BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 26d, 18h, 2m | CPU: 41% | MEM: 6132MB of 12227MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 7 in 2011, not 2009        Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:01 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jun 16, 2007 8:53 pm

Posts
54

Location
NL

Favourite OS
Windows XP / Windows 7
On a Dutch ict-newssite, previous week an article appeared that Windows 7 will come in 2009. But yesterday a new article says that 7 will come in 2011.

Dutch article (source)

ZDNet.nl wrote:
De opvolger van Vista zal toch niet al in 2009 opduiken. Microsoft ontkent de conclusies die uit een gelekte planning werden getrokken en benadrukt dat het nog drie jaar zal duren voor Windows 7 verschijnt.

Vorige week dook een interne planning van Microsoft op over de ontwikkeling van Windows 7, de opvolger van Vista. Daarin staat dat een premature versie van het systeem al klaar is en momenteel naar partners van het bedrijf wordt verstuurd. Uiteindelijk zou het nieuwe systeem dan in de loop van 2009 al verkrijgbaar zijn.

De website winvistafanclub.com ontving hierop een e-mail van Microsoft. Hierin verklaart het bedrijf dat het momenteel aan een planning voor Windows 7 werkt. Een exacte einddatum is nog niet vastgelegd, maar het zal nog zeker drie jaar duren.

Verdere informatie over de ontwikkeling geeft Microsoft niet. Al nuanceert het de heisa rond Vista door opnieuw te benadrukken dat er ondertussen al meer dan honderd miljoen licenties van het systeem zijn verkocht.


A try for a translation...

Quote:
The succesor of Vista will not come in 2009. Microsoft denied the conclusion that followed out the leaked planning and Microsoft says that they need three years for Windows 7.

Previous week appeared a planning of Windows 7 that the premature system is ready, and Microsoft was sending it to partners. The release would be in 2009.

The website winvistafanclub.com received an e-mail from Microsoft, with says that Microsoft is working on a schedule for Windows 7.

( nothing special, some talk about rumours of Vista )


Worldlingo translation wrote:
The continuator of Vista will not emerge nevertheless already in 2009. Microsoft denies the conclusions which were drawn from a leaked planning and emphasised that the years still three will last for Windows 7 appears.

Last week an internal planning of Microsoft emerged concerning the development of Windows 7, the continuator of Vista. In this stands that a premature version of the system is already ready and it is sent at present to partners of the company. Eventually the new system would be then in the course of 2009 already available.

The Internet site winvistafanclub.com received on this a e-mail of Microsoft. The company explains that it at present to a planning for Windows 7 works. An exact termination date has been not yet fixed, but it will last still certain three years.

Further information on the development does not give Microsoft . Already it nuances the heisa around Vista by emphasising that again have been there in the meantime sold already more than hundred millions licenties of the system .


There is also a screenshot in the article:

Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:20 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Aug 27, 2006 11:03 am

Posts
386

Location
Australia

Favourite OS
Windows 7 Ultimate
Then again according to Mary Jo Foley. The release date has not slipped to 2011 yet.

Mary Jo Foley wrote:
Contrary to many blog posts you may have read over the past day or so, Windows 7’s due date has not slipped — at least not yet. This is the exchange between Microsoft and site WinVista Club that many sites have been quoting to prove that Windows 7, the successor to Vista, is running late:

Q: (From WinVista Club): “What is the expected timeline for the availability of Windows 7?”

A. (From Microsoft, via email): “We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 years to develop. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release.”

Here’s how to interpret this Microsoft statement.

Windows execs have been using the “in planning” line about Windows 7 since last year. My bet: The Windows dev team will likely say that Windows 7 is in planning until the day it is released to manufacturing. Planning simply means not done; it doesn’t mean it does not exist in bootable form, in the new “translucent” Windows world order.

A link to the full article can be found here.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1136


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 4:25 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Oh, and that screenshot is a known fake, which doesn't help the articles credibility 8-)

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 5:09 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:21 am

Posts
2068

Location
Australia

Favourite OS
Neptune/Whistler2419/Linux Mint
never belive release dates, microsoft is well know for being late on relase dates,your looking at least 2 and a half years from now.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:23 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
Yeah, don't believe the news UNTIL you hear from some realistic sources, like Microsoft themselves. They're focused more on Vista right now (SP1 and XP SP3), so I probably wouldn't see anything major about Windows Seven leaking until after those are released. SP3 has been promised for a while now, so they'll want to get that out of the way.

Finally, that picture is definitely fake because they would never look Windows look like Mac OS X. I mean, that's pretty much the dock right there. lol

_________________
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 12:10 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
microsoft is trying to over devlier this time, so they obviously wouldn't talk about a release date any time soon


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 7:37 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
Uhm.. windows 7?

NT4

2000 = Win5
XP=win6
Vista=7

or did I miss something?

Mayhaps it's Windows 3.11
Win94 = 4
Win98 = 5
WinME = 6
And then the new windows will be 7, continuing the 3.11 line after all?

Confuzzling.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:00 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am

Posts
368

Location
Sweden
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:
Uhm.. windows 7?

NT4

2000 = Win5
XP=win6
Vista=7

or did I miss something?

Mayhaps it's Windows 3.11
Win94 = 4
Win98 = 5
WinME = 6
And then the new windows will be 7, continuing the 3.11 line after all?

Confuzzling.


NT and Win9x are different branches.

With NT you have:

NT4 = 4
NT5/Win2K = 5
Windows XP = 5.1
Vista = 6
Win2K8 = 6.1
Seven = 7 (obviously ;) )


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:41 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
Just a small note, Windows Server 2008 is 6.0 as well, not 6.1 as you might expect...

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:47 pm 
Staff
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:11 pm

Posts
2607

Location
Germany, Earth

Favourite OS
Windows 10
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:
Uhm.. windows 7?

NT4

2000 = Win5
XP=win6
Vista=7

or did I miss something?

Mayhaps it's Windows 3.11
Win94 = 4
Win98 = 5
WinME = 6
And then the new windows will be 7, continuing the 3.11 line after all?

Confuzzling.


Win 95 = 4.00
Win 98 = 4.10
Win ME = 4.90

_________________
MS vNext: Windows 10 ESD Database - Windows 10 Build Labs - Windows 10 Update Archive - Office 2016 Version Tracker - Office Downloader


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 1:53 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am

Posts
368

Location
Sweden
hounsell wrote:
Just a small note, Windows Server 2008 is 6.0 as well, not 6.1 as you might expect...


Yeah, my bad. Being too lazy to fire up Remote Desktop sure bit me in the *bleep* :P


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 6:39 am 
hounsell wrote:
Oh, and that screenshot is a known fake, which doesn't help the articles credibility 8-)


The site where the article is from is known to be quite reliable. I think that they put in a fake screen because if they put in the screens we saw (or at least I saw) from the Milestone 1 build of Windows 7, most people wouldn't believe it was the new windows because it looks exactly the same as Vista.


Top
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 7:05 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Feb 24, 2007 4:14 pm

Posts
6612

Location
United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Server 2012 R2
vikking wrote:
The site where the article is from is known to be quite reliable. I think that they put in a fake screen because if they put in the screens we saw (or at least I saw) from the Milestone 1 build of Windows 7, most people wouldn't believe it was the new windows because it looks exactly the same as Vista.


So a reliable site would change something to make it look better? ^o)

To be honest, I wouldn't believe thats Windows 7. Microsoft wouldnt blatantly rip that much from Mac. To be honest, I would be surprised if Windows 7 had something that functioned like the Mac Dock in a significant way.

_________________
BuildFeed - the ultimate collaborative NT build list - Windows Longhorn - a look at a defining Microsoft project


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Feb 04, 2008 12:24 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Nov 06, 2007 12:48 am

Posts
38

Location
York, Pennsylvania
My only response, and had been my response on other forums.

Let's not worry about it until we see some public builds.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 7:40 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
XP is win2k point 1?

So... what is the small difference of 1.2 GB in the installation? the buttugly frames and taskbar?

I'ld say XP is different enough from 2k to make it v6, not 5.1, but that's prolly just me.......

anywonder why things get confusing? ;)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2008 9:53 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:09 pm

Posts
3935

Favourite OS
OS X 10.8
Doctor Mindvipe wrote:
XP is win2k point 1?

So... what is the small difference of 1.2 GB in the installation? the buttugly frames and taskbar?

I'ld say XP is different enough from 2k to make it v6, not 5.1, but that's prolly just me.......

anywonder why things get confusing? ;)
The difference lies in version numbers lie in the difference in kernels. The underlying kernel that Windows XP uses is not different enough to warrant a major version number change, so they used it as a point release. Think of it in Mac OS X terms - Mac OS X 10.5 is almost entirely different from Mac OS X 10.0, yet notice the point release difference only.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Wed Feb 13, 2008 1:24 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:42 am

Posts
173

Location
Manchester, UK

Favourite OS
AmigaOS3.9
well, I don't really think it that way either (not got a mac).

However... if we talk in Amiga terms, I'll understand :lol

The revision from 3.0 to 3.1 for example, was the battclock libraries moved from disk to the Kickstart, hence a "small" update ;)

And frankly... Win2k vs WinXP..... XP is way more stable than 2k, and it runs more stuff with less trouble, and it's more compatible towards Win98 and 2k.... and so on and so on forth.

Hence why I personally think XPOshould be labeled 6, instead of 5.1.

But, as said, it's personal... 2k is less different from NT4 though, in my experience.... so in that sense, 2k should be NT4.1, then XP to 5, Vista 6.....

*sigh*

No matter how you twist it around, windows is confusing. And microsoft should do something to clear it ALL up and streamline it so we can actually access the POWER of our computers.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 17 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS