Gates hints at Windows 7 features

With Windows 7 likely to be complete in Q4 2009, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates hinted at what the company is planning for the next version of Windows last week.

In a speech at the Windows Digital Lifestyle Consortium (in Tokyo) last Wednesday, Gates hinted:

"We're hard at work, I would say, on the next version, which we call Windows 7. I'm very excited about the work being done there. The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient, and have lots more connections up to the mobile phone, so those scenarios connect up well to make it a great platform for the best gaming that can be done, to connect up to the thing being done out on the Internet, so that, for example, if you have two personal computers, that your files automatically are synchronized between them, and so you don't have a lot of work to move that data back and forth."

Gates also mentioned Windows Live services and the fact the company has 400 million users connected to these services. Also mentioned was the fact that Gates sees "a major new version of Windows every two to three years", noting that services that Windows connects up to would be updated on a regular basis.

Microsoft is currently in the middle of building Windows Live Mesh which plays on the idea of being able to sync data between multiple PCs and mobile phones.

View: Bill Gates Speech

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft Launches WorldWide Telescope

Next Story

AMD planning to outsource CPU production to TSMC in 2H08

42 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Gates also mentioned Windows Live services and the fact the company has 400 million users connected to these services.

Is that number a total figure or a figure representing the number of active users? I have a Windows Live account, and I only log in for MS stuff (the Express Editions of Visual Studio applications mainly). Beyond that, I have no reason to use it.

Vista is just a mistake and their pushing out the real Vista version 2.0 next year, it'll fix all the things he mentioned, "lower power, take less memory, be more efficient, and have lots more connections up to the mobile phone"

I'm waiiting for that OS to upgrade to, I hate Vista with a passion (I know some love it, but I and many ppl I know close to me feel the same way as I do). Hopefully this one works as good as XP and they cleaned up UAC.

"The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient,"
just that got my attention. if Microsoft manage to get rid of all crap they like to include every release
and just leave essential. We won't need to use nlite or vlite to
strip down os and remove Applications are useless. I rather have os boot up quick and quick as hell and everything quick I drop money in heart beat, and Security not annoying
security..

(mel00 said @ #6)
"The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient,"
just that got my attention. if Microsoft manage to get rid of all crap they like to include every release
and just leave essential. We won't need to use nlite or vlite to
****ing strip down useless ****. I remember good all day we could remove crap before we install windows 9x.
Can you bring that Microsoft? please.

but then we might not have such valuable programs as Windows Messenger, Notepad, the feature rich program Wordpad, Calculator, Solitare, the great Backup program that everyone loves, or heaven forbid we omit the most feature-rich program Microsoft has ever developed, Windows Genuine Advantage.

I can't wait for Ubuntu Genuine Advantage myself.....

I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.

(bluarash said @ #4)
I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.

an apt-get in windows? to download freeware? wait a minute, were are talking about the same company here right. as far as MS is concerned the only freeware out there is Adobe Acrobat and Macromedia Flash. Internally Microsoft couldn't care less about 3rd party compatibility, if it was left up to them the only software you would be allowed to install would be MS software, and last time I checked it wasn't cheap, little on free.

(computergeek83 said @ #4.1)

an apt-get in windows? to download freeware? wait a minute, were are talking about the same company here right. as far as MS is concerned the only freeware out there is Adobe Acrobat and Macromedia Flash. Internally Microsoft couldn't care less about 3rd party compatibility, if it was left up to them the only software you would be allowed to install would be MS software, and last time I checked it wasn't cheap, little on free.

That's a purely ignorant and idiotic statement, right there. Microsoft LOVES 3rd part support. Windows is one of THE BEST OS's for 3rd party support and Microsoft practically bends over backwards and takes one up the ass JUST for that 3rd party support and to ensure it's compatible with the OS. Windows 7 will actually be the first to finally DUMP a lot of that built-in compatibility in favour of emulation.
Apple, being a fine alternate example, don't give half as much of a **** about 3rd party support and are happy to ditch their platforms and/or API's every now and then just to move to a shiny, new one. This is why the next version of Photoshop (a former powerhouse on Mac) will be developed with Windows in mind FIRST.
The ubiquitous 3rd party support is something Microsoft needs and relies on in order to keep you locked into their system. If they didn't care about 3rd party support, people would be developing more apps for MacOS and Linux.

(bluarash said @ #4)
I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.

why?.

Currently windows is way more friendly to install a new application rather linux.

(Kushan said @ #4.2)

That's a purely ignorant and idiotic statement, right there. Microsoft LOVES 3rd part support. Windows is one of THE BEST OS's for 3rd party support and Microsoft practically bends over backwards and takes one up the ass JUST for that 3rd party support and to ensure it's compatible with the OS.

i agree. people don't understand that Windows wouldn't be the dominant OS today if it weren't for the eco-system built around it, and this eco-system is sustained by the legacy support Microsoft builds into Windows.

takes two hands to clap, and slapping your leg doesn't count.

maybe this time they can design a quality os that is not designed to annoy legit users and a graphic interface that does not bog down the hardware. i run compiz on my old Pentium 2 makes windows aero look like a cheap knock off.

I seriously don't understand what's so great about compiz, are you that big into fancy windows animations and transparency? It's not like the thing has any ground breaking new UI to it. It's all effects and animations. And while it looks nice and all, uhhh ok?

(GP007 said @ #2.1)
I seriously don't understand what's so great about compiz, are you that big into fancy windows animations and transparency? It's not like the thing has any ground breaking new UI to it. It's all effects and animations. And while it looks nice and all, uhhh ok?

Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.

(kaiwai said @ #2.2)
Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.

Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off.

(Relativity_17 said @ #2.3)

Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off.

I've done one better - I don't run Windows :D

One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.

Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.

(GP007 said @ #2.1)
I seriously don't understand what's so great about compiz, are you that big into fancy windows animations and transparency? It's not like the thing has any ground breaking new UI to it. It's all effects and animations. And while it looks nice and all, uhhh ok?

I prefer the virtual desktop integration + Exposé-style layouts of Compiz more than the layered windows of Aero.

(kaiwai said @ #2.4)

I've done one better - I don't run Windows :D

One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.

Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.

I think because Microsoft wants to actually make their platform look modern. Windows classic is a nice theme, but it is very dated. Luna is simply hideous. As for turning it off, I pretty much think anyone can figure that out.

Glad to see you're still enjoying your Pentium II. Sorry that the newer versions of Windows were designed for more advanced hardware.

(kaiwai said @ #2.4)

I've done one better - I don't run Windows :D

One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.

Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.

Yeah, why enable one of the core features of an OS? That's just stupid! Disable it, Microsoft!
In fact, disable that stupid explorer thingy as well, it's not needed, it's just a fancy GUI after all. In fact, disable all graphical output bar the command line, that's all anyone should ever need and use.

(kaiwai said @ #2.4)

I've done one better - I don't run Windows :D

One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.

Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.

Umm.. that makes just as much sense as leaving it enabled by default. What they SHOULD have done, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been done already, is have it enabled depending on the current hardware. Which, could be done very easily. In fact, they already benchmark your PC the first time it runs in Vista. Could have been a simple test to see what the score was for the video card was, and judge based on that. I know, the first time you run, no video drivers. The solution would be to decide every time the user runs the benchmarking program. and maybe prompt the user to run the benchmark program when drivers have been installed (or new hardware, etc). A simple option there to disable or enable testing or prompting for benchmarks would be fine.

(WICKO said @ #2.9)
What they SHOULD have done, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been done already, is have it enabled depending on the current hardware. Which, could be done very easily. In fact, they already benchmark your PC the first time it runs in Vista. Could have been a simple test to see what the score was for the video card was, and judge based on that. I know, the first time you run, no video drivers. The solution would be to decide every time the user runs the benchmarking program. and maybe prompt the user to run the benchmark program when drivers have been installed (or new hardware, etc). A simple option there to disable or enable testing or prompting for benchmarks would be fine.

yea uhm...that's already what happens in vista.

(WICKO said @ #2.9)
What they SHOULD have done, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been done already, is have it enabled depending on the current hardware. Which, could be done very easily. In fact, they already benchmark your PC the first time it runs in Vista. Could have been a simple test to see what the score was for the video card was, and judge based on that. I know, the first time you run, no video drivers. The solution would be to decide every time the user runs the benchmarking program. and maybe prompt the user to run the benchmark program when drivers have been installed (or new hardware, etc). A simple option there to disable or enable testing or prompting for benchmarks would be fine.

I think MS beat you to your brilliant new idea

(Typhon said @ #1.1)
That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.

Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.

(Kushan said @ #1.2)

Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.


Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...

(neufuse said @ #1.3)


Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...

Of course, but we have idiots here talk about these issues like so-called 'experts', repeating urban legends over and over again. You're right - infact, its actually based off Windows 2003 SP1 (IIRC).

Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that.

(kaiwai said @ #1.4)
Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that.

It seems that only Windows has had "problems" with backwards compatibility as compared to other OSes out there already...... M$ made far more compromises than this. It would be better if they started with a kernal like with Linux.

(kaiwai said @ #1.4)

Of course, but we have idiots here talk about these issues like so-called 'experts', repeating urban legends over and over again. You're right - infact, its actually based off Windows 2003 SP1 (IIRC).

Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that.

You should have kept your reply to the first paragraph.

(Deviate_X said @ #1.6)

You should have kept your reply to the first paragraph.

Why? have you looked at some of the stupid **** that remains in win32 and should have removed in Windows Vista. Please, go get yourself a Popsicle and sit in the corner - you're embarrassing both of us.

(Gates @ Mr)
With Windows 7 likely to be complete in Q4 2009, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates hinted.


Mr Gates will be lucky if Windows Vista is ready by Q4 2009. What a moron!

Yeah, what kind of moron pictured a computer on every desk or could get a perfect score on his math SAT's?

Let me know if you need helping taking your foot out of your mouth.

(neufuse said @ #1.3)


Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...

I never said Vista was coded again from scratch, I don't know how you managed to get that idea?
What I said was for Windows 7 they started with Vista and stripped a LOT of the old code away, leaving little more than the Kernel. An entirely new API is being created for the OS, one that doesn't need to worry about legacy apps or being compatible with them and the rest of the OS will be built from the ground up using said API.
It'll still be compatible through a compatibility layer, but the core of the OS itself is essentially new.
This is essentially what Apple did with MacOSX and it worked very well for them.

(boho said @ #1.11)

And he wrote The Road Ahead in 1994 / 5 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Ahead-Bill-Gates/dp/0140243518 which he and his co writer devoted about 4 pages to the Internet. Now there's vision! :confused:

So he predicted one of the biggest changes to our lives for the last 30 years, yet because he missed something just as revolutionary, he's an idiot? If you're so smart, why don't you go write a book predicting the future and 20 years down the line if you're a millionaire, I'll stand corrected.

I never said Vista was coded again from scratch, I don't know how you managed to get that idea?
What I said was for Windows 7 they started with Vista and stripped a LOT of the old code away, leaving little more than the Kernel. An entirely new API is being created for the OS, one that doesn't need to worry about legacy apps or being compatible with them and the rest of the OS will be built from the ground up using said API.
It'll still be compatible through a compatibility layer, but the core of the OS itself is essentially new.
This is essentially what Apple did with MacOSX and it worked very well for them.

MS never said they where recoding the OS in that way... as for OSX it's a completely different OS then OS9 was... not even a part of OS9 remained in OSX... completely different kernel, completely different Shell... that was one of the big "I dont like OSX" complaints from users back in 2000... none of their OS9 apps ran natively in OSX, they needed to boot into "Classic" to run them...

(neufuse said @ #1.13)

MS never said they where recoding the OS in that way... as for OSX it's a completely different OS then OS9 was... not even a part of OS9 remained in OSX... completely different kernel, completely different Shell... that was one of the big "I dont like OSX" complaints from users back in 2000... none of their OS9 apps ran natively in OSX, they needed to boot into "Classic" to run them...

They may not have said it, but they've sure as hell hinted at it. We'll just wait and see what happens.
And my comparison to OSX is still valid, OSX may have been COMPLETELY new, but the principal is the same - start from the ground up (or in this case, the foundation up) and instead of worrying about incompatibilities, emulate the legacy stuff.