Microsoft shifting internal focus to Windows 8 in July 2010
By Donald Melanson 
posted December 1st 2009 6:50PM
posted December 1st 2009 6:50PM
Ah, the tormented life of a Microsoft employee. You spend a few years of your life nurturing a product, teaching it some new tricks, and before you know it you have to release it into the wild and start all over again. Coincidentally, Microsoft also seems to do a lot of hiring during that tumultuous switchover period, and its latest round of job postings have offered a few clues as to what we can expect in Windows 8, and when the company plans to focus on it in earnest. That will apparently happen at the start of the company's 2011 fiscal year, which translates to July, 2010 for everyone else. As for Windows 8 itself, it seems that Microsoft is particularly interested in finding a few folks to work on how Windows Update works in the latest iteration of the OS, including things third-party application updating, updating virtual machines when they're turned off, and delivery of full applications -- Windows 8 Server and a "new UX framework" also garnered a brief mention. Hit up the link below for some additional details, and links to the actual postings if you happen to be looking for a job.
It seems weird to watch them jump from version to version and Apple is still on iterations of OSX. I'm just waiting for my copy of Windows Mojave to show up.
@(Unverified)
To an extent, Windows does the same. It still uses the NT kernel, just like Vista and XP. The kernel and everything just gets upgraded/revised in larger packs then OSX.
They also cost more on the Windows side of things.
@(Unverified)
Umm you do know how many version of OSX they have right? You forget that Apple makes you pay for updates.
@(Unverified)
Uh, you do know that Windows 7 and Vista are basically the same thing, right? And Mac OS X from 2001 has very little in common with OS X Snow Leopard right?
You're picking up on the most trivial thing and trying to point out some irony there. There is none. The naming system is just branding. It's pretty much arbitrary.
Why does 7 exist? Certainly not because it's the 7th version of Windows! It exists because Vista was a disaster and the name needed to die, with a pillow over its face and a bullet in the head, in the cloak of night.
On the other hand, Apple loooooves the big X. If they can keep comin up with cat names they can stretch it to 2015.
@(Unverified) Don't confuse branding with actual code changes. The amount of work/changes/features required for Apple to go from 10.x to 10.y is the same as for MS to go from Win X to Win Y. Since Apple also has a shorter release schedule, it's fairer to compare 10.z to Win Y than 10.y to Win Y.
@(Unverified) Windows 7 is basically just an improved Vista. After the long time frame between the release of XP and Vista and all the stability and compatibility issues that came with Vista and all it's new features, it's seems like Microsoft has learned a lesson and is now releasing smaller improvements at a faster rate, just like Apple. Only the version numbering is different.
@jinushaun
Not true. Remember OSX is a unix core derived from FreeBSD/NetBSD. The kernel came from a research microkernel at Carnegie Mellon.
Windows is probably a much larger investment due to the backward compatibility requirements and the broad deployment footprint. I remember Gates saying Vista was a $20 Billion investment.
@jinushaun
I don't think it's fair to compare their release cycles at all. Mac makes some improvements with each .release, while maintaining the basics of the previous .release.
Microsoft tends to drastically change things in major releases, while doing the minor tweeks in service packs.
I think both ways of doing it are valid, but they are not at all similar.
If I've sensed the pattern correctly, Windows 8 will be criticized heavily and Windows 9 will be a critical success.
@zangetsu2
lol funny how that has happened huh?
@zangetsu2
Hmmm...
95 = a mess
98 = stable
ME = awful
XP = good
Vista = bad
7 = good again
...
8 = bad again???
@zangetsu2 Windows 8 will be criticized in beginning, but then after few service packs it will be good. Then Windows 9 will be successful
@jinushaun
What about Windows 2000?
@zangetsu2
Almost true. You forget about Windows 2000 which was actually pretty darn good.
@zangetsu2
No, MS will hurry and make Windows 8 in a rush so that they can make some quick cash on a crappy job.
Then they will Make Windows 9 the way Windows 8 was supposed to be.
This cycle dates back all the way to Windows ME.
@tavisjohn
I don't remember Windows 95 being a mess? It was a vast improvement over Windows 3.1 and ushered in the new Windows era - Windows 98 was a huge improvement and it was only then that people realised how basic 95 was.
As I remember it, was quite a while ago...
@einhanderkiller
Windows 2000 was for business, built on Windows NT. Everyone else was supposed to use Windows ME but since it sucked so bad, Windows XP combined business and home user OSs to NT and left DOS to die
@Rebajas
Win95 was fine until that pesky USB came along. Other than that it was good.
@zangetsu2 OMG, the problems with 95 I remember... It made 98 look like a god. Haha good memories :) Those dull wallpapers!
@jinushaun
I'm was a little young at the time to remember exactly but i do remember talking to my brother about this a few years ago and he said
Win 95 : great
Win 98 : Buggy
Win 98 Second Edition : Still great ;)
Win ME : Came with his eMachines. Downgraded to 98SE
Win 2000/NT : Was supposed to be great. Never had it.
Win XP : Im still using it. SP 2 made it great. I was totally confused on how there was no DOS. I thought DOS was how computers worked and Windows was just a GUI, which i learned later was what Windows 3.1 was, when my girlfriend had an old tandy in her house with the worst game of tetris ive ever played.
Vista : According to him the 32bit version sucked.
Win 7 : He's gay for it.
Also the same pattern applies to the Actors who play Bond. People need to hate the new guy to consider liking the next one as much as the others.
@eSocrates
To clarify, here's what I was thinking:
Win 3.1: Everyone had it.
Win 95 : good start, but often criticized as being Mac '88 by mac friends
Win 98 : Good
Win ME : Broken
Win XP: Great
Vista: Poorly received (although I think it's great when you have good hardware and the SP updates)
7: Well received (although I think it's only marginally better than vista)
@jinushaun
You missed Windows 2000 (success)
Midori, Singularity, and Barrelfish, not to mention the Azure experience. Microsoft has done a lot of projects, but it will still be another relatively minor release.
@zintinio What's going on with barrelfish. It seems like an awesome concept. It seems though that it will need very specific hardware, Barrelfish devices. I could be wrong.
@Edobe
I have the feeling that Barrelfish is going to play an important role in Windows 8, and that's part of the reason they made the project public when they did.
Put the concept out in the open, then hire the people who make the most of it.
Lets see if it's any good
So how long will 7 live for? do i need to throw another party next year?
@Rosco911
You will be highly ranked soon enough haha
@questionexclamation
I'm I'm so throwing a party when Win8 comes out.
@Rosco911
After the Vista debacle, MS publically stated that they will have short release schedules like Apple's OS X. (Remember, OS X went through THREE versions between XP and Vista) The shorter release schedule also means they will alternate between major and minor releases.
Win7 was a minor release, so expect Win8 to be huge.
@jinushaun
Yeah, but I hope the prices also get a cut, its ridiculous to think that for a minor release they are charging so much. IMO.
Not that I paid for 7, and I really DO NOT mind throwing parties every year, I`d do it every other month. =P
Good excuse, and everyone loved the bags!
@jinushaun Yeah, and XP had two service pack updates, Microsoft just didn't charge anyone for them.
"Ah, the tormented life of a Microsoft employee. You spend a few years of your life nurturing a product, teaching it some new tricks, and before you know it you have to release it into the wild and start all over again."
What? You mean like every other company out there? Ore we all still driving Model T Fords?
Yeah, that's just what we need. I upgraded to 7 from Vista using their house party thing, and there is almost no difference to the day-to-day user.
It nags you less and you can snap windows to sides of the screen. Great. I'm just happy I got it for free.
@yankees368 To be honest I have seen performance improvement with Windows 7. My frame rates on World Of Warcraft are on the average 5 fps higher with Windows 7 compared to Vista. So yeah its been worth upgrading... especially since just like you I got it for free.
@yankees368 I dunno if your running 7 in aero mode or not, but in aero mode the new superbar is pretty damn _amazing_ and makes 7 so much better than Vista. That, and that 7 is faster than Vista, although slightly.
I predict that in the near future Windows versions will be as plentiful as EEE PC models.
I personally am hoping for better dual or more core support. Windows 7 really improves upon Vistas terrible support, but it could still be so much better.
I guess this means this version will suck ass... so then we will have to wait for windows IX
I"m glad MS is not staying stagnant on Windows, you know like they did for Windows Mobile. They sure learned their lesson. They are not going to wait for google to light up a fire on them like apple did with WinMo.
@(Unverified) And IE... what the hell have they been doing for the last few years? They sure as hell weren't making Vista work.
Let's hope they'll fix the network stack so that it'll be more friendly for FPS.
Windows 7 is the best thing thats happened to my 1.6 ghz 2 yr old dell 1525. Maybe this will be better. Or maybe they'll ruin it my turning it into a graphics hog like Vista with that god damn "aero" crap.
@Spensar You do realise 7 uses aero just like Vista?
@Spensar
Aero is supposed to be faster since it offloads all those graphics to the GPU... even in Vista.
It's not just useless eye-candy...
@Michael Scrip I believe that the reason that 7 runs so fast and Vista didnt must have been because of all the extras that Microsoft put on including Aero. If you turn it of on VIsta it makes no diference in speed, but i you turn it off in 7, like I did, it makes your computer hella faster. Concluding Aero MUST have been the source of the problem on VIsta.
"work on how Windows Update works in the latest iteration of the OS, including things third-party application updating"
does this mean they will finally reach the point of having win update work like Update Manager in ubuntu and check all of your apps? woot!
@endunknown
Let me guess your probably writing your comment from a Ubuntu machine?
They probably didn't think it was necessary before or were really concentrated on on making drivers for all the manufacturers.
@endunknown Yep, I thought of Ubuntu too when I read that line!
I can't wait for unified app updating. Having a dozen different apps with their own unique updaters is a mess. I want Windows to tell me when there is a new version of Firefox or iTunes available and then proceed to download it for me.