Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009

By HappyAndyK
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Collaborator

HappyAndyK

Posted
Posted

Contrary to all that is being said on the net, it clearly looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. :D

Microsoft's official response, by an email dated 26th January, 2008, to a WinVistaClub enquiry, states that Windows 7 is still in the planning stage and will take approximately 3 years to develop.

Q. What is the expected timeline for the availability of Windows 7?

A. We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 years to develop. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release.

While the answers to the other 2 questions may have been on predictable lines, what is important to note that Microsoft TODAY maintains that Windows 7 is STILL in the planning stages and it will take approximately 3 years to develop.

All this smoke of Windows 7, being released next year, may have led to confusion in the minds of the Windows Vista user. Did he make a mistake in upgrading? Or should he have waited? Microsoft feels that there is STILL a lot of innovation and value that needs to flow to the customers, from Vista.

If you do indeed plan to upgrade, resist the temptation to wait for Windows 7! It too may have its share of problems which any 1st year OS is expected to !

Mentor

Kupo-Cheer

Posted
Posted

The question I have to ask is if there was anybody out there who really believed that Windows 7 would be coming so soon. Sure, Vista has received critical reception, but do you think they would abandon it that fast? Even if they wanted to, it still wouldn't happen. The next version of Windows is supposed to stir things up; to be basically a whole code rewrite with a new gui and everything. You can believe that at the very least, Windows 7 will be in a testing phase for quite some time; and 2009 seems pretty ambitious for a company that delayed a fairly straightforward upgrade like Vista for so long.

Grand Master

Sikh

Posted
Posted

@ BlackSun: Same here bro.

@ Majin: XP Utilizes mroe RAM then Vista. With my 4 gigs on XP 64 bit with my usual processes open they throughtout my computer usage total up to 40 MAX and ram is barely 1 gig.

Vista 64 bit, however, with all its bogus crap withOUT my processes equals 62 and with my processes(i.e. wireless keyboard and mouse, sound, games, steam, etc) it totals up to 78+ and takes 2 gigs and alittle more.

Now, remind you that with 62 processes im using up 1748 megs. For no god damn reason. I dont use Volume Shadow Copy or etc.

The point is, YES XP Utilizes more ram, Read about it. XP > Vista when comes to RAM. Vista looks great, sluggish as HELL.

Cheers.

P.S. This is not a falme or etc, do your research, ive done mine with actual experiments.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

I always thought that 2009 was too early to release a new operating system. Sure, it's a longer wait but it may be worth it. I just hope Microsoft developers a solid operating system that revolutionizes the way we use computers.

Contributor

Swift33

Posted
Posted
Contrary to all that is being said on the net, it clearly looks like Microsoft is NOT planning to release Windows 7 in 2009. :D

Microsoft's official response, by an email dated 26th January, 2008, to a WinVistaClub enquiry, states that Windows 7 is still in the planning stage and will take approximately 3 years to develop.

Q. What is the expected timeline for the availability of Windows 7?

A. We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 years to develop. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release.

On the contrary, the whole reply by MS is here:

http://www.crn.com/software/205918985

"We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect the development to take approximately 3 years since the release of Windows Vista. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release," said the spokesperson.

That means 3 years starting from November 2006 = ~end of 2009.

Grand Master

P!P

Posted
Posted

It's 2008 and it's only in the "planning stage". "3" years to development, development will get pushed like it always does. We're looking at a 2012 release for the next release of Windows? Mistake.

Windows 95 - 1995

Windows 98 - 1998

Windows 98 SE - 1999

Windows ME - 2000

Windows XP - 2001

Windows Vista - 2007

Windows 7 - 2012

What's goin' on?

Contributor

Swift33

Posted
Posted
Um, the whole reply by MS is in the first post. That's a different reply. This response (the one in the original post) is more recent.

Yes, these are prepared responses especially the one for Windows 7's delivery date. My guess, the response to the CMP Channel is correct but MS later edited their standard response to not say when the 3 years countdown actually starts to put less emphasis on when 7 will be out and more on urging folks to buy Vista.

Contributor

Swift33

Posted
Posted
:laugh:

That's all I can say about that.

Actually, what I find odd is Vista's DWM uses more system memory when DWM/Glass is enabled? I thought the opposite should occur in that Vista should allocate more resources to the graphic card's memory rather than using more system memory but apparently that's not how MS designed DWM so in reality, bl4ck5un is right in that more system memory/RAM is being used when DWM/Glass is enabled.

Grand Master

Elliot B.

Posted
Posted
Actually, what I find odd is Vista's DWM uses more system memory when DWM/Glass is enabled? I thought the opposite should occur in that Vista should allocate more resources to the graphic card's memory rather than using more system memory but apparently that's not how MS designed DWM.

Instead of looking at numbers, look at actual performance. Vista handles memory differently (in a better way) to XP.

Contributor

Swift33

Posted
Posted
Instead of looking at numbers, look at actual performance. Vista handles memory differently (in a better way) to XP.

Performance? Desktop graphics performance for Graphics 2D/GDI/GDI+ is quite poor actually compared to XP:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/12/04/vista_vs_xp_tests/

I'm not talking about games by the way.

Grand Master

Elliot B.

Posted
Posted
@ BlackSun: Same here bro.

@ Majin: XP Utilizes mroe RAM then Vista. With my 4 gigs on XP 64 bit with my usual processes open they throughtout my computer usage total up to 40 MAX and ram is barely 1 gig.

Vista 64 bit, however, with all its bogus crap withOUT my processes equals 62 and with my processes(i.e. wireless keyboard and mouse, sound, games, steam, etc) it totals up to 78+ and takes 2 gigs and alittle more.

Now, remind you that with 62 processes im using up 1748 megs. For no god damn reason. I dont use Volume Shadow Copy or etc.

The point is, YES XP Utilizes more ram, Read about it. XP > Vista when comes to RAM. Vista looks great, sluggish as HELL.

Cheers.

P.S. This is not a falme or etc, do your research, ive done mine with actual experiments.

Vista separates the processes more and for more than one reason (security and stability being examples). You'll find that the Host Processes will actually host less processes as they're now independent and regarding the memory, Vista is more than happy to release any memory programs need. However, whilst it's not used, why shouldn't Vista use it?

Performance? Desktop graphics performance for Graphics 2D/GDI/GDI+ is quite poor actually compared to XP:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/12/04/vista_vs_xp_tests/

I'm not talking about games by the way.

Those tests are bogus. Again, look at actual performance. Any system with a half-decent processor and 1.5 GB+ of memory will fly. Windows XP requires less but of course it does, it's 6+ years old and does much less behind the scenes.

Mentor

omganinja

Posted
Posted

I was under the impression that Vista used mostly RAM for processes where was XP uses RAM and pagefile. Im running XP with 3gb RAM, you'd think processes would use the remaining available RAM, but they dont, they use RAM and pagefile equally.

Contributor

Swift33

Posted
Posted
Vista separates the processes more and for more than one reason (security and stability being examples). You'll find that the Host Processes will actually host less processes as they're now independent and regarding the memory, Vista is more than happy to release any memory programs need. However, whilst it's not used, why shouldn't Vista use it?

Those tests are bogus. Again, look at actual performance. Any system with a half-decent processor and 1.5 GB+ of memory will fly. Windows XP requires less but of course it does, it's 6+ years old and does much less behind the scenes.

They are not bogus simply because of the fact that Vista handles Graphics 2D/GDI/GDI+ by "internally remap"ping them which is not exactly a very speedy procedure compared to doing them directly in XP. That's not made up stuff, that's what MS said and is used as the basis in that article.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.