Windows Vista successor scheduled for a H2 2009 release?
Posted by Steven Parker on 16 January 2008 - 20:59 · 69 comments & 34570 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(3 replies)
#1 Posted by +warwagon on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:05
- This does make Vista feel like a filler OS
-
#1.1 Posted by MioTheGreat on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:47
- How? 3 years between OS releases seems about right to me.
-
#1.2 Posted by toadeater on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:50
- Quote - (warwagon said @ #1)This does make Vista feel like a filler OS
At the rate Vista is going, it's not going to overtake XP by 2009. It will at best have ~30% of the market. Windows 7 AFAIK is going to use the same driver model and TCP/IP stack, so it will supersede Vista seamlessly. Vista will serve as a transition to Windows 7, which at that point should be free of the problems Vista has had with drivers and networking.
-
(3 replies)
#2 Posted by Lasker on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:06
- yeah right, they say 2009 but truth hurt and we are not going to see it until at least 2011
-
#2.1 Posted by Hurmoth on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:30
- Not with Steven Sinofsky behind the wheel now. I have my full faith in that man. He's like Steve Jobs of Microsoft IMO. Maybe not as cool, but still you get the point.
-
#2.2 Posted by carl0ski on 17 Jan 2008 - 05:41
- Quote - (Lasker said @ #2)yeah right, they say 2009 but truth hurt and we are not going to see it until at least 2011
You must be joking
It will definitely be released 2009
It will be called
Vista Second Chance Edition
It will be what Windows 98 SE was to Windows 98 (PS for those wondering I like many skipped from 95 to 98 SE due to instability in 9
I'm not claiming 98 was as bad as ME
and Vista isn't really equivilent to ME
Vista is like the so so of 98 from yester year
Theres some interesting features but not enough. -
#2.3 Posted by +Brandon Live on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:40
- Windows Vista is a lot like Windows 2000... huge architectural changes all over the place, new driver model, big compatibility hurdles - but all done for very good reasons and to drive the technology forward.
So... what came after 2000?
-
(3 replies)
#3 Posted by
neufuse on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:07
- Blackcomb Vienna? Blackcomb was supose to be a replacement OS for windows which was scrapped when longhorn was started... Vienna is it's new code name... they don't go together
-
#3.1 Posted by Neobond on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:22
- It was always going to be Whistler (became XP) -> Longhorn (became Vista) -> Blackcomb (will be Windows 7) (which is now Vienna)
Whistler and Blackcomb are 2 mountains in Canada that is also a holiday retreat to some Microsoft developers who came up with the codenames. This is a widely known fact as old as 2000, 2001. -
#3.2 Posted by gosh on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:13
- Quote - (Neobond said @ #3.1)It was always going to be Whistler (became XP) -> Longhorn (became Vista) -> Blackcomb (will be Windows 7) (which is now Vienna)
Whistler and Blackcomb are 2 mountains in Canada that is also a holiday retreat to some Microsoft developers who came up with the codenames. This is a widely known fact as old as 2000, 2001.
no, nuefuse is right. When xp came out, it was version 5.1, longhorn was supposed to be 5.2, and blackcomb was supposed to be 6.0. It was only because of Microsoft's security push in 2003 that caused the change, which caused server 2003 to be delayed and caused microsoft to push off blackcomb.
-gosh -
#3.3 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:21
- Quote - (neufuse said @ #3)Blackcomb Vienna? Blackcomb was supose to be a replacement OS for windows which was scrapped when longhorn was started... Vienna is it's new code name... they don't go together
Vienna is not the current codename from what I've seen. Vienna came about in '05 or '06 as a replacement for Blackcomb. The current codename seems to be simply Windows 7.
The interesting thing though, which doesn't appear to be mentioned at all ... is that Microsoft was going down the path of alternating major and minor releases. XP (v5.1) was a minor release after Windows 2000. If Vista was the major release (being version 6.0), and Windows 7 also appears to be a major release, then what is happening with the interim release? Should we expect a Windows 6.1? The 2nd half of 2009 is only 18-24 months out, so that doesn't leave a lot of time for an interim release of Windows if this report is correct. If there was one, it would probably have to be out late this year, but there's no word of anything coming. Or is Microsoft skipping the minor release and jumping straight to 7?
Last edited by Lamerz4391 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:26
-
(14 replies)
#4 Posted by LPC on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:12
- MS do this lot and you'll have a great new OS -
Remove all backward compatibility with anything pre XP.
OS must be installed on on SSD only.
64bit only
Signed drivers only -
#4.1 Posted by Xerxes on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:23
- That won't go down well with alot of people, if they did that it probally would only sell in small numbers with mainly enthusiasts buying it.
Remove all backward compatibility with anything pre XP.
While this has gotta be done at some point, it's gonna cause alot of headaches particularly with businesess. It is probally better MS did that in stages, give companies a chance to get upto speed.
OS must be installed on on SSD only.
Until SSD drive are more affordable, that is not gonna happen.
64bit only
Windows 7 was suppose to be 64-bit only, but there is still demand for a 32-bit version and probally won't change for some time.
Signed drivers only
Vista x64 does this already but enforcing it 100% is gonna be a royal pain in the backside (since alot of companies do not get their drivers signed)
That is what I think anyway, take with a grain of salt
-
#4.2 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:28
- Quote -Remove all backward compatibility with anything pre XP.While this has gotta be done at some point, it's gonna cause alot of headaches particularly with businesess. It is probally better MS did that in stages, give companies a chance to get upto speed.
Run all legacy programs in an isolated virtual machine. This shouldn't be a problem for them at all, computers are more than fast enough now and they have the virtualization technology to do it. It worked fine for Apple while they weened their OS X users off their old crappy classic applications. -
#4.3 Posted by C_Guy on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:59
- Well it's clear why LPC won't be working at Microsoft any time soon.
Cutting off a vast majority of business customers (and a good portion of home users) from upgrading is just not a good idea.
The idea here is to make an attractive product. -
#4.4 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:27
- Quote - (TRC said @ #4.2)Run all legacy programs in an isolated virtual machine. This shouldn't be a problem for them at all, computers are more than fast enough now and they have the virtualization technology to do it. It worked fine for Apple while they weened their OS X users off their old crappy classic applications.
No! Not full VMs. Microsoft should implement something akin to a basic version of the SoftGrid app virtualization functionality in the OS, and install legacy apps in their own "virtualized" file/registry space by default. Much less system overhead, while still preventing a legacy/crappy app from hosing the operating system. -
#4.5 Posted by X'tyfe on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:39
- Quote - (LPC said @ #4)MS do this lot and you'll have a great new OS -
Remove all backward compatibility with anything pre XP.
OS must be installed on on SSD only.
64bit only
Signed drivers only
what are ya a total idiot?
thats the last thing they should do
-
#4.6 Posted by The Walker on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:26
- Quote - (LPC said @ #4)Signed drivers only
This helps no-one except M$.. and only serves to control what we do with our bought and paid for equipment.. it should be SCRAP SIGNED DRIVERS! -
#4.7 Posted by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 01:18
- Quote -No! Not full VMs. Microsoft should implement something akin to a basic version of the SoftGrid app virtualization functionality in the OS, and install legacy apps in their own "virtualized" file/registry space by default. Much less system overhead, while still preventing a legacy/crappy app from hosing the operating system.
That's what I meant, I just didn't know how to describe it.
-
#4.8 Posted by =NickJ= on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:09
- Quote - (Xerxes said @ #4.1)That won't go down well with alot of people, if they did that it probally would only sell in small numbers with mainly enthusiasts buying it.
Remove all backward compatibility with anything pre XP.
While this has gotta be done at some point, it's gonna cause alot of headaches particularly with businesess. It is probally better MS did that in stages, give companies a chance to get upto speed.
OS must be installed on on SSD only.
Until SSD drive are more affordable, that is not gonna happen.
64bit only
Windows 7 was suppose to be 64-bit only, but there is still demand for a 32-bit version and probally won't change for some time.
Signed drivers only
Vista x64 does this already but enforcing it 100% is gonna be a royal pain in the backside (since alot of companies do not get their drivers signed)
That is what I think anyway, take with a grain of salt
jesus does no-one here get sarcasm? his post was a jab at how microsoft can excel themselves further on vista's current shortcomings -
#4.9 Posted by LPC on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:39
- Quote - (C_Guy said @ #4.3)Well it's clear why LPC won't be working at Microsoft any time soon.
Cutting off a vast majority of business customers (and a good portion of home users) from upgrading is just not a good idea.
The idea here is to make an attractive product.
So you think that businesses love or use Vista much ? ? -
#4.10 Posted by LPC on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:45
- Quote - (The Walker said @ #4.6)Quote - (LPC said @ #4)Signed drivers only
This helps no-one except M$.. and only serves to control what we do with our bought and paid for equipment.. it should be SCRAP SIGNED DRIVERS!
Err the point of signed drivers is to stop crap drivers from taking the machine or it's core bits out. -
#4.11 Posted by LPC on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:47
- Quote - (Xerxes said @ #4.1)OS must be installed on on SSD only.
Until SSD drive are more affordable, that is not gonna happen.
We're probably talking 2010 or longer for the next Windows OS to come out really. And 2 plus years is a long time, SSD's will be standard for the OS by then ... mark my words. -
#4.12 Posted by The Walker on 17 Jan 2008 - 15:28
- Quote - (LPC said @ #4.10)Quote - (The Walker said @ #4.6)Quote - (LPC said @ #4)Signed drivers only
This helps no-one except M$.. and only serves to control what we do with our bought and paid for equipment.. it should be SCRAP SIGNED DRIVERS!
Err the point of signed drivers is to stop crap drivers from taking the machine or it's core bits out.
I KNOW what the reasoning was.. but the reality is that signed only drivers are unduely restrictive, both for the user and innovations in tech.
Signed drivers only serve to switch control of your pc from YOU, the user and buyer, to Redmond.
Bad... -
#4.13 Posted by MioTheGreat on 17 Jan 2008 - 18:58
- Quote - (LPC said @ #4.11)Quote - (Xerxes said @ #4.1)OS must be installed on on SSD only.
Until SSD drive are more affordable, that is not gonna happen.
We're probably talking 2010 or longer for the next Windows OS to come out really. And 2 plus years is a long time, SSD's will be standard for the OS by then ... mark my words.
Uh, no. They won't. They may be more common in laptops by 2010 (But hard drives will still have most of the market share by a large margin), but you won't be seeing them in desktops very often.
The technology is still too small and expensive for that kind of deployment, and no one is going to be in a position to manufacture those kind of devices in the kind of quantity you're talking for a very long time. -
#4.14 Posted by +Brandon Live on 17 Jan 2008 - 19:35
- Quote - (The Walker said @ #4.6)Quote - (LPC said @ #4)Signed drivers only
This helps no-one except M$.. and only serves to control what we do with our bought and paid for equipment.. it should be SCRAP SIGNED DRIVERS!
I don't think you understand what driver signing is. We aren't talking about WHQL certification, we're talking about codesigning.
Signing doesn't "help" MS other than by making customers happier and reducing support incidents. It's not like we get paid whenever Nvidia compiles a driver and signs it with their own certificate.
Signing lets the OS verify that a driver hasn't been corrupted or tampered with. Corrupted drivers (either in download, or in memory) are a very common cause of crashes / blue screens. Identifying them early, which codesigning lets it do, allows the system to respond better to such problems.
-
(3 replies)
#5 Posted by Thrawn on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:13
- Assuming that it's at least delayed to Q1 2010, this means that Vista has quite a bit of life left in it! It will last at least as long and Windows 95!
-
#5.1 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:29
- If Windows 7 comes out that soon Vista wil have no life at all for me because I'm going to skip it entirely.
-
#5.2 Posted by Weissmeister on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:59
- This is called 'megalomania'
Vista is a major release which is already successful, whether you skip it or not
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by buzz99 on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:21
- It now feels like Vista is the Windows ME sequel....
-
#6.1 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:29
- Quote - (buzz99 said @ #6)It now feels like Vista is the Windows ME sequel....
Why is that?
-
(4 replies)
#7 Posted by GEIST on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:23
- Heh, if they really put out a new OS in 2009 or '10 then I'll definitely skip Vista. There's no point in switching to a new pricey OS just to bridge a year or two.
-
#7.1 Posted by Xerxes on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:29
- umm with that logic you should also skip Windows 7, as it's successor will be out in a few years after that! the average life-cycle for Windows is suppose to be, 3 or so years isn't it? XP was a freak occurance and I doubt MS will let it happen again considering the backlash they got over it this time.
-
#7.2 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:32
- Quote -umm with that logic you should also skip Windows 7, as it's successor will be out in a few years after that!
Bad logic there. By skipping both Vista and Windows 7 it would be way more than 3 years wouldn't it. -
#7.3 Posted by Xerxes on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:39
- Quote - (TRC said @ #7.2)Quote -umm with that logic you should also skip Windows 7, as it's successor will be out in a few years after that!
Bad logic there. By skipping both Vista and Windows 7 it would be way more than 3 years wouldn't it.
Well you caught me on that one I was just trying to point out that each Windows version is suppose to be only out for a relatively short time and skipping an OS just cause it's successor is around the corner will end up been an endless wait..nevermind, I'm not even making sense to myself now -
#7.4 Posted by GEIST on 17 Jan 2008 - 04:05
- Quote - (Xerxes said @ #7.1)umm with that logic you should also skip Windows 7, as it's successor will be out in a few years after that! the average life-cycle for Windows is suppose to be, 3 or so years isn't it? XP was a freak occurance and I doubt MS will let it happen again considering the backlash they got over it this time.
I was referring to XP/Vista/7 specifically. If Vista (or Longhorn, or Blackcomb) would have been released two or three years ago as it was supposed to I'd probably have switched. But XP 5 or 6 years old now and a very mature OS by now and I can't think of a rational reason to switch from an OS which I know in- and outward to a new one which is still infantile and doesn't really hold any reasons for me to make the switch.
-
(6 replies)
#8 Posted by trip21 on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:40
- If Windows 7 is to be a big release (let's term it as 'all that Vista isn't) I'll say 2010 release to run with Windows 25th birthday.
If MS thinks they can get it out in 2009 it must be going one hell of a lot better than Vista's development! -
#8.1 Posted by jwjw1 on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:44
- sure they can rush it out the door....the same way they did Vista....and just like Vista there will be a SP7-1 a few weeks afer release..but I have to give MS credit...at least fanboy talk of 7 will take the heat off Vista in a sense.
Windows 7 will be better than Vista......"OK DADDY"
Last edited by jwjw1 on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:47 -
#8.2 Posted by MioTheGreat on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:50
- Vista changed a LOT of the underlying systems in Windows. The "big" changes planned for 7 are all probably user interface and experience stuff.
-
#8.3 Posted by notuptome2004 on 16 Jan 2008 - 22:49
- When Longhorn started now we know it as Vista they had to build all new graphics driver model a new graphics sub system and audio stacks and entirely new APis so with that being siad of course windows 7 Development is porlly going easier then Vista the reason cause Windows 7 is using all the backbone core APIs used in windows vista so they dont have to build new stuff like they did for Vista.
-
#8.4 Posted by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:07
- Quote -The "big" changes planned for 7 are all probably user interface and experience stuff.
Actually they have stripped the kernel to the bare skeleton and are basically starting from scratch on it. Google for "minwin".
It's nice to actually be exited about an OS again; Vista was a whole lot of "meh". I have high hopes for Windows 7.
Last edited by TRC on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:35 -
#8.5 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:34
- Quote - (trip21 said @ #If Windows 7 is to be a big release (let's term it as 'all that Vista isn't) I'll say 2010 release to run with Windows 25th birthday.
If MS thinks they can get it out in 2009 it must be going one hell of a lot better than Vista's development!
Understand that the 5+ years between XP and Vista release was not strictly Vista development. Microsoft pulled a number of resources from Longhorn to focus on XP security for a significant period of time and getting XP SP2 out the door. From my understanding, that focus led in large part to the "reboot" in Longhorn development, switching to Server 2003 codebase for Vista development, and the emphasis on security in the Vista release. -
#8.6 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:41
- Quote - (jwjw1 said @ #8.1)and just like Vista there will be a SP7-1 a few weeks afer release
Not sure what you are saying here. Are you saying there was a service pack for Vista a few weeks after release? Really?
"I have to give MS credit...at least fanboy talk of 7 will take the heat off Vista in a sense."
Right, I'm sure that Microsoft is developing Windows 7 solely to get the fanboys talking and take the heat off of Vista.
In regards to whether 7 will be better than Vista ... I'm sure it will be. Each release has improved on the previous one, excepting WinME of course. 95 -> 98 -> 98SE -> Win2K -> WinXP -> Vista
Yes, I said Vista improved on XP. The horror!
-
(3 replies)
#9 Posted by Shadrack on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:43
- I hope that Microsoft adopts a more consistent and shorter release schedule. I think that a lot of people wouldn't be complaining about Vista if it were released back in 2003 or 4.
-
#9.1 Posted by theyarecomingforyou on 16 Jan 2008 - 21:50
- Indeed. Apps should be built independently of the OS, with tweaks made to improve support - Apple has used that system to great success, as consumers can skip a generation and not feel out of the loop. Currently apps are tied too tightly with the OS and that means when something new, like Vista, is released that developers struggle to add support in a timely manner.
-
#9.2 Posted by RealFduch on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:19
- Quote - (theyarecomingforyou said @ #9.1)Indeed. Apps should be built independently of the OS, with tweaks made to improve support - Apple has used that system to great success, as consumers can skip a generation and not feel out of the loop. Currently apps are tied too tightly with the OS and that means when something new, like Vista, is released that developers struggle to add support in a timely manner.
It's not very easy to make software depend on OS version. Vista can easily run code written many years ago.
But if your programm "hack" into the system then you're on your own. You programs really wants to **** in System32? O'RLY? Kill it with fire! -
#9.3 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 16 Jan 2008 - 23:39
- Quote - (Shadrack said @ #9)I hope that Microsoft adopts a more consistent and shorter release schedule. I think that a lot of people wouldn't be complaining about Vista if it were released back in 2003 or 4.
Again, there were reasons for that (see post 8.5). Maybe not the best ones in the world, but Windows is a heck of a lot more secure today because MS took the hit on Longhorn development to focus on XP SP2 firewall and security changes, and security in Windows Vista.
-
(1 reply)
#10 Posted by Jdawg683 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:27
- why even speculate... we all know it'll never happen.
-
#10.1 Posted by Lamerz4391 on 17 Jan 2008 - 00:34
- Quote - (Jdawg683 said @ #10)why even speculate... we all know it'll never happen.
Right ... I just looked two years into the future and saw that NeoWin posted an article about another delay in the release of Windows 7. Geez. I'm not saying it will happen for sure, but come on ... you are being negative based on nothing. At least the article was based on info from "sources" in the industry. Given vague sources in the industry or nothing, I'll take the info from vague sources (with the requisite grain of salt).
-
#11 Posted by OblivionStalker on 17 Jan 2008 - 02:39
- I am totally for the "Only 64-Bit". It will immediately set a new standard in the industry, since the technology is really moving fast, and 32-bit is dying very fast. There is no reason why someone would not want to update from 32-bit to 64-bit technology.
-
(6 replies)
#12 Posted by rpgfan on 17 Jan 2008 - 03:21
- 64-bit is actually old technology.... Anybody remember the Nintendo 64? I'm just saying...
-
#12.1 Posted by GEIST on 17 Jan 2008 - 04:07
- Quote - (rpgfan said @ #12)64-bit is actually old technology.... Anybody remember the Nintendo 64? I'm just saying...
You can't compare gaming consoles to personal computers in this regard. -
#12.2 Posted by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:03
- Actually 64-bit computing has been around since the 60's, and the first 64-bit CPU was released by MIPS in 1991. This was several years before the N64 came along (which incidentally also used a MIPS CPU). No one is saying that the technology itself is brand new, but it is new to the consumer PC market.
Last edited by TRC on 17 Jan 2008 - 10:54 -
#12.4 Posted by MioTheGreat on 17 Jan 2008 - 19:05
- It's a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Modern processors can operate on large chunks of data at once with thinks like SIMD, so in more casual classification, the number of bits that a processor has refers to what kind of memory it can address.
Anyway, All new graphics cards have 256bit memory busses. (The ATI one in the Wii is 128bit, though.) The processors in the Wii/360/PS3 are not x86, and comparing them to the stuff in your computers is meaningless.
AFAIK, there aren't any general purpose CPUs above 64-bits. We won't even need to think about 128-bit CPUs for decades.
Graphics cards, on the other hand, need the larger memory busses because they deal with large chunks of data like textures pretty exclusively.
Last edited by MioTheGreat on 17 Jan 2008 - 19:13 -
#12.5 Posted by RAID 0 on 17 Jan 2008 - 19:49
- Quote - (MioTheGreat said @ #12.4)It's a lot more complicated than you seem to think. Modern processors can operate on large chunks of data at once with thinks like SIMD, so in more casual classification, the number of bits that a processor has refers to what kind of memory it can address.
Anyway, All new graphics cards have 256bit memory busses. (The ATI one in the Wii is 128bit, though.) The processors in the Wii/360/PS3 are not x86, and comparing them to the stuff in your computers is meaningless.
AFAIK, there aren't any general purpose CPUs above 64-bits. We won't even need to think about 128-bit CPUs for decades.
Graphics cards, on the other hand, need the larger memory busses because they deal with large chunks of data like textures pretty exclusively.
Decades? No... I think in 10-12 years time we'll be at 128 bit.. and after that it'a all quantium computing. -
#12.6 Posted by MioTheGreat on 17 Jan 2008 - 20:20
- Quote -Decades? No... I think in 10-12 years time we'll be at 128 bit.. and after that it'a all quantium computing.
Until we start hitting exabytes of memory (That's a billion gigabytes) we won't need 128-bit addressing capabilities. That's decades away, even if Moore's law holds true, which it won't because we're going to be hitting some major semiconductor miniaturization walls in another 10-15 years. As soon as we hit the atomic level (We're already dealing with gate oxide layers like 5 atoms thick, so we're pretty damned close.), we're going to have issues. Keep in mind that an atom is only about 0.1nm across, and you need many atoms to build a working transistor that doesn't leak current like a sieve.
And quantum computing will never take over entirely. If/when we ever see any kind of quantum computing technologies hitting the mainstream, it'll never replace standard bits entirely. It'll likely be some kind of hybrid, with like a quantum coprocessor for special operations (Like Shor's algorithm) that need it.
Last edited by MioTheGreat on 17 Jan 2008 - 20:31
-
#13 Posted by P!P on 17 Jan 2008 - 04:33
- Would it also be reasonable to think a new Xbox will come in H2 2009? Are we going to see another November launch of Windows and Xbox?
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by The Walker on 17 Jan 2008 - 15:31
- If Windows 7 is based on the restrictive measures brought on by Vista then I STILL won't use it.
Hopefully Wine will be at 1.0 by then and we can all switch to Linux.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by franzon on 17 Jan 2008 - 16:29
- All news about Windows 7 are pure FUD
-
#15.1 Posted by +Brandon Live on 17 Jan 2008 - 19:19
- Riiiiiiiight.
Go look up what FUD means.
"I don't think that word means what you think it means."
-
(1 reply)
#16 Posted by rdburke on 17 Jan 2008 - 18:09
- Why is there any talk about the next operating system? Microsoft should get off their duffs and do something with the current one to make IT usable before any talk of a successor. They always put the cart before the horse.
-
#16.1 Posted by +GreyWolfSC on 17 Jan 2008 - 20:16
- Quote - (rdburke said @ #16)Why is there any talk about the next operating system? Microsoft should get off their duffs and do something with the current one to make IT usable before any talk of a successor. They always put the cart before the horse.
Sorry your Vista isn't usable... Mine works like a champ.
-
#17 Posted by thomasxstewart on 18 Jan 2008 - 03:12
- BIG UPCOMING IMPROVEMENT THAT WILL ADD GREATLY TO MEDIA CENTER IS USB 3.0 WITH OVER 400 MB/SEC OF DATA, ANY DISPLAY SYSTEM CAN BE EASILY RUN TODAY, SO DOORS' UNLOCKED AS SOON AS HARDWARE OUT.
SignedHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
-
#19 Posted by _dandy_ on 18 Jan 2008 - 22:03
- > is the ability of the M1 software to handle a heterogeneous graphics system consisting of multiple graphics cards from different vendors
One step forward, two steps back? I'm on XP and I have two old ATI Radeons and an Nvidia 8800GTS. So, what happened, they broke this capability in Vista and are now presenting this as some new feature?
No, seriously, fixing a current incompatibility isn't something that one should present as revolutionary... I'm looking forward to Vista's successor, but not because of minor bullet points such as this.
While it has generally been believed that Windows 7 was scheduled for a 2010 debut, Microsoft has revised the roadmap and apparently moved up the release date by a few months: A recently distributed roadmap of the OS lists a release to manufacturing in H2 2009. Microsoft declined to comment on this date.
The current M1 drop is available to Microsoft partners in English only and has shipped in x86 and x64 versions. An interesting feature that has been highlighted by Microsoft is the ability of the M1 software to handle a heterogeneous graphics system consisting of multiple graphics cards from different vendors. A new version of the Media center is already integrated in this software, but supports PC speakers only at this time.
If Microsoft will be able to keep the H2 2009 RTM (and most likely) release date in place, the company will have two busy. The M2 code drop is currently scheduled for April/May 2008, M3 will follow in the third quarter. The dates for the first Beta and the release candidate are still listed as “To be determined” but it doesn’t take much to see that the first beta versions could become available a year from now.
We will have more clarity on when we could see Windows 7 going into production will when Microsoft announces Windows Logo Program Changes for Windows 7. According to the policy of the firm, these changes will be announced 18 months prior to the scheduled RTM.
There are very few pieces of information about Windows 7 and the features it will bring available at this time. So far, we have heard only about new touchscreen features as well as – and probably most interesting – MinWin, a much smaller kernel of the operating system that takes up only 40 MB of memory.