BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 1d, 20h, 30m | CPU: 20% | MEM: 1799MB of 3121MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 7 Looking Like a June 2009 Delivery        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 9:46 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
The article is interesting but way too long IMO. I didn't read the entire thing, sorry if I missed something stupid.

Source: http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/ar ... hp/3771391

Publicly, Microsoft has said Windows 7, the successor operating system to the firm's much maligned Windows Vista, will not ship until early 2010, but its internal calendar has June 3, 2009 as the planned release date, InternetNews.com has learned.

Also, Microsoft will use its Professional Developer's Conference in late October as the launch platform for the first public beta of Windows 7. Microsoft plans to release the first beta on October 27, the first day of the show, when Chief Software Architect Ray Ozzie will be the keynote speaker.

Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) has two major developer shows planned for the Los Angeles area in a two week period: PDC on October 27 to October 30, and the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC). While PDC has listed its keynote speakers, Microsoft has not listed who will be the keynote speakers at WinHEC.

One hardware vendor, who asked not to be identified, told InternetNews.com the internal builds are already available for testing and certification of hardware. However, these betas are only available to partners for hardware and software certification, not open to all developers. Microsoft has what are called Milestone builds and is believed to be on its third major build, called M3, before releasing the beta.

When asked for comment, a Microsoft spokesperson told InternetNews.com that the company is in the planning stages for Windows 7 and "development is scoped to three years from Windows Vista consumer general availability." Beyond that, the company said it was not sharing additional information at this time.

Microsoft has previously said that Windows 7 would ship in early 2010, and given Vista's January 2007 ship date, that date matches the above Microsoft statement. Its beta cycles are usually about a year in length, so a June ship date would be cutting it close. Then again, it has had a long time to work on it - Vista released to manufacturing in late 2006 - and it's not changing much.

"I know they've been working on it feverishly, and the codebase is not all that far from Vista, so it's not a complete development project like they had to undertake between Windows XP and Vista," said Roger Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies.

Directions on Microsoft analyst Mike Cherry saw two sides to a PDC release and made an equally strong argument for both. "That would be the sort of event where they would want to give it to that audience," he told InternetNews.com. "That is going to be a large collection of your independent software vendors and developers from your large enterprise customers who write in-house apps and you're going to have some of the OEMs and hardware people there as well."

On the other hand, he is bothered by the trend on Web sites to review beta code, including evaluating performance, when no one should look at the performance of beta code.

"They may be a little bit concerned about how people have started to write reviews on beta code," said Cherry. "They may be weighing the concern that giving developers too early of a release could result in reviews with negative information based on an early look at the product and Windows 7 needs no bad news."

As evidence, he points to the fact that recent betas of Internet Explorer 8 and Google Chrome were reviewed, including how they perform. Also, Vista's first beta was reviewed on a number of sites, and its poor performance was heavily panned.

As it is, Microsoft already had to deal with a Windows 7 leak getting out. Milestone 1, a build of the OS, leaked onto BitTorrent sites earlier this year. The first thing some sites did was evaluate it and compare it to Vista when the code was in a very early state.

Kay defends Vista as well, saying it has improved quite a bit since its launch, but after 18 months of FUD and John "I'm a PC" Hodgeman being humiliated in those Apple commercials, it's a lost cause. "I think the perception is still worse than the reality," he said. Still, it might be easier to sell a new product than repair the rep of the old one. "You can make a case that the brand has an image that is impossible to remake."

What's in Windows 7?

Windows Vista had more than its share of problems, most notably the device driver boondoggle. Device drivers either were not ready or were in a pitiful state at launch, causing all manner of problems with customers attempting to upgrade their PC from Windows XP. Microsoft and third-party hardware companies extended fingers of accusation all around while consumers extended a finger of something else at all parties.

Then there were other problems. The User Access Control (UAC), which was supposed to protect against malware, became such a pain in the backside most people disabled it. Application performance was often slower on Vista than it was on XP.

All of these problems were a gold mine for Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL), which has launched a lengthy and extremely successful advertising campaign of ridicule against Microsoft. Microsoft has attempted to reverse this with Project Mojave, where they have consumers play with Vista and not tell them it's Vista until after they've enjoyed using it.

Almost two years after the launch of Vista, it's viewed as too little, too late, and Microsoft seems anxious to put Vista as far behind it as possible while hurrying toward Windows 7, the codename for the future product.

This much is known about Windows 7: development is being led by Steve Sinofsky, who led development of the very successful Office 2007. Windows 7 is not a whole new OS but an evolution of Vista, and will reuse the old kernel and device driver model. That means it would use the kernel in its newer state, when Microsoft updated it with Vista's first service pack. It also means existing device drivers for Vista will work on Windows 7.

Service Pack 1 did a lot to improve the stability and reliability of Vista, Cherry said, and he thinks Microsoft wants to stay on that track with Windows 7. "I don't expect them to mess with any elements of the OS that would put any of that at risk," he said.

"There's a variety of places where they may attempt to tune performance, like make changes to the UAC. I think you should think about this as being an interim release that's going to address some of the outstanding issues that are going to be blockers on this product and make it a good release," he said.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:04 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
It makes sense that Microsoft would set their release date earlier that made public, that way it would appear that they finished the os ahead of schedule, which would certainly help the image problems created by Vista's late release date.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:06 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:18 am

Posts
61

Location
UK & Australia
Also it means that if they had to delay the release, then we (the unsuspecting public) would never know and it'd look like it was on track as it had always been!


Last edited by Casey_boy on Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:11 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
This all sounds like the work of EVIL, MANIPULATIVE, SINISTER Steve Ballmer!!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:19 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:04 pm

Posts
101
I have a tough time believing this release date, "official" or not. Releasing an OS less than 3 years after Vista that may or may not be very different seems crazy to me. Just how thoroughly do they expect to be able to test it?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:23 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Sep 10, 2008 9:18 am

Posts
61

Location
UK & Australia
Well isn't the idea that the core parts are pretty much the same as vista - therefore the drivers/hardware should all work fine. Therefore, the software shouldn't have too much trouble either.

3 years isn't an unusual difference in OS releases (pre XP anyway).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:23 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
Resplendent wrote:
I have a tough time believing this release date, "official" or not. Releasing an OS less than 3 years after Vista that may or may not be very different seems crazy to me. Just how thoroughly do they expect to be able to test it?

Are you forgetting the dos based era?

Windows 3= 1992
Windows 95= 1995
Windows 98= 1998
Windows Me= 2000


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:41 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Yes, also XP was only a year and a half after 2000, and I think 7 is going to re-use a lot of the Vista code like XP did 2000's. I hope it doesn't come out too soon though, I don't want to have to reformat and set up a new OS on two machines again already!

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:42 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:12 pm

Posts
2461
7 will probably be more bugfixes and stability fixes if anything.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:43 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat May 24, 2008 10:05 am

Posts
2045
That's the thing, Xp was so successful because people got comfortable with sticking with one OS, and not having to reformat and upgrade and lose files and whatnot.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 3:56 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Aug 05, 2008 8:45 pm

Posts
732

Location
Two lefts and a diagonal sidestep from where you are.

Favourite OS
Windows 7 M3 (6801)
ive had XP for a little over a month now. I had Vista Ultimate SP1 installed on my box, but it was WAY too slow (after all, it wasn't designed for Vista). XP is very user-friendly. and for some, annoying (like the stupid search assistant thing, i personally have it disabled via registry). and the customization packs are mostly meant for XP (except for Vistapack, which has a 2000 version too). and i haven't been able to get Win7 M1 mainly because i don't have Internet at home. i like the Basic theme from Win7. but they have to work on the Windows Classic therme a little bit though.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:18 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Wed Jun 11, 2008 10:48 am

Posts
92
I'm really anxious to see if Microsoft will release a Beta 2/any release candidates of Windows 7 to the public for feedback and bug reports, like it did with Windows Vista.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 5:54 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
Resplendent wrote:
I have a tough time believing this release date, "official" or not. Releasing an OS less than 3 years after Vista that may or may not be very different seems crazy to me. Just how thoroughly do they expect to be able to test it?

ask apple how do they release tiger and leopard in less than 2 years and still gain good representation.

Microsoft should be doing 2 year releases and lower their price like Apple.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:03 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am

Posts
368

Location
Sweden
XDude wrote:
Resplendent wrote:
I have a tough time believing this release date, "official" or not. Releasing an OS less than 3 years after Vista that may or may not be very different seems crazy to me. Just how thoroughly do they expect to be able to test it?

ask apple how do they release tiger and leopard in less than 2 years and still gain good representation.

Microsoft should be doing 2 year releases and lower their price like Apple.


The problem with that is that MS is a software company while Apple is a hardware company that dabbles with software and music. OSX is only so cheap because it requires Apple hardware to run legally.

Not that I consider that a real issue considering how great their HW is, the latest MBP is the best Windows laptop I've ever owned.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 6:59 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Quote:
(like the stupid search assistant thing, i personally have it disabled via registry)


You can just open up Seach and right click the dog, there is an option to shut it off in this menu.

I hope Microsoft never goes to a release schedule like Apple does with OS X. That sort of release schedule and updating like Apple does would take all of the fun out of looking into new releases. Honestly, if I used OS X I wouldn't be searching the web constantly for news on their newest installment of OS X because the changes are never major. All the Apple users get excited over a new Finder, a darker theme, or simply just hundreds of bug fixes. OS X 10.0 was released. Mac users, who had already paid some ungodly marked up price for their hardware or possibly full-price for OS X 10.0, pay for what I would consider small updates compared to new versions of Windows that Microsoft releases. That sounds like a rip off to me. Mac users that have bought every release of OS X since 10.0 have paid $649.75 US dollars, not including tax. Soon it will be $779.70 when 10.6 is released. Looking at an operating system level, had you bought every copy of OSX that would mean that your computer didn't come with it. In this situation someone could have bought the $99 upgrade to XP Home when it was released, all the service packs were free, then bought the the Vista Home Premium Upgrade for, right now, as low as $80. I know this is an incredibly unlikely situation given the state of hardware over the years, it just gives you an idea of how much Microsoft charges for an OS that runs on any PC and now Macs compared to how much Apple charges for their operating system which only works on Macs.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2008 10:13 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri May 18, 2007 9:39 am

Posts
953

Location
My house
QuiescentWonder wrote:
Quote:
(like the stupid search assistant thing, i personally have it disabled via registry)


You can just open up Seach and right click the dog, there is an option to shut it off in this menu.

I hope Microsoft never goes to a release schedule like Apple does with OS X. That sort of release schedule and updating like Apple does would take all of the fun out of looking into new releases. Honestly, if I used OS X I wouldn't be searching the web constantly for news on their newest installment of OS X because the changes are never major. All the Apple users get excited over a new Finder, a darker theme, or simply just hundreds of bug fixes. OS X 10.0 was released. Mac users, who had already paid some ungodly marked up price for their hardware or possibly full-price for OS X 10.0, pay for what I would consider small updates compared to new versions of Windows that Microsoft releases. That sounds like a rip off to me. Mac users that have bought every release of OS X since 10.0 have paid $649.75 US dollars, not including tax. Soon it will be $779.70 when 10.6 is released. Looking at an operating system level, had you bought every copy of OSX that would mean that your computer didn't come with it. In this situation someone could have bought the $99 upgrade to XP Home when it was released, all the service packs were free, then bought the the Vista Home Premium Upgrade for, right now, as low as $80. I know this is an incredibly unlikely situation given the state of hardware over the years, it just gives you an idea of how much Microsoft charges for an OS that runs on any PC and now Macs compared to how much Apple charges for their operating system which only works on Macs.

Are you referring to all Mac users by saying that? Because I haven't paid for every version of OS X since 10.0.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 4:23 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Did I say every Mac user? What does that mean, are you telling us that you buy a new Mac every two years or that you pirate OS X?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:15 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Tue Jun 26, 2007 12:13 am

Posts
229

Favourite OS
Windows 7 SP1
I hope they sell it for a lower price. I paid $160 for Vista in April of 2007 and I would disappointed if I had to do so again in June 2009.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 8:39 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat May 12, 2007 1:05 pm

Posts
5271

Location
The Collection Book

Favourite OS
Windows & Phone
Who is ''forcing'' you to upgrade.
Some people here run Windows 98 or Windows 2000 or Windows XP or Windows Vista and some exceptions are Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008.

_________________
Image
http://www.thecollectionbook.info
Subscribe to our Image for updates and like us on Image.

Reading Mode only, PM's possible.


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 9:59 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
DjRob wrote:
Who is ''forcing'' you to upgrade.
Some people here run Windows 98 or Windows 2000 or Windows XP or Windows Vista and some exceptions are Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008.


Heh, the thought actually never occurred to me. :oops: Sorry.

The point was that they charge for updates which are close, in the amount of difference they make, to the updates that end up into Windows for free by service packs/free Microsoft software.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2008 10:21 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Most people do want to upgrade though, I for one would ever use an old version as my main OS when there was something newer and better out! (as long as my PC could run it)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 21 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