Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2012: now we know the truth: Windows 8

jmann said:
Why did go back to numbering their OSes again? They were at 98, up to 2000, then they switched to letters ME and XP and now they are back at 7, and now an upcoming 8? I'm so confused with the inconsistency. :p
Click to expand...

Given that Windows 7 is out now, how is the decision to name the next OS Windows 8 an inconsistency? :D

You know, and then they have Windows 9, and then when they get to Windows 10, it'll be a stable and scalable operating system that they can expand upon for many years to come. Oh, wait, I think that story is about another operating system.... :eek:
 
jmann said:
Why did go back to numbering their OSes again? They were at 98, up to 2000, then they switched to letters ME and XP and now they are back at 7, and now an upcoming 8? I'm so confused with the inconsistency. :p
Click to expand...

Because they're trying to be cool like Apple. I think we'll see Windows 8: Dachsund.

BTW, 2012 is when MS takes over the world. :)
 
mkrishnan said:
Given that Windows 7 is out now, how is the decision to name the next OS Windows 8 an inconsistency? :D

You know, and then they have Windows 9, and then when they get to Windows 10, it'll be a stable and scalable operating system that they can expand upon for many years to come. Oh, wait, I think that story is about another operating system.... :eek:
Click to expand...

I vote for it being abbreviated WinX ;)

iphone.aggie said:
Because they're trying to be cool like Apple. I think we'll see Windows 8: Weiner.
Click to expand...

How about Windows 9: Poodle?
 
jmann said:
Why did go back to numbering their OSes again? They were at 98, up to 2000, then they switched to letters ME and XP and now they are back at 7, and now an upcoming 8? I'm so confused with the inconsistency. :p
Click to expand...
It's not entirely inconsistent/random. They refer to the kernel revision numbers. It goes: Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3, Windows 4 (aka Windows 95/98/98SE/ME), Windows 6 (aka Windows XP), and Windows 7.

Same goes for OS X: You've got 1-10, with other minor revisions (after the first decimal) along the way. 95/98/98SE/ME were all minor revisions of the Windows 4 kernel (like Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard).
 
Nermal said:
Windows 7 is actually version 6.1 :)
Click to expand...

I'll be generous, going off actual progress made by Windows versions, and call them as such....

- Windows 95 was really 1.0
- Win2k was the next worthy iteration, 2.0
- Windows XP was really just a prettying up of 2k, so 2.1
- Vista was...
- And then Windows 7 then can be version 3.0. :)
 
7 is good already. Not good enough to keep me using pc's but good. Hopefully the next version will be even better.

Why hate windows. There are things I do better in Windows, others I do better in linux and for everything else OS X. Most of the time I run all 3 simultaneously.

We just need more RAM. 16gb on a laptop with a 8GB OS X and a couple of 3-4GB VM's for the win.
 
Eric S. said:
CNET reports that at the Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles this week, a Microsoft slide show presented evidence for a 2012 release for Windows 8.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10402783-75.html

Any relation between this and the end of the world is purely coincidental.
Click to expand...


So THAT'S why all those Prophets, Seers and Clairvoyants said 2012 is it!

Wow! Such stunning accuracy. I'm genuinely impressed that all these people that lived hundreds of years ago could accurately predict the unveiling of Windows 8! Oh. Oops. I meant "End of the World". :p

Have Fun,
Keri

PS. I wonder if Nostradamus mentions anything about an "Evil Hex being placed upon the world" at the end of days?

PPS. Just Kidding, OK, Microserfs?
 
Rumor has it that it'll be ready for the ship no ark launch allowing you to steer with the power of your mind. Hopefully they will have service pack 1.0 out in time to either close the door or a bulkhead or the Americans are screwed!
 
It always goes about the same:

Windows 95 - Innovating, but has problems
Windows 98 - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable
Windows ME/2000 - Innovates, but has problems
Windows XP - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable
Windows Vista - Innovates, but has problems
Windows 7 - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable

Some of these are highly disputable, but overall I would have to say that is how Microsoft has gone. Windows 7 broke the mold the most by changing the UI, but it didn't do much else besides fix Vista's problems.
 
TSE said:
It always goes about the same:

Windows 95 - Innovating, but has problems
Windows 98 - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable
Windows ME/2000 - Innovates, but has problems
Windows XP - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable
Windows Vista - Innovates, but has problems
Windows 7 - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable

Some of these are highly disputable, but overall I would have to say that is how Microsoft has gone. Windows 7 broke the mold the most by changing the UI, but it didn't do much else besides fix Vista's problems.
Click to expand...

There was nothing innovative about Windows Me except System Restore and Automatic Updates. Basically, Gates was fed up with the operating system team because the consumer version of 2000 wasn’t ready, and forced Windows Me to the market thrown together.

It was not a planned product. In fact, after 98 SE was released Microsoft specifically stated that there would be no more consumer releases based on the 9x kernel.

PC Magazine named it the “mistake edition” when it came out.

And Windows XP was fairly innovative.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_XP
 
TSE said:
It always goes about the same:

Windows 95 - Innovating, but has problems
Windows 98 - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable
Windows ME/2000 - Innovates, but has problems
Windows XP - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable
Windows Vista - Innovates, but has problems
Windows 7 - Doesn't innovate, but makes the OS more stable

Some of these are highly disputable, but overall I would have to say that is how Microsoft has gone. Windows 7 broke the mold the most by changing the UI, but it didn't do much else besides fix Vista's problems.
Click to expand...

That pattern doesn't hold up at all. XP was more innovative than ME or 2000. Vista was not innovative, other than flip 3D and proving an OS could require a ridiculous amount of resources (for the time). Windows 7 is the most innovative Windows operating system I've seen since 95, simply because of the change in window management.
 
TuffLuffJimmy said:
What was so innovative about DX10? Didn't it just support new graphics cards?
Click to expand...
Its the other way round. DX10 came first and the hardware came after to support it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct3D_10#Direct3D_10
New features:
  • Fixed pipelines[9] are being done away with in favor of fully programmable pipelines (often referred to as unified pipeline architecture), which can be programmed to emulate the same.
  • New state object to enable (mostly) the CPU to change states efficiently.
  • Shader model 4.0, enhances the programmability of the graphics pipeline. It adds instructions for integer and bitwise calculations.
  • Geometry shaders, which work on adjacent triangles which form a mesh.
  • Texture arrays enable swapping of textures in GPU without CPU intervention.
  • Predicated Rendering allows drawing calls to be ignored based on some other conditions. This enables rapid occlusion culling, which prevents objects from being rendered if it is not visible or too far to be visible.
  • Instancing 2.0 support, allowing multiple instances of similar meshes, such as armies, or grass or trees, to be rendered in a single draw call, reducing the processing time needed for multiple similar objects to that of a single one.[10]
Click to expand...
 
Eric S. said:
I'm sure Apple knows the date and could give it if they wanted to. They're just more into the secrecy thing.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they have a year/quarter. We'll likely find out at WWDC '10. Personally, I think 10.7 Cougar/Lynx will ship in the Spring 2011 time frame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back