Vista's successor now known as "7," due out within three years

Although Vista still seems fresh as a daisy, that hasn't stopped Microsoft from planning their next major OS release, and it looks like a part of the plan is changing the internal codename from Vienna to "7." The switch was disclosed at at a Microsoft sales training conference in Orlando this past week as part of the company's new "iterative" information-sharing plan, which aims to provide customers and partners with more and more info as part of a predictable release schedule. Microsoft also confirmed that 7 is scheduled to be in development for three years, which we kinda-sorta already knew. No word on when we might ever see Vista SP1, of course, but we bet all those customers and partners are still pretty psyched to know the new codename for a product that's three years out.

[MrGam3r @ Jul 20th 2007 8:43PM]

time to buy more RAM.....

[tekdroid @ Jul 21st 2007 3:43AM]

7 GB. So sez the grapevine.

[Zarniwoop @ Jul 25th 2007 3:49PM]

It will actually require 9 GB of RAM, and use up 7 GB just to boot up into. 7 of 9...

[mijj @ Jul 20th 2007 8:44PM]

windows is self bashing

[Sizer @ Jul 20th 2007 8:45PM]

This one won't suck, for sure, we promise!

[Señor Swanky @ Jul 20th 2007 8:46PM]

May as well wait to buy new.

[elan @ Jul 20th 2007 8:49PM]

Ten is greater than seven.

[crypt2121 @ Jul 23rd 2007 9:16AM]

Yes, but it's the last version. Mac users can't count any higher. :)

[Anthony @ Jul 20th 2007 8:51PM]

we can expect it to come out in a decade

..i mean look at longhorn.. X|

[kunikos @ Jul 20th 2007 9:09PM]

yep, 7 is 2017!

[ce @ Jul 21st 2007 6:52PM]

Oh, come on. The five year transition from XP to Vista is the only time they had a huge gap. Don't you remember the huge array of OS's thrown at us over three years?

1998- Win98
1999- Win98SE
2000- Win2000, WinME
2001- WinXP

[SiLo @ Jul 20th 2007 8:51PM]

Years ago I would have been defending Windows more, but now I do not. I have no qualms with Vista and XP per say, but I just don't see how Windows is the "only" easy to use OS anymore.

Mac OS X is a breeze to install (provided your hardware works out of the box for the most part) and Ubuntu is the same (see Mac OS X).

Now with the Beryl project, there is eye candy for Linux and Mac OS X has already had it for years.

Windows better do something drastic (again) to really make this OS something that stands out.

-cue resume Windows bashing-

[Miles @ Jul 20th 2007 9:51PM]

The most drastic thing Windows ever did was steal ideas.

[mrChin @ Jul 21st 2007 12:33AM]

yeah miles, they don't want anyone to find out! michael, don't be an asstard. the whole internet is watching.

[Mel @ Jul 21st 2007 4:52PM]

It's cue or resume. Not both.

[Mig @ Jul 21st 2007 9:47PM]

Microsoft wasn't the only one to steal ideas, Apple has too and so have my Linux friends.

[Dan @ Jul 21st 2007 4:26PM]

maturity, people, maturity! It gives more credibility to your argument.

[eh @ Jul 20th 2007 8:52PM]

I hope it comes out in 3 years at the most. I dont want to see a repeat of the crap that was the Vista Development Time. Ideally I think there should be a new OS every other year just to keep the flow of technological advancement moving, not once a year like Apple and certainly not once a decade like Microsoft. I would like to see BIOS go away before I die.

[Eric @ Jul 20th 2007 8:54PM]

Sadly, it has already missed the shipping date.

[Fred @ Jul 20th 2007 8:55PM]

NOT TRUE. I'm a total mac fanboy, but no competition leads to complacency. Just ask MS, they effectively had no competition in the 90's, and look where Windows is now.

[Mike @ Jul 20th 2007 9:00PM]

You would think they MS should be working on Vista before they move on to something new. I guess SEVEN is a lucky number?

[sschwend @ Jul 20th 2007 9:02PM]

Agreed. I am a total mac fanboy and I will never buy a non apple computer unless something catastrophic happens.. but dont get me wrong when I get my next computer this comming spring I will DEFINATLY be boot camping Vista or XP on it.. I havent decided which yet.

Microsoft bashers eat a dick. The Zune is nice only problem is the ipod has a big enough fan base it doesnt matter. Also the iPhone blows and windows mobile is amazing. But dont get me wrong i LOVE apple computers

[Kevin @ Jul 25th 2007 12:16PM]

Last time i used Windows Mobile on my VX6700... it didn't do much aside from what I expected from a MS product, it froze. Even on the replacement phone I got (same model)

Now so far as the Zune, it's got a cool feature, i.e. wireless sharing. Though really, I prefer the iPods interface to the Zune. But that's just personal preference.

[strider_mt2k @ Jul 20th 2007 9:09PM]

Hope XP holds up till then. :\

[Rik @ Jul 21st 2007 11:56AM]

Jup, i'm still regarding Vista as a bit of a "Windows ME"... intermediate version to keep people happy. Let's face it, there were three great Windows OS-es..., Win3.1 since it was the first mainstream Windows OS, Win95 since it was revolutionary, Windows XP, the first stable Windows.

[Carlton @ Jul 21st 2007 4:38PM]

Love the comment on "Win XP being the first stable one." Funny. I guess it was *relatively* stable, compared to other Windows, but it sure as hell isn't any OS X, Linux or, hell, even the Unixes from the 70's!

At work we have XP boxen and don't plan on upgrading to Vista for the next two years, at the very least. I told all my friends that it would happen like this, but they just didn't believe me. Guess I was right :)

[daliminator2000 @ Jul 20th 2007 9:09PM]

::sigh:: Please go back to your little troll bridge and shut up forever, please.

And just one little piece of information: OS X is NOT open-source.

[Rick @ Jul 20th 2007 9:12PM]

The choose "7" as "part of the company's new "iterative" information-sharing plan, which aims to provide customers and partners with more and more info as part of a predictable release schedule." Because as we all know, when we hear "7" we immediately think 2010.

[Miguel @ Jul 22nd 2007 8:02PM]

No, we all think of the seventh wide-market commercial release of a consumer operating system (e.g. not business-oriented).

1. Windows 3.1
2. Windows 95
3. Windows 98
4. Windows ME (say what you will, it was marketed as such)
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. "Seven"

Oh, snap.

[Rick @ Jul 23rd 2007 3:33PM]

Wait, it would be "8" or "9" then:

1. Windows 1.0
2. Windows 3.0
(skipping here 2.0)

[MK @ Jul 23rd 2007 6:01PM]

3 - Windows 3.x
4 - Win 95/98/SE/2000
5 - WinXP
6 - Vista
7 - 7

[Mike @ Jul 26th 2007 3:25PM]

1. Microsoft Windows version 1.0 November 1985
2. Microsoft Windows version 2.0/2.03 November 1987
3. Microsoft Windows version 3.0/3.1 1990
4. Windows 95 August 1995
5. Microsoft Windows 98 June 1998
6. Windows 2000/ME February 2000
7. Windows XP October 2001
8. Windows Vista
9. "Seven"

[Rick @ Jul 26th 2007 9:48PM]

Actually, a couple news sources have now clarified it's the seventh version of "Windows NT", the 32-bit version of windows. Windows 16-bit is was abandoned with Windows ME.

[Alex Padilla @ Jul 20th 2007 9:18PM]

I really think they should fix Vista before starting heavy work on their new OS.

I still think Microsoft should run to the finish line with Surface. That's some amazing technology right there. Have a touch-screen monitor and a flat-laying "Surface tablet" and then the real "Wow" would start.

[Miles @ Jul 20th 2007 9:53PM]

Or you could by an iPhone and ditch that big ass table.

[Miles @ Jul 20th 2007 9:54PM]

BTW that tech isn't anything new, Apple has been working on it for years.

[Le Master @ Jul 21st 2007 12:49AM]

Miles are you joking or are you really just that ignorant? Please let it be the former.

[Jay @ Jul 21st 2007 1:31AM]

Alex,

Not trying to start the annoying debate of mindless bashing, but what exactly is wrong with Vista that needs to be fixed so desperately. I'm actually looking for an informative answer, not "macz rool teh interweb."

[Alex Padilla @ Jul 21st 2007 10:45AM]

@ Jay

While I don't personally own a copy of Windows Vista, I've used it before at other people's homes and have used it enough, in my opinion, to give a somewhat fair judgement about it's performance. I used it on a solid hardware configuration (I don't know the exact specs), and it seemed to be a bit laggy and resource-heavy. It just seemed to slow down the performance of the system with all the animations and stuff (but I'll admit, they were pretty).

And about safety, I figure it's just about as safe as any other Microsoft OS.

[Fruition @ Jul 22nd 2007 9:47PM]

I agree with you Alex, I feel that MS was asking quite a lot for Vista to require a minimum of 1 gb for memory. However, I've got an HP Pavilion dv6000 laptop with 2 gb of memory and an nvidia geforce go 7400, and the OS has not lagged for me at all. Initially I was greatly opposed to Vista when I ordered the laptop, and I was just going to buy XP and install it, but it's grown on me. Not once have I complained about something XP could do that Vista can't do just as well or better.

However, I don't appreciate how they hid some things like the File, Edit, View, Tools, etc toolbar in Windows explorer. I still can't figure out how to make that appear permanently, though I'm sure there must be a way. Anyhow, that's the only real problem I've had with it thus far.

Security, you're probably right about, but it's probably not any worse than XP. Plus it asks for administrator permission for a lot of things now, which I first found incredibly annoying but have since gotten accustomed to. I still think it's ridiculous that Microsoft let it come to this, but at least they're trying.

[Revrant2394 @ Jul 20th 2007 9:22PM]

Ah that Miles, after his handicapped parents somehow birthed him despite church intervention(The power of Christ comp...You know), he had a life of fringe beliefs under the careful tutelage of a rich pair of beret wearing corporate hipsters, since then, he's never been seen without his thick, hard rimmed glasses.

[Tavis Veighey @ Jul 20th 2007 9:29PM]

Shoulden't they be busie fixing Vista instead of working on the NEXT os?

[d_schrute @ Jul 20th 2007 10:41PM]

Have you actually used Vista??? I have Vista on two computers (one new and one that is over 3 years old) is it works fine. BTW, I also have a Mac so am not a hater. I like Vista a lot and it works great. As far as MS stealing and copying everything, do you really think Apple invented widgets, indexed search, and multi-touch? Apple has not invented crap. Sure they have made existing technology easier to use for non-technical people and charged a lot for it but have not invented it.

[d_schrute @ Jul 20th 2007 10:40PM]

Name 5 things wrong with Vista? Have you used it?

[Andrew @ Jul 21st 2007 10:23AM]

My only complaint is the UAC so i turned it off. I like OS X better but vista is better than xp

[Jeebus @ Jul 22nd 2007 5:13PM]

Five things? Ok...
1. The new file browsing interface is broken
2. The new start menu sucks
3. Windows Networking is a mess
4. Windows Search Is Broken
5. Windows copying has not improved

How's that?

[Matt @ Jul 20th 2007 9:30PM]

are we seeing heavy rewrites with every installment from now on, or is this adding functionality and streamlining incremently that we see with OSX?

[Aetuneo @ Jul 20th 2007 9:34PM]

Of course, 7 = Linux with Beryl + Leopard - Stability - Functionality - (Everything that makes Linux / OS X good).

[Neebs @ Jul 20th 2007 9:40PM]

So we'll be running DirectX 11 / exclusively on Windows 7?

[Keaton @ Jul 20th 2007 11:59PM]

7-11 HAHA one of the more decent comments here....