Windows 7 To Be Released Next Year?

KrispySausage writes "A recently-released roadmap for the next major Window release — Windows 7 — indicates that Microsoft is planning to release the new operating system in the second half of 2009, rather than the anticipated release date of some time in 2010. This quickly-approaching release date would seem to be at least partially verified by news of a milestone build available for review by an anonymous third party." We've previously discussed the upcoming new OS version, as well as its danger to Vista.

Comments

Such optimism?

[Richard.g.k]

Hopefully it will end up being like windows ME -> windows XP, with vista being ME, and the new OS representing XP. Contrary to peoples constant whining, vista is a reasonable enough O/S, the only problem i've seen with it is the resource intensiveness. Rarely do i ever have crash problems. But this will turn into another 300 comment microsoft hate-o-thon just because of story that is an unverified RUMOR about an operating system that nobody responding has even SEEN yet.

Re:Such optimism?

[Enderandrew]

Problems with Vista include:

* UAC - annoying and not remotely secure. People will be trained to always click yes, or just disable it. Further more, it prevented me from installing legit software, and copying files in certain directories.
* Drivers - People say an OS is only as good as the software for it, and I'd argue an OS is only as good as the drivers. If you can't support your hardware, then software isn't even an issue. Now all drivers MUST be signed, yet many signed drivers don't work very well, if at all. I think it would be a good idea to have all drivers in one central repository (like the Linux kernel) so you won't have to worry about tracking down drivers for old hardware, but make sure the drivers work. And here is an idea, make the drivers modular. Drivers cause more BSODs and crashes than anything else. Don't let a single driver bring down a system. This is just basic common sense.
* Design for productivity, and not looks. Sexy is sexy, and we all like sexy things. In the long run however, I want my computer to enable me to work, not prevent me from doing so. Usability studies have shown that Vista's UI slows people down performing the same tasks. Scrolling in the Start Menu? Again, the writing was on the wall here. Look at the UI changes in Windows Media Player, and you'll see a program that has become less user friendly, while prettier. Why should we expect Vista to be different?
* Performance is piss-poor. Again, people like fast computers. Installing Vista is just a bad decision.
* Vista's worst enemy is not OS X or Linux (as much as I love me some Linux). Vista's worst enemy is XP, which post-SP1 has been a pretty decent OS. For the end user, Vista provides no real benefits or new features besides better looks, while slowing your PC down considerably. And with projects like the Vista Transformation Pack, you can make XP look like Vista. Why would someone want Vista?

I figured this would happen

[darkvizier]

Microsoft may have blundered, but they're not dumb. I'm pretty sure they wrote Vista in such a way that it's extensible. So people didn't like Vista, so what? Some people have paid for it, enough at least that they've gotten feedback on how to polish it up. Then they release their next OS, and life goes on. One product failure is not enough to kill MS.

Re:Vista's missing features

[draevil]

I found it hard to continue reading your post after point 1 began with "Microsoft says". As you rightly point out in point 2, MS-says with respect to what we-got in Vista didn't quite match up. MS promised a lot and users got an OS that felt to many like a regression.

MS has a habit of "promising" features that it doesn't know how to deliver; its useful if you want to discourage investment in potential competitors. After all, why go and develop a new fs technology if the company with a 90%+ monopoly in the OS sector is going to integrate it into their product?

"Windows 7" will be an incremental change to Vista with some bug fixes and a desire to gain a better image in the market than the ironically sullied Vista has. How can MS develop features in less than 1 year that they couldn't manage to make in 4?

Re:Marketing Slogan

[Daimanta]

This is EXACTLY how they approach sales. They say the previous version sucked in certain aspects and swear that this version is going to be über.

And we all know how that ends out.

Re:windows7

[colmore]

Nah, if they were going to copy Apple, they'd also needlessly break backwards compatibility.

I like Macs, best UI stuck on a Unix out there, but there's a lot to hate about the cult and what it gets away with.

Re:Marketing Slogan

[n0-0p]

Congrats on being the first (and so far only) person to get this right; the only thing missing is dates. In my opinion, the dates show parallels between 2K -> XP and Vista -> Windows 7. There was about a year and a half between 2K and XP releases, with XP initially just adding polish and tweaks to smooth out the major architectural changes of 2K. It also gave time for a compatible driver base to get established. In the end this resulted in much better uptake for XP than 2K. Maybe they're shooting for a similar scenario.

The normal Microsoft Propaganda.

[Vellmont]

So Microsoft has basically admitted that Vista is a flop, market wise. So what do they do? Announce a successor Real Soon Now.

They know they can't possibly get anything worth a damn out that quickly.. but that's not the goal here. The goal is to stave anyone figuring they might as well think about switching to Linux or OSX, cuz "Microsoft is going to fix Windows Real Soon Now".

In reality the product will actually be released in the middle of 2010. It may be good, it may be another bomb. How long can Microsoft keep up the "But the next one is going to be just GRRREEAAAT!"? Stay tuned...

Re:windows7

[ShieldW0lf]

Personally, I'll be avoiding anything touched by Microsoft going forward. There are Trusted Computing vulnerabilities built into my hardware now, so the risks have definitely become too great. That goes for Novell as well, of course. Simply can't be trusted.

Re:windows7

[Njovich]

I think you're right in saying that you can't compare Windows Service Packs to Mac OS X releases. However, your further statements about this puzzle me.

Point OS X releases include new features and updates old ones, while MS Service packs do neither of those. Service packs are just bundles of all the security updates since the last service pack.

IMHO that's not true. Windows XP SP2 added a whole range of new features (for instance in the wireless networking area), and other service packs have done so too.

Point OS X releases are more akin to Ubuntu LTS releases or something along those lines.

Ubuntu LTS releases generally have very few new features. Something like the Leopard release wouldn't be an LTS release. Als, there is no real equivalent for repositories in Mac OS, making comparisons about releases hard.

Service packs don't even mean anything anymore to the consumer because of the improvements to the automatic rollout of updates in windows.

Ok, where is your source on that one? Any citation? Windows XP SP2 meant a lot to consumers AFAIK.