WTF? Windows 7 THIS YEAR?!??

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35641/118/

Now I am truly nervous to buy anything this year..................

 

The article talks about whether it'll be in 2009 or 2010 -- not this year.

 

Let's all look at the title together:

 

It just goes to show what a disaster Windows Vista has been from a marketing stand point as well as bad press. For Microsoft to even consider talking about a new OS so soon after Vista has been released doesn't bode well for the future of Vista. If anything it tells me that MS has no confidence in Vista.

 

Not really. A new Windows about every 2-3 years or so is the norm for Microsoft, with the exception that XP came a little early.

For consumer Windows releases:

95
98
98SE
Me
XP (2001)
Vista (early 2007)
7 (late 2009 or early 2010)

Not so strange. Besides XP SP2 is almost a different OS than the original XP, and they also added XP Media Center Edition and Tablet Edition.

 

I have a different take. If you look at how long it took for Vista to get released it was 5 years. That tells me MS either had problems developing Vista (which they did) also I bet they also had high hopes for Vista. Most of the tech journals I read as well as forums have been negative towards Vista.

For MS to even begin discussing W7 so early in Vista's life cycle says it's not the OS they were hoping it would be. So in other words lets move on and introduce something else.

 

you know.. windows vista is an entirely new platform (which is why it took so long). it was designed so that the next 3-4 windows versions can be built on top of.

with sp3 for xp.. (which i have the rc1 release of) and the porting of dx10 compatible libraries to xp.. there's no reason to even have vista

 

I'm having trouble understanding that because i'm not convinced Vista is a new platform at least by my definition. It has the same file system, it uses a registry. Sure there are some differences between the two but to say it's an entirely new platform, i'm not seeing that.

From my understanding of what Vista was supposed to be. Microsoft had bailed out half way into the project because Vista was supposed to use an entirely new FS, no registry, the OS did not require defragging and it was supposed to be ultra fast and ultra secure.

Now i'm reading that those are some of the features we may see in W7. I welcome it because Vista in my view is nothing more than a pretty enhanced version of Windows XP.

 

Microsoft isn't discussing Windows 7. Their full focus is still on Vista. People are just digging this stuff up from insider sources.

 

I agree, except for one thing. Vista is Windows XP+Crap. Some people in favor of Vista argued that WindowsXP had same problems Vista had before the service packs. I completely disagree. I have used XP since the beginning and from the first time I loved it because it was Windows 98 compatibility+Windows 2000 stability. Vista offers.... Nothing. Vista was supposed to have WinFS, but it got delayed and now there are even reports that WinFS might not be even featured with Windows 7. Ridiculous really.

Microsoft must think they don't need to make good products because they are a dominating monopoly, but customers will strike back, hopefully someday and make them wake up.

 

lets all just buy macs...

i'm scared to buy my Sony Vaio FZ-4000 now...

 

omg you mean every 3 years we could see a new os to keep up with the changing computer world?!?! i must never buy a new computer for fear a few years later another operating system might come out!

 

Microsoft appears to be trying to return to their old OS release cycle. Its one of the reasons why Vista is having such a hard time in winning users; they are all using an OS (XP) that has had an unprecedented time frame to mature and become dominant. I believe that MS's strategy is to avoid having to go through the fiasco of uprooting their old OS by returning to a normal release cycle. Thats where Windows Seven will come in.

 

My take on it, is that Vista was suppose to be Vienna but Microsoft realized that they could not wait till 2009, 2010 because of all the pressure being put on them by (yes you guessed it) all of us screaming for a new Windows.

 

vista has an entirely new kernal and core drivers, it's interface is built on new java technology, and it contains nearly 15 million lines of code, more than double xp... basically way more than just an upgrade from xp (ie, windows 2000 to xp).

it's supposed to take advantage of current and future hardware

i don't use vista.. but i don't see it as not living up to what it was "supposed to be." it's BRAND NEW so give it a while, the next version of windows should be much better.. and if it's not.. then we can all complain

 

Actually, a new OS had been planned for 2003-4 but a major problem had them to start anew. Thus we saw SP2 2004 and Vista in 2007. I agree that SP2 is almost a new OS, just look at the hardware requieremnts difference. What can a fully uppated XP do nowadays with 256, or even 512MB of RAM? About the same thing a 64MB XP SP0 could do.

And yes, Vista uses a new kernel that isn't the same as XP. The drivers aren't compatible while 98 & ME, 2000 & XP share the same ones.

XP is just a more customer-friendly version of Windows 2000 that got 7 years of update...


An employee confirmed in early december that Vienna UI developement hasn't even started yet. All they have right now is a text-based OS thas has no functionalities.

In case you guys don't know. Compagnies start new product before the current one is even finished. Because they have many teams, they can do that. Let's say, in 2001, the 98 team had finished is work and needed something to do, so they took NT5.0 source and started Windows 6.0. In 2004, the XP team released SP2, thus now they only need to do some minor security updates. Now this team needs a job, don't you think?. So they take Win 6.0's kernel and start another version of Windows that is gonna be released arround 2010.

 

XP came a little early, and Vista a little late. So 2-3 years is really not the norm. Just what it was pre XP.

 

That's all true.

That's the part I disagree with. It has nothing to do with that. It's just MS trying to get back to their normal (pre-XP) 2-3 year OS release cycle.

 

Interesting article. I would love to mess with a Beta this year. And MinWin sounds interesting too.

 

So 2009 + 5 years delay = 2014 I think it's safe to buy a laptop now

 

I struck back with my wallet. I moved to OS X in November after yet another "Perfomance Update" did not resolve my SLOW network copy speed with Vista.

I had been a loyal Windows user since Window 286..as before Windows 3.0. I am having so much fun its doubtful I will switch back to Windows for a long time if ever.

 

Wait, hold on. When was it announced that DX10 was going to be part of XP SP3?

 

Quite a lot of security features did make it in: UAC, improved firewall, IE 7 with security sandbox, Windows Defender, Address Space Layout Randomization. I'm not sure what security stuff was dropped (if anything). Some other non-security stuff was certainly dropped though, as you mention.

Vista is less than a completely new platform, but more than XP + a few extras. Most things have been significantly updated or redone, including the kernel & drivers, the UI, the audio mixer, Explorer, the start menu, DirectX. Not to mention all the completely new programs and features (Search, Sidebar, Calendar, Photo Gallery, etc.)

It's still the same filesystem, and the same registry, true.

 

it's not.. where was that?

 

Congratulations. I'm personally not much interested in an OS from a company that tries to prevent people from running it on other companies' hardware. But if it does the trick for you, then cool. I do plan to install Linux in a dual-boot setup though.

I actually don't mind seeing MS get a little more of a run for their money. But I actually think Vista narrows the features gap a lot vs. OS X, compared to where XP was. Performance is another issue though...

 

You'd be surprised to learn that Gates wanted project Blackcomb(later known as Vienna, and finally as Windows 7) out by 2005.

Vista adopted many of the features from Blackcomb so it was transformed from a minor to a major release.

Or at least that's how I think the story went.

What I'm trying to get to is that you cannot program an OS in 3 years. That said, Windows 7 is not beign pushed because Vista was a failure(and I personally don't think it was). If it's released in 2009 it means that the software was ready by then - after 9 years of development, and it would be foolish not to release it just because Vista debuted not long ago.

 

Technology has become very impatient...even more so than usual. 2008 will be a critical year for technology and will pull more people into it than usual (I believe). The problem with Vista is that no one is patient enough to wait on it. People are adopting newer technologies much faster than when XP came out. Microsoft just doesnt want to miss the opportunity to put out the new killer app. XP came out at a good time but Vista did not. I will go so far as to say that Vista should have waited until later this year to come out. I for one keep on trying to use vista. Everytime I try to really get into it, im tempted to go back to XP...BUT WHY? VISTA IS THE NEW THING! So I keep going back to vista because everytime I think about XP I feel behind things. Its the same reason I just upgraded to a quad core intel cpu. The core2 cpu has been on top for some time now and my core2 duo was perfectly fine....but when the quad core came out i felt behind again...so I waited and waited and sweated and sweated until finally I couldnt take it anymore...I HAD to get a quad core. Why? The same reason people flocked to get an iphone...they may not have needed it...but theres just something in people that makes them want the new thing out. Its just something in the air....since 2006 it seems.

Microsoft really should go ahead and put out another OS. Vista could be just as good as XP or better before the end of this year....but whos gonna wait on it. With technology being in the media a lot more than in the days of XP, people have been more exposed to "the horrors of vista" when in truth people were the same way about XP. Its just that now....we actually realize things can be better and we are spoiled and impatient.

Now if someone would just come along and give Intel and Nvidia some (blanking) competition we could actually get some better HARDWARE this year. I look at my quad core 8800gtx machine and all I can say is "come on DAAMIT!" (pun intended)

 

Then again maybe its not ATI/AMD that needs to push hardware.....Crysis seems to be doing a pretty decent job right about now. Throwback to Quake 2 (1997), Half Life 1 (1998), FarCry (2003?),Doom 3 (2004), Oblivion (2006) times. Hardware arms race!

....I used to think I was bad stuff running my voodoo2 card with windows 98....geforce 2 card, radeon 9800, radeon x1800xt (and everythign in between) with xp

 

I actually had one of the new 24" iMacs on order a few months ago (the main reason I wanted to try something different wasn't Windows though - 2000 had worked near flawlessly for me for around six years on several systems - but too much failed hardware over just a few years).

Then I started reading all the horror stories about the constant graphics card related OS freezes seemingly a substantial number of iMac users were having in the new OS X Leopard, the blue screens (not "of death", you can't say that!) - ironically enough - and batches of faulty or at least very lackluster monitors.
And add on top of that all the complaints about all sorts of (comparatively) minor OS problems I read on their forums in the week after the Leopard release, and it's probably safe to say that launch wasn't really all that much smoother than a typical Windows launch.

I'm assuming Apple got at least the two first problems fixed by now? But in any case, as bad as Microsoft often is, Apple's attitude towards problems - minor or major - was downright appaling. Let's just pretend they don't exist and start locking down threads (fairly clean threads with sound information and debate) and banning users on the official forums instead, and only when assorted tech sites and magazines start digging into the problems, hesitantly admit that, alright, there may just be a few minor issues for some users.

While I'm sure I would have been perfectly happy with an iMac if I hadn't experienced any of the two or three major issues, I can't really say I regret cancelling my order and getting this Vista laptop instead.
Though with a BSOD a week on average, this thing certainly isn't perfect either - though otherwise I've been extremely happy with Vista in pretty much all other aspects.

 

Very well said. I've used Mac since 2001 and stopped last year. While Apple does have nice products I can't get past the way the company conducts business. Itunes is a closed product so is OSX. Don't kid yourself I have seen my share of problems with the OS from a users point of view, like application quits etc including the infamous kernal panic. But we are not allowed to expose the flaws of Apple as they so quickly like to do with their main rival.

It's quite amusing if it weren't for the Microsoft investment in Apple where would they be today. Now they have grown up to be a very elitist, arrogant company that can do no wrong or at least they'll never admit to it.

 

To me it says they've either learned nothing about scheduling after all these years, or that their optimism or arrogance or denial takes over and they make these outrageous statements. FUD, plain and simple: What they're really saying is to not consider Linux or Mac because Microsoft is coming with something new.

I think I'll wait for XP/SP3 and Vista/SP2 (not SP1) before I place any eggs in the Windows 7 basket.

 

I've actually considered giving Linux a shot on my newest desktop PC when I get it repaired, but I'm a bit concerned about how well say an Ubuntu install is going to work without major tweaking?
Supposedly driver installations etc. are handled automatically and quite well these days, but does that go for things like wireless network adapters and new (2007) printers as well? Or is that going to a nightmare of manual work to get up and running?

I have used Linux before for a few months - but that was back around 2001, and it was definately not a case of everything working out of the box. I used to be somewhat of a tech geek, so I liked the challenge back then, but these days I really just want a system that so more or less works after the initial install - including wireless network and graphics card drivers with proper support for modern widescreen monitors at 1680x1050 or higher.

I guess I should probably swing by the Linux sub forum some time soon .

 

I used Vista since Beta 2 and never had any problems. I used XP SP0, it was hell. My friend used ME, he loved it....

 

The only two MS OS's I truly disliked were Windows 2.x and Windows ME. 98 before 98se was a bit iffy, too.

Been using Vista Home Premium since June 2007.

 

Coding an OS must be a huge headache, coding one from scratch would take 2-3 years and by the time you've done this atleast 10 times in that span updates, new language variations/new commands etc. make it all the coding out of date. Which i guess is the reason for the usual huge delays that something of huge significance has been released/changed and a large part of the OS would be in need recoding/reworking/tweaking.

Anyway i hope they concentrate on vista for the next 2 years, then we may have something that resembles a better/faster form of XP (which i think was the idea in the first place). And i think DX10 will last much longer then 2 years, DX9 has been such a huge part in coding games for so many years that the switch over to 10 will be slow and costly, and if windows 7 brought DX11 with it i think developers might just give up and fall back on 10 for a few years until 11 is absolutley needed

 

If they concentrate on Vista for the next 2 years, that means the next OS would be out in 5 years minimum. XP all over again, this time its Vista that everyone wants to keep.

I'd rather they think about the next OS and fix all the mistakes they made with Vista then. For Vista will never be what consumers want and what Microsoft promised.

 

No. "...second half of 2009."
Learn to read.

 

Not if it's 2 different dev' teams. Windows 7 already has some years of developement in it as we speak. Blackcomb (Vienna -> W7) was schedules for 2005

 

I interpreted 'concentrate' as putting all main developers on the Vista team.

That MinWin is quite interesting to tell you the truth. I'd like to see an OS from scratch that actually works, and screw backwards compatibility. Microsoft has a virtual machine team, and it would be really nice if MS were to include a VM copy of XP for all purchases of Windows 7. There, just solved the backwards compatibility issue without major fuss.

By the time 7 comes out, we'll have virtual-izable GPUs as well (in addition to CPUs which already are)...hopefully. Then all those games will work fine under XP as well.

Maybe some day I'll like Vista. We'll see. I'm headed over to the SP1 thread...