Windows 7 in 2011?

Well this has certainly been an entertaining thread. :)

The "3 years of development" figure is not too far from the truth, but you're all forgetting that it's already been over a year since Vista shipped - which is when Win7 planning started. So, no, it's not 2008 + 3 = 2011. Win7 code is already being written.

3 years between OS releases is pretty standard, really.
 
Steve said:
This article (not artical) is in response to the 2 million articles a week ago saying Windows 7 is coming out tomorrow.

While they may not be a big site, at least they got a response from MS which beats 60% of last week's articles. ;)
Click to expand...

Well, that response from MS is PR crap. They don't want to detract from Vista momentum in the marketplace by saying that another version of Windows is right around the corner. Obviously "7" is further along than planning stages, since screenshots from the first Milestone 1 build abound on the web. Vista RTM'd in November 2006, Microsoft hasn't been "planning" Windows 7 for over a year. They've been developing and have already delivered an early version. Given the apparent limited scope of the next version of Windows, I'd think 2009 is more than realistic. I think MJ Foley is a more reputable source than that WinVistaClub site.
 
sbrown23 said:
Well, that response from MS is PR crap. They don't want to detract from Vista momentum in the marketplace by saying that another version of Windows is right around the corner. Obviously "7" is further along than planning stages, since screenshots from the first Milestone 1 build abound on the web. Vista RTM'd in November 2006, Microsoft hasn't been "planning" Windows 7 for over a year. They've been developing and have already delivered an early version. Given the apparent limited scope of the next version of Windows, I'd think 2009 is more than realistic. I think MJ Foley is a more reputable source than that WinVistaClub site.
Click to expand...

That's where I think you're wrong. Microsoft wouldn't give up the chance for a longer development cycle as long as Vista is still making money. 2011 sounds like a great estimate to give Vista a good run And if I know my favorite company half as well as I think I know them then they won't give up that chance to enlighten people to the features and services that an update to Vista hold.
 
sbrown23 said:
Well, that response from MS is PR crap. They don't want to detract from Vista momentum in the marketplace by saying that another version of Windows is right around the corner. Obviously "7" is further along than planning stages, since screenshots from the first Milestone 1 build abound on the web. Vista RTM'd in November 2006, Microsoft hasn't been "planning" Windows 7 for over a year. They've been developing and have already delivered an early version. Given the apparent limited scope of the next version of Windows, I'd think 2009 is more than realistic. I think MJ Foley is a more reputable source than that WinVistaClub site.
Click to expand...

Her site was all "Nope, nope Microsoft is wrong, you'll see. Yup you'll see, I bet you this, you just wait, I'm right, you're wrong."

I'm not quite too sure if that's quite.... logical reasoning.
 
sbrown23,

Mary Jo Foley's articles closest thing to a cite for her reasoning is a "inside source". I think I've seen about 10,000 of these been used as cites for articles about the New G100 from Nvidia, as well as what will be released when. So far, iirc they're batting about 0 for 10,000.


We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 years to develop.
Click to expand...

To me this statement reads "we are planning, when we are done planing it will take 3 years to develop".

To her it reads "We started a hard 3 year cycle that started the second we released Vista to be burned onto CDs. So Win7 WILL be ready in 2009 PERIOD." Reading the above, I don't read that but whatever.


Her source says this:
Windows 7 is cleaning up some UI (user interface) and will feel more like a SP (service pack) than (Vista) SP1. In fact, it looks like the only changes will be around the Task Bar (’the tray’) and not much else. There is a big push to take more (out of) Windows,” not to cram more features into it.
Click to expand...

So Win7 isn't going to promise anything new, no changes, and not much more on the features. If there aren't any new features why would any of us upgrade from vista? Unless this thing that microsoft produces is 100% stable, 100% virus/hacker/malware proof, (*cough*ITS MICROSOFT*cough*) how on earth are they going to market it?
 
vengence said:
sbrown23,
So Win7 isn't going to promise anything new, no changes, and not much more on the features. If there aren't any new features why would any of us upgrade from vista? Unless this thing that microsoft produces is 100% stable, 100% virus/hacker/malware proof, (*cough*ITS MICROSOFT*cough*) how on earth are they going to market it?
Click to expand...

They will find a way, everything nowadays is marketable, no matter what and yet people will buy it.
 
Vista was a big release for MS. They really invested a lot in it, as they completely rewrote much of the OS's architecture and how software interacts with it. In fact, most issues people experience with Vista are caused because of these redesigns- hardware and software creators are still adjusting to these. Adding another OS based on this architecture into the mix soon will only lengthen the time it takes for these things to get ironed out (hell, some companies are still having trouble getting stuff out for Vista x64, let alone an entirely new OS).
 
Shotglass01 said:
Sorry for the double post, I didn't see the first one pop in.

But, you almost made my point. What does MS care if they piss people off? I still don't think Linux is going to be adopted arge scale in corporations so there doesn't seem to be a lot of choice. So, it's back to money again. If Vista flops in the corporate arena (and it looks very much like it is) then they have to come out with a product that will be adopted. And, it'll need to be sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

It's ok about the double, these things tend to happen.

You're definitely right, micosoft doesn't care much about the average consumer.
We should ask ourselves what does win 7 really have to offer thats so revolutionary and that everyone will want to upgrade" People are going to still find a way and argue so that they can save money and stay on XP. I could almost see a similar arguement in the corporate arena. Also an upgrade would require their technician to learn new codes and workers to adapt a new interface. If XP is still good and useful, I dont think corporations will upgrade.
 
Yep, and yet they'll have to upgrade at some point. It was probably painful for a lot of shops to go to 2000 from 98. But, it really was better in the long run.

There's no doubt that Vista or 7 will be mass corporate someday. But, I have seen a lot more jobs for Linux admins (mostly on the server end) so MS doesn't have as much control as they used to.
 
the-one1 said:
Well, what ever it is and whenever it's released, I hope they do away with the stupid namings of their OS (XP, Vista). I think it should just be a number (Windows 2011, Windows 7, Windows 7.2.539.....)
Click to expand...

Then amd and intel should go back to naming their clock speed too?
 
Then amd and intel should go back to naming their clock speed too?
Click to expand...

Like a CPU or Graphics card will ever be named after some realistic benchmark of performance again..:rolleyes:
 
ICOM said:
No reason to "upgrade" XP for that bloated POS. sheesh!
Click to expand...

Funny people said the same thing about XP when it first came out. Heaven forbid technology would advance and the resource requirements of an OS would advance with it :rolleyes:
 
young boy said:
Then amd and intel should go back to naming their clock speed too?
Click to expand...

The problem is that clock speed isn't a good measure of performance either, since IPC can be and is very different. If Intel still advertised clock speed, the average consumer would think an old Pentium 4 at 3.2 GHz is better than a new Core 2 Duo at 2.8 GHz.

And let's not turn this into another OS debate.
 
So anyway, now that we know Vista won't be topped for a few years, can people get off the hatewagon? XP is crap now and maybe it's time people start to see that.
 
DemonDiablo said:
I'm pretty sure that this was meant to be interpreted as a sarcastic remark.
Click to expand...

I know. I believe he was trying to show the stupidity of naming Windows version by number instead of crazy marketing names. But the thing is, the analogy doesn't work, because AMD and Intel have a reason to not name by clockspeed (because it would mislead customers), but Microsoft has no good reason not to name Windows by version number.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top