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.

As long as they don't take to Google's numbering scheme, I don't care.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don't think that Android and iOS receive frequent updates because they are newer OS's or because they are complex -- I mean sure that factors into it, but I think the main reason is because the devices they are running on are constantly evolving. It's a new way of doing computing and there is tons of innovation going on constantly in mobile. Microsoft is now competing there and in order to stay competitive they need to evolve with it. Now because they are using Windows as the one size fits all model, the desktop version is also going to have to be upgraded as the mobile version does. And obviously they are not going to keep the same pricing model if they move this direction or even upgrade path. They are going to have to move things into a way that makes sense for users to upgrade. But it needs to happen if they are going to continue to use Windows in mobile.

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.

+1. I'm particularly worried about backwards compatibility and stability with these frequent updates. Microsoft doesn't *have* to work like Google and Apple. Microsoft has lost its way. At this rate their primary source of revenue will be royalty and licensing fees collections in a decade's time.

+1. I'm particularly worried about backwards compatibility and stability with these frequent updates. Microsoft doesn't *have* to work like Google and Apple. Microsoft has lost its way. At this rate their primary source of revenue will be royalty and licensing fees collections in a decade's time.

Then what exactly is Microsoft supposed to do? Keep releasing desktop OS's until desktops are gone in 10 years then call it quits because they never got with the times? Like I hate to break it to you people, but the time of the "PC" is gone. Yeah there will still be niche markets for it, gamers I guess will hold out a little longer. But in 10 years a cellphone will be far more powerful than a current generation PC is today and that's all the vast majority of users need. Where is the current generation of Windows in that future? If Microsoft doesn't evolve, it dies. Windows 8 was an attempt at bridging that gap and it wasn't a bad one. Modern day computing has the power to virtualize backwards compatibility, so that isn't even a concern. Microsoft needs to drop all that stuff and move forward or they are going to get buried.

I don't think that Android and iOS receive frequent updates because they are newer OS's or because they are complex -- I mean sure that factors into it, but I think the main reason is because the devices they are running on are constantly evolving. It's a new way of doing computing and there is tons of innovation going on constantly in mobile. Microsoft is now competing there and in order to stay competitive they need to evolve with it. Now because they are using Windows as the one size fits all model, the desktop version is also going to have to be upgraded as the mobile version does. And obviously they are not going to keep the same pricing model if they move this direction or even upgrade path. They are going to have to move things into a way that makes sense for users to upgrade. But it needs to happen if they are going to continue to use Windows in mobile.

Right that's true, I forgot about how the hardware also plays a huge role in the need to update the OS. And your point about Windows being one size fits all makes the need for a yearly Windows update also be true, although, that seems like it would mostly only apply to Windows RT. Like I said though, MS has a tendency to not support older OSes. I think what a lot of people don't realize is Service Packs are basically MS's way of releasing a new OS without leaving it's customers in the dark. Service Packs were kind of yearly, so basically by MS making official yearly releases means you are paying for Service Packs and if you don't pay then you lose support.

Unless I'll be foreced to, by games absolutely requiring the new OS for example, I'll stick with my Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit for a long time still. It's by far the best gaming OS Microsoft ever came out with, and with the maturity it has now and the failure Windows 8 was, my excitment level for 9 is next to zero.

Then what exactly is Microsoft supposed to do? Keep releasing desktop OS's until desktops are gone in 10 years then call it quits because they never got with the times? Like I hate to break it to you people, but the time of the "PC" is gone. Yeah there will still be niche markets for it, gamers I guess will hold out a little longer. But in 10 years a cellphone will be far more powerful than a current generation PC is today and that's all the vast majority of users need. Where is the current generation of Windows in that future? If Microsoft doesn't evolve, it dies. Windows 8 was an attempt at bridging that gap and it wasn't a bad one. Modern day computing has the power to virtualize backwards compatibility, so that isn't even a concern. Microsoft needs to drop all that stuff and move forward or they are going to get buried.

Maybe in ten years your computer will not be in a box anymore but a cell phone will not outclass a custom built hardware contraption. No matter what year or how many years into the future you go. 10 years is a good amount of time for technology to evolve but I do not see cell phones out classing personal computers. In ten years you cell phone will the size of a blue tooth and projects images onto your visor or glasses, maybe even your eye ball. Everything shrinks until it can not be shrunk any more. What happens when you cant shrink silicon anymore? Do they move on to quantum computing? Holographic or light based CPUs? 😛c1::infinity::pc1:

Then what exactly is Microsoft supposed to do? Keep releasing desktop OS's until desktops are gone in 10 years then call it quits because they never got with the times? Like I hate to break it to you people, but the time of the "PC" is gone. Yeah there will still be niche markets for it, gamers I guess will hold out a little longer. But in 10 years a cellphone will be far more powerful than a current generation PC is today and that's all the vast majority of users need. Where is the current generation of Windows in that future? If Microsoft doesn't evolve, it dies. Windows 8 was an attempt at bridging that gap and it wasn't a bad one. Modern day computing has the power to virtualize backwards compatibility, so that isn't even a concern. Microsoft needs to drop all that stuff and move forward or they are going to get buried.

Duh.. Make a real mobile OS and not a version of windows with a Halloween mask on and also ruin it for the people who use the OS on traditional form factors. Using the windows name on mobile was a mistake. The name is recognised universally but has a laughable reputation.

Maybe in ten years your computer will not be in a box anymore but a cell phone will not outclass a custom built hardware contraption. No matter what year or how many years into the future you go. 10 years is a good amount of time for technology to evolve but I do not see cell phones out classing personal computers. In ten years you cell phone will the size of a blue tooth and projects images onto your visor or glasses, maybe even your eye ball. Everything shrinks until it can not be shrunk any more. What happens when you cant shrink silicon anymore? Do they move on to quantum computing? Holographic or light based CPUs? 😛c1::infinity::pc1:

The general market doesn't want that. Microsoft made all its money on the fact that the vast number of users out there, causal, business, etc, everyone wanted a PC in their house. They don't anymore. Computing power has reached the point where everything that your majority needs to do can be done. Yeah a much larger PC 10 years from now will obviously have better computing power than a cellphone, but so what? At most the number of enthusiast PC's make up a fraction of the computing market. And silicon isn't going to hit a limit anytime soon. I went to school at RIT where they developed the current method of immersion lithography, before that they thought 22nm was the minimal limit. I have a friend who is doing his PhD at Penn State for micro electrical engineering, who thinks silicon is going to be around for a while. According to him current generation technology in transistor design already uses a lot of quantum technologies in it, like tunneling electrons as part of the design, although it's obviously still based on classic physics. Then you have graphene.

Duh.. Make a real mobile OS and not a version of windows with a Halloween mask on and also ruin it for the people who use the OS on traditional form factors. Using the windows name on mobile was a mistake. The name is recognised universally but has a laughable reputation.

They can't compete, it's too late. Look at Blackberry/Nokia. They already had a majority of the market and have trouble competing. Microsoft needed to leverage their huge userbase in desktop and drive it down to mobile. It's working so far so I don't see the problem.

What happens when you cant shrink silicon anymore? Do they move on to quantum computing? Holographic or light based CPUs? 😛c1::infinity::pc1:

They put it in the cloud and do parallel-processing, boom, your PC is no more and we all pay for everything via subscription. You pay phone by the minute, you pay for steak by the Oz and you pay for computers by the CPU and GPU computation. Welcome to the future, all you need is a Monitor, HiD(s), an ISP and a bank account. You can't avoid it. One day all games will be this way, along with all media services and transmissions. Having to have an entire room dedicated to housing a computer? That's so ancient. This, is what the bullies at school will be saying to your children. Think about it.

You know the saying, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". I'm also on Win7 x64 and have no interest in upgrading to 8, since everything runs fine already.

Not upgrading is fine, but that saying is terrible and I'm on quest to get people to stop using it. I mean by that logic if a free and perfectly safe OS came out that used wormholes to speed up all computation power by a factor of a billion you wouldn't use it because everything runs fine on Windows 7. Which we know isn't true.

They can't compete, it's too late. Look at Blackberry/Nokia. They already had a majority of the market and have trouble competing. Microsoft needed to leverage their huge userbase in desktop and drive it down to mobile. It's working so far so I don't see the problem.

Windows Phone and Windows RT have clicked (or swiped)? First I'm hearing of it. Let them force their users, it will only chase them away to better ecosystems. Anyway this thread is about windows blue(screen) so bleh.

You know the saying, "if it ain't broken, don't fix it". I'm also on Win7 x64 and have no interest in upgrading to 8, since everything runs fine already.

In the technology world, such a statement shouldn't be such loosely thrown around. This is why 32 bit Windows and DX9 lasted much longer than they should have. This is why Windows is probably the most technologically held back OS (but to be fair, they have a reputation of compatibility, with the exception of Vista). When it comes to paying for something new that works for your needs then ya, there might not be much of a reason to replace it. But this is exactly the problem with MS making a new version of Windows every year - you're going to have to pay for it. Android, iOS, and Linux are free to upgrade, and Mac is usually a surprisingly cheap and easy upgrade (often less than $50). BTW, I'm not saying you should replace your 64 bit Win7 setup, because Windows 8 is barely an improvement on a technical standpoint; the major difference is Metro so if you don't prefer it then why pay for it. But if you were using 32 bit XP then I'd say it's time to move on.

Windows Phone and Windows RT have clicked (or swiped)? First I'm hearing of it. Let them force their users, it will only chase them away to better ecosystems. Anyway this thread is about windows blue(screen) so bleh.

WINDOWS BLUESCREEN HAHAHAHA SO FUNNY SO CLEVER. Come on. Really. You know what bluescreens are, and you know they're almost always caused by viruses or defective hardware. Don't be that guy. Windows isn't some ****ty OS that just blue screens randomly everwhere.

WINDOWS BLUESCREEN HAHAHAHA SO FUNNY SO CLEVER. Come on. Really. You know what bluescreens are, and you know they're almost always caused by viruses or defective hardware. Don't be that guy. Windows isn't some ****ty OS that just blue screens randomly everwhere.

I personally hate Windows but I'd have to agree - Windows 7 isn't an unstable mess anymore. However, viruses are a problem that is mostly Windows' fault, and on that note I strongly disagree with those who say Windows is so virus-prone due to popularity. That's a factor, but not enough of one. Windows 7 is good proof of that considering it is incomparably safer than XP (even with UAC off), and it is very popular. Also, tablets/smartphones aren't very virus prone either, and most of those who do get infected tend to use outdated OSes or rooted OSes.

WINDOWS BLUESCREEN HAHAHAHA SO FUNNY SO CLEVER. Come on. Really. You know what bluescreens are, and you know they're almost always caused by viruses or defective hardware. Don't be that guy. Windows isn't some ****ty OS that just blue screens randomly everwhere.

Lol .. I know. It was tongue in cheek.