Windows 8 already cooking, beyond Windows 7

After almost 3 years since Microsoft released Windows Vista, we are now heading for a wonderful release of Windows 7, the next version of Windows OS. Windows 7 RC is expected to be released next month, April 10th. But, what about the next version of Windows OS? Let us call it Windows 8 for now.

Soni Meinke, a senior program manager in the Windows Server group in an interview with Channel 9 revealed very little info that the next version of Windows OS is already in its planning stage and her work being engaging with various customers and partners, she is already discussing the plan and strategy around them.

"I have been very involved in an effort around some early planning Win 8. It's been largely focused on establishing a customer tour where we basically go on-site to customers and really drill into their broad cross-Windows server future needs. Not specifically looking at just the Win 8 time frame, but just post-Win 7 and beyond. We've done that with the hope of getting these engagements and voice of the customer throughout the product lifecycle and driving that early on into the planning process for Win 8"

Meinke also added that the The TAP (Technology Adoption Program), the Windows Server Customer Advisory team are also part of this group. Microsoft has not published any details about its next version of Windows OS or Server yet, but it is nice to see that they are already planning on it.

Whether we like it or not, the Windows Vista failures have guided Microsoft on how they should move forward with future releases and development.

You can watch the interview with Soni Meinke below






[img]http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=108181[/img]

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Vodafone music store going DRM-free

Next Story

Review: Things for Mac and iPhone

64 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Hopefully Windows 8 will look completely different than Vista or 7. For those few that really loved Vista, Windows 7 is a bit of a step down. Like going from a laserdisc player to a vhs player. The LD was better, but a bit overpriced. (actually I think the CED's were better, but I'd be guessing no one here knows what those were. But they last far longer than LD's since the vinyl is inside a cartridge.) The only Windows OS I'd love to own but way too expensive is Microsoft Surface. Windows 7 still has the same hardware probs that Vista has. And for some reason One XP printer that did work just fine in Vista, won't work in 7. Do'h. Thats a $300 some thermal photo printer. Forget inkjet photos. I soaked one of the Olympus P-10 printer photos in water for 2 months and the photo was still quite scanable. Smelled like sh** and was a bit curley but scannable. Hopefully Windows 7 in a future build will have the actual driver for that. And I do so like that sidebar. Albeit don't want it running all the time. Sure I do like to go forward in progress, but Windows 7 is a bit of a step back. Right now the only gripe I have on windows 7 is some of my periphial external hard drives once uplugged off the USB ports, sometimes don't reappear when plugged back in. Also the thumbnails for pictures or video's don't show up. But neither do they in 7. In XP and uBuntu they do though. Always in Linux. Even scores better there than XP. Hope the RC looks better, but in these hard economic times I'm just lucky I got Vista Biz. My brother got Vista Ultimate (OEM copy) seems to have a better game section. Plays GTA IV almost perfect. Although I think there's some bugs in that game. Dads got Vista Home Prem. Only mom's still on XP home and Pro. I don't think I've ever seen my family adopt an OS that fast. We basically went from Windows 95 to XP. Yeah I had ME for almost a year before I considered aiming my BB gun at the monitor. My brother had 98 SE on his laptop for a time. So I played around with that. That and I got a copy of it off Ebay, although I question the source

Funny how MS can't get their own OS updating done like linux. they feel they need to change everything, package it and then sell a whole new OS.

I have to hand it to linux, they do it pretty well.

It's no surprise that Microsoft would already be working on their next version of Windows. That's how it usually goes while the next version in currently in development. Ovciously, it will be years before we see a Windows 7 successor, but it'll be interesting to see what developments came out of it as time moves forward.

Yeah, change a few wallpapers around, and tweak a few things, and bam, you have Windows 8, just like they made Windows 7. And you get the privilege of paying $200 for each.

don't know why I am even giving your comment the light of day as it is an obvious troll or an lack of research.

While MS chose to name the underlying version 6.1 that is largely cosmetic. the work done in the underlying system is Significant. And has actually been going on since before Vista rtm was completed. which carried over to win 2k3. when the core system sku was added. while in 2k3 it was strip and Mitigate. worked continued from the Lock down period. which led to the demonstration called minwin.

this led to fundamental changes in the win API and refactoring of the kernel itself.

Not to mention changing the underlying graphics platform from GDI+ to Direct X 10, and the work for the start of that transition. (work that initially started in Vista btw)

Although I will say that MS has done its work well if that is all you think has gone on under the covers is a few tweaks and moving wallpapers around.

Win 8 should be interesting as direct x 11 should be around long enough that it becomes the base of the graphics platform. compute platform would just become part of the OS. hopefully by that time more Apps will be using the new graphics platform so that GDI becomes less of an issue.

el

Where's Chris to correct everyone (including the woman being interviewed)? It's NOT Windows 8. Microsoft has never officially announced Windows 8!

imis said,
they will keep bringing new os after 3 or 4 year to get money.

Companies make new versions of their products. That's how it goes. Did Honda only come out with the Civic for one year? Er, no.

Back on topic, I really cannot wait for Windows 7, let alone 'Windows 8', although it is good to hear confirmation that it is in planning stages

I can assure you, there will not be any leaks for a long time ;)

They haven't started development yet, just research and planning, really.

Calum said,
I can assure you, there will not be any leaks for a long time ;)

They haven't started development yet, just research and planning, really.

Ha ha that's true.. Very true indeed:) Windows 7 first has to be released. Then there will service packs and all that good stuff. It could take years before we see anything. Still, I'm optimistic;)

Geesh people, maybe I should stop generalizing things....

There are a lot of idiots out there like dead.cell so nicely put, but unfortunately the idiots out weigh those of us who know better. And since most people are generally idiots when it comes to computers, they are also the must gulible to believe the other idiots and their opinions. So they buy something when someone says its good without trying, and wont try something and say it is bad. I dont know how many people I talk to that choke when I mention Vista and they have not even tried it.

Also, a lot of corporations skipped right over Vista as they did ME.

And thats it for me...I think I confused myself, and others, enough for one day. i will be back to confuse us all again sometime soon...so you are all warned.

Exactly, you've hit the nail on the head - most people saying Windows Vista was a bad operating system either don't know much about computers, jumped on the bandwagon, messed up their computers by not knowing how to look after it or used Windows Vista on rubbish hardware.

The people who used Windows Vista on average hardware and looked after their computer as they should, had no problems with Windows Vista - I know this as I had Windows Vista from February 4th 2007 - a few days after it was released.

Windows Vista was a good operating system - much better than Windows XP

I simply assumed that you were going by your own judgment of how the OSes are / were in terms of quality, rather than what dumb people assumed when they attempted to use Vista.

If you use your own experience, you'd have a much easier time explaining your own views than trying to explain the views of a crowd who aren't too bright to begin with.

You can denounce the majority all you like, but it's very likely that Windows Vista will be regarded historically as a failure. I'm sure some people like Windows ME, too, but it was regarded as a failure.

I haven't used Vista much, but I can say that when I'm virtualizing Windows, it's XP each and every time. I have access to a Vista virtual machine, but I never use it. My hardware is not "rubbish" by any standard, and sure, virtualizing an OS is generally done for a different purpose than using it as a base-level OS would be, but Vista's resource usage is very noticable. General operations do tend to feel a bit slower than they are under XP.

Yes, the valiant Vista defenders will probably want to insult me for making such remarks when I'm only virtualizing. I followed Vista's developments very carefully - I'm well aware of what features were dropped. Vista could have been something really spectacular; there were some amazing features that were planned. Those features ended up getting scrapped; it seems that Aero was the only one to stick around (and for obvious reasons - your "average idiot" only cares for aesthetics, right?). As a result, whenever I look at Vista I can only see it as a prettied up version of XP with an incomplete security layer added in. Yes, there's more than that, but in my opinion it is not the big deal that it could have been, nor that some people make it out to be.

Ledgem said,
You can denounce the majority all you like, but it's very likely that Windows Vista will be regarded historically as a failure. I'm sure some people like Windows ME, too, but it was regarded as a failure.

Regarded by who as a failure? A bunch of tech forum nerds that are out of touch with reality and society at large? The average person doesn't even know what version of Windows they have, if asked, they say the one with Word...let alone give two craps about how much of a "failure" some people consider it to be.

Calum said,
messed up their computers by not knowing how to look after it or used Windows Vista on rubbish hardware.


Eh, I have a friend of mine that is a very basic home user and he doesn't know much about computers, but uses Vista.

I asked him if he ever got a virus on Vista yet and he said "never". He actually loves Vista and thinks it's great, and he doesn't even know anything about computers. Vista is a lot more user friendly than XP, it's just that the media tells people it isn't.

techbeck said,
Also, a lot of corporations skipped right over Vista as they did ME.


I am going to go out on a limb here. Win ME was a consumer OS so yes most corporations skipped it, just on security issues alone, it was still a dos based OS.

now on Vista. Vista was largely skipped on for 2 major reasons. Most companies were still recovering from the Recession of 2k1 2k2, and outputting money to update programs to work on Vista wasn't in the budget.

also training budgets etc. a lot more involved when a business decides to make that transition. I believe that Win7 will see a slow business transition also because of the Economic situation going on. Training dollars are just not going to be there.

el

Lets hope they dont fall in to their normal pattern....

Windows 3.11 - Good
Windows 95 - Bad
Windows 98 - Good
Windows ME - Bad
Windows XP - Good
Windows Vista - Bad (tho I have hat no issues)
Windows 7 - Good
Windows 8 - ????

You forgot a couple. There were several releases of windows 95, two releases of 98 (second better than the first, for example), few releases of NT, 2000 rocked and wasn't listed. So, its not an entirely accurate list.

If you have had no issues with Windows Vista, how can you say it is bad?

I have had no issues and its features and interface are much improved over Windows XP, therefore, even though it is bad for others, I class it as good, because it is good for me on average hardware.

Zirus said,
You forgot a couple. There were several releases of windows 95, two releases of 98 (second better than the first, for example), few releases of NT, 2000 rocked and wasn't listed. So, its not an entirely accurate list.

Yes, I realize this. I was mentioning the home/consumer versions not the corporate versions and if I mentioned every sub versions of 95, 98, NT 3.5, nt 4, 2000...then I would be hear all day...plus I didnt mention all the DOS versions which were required to run Windows 3.11.

Calum said,
If you have had no issues with Windows Vista, how can you say it is bad?

I have had no issues and its features and interface are much improved over Windows XP, therefore, even though it is bad for others, I class it as good, because it is good for me on average hardware.

Because thats what The majority of the people think...and the opinions of the majority wins when it comes to Windows. I really like Windows Vista and have gotten used to all the difference between it and XP. So it will be cool when Windows 7 comes out and easy to adapt. Tried a demo if 7 and a few things are different but still easy to navigate and find everything. Not like it was when I switched from XP...it was still easy but kind of a pain at times...and frustrating when I couldnt find something quickly.

StealMySoda said,
Majority? Or you and the rest of the people who say they hate Vista before even giving it a chance?

Settle down there buddy...I didnt say I hate Vista...better clean the glasses and read again.

Calum said,
If you have had no issues with Windows Vista, how can you say it is bad?

Well, it appears to have messed up his keyboard...

techbeck said,
Because thats what The majority of the people think...and the opinions of the majority wins when it comes to Windows.

The majority of people are generally idiots when it comes to their computer. I mean, these are people that click yes on any question that pops up on their screen, wondering why their computer's running slow when a bajillion applications are running, including the malware they allowed. Perhaps 9 different toolbars on IE as well. They also wonder why their $300 computer can't play all the games they want, and wonder why the easiest things are so complicated simply because they're too lazy to uncheck a button or even Google for a common answer to a FAQ.

So yeah, if the majority of people don't know what they're talking about, how can we measure that as an accurate statement at all?

Sure, Windows 7 may very well perform better. Microsoft has had a lot more time to optimize, as well as provide more features to offer a better experience built around the user. Doesn't mean Vista is bad at all.

Windows 3.11 was good but Windows 95 was bad? I've seen that thing posted a lot and it is still just as dumb. There is no pattern of good or bad releases.

Oh goody, this tired old post from Techbeck. Again.

Let's set the record straight... yet again...

Windows 95 was revolutionary. That doesn't need to be explained unless you live under a rock.

Windows Me was an excellent step in between 98 and XP. If you are competent with computers then you wouldn't have any trouble with Me.

Windows Vista - If you hate Windows Vista, upgrade to Windows Mojave. Either that or evaluate it for yourself rather than listen to the anti-Microsoft bias out there.

Zirus said,
You forgot a couple. There were several releases of windows 95, two releases of 98 (second better than the first, for example), few releases of NT, 2000 rocked and wasn't listed. So, its not an entirely accurate list.

I believe they are counting from 95 on up because it was more home oriented. Windows 95 is when it all kicked off. "NT" would not count because it was business oriented. Windows 2000 was also meant to be for business but it also ended up in homes as well. This means that windows 2000 would count.

techbeck said,
Yes, I realize this. I was mentioning the home/consumer versions not the corporate versions and if I mentioned every sub versions of 95, 98, NT 3.5, nt 4, 2000...then I would be hear all day...plus I didnt mention all the DOS versions which were required to run Windows 3.11. :)

Windows 1.0, 2.0 (286/386) were consumer oriented releases too, so was DOS, so was Windows 3.0. Although Windows 2000 was designed with business features in mind, Microsoft still recommended to consumers, especially when you take into consideration features like DirectX, USB and DVD playback, hibernation - Microsoft was surely wasn't thinking about hooking with Active Directory alone.

thats what The majority of the people think


Let's trace this "majority" opinion back to the sorce:

So there's the people that go out and actually use Vista, and as you could see from the previous posts, people actually liked it. Then there's the people that never used Vista, but they hate it. How do they know that it's so "terrible"?

The media kept on writing articles on how slow or how incompatible Vista was, and people read that and they based their opinions off of that. They never tried it theirselves, and the media created this image in their head that Vista was bloated and unfriendly. As you can see, the media really controlled the success of Vista. (not saying that it wasn't successful either)

How is Microsoft supposed to battle the media and win over consumers? It's a tough battle, but their trying.


Now let's look at how the media responds to Windows 7:

I remember an article from Neowin I think that said one of the changes that they liked in Windows 7 is that the power button in the start menu is actually a shut down button, unlike Vista's standby button. That is such a minor difference, it's not even worth pointing out, but for some reason the media just accepted Windows 7. I actually prefered having the standby button, since I didn't need to shut down my PC as often as I would put it in standby.

The media basically can write what they want, they can say that Vista is bad or good, they can support Windows 7, etc. But what they choose to do effects everyone. Our society rely's on the media to give us information. There's only a select few that can actually go out and test Vista or Windows 7, and all the other people can only find out about things through the news. If someone's deciding between XP and Vista, they already have used XP, but with Vista the only thing they know is that it's slow and terrible (according to the media).

The media essentially controlled the society's opinions and decided the success of Windows Vista.


If you guys agree or disagree with my opinion, plz write so, this is what I'm writing my english essay on, so help is appreciated.

Well it's your own opinion, but you are completely wrong.

I work in the IT industry, and I used to work in the PC sales industry back when Vista was released, I saw first hand what happened, and why the launch of Windows Vista was such an epic fail. Just to outline a few points that you seemed to have conveniently missed:

- Windows Vista had a rushed release schedule in order to to get the "Vista Ready" program in before the holidays, when the hardware market still hand an average 512MB memory for most budget computers. Windows Vista requires at least 1GB of memory to work as intended, and that is on a squeaky-clean installation.

- There was a complete lack of oversight with hardware vendors. While an advanced copy of Windows Vista was made available in order to prepare new device drivers, Microsoft made little effort into pressuring vendors to actually give a damn. The result was poorly tested, buggy device drivers for a large portion of computer peripherals during Vista's launch.

- Intel threatened Microsoft into lowering the graphical requirements on Windows Vista. Intel had a large surplus of older 945 chipsets they wanted to dump on the market, but which didn't support most of Vista's new Aero effects. Computers with 945 chipsets were then sold with "Vista Capable" stickers on them, despite lacking support for the new interface. This action was eventually followed by class-action lawsuits against both Microsoft and Intel, at the behest of mislead consumers and a really ****ed off Hewlett Packard.

There are but a few reasons why the media was justified in running with the bad press surrounding Windows Vista. They reported Vista was slow and bulky because, on a half-gig of RAM and up to eighty (read: sony) vendor-installed applications running in the background, you're damn right it was incredibly slow. Microsoft refused any responsibility for which computer models carried Vista support, and what amount of vendor software could be bundled together. They also forgot to explain to consumers "Hey, things might seem a little slow the first couple days until Vista's new prefetching kicks in." or how about "You might experience an excessive amount of UAC prompts while you setup Vista for the first time. Don't worry, it's only temporary." It's no wonder why the entire launch blew up in their faces.

The bottom line is that Microsoft made a bunch of stupid mistakes, and deserved every little bit of punishment from the mainstream media. Windows Vista taught Microsoft a valuable lesson, and now we have Windows 7. Consumer wins! ^_^

Windows 95 was bad? It's the one version of Windows that set the path for all predecessors. I would say Windows 95 was what got Microsoft to where it is today.
I count two versions they've had problems with, ME and Vista. Vista clearly has its issue but it's far from unusable, which is what everyone is making out. Vista's biggest problem is the bad press its been given and the big bandwagon of people who have jumped on it. Windows ME? Well that OS was just plain awful.

SK[ said,]Windows 95 was bad? It's the one version of Windows that set the path for all predecessors. I would say Windows 95 was what got Microsoft to where it is today.
I count two versions they've had problems with, ME and Vista. Vista clearly has its issue but it's far from unusable, which is what everyone is making out. Vista's biggest problem is the bad press its been given and the big bandwagon of people who have jumped on it. Windows ME? Well that OS was just plain awful.


The issues with Vista were the Lack of compatible drivers at release it drove the majority of bad reports that have stuck and formed the opinions on it. And Yes I did run into those during the beta cycle and even into the first few months.

The Double buffering of the video platform affects performance, and the horrendous file copying issue before sp1 (and to a lesser degree after it) there are several issues in Vista rtm, most are fixed in sp1. and it is nowhere near as bad as ME was.

As I was working as a service Technician during the time of ME, all I can say on it, Thank God for it as I got paid a lot of money during that time fixing computers.

El

techbeck said,
Lets hope they dont fall in to their normal pattern....

Windows 3.11 - Good
Windows 95 - Bad
Windows 98 - Good
Windows ME - Bad
Windows XP - Good
Windows Vista - Bad (tho I have hat no issues)
Windows 7 - Good
Windows 8 - ????

Ok how to even narrow this down. If you considered 3.11 good, which it was ok if you liked dealing in DOS and EMM386 or qemm or any of the other memory managers, and running mostly in 16 bit real mode. But skipping some of the versions does ruin your time line.

3.11 good. mostly still manually setting up hardware
win 95 better beginning of plug and pray 16/32 os
win 98 better still, plug and pray became a little more stable. hibernation, etc a PITA. 16/32 os
win 98 se better still, last of the fairly stable dos based releases, 16/32 os,
win ME if you had the system that liked it, it was great, good luck finding that system. movement of the win2k driver system into DOS based windows caused many issues. interim release to go before the odessy (win2k for home) system which merged and formed the whistler project aka xp

these above are primarily setup with Single user, non connected systems in mind. IOW the security wasn't built in for a multiuser system although they could be setup that way. was very very easy, Ok my grandmother could by pass the security in these systems.

Win 2k was used at home for a majority of people. it wasn't setup for home so setup was interesting for non domain setup, but the initial released was released with over 64k known bugs. really stable after sp2. (win 2k also had some of the ideas put forth in cairo)

Win XP benefited largely from the work done in win 2k and the consumer teams prior work. Still had issues at release though. sp1 resolved most of those issues. except one major one. NOBODY was Freaking updating their computers with the latest updates. There wasn't a built in firewall on by default. especially from startup. those two factors led to the Largest virus attack and data damage in recent history.

Simply put it is one that shouldn't have happened. namely because the Bug was already resolved for at least 6 months prior to the attack. It also fundamentally changed what would become Vista because of the output of a New Operating system known as Windows XP sp2.

Xp further included some of the features present in Cairo.

Vista was in early alpha and many many feature IDEAS were shown, most were largely scaled back or scrapped after the reset causing the SP2 release of XP. And Security became a major focus. As well as helping to reduce the Largest crashing issue in the Windows OS, the Driver platform. Kernel mode and User mode driver platform was introduced, the entire Networking stack was written from the ground up.

Maintainability of the system was also focused on. several underlying kernel and build systems were put in place that actually leads us to Win 7.

Vista largely is a Transition OS, much the same as 2k brought the NT platform forward and XP completed it.

Really the only major issue with Vista is that Security optimization took president over anything else including performance (which is measurably slower than XP on the same hardware in most areas. SP1 improved in that area and SP2 is even better for the most part). and the initial transition to the new driver platform. and a new memory manager, that most people don't seem to understand it is actually good to put the memory in use that they paid for.

so in all the only questionable one in the release path is ME, Vista is just bad mouthed while it does have some Performance issues in comparison to XP, the underlying engineering for the OS put it in a better place to work on future OS's versions. the work done in the networking stack leads to several new features in 7, the work started in 2k3 leads to a better and cleaner kernel system (minwin v1) that leads to a truer server core in win 2k8, and actually across the windows platform.

jesseinsf said,
I believe they are counting from 95 on up because it was more home oriented. Windows 95 is when it all kicked off. "NT" would not count because it was business oriented. Windows 2000 was also meant to be for business but it also ended up in homes as well. This means that windows 2000 would count.

Damned right. Windows 2000 ended up in my home, but NT4 never did.

Calum said,
If you have had no issues with Windows Vista, how can you say it is bad?
I'm a Windows user, keep that in context as I tell the reality of Vista.

Vista, right now, has reached a somewhat mature state in the market. That includes not only the OS, but 3rd party drivers and apps. However, the first year of Vista's release was very, very painful. Lots of nasty bugs in the OS itself, not to mention problems with drivers. Driver bugs can't all be blamed on 3rd party vendors because M$ completely revamped the driver stacks. They were vague about the details, and the devil's in the details. On top of that, Microsoft's own certification process, the one used for signing drivers, did not catch the bugs. Again, much of this was because M$ forced everyone to new driver stacks instead of allowing mature, stable XP drivers to be used. True it would have taken the market longer to transition to Vista-style drivers, but at least the system would be stable.

To this day there are many nagging little problems with Vista. Their silly TMM service which configures external displays is half-baked. After all this time and a team of developers they still can't get it right, when other vendors did it on XP with far fewer resources. Up until recently there were bugs in the storage stack & 3rd party drivers that could cause irreversible data loss (rare but did occur).

If you're lucky and happened to have hardware that matched Vista well in the beginning, you probably thought everything was fine. But don't diss people who really have had nightmare problems with Vista. It's not always a conspiracy for/against M$.

look at previous windows versions, the actual version numbers evolved this way
Windows 2000 5.0, Windows XP 5.1, Windows Vista 6.0, Windows 7 6.1, *Windows 8 7.0? maybe

They officially called Windows 7, "version 6.1", because it wasn't a major update to the kernal - it was a minor update.

Microsoft have stated that they are going to go for a minor release, then a major release, then a minor release, etc, etc. They have also said Windows 8 will be a major release, therefore, many expect Windows 8's official version number to be "7.0" :)

The kernal version is completely different to the version in the marketing name.

Yep, Kirbeh is indeed right here. If it wasn't for compatibility reasons, Win7 would have kernel version 7.0, so Xenomorph's comment actually make sense to me. Source is Sinofsky himself, and here's the quote: http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2008/08/2...se.aspx#8887009

Having said that, it's of course possible Windows 8 *will* be different enough that Microsoft will want to bump the version number to intentionally violate this idea of "fooling" apps into thinking it's "just like Vista".

im sure there is a commitee that is already together putting a list together of features or upgrades that will go into 8 that didnt make it into 7

Agreed, the very first few builds of a Windows OS has traditionally started being known just shortly after (or even shortly before) the release of the previous OS version. I'm talking about builds that didn't necessarily leak here. This is an ongoing process where they don't take breaks, so with Win7 being pretty much in RC by now, it makes perfect sense for them to perform some customer surveys. By the time the Win7 RTM approaches, they'll likely even be on to actual Win8 development.

True, MS is a very good example of how the ideal business operates, plan well in advance for your next product.