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]
posted Apr 4th 2008 3:43PM
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.
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?
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.
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.
I'm so excited. Woot!
And you just can't hide it!
I think we should give Vince a highest ranked post just to make Abuzar's comment seem strange. Oh I'm so crafty!
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.
Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
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.
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.
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.
The more important question is, when is the next version of OS X coming out? Lion?
Is this because of Vista?
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.
He's about to loose control,And I think he likes it!
I agree
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.
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, 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.
98 was stable?
No shit. Win 98 was a fucking nightmare.
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.
super is a great word if you say it with a lisp. Sssssssuper!
If you people used Macs you wouldn't have to come here and piss about Microsoft and Windows.
No, then we'd just have to go out every few months and BUY the update. Gee, what fun.
vince.... PLEASE don't start a pc vs mac war k? thanks a bunch, milton.
Ignatius, because Vista wasn't an update to XP? Or for that matter XP an update to 2000?
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.
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.
Windows 2000 wasn't nearly as bad as ME.
@ 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.
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.
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).
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.
VISTA FAILED. LIKE WINDOWS ME. HA! kthxbai
What new features is Windows 7 include?
"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."
HAHAHA o man, that is awesome.
I'll be seeing him in july in SF. Should be awesome.
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.
No, then we'd just have to go out every few months and BUY the update. Gee, what fun.
Stupid.. freaking reply system! >.
You know what I switched to? Low fat milk.
Vista is practically new...why are they redoing the whole system? To many problems, perhaps?
Holy shit I remember that Saved by the Bell episode!
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bflYjF90t7c)
whoa i never saw that one. glad i didn't! that's one hell of a blue blazer Zach has there though!
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.
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.
I would be excited, too, if I were running today's version of Windows ME. :-)
Gian
so this'll be WinNT 5.3?
I don't believe that we will see anything but beta's for Win7 for quite some time. If the RTM makes it before the end of 2010 I would be shocked. I personally happen to like Vista. I currently run Server 2003 R2 on 2 machines and a laptop, XP Media center on my kids machine and Vista Ultimate or Business on 4 laptops. They are all solid performing machines. 2 machines have a gig of Ram -the rest have 2 gigs with the newest laptop have 4 gigs. So far I can't see upgrading the Server 2003 machines to 2008. I would have to replace them because they are only 32bit machines.
The Vista machines are great for pictures and import video's nicely. Then again - I don't spend much time editing the video's.
Am I the only one who's not very excited about a supposedly "fully revised" windows OS coming with less then 3 years of development?
judging from the slew of negative responses prior to this post i'd have to say yes. yes you are.
...that was in response to "I'm so Excited / and I just can't hide it!"
But, now it's pointless and seems completely random. Thanks, comment system!
"Vista is the most successful new product in the history of commerce!" - Steve Ballmer
ORLY?
he also said "Developers Developers Developers Developers!"
I'm not starting a war. I'm simply stating Mac's superiority over Windows.
am i on the wrong track here or is there some darkened room in redmond where the smoke is thick and one sole light bareley illuminates the periphery; a few MS veeps sit and go "well, if we make another 'millenium', some will try it for the fancy stuff, though for the most part, everyone will really hate it. but what if, more importantly, we still try to put something else out that works sort of better (2000) maybe we'll sell the sh*+ out of it to the business folk. then we can make it look all fischer-price-like and sell even more to the home users(xp). man, -snorts- we'd be rich!" ...time passes... "well that worked out well huh guys? -snorts- let's do it again!!"
on a more practical note, will there be a direct upgrade path from XP pro to 7 ???
Boo fricking hoo. Back in the 90s windows came out every 2 years. Your computer is going to work as well as the day you got it and continue to run new programs for years.
Windows 2000 = NT5
XP = NT5.1
Vista = NT5.2
Windows7, unclear of what the underlying architecture is. My best guess, and the most reasonable guess would be that it will be based on NT5, hence NT5.3
Although, I would agree with many, that it's time to redesign the OS from the ground up and ditch the NT5 architecture.
from my understanding its using a completely new and re-written kernel, MinWin.
Maybe its time I upgraded from 2000... get some of this good XP action everyone is talking about.
The irony, I'm working on downgrading to Win2k right now LOL...
Seriously, there's nothing you can do on XP that you can't on W2k (with 3rd party software), the only difference is that W2k goes about 30% faster thru the benchmarks (with the 3rd party software on it) :-)
BTW, that's a secondary OS I use for very specific things, for the daily use and abuse Linux pwns.
As a Linux user, the only thing I'm afraid of Windows 7 is WinFS... Does anyone know if they're going to finally include WinFS with it? If so, might be the first time m$ does something that didn't exist in Linux before...
@darklight:
i have to use XP since i'm running in boot camp. however, i'm using a slipstreamed copy of XP SP2 (actually since patched to SP3) that i created using nLite.. an uber-minimalist install CD that is about 150MB in size. i wonder how it'd bench in comparison?
I don't know, I also have a small one, but I think it's not as small as yours... I'm talking about the WinXP installation, of course. (though it may apply to other things :-)
FYI, here are the times of my computer:
Vista, full of bloatware and crap (the preinstalled one): About 2:15 from BIOS to usable desktop
Vista, just installed: About 1:30 from BIOS to usable desktop
Windows XP, just installed: 10 seconds from BIOS to usable desktop (yes, 10 seconds)
Windows XP, with drivers, not optimized: About 25 seconds from BIOS to usable desktop, guess it´s an acceptable trade-off to have high definition video and 802.11n
Windows XP, with drivers, optimized: 17 seconds from BIOS to usable desktop... That's what I'm using right now
Win2k Server: !nstant On!!! (almost) :-)
The key here is that I'm using a server edition, server editions of windows are always faster than their user-friendly counterparts... A friend made a test on his computer, Vista vs. Vistaified (with 3d party software, but he did all the details including widgets and 3D-flip) Windows Server 2008
The speed difference? ABYSMAL. If you ask me, this is THE proof that micro$oft is intentionally slowing down their new consumer OSes to force people to buy new hardware to run the same old stuff...
Microsoft needs to focus on education, not software that hides how everything works and how folders are organized. The biggest failure of MS is that more than a decade after Win95 came out 99% of the users have no idea how to manage files, how to arrange and size windows, or how to use applications in conjunction with one another. The typical Windows user guesses their way through every task and hopes for the best. And no, I'm not talking about you Engadget-readers. Most people don't read Engadget.
Anyone who is truly interested in Windows as an OS should read Showstopper - the story of how Windows NT was developed.
I see NT as a subset of UNIX. They copied it. David Cutler led the project, and he knew UNIX. A copy is never as sharp as the original.
Until MS has the guts to drop legacy support for ancient hardware and software and actually start fresh they will always have nothing but endless problems. Let Vista be the last OS that supports the old stuff. Support it for 5 years. And move on with something fresh. Get the lanman crap out of the registry! Hire programmers who want to make a light and fast OS.
Well everytime steve jobs takes a shit engadget gushes about it. Anything microsoft related not so much.
It is:
http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/04/04/1437258.shtml
and Dick Cheney is running for president...
umm. vince? yeah. mmkay. i like OS X too but yer trolling. mmkay? if you could just go ahead and move downstairs to Storage B that would be great. and if you could take care of the cockroach problem we've been having that'd be terrific.
I see the reply system still isnt fixed
step away from the ledge and stay right where you are, thats an order.
I can't hide it either.
Want to feel my pants?
I'm not starting a flame war, I'm simply stating Mac's superiority over Windows. I didn't realize it was even up for argument. If you think it is, then by all means, please enlighten me.
whaaa??? ok please tell me you're a windows fanboy impersonating a mac fanboy. nobody can be that stupid on accident.
see whatcha did vince? by my count there's about 15 anti-mac comments on this thread now when we should be talking about Win7. freakin imbecile.. you make me embarrassed to have anything in common with you.
I have an HP Laptop that came with all of the blaotware and stuff. I've had it now for about 5 months or so. Just in the past Month has it started to run poorly. I've been running Vista on 2 other 5 year old desktops now for about a year and a half or so, since the RTM Build came out. Well, I rebuilt my laptop with Vista Ultimate and installed the SP1 full download update from their site....
My Laptop's running Great! No Issues What So Ever.
Now, if I could only afford the $3000 for a new MBP, I'd be even happier, but since Apple doesn't allow it's OS to run on anything other than an Apple Product, I'm "Stuck" with Vista. XP just got to be old. Yeah, it's like an old shoe. It might smell really bad and stuff, but it still fits good on my size 14 feet for a size 13 shoe that's all stretched out. Or something like that.
The reply system is acting like Windows - it doesn't work! Let's wait for an update!
Or maybe you're just spouting bullshit, eh?
"Although, I would agree with many, that it's time to redesign the OS from the ground up and ditch the NT5 architecture. "
cue the incompatible crybabies in 3..2..
actually, if the keep the same shell, but optimize it and add back in all the things they took out, it would be pretty good.
and they should have all options organized into a single place, divided by category and subcategories. but who am i kidding?
nobody but linux does that.
I'll believe it when I see it. Besides, it's probably the beta. Vista has served me well for over a year now, without issues.
They need to fix the WHS bug so I can add additional HDDs. Also, they need to work on making videos viewable on the PS3. I know that this may be more of a PS3 issue than MS. And I don't feel like making WMP 11 my "media server", that's just plain silly
While I am not using Vista, I know for a fact that WMP can stream to a PS3 on XP, as can any other software that supports DLNA. And as to why you would not want to use WMP as your media server software, I have no idea. I don't use it to listen to music often (I have an iPod), but it's fine for streaming media to my PS3.
Maybe windows 7 will be an update of the OS that worked, XP pro.
Win FS was canned, but a lot of the core technology (and people responsible for it) have been rolled into SQL Server 2008.
The throw-your-cash-spent-on-XP-out-the-Window feature.
And probably a whole new interface design. Which means something like changing the colors of the taskbar and windows.
Ohhh... And I forgot the your-devices-won't-work-anymore-because-there-are-no-new-drivers-or-they-suck feature.
Interesting !
Interesting !
Windows 95 came out 08/24/1995, followed by Windows 98 being released 07/25/1998, followed by Windows ME being released 09/14/2000, followed by Windows XP being released 10/25/2001.
Time between 95/98: 35 months
Time between 98/ME: 26 months
Time between ME/XP: 13 months
Vista came out 01/30/2007, so if 7 comes out late 09 (say, October) then that's 32+ months. If you forget about ME, it was 39 months for the transition from 98 to XP. So this is not some drastic, unprecedentedly fast release.
Note: Looking at the above dates, you can see that if Vista was the "new ME", we'd have a new OS pushed out sometime this month.
I'm more interested in Windows MOBILE 7. How is it that they can finish a full OS before the mobile one?
I don't think it will be an overhaul. My opinions are they will redo Windows XP into something similar to Vista. Possibly making every version of it 64 bit and doing what they need to do to make it even faster. Also my guesses are, its possible Microsoft will add winfs as an option. So add the speediness and compatibilities of XP , The looks and securities of Vista, and there initial intention from the start to add Winfs. And there you go Windows Mo 7, just brilliant!!! All this from existing development, That is why they can pull it off so fast. This is just pure speculation from my point of view.
The direct upgrade path you're looking for is called: buy a new computer. By the time "Windows 7" comes out, your current XP machine will be 10 years obsolete.
Vince, and any others plotting a MacOS flame war, please read this: http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2008/04/03/use-os-x-you-git/
Actually, as memory serves, it wasn't until Vista came out and was so horrible that anyone thought XP was any good.
MACs are pieces of shit.
If they do a rush job on 7, it might be even better for Linux and Apple.
No.
Windows 2000 = NT 5.
XP = NT 5.1.
Server 2003 = NT 5.2.
Vista = NT 6.0.
AFAIK, WinFS is scrapped permanently. No sense releasing something 10 times slower than Vista. Interesting idea, but just not practical.