Vista successor rumored to be on track for 2009 release

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.

[Bassir @ Jan 18th 2008 4:53PM]

I hope they do much better this time. I want a decent Windows.

[Mike D @ Jan 18th 2008 6:02PM]

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

[Derek @ Jan 18th 2008 6:23PM]

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.

[Andrew Campbell @ Jan 18th 2008 6:39PM]

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.

[Jeff @ Jan 18th 2008 7:25PM]

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.

[Intrepid @ Jan 18th 2008 7:39PM]

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.

[Good_Bytes @ Jan 18th 2008 7:55PM]

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.

[Junior @ Jan 18th 2008 8:22PM]

Windows vista made me switch to mac...







For the good.

[insertAlias @ Jan 18th 2008 9:24PM]

@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.

[m @ Jan 19th 2008 1:14AM]

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.

[iPriest @ Jan 19th 2008 2:31AM]

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 :-)

[Ahmed Alzayani @ Jan 19th 2008 4:21AM]

I need to see early "leaked" build to believe...

[E71 @ Jan 19th 2008 10:33AM]

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.

[Paul Barwick @ Jan 18th 2008 4:54PM]

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.

[Ghen @ Jan 18th 2008 5:07PM]

Sounds about right, I've compaired Vista to ME since the day they dropped WinFS

[madwh @ Jan 18th 2008 5:29PM]

lol, Murphy's laws

[Andrew @ Jan 19th 2008 7:48AM]

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.

[smrtguy29485 @ Jan 19th 2008 1:04PM]

@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

[smrtguy29485 @ Jan 19th 2008 1:06PM]

Crud... I posted one comment to high. I fail.

[Totalfixation @ Jan 18th 2008 4:55PM]

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.

[Good_Bytes @ Jan 18th 2008 8:01PM]

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.

[Garst @ Jan 19th 2008 7:07AM]

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.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 18th 2008 4:56PM]

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

[paragraph @ Jan 18th 2008 5:01PM]

Are we forgetting Windows 2000 O.o

I always seem to be on the short end of the stick when these things happen :(

[Ghen @ Jan 18th 2008 5:09PM]

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.

[Allan @ Jan 18th 2008 5:34PM]

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.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 18th 2008 6:44PM]

Well... 2000 wasn't really marketed to consumers, dunno really what else to say but yeah I guess I forgot :P w/e.

[Temple @ Jan 18th 2008 7:26PM]

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.

[Darkest Daze @ Jan 19th 2008 1:50AM]

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.

[wickedpheonix @ Jan 19th 2008 7:52AM]

@ 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.

[Chebwa @ Jan 18th 2008 4:57PM]

Bull.

CRAP.

The end.

[Zeus.:God @ Jan 18th 2008 5:17PM]

Chebwa, I'm sorry, but every single post I see you make is either filled with some fanboyistic bullshit, or just bullshit.

[Chebwa @ Jan 18th 2008 7:18PM]

Alright man. When you're rocking Microsoft's Vista successor in 2009, I'll eat my words.

[ethana2 @ Jan 18th 2008 8:09PM]

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.

[Mo @ Jan 18th 2008 4:59PM]

Vista was a godsend.. it made me get a Mac..

Mo

[Philth @ Jan 18th 2008 7:26PM]

Vista was a godsend.. it made me switch to Linux...

[Intrepid @ Jan 18th 2008 7:34PM]

...Thankyou Vista for sending Mo to an OS he/she can understand!

[Chris @ Jan 18th 2008 7:43PM]

Intrepid, my smug alert just went off.

[supaneko @ Jan 19th 2008 8:40AM]

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.

[Nick @ Jan 24th 2008 11:33AM]

macs are a godsend. o wait, nevermind.

[mgmaster @ Jan 18th 2008 5:00PM]

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?

[Neal @ Jan 18th 2008 5:27PM]

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.

[Chris @ Jan 18th 2008 7:42PM]

One unsupported claim followed by another unsupported claim. Doesn't that equal zero?

[timatl @ Jan 18th 2008 5:01PM]

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.

[Alex Padilla @ Jan 18th 2008 5:01PM]

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.

[BobTheMonkey @ Jan 18th 2008 5:01PM]

They better give me a free copy after buying Vista.

[jamma @ Jan 18th 2008 5:36PM]

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.

[Reid @ Jan 18th 2008 6:12PM]

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.

[TJ Johnson @ Jan 18th 2008 7:05PM]

Fair point. Intel is currently working as far as the fourth succession to Penryn called Sandy Bridge. Hopefully AMD can keep up.

[trevor @ Jan 18th 2008 11:32PM]

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!