Next Version Of Windows In 3 Years

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Microsoft says that its next version of Windows will be released in “roughly” 3 years. The next version of Windows is known internally as version "7."

While the company provided few details, Windows 7, the next client version of the operating system, will be among the steps taken by Microsoft to establish a more predictable release schedule, according to sources. The company plans a more "iterative" process of information disclosure to business customers and partners, sources said.
Click to expand...
 
So by the time they get Vista running as well as XP we will be looking at the same bs all over again. Why in the hell would they make a 32bit version of Windows 7?? Hell, we are already hitting the memory wall on 32bit Vista.
 
mmm not buying Vista anymore...i'll "suffer" with dx9 and xp
 
I payed for Vista and I´m not going to pay for another OS in 3 years - I will eithr keep Vista or use cracked version of "7" :rolleyes:
 
If Microsoft sticks to their normal timetable of releases, I would expect to see the RTM in about 2013 :p

....and Rebel44, I wouldn't admit to warez, now or in the future...it could play havoc with your membership timetable ;)
 
I was planning on skipping vista even before any announcement like this. I skipped over ME and 2k, and I have friends who skipped over XP and went form 2k to Vista.

I finally have an OS that has all the programs on it that I want and now they want me to go to one that doesn't support all the programs I paid for and want to use? Screw you.
 
mavalpha said:
I could've sworn "Version 7" was going under the codename Vienna...
Click to expand...
First person to quote the wikipedia article suffers a fast-but-painful death, btw.

Now then- before I hit the wrong key again- Microsoft has always kept a roughly three year cycle. XP was the exception because of all the Vista issues, and SP2 worked pretty well as an interim OS. Buying a license every three years didn't bother people too much when it was 95->98->ME (bad example)->XP, why is it so different now?
 
mavalpha said:
First person to quote the wikipedia article suffers a fast-but-painful death, btw.

Now then- before I hit the wrong key again- Microsoft has always kept a roughly three year cycle. XP was the exception because of all the Vista issues, and SP2 worked pretty well as an interim OS. Buying a license every three years didn't bother people too much when it was 95->98->ME (bad example)->XP, why is it so different now?
Click to expand...
what about 2000?
 
mavalpha said:
First person to quote the wikipedia article suffers a fast-but-painful death, btw.

Now then- before I hit the wrong key again- Microsoft has always kept a roughly three year cycle. XP was the exception because of all the Vista issues, and SP2 worked pretty well as an interim OS. Buying a license every three years didn't bother people too much when it was 95->98->ME (bad example)->XP, why is it so different now?
Click to expand...
Because they all needed work. How much can be improved on in Vista?
 
I just want to know why people think that 7 is going to be so different from Vista. Look at all of MS's 3 year releases 95 -> 98 -> ME and NT4 ->2000 -> XP. All of those are just revamps of the earlier release running the same code under the hood. All Windows 7 is going to be is Vista + a slightly altered GUI and a few extra features.

If the Vista haters really hate it as much as they say, then you better start learning Linux or something because the next couple of windows releases are going to be Vista based. Its going to be a lot longer than 3 years before anything MS puts out doesn't have Vista written all over it, just look at the upcoming release on the new Windows server.

I don't have a problem with a new OS in 3 years as long as they don't copy Apple and release yearly Service Packs and call them new OSes. :rolleyes:
 
trek554 said:
So by the time they get Vista running as well as XP we will be looking at the same bs all over again. Why in the hell would they make a 32bit version of Windows 7?? Hell, we are already hitting the memory wall on 32bit Vista.
Click to expand...
That surprised me quite a bit. Didn't Microsoft say some months ago that all the OSes they release after 2008 will be 64bit?
 
3 years? Are they kidding?

XP would have been fine until the end of this decade. If this news gets out on a wide scale, I don't think anyone will be going Vista (unless they have to because of a OEM PC).

In 3 years I'll probably be building a new computer for college, I guess that would be the time to buy.

Is DX11 going to be rolled out as well? Its getting harder and harder to keep up in the PC gaming market. With new expensive hardware coming out every 6 months and the lack of games, consoles are starting to look A LOT more appealing.
 
I can't believe that Microsoft is STILL going to provide a 32 bit OS in 2010... they should concentrate their efforts on being visionary and leave 32 bit behind.

Before people start saying 32 bit this and that... here are the reasons:

1) Drivers.... 3 years and already there is a 64 bit OS that hardware manufacturers have to support. In three years time you most likely will have new hardware anyways... so get over it.

2) Programs... many 32 bit Apps work fine on Vista 64, that being said, companies can continue to keep 32 bit Apps and just ensure they work on both the current 32 bit OSs and the future 64 bit OSs. I know Adobe is saying 5 to 10 years for a 64 bit version of their software bit in the meantime they can just make sure it runs on current 64 bit OSs as is.

It just makes me sick that supposedly "visionary" companies like Microsoft, who have a HUGE role to play in how technology progresses, continue to hold back. Even their Server Software is going all 64 bit after 2008.
 
obviously in a forum full of enthusiast, vista is a piece of crap.

MSFT's earning was fantastic. Tech sector is in a full market mode.
Businesss are upgrading their systems and are reinvesting in tech.
Vista sales, no matter how much you hate it, has picked up beating analysts opinions - as today's number shows
.
By in large Vista is a success in wallstreet standard as the numbers today proved that all is going well.

Today's number was including the $1billion in warranty for XBOX.
Still, microsofts number's were praiseworthy.
Its only July.
You can only expect Vista sales would pick up even more, if not exponentially as we head towards the beginning of actual tech cycle. Demand for Vista will be strong the last half of the year.

You guys might hate Vista but for 98% of the masses, its just another thing that they have to upgrade, despite its uselessness.
 
First of all it won't be 3 years it will be delayed. But I really really can't stand Vista so I've been running Gentoo Linux x64 for the past 6 months and using XP x64 exclusively for games on dual boot. Vista to me is dead.
 
Because they say it now doesn't mean it will actually happen.

gotzmadskillz said:
I can't believe that Microsoft is STILL going to provide a 32 bit OS in 2010... they should concentrate their efforts on being visionary and leave 32 bit behind.

Before people start saying 32 bit this and that... here are the reasons:

1) Drivers.... 3 years and already there is a 64 bit OS that hardware manufacturers have to support. In three years time you most likely will have new hardware anyways... so get over it.

2) Programs... many 32 bit Apps work fine on Vista 64, that being said, companies can continue to keep 32 bit Apps and just ensure they work on both the current 32 bit OSs and the future 64 bit OSs. I know Adobe is saying 5 to 10 years for a 64 bit version of their software bit in the meantime they can just make sure it runs on current 64 bit OSs as is.

It just makes me sick that supposedly "visionary" companies like Microsoft, who have a HUGE role to play in how technology progresses, continue to hold back. Even their Server Software is going all 64 bit after 2008.
Click to expand...
 
gotzmadskillz said:
I can't believe that Microsoft is STILL going to provide a 32 bit OS in 2010... they should concentrate their efforts on being visionary and leave 32 bit behind.

Before people start saying 32 bit this and that... here are the reasons:

1) Drivers.... 3 years and already there is a 64 bit OS that hardware manufacturers have to support. In three years time you most likely will have new hardware anyways... so get over it.

2) Programs... many 32 bit Apps work fine on Vista 64, that being said, companies can continue to keep 32 bit Apps and just ensure they work on both the current 32 bit OSs and the future 64 bit OSs. I know Adobe is saying 5 to 10 years for a 64 bit version of their software bit in the meantime they can just make sure it runs on current 64 bit OSs as is.

It just makes me sick that supposedly "visionary" companies like Microsoft, who have a HUGE role to play in how technology progresses, continue to hold back. Even their Server Software is going all 64 bit after 2008.
Click to expand...

Server is easy to deal with but you need to realise many consumer work their machine to the death. There are still people out there that use 95!!!
 
I'm curious to know what they will do in this new version? Vista has about every "essential" application and feature a normal user needs, and they just rewrote most of the core OS with Vista. What's left to change?

Apoxi said:
mmm not buying Vista anymore...i'll "suffer" with dx9 and xp
Click to expand...

Didn't you say the same thing six years ago about Windows 2000? And the same thing about 98 nine years ago?

I can't stand last-gen OS elitists.:rolleyes:
 
You do have to admit that "this" last gen OS in sp2 form is doing pretty well
The only things as a gamer that is missing is DX10 (someone somewhere said it is heading to xp later this year) and the ability to use the 4g of memory (3.5 on my board)
 
InorganicMatter said:
I'm curious to know what they will do in this new version? Vista has about every "essential" application and feature a normal user needs, and they just rewrote most of the core OS with Vista. What's left to change?



Didn't you say the same thing six years ago about Windows 2000? And the same thing about 98 nine years ago?

I can't stand last-gen OS elitists.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

You seem to contradict yourself in the same post, unless you are just asking a question in the beginning. You start off saying how there is nothing left to change so you won't upgrade past Vista yet at the end you hate last-gen OS elitists who don't upgrade. Hmmm.

I hope everything they promised for Vista will be in NT7; they owe it to us.
 
Version 7, huh? I thought Windows 2000 was version 5. Which would mean XP is version 6 and Vista would be version 7. Is that right? Am I missing something?

@gotzmadskillz - I think you're premature in saying that businesses are upgrading. While it is true that businesses that deal with computing are migrating to Vista, it's out of necessity, not out of choice. And the big business customers aren't even looking at it. For example, the company I work for (among the top 5 in the Fortune 500) migrated desktop/laptop users to XP only two years ago from NT4. Service Pack 2 rolled out to us less than a year ago. At that rate, Vista won't even be on the radar for at least four years. And we're not alone.

Can somebody refresh my memory--how long after XP's release did Microsoft start talking about Longhorn? It seems a bit early for them to be trumpeting about their next release, particularly given the lukewarm reception Vista has had up to this point.
 
Mohonri said:
Version 7, huh? I thought Windows 2000 was version 5. Which would mean XP is version 6 and Vista would be version 7. Is that right? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

You are correct about Windows 2000 being "NT 5.0". However, Windows XP is in effect "NT 5.1", making Vista version 6.

Anyway, I have no plans to move to Vista myself as long as I don't need DX10. Call me elitist or whatever you like, but I'd migrate to Linux completely if game developers would release their games on Linux. I really hate how much MS is trying to push Vista on us.

MS - "Buy Vista if you want Halo 2"
"Does it take advantage of DX10?"
MS - "No"
"So why do we need Vista to run Halo 2?"
MS - "Ummmmm"
 
The headline is a bit misleading. Microsoft isn't saying they're going to release the new OS in three years, only that it should be developed in three years. So, in other words, there might be a beta in three years, which may or may not be public. Then there will probably be a release candidate or three, followed, eventually, by a new OS. That pretty much puts the next OS on the same timetable that Microsoft has always used, so I don't get what all the fuss is about. Vista was a little over five years after XP, and it seems safe to say that the next one will be released in a similar time span.
 
wubbie412 said:
obviously in a forum full of enthusiast, vista is a piece of crap.
Click to expand...

Actually, I've come to find that enthusiasts are just as equally mixed on whether or not Vista is worth anything. I've come to find that the perception of Vista has come down to "If you don't need it, don't buy it." and "If your hardware/software needs can't be met by it, then wait."

Honestly, I myself am going to wait. I don't NEED Vista yet. I get by just fine on my XP machine. What's holding me back is game support, third party driver support/development, and third party hardware support. I mean, if my keyboard, mouse, mp3 player, flash drive, and other various devices I hook up by USB can't be seen under Vista or accessed, what good does that do me? None. I would have all that hardware that I can do nothing with. So, in the end, it makes sense to wait until the support is there all across the board, and the only hardware that isn't supported is the cheapass crap that you shouldn't be buying anyway.
 
MajorDomo said:
If Microsoft sticks to their normal timetable of releases, I would expect to see the RTM in about 2013 :p

....and Rebel44, I wouldn't admit to warez, now or in the future...it could play havoc with your membership timetable ;)
Click to expand...

I dont admit to warez. I buy my software but where I live OEM version of Vista Home Premium is 150USD and most people has salary around 500USD - in such situation wouldnt you think about about warez? How many people in US would think about getting cracked version of Vista IF it (OEM version of Vista Home Premium) would cost 600USD or more ????? I will pay for my software but I also know that some of my friend simpli cant afford that :( ........
 
gotzmadskillz said:
I can't believe that Microsoft is STILL going to provide a 32 bit OS in 2010... they should concentrate their efforts on being visionary and leave 32 bit behind.

Before people start saying 32 bit this and that... here are the reasons:

1) Drivers.... 3 years and already there is a 64 bit OS that hardware manufacturers have to support. In three years time you most likely will have new hardware anyways... so get over it.

2) Programs... many 32 bit Apps work fine on Vista 64, that being said, companies can continue to keep 32 bit Apps and just ensure they work on both the current 32 bit OSs and the future 64 bit OSs. I know Adobe is saying 5 to 10 years for a 64 bit version of their software bit in the meantime they can just make sure it runs on current 64 bit OSs as is.

It just makes me sick that supposedly "visionary" companies like Microsoft, who have a HUGE role to play in how technology progresses, continue to hold back. Even their Server Software is going all 64 bit after 2008.
Click to expand...

32bit does
16bit and for what its worth 8bit doesnt
and there are WAY to many aps that are 32bit with 16bit installers that will never get updated
hell i have issues as it is with 16bit shit on 32bit windows

and no ones realy using 64bit any thing other then us and servers
joe six pack doenst care and if stuff doesnt work on his new dell hes going to bitch
 
wfalcon said:
You are correct about Windows 2000 being "NT 5.0". However, Windows XP is in effect "NT 5.1", making Vista version 6.

Anyway, I have no plans to move to Vista myself as long as I don't need DX10. Call me elitist or whatever you like, but I'd migrate to Linux completely if game developers would release their games on Linux. I really hate how much MS is trying to push Vista on us.

MS - "Buy Vista if you want Halo 2"
"Does it take advantage of DX10?"
MS - "No"
"So why do we need Vista to run Halo 2?"
MS - "Ummmmm"
Click to expand...

MS- "we want you to pay for online play"
does it use dedicated servers?
MS- "No"
soo why should i pay for it
MS- "Ummmmm"
 
Not sure why they'd call it 7 unless they're using those old Pentiums with the math bug:

Windows 1.0 (codebase change)
Windows 2.0 (codebase change)
Windows 3.x (all revisions in the 3.x range had the same codebase)
Windows 95/NT4/98/ME (all shared the same basic codebase)
Windows 2000 (codebase change)
Windows XP (codebase change)
Windows 2K3/XP x64 (drastic codebase change)
Windows Vista (severe codebase change)

Looks to me like Vienna would be Windows 9, but I could be wrong of course.
 
bbz_Ghost said:
Not sure why they'd call it 7 unless they're using those old Pentiums with the math bug:

Windows 1.0 (codebase change)
Windows 2.0 (codebase change)
Windows 3.x (all revisions in the 3.x range had the same codebase)
Windows 95/NT4/98/ME (all shared the same basic codebase)
Windows 2000 (codebase change)
Windows XP (codebase change)
Windows 2K3/XP x64 (drastic codebase change)
Windows Vista (severe codebase change)

Looks to me like Vienna would be Windows 9, but I could be wrong of course.
Click to expand...

Sometimes it's easier to link to something then try to explain it. Remember we are talking NT based OS's, not MS-DOS based OS's. Wikipedia
 
InorganicMatter said:
Didn't you say the same thing six years ago about Windows 2000?
Click to expand...

Not exactly the same since dropping 2000 would be nice but this is just a humorous situation involving 3 year upgrades and even longer hardware intervals.

Because of our upgrade cycle at work we are still running 2000. With the way the cycle runs we will probably have these PC's for another 2 years or so...at which time we will probably be going to Vista unless something goes horribly wrong. Somehow we very well could completely miss XP :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top