Windows 7 isn't headed for 2009, says Microsoft. More like 2011.

Hey, it's not Microsoft's fault that 2011 sounds like the realm of jet pack VR massage cars, but it's certainly a long ways away any way you slice it. Contrary to previous rumors of Microsoft planning a Windows 7 release sometime in 2009, Microsoft has apparently gotten in touch with WinVistaClub and set the record straight: Windows 7 is in "planning stages," and development will take approximately three years. Microsoft wouldn't comment on that supposed leak we spotted last week, and of course denied any implications that development was being accelerated to make up for Vista shortcomings. We can't help but wonder how different the OS landscape will look three years from now, with Linux rapidly reaching feature and usability parity, while Apple plugs away at OS X and cloud computing lands everywhere, but we're sure Vista SP1 won't be the last bid Microsoft makes at this generation.

[Via The Inquirer]

Update: Other quotes from Microsoft has the date set at 3 years from the launch of Vista, which would indeed land it around 2009, so perhaps all hope is not lost. No date is set yet, and our money is on 2010 at the earliest.

[James Ollier @ Jan 28th 2008 12:03PM]

2011 if you're lucky!

[Joseph @ Jan 28th 2008 2:53PM]

makes sense...wouldn't want to have 2 epic fails right next to each other...

[pquistgard @ Jan 28th 2008 6:01PM]

Exactly! I thought for a second they were actually being [trying to be] honest this time, but then I though...Naaaaaah!

[Lamerz @ Jan 29th 2008 10:22AM]

Check this out, O morons who think "7" has slipped to 2011 because of some BS line by Microsoft PR...

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1136

Engadget, don't report as fact someone's bad interpretation of an obvious PR statement intended to ensure that nothing stops Vista's momentum.

And for God's sake, stay away from The Inquirer.

[Josh @ Jan 30th 2008 4:04PM]

@ Joseph - It must suck for Microsoft to have an epic fail of $20 billion in revenue. Stupid Mac fanboy.

[fistpittingnork @ Jan 28th 2008 12:05PM]

"accelerated to make up for Vista shortcomings"?

Rush it out the door, Microsoft, that'll eliminate any future shortcomings.

[Zephyr @ Jan 29th 2008 8:01AM]

"and of course denied any implications that development was being accelerated to make up for Vista shortcomings."

[digic @ Jan 28th 2008 12:06PM]

I was hoping it'd be more like 20never. Cant they come up with a new name like Microsoft doors? I'm thinking Microsoft Toilet would be better suited...

[Lamerz @ Jan 28th 2008 4:14PM]

"Cant they come up with a new name ..."

Uh, Tool, you mean like OS X 10.0, OS X 10.1, OS X 10.2, OS X 10.3, OS X 10.4, OS X 10.5?

Or like Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Vista?

[Jonathan Keim @ Jan 28th 2008 12:05PM]

Can someone please tell me what these short comings are?

The only thing I can think of is that it runs slow on 'cheaper' computers. I have a really nice setup, so fortunetely I don't have this problem. This makes Vista perfect for me... unless I'm missing something else.

I feel that overall Vista is 'smarter' and wouldn't go back to XP.

[Don @ Jan 28th 2008 12:08PM]

I coulnd't agree more. I am very pleased with Vista. The only shortcoming I can think of is support for my video drivers in Vista 64, that that's not Microsoft's fault, that's NVidia's fault.

[Neoprimal @ Jan 28th 2008 12:39PM]

Vista Shortcomings = Stupid people that want it to run as fast as XP (or faster than XP, since it's new!) on their 'brand new' 4 year old PC running it's high tech Athlon XP 3000 processor on a spiffy Nforce 2 board with 512mb of Ram installed. Equally stupid people that just CANNOT let go of that {insert hardware/software here} that either cannot/will not run on Vista or bsods Vista after it is installed. People who buy a $300-700 {insert computer manuf. name here} (including lcd, mind you) and don't seem to take the phrase "you get what you pay for" seriously...now I'm not saying you have to buy a $2000 machine, but if they recommend Vista basic, don't think a bump to a bit more ram will make Vista Premium/Ultimate any better.

Otherwise, the only shortcomings I know of is the fact that network transfers take their time. Even transfers inside can seem to be on the long side, compared to XP.
Nothing's wrong with Vista.

[tadghostal @ Jan 28th 2008 12:58PM]

Just more of engadget's fanboyism. Yeah, Leopard needs a ton of patches, but hey! Let's just make fun of Microsoft for something they haven't even begun developing yet.

Lol, engadget, when it comes to things non MS or Apple, you guys are great, but you really should tone down the whole apple love affair a bit. We know, we know. Apple rules and Microsoft sucks.

Now, can you guys just get on with it already?

[Callemin @ Jan 28th 2008 12:58PM]

Could not agree more. I would love a poll at engadget that says "Are you happy with Windows Vista?" of something like "Does windows vista suck?"

I think the results would put apple fanboy's on to the earths surface again.

[snitch @ Jan 28th 2008 1:02PM]

sure theres nothing wrong with vista!!! can you explain to me then why my brothers 3 year notebook with a pentium 4 chip 512MB of memory running XP, runs about 3x faster than my new notebook that sports a core2duo chip, 2GB of memory and its running Vista Ultimate??? could it be that my machine its defective from the manufacture??? or could it be the almost everyone its right and vista sucks, i don't wanna sound like and ass but if i don't say it microsoft will never fix it. by the way am and iphone user and i'll also like to add iphone is buggy as hell to and apple should do something too 1.1.3 firmware sucks ass

[Khris @ Jan 28th 2008 1:00PM]

I got on with it and installed Ubuntu. Problem solved!

[CaptCaveman @ Jan 28th 2008 3:30PM]

I'm actually doing a dual boot of Vista and Ubuntu. First let me say that I hate Linux fanboys. Nothing worse then hearing "M$ sucks" in every and anything that has to do with Microsoft.
With that said. Ubuntu is pretty nice. And if using my computer at home was purely a hobby I may switch to it. But seeing that I have programs that are not supported in Linux that I need I cannot change now.
Plus I'm really looking forward to the Directv Media Center add-on so I use Media Center to record my Directv programs. In 3 years maybe I will move on since Ubuntu looked and played so nice.

[boe @ Jan 28th 2008 1:36PM]

Not sure why replies are all over the place today but if you want to know why Vista sucks - do a search on google - Vista and xp and benchmarks - feel free to toss in RC1 SP1 as well - even on the latest equipment with tons of memory and fast multicore processors - XP runs much faster -
XP has faster file transfers, file copies, file moves, network copies, moves, transfers even access time and significantly better gaming performance - but please don't take my word for it - look at benchmarks on cnet and other unbiased web sites.

Typcially most hardware and gaming websites are quick to point out the advantages of new hardware, OS's, drivers, etc but you'll find IT professionals and geeks have discarded Vista as damaged goods. No tweak or patch is going to make Vista compete with XP.

SHouldn't the point of a new OS be to take advantage of new hardware - use the expanded bit path etc to make the OS faster? Instead Vista requires new hardware just to try and keep up with XP on old hardware.

[T-Bone @ Jan 28th 2008 1:36PM]

I suspect snitch isn't the sharpest tool in the shed and probably one of those people you can never make happy. Sucks for him.

[T-Bone @ Jan 28th 2008 1:38PM]

@boe:

Wow! That's a lot of things most people don't do very often! Besides, hasn't most, if not all, of that been fixed?

[mattclarkie @ Jan 28th 2008 1:56PM]

I have been running Vista for over 6months, and I think it is a very good OS all round. I have a x64 Ultimate rig, that is very good, but I made sure I bought only components that were Vista Certified and good brands. I have a lappy that was running Home Premium x86, but a shoddy driver by ATI has caused no end of trouble, along with Acer Bloatware. So I did a format, threw on Business x64, and even running default drivers the system is fast and stable. The support for devices out of the box is ridiculously good, my whole laptop functions with drivers built into Vista because I made sure that the components supported Vista.

The problem that MS made was not making Vista x64 only. The demand that all x64 devices must have a signed driver unlike x86 means that the manufacturers do a better job on them. Lack of support for some devices like my favourite Keyboard have annoyed me, but it is well supported, and if you make sure everything you buy is Vista Supported, and that you PC is not a pile of shite that cost 50p at the CostCo you will be fine.

I admit that the transfers seem messed up, but what is a few extra minutes to do a back-up if it means that the system is less likely to fail anyway. All my XP machines have died very quickly, one machine needed 5 re-formats, and never really worked properly. And I am sure people, me for example, where saying Windows 2000 running on a 3 year old PC runs much better than my brand new 1024mb Ram, 2Ghz P4 with HT running XP.

[Good_Bytes @ Jan 28th 2008 2:10PM]

@ boe, what you fail to see in benchmarks
For one Benchmark software was developed on XP, optimize to run with it, with your hardware drivers. NOT VISTA! When proper Benchmark software will be released supported and taking advantage of Vista, THEN we will talk.

To top more things, Vista drivers, today, are at moment for the most part, by many (but not all) manufactures, complete. In the sense that all feature WORKS. They are not yet optimize with Vista, that should come really soon.

Also. what you compare is invalid. Do the same benchmark test with Windows 95, and you will see how Win95 is better then XP. Yet in the other hand, they are MANY MANY MANY things that are not supported, lack of crucial software and features that are now standard with all OS's. In addition, if I perform the same style of benchmark comparing today's latest Linux version and one that is 5 years old... I am sure the good old Linux is run a lot faster. You have nothing on it, not even a GUI with a xWindows, but, like you think... let's ignore that, and all the new Linux stuff...

You want the fastest OS ever, here it is, I just made it!
It's black screen, with NOTHING! Not even containing an if condition or a single function in my code. It's emptiness. No video card support, no mouse, no keyboard support as well. BUT HECK it's fucking faster, and can run with less then 0.05 MB of RAM. Are you going to use it? It will be an excellent OS for you 200$ Dell laptop.

[boe @ Jan 28th 2008 2:19PM]

Tbone I don't know if you are just yanking my chain or are trying to get me to repeat if for people not familiar with how bad Vista is but no the performance issues haven't bee "fixed" they have been patched so they are nearly twice as fast but 2 times zero is still zero. XP is much faster even much faster than a patched Vista machine in file transfers, moves, copies, network access and throughput and gaming - XP is just plain faster - every time you do just about anything on a PC you are creating a file or moving a file - so most people will use that function. Browsing the web requires network throughput - so yes - you probably are using that. Anytime you check your mail, you are accessing your hard drive, modifying a file and accessing network functions - so yes you'll want that to be fast.

Not everyone will play games on their PC but a good portion of users do so I think that might be important to a reasonable percentage of readers.

So to recap - MS has patches to "improve" performance in Vista even though they denied there were any performance issues with Vista for 5 months after its release. Those improvements make the 20mph scooter go to 40mph - while XP cruises at 100mph and SP3 patch will make it even faster. Is that clear enough?

[Johnny5 @ Jan 28th 2008 2:17PM]

Im going to say my OS piece as if someone cares...

I year old laptop (2.0 w/ 2GB RAM) with XP and it ran fast. I clean installed Vista Business and it went about twice as slow. This christmas I bought a santa rosa macbook (2.2 with 4GB RAM) with 10.5.1 and it's fast and pretty but it crashes almost daily. I dual booted with Ubuntu which is fast and doesnt crash but is missing a lot of software I like. Life is a series of compromises and so are the OS wars.

CAN WE STOP THIS ALREADY?

[Nick @ Jan 28th 2008 2:29PM]

Agreed. Built my computer myself and I have no problems with Vista at all.

I agree with Neoprimal's response 100%

[Shiftlock @ Jan 28th 2008 2:42PM]

Vista = Bloat. Sure, you can get it to run well on the latest hardware, but I believe it's also possible to design an equally-functioning OS with less code. I would prefer an OS that's less bloated and offers more legacy hardware support. That should be possible without removing many, if any, features. That's why Vista is not an elegant OS in my opinion.

[Ellianth @ Jan 28th 2008 3:46PM]

@Snitch:
Next time you visit your favorite porn site don't click on all those banner ads. Also try uninstalling some of the crap that you have bogging down your system. And if you love your brothers system so much why don't you trade with him?

[T-Bone @ Jan 28th 2008 5:00PM]

@boe:

You're kidding right? You think my internet is being slowed down because you think Vista has a problem transfering files over a network? There are certain, specific cases where file transfers were slow. Opening an email or browsing the web or average computer use are not in those specific cases. Most of the specific cases have, in fact, been fixed.

[Scott @ Jan 28th 2008 5:35PM]

Someone please tell me what the GOOD things are with Vista that make it worth paying hundreds of dollars over XP when XP will run faster on the SAME HARDWARE?

[nudepenguin @ Jan 28th 2008 7:00PM]

DRM is the biggest downfall of windoze vista from microsux. The second biggest problem is the windblows genuine advantage crapware. No freedom is another thing, You do not own that copy of vista you only own the right to have it on your computer and you give up all civil liberties to microsux. They monitor your every move and even put junkware on your computer in the background even if you tell them not to. To keep all your freedoms and not worry about spyware, malware, virus, etc.. USE LINUX MINT http://linuxmint.com or UBUNTU http://ubuntu.com the most user friendly ever.

[Mark @ Jan 28th 2008 9:32PM]

@Neoprimal
$500-700 is perfectly fine with Vista. If you shop around you can get an e6600, 2gb ram, 200-300 gb hard drive + 17" monitor. I have an e6600 w/ 2 gig ram, 320 gig hard drive that I bought back in the day (1.5 years ago) and I haven't had a moment's lag with Vista (initial minute/two right after it booted doesn't count - can't do anything about the hard drive). People just enjoy picking on Microsoft.

[Poom @ Jan 29th 2008 4:45AM]

I totally agree here...

Vista does not deserve all the bashing. People who bash it either:

1. do not realize that their old computer is not supposed to run this new operating system properly

2. have not tried it before, but it's so cool to bash Microsoft just like it's so cool to praise Apple

3. has faulty driver because the manufacturer did not follow the guideline and blame Microsoft

I do not find it to be bloated at all... It actually looks cleaner than XP...
Besides, I still remember the time when XP was just released... Vista performed so much better than XP at the time... So, I don't get why it's a "tech disappointment" as some CEO said either.

As for the topic itself, I thought that 2009 is too soon anyways. Why would Microsoft want Vista's shelf life to be so short, when compared to XP?

[G5 Power @ Jan 28th 2008 12:13PM]

Wow, 2011 thats enough for Apple to release 20 more OS versions and then claim Microsoft are playing catch up, when to everyone it is obvious they both have strong and weak points

[Curtis McHenry @ Jan 28th 2008 12:17PM]

I was almost going to have a heart attack: "Oh My God, a Windows post without any Vista jabs."
But no, thanks for saving my life.

[Flashpoint @ Jan 28th 2008 12:14PM]

Windows XP is favorable for technology heads because you can set servers up on it easily, inexpensively and efficiently. Most current servers work perfectly with Windows XP and 2000. Vista is much more sophisticated and takes alot longer to set things up.

I'm currently running OSX Workgroup Server with Remote Desktop and from what I've seen, ITS EASY TO USE. Mac also happens to have better security features for individual users.

The only people complaining about VISTA are people who bought the home basic edition, or bought the Home Premium and didn't have a computer powerful enough to use it. Also add in the Apple fanbots who love to chime in when attacks against Vista are going on.

Vista is powerful, secure and if you've invested in a decent rig, it runs perfectly. Sure it doesn't have full backwards compatibility but over time, new peripherals / better software will be released.

[Curtis McHenry @ Jan 28th 2008 12:21PM]

"Mac also happens to have better security features for individual users."
I laugh at that remark, a low market share does not equal good security...
Come to thing of it didn't an 11 year old make a virus for the iPhone?

[tom @ Jan 28th 2008 12:31PM]

Mac (which is built on rock solid UNIX core) does indeed have better security than windows, that's a fact.

[Sora267 @ Jan 28th 2008 12:33PM]

The only reason Macs aren't virus infested right now is because the low market share also means not many people are developing viruses for Macs.

[MarkZ @ Jan 28th 2008 12:58PM]

@tom

Saying "that's a fact" after making a statement doesn't make that statement a fact.

[Jason @ Jan 28th 2008 1:06PM]

@Curtis McHenry and Sora267

Please prove your points instead of making blanket statements to help yourselves feel better about your brand loyalty. That "market share" statement is getting old. Don't you think someone would have attacked Macs hard after all this gloating about being so secure? That would be a huge accomplishment and worth quite a bit of recognition.

And I count far fewer Mac fanboys here than in the Mac posts on this site. It's really quite pathetic, these mud slinging sessions over MS and Apple.

That said, I've used Vista a bit on my brother's machine and, while it takes a little getting used to, it doesn't seem too bad. XP's big problem, for me, was the constant "are you sure" and "look at me" pop-ups that would randomly occur. Perhaps Microsoft should tone down the hand holding and work on better automation without user input. Not saying OS X is perfect, or better, but I find it a *little* less annoying in it's workflow.

[mattclarkie @ Jan 28th 2008 2:08PM]

I heard, and I am not saying this is fact, but I heard somewhere that Hackers are starting to now target Mac, and that this is because they are becoming economically viable.

Windows is so prevelant that if you manage to develop a Hack, it can be applied to so many machines that it is viable to do. But until now it wasn't worth the time to target a Mac because there just weren't enough. These are attacks that the Hackers aim to profit out of such as stealing information, or disrupting businesses, or to a lesser degree just pissing off thousands of people. Hacking half a dozen Macs doesn't produce a viable result.

But now that pile called the iPod has become so popular, people are now buying Macs in droves, so it is viable to attack them, especially to identity theft Starbucks drinking, hair product wearing, Beetle driving Mac users with bloated bank accounts.

I do have some friends who use Macs, and even they have to admit that Windows and Mac both have their faults. Mac in particular ridiculous prices such as £8 for 3 rubber feet,

[Thomas Van Oekelen @ Jan 28th 2008 2:38PM]

@mattclarkie

Yes it's true that there are less Mac users and it's true that hackers will focus more on Windows because there's a lot more to gain.
However, you can't deny that OSX is Unix based and if you know anything about OS's, you'll agree that Unix is way more secure than Windows, which is why Unix based OS's are more popular for servers.
And that's in my opinion the most important reason why hackers focus on Windows: it's just plain easier.

[Andir3.0 @ Jan 28th 2008 2:55PM]

"because the low market share also means not many people are developing viruses for Macs."

You'd think that the operating system with the most market share would have the most rabid followers out to "punish" the rest of the world for using an OS that's not their choice... wouldn't you? I mean if we want to talk scalars here. There are probably more Windows programmers than Linux/Mac programmers. Wouldn't it also jibe that there are more programmers seeking to do harm? Wouldn't that place the underdog in a serious disadvantage? Your "market share target" can go both ways. You'd also think that these hackers would tend to attack servers, of which (the last time I checked) are primarily *nix boxes and not Windows.

[Peppie @ Jan 28th 2008 5:09PM]

@ Thomas Van Oekelen

Then why does Apple's India branch use Windows on its server?

[Thomas Van Oekelen @ Jan 28th 2008 5:58PM]

I'd like to know where you get that from.
I guess it's in my name: see to believe.
Anyway it's well known that *nix-based os's are more secure.

[Ken Laninga @ Jan 28th 2008 12:26PM]

Well, I got Vista HP pre-installed in new computer last summer and I STILL HATE IT. See my rant at http://www.sticksite.com/vista/ if you want to know why. LOVE that comment "Linux rapidly reaching feature and usability parity." I can hardly wait.

[CaptCaveman @ Jan 28th 2008 3:31PM]

I had a look at your blog. Um, orange background? Why? Just why?
Did you know that if you do a search for Orange Backgrounds suck on Google you will get 111,000 hits. I wonder why...

anyway, it seems that you may have some hardware issues going on also. The crashes that make you have to unplug the power cord is something that I went through with a computer that I built once. The problem was a capacitor on the power supply.

Most of the other issues seems like you just don't like the new look, feel, and way things are done in Vista. Oh well, XP can still be had so go for it.

[T-Bone @ Jan 28th 2008 1:46PM]

Wow, your rant really needs elaboration. Start menu sucks, UAC is garbage, WMP setup is a pain. Why, why, why? I find the start menu so much easier to use because of the text box. UAC only comes up when it actually should. WMP was very easy to set up. That's too bad about your scanner. My all-in-one from HP worked out of the box. It sounds like you went in expecting to be disappointed and you were.

[imacmatt09 @ Jan 28th 2008 12:26PM]

Wonder if Microsoft's stocks just went down...

[Khris @ Jan 28th 2008 1:03PM]

Who cares!