Vista successor rumored to be on track for 2009 release
By Donald Melanson 
posted Jan 18th 2008 4:48PM
posted Jan 18th 2008 4:48PM
Rumors of Microsoft's successor to Vista have been cropping up virtually since day one, and if this latest one is to be believed, it looks like one of the earliest may have been right on target after all. According to TG Daily, "several industry sources" are now saying that the a very early version of the so-called "Windows 7" OS has already shipped to "key partners," and that Microsoft is now eying the second half of 2009 for a release of the real deal. That's a slight revision from the most recent rumors, which had pegged the debut as late as 2010 or, more vaguely, sometime within the next three years. As if that wasn't enough, Microsoft's apparently also lined up the next two early versions to be released, with the so-called M2 build slated for April or May of this year, and the M3 release slated to drop sometime in the third quarter. Given recent history, however, it's probably not the best idea to start marking your calendars just yet.
When it comes to cowboys and Indians, I always chose the cowboys since they had guns instead of arrows. Besides it always seemed silly to ride around on a horse in a loincloth. Those horses give people skin rashes. Does anyone know how to say "screw you and stay away from this site" using smoke signals?
Screw you and stay away from this site. We don't need spam or wampum.
Looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. Microsoft's official response, by an email dated 26th January, 2008, to WinVistaClub's enquiry, states that Windows 7 is still in the planning stage and will take approximately 3 years to develop.
While the answers to the other 2 questions may have been on predictable lines, what is important to note that Microsoft TODAY maintains that Windows 7 is STILL in the planning stages and it will take approximately 3 (more) years to develop.
More at Source: http://www.winvistaclub.com/i7.html
Looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. Microsoft's official response, by an email dated 26th January, 2008, to WinVistaClub's enquiry, states that Windows 7 is still in the planning stage and will take approximately 3 years to develop.
While the answers to the other 2 questions may have been on predictable lines, what is important to note that Microsoft TODAY maintains that Windows 7 is STILL in the planning stages and it will take approximately 3 (more) years to develop.
More at Source: http://www.winvistaclub.com/i7.html
I think it's time to go class action on Vista. I have 2 new Dells with 2 gb of RAM and neither run nearly as well as my 3 year old Dell with XP. All the updates are installed and still one of them never goes to sleep. If you force it to sleep, it never wakes up. Crashes are more frequent on both machines than the old one.
Microsoft should be embarrassed for reproducing another ME, and some insider emails indicate they are fully aware of problems. But it seems like all they do is introduce another new OS and then declare the one you just bought obsolete. I have owned every OS they have made, and I am really tired of the false hope they continue to feed us. Is Microsoft really this inept? Don't they test this stuff on store bought machines. There is nothing special about the Dells I bought, just loaded with tons of hardware horsepower that seems to be a total waste.
I hope they do much better this time. I want a decent Windows.
It would be great if they could release a good OS but the trouble is that everyone expects them to release an OS that supports all of the things developed for the last OS. So they really can't cut out the bloat like apple was able to with OSX
One of the "nicest" things Microsoft has done for consumers is to make backwards compatibility a goal. But that's not universal, as any fan of AfterDark running Windows XP will tell you.
Microsoft could "reboot" the OS if they actually chose to do so. Those consumers who won't upgrade because it breaks compatibility with old software might well be those who wouldn't upgrade anyway.
MikeD: You're absolutely correct, compatibility can't be 100% guaranteed, but they absolutely can cut out Vista's bloat. And they can start by making sure loading a 'glass' window doesn't consume 512MB of memory. They need to go easy on the graphics, and keep a close eye on all of the bloat. There's no reason whatsoever Windows 7 can't be as fast and stable as XP. If memory serves, Windows ME bombed big time, but Windows XP was a lot better, with Windows ME's features. Hopefully that'll be the case with Vista, and Windows 7.
Well MS does put out a dud every once in a while. And Vista is looking like it could end up the new Windows ME. Anyone remember that one? No?
The good thing is they followed ME up with XP, which was a major improvement. So hopefully the same will happen this time.
Ok ok Vista has problems - but it's still as good as XP. It's not another ME, it's XP with tons of great features added in, but suffers performance problems which need fixing.
"And they can start by making sure loading a 'glass' window doesn't consume 512MB of memory" - that's not Aero... that's Superfetcher.
Get yourself a real computer, not some 200$ Dell laptop, and you will any OS's run perfectly smooth on it. Or stop getting illegal copies of Windows that are badly cracked where its core is all damaged.
It's been since June 2007 I run Vista, and I regret waiting that long. I was running on WinXP SP2 before that. I decided just for kicks to downgrade to XP... and OMG XP is SOOOO BUGGY! Take 10min to have the delete dialog box, you can skip or retry unable to delete/move/copy/cut files, tooltip hides behind the taskbar, unstable network connection, inconsistent volume per games/music player/video player as you cannot change each program volume. I don't need to have a spyware program (yet), and I can disable my anti-virus continuous guard on files (increase system performance), I just make it scan once a week, and everything I download off a non-trusted site. And I don't even need a firewall, Vista firewall is great.
I see absolute no decrease in performance in gaming or application... Windows Super-fetch does an excellent job at reducing its "reserved space" on the RAM when you need it. And NO I don't have quad-SLI Geforce 10800 GTX 1TB of RAM.
I just have a Geforce 6600GT 128MB (for now).
Also if you have Vista Business or Ultimate, open up gpedit.msc, it's packed with interesting options.
Sure it starts faster, but heck I never close my computer, there is no point in doing so, unless you know you won't be using it for some time.
Windows vista made me switch to mac...
For the good.
@Junior
Then you're doing it wrong.
Look, I'm making this post from my mac at home. But my Dell laptop runs Vista just fine. Certain apps actually launch faster than they did on XP. I have no real problems with Vista.
I'm not saying Vista is perfect, or even without its fair share of problems. But a great many of Vista problems involve PEBKAC. Also, people who have barely used it jumping on the bandwagon.
since backwards compatibility would be easy to achieve through emulation, if desired, i can only conclude that there must some other obstacle. i suggest it's a complete lack of vision and direction.
I hope they do a better pricing scheme because or the Windows fanboys going to have to cool down on the "OSX is so much more expensive" crap :-)
I need to see early "leaked" build to believe...
I certainly ain't gonna pay (*wink*) for the next one. I paid over $300 for Vista and it did nothing but make my system look obsolete -- not because of low specs but because of poor hardware support.
Seems about right. I apparently am on the alternate cycle. Bought a computer with ME on it a few years back and then a couple with Vista on it last year. Just keep an eye on my purchases and you will know which versions of Windows to avoid.
Sounds about right, I've compaired Vista to ME since the day they dropped WinFS
lol, Murphy's laws
That's some bad luck there man. I don't think Vista is as bad as ME (I had one of those too, and back then they wouldn't install 98 SE if you asked nicely) but it's not a worthy successor to XP. If Microsoft are intending to release in '09, though, they'd better get the pricing sorted, as well as the number of SKUs.
@garst
Windows 95 was officially 4.0
Windows 98 was 4.5
Windows ME was 4.9
Windows 2000 was 5.0
Windows XP was 5.1
Windows Vista is 6.0
Therefore, the next version could very well be Windows 7
Crud... I posted one comment to high. I fail.
Wow, I'm surprise, are they dropping this like how they did ME? Vista is a great OS, but it does seem a lot slower than windows xp. I was hoping they would stabilize Vista more before planning such an early release for the next OS.
I am sure when SP1 will be out, Vista will sell like hot cakes specially that now all computer part manufacture has their BIOS and drivers ready for Vista.
I predict that Vista will work, and decide to delay "Windows 7" for several years like WinXP.
Also, Vista is too new, if they release Windows 2007 in 2009, then people will be:
1- pissed
2- again stay with WinXP, because they will thing (avg users) that its a new Windows and that they are a lot of bugs.
So basically if Microsoft continue with such method, several windows would be out, software companies would be pissed as they have even more OS's to support in one shot (or about), and everyone will have different WIndows versions depending on when they will buy a computer, and NO ONE will buy a retail copy of Windows, as they will all wait until they see a need to get a new computer (which is already the case for many average users, and now including computer enthusiasts).
It should be Vista SP2.
Is anyone even certain the "Windows 7" is even going to be for the desktop? If you count the different desktop OSs Microsoft has release, wouldn't it be more like Windows 10? It would make more sense that Windows 7 is the next mobile OS seems how Windows Mobile 6 is out now. Windows Mobile 7 would come after Windows Mobile 6, not Windows 7 comes after Windows 9. Microsoft isn't Square Enix and its crazy Fanil Fantasy series.
Yep seems to alternate - Win 98 was good (after SE release), ME sucked, XP was good (after a while), Vista sucked, maybe this will be a good OS release.
Given that, can I haf betaz? :D
Are we forgetting Windows 2000 O.o
I always seem to be on the short end of the stick when these things happen :(
Windows 2000 is basically XP without plug and play drivers and eye candy built in.. same basic stuff going on behind the scenes.
Its still in use today on alot of critical business machines like ones that handle heating and air conditioning systems... that kind of critical, not credit card info.
Windows 2000 was the successor to Windows NT which at the time was in a different market to 98/ME. XP was the OS that combined their business and personal products into one... of course then there was Professional and Home... and now like 50 versions of Vista... but there were originally two different segments.
Well... 2000 wasn't really marketed to consumers, dunno really what else to say but yeah I guess I forgot :P w/e.
Windows2000 was the bee's knees; it was stable and blazing fast, it was the first Windows OS that I didn't reinstall every few months (and I've been using MS operating systems since DOS). However, as an OS Vista isn't horrible, at least technically speaking. What makes it bad is how unintuitive and intrusive it its. The default setting make it worse, unless MS changes how they treat the user any Vista replacement isn't going to be much better.
So you say the 2 good OS's were only good after 2 SP's each, yet Vista definitely sucks even though they haven't even gotten it's first SP out? So by your logic, either you can't give an opinion on Vista since you need 2 SP's to come out to determine if it's worthwhile, or 98 and XP suck because when they first came out they had issues upon release.
@ Darkest Daze:
Of course Vista should be forgiven for a couple issues upon release. The problem is that most of the problems (at least for me) are driver based that should have been fixed MONTHS ago, and they obviously haven't for a reason. There are also fundamental design problems in Vista, as discussed above, that you can't just remedy with a SP because it's an integral part of the OS.
So maybe XP and 98 had problems this far into release for some people as well but MS is supposed to have matured as a company by now. Companies need to figure out how to make more efficient everything in their business - patching, production, etc. - in order to make more money. If it took 98 a year to get working for most people, it should take XP 6 months, and Vista only 3 months.
Bull.
CRAP.
The end.
Chebwa, I'm sorry, but every single post I see you make is either filled with some fanboyistic bullshit, or just bullshit.
Alright man. When you're rocking Microsoft's Vista successor in 2009, I'll eat my words.
I'm rocking Vista's successor now.
...source code and all. Ok fine, so there's a difference between succession and a coup... but really? Vista was a desperate attempt to catch up and it couldn't even do that. It's like, 1/5 the functionality of compiz fusion (or less) with 7 times the overhead for it. Support for old hardware? Shot to heck. Support for non-x86 ISA's? None. So what's the point? Gaming? If I really wanted to play games, I'd get a PS3 and dual boot GameOS and psubuntu.
Vista was a godsend.. it made me get a Mac..
Mo
Vista was a godsend.. it made me switch to Linux...
...Thankyou Vista for sending Mo to an OS he/she can understand!
Intrepid, my smug alert just went off.
I second the Vista made me switch to Linux. I have been using it for almost a year now and the switch was far less painful than I thought... And honestly, far less painful than a switch to Vista.
Working with a computer company really helps to highlight how much and how many people hate Vista. It seems like it was released to generate more money for the companies affiliated with Microsoft rather than introduce new features and enhancements for the consumer and business.
macs are a godsend. o wait, nevermind.
It's called Vienna within Microsoft and Partners have been aware of it for over 18 months. Update beyond Vienna to intregrate all server platforms into one OS is further planned. Why update?
No, it's actually called "Windows 7" internally, and to the best of my knowledge, it has in no way, shape, or form been release to anyone externally.
One unsupported claim followed by another unsupported claim. Doesn't that equal zero?
if that is the case. we should see beta version by fall of 2008 and the release candidate by spring of 2009. i just don't see that happening. unless windows vista = windows ME. Windows ME was the worst OS of all time.
Vista's a dismal failure... they may as well roll out another poorly thought out, third-rate OS.
What else could one expect from a bunch of has-beens?
2009? Do think that's going to be enough time for them to copy Leopard and modify it just enough not to have copyright infringement problems. Who cares? By then we'll be at OSX Ocelot and they'll have to start copying all over again. It's MouSe chase cat sort of computing industry.
Fanboy trolls are Seinfeld level hilarity.
No, really!
P.S. Every new version of OS X is a fucking rip off. $150 for a lame graphics-heavy version of System Restore? WTF? $150 for a new 3D dock? WTF?
This should come as no surprise to anyone. You can't really believe that Microsoft devotes it's entire Windows OS team to one release, can you? Any good company is always thinking ahead, working on products and features to be implemented in the future because they can't be done at this point in time.
I, for one, am not surprised.
Exactly. Look at surface, which was announced less than a year after vista was released. They've already got a working model, if not several, and will be developing a version of it for tablet PCs over the next few years.
When making Windows, they should devote every Windows-creating resource to it. That doesn't mean ignoring server versions while making a consumer version, or ignoring XBoxes while making consumer Windows.
But they should NOT have another team working on a future version of the same product before the current version is even released. For one, it would mean a duplication of effort and building on a moving target. For another, it means consumers are intentionally not given the best.
With development underway on Windows 7, they sure had better not have smart people working on Windows 8. The smart people should be on 7.
Fair point. Intel is currently working as far as the fourth succession to Penryn called Sandy Bridge. Hopefully AMD can keep up.
Still, it's weird to think that the OS development team would take so long to produce so little. Until XP, Microsoft never took more than three years to release a new OS. Then XP hits, and it takes six years to unveil... what, exactly?
I fought the good fight with ME, but couldn't do Vista. Let's hope XP is the standard Windows 7 aims to pass, and not Vista!
They better give me a free copy after buying Vista.
Those complaining about Vista shouldn't be working in the Industry as they obviously do not know how to configure a PC correctly.
No problems at all with Vista since early betas over 18 months ago. Maybe I choose my hardware wisely rather than just buy any old crappy motherboard & display adaptor.
I don't understand what this has to do with my post. I wasn't complaining about Vista, I was complaining about buying Vista, then MS releasing a new OS so soon.
I can complain about Vista's licensing/ activation alone enough to sway my decision from purchasing Vista. I've got no problem with making Vista work. However, I just don't agree with MS's policies. If I could install Vista 1000 times on one computer without worrying if this next hard drive failure, video card, bios flash(haven't had this one myself), cpu upgrade is going to make my computer operate in a limited mode. I will call MS to resolve the situation when that happens, but the principle alone goes against what I am willing to agree to when I purchase software. The licensing isn't a big deal to joe user. In fact its easy to go buy the $299 pc at Walmart. When they add the ability to have a single moving license with no hassles then I'll buy a MS product again. There could be other solutions...similar to what I've described that would work as well.
Vista is a great OS, but it does seem a lot slower than windows xp.
Break free: http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu
XP is easier to use, doesn't require daily tweaking, and just plain works with every game released on its release day.
I don't know about you but I don't get off on a crummy UI, complicated terminal based command line configuration or any of the other hassles that go along with the many Linux distros I have tried. In the end, Windows for all its faults is still far easier to deal with.
Linux has a lot going for it, like stability...and...uh...well there's stability. In all seriousness if it's not user friendly it doesn't matter how free it is, it still sucks.
Ubuntu is too much of a hassle for most. Believe me, I dual boot it, but it is a great alternate OS. Average engadget reader shouldn't have too much trouble messing around with it. I would recommend putting Ubuntu onto an extra/old comp to everyone, it's a nice OS.
Why did you have to bring politics into this. Must... resist... the urge... to go on for... 500 words about my opinion.
@Nathan: Actually, if you're using bleeding edge graphical programs or recent hardware that has relatively new drivers then you don't get stability anymore than you get it in Vista. (Often much less)
LOL. Ubuntu. The OS that cannot see my NV raid setup? Even though Vista can and installs to it with no issues out of the fucking box? Even though the RAID setup is configured in BIOS and even crusty DOS can see it? But oh no! Not Linux. It's too good for BIOS. It just loads non raid drviers and then, if you're not careful fucks your config. Then, when you go online for info the most common response from the Linux snobs is "get a real RAID controller." Having to edit config files with fucking EMACS? It's 2007 people.
Well guess what penguin fuckers? Get a real OS.
For all its faults I'll take Vista over Linux any day.
@ian Look at it this way. If you work a typical crummy $15/hr help desk/tech support gig for 25 hours, after taxes, you might have enough to purchase a full retail copy of Vista Ultimate. If it takes you more 25 hours to get Ubuntu set up how you want it, you may be better off hiring someone to come dress you in the mornings and wipe the drool off your chin.
Wow, the world will still be trying to work Vista in to their networks and corporations still by then...
I agree - Vista is crap and I think MS might slowly be understanding that it is a horse that needs to be put out of its misery. It would be great if Balmer would stop with the con game - trying to convince us the Vista is selling "well" and just say - look we realize Vista is a colossal failure and we admit - it sucks. We are stopping all patches post SP1 and promise to devote our entire staff to developing a worthwhile successor to XP. We've pulled the product from the shelves and issued a recall to prevent anyone from accidentally using this product.
PS we've fired all developers even remotely related to Vista. We've executed all management involved in Vista and even relocated the cafeteria workers who fed those developers for fear of contamination. The facility where Vista was developed has been destroyed as part of our new project "scorched earth" for the safety of our clients. We apologize to all the survivors of this catastrophe and mourn their loss of time and productivity.
I want a souvenir from ground zero! A brick maybe? It'll be a good memento for the kids =)
"Unfortunately, the bulldozer conducting the scheduled destruction of the Vista facility has malfunctioned, now only displaying three blinking red segments around its display. Microsoft technicians are working hard to resolve this issue, and we appreciate your patience and understanding."
We apologise again for the fault in the recall. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
Hopefully in the next version - Vienna/Windows7/Windows2009, MS will thoroughly test all factors in speed including file transfers/copies/moves, network thoughput and gaming performance on current and not so current hardware and make sure it is AT LEAST as fast as XP before Vienna even makes it to RC1.
I am running Vista 64 and haven't had any problems and it runs very fast. Probably because I have 4 gigs of RAM, but considering you can get that for under $100 now, why wouldn't you.
Only weird thing I have had is it wants me to reauthorize it after every BIOS flash. That and until Macworld this week Itunes wouldn't let me burn a CD.
It seems like most of the people doing the bitching are on weak systems they had XP on before. Yes, it is going to run slow.
Funny article out yesterday:
Why isn't Vista loved as much as XP?
http://neowin.net/news/main/08/01/16/why-isnt-vista-loved-as-much-as-xp
good comments too.
I had limited experince on Windows 3.1, 95, 98, and 2000, and didn't really like them nearly as much as XP, when I really got into computers. And I do remember all the bitching about XP and why do you have to have 256mb of memory. It sucks so badddddddddddddddddd!!!!!!!! WWWWAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!
"Probably because I have 4 gigs of RAM, but considering you can get that for under $100 now, why wouldn't you."
Because I have to consider the 200+ machines in our organisation, all of which are less than three years old and the majority under 2 years. Most were specified with 1Gb memory even though we were running windows 2000 because we knew full well that would be enough for XP and, quite frankly, should be enough for any OS just used for normal office tasks. You would have me spend $20,000 in memory upgrades just to upgrade to an OS that offers virtually nothing to an organisation? Increased security is always nice but, to be honest, our environment is locked down tight and we haven't had any problems for over five years now.
The result? We're upgrading to Windows XP and Office 2003 over the next few weeks and we're not the only ones. A contact of mine in a major IT Supply company told me today that virtually every major business he works for has either rejected Vista or, more commonly, bought new machines with Vista licenses then downgraded to XP almost immediately. Why? Because it offers significantly worse performance, a far more limited environment and has more problems than XP which, for business purposes, makes the choice very clear indeed...
SteveM - It's telling that your organization was running a 7 year old O/S in the first place. If you are that far behind the curve, you shouldn't consider moving to Vista anyway in my opinion. Most companies which are this far back in O/S versions, likely also run apps which are also that far back, bringing compatability issues to light. A company I worked for, STILL uses Win2k to this day, and also still has some apps they have not fully ported over from 16 bit - they should stay away from Vista too.
No one should ever upgrade just because it's something new and shiny. You should have a reason to upgrade - something that the newer version gives your org, which the older version lacks, even it it's just performance. If you cannot find a reason to upgrade, why bother, since it can only likely cause more problems anyway?
@SteveM
I run an op with 3 times that number and also use 1gb. 1gb is PLENTY of RAM to run Vista in an office environment. PLENTY.
You won't need that kind of power unless you are running advanced video codecs in media content and games.
I'm like you, running Vista 64 bit. on 1 computers
1- with 1GB of RAM (runs fine, but not super ultra smoothly, when you do stuff more then internet or Office software (spreadsheet, text, etc...)
2- 2GB of RAM, I have the same results as WinXP.
Yet their is a difference compared to WinXP with my 2 GB RAM computer, in WinXP when the Ram reached 60-70%, the system is sluggish and not responding. In Vista the issue is only visible at about 95-100%.
I don't know about Vista 32-bit thus, I have the disk, but never bothered to try it as Vista 64-bit is perfect.
I'm like you, running Vista 64 bit. on 1 computers
1- with 1GB of RAM (runs fine, but not super ultra smoothly, when you do stuff more then internet or Office software (spreadsheet, text, etc...)
2- 2GB of RAM, I have the same results as WinXP.
Yet their is a difference compared to WinXP with my 2 GB RAM computer, in WinXP when the Ram reached 60-70%, the system is sluggish and not responding. In Vista the issue is only visible at about 95-100%.
I don't know about Vista 32-bit thus, I have the disk, but never bothered to try it as Vista 64-bit is perfect.
Unfortunately though you're ranked as the worst indian due to plugging in the comments. Quite a shame really, its not the blogs fault.
cool, the comment I replied to was deleted making mine make no sense =)
Here's what I am worried about: Didn't they say that their next OS would be a clean start and would not be backwards compatible with previous software? Or am I remembering incorrectly (I might be)? If this is the case then I would assume that it will be very difficult to get all the major software titles (not to mention hardware) ready for the transition.
Please tell me I am remembering wrong.
Not sure where you got this, but Windows 7 is not supposed to be a clean start, quite the opposite - the drive model will be shared, so that Vista drivers will work on Windows 7. This was one of the primary complaints about Vista was the lack of drivers, even though that is the OEM's fault for not having drivers for their own hardware.
I find a lot of irony in that the industry dings MS for taking so long to get Vista shipped, and at the same time few OEM's were ready with drivers even after having the same LONG time to develop them. MS got blamed for the lack of driver support as a result, when they don't do drivers.
Initially when Vista came out there were articles discussing Vienna saying that it would be a replacement OS. Now that I am looking, I've found some of those original articles, it appears there was a change of focus at some point making this OS a minor update and not a major overhaul.
if you dual boot vista and xp, xp just runs faster. what more do you need to know? i haven't really had any problems with vista crashing it's just slower, so why bother just for aero effects, which btw take up 1 GB or RAM even when the machine is idle.
the 1GB of ram is not just for the interface. vista runs much faster on a machine designed for vista than xp does. and vista utilizes ram differently than xp does, thats why it takes up so much ram. it stores program information in ram based on usage so that those programs load faster. vista is only a failure if you're a failure at using it. once you know how to use it and how to configure it, there are no "daily tweaks" it just runs well. it boots faster than xp, it runs faster than xp, only thing it does slower in my experience is shut down. do me a favor and do some research before you bash vista. i bet half of you people have never even used it.
umm ok i have done a lot of research and use vista everyday. there's no such thing as a computer "made" for vista really. is there a magical cutoff point for processors and ram and graphics card where all of a sudden you have a vista machine. no. of course you need a pretty good machine to run vista well. that's not my point. my point si that according to pretty much every benchmark i've ever seen xp runs faster than vista even on the highest end machine money can buy.
I was hoping they'd make Vista better but I guess another OS is inevitable. I'm already liking the 64 ultimate with just minor dificulties but nothing BSOD or major.
I do hope as Ultimate ver. users we get to try the new one out.
Microsoft is now a victim of its past success. The OS has ballooned into an overly complicated piece of software that now has to be all things to all people and all businesses.
I'm impressed with the Xbox 360 UI and Live network; the next version of Windows could be equally cool for consumers if they can manage to make the OS for consumers separate from what businesses want. And they'll have to have the drivers ready next time at launch.
At the pace OS X is gaining ground, it's going to be even harder for M$ to get those consumer customers back. Probably not so much of a challenge to keep businesses in their pocket unless Apple sets their sites on the Enterprise.
"And they'll have to have the drivers ready next time at launch."
I hope you are referring to the software and device manufactures. Remember MS isn't the one that makes the drivers. All the companies knew what they needed to do with Vista and they are the ones that drug their feet, MS couldn't wait on all of them to get the drivers complete.
i'm actually sorta of ready to switch over completely to macs what with vista sucking and me getting my MBP which is a joy to use, more so now that PC gaming isn't getting any innovative/fun titles to play with, OSX with bootcamp is pretty much the same as having a PC, but i think i still need to have that tower in my house to feel safe lol (ooh plus cheap crossfire cards coming from ATI soon will make it rather enticing to upgrade).
I don't think late '09 gives them quite enough time to put together a reeeeeally polished Leaopard rip off. I'd be looking more to '10, or even early '11.
I don't necessarily want a Leopard interface -- I want a Darwin command line. Give me $ over C:\> any day. If Microsoft would incorporate a UNIXy command line I'd love them forever.
Umm have you heard of the Monad Powershell?
Released by Microsoft its a very powerful CLI.
Wonder what kind of activation will be required for the new version? Eye Scans emailing copies of your receipt with photo id
Hits:
DOS 6.0
Win 95B
Win 98se
Win 2k Pro
Win XP Pro
Misses:
DOS 6.22
Win 95
MS Bob
Win 98
Win ME
Win Vista
Oh goodie, now we have something else to hate...
2008 will go down in history as the year all of my computers go Linux!
http://www.ubuntu.com
And where are Windows 3.1, 3.11 and NT 4?
MS Bob was not an operating system, so why is it on your list?