Microsoft confirms 'Windows 7' due in 3 years

[cibomatto2002]

At an internal meeting for its sales force this week, Microsoft confirmed the code name and approximate timing for Windows Vista's successor. The details, such as they are, aren't a huge surprise, but given the dearth of information from Microsoft on its next PC operating system, any confirmation seems notable.

According to a series of PowerPoint slides presented at the company's internal "MGX" global sales meeting this week, the new version is, as expected, known by the internal name "Windows 7," and it's due out in approximately three years.

But no big features were revealed, and overall, the slides don't reveal much that most people tracking Windows wouldn't have guessed. For example, one slide says Windows 7 will be "A full OS release," available for businesses and consumers, in both 32- and 64-bit versions. Another slide says the "development philosophy" for future Windows versions includes establishing a "more predictable release schedule," and expanding the "Windows product family" to "deliver value beyond the OS including subscription offerings."

Another slide carries the intriguing title, "Internal Planning Process Detail," but contains mostly generic statements, such as, "Identify and articulate key dev pillars and potential scenarios internally." Elsewhere in the deck, another slide references Windows Vista Service Pack 1 but doesn't give any timing beyond saying it's "next" on the roadmap.

read more here

http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/m...ves/118404.asp

sounds like vista is dying all ready.

[Jale]

Indeed. It's a waste of effort and money.

[TchuBacha]

Maybe they'll include hypervisors in Windows 7

We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe it's hypervisors. I don't know what it is" [...] "Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers.

[Robert]

Maybe it will give entire control of your computer to Hollywood.

[Ryanfaescotland]

"A full OS release"

Unlikely going by the amount of bugs etc the rest of their Windows verisons have had it'll more likely be a 90% OS 10% Blue Screen Flasher

Honestly Bill if your reading this take a little more time before releasing it, do some more work on Vista, develope Windows 7 to the point where there are very few problems then release it. Don't just throw out crap in 3 years please. Cheers Bill your a mate.

[TchuBacha]

"A full OS release"

Unlikely going by the amount of bugs etc the rest of their Windows verisons have had it'll more likely be a 90% OS 10% Blue Screen Flasher

Honestly Bill if your reading this take a little more time before releasing it, do some more work on Vista, develope Windows 7 to the point where there are very few problems then release it. Don't just throw out crap in 3 years please. Cheers Bill your a mate.

With a 93% market share, Windows cant be that bad, else we wouldnt buy it.

Vista is crap? - No its not. Its new. There isnt many drivers out there for alot of the hardware, therefore some people think its rubbish because it doesnt work with there machine. Give it time, its just new thats all.

Windows security is like a sieve? - Maybe, but seeing as 93% of all computers run a windows OS it makes sense for virus writers and hackers to attack Windows compared to Linux which has a market share of less than 1%. Virus writers aren't stupid.

BSOD? - Common on the Win9x because they were built around DOS which wasnt a very stable OS. Today we have Win2k, XP Vista... all built on NT, which is alot more stable. BSOD can still happen on these OS's but there causes are usually down to hardware failure, poorly writen drivers, hardware incompatibility.

[Zach]

Umm dude.. Windows 9x was not built "on DOS" it was built AROUND it.. It was a GUI Wrapper.. just like DOSSHELL.EXE only prettier.

DOS was a ROCK SOLID OS.. It took some real fucking up to actually crash DOS.. Have you ever even seen a DOS crash screen?

I saw more parity errors (EDO RAM... lolz) than DOS crashes and parity errors were rare as hell

[Ryanfaescotland]

With a 93% market share, Windows cant be that bad, else we wouldnt buy it.

I didn't, I bought a laptop it came with it since they have a 93% market share

Vista is crap? - No its not. Its new. There isnt many drivers out there for alot of the hardware, therefore some people think its rubbish because it doesnt work with there machine. Give it time, its just new thats all.

Ain't saying Vista is crap, what I'm saying is just what your saying, spend more time developing the software you have just released instead of trying to produce a new version.

Windows security is like a sieve? - Maybe, but seeing as 93% of all computers run a windows OS it makes sense for virus writers and hackers to attack Windows compared to Linux which has a market share of less than 1%. Virus writers aren't stupid.

93% market share doesn't = 93% of the world computers using windows other than that yeah I totally agree people seem to forget that point.

BSOD? - Common on the Win9x because they were built around DOS which wasnt a very stable OS. Today we have Win2k, XP Vista... all built on NT, which is alot more stable. BSOD can still happen on these OS's but there causes are usually down to hardware failure, poorly writen drivers, hardware incompatibility.

I ain't actually had many BSOD on Vista I was just sterotyping and that is wrong.

[MCP]

and the winner is...Microsoft!

[TchuBacha]

Umm dude.. Windows 9x was not built "on DOS" it was built AROUND it.. It was a GUI Wrapper.. just like DOSSHELL.EXE only prettier.

DOS was a ROCK SOLID OS.. It took some real fucking up to actually crash DOS.. Have you ever even seen a DOS crash screen?

I saw more parity errors (EDO RAM... lolz) than DOS crashes and parity errors were rare as hell

My mistake, I worded myself wrong . Windows 95/98 is built around DOS, and was an excellant OS (I wouldnt know personally as DOS was before me ).

But wasnt Windows 95/98 unstable because it was built around DOS?