Microsoft to avoid transparency with Windows 7

Glyn Moody hits the nail on the head with his critique of Microsoft's proposed approach to Windows 7: Say little so that the market expects little.

It's not an unreasonable approach, and Microsoft did get burned for actually warning the market about what it would be providing, only to have to endure the consequences of not living up to the expectations it set, but I'm not sure it can afford to go back. Stating that it will be "more careful" with Windows 7, Microsoft's representative noted:

"We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action," [Microsoft] said. "As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes."

Well, yes. But that's the whole point behind transparency. As Glyn notes, it's not that easy to do in practice, but it's increasingly critical in the opening 21st Century.

News Source: C|Net

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Microsoft's grand plan to eliminate phone numbers

Next Story

Facebook probed after law students file complaint


Commenting is disabled on this article.

The process is still the same:

1. Promise a bunch of features (but don't tell anyone)

2. Find out you can't deliver the cool new features and remove them (thank god you didn't tell anyone)

3. Release Windows 7 late, bloated and with almost no reason to upgrade from the now ok running Windows Vista.

In 2011 their will be plenty of quadcore machines with 8 gigs of ram and vista will run ok on them, Windows 7 will more then likely be slower and have a few new features and will need a good service pack or two to mature.


I don't get it if this news is talking about transparency in the visual concept (gui) or to be transparency (semi-open source) in the specification concept.

Then just go make us all sandwiches.

I'll have a reuben, thx.

And none of that thousand island dressing crap. The real stuff.

Microsoft: We're gonna be open about things
Internetz: We damnz u!

Microsoft: OK, OK, we're not gonna be so open about things.
Internetz: We damnz u!

Microsoft: So... any suggestions?
Internetz: We damnz u!

I liked the transparent theme in Vista, it was surprisingly well-done. Really, transparent interfaces are a nightmare to design.

Anyway, I'm fine with not knowing about 7, but it won't stop the endless whinging along the lines of "its too different, so its bad!", and simultaneously, "its the same as Vista, so its bad!".

(Relativity_17 said @ #13)
I liked the transparent theme in Vista, it was surprisingly well-done. Really, transparent interfaces are a nightmare to design.

Anyway, I'm fine with not knowing about 7, but it won't stop the endless whinging along the lines of "its too different, so its bad!", and simultaneously, "its the same as Vista, so its bad!".

Did you read the article?

Whoever finds this title "misleading" needs to go back to elementary school and learn that words can have more than one meaning.

Back on actual topic, I find this move good as well. Afterall, it didn't help Vista that MS disclosed a pile of awesome features that never made it into the OS, therefor expectations were not met.
At the company I work we have learnt over the years not to publicly disclose any new features before the very point of implementation.

The problem was that many of those "awesome" features were almost ready to go, but Microsoft felt it didn't have enough eye-candy to compete with OSX and you can't have an all demanding operating system since the users might not complain, but big companies won't like it. So they said they will be coming as Service packs, then announced it wasn't going to happen and we should wait for windows 7 and then announced maybe those features will be included or scrapped from the project for something better. and now they say they won't be telling what will be inside the next release. The only message I get is they really are trying to fix the mess Vista created, they didn't make vista failed because they left out parts of the system out, but because the system runs very bad... even after the first sp they stil got a lot of homework to do...

what ms should do with windows 7 is disable transparency if the user wants it on the server based oses and do the same with the consumer meaning on initial install and if hardware supports it ms should give a choice to either disable or enable transparency but doing it manualy doesent hurt either.

what would be good is if you could set the transparency to only enable when your below say 30% CPU usage that was when your ragging your pc it frees up rescourses


Oh lord, someone else who didn't read the article to find out WHICH definition of "transparency" was being used...

Flames INCOMING!!!!

Misleading title FTL, as well as all you uninformed people bashing an OS that isn't out yet.
Win7 should be a welcomed face lift to the great under-the-hood work that went into Vista.

what Microsoft should do in this situation.. and truely think outside of the box, and just make a master piece that they have never attempted before. Rather then just building with the same look and feel of each OS.. make it completely new.. like Apple did with the iPhone. Never been done before, and promote the crap out of it

The next big change is going to require a shift in the industry, rather than innovation. I strongly feel that the future requires a push for baby boomers to migrate to cheaper, more convenient PDA-style devices if all they're going to do is check email and casually browse the web so that they can stop holding back the desktop computer market by forcing software developers to constantly make everything backwards compatible to 10 years. But as long as cell phone providers nickle and dime their customer base to death on an obsolete (in the USA) wireless network, it'll be like trying to swim up a waterfall.

Yes, I'm blaming the technology slow-down on wireless providers. That's the direction we're going in, and they've got about as much marketing sense as the RIAA.

It looks like Windows 7 is just going to be Vista Second Edition and thats why they don't want to say much.....

(MioTheGreat said @ #5.1)
That's a stupid statement.

If they're not saying much, you have no idea what Windows Seven is going to be.

Uh oh, logic!

(GEIST said @ #5.2)

Uh oh, logic!

I know. I can't tell if I'm getting more mature, or if the people around me are just getting less mature, but reason and logic are getting more difficult to find on the interwebs. Digg has already gone to hell (I've stopped going there entirely), and reddit and neowin are starting to show some nasty signs...