Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Operating Systems Software Windows

Next Version of Windows? Call it '7' 488

Posted by Zonk
from the didn't-we-just-get-a-new-one dept.
CNet has the news that Microsoft is currently aiming to release the next version of the Windows operating system in about three years. Previously known as Vienna, the OS is now simply known internally as '7'. After achieving a quality product, the article states, Microsoft's big goal with 7 is to recapture a regular release schedule for their operating system product. From the article: "Like Vista, Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions. The company also confirmed that it is considering a subscription model to complement Windows, but did not provide specifics or a time frame. Next up on Microsoft's agenda is Service Pack 1 for Windows Vista, which is expected before year's end. The discussion of Windows' future isn't surprising, given that Microsoft has been criticized by business customers for delays related to Vista. Many business customers pay for Microsoft's software under a license agreement called Software Assurance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Version of Windows? Call it '7'

Comments Filter:
  • by Skevin (16048) * on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:39PM (#19939643) Journal
    Bill: [with a Fed-Ex delivery of the new version of Windows] Linus, I never got to tell you how much I admire you and your operating system.
    Linus: What's in the box, Bill?
    Bill: When I saw your operating system, I wanted all the features in it. Everything from the widgets on the desktop to the exhilarating smell of its security policies.
    Linus: I said, what's in the box?
    Bill: And when I implemented them into my commercial operating system, I realized I had committed the sin of Envy, for which I must pay.
    Linus: [Shaking] Aurgh! What's in the the booooxxx?!
    Stallman: [voice suddenly crackling over the radio] Torvalds! Do not open the box! I repeat! Do not open the box!

    Solomon Chang
    • Bill: [with a Fed-Ex delivery of the new version of Windows] Linus, I never got to tell you how much I admire you and your operating system.
      Linus: What's in the box, Bill?
      Bill: When I saw your operating system, I wanted all the features in it. Everything from the widgets on the desktop to the exhilarating smell of its security policies.
      Linus: I said, what's in the box?
      Bill: And when I implemented them into my commercial operating system, I realized I had committed the sin of Envy, for which I must pay.
      Linus: [Shaking] Aurgh! What's in the the booooxxx?!
      Stallman: [voice suddenly crackling over the radio] Torvalds! Do not open the box! I repeat! Do not open the box!

      Sorry, but I can never hear that scene without hearing it like this:

      Brainy: What's tin the booooxxxx?

      BANG!

      Jokey: It's a surpriiiiise! *manic giggle*

      Brainy: What the fuck is wrong with you?

    • by msauve (701917)
      That's "7 of 9" to you, buddy.

      You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:08PM (#19940839)
      Ballmer: I think they really went for that Soda.
      Gates: What, are you crazy? They hated it. They were just humouring you.
      Ballmer: Ah, alright. Believe me, that OS is gonna be called Soda.
      Gates: I can tell you, I would never name my system Soda.
      Ballmer: Oh, no no no. Course not. I got a great name for our OS. A real original. You wanna hear what it is? Huh, you ready?
      Gates: Yeah.
      *Ballmer uses his finger to draw a number 7 in the air, while whistling*
      Gates: What is that? Sign language?
      Ballmer: No, Seven.
      Gates: Microsoft Seven? You're serious?
      Ballmer: Yeah. It's a beautiful name for an OS or an application...
      *Gates scoffs*
      Ballmer: ...especially an app. Or an OS.
      Gates: I don't think so.
      Ballmer: What, you don't like the name?
      Gates: It's not a name. It's a number.
      Ballmer: I know. It's Mickey Mantle's number. So not only is it an all around beautiful name, it is also a living tribute.
      Gates: It's awful. I hate it!
      Ballmer: Well, that's the name!
      Gates: Oh no it is not! No program of mine is ever going to be named Seven!
      Ballmer: Awright, let's just stay calm here! Don't get all crazy on me!
  • by __NR_kill (1018116) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:42PM (#19939663)
    I would call it Venice, it will be stinking and sinking anyway.
  • by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:42PM (#19939675)
    And of course Windows 7 will finally be secure, stable and simple. Which is always what Microsoft promises their new operating system will be.... a few months after they release their current version and victims start realizing that it wasn't any of those things. And they fall for it every time.

    Just watch, all discussion of the shortcomings of Vista will now be answered with, "yes but Windows 7 is going to address that issue."

    For about two years that is, then will come the talk of features being dropped on the cutting room floor to make it to a shipping date. But never to fear, they will only be leaving out stuff you don't really need and Windows 7 is still going to finally be THE secure, stable and simple to use OS you have been waiting for.

    Then it will ship, after a four year development cycle (see, we beat Vista's development time!) and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista all over again. And somehow the masses will escape coming to a 'sad realization' or will and still rationalize not doing anything about it.

    But there is one ray of hope in the announcement, not that anything they say at this point can be believed of course, but if they are still staying with a 32bit version it means they have pretty much given up on ramming Trusted Computing down our throats.
    • by Wellington Grey (942717) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:48PM (#19939737) Homepage Journal

      Then it will ship, after a four year development cycle (see, we beat Vista's development time!) and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista all over again.


      Yes, but Windows 8 is going to address that issue.

      -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
    • by Tuoqui (1091447)
      The *BIGGER* you make an OS, the *LESS* secure it gets.

      This is a fact. The more lines of code inside of ANYTHING, introduces exponentially more potential for flaws that can be exploited by hackers because nothing EVER gets tested before it is released anymore. Thats the job of everyone who's paying for the wonderful pleasure of debugging your shitty software these days.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by omfgnosis (963606)
        More statistical potential for insecurity doesn't equate to actual insecurity.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Tim C (15259)
          Not to mention that assuming he's trying to argue against Windows, the argument blows up in his face when you count the number of CDs the average Linux distro ships on...
    • by hpavc (129350)
      Poor vendors and their driver certifications. Well at least someone will be buying 7 I guess.
    • by Vellmont (569020) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:12PM (#19939967)

      and it will be wash rinse and repeat as people actually see it and realize it is Windows 3.1, Windows 95, Windows XP, Windows Vista


      So it'll be progressively better operating systems (with the possible exclusion of XP over 2000 IMO) that aren't "perfect"? That sounds fine to me.

      If your metric in measuring any product is if it lives up to the marketing departments hype, then ALL products are miserable failures in that regard. We all know products never live up to the hype, so I don't quite understand the criticism here.

      Of course that's not to say I'm defending everything Microsoft has done, far from it. The problem I have with this announcement is the continued long lag times between releases. Vista wasn't originally planned at 5 years, but more like 2 or 3 years. Microsoft SAYS they've changed as far as release schedules go, but it sounds like same-old-same-old to me.

      IMO software develops best with a mix of frequent releases of incremental change, and major releases that re-architect everything. Microsoft has done the major architectural changes on a regular basis, but has failed to produce very many good incremental releases.

      For instance, Windows 95 was a pretty good product, while Windows 98 wasn't really much more than adding USB support. ME was of course utter crap. 2000 was the best product I've seen from Microsoft (and the best major release they've done). XP was useless IMO and added little to nothing to the OS. Vista is the buggiest Microsoft OS I've run so far, and doesn't live up to many of the claims (less reboots my ass). I _really_ like the menu search feature though, but wish the sleep feature worked a lot better (extremely buggy in my experience). Despite this I won't be going back to Windows 2000, though I might just go Ubuntu on my workstation. That would make me Microsoft free for the first time in 12 years. Everything else including my work machine is some variant of Linux.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by physicsnick (1031656)

        So it'll be progressively better operating systems (with the possible exclusion of XP over 2000 IMO) that aren't "perfect"? That sounds fine to me.

        Agreed. I'm quite surprised that no one in this discussion seems to have made reference to Ubuntu's release schedule. Ubuntu's six-month release plan is tremendously successful in both providing users with cutting-edge features and motivating developers to improve the operating system. It seems Microsoft is realizing the flaws in its own development model and is trying to fix it. This is good; it means better software for everyone.

        Windows releases don't always have to have groundbreaking changes, and we

        • by crayz (1056) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:24PM (#19940499) Homepage
          Ubuntu's six-month release plan is tremendously successful... It seems Microsoft is realizing the flaws in its own development model and is trying to fix it. This is good; it means better software for everyone.

          Gee what a great point. Except that it's already over six months past Vista came out, and Microsoft is quoted in the article saying "7" would be under development for three years
          • by physicsnick (1031656) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:35PM (#19940579)
            Hi, if you're not going to read the article, maybe you should at least read the summary?

            Emphasis mine:

            After achieving a quality product, the article states, Microsoft's big goal with 7 is to recapture a regular release schedule for their operating system product.

            In other words, they know that Vista is far too broken to start making incremental releases for it. They need a stable working base to start from.

            Windows 2000 would have been the perfect opportunity for Microsoft to lock into a fixed release cycle. It was good enough that even if they did nothing at all, they could still make a new release every year; this meant they could have focused their energy on smaller changes.

            Unfortunately for everyone, they got lazy and sat on their monopoly, and fell behind OS X (and more recently Linux) in terms of security, visual quality, and ease of use. Now they're at a point where they've got a bug-ridden half-featured OS released to try and catch up. They need to get back to the stability of Windows 2000 before they can lock into a stable release cycle.
            • by jcr (53032) <jcr@nOspAm.mac.com> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:08PM (#19940837) Journal
              I don't agree with your claim that they're lazy. I think the evidence points to incompetence.

              -jcr

        • by Master of Transhuman (597628) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:48PM (#19941133) Homepage
          "It seems Microsoft is realizing the flaws in its own development model and is trying to fix it"

          Did you read the issues around Vista that were posted on Microsoft employee blogs by Microsoft employees?

          And this was AFTER Jim Allchin told Gates the thing would never be done if they didn't change their methods.

          So they changed their methods.

          And what happened was that an incredibly broken testing system was put in place which was so badly broken that it delayed Vista release for months, while the development managers certified test builds as "Approved" even when they failed numerous - possibly even ALL - tests.

          The problem with Microsoft is their PEOPLE - not their system. Their corporate culture is broken - and broken beyond repair as long as Gates and Ballmer are running the show. The stockholders should be in revolt - if they knew anything about the company.

          The bottom line is that Vista has twice the code in it that Linux does - and does not do twice as much (unless you count the ridiculous DRM checking mechanisms, I suppose.) There's no way one company can develop a system with even more code in it and come up with something that works. I doubt it's even feasible for the Linux community unless the industry comes up with better development and testing methods. When Linux hits the amount of lines of code in Vista, it will be BETTER than Vista - but even I doubt whether it will be adequately reliable for normal use.

          The problem is that the industry - especially Microsoft (and with an even worse attitude) - is pushing the limits of the current software development technology. The result is what we see everywhere: "Nothing works and nobody cares."
      • "... then ALL products are miserable failures in that regard."
        OSX and the iPod and the iPhone have all lived up to the hype.

        "Microsoft has done the major architectural changes on a regular basis, but has failed to produce very many good incremental releases."
        Which shows you should be leary of anything they release.

        There are two types of software:

        Software that ages
        Software that matures.

        MS's software ages. It is the worse kind of software methodolgy.

        If they focused on maturity, their security would be better, they could achive the goals they want a step at a time, and there reputation would be substantially improved.

        IN my opinion it's time or the old gaurd to leave, or rethink the way they are trying to fullfill their goals.
      • "2000 was the best product I've seen from Microsoft (and the best major release they've done)."

        Uh, considering 2000 was just NT 4.0 with the IE 4.0/Explorer shell jammed on and a bit of tweaking under the covers for DirectX, I'm pretty disappointed. NT 4.0 ran reasonably well on a 486 with 24mb of RAM, and even better on a K6 233 with 128mb of RAM. However, without DirectX support newer than 3.0, the only real thing that I use Windows for (since the Wine/Cedega DirectX support lags a bit), I was forced to
        • by Tim C (15259)
          Activation and a fisher-price interface (which you can disable) are the big differences

          And improved software compatibility; I had a number of apps that crashed or failed to start at all under 2k that worked fine under XP. Oh and the firewall.

          Oh, and comments like "Fisher Price UI" betray your bias, too.

          the only really bad difference between XP and 2K was that XP was limited to 10 TCP/IP connections at a time OOTB.

          No, XP limits the number of TCP/IP connections you can have in the wait state; you can have tho
      • Except...
            First versions of 98?
            Windows ME?

        The patterns seems to be one big step forward, a few small steps back.

        Win 2000 was the high point for me so far.
    • M$ has said they are working a kind of VM like set that will sandbox all unsigned code for the next mayor release of windows as well as fully redone UI.

      First of all if they are this alot of people will dump windows for mac or linux at that point and / or there may be a lot of anti Trust lawsuits.

      also fully redoing the UT / forcing unsigned code to be locked down will brake so many apps that Up take of this will be a lot slower then Vista slow up take.
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by davester666 (731373)

        M$ has said they are working a kind of VM like set that will sandbox all unsigned code for the next mayor release of windows as well as fully redone UI.

        This is so weird. MS seems so focused on unsigned code [which IMHO is mainly aimed at DRM, and less on quality/security from the end-users perspecitive], that it ignores obvious problems, such as having separate 32 and 64-bit releases.

        If MS could figure out how to run both 32 and 64 bit code at the same time [such as how at least one other major OS ca

    • by jcr (53032)
      I think you're being far too optimistic. If it's scheduled to take three years, then I'd bet on it taking seven (hence, the name).

      -jcr

    • Windows 7 is going to implement WinFS.

      Really.

      I'm serious!

      Would you stop laughing?!

  • by Shabadage (1037824) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:45PM (#19939697)
    7 eh?

    I'm assuming they're using this name to tell us how many service packs it will take before it should function like advertised, right?
  • 7 years (Score:5, Funny)

    by Wellington Grey (942717) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:46PM (#19939709) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft is scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year time frame...

    Somehow I think, like Visa, this will take a hell of a lot longer than expected. Anyone else think that MS will have to endure lots of we'll-see-it-in-seven-years jokes?

    -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
    • It sounds like Microsoft has their first unofficial release date of July 2010. Does anyone want to start taking bets on what the release date will be? I'm putting $5 on October 2012 myself.

      We should also take side bets on whether or not Duke Nukem Forever will be released before this comes out. I think that I've give that bet even money at this point!
      • We should also take side bets on whether or not Duke Nukem Forever will be released before this comes out.


        At this stage I would pay the people behind Duke Nukem Forever to release anything just so I don't have to read any more Duke Nukem Forever jokes.

        -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]
  • by The Living Fractal (162153) <`banantarr' `at' `hotmail.com'> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:46PM (#19939719) Homepage
    My guess is its biggest sin is Gluttony. Any disagreements?
  • by Brad1138 (590148) * <brad1138@yahoo.com> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:47PM (#19939723)
    To name it after a hot Star Trek character.
    • by fermion (181285)
      That hot chick was informally Seven of Nine, or more formally, Seven of Nine, Tertiary Adjunct of Unimatrix Zero-One.

      The only character named Seven I know was the little boy randomly introduced into Married with Children, and later randomly removed in a desperate attempt, presumable perpetrated by lame TV executives, to broaden the appeal of the show. This is surely an absolutely appropriate name, as MS seemed intent on adding random features, then removing them a season later, rather than concentrating

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Loadmaster (720754)
        Let's not forget that George Costanza's favorite name was Seven. Maybe the great new feature will be to remind us to shine up our Festivus poles. For the feat of strength you could wrestle a penguin.

        Swi
    • by langelgjm (860756)
      Well, at least we know there will only be two more releases after "7"...
  • 32bit? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by SolusSD (680489) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:47PM (#19939729) Homepage
    Is it really neccessary to support 32bit processors when it probably won't run on anything that doesn't support 64bit anyway? Kind of like Windows 3.1 being 16bit when it wouldn't run on anything older than a 386 (32bit) anyway.
    • there are lot of 32bit drivers out there that don't work right in windows 64 as well as some apps unlike LINUX and MAC OS X where 32 and 64 bit apps can work just fine side by side.

      Also calling it windows 7 is real bad name as it make it look like the windows 98 and 2000 are newer.
      • by SolusSD (680489)
        windows 95 executed 32 programs and drivers with very few problems. My linux distro has both 32bit and 64bit drivers. The problem is most people will continue to install whatever they are told is "most compatible" and as long as that continues drivers are less likely to be rebuilt to support 64bit Windows. Honestly-- most of the time, it really is as simple as a recompile.
        • I doubt that... (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Junta (36770)
          If your active distribution *can* run 64-bit, all the drivers are 64-bit. The kernel must be 64-bit (and by extension all drivers, where we define drivers as loadable kernel modules). It's simply not that big a deal as the lion's share of the drivers of interest were open source and the change to a new architecture for many was little more than a recompile, however, there were many exceptions, and early adopters of x86_64 linux distros are probably painfully aware of them. Source code explicitly calling
    • History lesson (Score:5, Interesting)

      by jmorris42 (1458) * <jmorris@[ ]u.org ['bea' in gap]> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:01PM (#19939845)
      > Kind of like Windows 3.1 being 16bit when it wouldn't run on anything older than a 386 (32bit) anyway.

      From your profile it is clear you are too young to remember it first hand so I'll educate instead of flaming ya. :)

      Recall that there were versions of Windows prior to Windows 3.1, the first clue to which should have been the version number. Moving to Win32 was a major upheaval in the software world, keeping compatibility with Win16 and more importantly, DOS were the major selling features of Windows 3.1. By 3.1 a lot of major software was running in Windows 16-bit AND business depended on a lot of DOS code, home users depended on DOS for the majority of games, etc. Heck, most of the software people were actually running on WinNT was 16-bit code. And most games were DOS based well into the Win95/Win98 era. It wasn't until XP was looming and game makers saw sticking with DOS as a death sentence that they drank the DirectX Kool-Aid for any project not depending on 3D.

      And there were a LOT of 286 based machines not only in the installed base but still being sold. For example on the day Win3.1 shipped I was working at a Radio Shack in the D/FW area and the only 386 class machine in the store was the SCO Xenix box in the stockroom running the store. To buy a 386 class machine from Tandy you had to go to a Business Computer Center.
      • by SolusSD (680489)
        i understand the point you set out to make-- but one would have to be an idiot to think windows 3.1 was the first version of windows, and i am *not* an idiot. So your sarcasm aside-- i am simply making the point that the industry does have to be pushed into advances sometimes. As much as I hate the windows 9x line it *did* force software companies and consumers alike to take a step forward. Also-- just because i'm 23 doesn't mean i don't remember windows 3.0 and some ncurses looking pile of crap that was p
      • Re:History lesson (Score:4, Informative)

        by WK2 (1072560) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @06:16PM (#19941309) Homepage

        Recall that there were versions of Windows prior to Windows 3.1, the first clue to which should have been the version number.

        It's funny that you mention that. There were no NT versions prior to Windows NT 3.1. They started with 3.1 because people justly fear 1.0 versions.

    • No, but it will be necessary to have it run in 32 bit mode in order to support the thirty-or-so years worth of binaries written with a 32-bit instruction set in mind.

      It should also be noted that the jump from 16 bit to 32 bit is much more important than the jump to 32 bit.

      16 bits wasn't enough to represent the common tasks that a computer does given the available peripherals that a human uses, and they had to do lots of tricks to make things smaller. 32 bits pretty much is. Adding more to that means makin
    • by Lord Crc (151920)
      Kind of like Windows 3.1 being 16bit when it wouldn't run on anything older than a 386 (32bit) anyway.

      I ran 3.1 on my 286 12Mhz for years...
  • No, seriously, is there really anyone even using vista?

    What's next, firmware upgrades for Ngage?
  • the quality bar

    Isn't that the bar on the MS campus that has free beer and test the Windows code quality?

    If the beer is free, it would explains the quality of the Windows code.
  • My my... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Funkcikle (630170) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:48PM (#19939745)
    32bit operating system in 2010...I wonder how many floppy disks Microsoft will be supplying it on.
    • by geekoid (135745)
      Funny..too bad I still see floppies being used to help fix major computer issues.

      Why 32bit is beyond me though.

  • by microcars (708223) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:50PM (#19939759) Homepage
    it does not end well for those that were involved

    7 [imdb.com]

  • by gelfling (6534) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:54PM (#19939791) Homepage Journal
    Because that is what it will take to run it. And 16GB RAM, minimum. And you will need a new UltraMegaPCI spec to run a graphics supercomputer for the "NitroXtreme" interface. And security will still be for shit.

    I have a better idea - why don't they morph whatever it is they run on Xbox360 into a full blown OS?
  • by Myrkridian42 (840659) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @02:54PM (#19939793)

    After achieving a quality product, Microsoft's big goal with 7...
    So, will it be bundled with Duke Nukem Forever?
  • You're assured that your software isn't as good as it should be?
  • To announce it's out in three years.

    They should have told it's out in December, not specifying a year. So they wouldn't be the laughing stock of the industry when they have to admit in three years that it's expected for 2017, or so

  • Looks to me like this is an announcement of a schedule, and not an announcement of a product.

    There are no project goals here, and no definitive statements on what it will include or exclude, except the 32/64 bit statement (which seems to be more of a knee-jerk reaction than a firm plan). The subscription method of distribution (which recently was portrayed as "the future"), is mentioned as being possible, but not necessarily included in the plan?

    IMO this is all about calming market fears about release sche
  • They change their name because windowsvienna.com [domaintools.com] has already been taken.

    Oops, windows7.com [domaintools.com] and windowsseven.com [domaintools.com] have been taken as well!

    I'm sure those who named new version of Windows are not smart enough to register domain name prior to announcing it.
  • WOW that's pretty quick turn-around for Microsoft. Maybe they had better just stick to a few new 3-D icons, a more eco-friendly retail packaging, and a mandatory upgrade to 14 or so price levels. Now thats what I call INOVATION!

    Well, that's what some people call it anyway.
  • Windows 7 (Score:4, Funny)

    by qazsedcft (911254) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:15PM (#19939989)
    Let's see:

    Glutony: It will probably require at least 32 GB of RAM.
    Envy: They keep copying other peoples ideas.
    Sloth: Too lazy to fix bugs, so they release new operating systems instead.
    Lust: It's hard to beat all those porn trojans.
    Greed: Well, it's M$ after all.
    Wrath: That's how you feel after 5 minutes of using it.
    Pride: And after all that they'll still pretend it's the best OS ever...

    Yeah, Windows 7 is a pretty good name for it.
  • by realmolo (574068) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:26PM (#19940089)
    Three years isn't that far away, and most businesses aren't planning on moving to Vista any time soon. My guess is that many of them will just skip it entirely if the next version of Windows, which presumably will be what Vista SHOULD HAVE been, is right around the corner.

    It just confirms the widely-held opinion that Windows Vista was rushed to market, and is really just a crappy "place-holder" operating system, much like Windows ME.

  • "Windows 7 will ship in consumer and business versions, and in 32-bit and 64-bit versions..."

    Really, is there any point whatsoever in reporting stuff like this? I don't think that any of us have the foggiest notion where personal computing will be in three years, much the the five to seven that it likely will take for MS to deliver the next generation OS.

    My prediction is that instead of hard drives and DVDs, the OS will be inserted into my head on a chip.

    Hmmmm... what will a Blue Screen of Death l
  • by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland@ya ... m minus math_god> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @03:42PM (#19940209) Homepage Journal
    WHy would anyone bother with vista is it will be reaplaced just as it begins to reach maturity?

  • by Dracos (107777) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:08PM (#19940403)

    After achieving a quality product, the article states, Microsoft's big goal with 7 is to recapture a regular release schedule for their operating system product.

    Infinite time is a regular release schedule?

  • This announcement is a fake: a 'Leopard' has more than '7' spots!!
  • I fear the worst (Score:5, Insightful)

    by realdodgeman (1113225) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:34PM (#19940571) Homepage
    I think Microsoft have one real option if they want to stay in the game.

    They have to do like they said before Vista: Rebuild everything, implement winFS, and give us a new, functional GUI, and a stable system. They also have to maintain a near 100% compatibility with Vista and/or XP.

    I think Vista might be the last time that software companies will even bother to rewrite software for a new Windows. By the time 7 comes, Linux and Mac will have a significant part of the market share (I would guess at least 15-20%). If Microsoft fails this time, the future for Windows looks very dark.

    Remember, no other Windows version is as hated as Windows Vista. Proof here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcARXN7cr9Y [youtube.com]
  • In 3 years time (5 with slippage) is anyone actually going to be wanting to put this new OS on 32-bit hardware? Let me put it another way, Vista barely runs on a 32-bit box (all that memory reqired) and the hardware requirements are likely to be much higher in 5 years time.

    Is anyone still going to be running Windows at all in 5 years time?

  • by Dachannien (617929) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:38PM (#19940589)
    The company also confirmed that it is considering a subscription model to complement Windows

    The more you tighten your grip, Ballmer, the more desktops will slip through your fingers.
  • by krelian (525362) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @04:39PM (#19940605)
    is to build a new OS from scratch. This is the only thing that can save Windows from its own increasingly complex API and general sluggish performance The Singularity Project [microsoft.com] could give us a clue of what a future OS from MS could look like.

    The problem is that MS cannot just abandon all the software that is built on NT so the only solution is to take it very very slowly. .NET is a move in the right direction, pushing and encouraging developers to use managed code. Legacy code will probably run under some virtualization technology.

    Getting good performance under a virtual machine still requires a lot of resources that the average home user never has. Perhaps in order to push home users to buy this new version of windows - which will give everyone worse performance when using the software they all know and love (NT software) - MS will decide to give it away for free and make their money selling ads [slashdot.org]

    Of course this is just wild speculation and I haven't really looked into its viability from a business point of view.
    • by FlyingGuy (989135) <<flyingguy> <at> <gmail.com>> on Saturday July 21, 2007 @07:05PM (#19941645)

      Well other then Losing Ballmer they need to do a few things and your right one is to just throw the shit away and start fresh.

      But the problem is far beyond backward compatibility.

      First of all they have to pick a model on which to base this From Scratch new operating system. Now when it comes to this it is not as wide open as one would think. First of all they have to have a hardware platform on which to build. The current hardware world is basically divided between Intel Processors & Chipsets and IBM processors and chipsets. AMD's are clones of Intel processors with some interesting modes. So where to you choose to host this thing? If you go with Intel do you collaborate with them on an entirely new instruction set and design? Do you go with IMB and the PowerPC line and it's successors such as Cell Technology? If you are going to push out something totally new then these are questions you have to ask. Even Microsoft with all their money and clout has to have a partnership with the hardware producers.

      In this theoretical new hardware environment what do we do? Do we come up with an entirely new bus? I mean please, anything to replace the PCI bus. And what about external communication? Do we still keep forging along with USB? Embrace FireWire? Do we go back to having dedicated interfaces for things like Keyboards and Mice?

      Personally I think something like a fiber-optic switch being the heart of a "computer" and things like Processors, Ram, Storage Devices, et all each having a fiber connection. If you need more of anything you just plug it into a port of the fiber switch and off you go.

      The problem with that brilliant idea is that you only switch so fast from fiber to electrical signals and back so fast. Thats one of the problems with digital is the switching and the converting, which is one of the reasons IMO why we are still stuck with things like PCI, it may suck, but it has 32 or more discrete pathways that carry all the various signals, in parallel to the various main components.

      Parallelism was what made SCSI so superior to IDE or MFM along with the fact that it has its one on-board processing and command set. However along with all that came the problems of clocking and this that and the other. SAS will push the speed up, put at some point there is a limit as to how fast you can signal before it just becomes a radio transmitter and the physical layer will become to cumbersome with all the shielding and the power consumption since the faster you signal the more it just like DC to the copper.

      Processor speed is starting to approach the end of its limit and its time to start looking for better ways to line instructions up across a broad front and process them at once and resolve the dependencies accordingly which brings us right back to software.

      Can software, an OS, solve some of these problems? yes but not alone. To re-invent an entirely new OS will take years unless you want it to be a re-hash of the Unix model which is what, like it or not, everything out there is based upon. It will take bold new thinking in both the hardware and software fields to bring us the truly next generation of computers. Some of the people at Microsoft, IBM, Novell, The Linux community are capable of some bold steps but the the companies themselves as entities are not IMO capable. In the hay day of advancement we had places like PARC, AT&T Labs, MIT, UC Berkeley, The Government ( indirectly through grants ), and a few others doing PURE research and that was where all the great advances really came from. If we are to do so again, those places must be renewed, funded and staffed with people with imagination and the drive to take any direction that shows promise and do the basic research.

      The last thing that has to happen to get all these great labs back in top shape is patent reform. These days research is often scuttled because some MBA or Lawyer cannot see the road to lock this in so lots of money can be made.

      • There is no need to re-invent everything, especially at the hardware level.

        What Microsoft needs to do is write a UNIX like O/S with the following features:

        1) write the successor to the C language: a strongly and statically typed C derivative with none of C's deficiencies but allowing access to the bare metal, also incorporating functional features. They certainly have the stuff to do that. Then use this language to:

        2) simplify the driver development system using microkernel techniques.

        3) write a single tree
    • by toby (759) *
      build a new OS from scratch

      That would be a disaster which would finally bury them, so I hope they do it.

      IMHO they should do what Apple did: Start with the best around (UNIX), and get on with adding value.
  • Seven of Nine... Sorry, I could not resist it.
  • ... they haven't even gotten Vista out of beta yet. Maybe Microsoft should focus on finishing Vista before they start working on the next version.
  • by lanner (107308) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @05:14PM (#19940895)
    I work for a mid-sized business; four locations with about 500 employees.

    We use Avaya (formerly known as lucent, formerly known as AT&T) phone systems. They are truly awesome -- in a not-good-at-all way. I am the primary administrator (UNIX background, not old-fart-telecom background).

    So first we bought them, paying thousands and thousands of dollars, but now we have to RENT them too. You see, you pay a maintenance fee every month that works out to something like $8,000. If we stop paying, it's Avaya's policy that they will dial into our phone systems and cripple them so that we can't use about half of the command set. No, I'm not kidding -- they've done it to us by mistake and they are being sued over it in other states.

    What do we get out of it? Not much. If some of our server hardware breaks, then Avaya will replace it, but Avaya won't assist with programming unless we pay them something like $80/hour for assistance. Given that a 24-port digital line card costs as little as $3K from authorized resellers, and we've never had one break, we would be much better off just hording our cash and buying a couple of spare cards and parts.

    Unfortunately, Avaya also has a tight control over their supplier market. They have "authorized resellers" and then the SCARY "GRAY MARKET" oooooohhhhh BE SCARED!!! It's also known as eBay, where part prices are roughly 1/3rd of the cheapest Avaya authorized-monopolistic reseller.

    Our sales person reminds me of a used auto salesmen.

    Subscription services usually suck when it comes to software. Be warned.
  • by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @09:17PM (#19942409)
    1. Windows 3.1
    2. Windows 95
    3. Windows 98
    4. Windows 98ME
    5. Windows NT4
    6. Windows 2K
    7. Windows XP
    8. Vista
    9. Seven

    Seven-of-Nine ... which means that it will have very large breasts and be covered in blue Spandex.

    This one may have potential.
  • by MrKaos (858439) on Saturday July 21, 2007 @10:26PM (#19942745) Journal
    A friend of mine, I'd call her a "average computer user", was asking me (she knew I worked in IT) why power users (her mum in this case) even bothered upgrading windows? I was thinking of my answer (cpu capacity, memory capacity - access to better resources, upgraded software etc), when she said...

    "My mum upgraded and it's exactly the same, except now it's got 'rounded corners', big deal it's the same thing except the 'corners are round'!!!"

    I was quietly suprised, but she went on..

    "My mum has gone throught the same hassle everytime she decides to upgrade her computer, she spends a whole lot of money, a whole lot of time and in the end the result is the same thing, except 'the corners are rounder'".

    That is the perspective of a average computer user with no technical interest, I simply agreed with her and said I had noticed pretty much the same thing.

    For as long as I can remember M$ have underdelivered. I don't even support windows users anymore, it's simply not worth the effort, if I fix it, it will break again subject to the three R's of windows;

    Reboot the machine.

    Reload the application.

    Reinstall the Operating System.

    I can charge them for it, but I usually just make suggestions on how to fix it so they have to go through the hassle themselves, after all it was their choice.

    Nowadays, I just give people a Ubuntu live install to try, I tell them it will probably be a bit slow running of the CD or DVD and to focus on the way it works rather than the speed. I think that, despite the fragmentation in the Linux distribution's, I continue to notice a trend of installing more Linux, either Fedora or Ubuntu. This year I've actually had people asking me for linux installs, I haven't had any of these lay-users wanting to go back to windows even though I give them the option to. In reality, I think it comes down to this,

    You can fool some of the people all of the time, or all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

    I don't think this simple peice of wisdom factors into M$'s business plan.

Memory fault -- brain fried

Working...