Windows 7 to arrive next year, says Bill Gates

You know, we should have paid a little closer attention to Microsoft's decision yesterday to extend Windows XP sales to "June 2010 or one year after the general availability of Windows 7" -- if the company was really planning on shipping Windows 7 in 2010, that first date doesn't make a lot of sense unless the plan is to ship Windows 7 much, much earlier. And hey -- what's Bill Gates doing telling investors this afternoon that Windows 7 will come "in the next year" and that he's "super-enthused" about it? As far as we know, the official Windows 7 timeline hasn't changed, so Bill might just talking about beta versions, but something's clearly up Windows-wise in Redmond -- perhaps Vista's wow is not long for this now.

[Thanks, Jon]

[Matt Ferens @ Apr 4th 2008 3:47PM]

This is a very bad idea. I don't want Windows 7 to be an update for Vista. It needs to be a complete overhaul of the Windows OS.

[happy_penguin @ Apr 4th 2008 4:12PM]

Windows 7 will almost undoubtedly be an extension of Vista since Vista is so far the biggest overhaul of Windows in years. But I do wonder what happened to Win FS... Is Win FS ever going to happen?

[Reader @ Apr 4th 2008 5:04PM]

I'm just glad I'm still using XP and never upgraded to Vista. If history repeats itself, then Windows 7 should be pretty good and I'll finally upgrade.

[DanE @ Apr 4th 2008 6:24PM]

Wow, Windows has alot of OS. Can't blame them, Vista isn't as good as everyone thought. I'll stick to my XP. XP owns all OS. So does Leopard.....Ubuntu sucks.

[Vince @ Apr 4th 2008 3:48PM]

I'm so excited. Woot!

[phanbouy @ Apr 4th 2008 3:50PM]

And you just can't hide it!

[Ghen @ Apr 6th 2008 7:47AM]

I think we should give Vince a highest ranked post just to make Abuzar's comment seem strange. Oh I'm so crafty!

[JackDebian @ Apr 4th 2008 3:49PM]

Am I the only one thinking putting a rush job on the next version of Windows to appease shareholders is a bad idea? If past experience is anything to go by, rushing it out when it's not ready would be foolish.

[Kieran @ Apr 4th 2008 8:28PM]

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

[Jesse S @ Apr 5th 2008 3:39PM]

It's not. I'm pretty sure that they've been working on this as long, or even longer than they'be been working on Vista.

[Les @ Apr 4th 2008 3:49PM]

This pisses me off. I just got vista. There better be some sort of upgrade plan, for cheaper.

Though I doubt it, big companies usually aren't keen on that.

[Abuzar @ Apr 4th 2008 7:31PM]

Pirate it then. How much did you already pay for Vista? I don't usually say steal software, but if you paid a crap load for Vista and it is only relevant for a small period of time, than pirate Windows 7.

Although I see Microsoft offering a cheap upgrade option to Vista owners. Not free, they are a corporation after all and this is their bread and butter, but around 50-100 dollars.

[Vince @ Apr 4th 2008 3:49PM]

The more important question is, when is the next version of OS X coming out? Lion?

[Scanner771 @ Apr 15th 2008 7:32PM]

Is this because of Vista?

[hypereric @ Apr 5th 2008 8:31AM]

I predict that win7 *will* be vista (with a different name), the way it should have been.

The slow copying of files on Vista is probably due to a Disk I/O optimized for WinFS ... my SWAG on the matter is that they had backward compatibiliy in the I/O for NTFS, but concentrated on maximizing performance for the new WinFS... then time crunch came along and they pulled out the winFS feature, and so we are left with a backward compatible I/O.

Another thing is they jumped the gun with DirectX offloading to the GPU.. most people do not yet have the necessary video cards for the "wow".

And please, for the love of all that is good and right MS, on install, simply ask the user if they are a first time user or second-time MS OS user or power user etc. And adjust the UAC (actually three different levels of it) to those responses.

Oh, and buy nVIDIA's mpeg-2 decoder and slipstream it into the build. Running DreamScene is a dream when it is not consuming a third of your horsepower. Better yet, allow DreamScene to use DirectX off-loading to the GPU and go with "plug-in" rendering engines (license and make'm that way).

And buy the guy who made tweak-uac ... it makes it a snap to kill all three levels of UAC.

OTHER THEN THOSE ISSUES, I give vista a 85% personal satisfaction level. I'd give it a 90% if DreamScene would display two different mpegs on my dual monitors. But the jump from XP to Vista is like the jump I took from NT 3.51 to NT 4.0... except this jump is too much with the above problems to be completely acceptable.

[Ace b @ Apr 6th 2008 4:23PM]

He's about to loose control,And I think he likes it!

[Mr.Tech @ Apr 4th 2008 3:50PM]

I agree

[Frank @ Apr 4th 2008 3:54PM]

Am I the only person who remembers how bad EVERYONE thought XP was for a long time after it was released. It wasn't until SP2 came out that I really liked the OS.

[happy_penguin @ Apr 4th 2008 4:22PM]

I swear I don't remember the complaints about Win XP being as bad as the complaints about Vista. Personally, I had a fairly smooth experience with XP from day one and I started with the RCs. I won't touch Vista right now because I have a machine which is more than capable of doing what I need and Vista is too expensive an upgrade when I factor in that I'll need to replace virtually every component in my system as well as buy an OS which is in my opinion overpriced. I might feel differently if I was planning on buying a brand new machine with Vista installed but for now I'm waiting to see what people have to say about SP1 and in fact I might end up skipping Vista altogether. Vista is pretty, for sure, but I don't see any need for it as I did going from Win 98/Me (CRAP) to Win 2000 (best Windows OS ever, IMHO) and finally to Win XP (Damn good OS). I still predict that Vista will go down in history as the most hated OS since Win Me (even though I doubt that Vista will ever be able to take the thorny crown from Win Me).

[No Name @ Apr 4th 2008 5:04PM]

No, you aren't the only one. It was similar complaints: why switch from a stable operating system, Windows 98, to a untested, prettier operating system, XP? It's pretty much the same thing but the marketing is a bit worse. The Microsoft sticker marketing caused some problems but as far as Vista, it has been just as stable for me as XP and 98.

The only benefit of this "Vista Sucks" mentality is that it has opened people up to Linux. Ubuntu has taken this situation to its advantage and run off with it. Props to Ubuntu! But Vista hasn't caused any problems (in fact, it is more secure than XP at the moment) and I run XP, Vista, and Linux.

[erislover @ Apr 4th 2008 11:02PM]

98 was stable?

[happy_penguin @ Apr 5th 2008 12:13PM]

No shit. Win 98 was a fucking nightmare.

[Rudiger @ Apr 4th 2008 3:54PM]

What is it with Mr. Gates and the word "super"? He even used it in his Congressional testimony on the "super" H-1B visa program.

[phanbouy @ Apr 4th 2008 3:56PM]

super is a great word if you say it with a lisp. Sssssssuper!

[Vince @ Apr 4th 2008 3:55PM]

If you people used Macs you wouldn't have to come here and piss about Microsoft and Windows.

[Ignatius @ Apr 4th 2008 3:58PM]

No, then we'd just have to go out every few months and BUY the update. Gee, what fun.

[phanbouy @ Apr 4th 2008 4:01PM]

vince.... PLEASE don't start a pc vs mac war k? thanks a bunch, milton.

[Michael LaFramboise @ Apr 4th 2008 7:19PM]

Ignatius, because Vista wasn't an update to XP? Or for that matter XP an update to 2000?

[FrankTheCrank @ Apr 4th 2008 3:55PM]

So does this make Vista the new ME?

Vista and ME are very similar in that everybody liked 98SE and ME was just a holdover till XP got here. Now Vista seems to be the holdover till Windows 7 gets here.

[Lazerface @ Apr 4th 2008 5:53PM]

don't forget about windows 2000. windows 7 may be the new windows 2000, so we still may have to wait till windows 8 to get our new version of XP.

[Abuzar @ Apr 4th 2008 7:32PM]

Windows 2000 wasn't nearly as bad as ME.

[monkfishbandana @ Apr 4th 2008 8:20PM]

@ Abuzar

In my opinion, Windows 2000 is their best operating system to date. Ctrl-Alt-Del did what it was supposed to, the file explorer was simple and really easy to use, and it never crashed on me once. In fact, my dad still uses it on his laptop.

Want my input, MS? Use Windows 2000 as a starting point, build a much better looking UI and improve compatibility.

[majortom @ Apr 4th 2008 3:56PM]

since I have only been reading this blog for some months, I really did not know that microsoft did a key note speech like apple does. nice to know that they do, and that bill gates gives it. seen lots of steve here, not so much bill.

[Kaminix @ Apr 4th 2008 3:56PM]

Will Windows 7 be as wow as Vista?

I was hoping they'd keep Vista for a while longer... it's good for the alternative OS community (Linux and Mac).

[Odd TSi @ Apr 4th 2008 3:57PM]

Does no one remember that 2-3 years between releases was the standard before for MS? They went with 5 years for Vista and realized it was a BAD idea. So now they've gone back to the old way. Vista was RTMed in late 2006 and retailed in January 2007, so releasing Windows 7 in mid-to-late 2009 is just keeping up with the 2-3 years between releases plan, it's not moving it up.

[mcheddadi @ Apr 4th 2008 3:57PM]

VISTA FAILED. LIKE WINDOWS ME. HA! kthxbai

[vdogg89 @ Apr 4th 2008 3:58PM]

What new features is Windows 7 include?

[WorldCTZen @ Apr 4th 2008 3:59PM]

"YOU! The OS we promised you or Vista?!"
"Um.. can I have the OS you promised us?"
"No! We crippled it and took out all the improvements, and left you with an Windows ME redux"
"So.. my choices are ... or Vista? Well then.. I'll have the chicken"
"Oh, right then. You're lucky we're the Church of England."

[Seoultrain @ Apr 4th 2008 5:45PM]

HAHAHA o man, that is awesome.

I'll be seeing him in july in SF. Should be awesome.

[Charlotte @ May 28th 2008 7:19PM]

WorldCTZen:

" Little red cook book. Little red cook book"

"Taste of human, sir. Would you like a white wine? There you go. Thank you for flying Church of England"

I read that first line of yours and thought to myself "S/he can't possibly be going there..." and then THEN you did go there and all was well.

First rule of genetics, spread the genes apart.

[Ignatius @ Apr 4th 2008 3:58PM]

No, then we'd just have to go out every few months and BUY the update. Gee, what fun.

[Ignatius @ Apr 4th 2008 3:58PM]

Stupid.. freaking reply system! >.

[Abuzar @ Apr 4th 2008 7:34PM]

You know what I switched to? Low fat milk.

[ashley927 @ Apr 4th 2008 3:59PM]

Vista is practically new...why are they redoing the whole system? To many problems, perhaps?

[pagancollective @ Apr 4th 2008 4:00PM]

Holy shit I remember that Saved by the Bell episode!

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bflYjF90t7c)

[phanbouy @ Apr 4th 2008 5:33PM]

whoa i never saw that one. glad i didn't! that's one hell of a blue blazer Zach has there though!

[Vince @ Apr 4th 2008 4:06PM]

Every 1 to 2 years they release a new version. They're not just updates, they are operating systems with new features. You don't have to buy them, even if you stay with what you've got you still know its a million times better than what you'd have with Windows. I would know, I used Windows for many, many years before switching.

[Samurai Jack @ Apr 4th 2008 3:59PM]

If this is true it shows an almost complete lack of commitment to Vista on the part of Microsoft. If Windows 7 is going to be so "super" they must be devoting the majority of their resources to it. Where does that leave Vista?

If I were a business customer running XP this would be the strongest message yet that I should just give Vista a complete pass.

[gian @ Apr 4th 2008 3:59PM]

I would be excited, too, if I were running today's version of Windows ME. :-)

Gian

[phanbouy @ Apr 4th 2008 3:59PM]

so this'll be WinNT 5.3?