Microsoft leaks details of Windows 8 and Windows 9

Originally posted by TiM3LoRd
Sounds like Corporate BS to keep stocks safe. With windows 7 only just out the oven it seems almost stupid to mention a 8 or 9. From a sales point of view they haven't even milked 7 and they are already talking about starting on 8 and 9? I'll just wait for 9 then.

Hmm, odd that. I was wondering too why they would begin talking about windows 8 and 9 when 7 was just newly created. But I am a very paranoid person, and I kind of see a possibility here. What if they are pushing 8 and 9 to reach the number 9 quicker because it has something to do with the Illuminati and their love of the number 9? What if windows 9 has some really special abilities, like, oh, I don't know, a low grade A.I. in it, aka demon? Okay, far fetched, right? But consider this, why the need for the power when we don't have or won't have any programs requiring it for twenty years? Now, I can understand why the government would want it, but why would they want us to want it? I just feel there is something malfeasant behind this.

pfft. why didnt they just skip windows 7 and 8.

and spend something like 5 years completly overhauling the windows system. and bring in some of those linux guys.

reply to post by MR BOB


el o el.

Or they could have just gone with my earlier proposition and just stop making OS's. As a result of this greater sacrifice games and software in general will have no compatibility issues with the *nix systems. One can hope.

i am not a graphics guy, i am a data guy. i couldn't tell you what kind of graphics card i have....but i always know how much free disk space i have. I play with photoshop and flash, but just to screw around a little (see my sig and avatar...nothing major). i need a computer that can handle very large spreadsheets/workbooks and can process complex data queries without making my media player skip. if i am going to do something with a movie, it is generally something simple, like converting a movie ripped with Downloadthemall into a dvd compatible format and burning it. again....nothing major.

i bought this laptop and paid extra to keep vista away. i am concerned with compatibility. then again, i ditched office 07 and went back to office xp. i don't need the xml stuff so much for what i currently do. not enough people know to download the file converter, and told me they couldn't open the file.

the only reason to use windows servers is for stability reasons. sun makes a nice server, but it caused severe stability issues on several occassions that shut down my call center in a previous job. we used server 2k....it was the servers with our client that failed to deliver the voice and data.

for database, i prefer oracle. sql sucks bloddy boogers.

I don't care what billionaire Microsoft does, Fedora 12 Final Release is 2009-11-17.
Read all about it here: fedoraproject.org...

The Free Software Foundation is a charity with a worldwide mission to advance software freedom — learn about our history and work: www.fsf.org...
The Free Software Directory: directory.fsf.org...

Why pay $$ for an OS that requires constant updates, has an embedded browser known for security leaks, gets viruses, runs scripts without your knowledge, and you cannot own it, or alter it in any way? All operating system software should be free to the consumer, who will then own the license, and will be able to alter it to their own desires.
distrowatch.com...
linuxtracker.org...

Set yourself free of Windows!

Originally posted by MR BOB
pfft. why didnt they just skip windows 7 and 8.

and spend something like 5 years completly overhauling the windows system. and bring in some of those linux guys.

I totally agree with you. If you look at Windows XP, it was almost 6 years before they brought in windows Vista. And people are still using XP and skipping going to vista and going straight to Windows 7. The should take 5 to 6 years to develop a real good OS while everyone is using Windows 7. If they are jumping out talking about Windows 8 and 9, they are going to hit a wall. Because people aren't going to buy Windows 8 if it requires more hardware to use and if it comes out 2 years after Windows 7. XP outlived my system, I need a new computer because my architecture and hardware is having trouble keeping up with the software packages that are used for upgrade and for online webpages. And since I have a single core chip CPU, I'm always tapping out on 100%, especially when I have to graphic process working.

I'm buying a Dell XP studio advance tonight so that they can pre-install Windows 7 and have it shipped out by the 22nd. Microsoft is doing to us what they did to IBM back in the 80's when they cut that deal by letting microsoft have control of the software and IBM will control the hardware. We have to think a few years ahead in hardware in order to make sure that our system can handle the software from third parties and from different versions of Win 7 that will likely come. I can't wait until nanotechnology comes into being. Having molecular mechanical computers operating on your motherboard (which may be definded differently in the future), which could make your system into a massive supercomputer that can handle any software package that comes down the pipe.

Here is my machine...
Elite Group Socket 754 Motherboard
AMD Sempron 3000+ 64 bit Processor
1.47 Gb of DDR 400 memory
ATI onboard graphics
80Gb Western Digital 7200 rpm SATA Hard Drive

Right now, with Thunderbird and Firefox, plus VLC Player, I am using 20% of my CPU, and 0.47 of available memory running Fedora 11 i386 KDE.

A while ago I placed a spare HD in this machine and installed Windows XP Home Edition.
With Firefox and Thunderbird up, it uses all 100% of available CPU, and 80% of available memory. Why does Windows use so much, and Linux so little? Perhaps a Windows guru can tell me that? To be honest, I went to Linux for both speed and security, something Windows never gave me. I started with 98, went to 98 SE, then to 2000 Pro, then to XP Home. Then I discovered Linux. The rest, as they say, is history.

reply to post by autowrench


Clearly your OS needs tuning.

That said, by your own words, it came with 98!!

A computer that came with 98 is just not setup to run xp well.

In broad general terms, windows works alomost completly with wizards and such.

It is icon driven on down the line.
(that means it does not require "LINE ITEM" programing)

Frankly, your processor is fine, just get some more ram, best case, 4 gig's.

hmmm have not even really mastered 64bit, nor has the masses converted to 64, nor is their much software out their to maximize 64bit technology. If it occurs 128bit that is the masses will more then likely not be ready for it. SInce a majority of all home using pc operators have a hard enough time with 32bit computers, not to mention trying to force everyone to upgrade to 128bit when well, nothing is really out there to use 128bit platforms will be a puzzling sales pitch.. I can just imagine the bugs already anyway..

[edit on 22-10-2009 by Bicent76]

reply to post by mrmonsoon


Actually, I should have been more clear. the machine I ran 98 on was an old socket Super 7 American Megatrends, and I have owned and built about 10 different machines since that time, so long ago! This one is getting old, (2 years) asnd I am already planning a new machine. Being a former hot rodder, I love fast, and the faster the better. Sorry for the confusion, friend. And yes, I do know how to tune a computer, this one is pretty fast. Boots inside 15 seconds to a log in screen.

Originally posted by Hyzera
Who needs 128bits anyways? Not many people are even taking advantage of the 64bits that are available in most processors and OSs. Also, the number of 32bit applications far outnumber the amount of 64bit applications even though most OSs have been released with 64bit versions for years now.

This is why Microsoft is having issues, some people say they aren't moving fast enough...others say they are moving too fast. I think Microsoft is on the right track now though, I love all of their latest products (running Windows 7 x64 Ultimate)

Windows 7 is by far MS's best OS yet. I am running 7 Ultimate x64 and have been since beta...only now I am running the final version.

Let me ask you when was the last time you did an install of XP and did not have to load at least one driver for your hardware? Can't think of a time, huh? And this is a 32 bit OS.

I recently acquired Windows 7 x64 Ultimate (Thank you House party and MS!!) and did a clean install. Do you know how many drivers I had to load? 0 absolutely 0. Within a matter of 20 minutes I was booted up to a log in screen with every device recognized and installed, and all on an x64 machine.

I have not had one ounce of trouble with Windows 7 even through beta. Yes there were quirks through beta, but that has all been handled and what we have is a polished OS that we have been waiting for from MS.

The problem every one needs to understand is that just like any electronics or a car for that matter, the minute you purchase the product you are behind the times because something new and better is being released. This is why so many consumers scream about programs and hardware not working properly because they are using a machine that is obsolete and was just not designed to run that particular OS. It's all in what you feed you computer hardware wise that dictates how your computer will run and perform.

Why would you still want to use a 32bit OS when memory is so cheap and 32 bit can not access memory beyond 4GB? So there is a waste right there, you just bought a new computer with 4GB or maybe 6GB of memory but yet your running a 32bit OS and you are now wasting the use of that extra memory that you payed for also you are not even taking advantage of the instructions and capability of the new dual or quad core processor you bought with that PC also.

It's common knowledge that we live in a disposable world these days, your 5 year old computer crashes and you can't play that new game you want so what do you do you get a new computer and your happy, but 6 months down the road your right back where you started your hardware is obsolete and the next latest and greatest game comes out and you can't play it because of that very reason, so what do you do you upgrade your video card and now you can play that game, oh but wait you need more memory so you go get more memory, the process just goes on and on. You are always trying to keep up with technology and that is impossible as it is ever changing.

I think 128bit is going to be good, actually great! We will probably have 8 core and 16 core processors, and this may even be the time that the computer becomes that same home appliance we all love...the TV. You just press a button and it is on....maybe 128bit will finally prove this. Of course until I actually see a 128bit processor the OS is just an enabler. MS can make the OS and it will have to be compatible with at least 64bit, but unless you have the hardware...you will not be taking full advantage of the OS nor the hardware.

Oh and for applications and 64bit yes there are only a few 64bit applications out there today, but I have not had one problem with any of the ones I am running. Everything is smooth as silk under the x64 side of things..learn what a computer is and how to use it and feed it the correct hardware and software and everything will be just fine. Oh and on the Virus thing I have never once in my 15 years of working with computers had a virus on my own personal machine. It's all in how you operate the computer.

End Rant....

reply to post by amatrine


Sucks for you. I just bought a server spent over $4,000 on it. I have 4 amd-6 cores in it and 128 gigs of ram with 2 terabytes hard drive. I just assembled the parts and ran it. It's super fast. Yet the only annoying thing is that the fans are too loud. When you turn the server on it sounds like a fighter jet taking off. my next door nabors complained 2 times so far. I went outside to check and see if I can hear it and yes defiantly I can hear it but not as lound compared if you were sitting right next to the server.

I currently also been hearing rumors of some new companies trying to get into computing buisness making cpus. They plan to have a 256bit cpu trying to get 80 cores on a single cpu unit. They have so far been working on this for 2 years. I personally if that does come true where we can have a 256bit 80 core cpu. I would wounder how much computing a computer can do?

I bet video games will get realistic. I wounder if there will be any end to the computing hardware craze at some point. I mean what would happen if they done everything humanly possible with different designs of computer hardware.

I personally hate keep upgrading my computer hardware. I rather just buy the stuff all at one time and wait 10 to 20 years to do it again..lol I wish in the future we come up with a system where nanobots will upgrade the hardware for you threw the internet.

I am setting here running three computers tonight one is duel boot Ubuntu and XP and the others are Linux mint.

One computer in being used for downloading.
One is getting live feed from Burning Man festival
And the third is the one i have on ATS,

My only problem is that i max out my modem.

The newest computer i have is 8 years old and i see no reason to buy a new computer.
Two of the computers i have are old enough that windows vista will not work on them.
I even have a 16GB pen drive with linux on it for using when i want to use someone else's computer.

Micros**t must be getting a kick back from someone to only make OSs that people have to buy a new computer just to run.
If i have to buy a new computer every time MS goes to a newer OS its not worth the money.

By the time window 9 come out i will bet that Linux has a OS that will work on a 128bit system

As long as I can remember there has always been something new on the horizon in computing.

My first real computer (not counting my Atari) was 8 bit (intel 8088) and I think I was running MS-Dos 2.1 if I'm not mistaken. Running at 8Mhz in turbo mode with 640k (that's less than a megabyte). I sped it up with a NEC v20 as well as an 8087 math co-processor. I made the mistake of going with EGA 16 color graphics instead of the first implementation of VGA, but since 16 colors out of a 256 color pallet was more than enough for CAD drawing layers and all the games out at the time didn't have more than 16 colors it was fine and it was fast for that moment.

People still use XP because it works, if they still have the hardware chugging along that was purchased at that time, not to forget many companies don't replace their systems as long as they continue to serve their purpose, especially in today's economy.

I think the only people defending VISTA are those that just want to justify the fact that they wasted their money on it. The fact is VISTA is crap, Vista has always been crap, and always will be crap. I've never walked into a company that has Vista Clients (though I'm sure their are a few somewhere) and if somebody gives me a Vista box to fix I'll immediately push them to Windows 7 even if it takes a memory upgrade to do the trick as I will not waste my time working on any system with Vista.

Windows 7 is like XP on steroids as has nothing in common with Vista other than Vista was it's beta step brother. The first time I installed Windows 7 it was one of the smoothest installs I've ever done. I replaced an Vista off the shelf notebook with a 64 bit Windows 7 and the Windows 7 made the system run at least 3-4 times faster than the same system running Vista.

Again, unless you're a developer chasing future revenue, you might as well ignore all the rumors about Win 8 & 9 and just enjoy whatever your running until there's actually something in the pipeline that may influence your purchase decisions unless your running Vista - then of course you need to either downgrade to XP or upgrade to Windows 7 both of which will blow away your crappy Vista system.


[edit on 3-9-2010 by verylowfrequency]

Meh, I recently bought a 32-bit system with Win7.

Ya know what? It works perfectly well for what I want it to do and at £260, cost a fraction of the cost of it's 64-bit counterparts.

I'll admit that 128-bit systems will be bloody impressive, but a little pointless for your every day user. Unless you're doing some serious gaming or graphics/audio editing etc, I really don't see the point.

I think that the 32-bit systems will be around for another couple of years, slowly being replaced by the 64-bits and only those people who HAVE to have the lastest and greatest toys will opt for the 128-bits as soon as they are out.

Why do people have to have the fastest computer possible, when they are probably only going to use it for browsing the net and word processing? I use mine as a full media centre and it's as fast as I could want it and never hangs! Much more important than processing speed is keeping your system clean and working efficiently.

reply to post by computerwiz32


Ok I have no idea what you are really talking about other than my computer will be useless and old next year? Sorry I am not computer savy when it comes to tech talk.

I don't mind buying a new computer but they need to make them cheaper if I have to buy a new one every year! Technology is always changing yet the prices remain the same which make it hard to keep up with the latest technology esp when you need it. I take online classes and having to buy all these programs and then having to buy them again later on or upgrade this or that gets expensive.

I have Windows 7 and it sucks. I can't stand it. It's not a secret that i don't like Windows. If they are making two new OS's they better do A LOT of changes! My computer isn't even a year old and I have had more problems than I can count because of Windows 7. It isn't compatible with most of my school stuff and I have to use multiple browers to access my classroom.

I don't understand the 32bit and 64bit stuff. What does this mean? I have friend who keeps talking about this stuff and I have no idea what he is saying.

Oh my! Here they go again.
Microsux will change the entire interface so we can all spend lots of time re learning the OS of the year. We will not gain anything as far as productivity goes, but the hardware requirements will go right through the roof. Oh wait this is a 128 bit OS, and it won't run on our computers. We can plan on spending some with Intel and AMD. I could kick Gates in his scrawny rich butt!

MS will convince you you need 128 bit today, yet the apps (we will only see performance gains in games) won't show for a few years.

I wish they would take a cue from Chevy with the camaro or ford with the stang, and do a retro XP Rerun OS. Only this time make it faster and more secure.

Instead of creating a stable & fast Linux like system, they will shove in more widgets and slap on the bling. Once all the security holes are exploited, they will patch the performance right out of it.

IMHO the only reason to run Microsux OS is to game or to run something that wine won't run in linux. Forget Mac unless you just like to spend more money than the next guy.

Linux on an old PC FTW (for the win)

reply to post by mblahnikluver

I have Windows 7 and it sucks. I can't stand it. It's not a secret that i don't like Windows. If they are making two new OS's they better do A LOT of changes! My computer isn't even a year old and I have had more problems than I can count because of Windows 7. It isn't compatible with most of my school stuff and I have to use multiple browers to access my classroom.

No offence, but I would say that the problem lies more in your own lack of knowledge here (which you admit to yourself). I have never had a problem with Win7 and believe it to be the best Microshaft have realeased so far. As for your compatibility issues, which software packages are you using? I know for a fact that Office is always backwards compatible, so the problem may lie in the fact that you are saving your files in the newer version, rather than the format that will work at school.

As for your browser problem, Firefox usually works with pretty much anything and try not to use IE EVER!!!!

reply to post by mblahnikluver



you shouldn't have to buy a new system every year. the laptop i referred to above, from 10-2009, is the one i type on today. it works exactly the same today as it did the day i typed that above.

Kaspersky Labs is hitting it out of the park right now, so i use them. Firefox has a plethora of plugins that may take a bit of tuning to get set up right, but you cannot beat the added protection they provide.

You just have to take care of your machine. The hardware should be good for a decade, with a few minor repairs for things like failed power supplies (and lord knows what else with crappy new builds that are being passed off on the public). You need to make sure your scanners are allowed to run, and that all software updates happen (especially those little Java updates that everyone likes to ignore...they are usually most critical and a common gap in computer security).

And, most important, when your Windoze OS decides to stop working well enough that you can tolerate it, don't replace it with another Windoze image. Go with a Linux build. I prefer the Karmic Koala build of Ubuntu (Lynx just is too buggy in my experience, and I am not one to want to take the time to fine tune too much. Hardy Heron is good, too). Once you install Linux, and get it running, you can remove the shackles of fear about viruses. Well, 98%, anyway (if you are a torrent user, anyway, otherwise it is more like 100%). But a reimage can be amazingly quick and simple.