Windows 8 To Be Released In October 2012?

2010-10-26 13:55:25

#26

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

SonderKommando wrote:
Finray wrote:
killer21 wrote:
I dunno. Win7 is pretty good. I can't seem them screwing up Win8 (or whatever they are going to call it) since they already have a good foundation with Win7....but then again, this is Microsoft after all.
I hope they don't use the Win7 foundation.. They used the same foundation for, idk, 95, 98, ME and XP, then a different one (based around Aero) for Vista and 7.. I want something new and fresh, kinda getting tired of the bloat and feel of 7.

Something more like Ubuntu would be nice.
You mean Kernel, right tech boi?

If that's what he meant, then he's wrong. XP was based on the NT kernel, so if you wanted to track the development of it, a better representation would be NT4 -> 2k (NT5) -> XP (NT5.1) -> XP x64 (NT5.2) -> Vista (NT6) -> Windows 7 (NT6.1). 9x was based on DOS, and the last iteration of that was WinME.

Edit: oops! Thanks mikkel!

Last edited by SenorToenails (2010-10-26 19:34:31)

2010-10-26 14:17:57

#27

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6497

you*re forgetting the server series. Server 2003, Server 2003 R2, Server 2008, Server 2008 R2
the desktops came from development of the servers, not vice versa.

2010-10-26 14:25:30

#28

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

burnzz wrote:
you*re forgetting the server series. Server 2003, Server 2003 R2, Server 2008, Server 2008 R2
the desktops came from development of the servers, not vice versa.

Yea, that's true. Though, just about every NT version has had a workstation edition as well (NT4 Server/Workstation, 2000 Server/Professional, 2003 Server/XP x64, 2008 Server/Vista, etc...). The point was that XP was not the next stop on the 9x kernel development train!

What's the 2003/2008 R2? I'm not familiar with that, lol

2010-10-26 14:25:41

#29

FloppY_: +1,010|6286|Denmark aka Automotive Hell

blademaster wrote:
presidentsheep wrote:
First to say that this one is going to suck balls. Really badly.

'98 - Good.
ME - Terrible
XP - Good
Vista - Terrible
7 - Good

Therefore 8 will be crap
I hope they dont fuck it up..

I hope they do, that way they will keep supporting Win7 like they did for XP when Vista failed miserably

Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me

2010-10-26 14:28:28

#30

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6497

R2 is second release edition, not a service pack but a new OS.

2008 R2 came out right before Win 7.

2010-10-26 14:29:32

#31

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

FloppY_ wrote:
I hope they do, that way they will keep supporting Win7 like they did for XP when Vista failed miserably

Why would you want to cling to an old OS? If MS stuck with XP, you'd be working with a 'has been' OS that's stuck in with a 32bit architecture.

2010-10-26 14:31:28

#32

13urnzz: Banned; +5,830|6497

SenorToenails wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
I hope they do, that way they will keep supporting Win7 like they did for XP when Vista failed miserably
Why would you want to cling to an old OS? If MS stuck with XP, you'd be working with a 'has been' OS that's stuck in with a 32bit architecture.

i got a batch of workstations from Dell that had XP x64 pre-installed, from Dell. normally they do pretty well for driver support, but these particular machines didn't have any drivers installed, out of the box

2010-10-26 14:34:14

#33

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

burnzz wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
FloppY_ wrote:
I hope they do, that way they will keep supporting Win7 like they did for XP when Vista failed miserably
Why would you want to cling to an old OS? If MS stuck with XP, you'd be working with a 'has been' OS that's stuck in with a 32bit architecture.
i got a batch of workstations from Dell that had XP x64 pre-installed, from Dell. normally they do pretty well for driver support, but these particular machines didn't have any drivers installed, out of the box

LOL! I had XP x64 on my computer for years...I loved it! But it wasn't really Windows XP...I know that one was a workstation-esque version of Server 2003. Once I got drivers for all the supported peripherals for that OS, it was pretty kickass. But nVidia put some shit drivers out for their chipsets back in 2005...it was rough.

2010-10-26 15:01:45

#34

SonderKommando: Eat, Lift, Grow, Repeat....; +564|6660|The darkside of Denver

SenorToenails wrote:
SonderKommando wrote:
Finray wrote:

I hope they don't use the Win7 foundation.. They used the same foundation for, idk, 95, 98, ME and XP, then a different one (based around Aero) for Vista and 7.. I want something new and fresh, kinda getting tired of the bloat and feel of 7.

Something more like Ubuntu would be nice.
You mean Kernel, right tech boi?
If that's what he meant, then he's wrong. XP was not based on the NT kernel, so if you wanted to track the development of it, a better representation would be NT4 -> 2k (NT5) -> XP (NT5.1) -> XP x64 (NT5.2) -> Vista (NT6) -> Windows 7 (NT6.1). 9x was based on DOS, and the last iteration of that was WinME.

cant it just be a ubiquitos wrong? nice granular explination of the kernel vesions tho ;P

2010-10-26 17:35:50

#35

mikkel: Member; +383|6601

SenorToenails wrote:
SonderKommando wrote:
Finray wrote:

I hope they don't use the Win7 foundation.. They used the same foundation for, idk, 95, 98, ME and XP, then a different one (based around Aero) for Vista and 7.. I want something new and fresh, kinda getting tired of the bloat and feel of 7.

Something more like Ubuntu would be nice.
You mean Kernel, right tech boi?
If that's what he meant, then he's wrong. XP was not based on the NT kernel

What?

2010-10-26 19:23:38

#36

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|6645

Windows 8 concept

source

2010-10-26 19:26:58

#37

Defiance: Member; +438|6671

Windows 8 concept art with Firefox? Totally legit.

Edit: Should also mention that the whole website is blowing smoke out its ass.

Last edited by Defiance (2010-10-26 19:29:41)

2010-10-26 19:29:13

#38

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6175|Sydney | ♥

^ First thing i thought. XD

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

2010-10-26 19:30:12

#39

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6471

windows looking more and more like Macs and OSX

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-10-26 19:31:19

#40

tazz.: oz.; +1,338|6175|Sydney | ♥

Uzique wrote:
windows looking more and more like Macs and OSX

..implying thew screenshot above is legit

^{everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... _{seriously. ♥}}

2010-10-26 19:32:45

#41

Uzique: dasein.; +2,865|6471

no im implying that windows 7 is a step towards OSX

and i bet win 8 will be, too

purely aesthetically speaking

_{libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual}. _{http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/}

2010-10-26 19:34:54

#42

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6739|Toronto | Canada

Reminds me more of ubuntu The colours at least... I dont really think its an improvement over 7

2010-10-26 19:35:29

#43

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

mikkel wrote:
SenorToenails wrote:
SonderKommando wrote:

You mean Kernel, right tech boi?
If that's what he meant, then he's wrong. XP was not based on the NT kernel
What?

Shazbot! I had originally written that it wasn't based on the 9x kernel...but the wording was clunky and I obviously deleted the wrong part!

hahaha, thanks for pointing that one out!

2010-10-26 19:38:04

#44

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

Winston_Churchill wrote:
Reminds me more of ubuntu

This is exactly what I thought.

2010-10-26 21:12:10

#45

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

Uzique wrote:
windows looking more and more like Macs and OSX

Its been a steady trend since day one, Microsoft is yet to innovate.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2010-10-26 21:49:41

#46

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6411|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique wrote:
windows looking more and more like Macs and OSX
Its been a steady trend since day one, Microsoft is yet to innovate.

Really since Win95. That's when everyone started squawking about the similarities. Major differences being the bloat and bugginess of Windows as compared to Mac's OS. They appear to be growing closer together, though...

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2010-10-27 00:11:00

#47

ghettoperson: Member; +1,943|6649

SenorToenails wrote:
Winston_Churchill wrote:
Reminds me more of ubuntu
This is exactly what I thought.

Yup, brown and ugly-ass icons. Not a fan.

2010-10-27 05:17:31

#48

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,810|6106|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Uzique wrote:
windows looking more and more like Macs and OSX
Its been a steady trend since day one, Microsoft is yet to innovate.
Really since Win95. That's when everyone started squawking about the similarities. Major differences being the bloat and bugginess of Windows as compared to Mac's OS. They appear to be growing closer together, though...

Me and (both) my friends were squawking about it from Windows 3.1 onwards.

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!

2010-10-27 06:01:46

#49

SenorToenails: Veritas et Scientia; +444|6130|North Tonawanda, NY

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
Its been a steady trend since day one, Microsoft is yet to innovate.
Really since Win95. That's when everyone started squawking about the similarities. Major differences being the bloat and bugginess of Windows as compared to Mac's OS. They appear to be growing closer together, though...
Me and (both) my friends were squawking about it from Windows 3.1 onwards.

Not sure why you might do that!!!

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/Apple_Macintosh_Desktop.png

vs.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/73/Windows_3.11_workspace.png

And to make it worse, the MacOS version is from 1984 while Windows 3.1 was released in 1992. lol

2010-10-27 09:05:59

#50

FFLink: There is.; +1,380|6691|Devon, England

Careful when linking to such high-resolution pictures, alright?

We don't all have super-computers.

BF2S Forums Windows 8 To Be Released In October 2012?

SonderKommando wrote:

Finray wrote:

killer21 wrote:

burnzz wrote:

blademaster wrote:

presidentsheep wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

burnzz wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

FloppY_ wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Finray wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Finray wrote:

Uzique wrote:

mikkel wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

SonderKommando wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Uzique wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer