Gizmodo
A strange quote from Bill Gates today as he claims the next version of Windows, code-named Windows 7, is going to be released "sometime in the next year or so." That's way ahead of the previous estimates, which claimed Windows 7 was not going to be released in 2009 at all, but somewhere in 2010 or 2011.
A Microsoft flack covered for Bill by saying that a 2009 "release" was in line with their development cycle, and that test versions are usually put out before the actual release—which is totally not what we think Bill meant when he said "release". What you should take away from this whole mess is that a development release is coming in 2009 (or so), and Bill Gates probably shouldn't be making statements without checking with his people. [Reuters]
Comments
Can't they just code name it Windows 6 and pretend like Vista never happened?
Wow - they are pretending Vista never happened. Whoops.
wtf i hope its upgradeable from vista.
MS did the same thing with ME. Remeber that OS. I pity the fools who bought that one. Including me :(
I think they're leaving out ME.
1 - 3.1
2 - 95'
3 - 98'
4 - 2000
--- ME
5 - XP
6 - Vista
7
I was wondering if Vista was ME 2...
Vista is the Batman and Robin of the computing world. They'll try to reboot and pretend it never existed.
@greggantic:
It is.
Vista is actually a fine OS. Providing you have a solid hardware platform with current drivers, you'll be real happy.
I am, but then, I dual boot my MacBook and Vista runs on that hardware like a dream....
@Spoony Bard: Thank you for that. Now I just got a mental image of Balmer with perky nipples and a giant codpiece.
@munan: you work for microsoft too dont you?
either way, blah
@greggantic:
we don't want it upgradable from Vista, if it is, it's probably not worth more than ME or Vista. I would suggest just blasting your whole OS and install 7.0
I wonder where it'll rate on the ass-blowery scale. I'm betting somewhere between expired burritos and accidentally shredding your W2s 2 weeks before april 15th.
@kOtic: The numberimg scheme comes from the NT branch of Windows:
> NT3.5 had the Win3.1 UI;
> NT4.0 had the same UI as Win95/98;
> Win2000 was NT5.0;
> WinXP is NT5.1 (Windows 2000 with a new UI and a 'Home' version);
> Vista is NT6.0.
ME was just a bad version of 98.
"Next year or so" is still 2010, 2011, 2020, in M$ years.
@kOtic: I thnik they should leave out Vista as well.
The "Or So" could mean 2010, rigth??
ME was kind of a logical extension of 98, sort of a last service release, so I could see it not warranting a full version number.
An Alpha of Windows 7 in 2009 seems right, a full release no way. I definitely think Bill was thinking in terms of testing and not retail.
Vista has caused me so many problems it really makes my head want to explode. Windows 7 - if I ever work with a Windows machine again - cannot come soon enough.
I'm waiting for Windows 10 (OSX); the one with the Unix-based kernel.
Lets all hope that they are going to treat Vista like ME.
I really don't ever want to have to deploy it at work. I would like it to just go away.
It would be nice if like Intel's Centrino (where they went back to the Pentium III's better design), MS would go back and base the new windows on XP, and ditch all the work on Vista. I'm not even planning on using Server 2008, or Exchange 2007.
Either way, your Creative soundcard will screw you all over again. And this time, no one will help you mod the drivers.
LOL that sucks LMAO, so this means if you just brought a PC with vista next year your goin to need another one
@kOtic: I don't think so.
NT (which wasn't on your list) and 2000 were mostly indented for business, not consumers. Remember when they were doing that whole strange market segmentation thing?
XP was supposed to be the "unification" of that split user base.
1. 3.x
2. 95
3. 98
4. ME
5. XP
6. Vista
7. 7
@kOtic: '95, '98, and Me were all considered versions of 4.0
Your list would be more like
1.0
2.0
3.0 (which would include 3.1 that you listed)
4.0 ('95, '98, Me)
5.0 (2000 and XP)
6.0 Vista
Which then leads you to
7.0
If you use consoles for gaming, or simply don't need the latest directX, windows becomes worthless.
Hmm, built a new PC and then bought a copy of Vista. Haven't had a single problem with it. But perhaps if I'd try use it with my old machine....
@tande04: No, 95 and 98 were not based on the NT kernel. Applying a version "number" to any non-business version of Windows before XP doesn't make any sense. Before Windows XP, and home PC version of Windows ran on a completely different foundation than NT/2000.
You mean MS actual has a development cycle?
May be they will fix "SearchIndexer.exe" and sell it as an upgrade.
@kOtic: They're also leaving out BOB. Remember BOB?
What about BOB?
this is pretty crazy, companies have even adopted vista yet.
This should be good news. Vista is adequate - people who say "omg it sucks LOL!1!" are generally wrong, it's just not great.
Anyway, I'm betting on a 2010 RTM.
@dufus: BOB!
now this was an OS
@thebear91: There was a GOOD version of Win98???
I still have my Win98 First Edtion install disc someplace. I am saving it for when Antiques Roadshow comes through so the experts can so "This is worthless".
Gates' statement is very bizarre. It is as if he wanted to hold off XP users from upgrading to Vista. Oh yeah! You xp users should wait for another year because there's something better than Vista coming for you.
Now my question to you guys is:
Would you wait for a year to upgrade to another same old crappy OS? Get real folks!
@celloids:
We did with XP. Have a nice day!
@kOtic: That's a good thing. :P
My Vista was fine until I got a new Nvidia card...then it reboots itself about every hour.
I nvr had any problems with Vista. Honestly, if you just buy a new computer, you wouldn't have drivers issues. It's getting the same criticism as XP did when XP dropped. Oh well.
@kOtic:
1.0 = windows 1
2.x = windows 2
3.1 = windows 3
95/98/ME = windows 4
2000/XP = windows 5
Vista = windows 6
@celloids:
The difference this time is that I think Microsoft genuinely learned a lesson from the harsh reception Vista got. Most people don't remember that this version of the OS was completely re-written - a catatonic mistake in my view. Although Vista is the most secure operating system out there (from personal experience) the number of features we had to sacrifice in Windows to get that privilege was questionably worth it.
I personally believe that with Vista, Microsoft tried too hard to do something like OSX - a "pretty" UI on top of something reasonably usable. With looks and style instead of quality and feature rich infrastructure in mind, they screwed themselves over by forgetting what made people love XP so much.
I hope the next version of Windows actually allows me to "do more". There are thousands of hacks, patches and apps out there that can prettify your operating system but if we have something that can genuinely work and work well, I think most of us would be happy with that.
@GoatMonkey:
I had a similar problem with my setup. It drove me completely bonkers - what you should do is find the latest NVid drivers (for Vista specifically) and install them. I would do an uninstall of your existing ones if possible beforehand - that should take care of any of your reboot issues.
@kOtic: Me was 98 with some extra bugs.
Microsoft: QUICK! Reskin leopard and call it windows 7!
Vista is okay. I don't run it on my computer (XP Pro) but I've used it here and there with no real problems. To me it's like the DVD to HD comparison. Personally I love XP and it is like stepping from VHS to DVD. Vista is like stepping from dvd to HD. I just don't feel compelled enough to upgrade. My dvds work fine (even on my HDTV) and there's just no reason to spend more for something that's probably gonna run the same things very close to how they are already running. I guess I just want smaller, smoother running XP Pro. Make a better DVD player.
So if version 7 is called Windows 7, does that mean that by the time they reach version 10, they'll just say what the hell and name it OSX?
so where does "Windows NT" fit in? I had a computer that was running an OS named "Windows NT", that's it.
I had good experiences with ME, actually. Except that once XP came NOTHING worked for it. At least with ME Microsoft didn't throw shitloads of visual waste into the OS to make it incompatible with every average computer.
Baladen FTW.
All current versions of Windows are based on the NT kernel. NT kernel runs from 3.1 to 6.0 (Vista)
DOS based versions run from 1.0 to 4.9 (WinME)
Timeline of Windows Releases