Windows 7 debut in 2009

[Methious]

Original Article here: http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1168

If Windows 7 really is scheduled to make an appearance during the second half of 2009, does this mean that making the move to Vista is now a pointless effort?

TG Daily claim to have uncovered a roadmap for Windows 7 whichWindows 7 debut in 2009? Another reason to skip Vista suggests that Windows 7 is being fast-tracked:

Several industry sources have confirmed to TG Daily that a very early version of Windows 7, previously code-named Blackcomb Vienna, already has been shipped to “key partners” as a “Milestone 1″ (M1) code drop for validation purposes. A roadmap received by TG Daily indicates that the new operating system will be introduced in the second half of 2009.

While it has generally been believed that Windows 7 was scheduled for a 2010 debut, Microsoft has revised the roadmap and apparently moved up the release date by a few months: A recently distributed roadmap of the OS lists a release to manufacturing in H2 2009. Microsoft declined to comment on this date.

So this presents a dilemma for those who’ve not yet made the switch from XP to Vista. With 7 on the horizon, is it worth the time, effort and money making the switch when chances are that Microsoft will be pushing for another switch in a couple of years? But for those who have made the leap to Vista, these people could be looking at seeing a beta for 7 being available in a year or so.

My best guess here (combined with a little asking around) is that this roadmap is real and that Microsoft is speeding up development on Windows 7. It’s also highly probably that this is down to the fact that some customers have made it clear that they’re happy to stick with XP until the next version is released.

Trying to figure out what customers will want from Windows 7 isn’t easy. Judging by the feedback I’ve been coming across, Windows 7 will need to be faster than Vista, more robust, present the user with fewer compatibility hassles (note that TG Daily claim that Milestone 1 shipped in both x86 and x64 versions - an indication that support for 32-bit will continue) and not hammer system resources as much as Vista does. Oh, and it should be packed with compelling features to make the upgrade worthwhile. That could be a pretty tough call.

But what does this mean for Vista? Well, I’m ready to bet that Windows Ultimate Extras are history. I’d also be surprised if we see an SP2 for Vista before Windows 7 is released, especially if Microsoft is pulling out all the stops for 7. Vista feels more and more like a stop-gap between XP and 7.

[DMB2000uk]

If this is true then vista just became the next winME

Not having to buy vista (thanks MSDNAA) i think I'll just stick with a dual boot till then.

Dan

[Zelig]

http://www.tech.co.uk/computing/softwar ... 1431144455

My guess would be that the earliest it comes out is Q4 2010 (like Vista came out in Q4 2006), this puts MS close to where they want to be with 4 years between each OS.

[Kougar]

Half the net says 2009, other half 2010, if not even later...

Personally I'd say 2010 and leave it at that. A year or two before it went gold Gates specifically was quoted as saying Vista would not become rushed due to time constraints, but that became the case anyway. Considering Gate's less than flattering opinion of Microsoft's latest software, I'm not sure he would let the same mistake happen twice in a row. I am sure Microsoft can't allow a 2nd release in a row with what happened with Vista, it would create nothing but problems long into the future for them...

Then there is the other half of me that simply says Microsoft can't build a new OS from completely scratch in less than 3 years, which is what a 2009 launch would say. It's a completely new OS, not based off Windows Server as XP and VIsta have both been.

[Zelig]

Half the net says 2009, other half 2010, if not even later...

Personally I'd say 2010 and leave it at that. A year or two before it went gold Gates specifically was quoted as saying Vista would not become rushed due to time constraints, but that became the case anyway. Considering Gate's less than flattering opinion of Microsoft's latest software, I'm not sure he would let the same mistake happen twice in a row. I am sure Microsoft can't allow a 2nd release in a row with what happened with Vista, it would create nothing but problems long into the future for them...

Then there is the other half of me that simply says Microsoft can't build a new OS from completely scratch in less than 3 years, which is what a 2009 launch would say. It's a completely new OS, not based off Windows Server as XP and VIsta have both been.

It's not a new OS from scratch, it's still working on the Windows NT kernel (version 7 of it in fact), Vista is 6.0, and SP1/Server 2008 is 6.1. In fact, the current testing versions of Windows 7 require Vista to be pre-installed as a base.

I don't think Vista was particularly rushed, it was multiply delayed because of feature creep and issues they encountered through the first few years of coding, that caused them to nearly restart the whole project. Overall, Vista was much more polished at launch than XP was (at launch).

[Kougar]

Well, my opinion tends to follow Ars Technica... they've run a few articles that covered how they felt Vista was rushed at the last minute (very last year) of it's development. Once they had completed the major work they rushed it through testing and skipped the spit 'n polishing to smooth over the rough edges.

You are correct, I had gotten the wrong impression and thought it was a new kernel. However I still feel Windows 7's development is very much different than Vista's, or even XP's. For example: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... ernel.html

When is the last time they've actually stripped it down to the bare kernel, then stripped the kernel down too! 256MB of disk space, 40 mb of RAM, 13 running processes... and still took 20 seconds to boot up. I hope they continue to follow this type of development from start to finish this time!

[inko1nsiderate]

Are they going to switch the file system finally in windows 7?

I remember "Longhorn" had the new winfs system.

[vbironchef]

Please correct me if I am wrong. What I have been reading is that Microsoft is going to do away with many different versions of its op. Instead, Microsoft is going the format of Mac. I heard that the new op system will retail for about 100 dollars. Then every year one must pay another 100 dollars to keep getting updates, or a new version. It's what Apple has been doing for years, I think.

[NAiLs]

If this is true then vista just became the next winME

Not having to buy vista (thanks MSDNAA) i think I'll just stick with a dual boot till then.

Dan

Ah yes, I wish I was in school again to get free software! Thankfully I only paid $130 for my full version of Ultimate, but I did get 2 copies of XP Pro for a grand total of $30 through the MSDNAA.