Next Version of Windows? Call it '7'

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."

Didn't we just leave this party?

[jmorris42]

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.

So Octo Core computers in 7 years then?

[gelfling]

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?

The "Osborne Effect"

[realmolo]

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.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party?

[physicsnick]

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 don't all have to upgrade to the latest and greatest Windows before the next one comes out. It's okay for them to release a new Windows every year for $300; we can just pick and choose to which versions we want to upgrade, and their user base can be evenly spread over several different versions.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party?

[geekoid]

"... 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.

Re:Didn't we just leave this party?

[crayz]

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

I fear the worst

[realdodgeman]

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]

Re:Didn't we just leave this party?

[physicsnick]

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.

What Microsoft needs to do

[krelian]

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:What Microsoft needs to do

[Anonymous Coward]

What Microsoft needs to do is to build a new OS from scratch.

Writing an OS from scratch is not a good idea IMO. Remember how many problems Vista has had simply because it replaced the network stack? Imagine then how much worse it would be to replace everything.

.NET is a move in the right direction

Oh, I get it - you were going for a funny moderation. Seriously, .NET is one of those technologies that developers love but users absolutely, positively hate. Even Java is better than .NET from a users point of view (at least you don't have to install one jre for each major version).

Re:Windows Vienna/7

[WK2]

Nope. I just checked. clownpenisfart.{com,net,org} are all taken.

just between you and me

[toby]

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.

Re:Not the luck of the Irish...

[Drantin]

Or they're just using the version number and not giving it a name.

Windows 2000 = 5.0
Windows XP   = 5.1
Vista        = 6.0
Seven        = 7.0