Microsoft brings Windows 7 forward

Given how they rushed Vista out, it does not bode well for whatever the successor will be.
I'll wait for the evaluations to make myself an opinion, but in any case, if there is so much as a whiff of the merest hint of DRM functionality in Win7, then I'll stick to XP (again).

M1, M2 ect are used all the time for milestones. M stands for milestone. You probably already know this and are just having a good laugh :-)

What makes you think that the next Windows will be any better?

Plus, I don't see anything really bad in Vista at the moment. Only that I won't be able to run 16 bit programs anymore, but that I can handle in XP. With a fast computer Vista is way better than XP. Just check here:
http://futuremark.yougamers.com/forum/showthread.php?t=72298

If you don't have a fast computer, then you shouldn't bother with Vista. XP is over five years older so of course it runs smoother. As for DRM and HDCP, just get equipment that support it, no problem. Only an idiot buys $1000 stuff and then complain the lack of HDCP support without having a look at the specs before buying.

Vista is the future and it's not that bad as the drivers are beginning to work.

So an untested and pretty lousy OS is to be rapidly replaced with something more untested and probably a lot more lousy.
I'm glad my silicon has something else to play with.

Mary Jo Folley has made Ultie so SAD. Its mere imagination: to BUG World. XP dosn't end retail till fall'8, so sure as acne, things are going to take another 18 months with Ultie sp2 in there. Finally NT6 hardware will be stabilizing, with devices for Ultimate Fruitating like wild boers. That means second hardware update in general sense & fitting nt6 vista ultimate into 7. So Ultie Jo now thinks complete NT6 retail with OEM equipment is 2011 speculation, YOU heard it from monarch.
thomas s von drashek

I guess if Vista was more popular they wouldn't be supporting 32-bit processors and just going 64-bit only?

I don't see why M$ don't just throw the towel in, start putting resources into Open Source software (like WINE, which I'm sure they could offer lots of knowledge to) and make their money selling software as a service (and using their brand to do the selling). Heck, I bet if they released a version of Linux that ran Windows programs well they'd even out sell Ubuntu.

Of course, I don't see any of this happening.

Rob

Before Windows XP we were used to new MS OS's every 2 to 3 years, so i'd think late 2009 early 2010 is about the right time.
windows 95 was replaced in 97 by windows 98, which was replaced in 99 by ME, which was replaced in 2001 with windows XP.

You could argue that Windows XP is 3 OS's XP, XPSP1, and XPSP2, they are all as defferent as 95/98/me were to each other. thet only real difference was MS didn't charge you to update to XPSP1 or XPSP2 unlike windows 95 to 98 to me (don't let me forget apple to upgrade OSX 10.4 to 10.5 please pay mr jobs £100)

"XP is over five years older so of course it runs smoother."

This assumption is such a sad commentary on Microsoft. Of course their older software works better. Of course anything new they write will be crap (even if it is based on the older, better code.) 

Just who have they been hiring for the past decade?

I've got to say, here you are saying this is proof that Microsoft is throwing in the towel over Vista and that your constant statements that Vista sucks are being proven true.

I won't harp over how little Vista actually sucks (as I usually mention, I run it at home and love it), but instead concentrate on this roadmap.

The delay between XP and Vista was the EXCEPTION to the rule. There is supposed to be a new version of Windows every two to three years, and Microsoft has clearly stated that their plan is not to stray from that anymore, unlike with Vista. And they have no choice, what with Apple doing roughly annual updates.

So with that in mind, this timeline is right on the money. Two years from the launch of Vista (not considering likely delays that will place it closer to three years) is not an attempt to sweep Vista under the rug, or admit it's a dud. It's merely an effort to make good on expectations and promises, and get things back on track. We'll see a lot less of the blow-ups that were seen with Vista when people start getting used to new OSes every couple of years like they used to be.

I love your site, but your constant bashing of Vista for the fun of it, and constant effort to attach ANYTHING bad to being the fault of Vista or Microsoft is wearing thin. You guys used to be MORE objective than the mainstream sites, but lately you seem to just enjoy beating a dead donkey that you prefer to claim is a horse.

I have a new laptop with Vista and a c2d T5550 processor and playing mp3 requires up to 23% processor power! It took less than 1% on an old laptop with Celeron M320 and XP! Don't blame drivers but Vista "antipiracy" drivers model which leaves expensive sound card hardware useless until user installs OpenAL software of Linux origin!

i guest vista is to Windows 98 and WIN7 is to windows ME. although maybe the next operating system from microsoft would of learn from the issues vista has.

Seriously, People should be helping microsoft realize that what hurts Vista is the split 32/64-bit platform, they should offer only 64-bit versions of this software simply because it makes sense, RAM is cheap, hardware has been 64-bit for a few years. Its time to cut out some of the legacy support and move forward, MAC did this a few years ago. 

I also blame review sites for asking this obvious question and suggesting that 64-bit should be a requirement for future OS's. I mean Vista should have been 64-bit only. 

Please don't suggest that Vista should be run on those ancient 32-bit only CPUs this is why it gets a bad rap, it wasnt meant to run on your old Pentium 3.2 Prescott CPU.

This is the problem with Vista: it was rushed out and all the good stuff got cut out, leaving pretty looking malware. Windows 7 will surely, hopefully, have the features that were cut from Vista, but what kind of a new OS is that?? Or rather, what kind of an OS does that make Vista? Makes Vista look even worse and will likely really anger those who purchased it. Buyers remorse.

Secondly, are 32bit processors still being bought? In large quantity? Will they really make up a significant portion of the market in 2009 or 2010? 
I just switched to XP 64bit and had very little trouble running 32bit programs- just download all the .Nets and x86, x64 versions of Visual C++2005 to get The Witcher (game) running, nothing else complained at all. 

I wish they would make it (Win7) a hybrid like XP64, so it can run legacy software and or new 32bit software, but still require a 64bit processor so we can move forward in easy extra performance, for everyone.

If Microsoft is rushing the next Windows out, then you can be assured that the implicit message is that Vista is crap and Microsoft knows it. Not only that, but there is no way to fix Vista, and a total replacement is required.

Now, what worries me is Microsoft doing this. Microsoft is a company with a long history of hurried product releases, bug ridden poorly tested products, and of forcing end users to effectively become unwitting beta testers. So, having Microsoft rushing the development of something as large and complex as Windows creates ripples of uncertainty in the force.....

I had zero desire for Vista and that led me to Ubuntu. It's not perfect, but I feel much better using it than taking it up the yin yang. Windows 7 is Windows 2L8.

One more thing Microsoft has to do now is rename "Windows Vista" to "Windows Me II" and everyone will be happy again :-)

"a c2d T5550 processor and playing mp3 requires up to 23% processor power!" Sounds like asking your car to pull a small planet behind it.

I remember playing mp3's at college on a 486 DX-2 66MHz! We had to turn the quality down to the level of Winamp (get good audio equipment and compare it to the MAD mp3 library), but it otherwise worked just fine. We could even write and compile software at the same time, all while surfing the internet.

The real sign Vista's failed will be when Directx 10 is officially released for XP...

Not that I've got anything against Vista - I prefer it to XP at home. I always the best antidote to getting misty-eyed about XP is to remember what it was like pre-SP1 :P