I can't find a facepalm .gif that expresses the amount of fail that Microsoft is creating.

It doesn't have to be a radical update. I got the 1st update for Visual Studio 2012 already, and it was just a small set of improvements. We'll see if Windows updates will go in the same direction.

So were looking at Windows 9, 10 & so fourth? I don't see the need for a yearly update.

So were looking at Windows 9, 10 & so fourth? I don't see the need for a yearly update.

I'm willing as long as they keep it at $40 to upgrade, but yeah I don't see the point of a yearly OS.

Customer controls revenue? I'm probably be wrong but I can only see this as a way to make more money. I don't know if Windows needs to be updated that often, I believe we get by with updates or do they mean they will just release updates/service packs at more regular intervals? If it's what I think, I'm guessing they aren't going to be free.

Hopefully we'll see incremental updates such as Windows 7.1 or 8.1 etc. rather than new versions which have to be paid for. Then again all they will probably do is re-brand their normal updates like Google and say this new version of wankdroid offers yet more performance improvements over 4.2...

Microsoft will update its Windows OS every year

Good for them. I wont unless they give me something with decent value that doesnt destroy what was previously valued. Backward steps dont cut it.

Hopefully we'll see incremental updates such as Windows 7.1 or 8.1 etc. rather than new versions which have to be paid for. Then again all they will probably do is re-brand their normal updates like Google and say this new version of wankdroid offers yet more performance improvements over 4.2...

Its surely going to cost, otherwise they would still be happy with service packs.. As the op indicates, they want to make money.

Good for them. I wont unless they give me something with decent value that doesnt destroy what was previously valued. Backward steps dont cut it. Its surely going to cost, otherwise they would still be happy with service packs.. As the op indicates, they want to make money.

If they want to release a new version every year then fair doos but it'd still be nice to have a few updates for free for the existing versions.

I'm sure there will still be patches every month. Otherwise security + stability would lapse and MS would get a bad rep.

I'll stick with 7.

this is stupid because they're just going to screw us over like they did with windows 8 where it has a small handful of nice bonus features that could easily be added to win7 but they deliberately chose not to. Also, apple's updates don't tend to break compatibility unless you're an ios developer, a hackintosh user, or rely on Rosetta. Google NEEDS to do yearly updates because they started an OS that is half brand new so it is bound to find bugs. You know when MS is losing it when even some popular linux distros are considering rolling releases due to how many annoyances yearly or half yearly releases cause.

I'll stick with 7.

same Microsoft is really getting stupid, literally. If they can't figure out how to make money and adapt to todays market other than releasing a yearly new version of their OS then they might as well give up. I mean what the hell is this? The new COD but of the operation systems? I don't know about you, but for me it's a pain to deal with fresh os installs, especially when it's a new os (even if it's free) with all the bugs and incompatibilities YEARLY.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just depends on cost vs improvement. Also, there's no requirement to "upgrade" with every release. This thinking that MS screwed people over with Windows8 is a line of ****. MS didn't screw anyone over. Upgrading is completely optional. Adding features to the previous release, negates the reason for upgrading, thus costing the company profits. Companies exist solely to make a profit. Why would they intentionally do something that would limit profits? If they release 1 version of Windows then support it by adding new features to it, they have no need to release a new version and sales would eventually dry up as eventually every customer would have upgraded over time. Some of you need to learn how businesses operate.... Most of the reason for "compatibility issues" is due to companies like Creative that deliberately take weeks or months to update their drivers. It's not Microsoft's fault that these companies that such an approach.

Microsoft should forget trying to bridge the gap between themselves and Apple/Google. They are never going to get a huge share of the mobile or tablet markets because they entered the race way to late. Concentrating on what you are good at, which is making a good OS. Please don't troll me...

Microsoft entered the mobile market much earlier than Google or Apple....around the mid-90's or so. They just didn't have anything ready for smartphones when the iPhone launched.

So they are going to charge for service packs now huh? I too will stick with Win7

So they are going to charge for service packs now huh? I too will stick with Win7

First of all the sources are not reliable. Second, nobody has said if and how much you'd have to pay. There's no info about versioning and the scope of the changes either. If it works as VS2012, I'm happy - got "Update 1" from Windows Update, there are some extra features, the general layout remains unchanged, no extra payments were needed. Still I expect it to be applied in a little different way. They may offer some kind of subscription-based service. For example, when you buy Visual Studio you have 2 options: 1. Buy box and that's it 2. Get MSDN subscription with Software Assurance. You pay a little extra, but you got all VS, Windows, SQL Server (, and Office in case of higher levels) that will be released in 2 years after your order at no extra charges except for the initial payment. For example, I bought mine in Vista times, and got Windows 7 for all my computers. After that 2-year period these applications remain yours, but you can renew the SA. The higher subscription level, the lower % of initial cost is required for the renewal. They're already trying to do something similar with Office, so I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to do the same with Windows. The benefit is that if you're going to buy it anyway, you get everything on the release date and you're not worried that the next version will be released soon after you bought the old one. I think that they'll have to come up with something really interesting features- and pricing-wise in order to make people buy new Windows every year.

I think that they'll have to come up with something really interesting features- and pricing-wise in order to make people buy new Windows every year.

Why would they need to do that? They are just following the Apple business model now.

I can't find a facepalm .gif that expresses the amount of fail that Microsoft is creating.

That sums it up, if it's something like a service pack that hopefully won't make too much of a headache.

It will kill MS in the business sector, quite simply. Often company testing takes already more than a year before the tested OS ist finally being rolled out to all workplaces. That's a major reason why so many still use XP and just now begin updating to 7. Me as a private gamer, I will stick with Windows 7 as long as possible, unless MS manage a better UI in the future and don't make Windows look so much like an Appstore with an OS attached anymore as windows 8 is. And when support for 7 runs out, I'll probably just go console....