT virtual DOS machine) to run older DOS apps. Perhaps it's time to send this little bit of code to the Recycle Bin, and replace it with a much more powerful command line, like Windows PowerShell.

That said... I did post a thread somewhere about what I think should be in Windows 8. Found it here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=921407 Perhaps this discussion belongs there, interesting as it is.

[velocityg4]

Agreed! They should cut support for any and all apps not made for at least Windows XP. There is no reason why Windows 3.1 DLL's should still be present on any modern computer.

Business users who rely on legacy software to get their work done certainly don't need the latest OS anyway (or they can dedicate a few old machines to their legacy software and upgrade the rest of the office).

I really dislike how Microsoft upgrades for the sake of upgrading, and not because they are offering compelling features. It is purely a money game, because Windows & Office revenues help prop up the rest of their failed projects (someone has to pay for Kin, after all).

The question then becomes one of how to implement such massive changes. I think it's high time drive letters in Windows went away - few people run into the 26 drive limit Windows imposes due to its drive letter mechanism, but it's still an artificial barrier. Windows NT and later use something called the NTVDM (NT virtual DOS machine) to run older DOS apps. Perhaps it's time to send this little bit of code to the Recycle Bin, and replace it with a much more powerful command line, like Windows PowerShell.

That said... I did post a thread somewhere about what I think should be in Windows 8. Found it here: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=921407 Perhaps this discussion belongs there, interesting as it is.

I quite agree. What would be nice is if they offered a paid emulator for people still running legacy software similar to Virtual PC or better yet the more seamless XP Mode implementation of Virtual PC capable of DOS 1.0 and Windows 1.0 up to 2000/XP. For those with millions of lines of in house built accounting code from the 80's that is undocumented:rolleyes: or more recent proprietary software from now defunct companies.

As to waiting for Windows 8 to update. I say just update when you need to. My 2006 Macbook runs perfectly fine with Windows 7 and Snow Leopard. For most uses it is just as fast as my much newer gaming rig (except games obviously). So you may just upgrade your current iMac to Windows 8 and 10.7/10.8 without even needing to replace it.

Who knows in 2012 the iMac could be multi-touch using ARM processors and running iOS 6 with no flash support:eek: let alone Windows.

[amazingdm]

Windows 8 WILL come out in 2012, so yes, good idea.

[Xyr]

Windows 8 WILL come out in 2012, so yes, good idea.

Windows 8 MAY come out in 2012... you never know when Microsoft is involved

[Martyimac]

Windows 8 MAY come out in 2012... you never know when Microsoft is involved

I agree with you on MAYBE 2012, not only that, there are rumors that Win 8 MAY be a business oriented OS and not for us regular users. Now what that means is anyones guess but to wait until 2012 seems crazy. And if it is released in 2012, my guess is 2nd half at the earliest.

I am a long time Microsoft user as well as apple user, I have been using MS since the DOS 3.3 days. and 2012 would be an early release.

[wrldwzrd89]

I agree with you on MAYBE 2012, not only that, there are rumors that Win 8 MAY be a business oriented OS and not for us regular users. Now what that means is anyones guess but to wait until 2012 seems crazy. And if it is released in 2012, my guess is 2nd half at the earliest.

I am a long time Microsoft user as well as apple user, I have been using MS since the DOS 3.3 days. and 2012 would be an early release.
Sigh. You do make an excellent point, and one I happen to agree with. Oh well. In related news... I'm trying to decide on a date to get a new iMac. I'm currently leaning towards my 30th birthday as the big day. That would mean I'd have to hold out for 1 year and about 10 months with the iMac I have now... which I'm fine with doing, as my current Mac works great, and I have no pressing need to buy a new one until then.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Why exactly would you need to replace your Mac after only four years? What do you expect to be wrong with it?

[wrldwzrd89]

Why exactly would you need to replace your Mac after only four years? What do you expect to be wrong with it?
Odds are that, by the time my chosen replacement window comes up, my current Mac will not run Mac OS X 10.8 or whatever Apple decides to call it. I know it's a long shot, we haven't even seen 10.7 yet... but I've heard rumors and speculation suggesting that Macs with 32-bit EFI will be unable to run some future version of Mac OS. My Mac has 32-bit EFI. Also, my GPU isn't beefy enough to take full advantage of what Snow Leopard can do. Finally, I'm the kind of person who enjoys hardware refreshing - mind you, I'm trying to increase the amount of time I keep a computer before replacing it, hence why I'm using a 4-year interval instead of 3... or even 2 (which I've done in the past).

[Ravich]

2012 was their estimated time remaining yesterday. Now it's 2048.


Wait, no that was this morning. It's looking like early 2011 now.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

Odds are that, by the time my chosen replacement window comes up, my current Mac will not run Mac OS X 10.8 or whatever Apple decides to call it. I know it's a long shot, we haven't even seen 10.7 yet... but I've heard rumors and speculation suggesting that Macs with 32-bit EFI will be unable to run some future version of Mac OS. My Mac has 32-bit EFI. Also, my GPU isn't beefy enough to take full advantage of what Snow Leopard can do. Finally, I'm the kind of person who enjoys hardware refreshing - mind you, I'm trying to increase the amount of time I keep a computer before replacing it, hence why I'm using a 4-year interval instead of 3... or even 2 (which I've done in the past).

None of those are actual reasons to upgrade. Does your computer do everything you use it for? You certainly don't sound like a professional in any technical field or someone who needs a beefy GPU. Sounds more like you just need iTunes, iCal, Safari, and Mail to run.

[wrldwzrd89]

None of those are actual reasons to upgrade. Does your computer do everything you use it for? You certainly don't sound like a professional in any technical field or someone who needs a beefy GPU. Sounds more like you just need iTunes, iCal, Safari, and Mail to run.
Actually... I write computer software, and I use Firefox rather than Safari. I mostly program in Java these days, and am a heavy Eclipse user because of it. That said... on my list of things to do is learn Objective-C and how to use Xcode to its full potential. Because I do cross-platform programming, I need to be able to test in Windows and Linux as well as the Mac OS. Those needs are handled by a Linux VM and a Boot Camp partition on my current Mac, which works well. However... there is one shortcoming of my current setup, and that is that I cannot do 64-bit Windows testing. Besides those things, though... you are spot-on. I use iTunes, iCal and Mail quite a bit.

[applemike]

Windows 8 is a long way off as of yet,

According to an insider at windows. not a single code of windows 8 has been written yet, the whole base for it had been set out, but actual development has not begun yet.

If microsoft are hoping for windows 7 to be as succesfull as XP then it will need to last about 8 years before the next major release (windows 8)

therefore if all goes to plan, microsoft wont have to release windows 8 untill 2016 at the earliest.

[aurichie]

Windows 8 is a long way off as of yet,

According to an insider at windows. not a single code of windows 8 has been written yet, the whole base for it had been set out, but actual development has not begun yet.

If microsoft are hoping for windows 7 to be as succesfull as XP then it will need to last about 8 years before the next major release (windows 8)

therefore if all goes to plan, microsoft wont have to release windows 8 untill 2016 at the earliest.

Wrong on so many levels.

Microsoft have targeted 2012 for the next version of Windows.
Microsoft aims to release new versions of Windows every few years moving forwards.

New versions of Windows will no longer be as significant in terms of changes as Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was. Or Windows ME to Windows XP. More dramatic changes will be gradually introduced in sped up release cycles. So they may have big ideas for the future, and their team will start coding them, but many of the features will not be included in the next release of Window. The aim is to get lock down on features they know they can get out the door on schedule, and everything else slowly gets worked on for future releases.

This is something Apple has done very successfully with its products. Holding back features for next year helps drive adoption and upgrades to those new products. :)

[Hellhammer]

Wrong on so many levels.

Microsoft have targeted 2012 for the next version of Windows.
Microsoft aims to release new versions of Windows every few years moving forwards.

New versions of Windows will no longer be as significant in terms of changes as Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was. Or Windows ME to Windows XP. More dramatic changes will be gradually introduced in sped up release cycles. So they may have big ideas for the future, and their team will start coding them, but many of the features will not be included in the next release of Window. The aim is to get lock down on features they know they can get out the door on schedule, and everything else slowly gets worked on for future releases.

This is something Apple has done very successfully with its products. Holding back features for next year helps drive adoption and upgrades to those new products. :)

I.e. make more money. If they released Windows with all features they wanted, people would buy that and not upgrade. By adding couple features per Windows, people will pay them for those features.

Or then they will do their infamous Vista thing. Release Vista with many new features but the OS itself sucks. Then come up with Windows 7 which is same as Vista but actually works. So, Windows 8 might be Vista 2 and then after that they release Windows 7.2 :D Basically ask people to pay for working OS with no new features :p

[applemike]

I.e. make more money. If they released Windows with all features they wanted, people would buy that and not upgrade. By adding couple features per Windows, people will pay them for those features.

Or then they will do their infamous Vista thing. Release Vista with many new features but the OS itself sucks. Then come up with Windows 7 which is same as Vista but actually works. So, Windows 8 might be Vista 2 and then after that they release Windows 7.2 :D Basically ask people to pay for working OS with no new features :p

Thank God i didn't pay for my version of windows 7, and its legit.

I got vista free with my laptop then when an opportunity came along to upgrade to 64bit ultimate for free. i jumped at it.