Windows 7 in 2009? Be careful what you wish for

[Scorbing]

Source of news: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080...u-wish-for.html

Windows 7 in 2009? Be careful what you wish for

By Ken Fisher | Published: January 24, 2008 - 08:15PM CT

Take it as a sign that Windows Vista failed to capture the imagination of Windows users, or take it as a sign that sensationalism sells. Either way, the rumor mill is heating up with claims that the successor to Windows Vista—currently dubbed Windows 7—could be released as early as next year, as opposed to sometime in 2010, as currently expected.

Hypesphere: nothing to Gates' Windows 7 "next year" quote

GM still uses XP, and is considering "bypassing Vista"

Microsoft India takes over portion of Windows 7 development

Steve Ballmer: Windows Vista is a "work in progress"

The scuttlebutt (condensed): some users have seen early builds of Windows 7, including a poster at Neowin. Ars Technica has also seen an older build, as we told you about more than a month ago. A more recent build was reportedly described as Milestone 1. APC Magazine claims to have seen a roadmap which puts M2 in an April/May timeframe, and a M3 in the third quarter of this year. All of this points to a late 2009 release, they say, which is indicated by this "road map."

Arguing about whether or not Windows 7 will ship in late 2009 is pointless. No one can predict the future, and Microsoft's own history shows that its roadmaps and predictions are not to be trusted. A more interesting question is: should Microsoft be aiming for late 2009? Should the company be aiming at a date, or should it be aiming at an experience? To be sure, a software company can't develop without some kind of general timeframe. The question is what's most important: the date or the product?

Microsoft, please take your time

In its early days as Longhorn, perhaps the project was too ambitious. But once Microsoft rebooted Longhorn's development more than two years into the process, the company made a critical error: in a panic, it focused on when the product would ship, not when it would be ready.

Gates originally had it right. In the thick of Longhorn development problems in 2004, Gates tried to reassure everyone that the release would not become date-driven. To this day, it remains a literary classic to me (and, well, probably only to me):

This Is Not a Date-Driven Release

We have things where we say

The train is leaving on this date

Whoever has their act totally together

By that date the train will leave

And the train could have a lot of people on it

Or it could be

Fairly empty

—W.H. Gates III

Unfortunately, Vista did become date-driven, and even Gates seemed to admit that Vista shipped before it was ready when Gizmodo talked to him at CES this year. Admission or not, it's quite clear that things that were not "totally together" where included on the "shipping train," and that the departure time became more important than the quality of the release.

With Windows 7, Microsoft needs to deliver in a big way. I personally wouldn't call Windows Vista a bomb, but Microsoft has lost serious mindshare and respect in the many years since Windows XP, primarily on account of Vista. Vista will still sell well, if only because the momentum of the growing PC market will not allow otherwise. It does not appear that Vista is driving PC growth, however, and even among Vista fans, the mood is somber.

What's Microsoft to do? If you can't avoid a mistake, then you do the next best thing and learn from it. You don't want to move too quickly in an effort to fix your mistake, because you can end up making another, potentially costlier one. In Microsoft's case, the company can easily weather the trials and tribulations that Vista has brought it. But should the company release another operating system that fails to gain a critical, but positive reception, it will signal a true crisis for the company's desktop business. While Microsoft can't wait until 2012 to release a new version of Windows, it shouldn't be putting a shipping date before the need to make this release rock solid.

Of dates and timeframes

Once launched in a couple of weeks, it will have taken Microsoft about 16 months to deliver the first Service Pack for Windows Vista (Vista was released for businesses in November of 2006). A November 2009 release of Windows 7 would have afforded roughly 36 months of time between Vista and Windows 7, or a little more than twice the time consumed by Vista SP1 efforts. Sounds doable, eh? Keep in mind that a Windows 7 Milestone 3 in Q3 2008 leaves about a year for beta testing; by this time, the build should be very close to feature complete. As such, this would mean that Windows 7 would need to reach feature-complete status over the next nine months (or, within ~24 months of Vista being released to manufacturing).

There was once a time when Microsoft could accomplish quite a lot in such a short timeframe. Windows 98 was released in June 1998, and within only 40 months' time, Microsoft had released two major desktops OSes: Windows 2000 in February of 2000 and Windows XP in October of 2001. (Not to mention Windows ME in 2000, as well.) Sure, there were two separate teams involved back then, when there was a bifurcation between NT and the consumer desktop. The point is, Microsoft could do it back then, but I'd argue that company was a lot stronger then.

To regain its strength, Microsoft has to do two things. First, it cannot let Windows 7 ship without the spit and polish that Windows Vista didn't get. When time hasn't been spent on refining the experience, the rough edges come to annoy customers. Everything put in the OS needs to be ready for prime time, or be left out. That's not a timing issue, but a philosophical one. Related to this, Microsoft must therefore not bite off more than it can chew.

Second, and more importantly, Windows 7's milestones, beta process, and release to manufacturing should not be date-driven, but by the company determining what Windows 7 needs to be a truly worthy release. Rather than worry about Software Assurance customers, Microsoft needs to worry about righting its ship. If Windows 7 is a bomb, there won't be many Software Assurance customers left to worry about appeasing.

Windows 7 needs to bring with it the redemption of Microsoft. That, my dear reader, cannot and should not be rushed.

[frbubba]

I agree it should not be date driven but quality control driven. However, I sometimes wonder if the consumer isn't the problem. It seems to me that any techie loves updating to the latest and greatest and when certain features are made public, the average techie begins to salivate. This grows until people are yammering for the release of the software. The best thing MS could do is be as discrete as possible to keep the hype down until it is released (a difficult thing to do). If it is a good product, then build the hype.

[Scorbing]

I agree it should not be date driven but quality control driven. However, I sometimes wonder if the consumer isn't the problem. It seems to me that any techie loves updating to the latest and greatest and when certain features are made public, the average techie begins to salivate. This grows until people are yammering for the release of the software. The best thing MS could do is be as discrete as possible to keep the hype down until it is released (a difficult thing to do). If it is a good product, then build the hype.

Exactly. Apple is not perfect but it sure runs better than Windows in many ways, especially against Vista. Microsoft knows they messed up on Vista big time and they are trying to get Windows 7 out the door ASAP to replace Vista - remember Windows ME? How it quickly got replaced with XP not even 1 year after it was released?

History repeats itself.

[Linkinfamous]

History repeats itself.

What?

Microsoft is planning to release Vista's successor 3 years after Vista. How is that them rushing to replace it ASAP?

[Scorbing]

What?

Microsoft is planning to release Vista's successor 3 years after Vista. How is that them rushing to replace it ASAP?

Vista stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Vista is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and XP is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

[y_notm]

By Ken Fisher | Published: January 24, 2008 - 08:15PM CT

Why are we posting 4 month old opinion pieces?

[sanctified Veteran]

I just want to know: Windows 7 will be based on MinWin?

[AlexMagik]

Vista stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Vista is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and XP is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

actually MacOSX runs much worse than my previous laptop with Vista.

Apple Mail breaks a lot of emails (attachments are shows as base64 coding inside the email),

sometimes doesn't shutdown but just stuck there with only my background showing on the desktop,

applications crash more often than windows ones,

VPN sometimes works sometimes return a "MPE is required" and i have to delete all the info *apple* from the keychain and hope after a reboot that it works

wireless on my macbook pro (wireless N) doesn't work very well at home - in fact i've to plug in the lan cable - with my netgear wireless G router, my acer laptop works fine

Vista always worked (and before that XP too). i changed machine from a macbook to a macbook pro, with leopard fully upgraded, but actually still a lot worse than vista and xp...

Only good point i can give is that Keynote is an amazing application and that powerpoint is not getting any closer to it, fast and with amazing features.

BACK TO THE TOPIC

i agree that 3 years for a new OS are fair enough. and vista is working quite well, only issue is that some manufacturers don't have a good/stable drivers for it. but if you get them right, vista is blazing fast and stable. I don't think 2009 will be the release date of Win7, it still far away in alpha stage and for a new OS will need a long time to get it in beta and then in rtm... so i guess 3 years are enough, maybe delay to almost 4 is still normal.

[Xerxes]

MS shouldn't rush Windows 7 out the door simply because releasing a rushed OS is only going to damage them further, however, they can't take there time either as Vista proved doing that is just as fatal (although restarting the project half way through didn't help matters). What makes matters worse for MS is users/customers are going to be much more critical with Win7 and alot of them will be considering switching to Linux/OS-X, meaning Win7 not only needs to be better then Vista but needs to prove to be a better investment then a Mac or Linux based machine. My work for example is considering going pure Mac because of the disaster that was Vista (while I find Vista a great home OS, I have to admit it's not that crash hot in a business environment which is why my work is staying with WinXP) and if Win7 is no better then Apple got itself another customer. Are MS up to the challenge or is this the beginning of the end of Microsoft? only time will tell. This is purely my opinion and should be taken with a grain of salt.

[NEVER85]

Vista stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Vista is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and XP is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

Nice how you didn't provide any hard evidence to back up this nonsense. XP is an inferior OS in every sense of the word. They need to scrap that pile of garbage before April 2009.

[Scorbing]

Nice how you didn't provide any hard evidence to back up this nonsense. XP is an inferior OS in every sense of the word. They need to scrap that pile of garbage before April 2009.

You do know how to do searches in Google don't you? Google has all the evidence you need.

[Vambo]

If Vista is so bad, why you using it? (In your specs)

[Scorbing]

If Vista is so bad, why you using it? (In your specs)

I don't use it anymore. I am using XP Pro. I haven't had a chance to change my Sig but now that you reminded me, and I have time, I might as well do it.

[Vista]

We all know where this is going.

Vista users will say Vista is the better OS. More features!

XP uses will say XP is the better OS. More speed!

Who gives a sh*t about someone else's opinion anyways. It's not like it'll make anyone switch to another OS.

Everyone is going to use the OS they like more.

[Scirwode]

I don't think there's anything wrong with Windows Vista and I certainly don't see anything wrong with releasing Windows 7 in 2009, which would make it about three years after Windows Vista RTM. Microsoft should be going back to the regular 3 year cycle, similar to 95, 98 and XP. Windows Vista only took so long because they restarted it from scratch and I for one prefer they did that rather than release an OS which would be more unstable than the Vista that we have now.

Scirwode

[majortom1981]

Vista is not a bad os. I have been using it since before launch and i have not had a single problem. I also switched to vista 64bit and thats even better.

I hope windows 7 is based off of 2008. Everything modular. They should have the installl done like in win 95 where you are given a check list and can pick what you want installed.

Have an option for a command prompt "CORE" setup like in 2008. Also make indexing more configurable. Make it use up less memory and it would be a great os.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I personally have no problem using Windows Vista, and I hope I don't have any problem using Windows 7 whenever it's released. I do occasionally go back to Windows XP but I must say, overall, Windows Vista is a better operating system. That's just my opinion. However, a 2009 release for an operating system that's supposed to succeed Windows Vista seems too early. I say Microsoft should release it when they feel it is complete. That's when it'll be a great, polished, and refined operating system.

[DrewJW]

I personally have no problem using Windows Vista, and I hope I don't have any problem using Windows 7 whenever it's released. I do occasionally go back to Windows XP but I must say, overall, Windows Vista is a better operating system. That's just my opinion. However, a 2009 release for an operating system that's supposed to succeed Windows Vista seems too early. I say Microsoft should release it when they feel it is complete. That's when it'll be a great, polished, and refined operating system.

I too was flicking back and forth, seemed to have settled on Vista since Sp3 has caused so many issues for people, I agree 2009 for a new OS already seems a little soon, but I have always felt Vista was a development OS a sort of step point, but saying that it's not a bad OS, not a great one just average.

[frbubba]

I too flipped back and forth until SP1 in Vista. Now I use Vista all of the time.

[Athernar]

XP stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is XP is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and 2000 is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

Vista stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Vista is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and XP is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

Seven stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Seven is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and Vista is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

:rolleyes:

[kag9000]

XP stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is XP is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and 2000 is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

Vista stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Vista is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and XP is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

Seven stinks whether you want to admit it or not. The truth is Seven is not what it was expected to be. It did not deliver and Vista is a better OS. The tests results don't lie.

:rolleyes:

Well put and entirely accurate.

[George P Global Moderator]

Late 2009 isn't early actually, sure Vista took 5 years but other things got in the way, XP SP2 was one.

Don't forget Vista went RTM to business back in Nov 2006. It hit retail in January 2007. If win7 goes RTM in Nov 2009 then it's 3 years. Lots of work is already set in Vista, the major things like the new driver model and so on are things that won't change in Win7, or if they do very minor changes I'd guess.

Kernel, memory managment and overall performance stuff doesn't take 5 years to work on. And new features depending on scope don't either. Key is that the groundwork is already there with Vista and now Win2k8.

[Windam]

All this hogwash is a waste of our time

Windows 7 will be what it is when it's finished.

Assumptions lead to old hardware. Remember that kids.

[non.sequitur]

Nice how you didn't provide any hard evidence to back up this nonsense. XP is an inferior OS in every sense of the word. They need to scrap that pile of garbage before April 2009.

XP garbage compared to Vista? LOL, hardly.

[spaceelf]

All this hogwash is a waste of our time

Windows 7 will be what it is when it's finished.

Assumptions lead to old hardware. Remember that kids.

But people love posting crap we've already heard! Come on, don't you? I hope not.

I haven't used a MS OS I didn't like (I never used ME,) but we all have unique experiences and I love how people ignore that and say 'this product sucks' or 'is awesome' because of theirs.

Personally I love Vista although I recognize it wasn't the best planned release they had, and has its weaknesses. There hadn't been significant change to Windows in a long time, and it needed to happen. Of course, change leads to confusion, confusion leads to problems...go figure.

So logic says this conversation was inevitable and I should just shut up and go talk in a topic that actually matters, but hey. Not like I have anything better to do right now. :)

I expect Windows 7 will be a better environment in general because it won't have as much in the way of new driver models and other systems, and obviously because they learned from the Vista release.

And we'll still be having this exact same conversation, one way or another.