Microsoft refuses to discuss next OS

Microsoft wants everyone to focus on Vista and forget about whatever may come down the operating system pike.

In a tightly-worded statement issued late yesterday and attributed to Kevin Kutz, the director of the Windows client group, the company said it "is focused on the value Windows Vista will bring to people today. We are not giving official guidance to the public yet about the next version of Windows, other than that we're working on it."

Kutz was replying to speculation that the next version of Windows -- with codenames ranging from "Vienna" to "Windows 7," depending on the pundit -- would be out before the end of 2009. The chatter was fueled by Ben Fathi, corporate vice president of development in Microsoft's Windows core operating system division, who spoke to reporters last week at the RSA conference.

At the time, Fathi said the follow-on to Vista would likely show up in 2009. "You can think roughly two, two and a half years is a reasonable time frame that our partners can depend on and can work with," he said. "That's a good time frame for refresh."

Yesterday's move was a clear effort by Microsoft to distance itself from Fathi's comments, said Michael Silver, an analyst with Gartner. But it was hardly unexpected.

View: Full Article @ Digit Online

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Gaming in Vista with DX10 goodness?

Next Story

Microsoft: IBM Standards Position Hypocritical

17 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Most of us want to talk about the next Windows OS, since Vista was more of a fizz than WOW. I have been using vista from Beta to RTM, I can't stand the advertisements that claim that Vista is revolutionary because it’s not.
Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was revolutionary and so was Windows 98 to Windows 2000. Vista seems more like a facelift than a new operating system.

If Microsoft wants to be revolutionary then they really need to bring to market an OS that has been built from the ground up and not just cobbled together from previous code.

They need to get rid of the DLL Hell and the clumsy system registry – this will required a big shift and loss of backward compatibility – but Apple has gone and done this already when they shifted from os9 to X knowing that the only way to go forward was to drop the backward compatibility.

It will be a big jump for Microsoft and I think that they are concerned that if people are faced with having to replace all their software with new – they may not even go down the MS path and may look at alternatives. But at some point they have to bite the bullet – a work around for this would be to have a virtual PC or something like it as part of the OS which would allow people to slowly up-date their software to the new O/S.
Well just my 2 cents worth – I feel better now 

Buttus said,
that's cool... i think i might be able to stick with XP until then...

lol, if it is only 2.5 yrs, I've though of doing the same thing, xp is great for now until I get some dx10 hardware. My 7900gtx should be fine enough for another year or two

this was posted already... we dont need a new news entry whenever some ms guy states they wont discuss it for the nth time.

Glassed Silver:win

I guess it's part a bit early to talk of it now, and part because they don't want to repeat the PR mistake with Longhorn where probably a bit too much was revealed that was still not set in stone.

Jugalator said,
I guess it's part a bit early to talk of it now, and part because they don't want to repeat the PR mistake with Longhorn where probably a bit too much was revealed that was still not set in stone.

That's only part of it. Since Vista is so belated, Microsoft don't want to put attention on a new OS that will be here in half the time - they want people to buy Vista. They want lost profits back.

It is partly because of what happened with Longhorn. Another reason is if ex. they say that "in Windows 7 there will be a 3D rotating morphing mouse cursor" then

1, the third-parties would stole the idea, then when it is done it would seem outdated,
2, most of the users would start missing the feature then goto 1.

You're right, MS learned from the whole longhorn mess, it's best to keep your mouth shut and don't promise features until you actually have something in the code that's working well and isn't going to be pulled later.

Plus, the competition steals your ideas. So just keep it tight lipped and work away on it quietlly

heheh... lostprofits. *plays lostprophets album

definitely the longhorn reason here. it may even be as simple as Vienna looking exactly like pdc2003 (the 'aero rock video') and they don't want to say that and have people go "ugh! that's so old skool!" or something.

So Microsoft should hide the details of Windows Vienna. No-one needs to know what it is or when it's coming out yet. It's not like other companies give 3 years warning.

Windows 7? With the 2-2.5 year release date, I bet it will be Windows 6.1 or 6.5. Or the release date will stretch out to 5 years.

That would actually be good. By then most programs/drivers will support Vista, 6.1/6.5 would be basically the same but with all the service packs/updates and some extra features. Since it wouldn't be too different, there wouldn't be compatibility issues with Vista stuff. Could skip Vista for this OS.

I beleave every other Windows version will be a major one, so since Vista is 6.0, next one will probably be 6.1 or 6.5 like you said. Then the one after this should be another major release, so it'd be 7.0

This is going with what MS has said in the past.

GP007 said,
I beleave every other Windows version will be a major one, so since Vista is 6.0, next one will probably be 6.1 or 6.5 like you said. Then the one after this should be another major release, so it'd be 7.0

This is going with what MS has said in the past.

Longhorn Server will be version 6.1, Service Pack 1 for Vista will bring its kernel version to 6.1. If there are plans for an interim release, its possible that it will be version 6.2, similar to XP being version 5.1. But it seems Vista R2 (which would have been an interim release) plans have been scrapped instead for a next major release which is "Windows 7".

Microsoft Careers - Windows 7 Release Effort:
http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp...354&Group=1

Paul Thurrott has said that Windows 7 will be a minor release, while a major release will appear 2 years after version 7, which I would assume is Windows 8.
http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp...347&Group=1

I think the aim is to bring new releases to market much faster, similar to what Apple started with OS X at version 10.2. If you look at each version of that OS, its considered a major release under the platform "OS X" although some versions contained minor changes that would make you not think consider it a major release.

10.0 - version 1
10.1 - version 2
10.2 - version 3
10.3 - version 4
10.4 - version 5
10.5 - version 6