Windows 8 in 2012?

Steven Sinofsky may not be talking about Microsoft's future Windows plans, but the Windows Server team appears to see more value in letting customers know its road map.

In at least two slides apparently shown at the Professional Developers Conference in Los Angeles this week, Microsoft suggests that a major release update to Windows Server is due around 2012, with one of the slides confirming the Windows 8 code name.

I've asked both the desktop and server teams for more context on the slides, which were noted this week by blogger Stephen Chapman. A similar slide cropped up--that time in Italian-- in August.

For his part, Sinofsky sat completely stone-faced when I asked him in our interview Wednesday where Microsoft was at relative to Windows 8--later noting that he hadn't even used the word Windows next to the numeral 8.

"I didn't say any of the words--Windows 8--those were all your words," he said

The 2012 time frame would roughly coincide with Windows Server's plans of having a minor release every two years or so and a major release every four years. It released Windows Server 2008 R2, a minor update, earlier this year as the desktop team released Windows 7.

In recent years, Microsoft has tended to line up its desktop and server releases fairly closely, although in this case the desktop OS was probably a more significant release than its server counterpart.

[Lerianis3]

3 years seems kind of..... short for an update to the OS, don't you think? 5 years would be just right, by that time people would be forced to buy new computers (and they would be cheaper for the amount of power needed) to upgrade to the new OS.

[iertry]

3 years is about average (maybe slightly long). Windows Vista was released 5-6 years after XP and that is an extremely long time to wait. Advances are made everyday in technology, we can't wait that long for an OS update.

[Mr. Dee]

5 years? Not in this industry, although, I don't want a upgrade cycle like OS X (2 years) or 6 months like Linux either. Three years is just about right and the good thing is, Microsoft is now involving their hardware partners and ISVs at an early stage of development. So existing products and future solutions can be ready out the gate.

[timber2005]

Yea you really can't go more than 3-4 years for a MAJOR server os upgrade. <br />Memory, processors, hard drives, new technologies, IP... they are all changing rapidly.

[slickuser]

Microsoft has a good business model!<br /><br />Ripping off consumers every few years once. Each time blaming previous versions for the <br />new one.

[Random_Walk]

"3 years seems kind of..... short for an update to the OS, don't you think?"<br /><br />Win 3.1 - Windows 95: 3 years<br />Windows 95 - Windows 98: 3 years<br />Windows 98 - Windows 2000: 2 years<br />Windows 2000 - Windows ME: 7 months<br />Windows 2000 - Windows XP - less than a year.<br />Windows XP - Windows Vista - 6 years.<br />Windows Vista - Windows 7 - 2.5 years<br /><br />They're kind of all over the map, really, but the average seems to be 3 years for most (though I only counted consumer OSes, and I left Windows NT 3.5 and 4 out of the picture entirely).<br /><br />OSX averages roughly 2 years, and Linux depends on which distro we're talking about. <br /><br />Linux can get away with it because upgrades nowadays are almost always as simple as one command: either "yum -y upgrade", or "apt-get upgrade", and the rest takes care of itself. One reboot later, and you're upgraded to the latest versions of, well, everything you have installed minus any custom-compiled apps (without the usual headaches associated with running an in-place upgrade vs. a clean install). Total cost is $0.00 Also, you really only have to bother if you want to - otherwise if everything runs fine, folks like RedHat and SuSE back-port all of their patches to run on earlier distro versions, reaching back to (in some cases) 2001.<br /><br />OSX can get away with it because apps written for OSX more often than not reach back to at least OSX 10.3 (from 2003) as the minimum floor, and OS upgrades will only cost you $30 (amortized to $15/year).<br /><br />Fact is though, in some cases you CAN go more than 3-4 years between upgrades without any major problems . In Linux, some new binaries (Read: apps) can reach back to, say, RedHat 7.1 (which came out in 2001). Anything older? If you can compile it, you can run it on even the ancient stuff (for instance, Debian 2.2, or "Potato", which came out in mid-2000).<br /><br />In the Enterprise, you would be amazed at how old some servers and their loaded OSes get - there's IBM AS/400's that reach back to the mid 1990's, running just fine as they are, and HP-UX machines that reach back to the very dawn of that OS' time. Sun still had contracts for some damned ancient versions of Sloaris and SunOS. <br /><br />There's always a danger of being stranded technologically in the extremes of course, but 10 years is not an unreasonable lifespan at all for mainframes, miniframes, and ancient-but-serviceable high-end servers.

[Mergatroid Mania]

I think the update cycle depends on what is currently available, and the quality of what is released.<br /><br />For example, Windows 3.1 really sucked at the time. The monochrome Mac o/s kicked it, and AmigaDOS kicked both of them (slapped them silly).<br />Then Windows 95 came out (along with o/s2 Warp). These were pretty revolutionary on a PC. First time PCs would preemptively multitask (not counting AmigaDOS and the Coco).<br />Of course, the combination of all the new PC hardware and the first multitasking o/s from MS made for some instability, not to mention the transition from DOS era hardware to more recent style hardware.<br />Then came Windows 98, which also was pretty unstable and a resource hog compared to 95.Thus the term "plug and prey" was born. With the perfect combination of hardware and Windows 98 you could achieve some stability, but a better solution was needed. So came Millennium. I know a guy who still swears it was a great o/s. I never used it myself. I heard it was no better than '98 at the time.<br />And, along comes 2000, the beginning of good MS operating systems. Most servers and businesses used it although most consumers were still stuck with Millennium or '98. I knew a few people using it at the time, but I had just gotten my '98 working fairly stable, so I didn't want to press my luck.<br /><br />Then came XP. I don't care what any of the Mac fanboys say, I liked XP. It wasn't perfect, but with decent hardware, good security software and decent surfing habits a stable XP installation could last for years, even through complete hardware upgrades. This is why it took so long to get to Vista. XP was so well done that people had great expectations for Vista, but were disappointed by incompatibilities, driver issues, hardware requirements etc etc etc....<br /><br />As we know, 90% of people skipped Vista completely. I'll guarantee that if the previous o/s from MS had of been Win 98 people would have adapted Vista.<br /><br />So now, finally, MS has emerged with a great o/s. Looks good, feels good, performs on lesser hardware, provides stability and security.<br /><br />Even if Windows 8 does come out in 3 years, MS is going to have a rough ride convincing people to adopt it unless it's got something pretty amazing going for it.

[Hunnter2k3]

@ierty<br />"we can't wait that long for an OS update."<br />But that is what Service Packs were meant to be for. <br /><br />This whole process of completely updating the core of the OS is just a business tactic. <br />OSes can easily be updated with service packs.<br />This is exactly why re-imaging OSes is such a pain in the ass, the only way you can do it is if you made your own image of the OS installed, or if you use recovery console. But considering the fact that recovery console only replaces all the system files and links, then leaves any current data not placed by the OS, it is pretty insecure. <br />"Why waste time fixing your OS when you can just get a new one? Welcome to Windows X"

[akljsdj]

If there isn't doomsday in 2012 then this will kill us for sure

[make_or_break]

Aren't we all supposed to be in the "clouds" by then? What will it matter what Redmond does?

[veggiedude--2008]

I knew this would happen. They crippled Windows 7 to only support 192 GB of RAM - what kind of 64-bit OS is that? Snow Leopard supports 16 Terrabytes of RAM (16,000 GB's).

[cosuna]

Yep, it's 2012 to coincide with the end of the World, at least to the mayans, which stated on their prophecies that great catastrophes should occur on that year, one of them being humanity being stuck with a 20-year old filesystem and a 25-year old API model in C. <br /><br />Just Kidding.<br /><br />Microsoft need to get it's number straight from now since it is sure that they will not deliver any software release on the 2013 year (preparing for all the bad karma thing), so either they release on 2012 or on 2014, which in technology terms is an eternity.

[Mr. Dee]

I watched 2012 and I was surprised at the amount of Windows Vista laptops in the movie, its like 2012 became the break out year for Vista. Only Wood Harelson's character that predicted the end of the world in 2012 had a laptop running Windows 7 using the Aero Basic theme unfortunately.

[tektaktyks]

thats because Woody is a stoner(i like him),did you see him on Craig Ferguson?

[t8]

Yeah I can see that using Vista might have sub-consciously exaggerated the disaster in the mind of the viewers.<br />Very clever. Could show people using Vista in horror movies too, to subliminally make them more scary.

[Knightro2]

Just so we're clear...the Mayans never said anything about a catastrophe in 2012. There is still even some debate about the actual date/year.

[TinyIoda]

after the release of vista they promised a 3 year turn around for the upcoming releases of its windows operating system... they wanted to have a 'set in stone' approach to releases.. so it only makes sense that late 2012 would be the perfect time for vista 3

[Rod E. McCabe]

maybe windows 8 is going to be the thing that brings the calamity in 2012. : &gt;

[s1rf]

Either that or OS XII

[Mr. Dee]

Ina, from what I read in your interview with Steven, the tracking of product plans such as the next version of Windows means you need to get a life. Ina, that is not in reference to you, its your job to investigate and report things. But the persons (enthusiast) who get a woody over a slideshow with a reference to a future release of Windows need to. Personally, I don't have a problem with it, I am a Windows enthusiast and if it wasn't for people like you, Paul Thurrott, Mary Jo Foley and Ed Bott, I probably wouldn't be so deep in Windows. At the same time, there can be a balance from both sides. Enthusiast can be better enthusiast by promoting the benefits of Windows today and Steven can best avoid becoming Fort Knox.

[atriusNY]

Maybe you should get a life and stop telling people what they should be doing and what not.

[Mr. Dee]

Pot calling the kettle black.

[ckh1272]

@Mr. Dee--I believe that is what he is calling you. These 3rd grade antics get really old people.

[Dan7637]

THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE AN APOCALYPSE IN 2012!!!<br /><br />the mayan calendar is just ending one age, cycle or whatever you want to call it and another one will be begin<br /><br />besides if the maya were that smart they could have at least prevented the conquistadores

[Mergatroid Mania]

Uh, wouldn't that define the apocalypse? The end of the human civilization and the beginning of "heaven on earth"? The end of one cycle and the beginning of the next.<br /><br />Whatever, I don't believe any of it anyway.

[gabeheim]

Actually the end of time is January 19, 2038 03:14:08 GMT.

[Absolution2009]

The Mayan guy who was carving the calendar got tired and just stopped carving. That or he was like, to hell with this, I'm done.<br /><br />I think we are over-reading it.

[stickfu]

@Absolution<br />+1

[Knightro2]

@mergatroid mania<br /><br />Apocalypse does not mean what hollywood makes it out to be. Apocalypse is greek for "Revelation" or "Lifting the veil". It doesn't necessarily mean something bad. It could be a year of enlightenment instead of catastrophe. Who know, E.T. might come down and say hi. Or we find out that the author of the Bible was the Dan Brown of his time. Who knows?!

[Weudel]

@ Absolution 2009... <br /> <br />That would work, except they actually made the calendar backwards from that date....

[Mergatroid Mania]

@ Knightro2<br /><br />I was going by the Biblical definition, not the Greek.

[dwinks]

The problem is not the release schedule, it's the price.<br /><br />Microsoft would be good to release smaller updates a bit more frequently, but charge less for them. Payine $319 (the current retail price for 7 ultimate) is crazy, and the "upgrade" price is nearly as bad, and leaves you with a disc that is useless for doing a clean install. Sure, it's fine for actually upgrading, but I much prefer the wipe and reload approach. A complete wipe and reload every 3 year or so would do EVERYONE a ton of good, and promote at least the smallest amount of backup (assuming the backup made prior to the wipe was kept).<br /><br />Give me a full retail copy, make it one version only, and make it $100 or so, every 2-3 years and I'd be much happier, and so would most people.

[reboog711]

Upgrade copies can be used for a clean install.

[Lerianis3]

Right, upgrade copies can be used for a clean install..... you just have to input the old key from your older version or stick in the disc to be scanned and.... done, it will install.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Not only are the tow people above correct in that you can use an upgrade copy for a clean install as long as you have the key from your original operating system, but where on earth have you been shopping? Staples has Win 7 Home Premium full version for $224.95.<br /><br />Where exactly did you get the $300 from? Although I partially agree, $224 is still about twice as much as it should cost.<br /><br />If you're paying $300 for Windows, I think maybe you should do a little shopping around.

[ckh1272]

@Mergatroid Mania--Read that post again. That price was referring to Win 7 Ultimate, not Home Premium Full, as you stated.

[jakemochas]

just get the upgrade version... everyone has an old copy of windows xp lying around

[zyxxy]

If you have an the RC for 7 installed, you can upgrade from that as well.

[weegg]

If they tied what the movie showed in its action sequences with a simulator it would make a great theme park ride. Too bad as an overall movie it was pretty awful.

[_Tarkus_]

What dwinks said.

[awild1]

Microsoft needs to back off a bit, 2012 is too soon for a new OS. I realize that 2012 was probably the original target date for Windows 7, and since Vista didn't make the money for them, they cut their cycle in half. The problem I have here is that because they choose to distribute Win7 at full price they stand to gain (theoretically) 100% profit over the normal product cycle. MS, I am not willing to pay 200+ or even 100+ for a new OS in 3 year increments. If I am not alone in this, MS is going to see a rehash of this soap opera if and when they release a "Win8" in 2012 at full price. Companies should not pass down their debts to consumers, because you know who else does that. . .the oil industry. And you know what else, open source is on the rise like never before (really thanks to Google's efforts in the area). What would you do if (and that is a big IF) a Linux distro that CAN compete with you surfaces in 3 years?? You likely don't realize, but your transgressions add up. You are unbelievably complacent up there at 90% market share.

[cbscowards]

I don't understand why so many people think they must upgrade when a new version of Windows comes out. Let MS release one every year for all I care. I'll decide when a version gives enough bang for the buck to pay the upgrade fee.<br /><br />I'm sitting happily on XP for now. W7 looks nice from what I've seen of it, but it's not worth over a hundred bucks to me. I'll wait until a get a new PC in a few years to get a new version of WIndows.<br /><br />I do agree with the comments about price. If W7 was the same price as Snow Leopard ($29 for one, or $49 for a 5 computer license) I would probably get it.

[DemonDuck000]

Win7 is Vista SP3. It aint a new OS...

[Super2online]

Product cycles are not determined solely by dates. They are determined by many factors. Are we looking at a major update or moderate update. What are we trying to achieve in functionality and feature set. What new hardware has released that a simple hardware update to the current OS wouldn't adequate address. What is the competition doing. <br /> <br />Even when a date is chosen, it must adapt and flex slightly if absolutely neccessary. This is why Steven Sinofsky refuses to talk feature set and dates until he knows for a fact what can be dellivered and when. It's not a job I would want to have. Imagine the pressure and sleepless nights. However, I believe when he refuses to engage those tempatations he keeps it tolerable allowing him to maintain some semblance of sanity.

[vvdiaz]

The bank I work for is still upgrading PCs from W2K to XP. No plans for Vista or W7 in at least 2 years.

[mjconver]

What's the rush? My cients (and I) are still happy with XP. We didn't bother with Vista, and 7 is for home users. Heck, I've still got servers running 2000, and they run perfectly fine for months at a time without any tending or maintenance. If it ain't broke....

[nettechguy]

really? Server 2000? I can see staying with XP but server 2000? I'll assume by your comments that you haven't upgraded any software or hardware since you bought server 2000. Can i have your IP address so i can easily hack into your system? (kidding) But seriously, theres A LOT more to it then just 'if it ain't broke...' It has to do with security! <br />Network security is the most important job function of a network admin, and server 2008 has a lot more security features added including NAP, Group policy improvements, integrated Windows update and not to mention all the patches, all of which server 2000 NEVER had.<br />Running server 2000 is not only dangerous, but completely foolish.

[lazycat202]

you should upgrade to Server 2008. You need to keep up with tech.

[Random_Walk]

"you should upgrade to Server 2008. You need to keep up with tech."<br /><br />If that's your rationale, please stay out of the enterprise; you're liable to get fired in very short order with that attitude.

[Renegade Knight]

@lazycat202 <br /> <br />Tech is all about doing the job. For all the "improvments" in Word Processors and such, I haven't seen a heck of a lot of improvment to the basic function. If you need to crank out a letter and you still have an old Dos machine and a working printer. Word 4.2 does the job. All that money they saved by not investing in tech just for ***** and giggles could be used to pay everone a higher salary.

[jessiethe3rd]

Seriously... running software (especially server software) that is out of support is a rather risky game. Regardless - saying Windows 7 is for consumers is rather stupid. I am running Windows 7 Enterprise with Windows 2008 R2 for DirectAccess - no needless VPN software and say hello to reduce support desk calls with users that cannot access the corporate network through VPN on the road...

[Otto Holland]

Are you guys finish beating up each other? Good! I am a bit upset that I have not found an article stating Windows 2008 Server First Edition can be upgraded to R2 for free; that's my only gripe. Why did I have my company spend money buying several license for WIN 8 and a few months later R2 comes out? That makes me p!ssed. <br /> <br />Yeah, V1 with hyper-V is great and have a few glitches but it's better then the older versions; and quite an improvement. I need a free upgrade for all my WIN 8 servers to r2. Do you hear me Microsoft? If not, I'll skip Exchange 2010 just like I did with Exchange 2003; I can darm well make 2003 last for another 5 years.

[Mergatroid Mania]

How did you purchase licenses for an operating system that does not exist as yet? What are you talking about dude? I mean, I might have missed something here, but I think I would have noticed Win 8 was around before I bought Win 7.

[Random_Walk]

"I am a bit upset that I have not found an article stating Windows 2008 Server First Edition can be upgraded to R2 for free; that's my only gripe."<br /><br />If you have an SA/EA agreement, this is not a problem - they supply 'em for free anyway.

[byl01]

Luckily I have a sealed copy of XP - after I build my next machine (ca. 2011), I'll be able to wait till Windows 8 SP 1 comes out!

[DemonDuck000]

You know, every time MS comes out with a new operating system, it costs the IT industry BILLIONS of dollars. Upgrading, re-training, device and peripheral manufacturers making new drivers and making sure those new drivers are available.<br /><br />When are the CIT guys going to catch on to this thrashing for money that MS puts the world through every 2-4 years?<br /><br />By the way, I had a Vista Business 64 machine that I upgraded to Windows 7 Pro 64 -- and after taking a good look at both OS's -- I'm going back to XP.

[Mergatroid Mania]

I am a big XP supporter, but you will never convince me it's better than 7 is. I skipped Vista completely, and I'm glad I did. Now I've purchased 7, and I'm very happy with it.<br /><br />You know pretty much all businesses have florescent lights? You know they have to be replaced every once in a while right? It's just the cost of doing business.<br /><br />Same goes with your o/s. I mean, just because a new one comes out doesn't mean you have to switch, however eventually you'll find some things just won't work. New movie codecs will only be written for the new o/s, and you can't upgrade your video player any more. Some new software will come out that will not work in your older o/s. Some new functions are built into the new o/s that makes some things faster, or supports more hardware. There are tons of reasons to update your o/s when the time comes. I couldn't possible list them all here. <br /><br />Needless to say, eventually you will find things you want that won't be available, or won't work in XP. Then you will have no choice but to change.<br /><br />In the meantime, enjoy XP. It's a pretty good o/s, but sorry man, it's not as good as 7 is.

[DemonDuck000]

"Needless to say, eventually you will find things you want that won't be available, or won't work in XP. Then you will have no choice but to change."<br /><br />That's absolutely true -- unfortunately. Doesn't mean that the OS itself has bit-rotted to obsolescence. Just means that the hype goes on.<br /><br />"In the meantime, enjoy XP. It's a pretty good o/s, but sorry man, it's not as good as 7 is."<br /><br />Well, V and W7 do let you access more memory. But so does XP64. We probably should talk about the OS and the user environment as two separate things. XP (except for memory) V and W7 OS's are about the same. The user environment for V and W7 suck. That's the reason I am sticking with XP. <br /><br />But what do you see in the OS of W7 that you like better? We are probably doing different things. I'm just an ordinary Java programmer and digital panographer (360 images not the other thing). So the things I do don't show me any great difference in the OS but do show me a lot of difference in the user environment.

[guest86]

Right!!! <br /><br />I stick with Windows XP forever!

[Super2online]

Stick with whatever you want, but you will have an extremely hard time convincing many peopl ethat XP is better than 7.

[DemonDuck000]

I'm not trying to convince anybody. I just said what I'm doing.

[Random_Walk]

"When are the CIT guys going to catch on to this thrashing for money that MS puts the world through every 2-4 years?"<br /><br />Actually, most of us have caught on. I just barely pushed Exchange 2003 to Exchange 2007 @ work... I have no desire or need to bother with Exchange 2010, and may just skip it altogether.<br /><br />Most of the enterprise behaves the same way (see also the prevalence of IE6 in this segment of the market).

[medezark]

Why go to all that trouble? Use XP Mode. . . .

[a_flores]

Oh my gosh, I will stick with XP, I will wait for W8, just 2 years to go..

[guest86]

Me too!!!!!!!

[Super2online]

2 years is for Windows Server. Microsoft has said nothing about the consumer version, whatever it's name will be.

[queticomn]

Most major Linux distro's have a roll out an new version of their respective distro yearly. Windows is way behind in the game. And Linux is free so users need not fret about paying for the new distro.

[anonymuos]

Hope it adds back some http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_7 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_features_removed_in_Windows_Vista

[Nakarou]

Hey mac guess what, windows 8 is coming and won't have any of the problems windows 7 had =)

[Motyoj]

Trust me. ;-)

[jakemochas]

so what real problems have you had with windows 7? is it deleting user accounts? Are apps not functioning after the upgrade? (beside itunes the bloatware) Did I waste $30 buying NO NEW FEATURES? NO

[Super2online]

Why trust you, (or anyone else for that matter) when all I have to do is look at my current implementations and know that 7 is a great buy. I now have it on 6 systems. Not a hint of trouble.

[Vepar_S]

Geez, I wonder what is SO great about mac's Hmmm? #1 in customer support? wow thats simple mac only has like 8% of market share. Can I play the latest games? can I install it on my build rig? does is support and recognize hardware I install to it? No.....Oh I see. Thanks anyway, im sure mac is different this time, I bet you promise =I

[jr24ds]

@jakemochas<br />calm down man. they fixed the deleting user accounts issue. apps are being constantly updated almost every day to support snow leopard. itunes is only bloatware on a PC. runs great on my mac with no problem. NO NEW FEATURES?!? what are you talking about. having a 64 bit kernel and making it run faster is part of the list that's running faster. look at the ars technica review of snow leopard. THE WHOLE THING! and you'll see what new features it has.<br /><br />@Supter2online<br />know what you mean. i installed windows 7 on 4 machines (not as much as you) and had no problems whatsoever. the only thing ill complain is that when i did an in place upgrade on a laptop, it took FOREVER to install. that might just be the laptop though. wasn't a great performing one.<br /><br />@Vepar_S<br />get VM ware fusion man. it's that simple. i know it cost more money and you have to buy a copy of windows but it works great on a mac. seen test that windows runs better on a mac than on a "built rig". about the support and recognize hardware. seem to recall that when i plug in a printer on my mac, it AUTOMATICALLY finds the drivers for it and installs them. windows 7 can do that but not as smooth as a mac can. i think you should just try out a mac for yourself.

[gary85739]

I might look into running a Linux OS...soon, and maybe...FOREVER!

[lazycat202]

yeah .. unless they support all drivers that I need. :P the only thing linux turns me down is hardware drivers and productivity software suites.