Vista Followup Already in the Works

DesertBlade passed us an InfoWorld article, which has the news that Microsoft is already hard at work on the next version of Windows ... and we may see it as early as 2009. Possibly codenamed Vienna, the next Windows iteration will be coming a brief two and a half years after Vista's launch. This is the same timeframe Microsoft claims it would have utilized for Vista, had they not put Longhorn 'on the back burner' to deal with security issues in XP. Corporate Vice President of Development Ben Fathi is already discussing features for the next OS: "We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is ... Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers. It's too early for me to talk about it ... But over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."

Delays because of doing other work

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wonder why Microsoft cannot afford to (or just will not) put more manpower on the job.
A company like this should be able to look at security in XP and develop Vista in different teams at the same time, shouldn't it?

Subject

[Legion303]

"It's too early for me to talk about it"

Translation: "We haven't figured out who we're going to rip off yet. Probably Apple."

Great, they know they've got a dud

[DrSkwid]

Another Windows in two years, why bother upgrading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect [wikipedia.org]

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This just in...

[Zouden]

Company developing new product!

Is anyone surprised by this? I bet people at Apple are already working on the successor to Leopard, which isn't even out yet. This is the way things are done.

New think

[GreatDrok]

Hmmm, abject failure to deliver on Longhorn and the fact that two years in they had to dump it because it wasn't going to work and do a simple retread of Windows 2003 with a bit of flashy OS X ripped off graphics is how I remember it. Blaming XP SP2 is simply trying to change history. They made all these great claims about how wonderful Longhorn was going to be and now they are claiming that Apple has copied all their great ideas and delivered them in a working OS while they have dropped most of them because they couldn't make it work. But Apple could. And Apple is the one doing to copying.

How about this for a prediction. The next version of Windows will be late, more of the same, still insecure and a desperate copy of whatever Apple was shipping in 2007.

Huge Mistake

[bogie]

To be talking about this now. If this story gains traction then it will just hurt business adoption. Two years is nothing to wait out Vista and XP still works fine. Many small businesses I've personally heard from have not heard great things about Vista, this will scare them off even more. To take a page from Huggy Bear word on the street is...Vista is OK, nothing special and not worth upgrading to. News of Vista's early replacement certainly isn't the method I'd use to try and win people over.

Re:first post

[JonathanR]

I think you've got some network latency problems there.

Re:Delays because of doing other work

[ZachPruckowski]

There's a diminishing return on manpower. There's only so much the operating system can be fragmented, and each group can only be so large. That was part of Vista's problem - too many people having a say.

Move along, nothing to see hear

[Arimus]

WTF is this a story? Company launches product and starts work on next product. No shit sherlock.... I would suspect that while the new OS moves from the blue-sky phase to getting actual code cut the R&D dept will be work on its replacement....

Manpower doesn't scale

[gilesjuk]

The more people you put on a project the more managers you require, the more meetings, the more decisions, more designs etc...

Larger code base means more bugs, more test time, more bug fixing teams etc..

You can't put twice as many people at a project and expect twice the work to result from it.

The Most Important Feature...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

"We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is ... Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers. It's too early for me to talk about it ... But over the next few months I think you're going to start hearing more and more."

Oh come on, with a name like Vienna we all know the only major upgrade will be more DRM.
MS and Hollywood want to lock us all up in a tiny little can of DRM control, just like a bunch of Vienna sausages.

Re:Delays because of doing other work

[DarkOx]

Most likely because dispite Microsoft's reality vortex they still at least have the balls to admit to themselves that software still has not been realized as an engineering discipline. It would be nice if a large software project could be broken out into little modules with clear specifications that any coder could go off and make but it usually can't. Lots of development is very iterative, which means everything is changing. Lots of time stuff just has to be built to see how workable or unworkable it really is in practice; but when I change my interface it breaks your module. Maybe that is a minor problem easy to fix or maybe its a show stopper, how can I know.

Most large projects seem to work best with a few core team people who know basically how everything works at least at some level and can then farm out small clearly defined tasks to others. Their total bandwidth is bound to be limited though and so more 'others' does not always help. Growing the core team won't help much either because communication between them has to be total and constant, that is going to take longer the more specialed and nemerous those guys become.

Look at the Linux kernel for instance. You have Linus and pretty small core team that has different specialties. I know all those core team guys have some familiarity with the entire thing and Linus absoultly does. You can tell that from reading LKN. Maybe Jens is a block layer wizard but he know s how the network and VM layers work. He has to know inorder to mange block layer development well. He then has lots of other people submitting smallish patches and fixes to what is primarily his project.

I think we can reasonably assume that the Linux kernel and core GNU stuffs, includeing things like Gnome, have more developers.[qualified] contributing then M$ can put on windows even if they wanted. While those projects do seem to progress more rapidly then Windows its not by any means in an earth shattering way.

   

Re:Delays because of doing other work

[tomhudson]

"After Windows is finished, the dev team proceeds to work on the next version, while a team called Windows Sustained Engineering takes over the released version."

And therein lies the problem. There is zero incentive to do it right the first time. After all, once its' out the door, its someone else's problem.

The people who actually wrote it should be responsible for fixing it - not writing the next-gen fuckup.

Re:Great, they know they've got a dud

[ZachPruckowski]

That doesn't really apply to Windows, for two reasons:

1) Every consumer "needs" to replace their computer every 2-3 years. They won't delay a computer purchase more than 6 months in order to get the next OS.
2) Corporate sales often involve site licenses with a guaranteed free update. So if you buy a 5 year plan now, you pay $ X per year, and you can run XP, Vista, or the new OS when it's out. So an upcoming new release is essentially a bonus for those companies. The usual Microsoft strategy involves over-hyping the next release to appeal precisely to that.
3) Business's update at IT's pace. That is, just because Vista came out now doesn't mean they'll start using it now. They'll move to Vista in 12-18 months, independent of when the successor comes out.

Re:Delays because of doing other work

[Movi]

Ah, because the problem is not putting more manpower on the job, but putting less. Right now there's a overpopulation on the project. Notice how many people work on Vista and how many on Mac OS X (ignoring for a moment the BSD userspace tools). More manpower != better results.

Same old broke warez

[Nichole_knc]

Until Microsoft gets off their "stupid" backwards compatibility hang up Windows will always be bloated and "swiss cheese" (no offense intended against the Swiss). Why would someone wish to run an 8 or 16 bit program from 17 years ago on a machine and OS that did not exist at that time is beyond me... I have stated this before and drew flame for it... Some lamer complained that they could not "afford" another computer to have a second OS to run old stuff on. I have more than 15 computers out of those I only bought and paid for 3 (three) all the rest are off the side of the street or dumpsters. They all are bootable at least to one OS. Most are multi-boot win98/Linux. They range from a Pentium 200 up to P4 3.0 even a couple of dual xeons (yep trash out of a dumpster complete with a 64 bit Win XP, CAD/CAM loaded also with the latest Office..OUT OF A DUMPSTER) It ain't hard to have more that one machine and very many OSs... If it is still an issue see vmware..... Windows will be broke till they do a "redo" form scratch...

Re:Huge Mistake

[Tom]

I doubt anything at MS happens by chance. So this leak isn't and while it might hurt Vista adoption a little, it's probably just enough in the future to not change decisions about today and this year. However, it just might keep people on the windos platform, because they have something besides the trainwreck Vista to look forward to now.

I say this is a marketing move to prevent people looking at Vista with disgust and deciding to jump ship to something else entirely (OSX, Linux, Solaris, whatever).

Re:Huge Mistake

[orin]

Why is a comment from someone who hasn't even used the operating system themselves marked insightful? He's basically said "I've heard that a bunch of dudes that haven't used Vista haven't heard great things about it". Perhaps insightful of the bunch of dudes had trialled Vista. But I heard from someone that heard isn't really all that insightful is it?

Re:Subject

[drsmithy]

I thought Linux was playing catch-up to OS X (which considering how much longer Linux was in development, is kind of sad).

OS X is NeXTSTEP 5, and has been in development since the mid-late-80s.

Re:Delays because of doing other work

[C0R1D4N]

Is that really logical? They hand the source code over to a group of people who now have to familiarize themselves with everything AND find/fix the security holes? Why not turn the people who worked on it for 5 years or however long into the WSE team?

Re:Great, they know they've got a dud

[DoofusOfDeath]

1) Every consumer "needs" to replace their computer every 2-3 years. They won't delay a computer purchase more than 6 months in order to get the next OS.

I don't think this is true. 5+ years ago, I would have agreed. But now I'm content with the same computer for at least 4 years, maybe more. Maybe I've changed, maybe the market has:

• Now that I'm married with kids, I don't have as much time for computer gaming any more. Realistically, Firefox, OpenOffice.org, YouTube, RealPlayer, getting images off the digital camera, etc. just don't need a hardware upgrade. The only piece of software that lots of people use and that taxes modern hardware is Vista, and Vista is on almost no one's "must have" list.

• Another consequence of getting older and having kids is that you have more demanding things for your money: saving for retirement, college, mortgage, etc. So even on days when I'm jonesing for a new computer, I just learn to suck it up a little bit and accept the current one.

• After 10+ years of playing the twitchy, graphics-intensive games like FPS's, I'm bored. The only games that keep my interest are things like Civilization and Astral Masters, which have fairly low-end requirements.

• 5+ years ago, there was a very discernible improvement in performance every two years. Now? Not so much unless you're using things like FPS games which really tax the computer. In fact, I'd probably say that as the years go by, the fraction of apps that people want to use and that really tax the CPU is going down.

Re:Great, they know they've got a dud

[FallOfDay]

There is no point upgrading. XP's got support for the next six years, I'm in no great hurry for a 64-bit OS & DX10 is pointless until there's games support. Vista does have the distinct feeling of WindowsME about it. Another two year wait? No big deal, Vista got put off for that long, anyway & we all survived. Continued incremental hardware upgrades until XP dies a death, I feel.

Good article on the nVidia/Vista driver situation (also applies to MAudio)...
http://www.bit-tech.net/columns/2007/02/10/not_enj oying_the_view/1.html [bit-tech.net]

It'd be rough justice if Intel knocks nVidia out in the meantime & it's set for the same schedule as the next Windows release...
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37 548 [theinquirer.net]

Re:Fundamentals.

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

Since Vista launched on the 30th, we've sold all of two copies

Really? You mean that you checked the inventory levels in the computer, and noticed you only sold two copies? Or, do you mean, "I only noticed two copies being sold". Because, if your store is as big as you claim, you probably don't have access to detailed sales records (unless "work in" means "manage"), and you're certainly not going to be there to see all of the potential sales.

No one expected Vista to fly off the shelves. Most people don't buy new copies of Windows on their own - they get them with a new PC. The only version of Windows that sold upgrades in substantial numbers was Windows 95, and there is no product that Microsoft could put out that would match the upgrade from Windows 3.11 to Windows 95.

As far as launches go, this one has been pretty pathetic.

Really? Because, your rant notwithstanding, the numbers tell otherwise.

PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% [com.com] compared to the week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.

A lot of the people that are coming in to look at new PC's or Laptops are deliberately avoiding the ones pre-loaded with vista because of all the horror stories they've heard

A lot of this is because of the massive FUD campaign against Vista that seems to be prevelent in the media. It is too early for most users to upgrade, but Vista isn't going to destroy the internet or eat your children. It's a solid, stable OS.

Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".

There were complaints about how much XP Pro cost ($299/$199 upgrade). Five years later, and the "business" version of Vista is still $299/$199 - effectively, it's actually cheaper than XP professional was at launch. And you can still buy Vista as an OEM product, just like XP. Media Center Edition was ~$110 OEM, Vista Home Premium is ~$115. XP Home was ~$90 OEM, so is Vista Home Basic, which - unlike XP Home - doesn't have crippled filesharing or user options.

The Home premium upgrade refuses to install over an XP pro installation

Yes, just like XP Home refuses to upgrade over Windows 2000. This is neither new nor unexpected, although, unlike with XP, there is a workaround [winsupersite.com] with Vista.

and of the two copies of Vista that we've sold, one has come back as unusable

Apparently, my previous assertion that you don't work at a large store is true - none of the major stores allow customers to return opened software.

and the other user is considering returning it as he can't even get on the net with it

At this point, I think you are just making shit up. Because, of course, at a major computer retailer, you not only know everybody who purchased and returned a specific product, you know the customers who have purchased and thought about returning the product, too! Apparently, your "farily large" store also provides free after-sale support! That sounds like the hallmark of a small business, not something like a Best Buy.

Crap on Vista all you want. You have a choice - buy a Mac or use Linux. Many people will probably do just that. But Vista supports my hardware just fine - ALL of it, and, with two exceptions (UltraVNC and PDFCreator), it supports all of my software too. It's running on my notebook and my desktop right now - I'm typing this comment in Vista. It's Windows, people, with everything that being Windows entails. If you liked XP, you'll probably like Vista. If you hate Windows, buy a Mac or use Linux - Vista isn't going to change anything.

Re:Fundamentals.

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? You mean that you checked the inventory levels in the computer, and noticed you only sold two copies?

Actually, I work at a large ISP located in the metropolitain area with subscribers across the country and we keep statistics of what OS people connect with (in our call center as well as various trackers on servers) so we can better support our users and we haven't noticed a significant (i.e. => 1%) portion of Vista installs...

PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% compared to the week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.

Sure, but hardly any of those PCs run Vista. If the point you were trying to make was about Vista selling more, quoting sales of PCs that haven't shipped with Vista is hardly the way to do it...

A lot of this is because of the massive FUD campaign against Vista that seems to be prevelent in the media....Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".

Hasn't anyone noticed that MS saied the EXACT SAME THINGS about every other OS they've sold? "It's the most stable," "Easy to migrate to," "Most secure windows evar!" etc? Maybe people are finally starting to exercise caution? Maybe people are starting to think it's "just marketing"? Nah.. can't be.

There were complaints about how much XP Pro cost ($299/$199 upgrade). Five years later, and the "business" version of Vista is still $299/$199 - effectively, it's actually cheaper than XP professional was at launch.

Sure, now they have more competition, and realize they actually have to live up to their TCO claims, and even gain consumer goodwill, clean up their image. Even MS have acknowledged this. But wait'll you see how many tie-ins they have to get you to eventually purchase Ultimate if you want to do get a coherent experience, or even make use of otherwise "free" features in other software (since they tie-in to the convenient and already available Ultimate features... how many apps require WMP but actually really need it? Same with IE? Come on, there are more efficient and secure stacks for this...), etc.

Yes, just like XP Home refuses to upgrade over Windows 2000. This is neither new nor unexpected

Are you kidding? It's these kinds of artificial limitations that MS are really pissing off their users with.

At this point, I think you are just making shit up.

Vista isn't going to change anything.

Ah, the first thing you've said that I can fully agree with...

Re:Fundamentals.

[Error27]

> PC sales for the week of Vista's release are up 173% [com.com] compared to the
> week previous, and up 67% versus the same week in 2006.

Normally PC revenue grows 20% from the last year. So the 63% makes sense, but it's not very impressive.

The 173% just means that people weren't buying PCs the week before. I heard that some stores in the Bay Area sold out their pre-vista stock and couldn't bring out the new stock until after the release. So really the 173% figure is not something to be proud of.

Re:Fundamentals.

[x-caiver]

WinFS is not a filesystem, it's a database.

Man, it is about time someone said that.

A file system is a way for a computer to organize a bunch of data in a manner that makes that data easy to find and access after it is stored. It has methods for reading / writing (updating) existing data, a way to store meta data about the data, and ways to make different pieces of data be related to others (folders, links, streams, etc).

That is -completely- different from a database! A database is a way for a computer to organize a bunch of data in a manner that makes that data easy to find and access after it is stored. It has methods for reading / writing (updating) existing data, a way to store meta data about the data, and ways to make different pieces of data be rela... Oh... wait... crap...

Re:FLAMEBAIT! Come on mods... do something useful

[oyenstikker]

"Windows is a damn good OS."

Do you _use_ Windows? I wasted 2 hours a few days ago finding out that I have to rewrite a bunch of scripts because Windows has an insanely short maximum command line argument length, and if you hit it it chops off your arguments and sticks a "D" at the end. Several times a I have coworkers come to me to have me run batch jobs on my Linux box because it will take me 2 minutes to do something that Windows make incredibly difficult. When they ask me to adapt my scripts to Cygwin/bash, it always takes me longer to deal with the stupidities of Windows than it took me to write the script in the first place.

Windows is a mediocre appliance. It is a terrible operating system.

Re:Fundamentals.

[rbanffy]

WinFS is neither a database, nor a filesystem. It's vaporware designed to create the perception Microsoft has some technology the others can't have.

It's been promised since NT 4.

Re:Fundamentals.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is too early for most users to upgrade, but Vista isn't going to destroy the internet or eat your children. It's a solid, stable OS.

That's what they said about Windows 95. I'll believe it when I see it.

Hasn't anyone noticed that people said the EXACT SAME THINGS about Windows XP? Antivirus and CD burning programs were incompatible. Hardware support was sketchy. Games didn't run as fast. Everyone was going to stick with Windows 98, because it was "good enough".

I don't remember anybody wanting to stay on Windows 98 (!), but I know lots of people who stayed with Windows 2000. My company finally upgraded to Windows XP, and AFAICT it's exactly the same but with a new paint job. I'm sure there are internal improvements (like reasons that the networking control panels are impossible to navigate now), but functionally, it seems identical. We would have saved a week of work, each, if we could have stayed with 2000. If Vista is going to be the same story, which it sounds like, why would anybody upgrade?

Apparently, my previous assertion that you don't work at a large store is true - none of the major stores allow customers to return opened software.

He said "large", not "major". You're replacing his words with different words that support your point. You can be a large store but not a major one.

Crap on Vista all you want. [...] It's Windows, people, with everything that being Windows entails. If you liked XP, you'll probably like Vista. If you hate Windows, buy a Mac or use Linux - Vista isn't going to change anything.

Alan Perlis said "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing". I believe the same is true of software: if it's still "everything that being Windows entails", it sounds like Windows 2000 with yet another paint job.

Re:This is a really....

[Tim C]

Disclaimer: I work for a small, independent web company in the UK. I have never knowingly had any contact with anyone working at MS, and I have never received any freebie from any company other than the crap that's handed out to everyone at conferences. I have been to two conferences, JavaUK06 (Sun) and XP Day (a bunch of extreme programming advocates). I am neither a shill nor an astroturfer for MS or any other company (Hell, I wouldn't even shill for my own company, and I have shares in it)

I've briefly played with the Vista betas and RCs, and I like it a lot. I didn't find UAC particularly intrusive, and I'm a sucker for eye candy and have a (year old) machine that's perfectly capable of running Aero with all the bells and whistles. I have other stuff I need to buy now, and I'll probably wait for the first service pack in any case, but I fully intend to buy Vista, probably an OEM copy of the Ultimate edition.

Don't let your prejudices blind you to the fact that some people genuinely like things that you do not. The habit of accusing anyone who claims to like $unpopularThing of being a shill is immature and tiresome.

Re:Fundamentals.

[faolan_devyn_aodfin]

WinFS is not a file system. It's more like an extension to the file system. WinFS run on top of NTFS and is really just an advanced indexing and database system for files.

Re:haha, tag this Chicago, Memphis, Detroit, whate

[gig]

When talking about Microsoft's software development, it really helps to drop the marketing names and use the version numbers.

1995 Windows v4.0 (the first real Windows GUI)
1998 Windows v4.1 (now includes Internet Explorer)
2000 Windows v5.0 (bottom-up rewrite on NT, but not ready for all users yet ... see Windows ME)
2001 Windows v5.1 (bottom-up rewrite on NT, now for all users, no more DOS versions, NT is now as good as DOS in every way)
2007 Windows v6.0 (world's largest and most highly-anticipated security patch, plus immature new GUI with outrageous hardware reqs)

The problem I think they are having is that they don't ever build anything with enough quality that they can iterate on it. They shipped Windows Vista v1.0 instead of shipping a true Windows v6.0 with six generations of steady evolutionary advancement in features and functionality.