I'm back from my vacation to the US, the jetlag has mostly passed, so back to OSNews it is! So, Windows 8 has been out for only a little while, and we're already moving on to the next 'version' of Windows. Version is between quotation marks, because unlike previous releases, this doesn't appear to be the a monolithic single release. Instead, Windows Blue, as it's currently codenamed, is more of a procedural change than a technical change: Windows is moving to yearly releases for all devices - PC, tablet, phone.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2007-11-23
Member since:2012-01-13
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:2010-01-11
Although I believe more frequent releases from Microsoft is a good thing, I don't think this counts as rolling releases.
There's a very simple way to test if something has a rolling release development: if it has a version number then it's not rolling release. For example:
What version of Windows are you using? (example: Windows 7)
What version of Mac OS X are you using? (example: 10.6)
What version of Arch Linux are you using? (example: Right now)
What version of Gentoo Linux are you using? (example: Last Tuesday?)
Rolling release software has no support for "older versions" because there are no older versions. The only version is "now". I assume this won't be the case with Microsoft, whether you're running Windows 9 or Windows 2018.
Member since:2012-01-13
Correct, the only version is the"now" version. But it is possible to NOT update our even to "roll back" to and older version.
The advantage its that improvements and security measures are distributed immediately to the users, so the system is always up to date and safe. But, the downside is there is extensive testing done, so breakages can happen. In which case the user must for instance "roll back". This requires an amount of attention and know how that the average user is not prepared top spend on his machine.
A nice compromise would be have the choice: "roll" or update for instance every month.
Member since:
2005-07-22
Windows 8 SP1 with a bit of added gloss?
They really need to fix their update policies first. Get rid of the endless reboots and the cases where after appling a so called 'fix' some of your configuration has been nuked.
Yes MS I'm looking at you. I had all auto updates turned off and after manually selecting 125Mb of updates, I rebooted and carried on blissfully unaware that one of the patched had reset it to 'Auto download and apply'.
Then I was in the middle of rendering a number of large MPeg4's, the frigging system rebooted itself. The render was going to take 20+ mins each so I left the PC to get on with it.
I was not a happy bunny when I returned to find the PC had rebooted itself.
What a load of utter tripe their system is.
They should get around to fixing a whole host of other things before implementing this bit of marketing tat.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-22
Thom,
What I mean is that you apply one set of patches, reboot and check for updates. So you download and apply them and you have to reboot again.
I did a clean Server 2008 R2 install last week. To apply all the updates, I had to do the above operation SIX times. Updates on top of Updates.
By way of contrast, if I do a RHEL 6 install, apply one set of updates and you are done and ready to go.
Member since:2011-05-12
That's just the initial setup. After that updates arrive, you install them, sometimes have to do a reboot and then no new updates immediately appear.
I agree most (if not all) Linux distributions require just one round of updates after a clean install, but with Windows it's just some extra work at the start and then you're set.
It seems all the extra Windows updates are mostly related to .NET version 4. When you install that for some strange reason new updates keep appearing after each reboot.
Member since:2007-08-22
I agree most (if not all) Linux distributions require just one round of updates after a clean install, but with Windows it's just some extra work at the start and then you're set.
It seems all the extra Windows updates are mostly related to .NET version 4. When you install that for some strange reason new updates keep appearing after each reboot.
Windows can require reboot loops as sometimes you can only install one patch, reboot, then go back and install the rest that are listed - even Win7.
Member since:2007-03-26
He does have a point.
Windows Update is pretty poor as update managers go by:
* no proper foresight with dependency resolution. So instead of just jumping to the end and pulling all the latest patches, it has to run through every update incrementally. This often means that you need to reboot after some core updates before the next increment of core updates can be performed.
* too many core systems that cannot be independently restarted. I'm by no means saying that Linux is perfect, but I love the fact that the only updates that need a reboot are kernel updates. Everything else can be independently unloaded and reloaded.
* annoying forced reboot cycles. If an update happens that needs a reboot, you get a 15 minute (IIRC) warning and that cannot be cancelled, only postponed for a few hours. Worse yet, if you happen to be away from your PC during that tim (eg making dinner) then you may find that Windows has forcefully rebooted your system.
While most of those points I can forgive because of various architecture decisions within Windows; mean a fix would be more work and potentially more dangerous than the annoyance of the current set up. But the last point is pretty unforgivable in my opinion. There should be no circumstances where the OS is allowed to reboot an unattended PC; that's an administrator / end user responsibility alone. And the example the aforementioned commenter raised was just one of many great reasons why an unattended PC shouldn't be assumed safe for system reboots.
Member since:2005-07-11
What's really bad is when your laptop auto-downloads and installs updates in the background, then you put the laptop into standby, and the battery runs down to nothing in your bag (since you forgot to hibernate it). Then you get to somewhere and need to pull up a presentation or grab a file really quickly ... and it spends 15 minutes "configuring windows updates", "installing windows updates" before the login screen appears!
Or, you manually do the updates, postpone the reboot, forget about the reboot, run out of time onsite, and throw the laptop in the bag. And suffer through the pre-login updates when you get to the next site.
Windows Update is not user-friendly, especially when you're in a rush. 
Member since:2012-09-21
You can disable this via the registry (or Local Group Policy (gpedit.msc) depending on OS version). The entry you're interested in is the "NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers" value which does what it says when set to 1. Below is the technet page with all of the Automatic Updates registry keys.
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd939844%28v=ws.10~*...
Member since:2005-11-13
I did disable automatic downloads, but now about every 3 days, Windows Update tells me I have 1 update, and it's that f**king 'malicious software removal tool', and whatever that other one is. Windows Update is a mess. And rebooting without the user's consent should NEVER happen.
Member since:2007-09-22
Member since:
2006-05-19
So Windows8 will be like Windows Phone 7? If you buy into it you will be left behind? I am sure developers will be thrilled to have to change SDKs yearly. Also, Microsoft rarely gets a new OS right the first time (see Windows95, WindowsME, Vista). Now we will have a new OS yearly? What will that do for businesses? While this yearly plan might work for Apple, the PC world is much more complex with many more players. I doubt this will go smoothly.
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2009-08-18
But with smaller more agile releases there tends to be smaller number of new features in scope and that decreases the testing effort and the probability for regression to occur ... meaning more reliable releases.
It is win, win as long as the price is right.
Edited 2012-11-30 16:23 UTC
Member since:2006-11-21
They didn't get 7 "right the first time". Windows 7 is Windows Vista Mark 2. It is their second attempt. There is a reason it was released just two years after Vista.
It is an excellent operating system, but it is disingenuous to claim it was a first time success.
Whether they got Windows 8 right first time remains to be seen.
Member since:2009-08-18
Before Vista, there was a new Microsoft OS every two years.
No it isn't. The betas were bloody stable, it is also a lot more than Vista Service Pack 2 ... saying anything else isn't be fair.
It was pretty stable since Release Preview.
Edited 2012-11-30 16:27 UTC
Member since:2007-08-22
Before Vista, there was a new Microsoft OS every two years. "
No, every 3 years.
The Vista cycle was an abnormality, but one that came because of the state of the code and the fact that they had to restart development.
Yes, after WinXP (2001) there was another version of Windows (2004) that was not released - tossed out because of performance, etc - development was restarted and 3 years later they had Vista (2006/2007). So even then it wasn't really an abnormality, they just didn't release what they had developed to the public.
Of course, that mishap also caused them to re-evaluation how everything is interconnected in Windows and start working towards a simpler architectural implementation - which is why Win7 came a little earlier, and Win8 a little earlier, and why Win Blue will be so early and potentially able to do yearly releases.
Member since:2009-08-18
No, every 3 years.
Obviously that completely invalidates what I am saying </sarcasm>
Yes, after WinXP (2001) there was another version of Windows (2004) that was not released - tossed out because of performance, etc - development was restarted and 3 years later they had Vista (2006/2007). So even then it wasn't really an abnormality, they just didn't release what they had developed to the public.
It wasn't released, so it was a wasn't a complete project ... so therefore they broke their cycle.
Under those circumstances I release a blog post on my site every week when I write a paragraph and then don't publish it.
Your point being?
They started a massive refactor project yes and moved in a different direction and recovered from something that would have been disastrous possibly.
Member since:2006-02-22
Member since:2005-11-09
Member since:
2008-07-15
Dear Microsoft, you aren't Apple. Stop trying to pretend you are.
Joking aside, I hope Microsoft realizes what this means. They'll have to work much faster and also charge a lot less for their upgrades, if they're going to charge anything at all. The average price of a Windows upgrade, leaving promotional discounts aside for the moment, is $80 to $130 US depending on the edition. People won't pay that yearly.
Everything about Microsoft lately screams out that they're trying to emulate Apple without the slightest idea how to actually go about it. Microsoft, you are better than this. Don't be Apple, be *better* than Apple.
Member since:2007-09-22
Member since:
2010-09-01
I know everyone gets worked up about Android updates vs iOS, but I think they are looking at it the wrong way.
Think about it this way. A few months before the new iphone comes out(and new iOS version) Apple releases the iOS beta for developers. Which is refined and a final version comes out many months later with the new phone, then shortly after that the new version of iOS is pushed to older devices. How is that really different than what Google does?
In July Google released a "beta"(ironically Google loves the term but doesn't call it that) of Android 4.1. In this case however it is a fully working version made for two devices(GSM Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7). Several months later it is released on the VZW Nexus, Asus Transformer and others. Some devices take longer, and some don't get it at all(not unlike the iphone 1 and 3G).
No doubt it sucks that some devices don't get an update they "should"(possibly because Android evolves so much faster than iOS) and others are delayed way too long(carrier approval, ect.). However when you look at the control Google has over Android, they are actually handling it quite similar to Apple to the extent that they can. You could argue that Google should take full control of Android, but you will lose much of what makes it good.
Member since:2010-04-06
Member since:
2006-07-14
Window 8 universal update across all devices: Yes
Windows phone 8 universal update across all devices: No.
I mean how many windows phone 7 devices are up-gradable to windows phone 8? Zero?
I understand the switch from windows ce to windows nt kernel was a big one,but they haven't proved they can do a major phone upgrade across devices. Until they do, I'm assuming they can't based on past history.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-07-14
Not all Windows Mobile 2003 devices were upgradable to 5. I'm not as sure about the 5 to 6, but I don't think they all were. I do know that windows mobile 6.5 and kin were not up-gradable to 7. So even if they pulled off upgrading some 2003 devices to 5 and some of those to 6, recently they haven't done it well.
Member since:2005-07-06
That is true. But You have the same issue with Android lacking upgrades. So the matter of WP7.x devices not getting WP8 isn't that big of an issue, imo. Granted, it sucked. I would have loved to have upgraded my HTC Arrive. But it is a new platform and MS just did not plan that out completely.
From the looks of it, WP7.x was a pilot to see how Metro would be liked as well as to get input and gauge developer like of the system and was a bit of a stop gap till they could develop the innards more.
At this point, it looks like MS has a handle on things and should probably force updates or at least keep them available for older devices, much like Apple.
Member since:2006-07-14
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2007-11-24
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2007-08-22
). MS may have a lot of cash, but they also have a fairly large business that eats through that cash pretty quickly.
I'd estimate that if they didn't sell Windows or Office for 2 years, they'd be out of money.
Just look at their financials and how dependent they are on the sales of those two products.
Member since:2009-10-23
I'd estimate that if they [Microsoft] didn't sell Windows or Office for 2 years, they'd be out of money.
Just look at their financials and how dependent they are on the sales of those two products.
I'd estimate that if Royal Dutch Shell didn't sell any oil for two years, they'd be out of money.
Just look at how dependent they are on the sale of that one product.
Member since:2005-08-18
Member since:
2011-09-21
This is totally unrelated to Windows Blue, but where did you visit in the USA?
As for Windows Blue, I like the idea, but only if it completely free for Windows 8 owners. It would be outrageous to expect Windows 8 owners to pay for another OS only 6 months later. Still, as a happy Windows 7 user, I really see no reason to upgrade to 8 on my traditional desktop PC, so I'm not sure why I would upgrade to Windows Blue either. Bring back the Aero theme (at least as an option, I quite like it) and the TRADITIONAL START MENU for us WIMPy keyboard and mouse users.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2011-08-08
Salt Lake City, then by car a three-day roadtrip to Vegas, where we stayed for six days. "
...You missed some great skiing in Park City!
Next time you're out that way, you should swing by the Grand Canyon (if you haven't already). Truly amazing to lay your eyes on in person.
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-11-10
What a hot mess for businesses and Government. Shoot most companies and at least US government agencies only upgrade every other OS release and prob wont even go to 8 cause they just moving to 7. Now every year to be more like Apple and Google. What a joke. Did MS not notice that for business computing they are king. Why would they want to be more like Apple?? Crazy!
Member since:
2012-05-17