Corsair 4000D PC Chassis Review
TeamGroup EX2 SSD 1TB review
Deepcool AS500 air cooler review
Leven JS600 1 TB SATA3 SSD review
ClockTuner for Ryzen v1.1 (CTR) Guide by 1USMUS
Colorful GeForce RTX 3080 iGAME VULCAN review
Corsair HS60 Haptic Headset review
Corsair K60 RGB Pro keyboard review
Deepcool Macube 110 chassis review
Leven JPR600 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
Windows 9 launches November 2014 Already
Though unconfirmed it seems that Microsoft is planning to release the next major version of Windows in November 2014. The product will not really be called Windows 9, but Windows Blue instead. Windows 8 will receive an update later this year alongside a first beta version of Windows 9 in January 2014. Details on what Windows 9 will have to offer are vague, but it will likely have improved touchscreen support.
Here's Neowin on the topic:
According to Win8China, who have provided a number of Windows leaks in the past, Microsoft are likely preparing Windows 9 for a tentative November 2014 product launch, with a beta to be available in January 2014. Now of course this is just a rumor at this stage, however a release scheduled for late 2014 does fit with what we've heard in regards to a yearly OS update cycle for Windows. Windows Blue will be an upgrade to Windows 8 that will be launched this year, while a full version upgrade will come the following year, and naturally November is the perfect time ahead of the holiday season.
Samsung Exec Bashes Windows 8 - 03/11/2013 06:31 AM
A Samsung executive this week likened Microsoft's new Windows 8 operating system to Vista, the criticized OS put out by Redmond several years ago in between its far more successful Windows XP and Win...
Updated or new Windows Phone This Year ? - 03/04/2013 07:49 PM
WMPoweruser noticed a job posting on Microsoft's website confirmed that the software giant is planning to release a new major release of Windows Phone by the end of the year. More after the break....
Windows 8 marketshare now 2.79 percent - 03/02/2013 11:20 AM
Net Applications' operating system marketshare date shows the uptake of Microsoft's Windows 8 continues to be rather slow. Despite being installed on nearly every new PC, Windows 8's marketshare wa...
3DMark 11 is now fully compatible with Windows 8 - 03/01/2013 10:06 AM
In case you missed it, yesterday we updated our 3DMark 11 download as Futuremark has published 3DMark v1.0.4, you can download it here of course on Guru3D. This new version fixes some bugs and shou...
I-mate Inteligent Windows 8 Pro smartphone - 02/28/2013 10:03 AM
Redmond-based I-mate shows off the Intelegent, a Windows 8 Pro smartphone that features an Intel Cover Trail+ Atom processor, a 4.7" touchscreen (resolution unknown), 2GB RAM, a 64GB SSD, and HS...
lucidus
Senior Member
Posts: 11857
Joined: 2011-12-31
Senior Member
Posts: 11857
Joined: 2011-12-31
#4556543 Posted on: 03/18/2013 01:16 PM
As long as they don't take to Google's numbering scheme, I don't care.
As long as they don't take to Google's numbering scheme, I don't care.
Loobyluggs
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 2008-09-07
Senior Member
Posts: 3858
Joined: 2008-09-07
#4556556 Posted on: 03/18/2013 01:29 PM
It's about time they moved to yearly updates. Their competition has been doing it for years and now that they are competing in mobile with their desktop OS, they'll have to move quickly in order to keep up.
But of course there will be a bunch of people posting about how this is too soon and it should be 3 year launch cycles.
Which is it? you want yearly updates or yearly launches?
Update Win8 November (blue - whatever that means) and Win9 November 2014.
2 year launches, with updates 12 months after release - sounds fine and stable, especially if they give it a cheap $25 upgrade fee and increased performance. Bargain.
It's about time they moved to yearly updates. Their competition has been doing it for years and now that they are competing in mobile with their desktop OS, they'll have to move quickly in order to keep up.
But of course there will be a bunch of people posting about how this is too soon and it should be 3 year launch cycles.
Which is it? you want yearly updates or yearly launches?
Update Win8 November (blue - whatever that means) and Win9 November 2014.
2 year launches, with updates 12 months after release - sounds fine and stable, especially if they give it a cheap $25 upgrade fee and increased performance. Bargain.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13085
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13085
Joined: 2004-05-16
#4556559 Posted on: 03/18/2013 01:37 PM
Which is it? you want yearly updates or yearly launches?
Update Win8 November (blue - whatever that means) and Win9 November 2014.
2 year launches, with updates 12 months after release - sounds fine and stable, especially if they give it a cheap $25 upgrade fee and increased performance. Bargain.
Depends on what is involved in an update. Previously SP's offered a rollup of patches, maybe a security feature or two and any kernel changes they have to make. Windows Blue, whatever it is - a new release or a new update to 8, sounds like it's going to offer a ton more, which makes sense. Previously Windows was kind of competing with Apple's OSX, which is updated yearly for the most part and kind of Ubuntu, which was/is bi-yearly. Now they are competing with Android, OSX, iOS, Ubuntu, and soon possibly Tizen/Bada. They are going to have to deliver updates that are feature rich and either relatively cheap or free. You can call that whatever you want, I don't care.
What annoyed me was that when Windows 8 came out for $40 people were complaining that it was too soon after 7, despite the fact that Windows has almost always had a 2 year launch cycle. I'd much rather have a shorter cycle and cheaper prices.
Which is it? you want yearly updates or yearly launches?
Update Win8 November (blue - whatever that means) and Win9 November 2014.
2 year launches, with updates 12 months after release - sounds fine and stable, especially if they give it a cheap $25 upgrade fee and increased performance. Bargain.
Depends on what is involved in an update. Previously SP's offered a rollup of patches, maybe a security feature or two and any kernel changes they have to make. Windows Blue, whatever it is - a new release or a new update to 8, sounds like it's going to offer a ton more, which makes sense. Previously Windows was kind of competing with Apple's OSX, which is updated yearly for the most part and kind of Ubuntu, which was/is bi-yearly. Now they are competing with Android, OSX, iOS, Ubuntu, and soon possibly Tizen/Bada. They are going to have to deliver updates that are feature rich and either relatively cheap or free. You can call that whatever you want, I don't care.
What annoyed me was that when Windows 8 came out for $40 people were complaining that it was too soon after 7, despite the fact that Windows has almost always had a 2 year launch cycle. I'd much rather have a shorter cycle and cheaper prices.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 5387
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 5387
Joined: 2012-11-10
#4556599 Posted on: 03/18/2013 02:32 PM
It's about time they moved to yearly updates. Their competition has been doing it for years and now that they are competing in mobile with their desktop OS, they'll have to move quickly in order to keep up.
But of course there will be a bunch of people posting about how this is too soon and it should be 3 year launch cycles.
If by competition you mean tablets and linux then i agree, but linux gets universally stable kernels maybe once every 2 years (such as 3.2 or 3.5) and android and ios are young and very complex (the more simple you make a device to use, generally the more code that goes into it). Also, all of these OSes have free updates. Mac released mountain lion after lion within a year because lion was full of problems, but otherwise they don't make yearly releases.
MS shouldn't do a yearly release just because "everyone else is". They don't make enough changes to qualify for such a highly priced OS. If they drop the price of Windows in half for all their products then maybe them doing yearly updates won't be so bad. But the problem with MS is they intentionally leave their older products in the dust when they might have a huge userbase.
It's about time they moved to yearly updates. Their competition has been doing it for years and now that they are competing in mobile with their desktop OS, they'll have to move quickly in order to keep up.
But of course there will be a bunch of people posting about how this is too soon and it should be 3 year launch cycles.
If by competition you mean tablets and linux then i agree, but linux gets universally stable kernels maybe once every 2 years (such as 3.2 or 3.5) and android and ios are young and very complex (the more simple you make a device to use, generally the more code that goes into it). Also, all of these OSes have free updates. Mac released mountain lion after lion within a year because lion was full of problems, but otherwise they don't make yearly releases.
MS shouldn't do a yearly release just because "everyone else is". They don't make enough changes to qualify for such a highly priced OS. If they drop the price of Windows in half for all their products then maybe them doing yearly updates won't be so bad. But the problem with MS is they intentionally leave their older products in the dust when they might have a huge userbase.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 13085
Joined: 2004-05-16
It's about time they moved to yearly updates. Their competition has been doing it for years and now that they are competing in mobile with their desktop OS, they'll have to move quickly in order to keep up.
But of course there will be a bunch of people posting about how this is too soon and it should be 3 year launch cycles.