Microsoft will update its Windows OS every year

Hilbert Hagedoorn

Microsoft reportedly plansÂ*to update its Windows operating system once a year, as opposed to every two or three, in a bid to keep up with rivals Apple and Google. Speaking to Bloomberg, sources who c...

Microsoft will update its Windows OS every year

PhazeDelta1 · 12-04-2012, 08:39 | posts: 9,311 | Location: 90° N

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

Ven0m · 12-04-2012, 08:44 | posts: 1,035 | Location: Warsaw, Poland

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.

kanej2007 · 12-04-2012, 08:55 | posts: 5,700 | Location: Dubai, UAE / London, UK

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

Spets · 12-04-2012, 09:07 | posts: 1,427

Quote:

Originally Posted by kanej2007

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.

Silent_Takedown · 12-04-2012, 09:10 | posts: 427

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.

nick0323 · 12-04-2012, 09:24 | posts: 393 | Location: Old England

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...

Mufflore · 12-04-2012, 09:42 | posts: 9,502 | Location: UK

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by nick0323

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.

nick0323 · 12-04-2012, 12:06 | posts: 393 | Location: Old England

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mufflore

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.

Mufflore · 12-04-2012, 12:14 | posts: 9,502 | Location: UK

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

sirrith · 12-04-2012, 12:28 | posts: 1,573

I'll stick with 7.

schmidtbag · 12-04-2012, 15:16 | posts: 96 | Location: MA, USA

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.

Solfaur · 12-04-2012, 15:25 | posts: 2,983 | Location: Romania

Quote:

Originally Posted by sirrith

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.

sykozis · 12-04-2012, 15:35 | posts: 13,484 | Location: US East Coast

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.

Ghosty · *Last edited by Ghosty; 12-04-2012 at 15:49.*

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...

sykozis · 12-04-2012, 15:51 | posts: 13,484 | Location: US East Coast

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.

nhlkoho · 12-04-2012, 15:51 | posts: 3,858 | Location: Washington DC

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

Ven0m · 12-04-2012, 18:46 | posts: 1,035 | Location: Warsaw, Poland

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhlkoho

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.

nhlkoho · 12-04-2012, 19:33 | posts: 3,858 | Location: Washington DC

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ven0m

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.

Brasky · 12-04-2012, 19:45 | posts: 1,294 | Location: BBQ Capital of the World

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhazeDelta1

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.

LesserHellspawn · 12-04-2012, 19:54 | posts: 168

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....

The Chubu · 12-04-2012, 20:03 | posts: 2,534 | Location: Look out!

It sounds like the Call of Duty of OSes...

TheSarge · 12-04-2012, 21:55 | posts: 609 | Location: The Frozen North.

Those of you who think we'll see a whole new OS release every year are jumping to conclusions. Just look at the pattern Microsoft has been using for years and I think it will become clear to you. I think it just means we'll see what are essentially just service packs alternate with a "the next generation" OS, just like they've been doing for years. So, 2013 sees Windows 7 SP2 roll out alongside basically the same old Windows 8 tweaked and polished, just with a new name (just like they did with Vista/7.) Then in 2014 we actually see a new kernel, new API, new UI, etc. I don't hold out much hope for Windows 8-now-with-polish or Windows-new-kernal because Microsoft seems to be hell-bent on killing the classic desktop UI and moving to the Metro UI (I refuse to call it "Modern"). Touch based user interfaces are all well and good on smartphones and tablets, but nobody wants or need that kind of thing on the desktop.

There's a reason that point-and-click has been the default UI for so long: It works. It works really well. We've tried touch screen interfaces on the desktop, Microsoft, and it falls flat on it's face. It has bombed. It deserves to die a horrible, horrible death. It doesn't belong on the desktop, and nobody wants it on the desktop. So what will Microsoft do? Why, Steve "Developers" Ballmer is in charge, so they'll kill off the classic desktop in the next Windows release and try and force their desktop users to use the blasted Metro UI. And that will be the death of Microsoft.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go learn Mac OS.

sykozis · 12-04-2012, 23:12 | posts: 13,484 | Location: US East Coast

wow...go figure....another "Windows8 sucks because I said so" post.... Nothing based on facts...just opinion claimed as fact....

tsunami231 · 12-04-2012, 23:21 | posts: 2,280 | Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hilbert Hagedoorn

Microsoft reportedly plansÂ*to update its Windows operating system once a year, as opposed to every two or three, in a bid to keep up with rivals Apple and Google. Speaking to Bloomberg, sources who c...

Microsoft will update its Windows OS every year

right. Because this gona get people and companies to upgrade to there new os every year? alot companies still use XP. some use vista some win7. Them wanting to do an os ever year is gona do nothing but make there job harder by support multi able OS instead. not like i care MS can take leap off a building if win8 is anything to look forward too.