New Windows OS May Launch by 2013

[Fanghawk]

New Windows OS May Launch by 2013

Microsoft may be switching to annual operating system upgrades as early as this summer.

Just last month, Microsoft finally launched its Windows 8 operating system after three years of development. <a href=http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/23/3537710/windows-8-review>Some reviewers love it and <a href=http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118846-Notch-Windows-8-Could-Be-Very-Very-Bad-for-Indies>some game developers hate it, but most people probably expect Windows 8 to be the default Microsoft OS for at least a few years. According to recent reports however, Microsoft may actually be planning to launch a new Windows client as early as 2013. The potential OS, code-named Windows Blue, could replace Windows 8 by mid-2013 and kick off a series of annual OS upgrades from Microsoft.

Windows Blue was first uncovered by ZDNet last August, but new sources for The Verge are confirming a great deal of the original information. According to the sources, Blue will be released as a low-cost or free upgrade for pre-existing customers that changes the Windows UI and alters the entire platform. The upgrade will reportedly continue to support Windows 8 apps, but Microsoft is expected to update the Windows SDK and stop accepting applications for apps designed specifically for Windows 8.

If this is accurate, then why would Microsoft launch a new OS client less than a year after Windows 8? According to both ZDNet and The Verge, part of the reason may be a new focus on annual upgrades. Previous versions of Windows <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_versions>have generally been released every few years, but in a world where competitors Apple and Google frequently upgrade their own clients, Windows may need the shorter development cycle to keep its edge.

There's been no confirmation from Microsoft on anything relating to Blue, so the above should be taken with a grain of salt. After all, it's possible Blue will act as little more than a service pack instead of an entirely new Windows platform. Still, considering the increased competition from Android and iOS in recent years, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft's release schedule fall in line with its rivals. Whether that will be successful or not for the company remains to be seen.

Source: <a href=http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/28/3693368/windows-blue-update-low-cost>The Verge

Permalink

 

[The Artificially Prolonged]

It could work, I mean alot of Linux operating system have release cycles of about a year or even less in some instances. If the upgrade are cheaper or free then I have little problem with it. But then I have to wonder whether I would want to upgrade every year for small incremental improvements. Also how would support work for users who don't upgrade every year? Would it be mandatory so the latest drivers and games to work or will there be some sort of long term support for previous versions?

 

[mechalynx]

They sure want the game developers abandon PC, it seems. Not only the game makers will have to consider the Windows Market (or whatever that idiotic idea is called), making games fit for different hardware builds, but also several OS.

Microsoft, please, I don't want another Linux/iOS/Android, I already have those.

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

 

[Fasckira]

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

 

[mechalynx]

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

I can only assume that you are working at a wonderful place that constantly updates to the latest and greatest. My workplace still runs XP, most of the places I worked at rarely upgrade their OS, because it raises merry hell with all VPN solutions they halfassedly put together.

Think surveilance operations and stuff. I am telling you from experience, that it takes planning and money to upgrade an OS run across over a minimum of 1000 PCs.

 

[gardian06]

They sure want the game developers abandon PC, it seems. Not only the game makers will have to consider the Windows Market (or whatever that idiotic idea is called), making games fit for different hardware builds, but also several OS.

Microsoft, please, I don't want another Linux/iOS/Android, I already have those.

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

Time for far more then you wanted to know about how businesses obtain Windows (the OS)
on the thing of the businesses part you do realize that there is no actual requirement for a business to upgrade their workstations every time there is a new OS, and considering the cost of the corporate packages (usually comes in multiples of 10, but the company only pays for about 6.5 of them, and at last check it was the Ultimate/enterprise edition only) and it is the company that chooses when to do these switches, and when Microsoft state "support cycle" they include their business packages too, but there is a high expectation that these business packages (except for direct Microsoft partners) will be purchased in a leap frog fashion (98, XP, Windows7... Blue), and still takes place a few months if not a year after the OS publicly releases. So it might effect those businesses, but would probably just increase those leap frog jumps.

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

What about them? A new OS is hardly a big deal to install and for most business all the personal files/settings etc are stored on central servers anyway. I also seriously doubt each new OS will be anything major in change.

blink, blink, blink....
not exactly. yes if the company also fundamentally integrates into the Windows paradigm they can, and many times do this, but in many cases the IT sections of these companies prefer a Linux/Unix (because the level of control, and the ability to still have unrestricted access even to native Windows) they might have all files, or at least backups there of of the servers, but the individual workstations can still be considered standalone, and would still have to be backed-up, upgraded, and re-integrated into the hierarchy.

 

[gigastar]

Besides, what about all the businesses that run Windows?

They dont need to update, my mother tells me that most of the computers used by the NHS still run Windows 98.

 

[Epona]

This is the first time I have regretted upgrading to Windows 8. What was the point if they are just going to replace it in less than a year?

If they do this, I won't be on board.

 

[shiajun]

I don't think that strategy will work for Windows. Heck, it's not really working for Google or Apple. The constant upgrade cycle has made Apple not be the epitome of stability it used to be, as the new upgrades don't seem to have the right amount of testing. A bunch of people I know who own Macs have started to resist the yearly update because their user experience is suffering from glitches, slowdowns, random freezing. On the other hand, Google has generated an extremely fractioned Android ecosystem that confuses consumers and developers alike. What will this devices have, will it run my app, for how long will it work, etc.? Windows 8 just came out, not many people have switched yet (and I know a lot who have switched back to Windows 7), and they'd want to switch again? Nuh uh, not going to happen. I know all of this is based on the speculation in the article, but even it holds a grain of truth it's worrysome. Not even all Linux distros to it that often. Ubuntu, by far the most used linux distro, has many intermediate updates which it uses to test changes, but always has the Long Term Support versions that go on for years and you don't need to update so frequently unless you want to be on the bleeding edge.

 

[Jandau]

...but in a world where competitors Apple and Google frequently upgrade their own clients, Windows may need the shorter development cycle to keep its edge.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the frequent OS upgrades that Apple and Google do more akin to, say, Service Packs rather than full blown OS releases?

This whole thing will likely blow up in MS's face. Who exactly is the target audience here? People hate upgrading their OS and will only do so if there's a substantial benefit to it. The only way they could get people to do it might be by forcing them by restricting features (see the recent DX11.1 debacle), but that isn't a viable strategy in the long run...

 

[vun]

I'm hoping they'll be smart and do alternating OS stuff; one year they make one focused on the tabled crap we're seeing with Win8 and the next year they do one focused for regular computers.
Ah, who am I kidding.
I'm still gonna keep my fingers crossed and hope for something more useful if this rumour is indeed true.

 

[FalloutJack]

Oh yeah, this'll surely work. It's not like they have to worry about bugs in the system or in fact coming out with a really crappy OS on each alternative step.

OH WAIT.

 

[Kinitawowi]

Microsoft don't want people getting hold of an OS and then sitting on it for ten years. They're having a monumental job right now trying to kick people off Windows XP and Office 2003; this is why Windows 8 is so cheap.

I read some while back that their dream solution for the OS is probably an annual subscription model, akin to the likes of most antivirus programs. It'll never happen. But obviously they think they need to break up their revenue stream somehow, and if slashing the price of the OS and releasing a new version every eighteen months is their solution then they're going to try it. It'll fail, of course - upgrading the OS is a monumental pain in the arse even for experienced users, most inexperienced users wouldn't even contemplate it, and software developers would be up in arms.

The only other explanation is that they've realised that Windows 8 is pants and they want to bail out as quick as they can and cut their losses before they end up with another Vista.

 

[nodlimax]

This is just wrong and stupid of them. I don't see any reason to upgrade to Windows 8. Why would I want to upgrade to a "Win 9"?

Just a few days ago I reinstalled Windows 7 after upgrading my hardware (it was really necessary because of a new SSD in my PC) and the last time before that I installed the Windows 7 when it was released. So there were several years between a system reinstall/upgrade). My system runs fine now and the saying goes "never touch a running system" especially when it actually runs well and when there isn't even a major game changer on the horizon.

They may want people to switch OS every year, but it won't work, because as was said before people don't want to screw around with their system on a regular base (about 99.99% won't do that).

 

[Zombie_Moogle]

Even if you get Windows Blue, you'll also have to pick up Windows Red if ya Gotta catch'em all!

 

[Hat Man]

I still don't see a reason to switch from 7 right now.

 

[Rainforce]

'We here at Microsoft really, really want to be Apple.

Like, a whole lot.'

"I heard if you continue digging, you can dig your way out" : D
that's pretty much the only quote that comes to mind right now, on the whole topic.
wtf microsoft, I'm so going linux by next year...

Even if you get Windows Blue, you'll also have to pick up Windows Red if ya Gotta catch'em all!

also this