backtop


Print 79 comment(s) - last by Domicinator.. on Feb 16 at 11:55 PM

The follow-up to Windows Vista should arrive in calendar year 2009

Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has already proclaimed that there is "More where that came from" when it comes to operating systems. According to PC World, 2009 is when we can expect more "wow" from Microsoft. During that year, Microsoft is expected to release the follow-up to Windows Vista which is codenamed Vienna.

Microsoft doesn't want another repeat of the 5-year drought between the release of Windows XP and Windows Vista, so the company is accelerating its plans for its next generation operating system.

The time and effort that should have been exerted on Windows Vista were instead diverted to getting Windows XP SP2 out the door. "Then when we came back to it, we realized that there were incremental things that we wanted to do, and significant improvements that we wanted to make in Vista that we couldn't deliver in one release," said Ben Fathi, a corporate VP in Microsoft's Windows Core Operating System Division.

The lack of focus resulted in a number of features being dropped from the initial release of Windows Vista. These included WinFS, native HD DVD and FireWire-B support, enhanced speech recognition and PC-to-PC sync.

Some of these shortcomings will be addressed with the first service pack for Vista, codename Fiji. A fully realized version of WinFS, however, will likely not appear until Vienna.

Fathi declined to comment on what exactly to expect with Vienna, but simply left PC World with these musings: “We're going to look at a fundamental piece of enabling technology. Maybe its hypervisors, I don't know what it is. Maybe it's a new user interface paradigm for consumers." According to Fathi, we’ll have to stay tuned within the next few months to see what exactly Microsoft has up its sleeves for Vienna.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Damn
By bunnyfubbles on 2/12/2007 12:20:03 AM , Rating: 5
I actually preferred XP's long life...




RE: Damn
By Duwelon on 2/12/2007 12:30:27 AM , Rating: 4
Me too. I'm liking Vista and all but Microsoft can go suck an egg if they think I'll shell out $400 for their best OS every couple years.


RE: Damn
By timmiser on 2/12/2007 1:47:31 AM , Rating: 4
All this is is MS going back to the way things were with Windows 95/98/Me. If you recall back in those days, people didn't automatically upgrade their OS when MS came out with a new windows version. However, with the XP longer life route, EVERY pc upgraded to XP over the coarse of it's life.

Myself, knowing that MS will release a new OS in two more years, I just might hold off on a Vista upgrade and wait for Vienna. If I knew Vista was good for 5-6 years like XP was, I'd be buying Vista this year knowing I would eventually have to get it anyway.

-Tim


RE: Damn
By Bonrock on 2/12/2007 3:21:49 AM , Rating: 2
"If I knew Vista was good for 5-6 years like XP was, I'd be buying Vista this year knowing I would eventually have to get it anyway."

You do realize that your copy of Windows Vista will continue to function just fine even after Vienna is released, right? If you would hypothetically be happy with Vista for the next 5-6 years, the release of Vienna shouldn't change that.


RE: Damn
By SunAngel on 2/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Damn
By rushfan2006 on 2/12/2007 8:37:42 AM , Rating: 3
Whoa..SunAngel, that comment you made is entirely un-called for in every regard. Its folks with your "let's find some put down for EVERY thing I read" that just stroke the flames of anger and pollutes any kind of read conversation with some meaning of being had. Oh yes, and it makes you come off as an incredible ass.



RE: Damn
By rushfan2006 on 2/12/2007 8:39:08 AM , Rating: 3
EDIT: Should have been "REAL conversation"....




RE: Damn
By SunAngel on 2/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Damn
By Etsp on 2/12/2007 10:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell happened to free will? That is assuming your god is a Christian god...


RE: Damn
By SunAngel on 2/12/07, Rating: -1
RE: Damn
By AfroCelt on 2/12/2007 11:32:35 AM , Rating: 2
so...earlier...being a "follower" as opposed to a "leader"? yeah...


RE: Damn
By Scorpion on 2/12/2007 12:18:08 PM , Rating: 4
God has me earmarked as a sexual predator. Therefore, there's nothing I can do. Why he would want me to be this, I don't know. Nor do I know why God would want someone to be an "ass", but all I know is that's what he wants of me. How do I know? He told me. I just feel like I should be this way because it satisfies me, so therefore God must want me to be this way right?


Disclaimer: This is Sarcasm people!


RE: Damn
By timmiser on 2/12/2007 6:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
True...Just like my copy of XP will continue to function. However, Vienna will have more features, so if I hold off for only 2 years, I'll at least save $150 per PC ($450 total) by doing the Vienna upgrade. Plus it may just be another couple years before the DX10 games really start showing up in abundance.


RE: Damn
By Crank the Planet on 2/12/2007 7:35:46 PM , Rating: 2
Why upgrade to Vista if Vienna is coming so soon? There are no DX10 games and that's about the only thing MS has going for it anymore. There's almost no reason to upgrade from XP. Wait for WinFS? Really? What is it going to advantage me over XP's file system? Am I the Average Joe really going to NEED WinFS? DX10 I can possibly see but right now the implementation sux or has almost no advantage over DX9. Check out the link. I think the smart play is to say no to Vista and wait for Vienna to put on your game box. Any other box can stick with XP.

http://www.viperlair.com/articles/editorials/vista...


RE: Damn
By outsider on 2/14/2007 5:59:20 AM , Rating: 2
Ok...
1. DirectX 10 is a Windows Vista only technology.
2. Office 2007 and almost all other software released 6 years after the release of the succesor to Windows 2000, work on Windows 2000. Do you think software "Class of 2013" will work on Windows XP?
3. I'm sure very soon HD video support for Win XP and 2000 will phase out because of no integrated HDCP.
4. Some of Vista's internals are so different from those of XP (and 2000) that software houses will tend to drop support as soon as possible to relieve some of the load.
......and much much, but I made the point.

The long life of Win XP had an impact also on Windows 2000. For half a decade people got the peace of mind that they could skip reading the OS section of "System Requirements". I upgraded to Windows XP only in 2006, but I will surely miss this OS, maybe even more than Windows 2000. Very stable, excellent support, never looking old. I even like its interface more than the glassy Windows Media Center 2005.
With Vista Microsoft completely lost the focus. The OS is like a half upgrade. At the same time, Vista is highly different from XP, and the next Windows iteration will be highly different from Vista.


RE: Damn
By timmiser on 2/16/2007 4:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
and the next Windows iteration will be highly different from Vista.


I'm not so sure about that. If Vienna is only 2 years away, I'm sure it will be similar to the difference between Win95 to Win98 or Win98 to WinMe


RE: Damn
By Omega215D on 2/12/2007 10:20:42 AM , Rating: 2
It seems that WinFS may actually see the light of day. What's Firewire-B?


RE: Damn
By jamesbond007 on 2/12/2007 11:30:56 AM , Rating: 2
FireWire-B is the 800Mbps version that Apple released a while back.


RE: Damn
By Brassbullet on 2/12/2007 8:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
Firewire-B, aka Firewire 800 or 1394b.

Its pretty good stuff, but the lack of support means there's not a whole lot that uses it effectively.


RE: Damn
By Chadder007 on 2/12/2007 1:13:14 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I would think they would be saving money by just keeping the same OS but patching it. Its not like many new computers would be going without an XP license anyway. So they would still get their money from OEMs.


RE: Damn
By S3anister on 2/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Damn
By Rockjock51 on 2/12/2007 3:02:49 AM , Rating: 2
Not what he meant. He was saying "keep Vista and patch it instead of releasing Vienna"


RE: Damn
By OrSin on 2/12/2007 9:00:02 AM , Rating: 2
This is getting crazy. First no SP3 for Xp until 2008.
Can we get a service pack eveyyear and a Feture update when every thye want. SP2 should have been call R2 becasue it was feature update and jsut a service pack. Second how int he hell are them comnig out with a new OS just 3 years from now when we wont even have a SP2 for Vista out yet. They know most Compnaies dont upgrade unitl SP1. Why get a new OS just 1 year later. It will actually slow down sell. Business are already slow to upgrade and test. If XP get another SP in 2008 most business will skip Vista all together and and just wait another year for the new OS to SP up.


RE: Damn
By Schadenfroh on 2/12/2007 8:43:00 AM , Rating: 1
Windows 2000 still rocks today!


RE: Damn
By EODetroit on 2/12/2007 11:11:55 AM , Rating: 2
Its true, I still do everything I do on my XP box just as well on my 2000 box. Its faster, in fact, without all the SP2 garbage slowing it down, in many respects.

Oh and Vista offers nothing of value, I'm not buying it. I'll consider Vienna if I can customize the UI to look like NT and if the new file system is worth a damn.


RE: Damn
By PWNettle on 2/12/2007 4:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Aww, come on, you don't want to pay $400 for an unnecessary and trivial upgrade now, and god knows how much for another similar upgrade in 2 years?

I like Microsoft, love Win XP, and really think they're high on something if they think Vista is worth more than $100 for the ultimate version, IF there was full driver support and backwards compatability. Maybe another $50 for it all to work flawlessly in 64 bit too.


RE: Damn
By Mithan on 2/12/2007 9:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I actually preferred XP's long life...


Yes, it made the software worth purchasing. There is no way in hell I am going to blow $200-300 every couple years on an Operating System either.


RE: Damn
By daidaloss on 2/16/07, Rating: -1
RE: Damn
By ultimatebob on 2/12/2007 10:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't worry about Vista becoming obsolete too quickly. Remember that Windows Longhorn (AKA Vista) was originally supposed to be released in 2004, just three years after the ship date for XP!

I would be downright amazed if we even saw a beta by 2010.


just think
By sprockkets on 2/12/2007 12:35:55 AM , Rating: 1
The next version will have DRM on everything, require 4GB of RAM minimum just to run, a quad core processor, and drop all legacy support for anything, like agp.

I wonder how viruses would store under winfs? Would an sql query find them by their signature everytime, never being able to hide?

There is only one feature microsoft needs to implement: Windows without a registry.




RE: just think
By Duwelon on 2/12/2007 1:05:21 AM , Rating: 2
I hate abortions of code such as Symantec programs that make the registry look bad.


RE: just think
By joust on 2/12/2007 1:20:56 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
There is only one feature microsoft needs to implement: Windows without a registry.

The alternative to windows without a registry is having a cubic assload of config files. Which is worse? A centralized, steaming pile of shit we call the Registry? Or little turds scattered about?

The issue is that basically there are tens of thousands of parameters needed to run different components and applications within an OS. I hope that whatever happens, the number of keys gets reduced and the settings are stored in an intuitive manner. (ie, none of this HKeyLocalMachine business)

I agree, certainly, maybe we are better off without the registry. But it certainly doesn't solve all our problems -- and I fear a half-baked alternative making deep Windows settings even harder to manage.

It'll be interesting to see what'll happen to WinFS. As Operating Systems become less relevant (due to AJAX and online services), I wonder if MS will really bother to update file systems.


RE: just think
By GaryJohnson on 2/12/2007 2:33:41 AM , Rating: 2
My PC's registry conatins a 'pile' of entries AND I have a cubed (10^3=1000) load of .ini and .cfg files.

Quote from the Microsoft Knowledge Base:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/256986/
quote:
"The Registry replaces most of the text-based .ini files used in Windows 3.x and MS-DOS configuration files, such as the Autoexec.bat and Config.sys."


So then why do we still have Autoexec.bat and Config.sys file?!


RE: just think
By Russell on 2/12/2007 2:37:45 AM , Rating: 2
So then why do we still have Autoexec.bat and Config.sys file?!

Legacy application support.

Though my none of XP installs had either of those files, nor does my Vista now. I think applications sometimes create them if they are required.


RE: just think
By Tamale on 2/12/2007 12:18:42 PM , Rating: 2
yes they do. turn on viewing of hidden files and folders.. all xp installs have an autoexec.bat, config.sys, and boot.ini.


RE: just think
By sprockkets on 2/12/2007 10:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
OK, how about not making it binary.


RE: just think
By borowki on 2/12/2007 10:49:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The alternative to windows without a registry is having a cubic assload of config files. Which is worse? A centralized, steaming pile of shit we call the Registry? Or little turds scattered about?


No, that's not the only alternative. The main reason, in my opinion, the registry sucks so bad is that it's a hierarchical database. It's an outdated, handicapped model. The relational model is far more powerful, robust, and humanly understandable. Hopefully with the introduction of WinFS Microsoft will finally junk the registry in favor of a SQL-based system for storing configuration info.


RE: just think
By Tyler 86 on 2/13/2007 8:15:02 AM , Rating: 2
The registry can be implemented on top of an relational "SQL-like" structure, plus features. An entirely new layer can even be introduced for configuration information...

It doesn't frickin' matter.

Abolish the registry all together. Have all of the system, user, group, etc... configurations unique, ala policy management.
Currently most policy is managed through the registry; that needs to go, too.

Let individual applications store their configurations in their own configuration files in their own configuration directories in their own configuration formats for their own configuration purposes... Why? Because the good ones do that anyway.
Sure, feel free to provide a standard to format & parse, it's only expected, Microsoft.
Memory constraintive XML storage preferred.

The steaming pile of crap called the registry costs far more overall than what are practicly "lab slides" of crap called "config files". Not land slides, lab slides; like a drop of crap between two pieces of glass for easy reading, and environmental tolerance.
The registry is segmented in some ways for it's own protection, but not segmented enough to survive even minimal tampering. Blue screen of frickin' death, ya'll.


Who will give a rat's ass?
By SleepNoMore on 2/12/2007 1:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
Look, I'm nearly exclusively an MS user. 7 PCs. (Occasionally use uBuntu Linux). Win2K had rough edges. For me things work in XP. I just got my machines suitably fast, at a substantial investment. I will make one, maybe 2 of my current machines Vista(Just ordered a 2 GB RAM kit for one of them)...and that's only because I can get a very special (legal) deal on it.
Why on God's earth would I want Vienna which is a self-created hardware expenditure for a problem that doesn't exist?? Sheesh. People will balk, businesses will balk. My work has * deep * pockets and we willingly went to XP back in 2002 on 9600 computers but we are in NO rush to go to Vista.
(I would guess Vienna will probably have what 300 - 400 services too! Security holes you can drive a truck through..) On a fresh XP install a build a couple weeks back - basic Express patching from an SP2 baseline was 69 patches! 52 minutes to download at 3Mbps down.

Unless Vienna has * perfect * 3-D gesture recognition and perfect voice recognition...and we both know that wont happen...I don't know who will be buying it.





RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By drebo on 2/12/2007 2:25:05 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah. Seriously.

I mean, if I can't have a computer like the ones from Star Trek, where I can say "Computer, make me a cup of tea" or "Computer, detail and catalog every thought I've had about chicken soup over the last four years and then search it for ones that delt with lentils and order them by date, time, length, and relevance", I don't want it!

Really.


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By Russell on 2/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By SleepNoMore on 2/12/2007 2:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Look pal, namecalling aside. It's not worth my hassle to make a slipstream package for the very occasional reformat on my home network. At work Desktop Engineering would does that and it makes sense. I was speaking to the sheer amount of patches for XP SP2 at this point in time - Joe Average and grandma are going to be dealing with that at 1/4 of the bandwidth I have.


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By Russell on 2/12/2007 2:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
Well, my apologies regarding the slipstreaming. I thought you were talking about doing this at work. Considering up until then your post was about work and you did not mention a change of environment, I think my assumption was sound.

But you can still eat me.


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By Rockjock51 on 2/12/2007 3:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Joe Average and Grandma aren't installing Windows themselves. They're going to get it from Dell or HP. It's going to come with 9000 pre-installed programs which includes the patches for Windows. First you complain about security holes. Then you complain about the fixes for them taking too long to download. 59 minutes for 5 years of patching, an eternity indeed. If your formating is occasional enough for it to be not worth your time to create a slipstream package (about 15 minutes of work, yet you complain that it takes you 59 minutes to patch) then how is it a problem at all? If you never format, you never patch again.


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By PrinceGaz on 2/12/2007 5:27:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the 69 or so patches are the number of critical updates listed on the Windows Update site after a fresh install of XP with SP2, not the original XP release.

Having recently repartitioned and formatted my drive to make room for Ubuntu (and also Vista when I have time to install it), the amount of critical updates that need to be applied is getting ridiculous. It's going to get even worse before it gets better as SP3 is currently not expected until 1H 2008 (and that date is only preliminary).


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By Rockjock51 on 2/12/2007 12:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
My mistake. However I still don't understand why it's such a burden to create a slipstream disc after you've downloaded all these patches. It's a 1 time thing that will save you 45 minutes if you only install 1 more time. If you install more than that... I think you can see it will save you a lot. As for the number of patches, I can't see how having that many patches is bad. It may take an hour to download, but an hour isn't that long. Would you rather they leave the truck sized holes open? Even if it were all one file I can't see it taking significantly less time.


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By PrinceGaz on 2/12/2007 5:27:50 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the 69 or so patches are the number of critical updates listed on the Windows Update site after a fresh install of XP with SP2, not the original XP release.

Having recently repartitioned and formatted my drive to make room for Ubuntu (and also Vista when I have time to install it), the amount of critical updates that need to be applied is getting ridiculous. It's going to get even worse before it gets better as SP3 is currently not expected until 1H 2008 (and that date is only preliminary).


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By FITCamaro on 2/12/2007 7:32:07 AM , Rating: 2
69 patches. What's your point? Would you rather they dumb all the patches into one huge file, constantly updating it for new one? The OS has been out for 6 years. Obviously theres going to be a buttload of patches. What software doesn't have them routinely? OS X has quite a few patches itself.

Software as complex as an OS is going to have bugs and flaws that need to be patched. Simple as that.


RE: Who will give a rat's ass?
By darkpaw on 2/12/2007 3:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
Yah, seriously 69 patches: big deal.

I setup a Fedora Core 6 Virtual Machine in my audit lab over the weekend and it took almost 4 hours to fully patch. I think there were over 200 packages that were out of date and then dependencies..

I used to bitch about patching a fresh SP2 install, but trying patching a fresh full Linux install.



Monolithic Operating System?
By dcollins on 2/12/2007 3:48:57 AM , Rating: 2
Sometimes I think I'm the only person in the world who is concerned that my operating system hasn't changed significantly in 6 years. Other than a firewall I have deactivated, a security center that swears I don't have virus protection, and... somethings else, windows hasn't changed AT ALL. And, no I haven't upgraded to Vista yet, b/c $300 isn't exactly in a college student budget.

Why not release features incrementally, every 6-12 months and never require monolithic upgrades at all? These days everyone else seems to be able to upgrade their software modularly and incrementally, what's the problem at Microsoft? And, nearly every other major software company has an open-source segment for those that want to live on the edge, where is the Open Windows Project? Maybe I'm just a open source nut, but "release early, release often" always made a lot of sense to me.




RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By otispunkmeyer on 2/12/2007 4:08:43 AM , Rating: 2
$300 isnt

but £62 is

vista ultimate OEM can be had for £62. OEM really is all most people will need.


RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By Merry on 2/12/2007 4:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Care to give us a link for that? Because for £62 I would consider it, as its for my laptop so it really wouldn't matter if it were OEM of not.

I think you might be thinking of the OEM for Home Premium, but then i haven't seen that for £62!

Saying that I still don't think I'd buy it. I need to spend £40 on a book for my course and another £30 putting petrol in the car. The joys of student life eh?! :p


RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By PrinceGaz on 2/12/2007 5:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
£62 for Vista Ultimate OEM? I'd like the link for that too. Unless it is from one of those "cheap software" spam emails because they are the only place where I've seen it anything like that cheap.


RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By Wonga on 2/12/2007 1:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can get the Vista Home Premium Retail Upgrade Academic version (bit of a mouthful) for £61.85 from ebuyer.com, plus postage. That's a pretty good price for a retail upgrade... when they get it in stock.


RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By TheBaker on 2/12/2007 8:21:23 AM , Rating: 3
If you want a flashy new redesigned OS that is significantly different than XP, go buy a Mac. OS X is honestly what most people want without realizing it. This from a guy who uses a Mac at work and will NEVER spend the extra cash at home that Apple wants for mediocre hardware, but their OS sure is slick.

Give MS a few years. This is a clear case of convergent design. People are getting more savvy and know more precisely what they want out of an OS. Both companies try to meet that, and they are gradually getting closer and closer to being the same thing with different color schemes. It goes all the way back to Windows 3.x and early Mac OS's. Each time a new OS comes out, they cut the useless features, add in useful features, and try to make it completely streamlined for the user (theoretically). They each copy the things the other one did right, leave out the stuff that didn't work, and try some new things of their own. Then a few years later, the other side does the same thing. It leads to OS's that are very similar, and the only differences in a few years will be cosmetic.


RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By MrDiSante on 2/12/2007 9:40:57 PM , Rating: 2
Buddy, this is what Vista is supposed to be about. Make it not monolithic. It is now split into 50 components and shouldn't be anywhere near as much of a pain in the behind to alter. As for XP: it now has IE7 which is completely restructured, WMP11 which may or may not be considered a major upgrade, different ActiveX handling, different downloaded file handling. Actually, just try using XP SP1 without getting buttloads of malware. I dare you.


RE: Monolithic Operating System?
By leexgx on 2/14/2007 10:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
heh on XP SP1 or lower just pluging the or connecting to the internet is an big mestake (unless behind router or an ISP that Blocks the Ports that MSblaster type of worms use)



Hell..
By shaw on 2/12/2007 2:15:21 AM , Rating: 3
Why not release one every year! Consumers love to spend money! Wouldn't you all agree? The more money we spend on software the happier we are!




RE: Hell..
By soydios on 2/12/2007 3:17:49 AM , Rating: 2
I concur with your sarcasm.


RE: Hell..
By Wonga on 2/12/2007 1:28:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hear hear!


The lack of focus resulted in.............
By crystal clear on 2/12/2007 3:01:26 AM , Rating: 2
"The time and effort that should have been exerted on Windows Vista were instead diverted to getting Windows XP SP2 out the door."

Unquote-
Then he will say this-

#The Time/Money/Manpower & Effort should have been exerted on
"FIJI" were instead diverted to getting Windows VISTA SP1 out the door"

#Then
The TIME/............exerted on "VIENA" were instead diverted ......"FIJI" out of the door.

STOP announcing DEADLINES or TARGET DATES,because EXPERIENCE has shown YOU CANNOT MEET THEM.

Rather get the stuff ready & then announce it.

First cook it, then announce "dinner is ready", then serve it.




RE: The lack of focus resulted in.............
By ghost101 on 2/12/2007 3:42:24 AM , Rating: 2
vista sp1 = fiji


By crystal clear on 2/12/2007 4:05:09 AM , Rating: 2
sorry for the mix up


Probably...
By Merry on 2/12/2007 4:21:57 AM , Rating: 2
A good thing really. Perhaps it shows MS is behaving in a non-monopolistic manner, although it could quite easily suggest that they are too.

I think that they're throwing their considerable resources into releasing new products faster than the Opensource community/Apple can in order to maintain their market position. It would make sense really, but then I dont think any of the aforementioned groups have a chance at denting MS's Position in the near future so all in all this news just puzzles me. I would think that, given the short time between Vista and this new OS would suggest that the new OS is going to be a slight upgrade, a bit like 2000 to XP, possibly including some of the features they had to leave out of Vista in order to maintain the release schedule, or at least minimize the delay.

Either way, as long as the new OS is an improvement on Vista, it can only be a good thing. Unless they start forcing upgrades every other year, which I highly doubt they will.

On a side note, if they are saying they will release a new OS in 2009 surely that means that they're already well on the way to having a working prototype/already have one? Didn't Vista first get shown in 2003?




RE: Probably...
By Forrest on 2/12/2007 5:32:13 AM , Rating: 2
they are releasing product fast now because of ONE reason... $$$ BLING $$$ BLING $$$

they are a Mature company looking to satisfy Wal Street just like any Mature company... they have to look for other areas of Growth.. IE.. Mice/Keyboards/Joysticks, Xbox, Zune, etc... so they release new OS's every couple years.. it for one reason or another makes people and companies buy new hardware etc., which makes Dell/HP/Lenovo/Intel/AMD etc. very happy....

I personally think every 3-4 years is the sweet spot for corporate America... 2 years is waaaaaay too soon for upgrades.....it's a total waste of time and money for companies....

think about it... what technically is compelling a company to upgrade to Vista today? absolutely nothing....XP could be ran for another 2-3 years, probably more...

it's a fierce cycle of waste... some top dog in the company wants the "latest greatest" toys at work just like they get at home so they tell IT Managers to "make it happen"... without any technical compelling reason as all....


Hahaha...
By Jeff7181 on 2/12/2007 1:00:13 PM , Rating: 3
Duh! Of course they want to sell you a $200-400 piece of software every 2 years instead of every 5 years. :D




Forced Upgrading
By TheFro on 2/12/2007 1:34:10 PM , Rating: 3
Knowing Microsoft, they'll probably bundle DirectX 11 (or whatever it's going to be called) into Windows Vienna and not offer upgrades for Windows Vista; same for Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, and any other of their OS integrated applications, forcing all that want the new features to upgrade.





.....
By Forrest on 2/12/2007 3:24:34 AM , Rating: 2
every 2 years! it takes us 2 years just to upgrade all our pc's! (app testing, image preparation, rollout etc.)(50,000+ pc's)... we've been hitting every other release so we'll either jump over vista or skip Vienna...




At the RSA conference..
By crystal clear on 2/12/2007 4:02:26 AM , Rating: 2
Some useful additions to the article-

Qoute-

That would be a much faster turn-around than Vista, which shipped more than five years after Windows XP, but Vista was exceptional, said Ben Fathi, corporate vice president of development with Microsoft's Windows Core Operating System Division this week at the RSA Conference in San Fransisco.
Microsoft originally planned for its XP follow-up to include a number of radical changes to Windows, including a new file system and a reinvented user interface, but after the company's products were hit by widespread worm outbreaks in 2003, Microsoft redirected almost its entire engineering effort to locking down Windows with the XP Service Pack 2 release.

"We put Longhorn on the back burner for awhile," Fathi said.

Unquote-Note this is important.

"but after the company's products were hit by widespread worm outbreaks in 2003, Microsoft redirected almost its entire engineering effort to locking down Windows with the XP Service Pack 2 release.

"We put Longhorn on the back burner for awhile," Fathi said.

Quote-

"Last year, Microsoft said that the code name for this Vista follow-up is Vienna, but Fathi said he could not disclose the current name. "We've been told not to use it "

http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/02/09/HNvistaf...

Not for long, somebody will leak it sooner or later.(follow up)






"hypervisors"
By crystal clear on 2/12/2007 4:32:42 AM , Rating: 2
"what exactly Microsoft has up its sleeves for Vienna."

Ars Technica expands on this issue-

Often called "full virtualization," this runs directly on the hardware in question and virtualizes it, providing a common hardware base to all operating environments running atop that virtualized hardware. The virtualization software is designed to handle hardware arbitration and optimize resource sharing, and that's basically it. This allows for considerably improved performance, and both AMD and Intel are working hard to promote this kind of virtualization in Pacifica and Vanderpool, respectively

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars




Vienna
By stance on 2/12/2007 8:07:31 AM , Rating: 2
I have always thought since the day of Commadore amiga vs IBM pc, Its the user interface and how the smart designed
the OS is. It has been a slow road and i hope Vienna's desktop is Big change. Vista taskbar is very Disappointing
We have four computers in the house for the family. If
Apple makes the MacOS for sale where i can buy it to run
on my pc I'll buy to just to play around with it. I know
Vista will improve greatly and user interface will be able to Reconfigure for use by programmer or user.

In the future it is at a time where it is about how it
looks, microsoft needs to hire UI programmers that are
also artists get the old bryce 3d or Kai's guys and give
them some direction. microsoft has to many managers

Just some off the head comments, I'm a user that would when
i look at the OS "Windows, Menu's,Title bars" that there is warm tone to it. where everything is sleek well thought out. looks and makes you really think "WOW"




.
By DeepBlue1975 on 2/12/2007 9:18:42 AM , Rating: 2
I will pass on Vista. It's too much of an incremental step for me (a very good one, may I say, but not large enough) to justify upgrading, and unless new released applications that I need require Vista (would there be so much of those, considering that Vista's lifespan is porjected for only 2 years? I bet that if that's the case, Vista's most optimized apps, drivers and games will start to appear when it's already replaced by Vienna)
I hope Vienna offers much from what I expect from a new OS than Vista does...
I want almost flawless speech recognition, a true 3d interface and a 100% performance oriented version, no bloat, no more stuff than the necessary for you to work faster and more reliably, except for a true comfortable 3d UI and state of the art speech recognition so that we finally start to get rid of keyboards.




So in reality........
By marvdmartian on 2/12/2007 9:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
.....considering the schedule -vs- reality of Longhorn/Vista, we should really expect to see Vienna (Sausage) operating system somewhere in the timeframe of 2012 to 2014, right? ;)




Another reason to dump vista
By indianpunk on 2/12/2007 10:57:20 AM , Rating: 2
But hey being a gamer and a pc upgrade due in april it will be hard to avoid it but those happy with xp plz stick with it

Vienna (Here in india we have an ice cream named that,Why cant ms find good names)




By EODetroit on 2/12/2007 11:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
The LAST thing we need is yet another "new user interface paradigm" that does nothing but make us learn another new user interface paradigm. I'm sick and tired of learning new UIs... I just want them to find one "paradigm" they like and stick with it. Car manufacturers don't re-invent the steering wheel every 3 years, why does Microsoft want to?




"Stand and deliver!"
By dluther on 2/12/2007 11:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
This sounds suspiciously like Microsoft gearing up for charging money for what will essentially be Vista 1.1 or 1.2.

Their new pricing scheme for Vista continues to boggle the mind, and their initial sales figures reflect that.




Reality check.......
By Domicinator on 2/16/2007 11:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, you have to consider the source here. Ballmer says stupid things all the time and usually ends up having to stick his foot in his mouth. I'm not taking his 2009 time frame too seriously.

Second, if this Vienna thing is really true, I think Microsoft needs to take a step back for a second. This is not the old days where people flock to the stores just to get their grubby paws on the brand new version of Windows the very same day it comes out. Windows gets more complicated with every new iteration, and therefore it takes longer and longer for each version to become completely stable. I didn't consider XP completely stable until about a year ago. The general public seems to know that this is the case with Windows these days. Nobody is going to wait overnight in line anymore for their copy if they know that it's going to take a year or two for their hardware or software to become compatible and/or stable with the new OS. For that very reason, it makes NO SENSE to already be talking about releasing a new OS. XP eventually became a thing of beauty. Why not let Vista progress into the same thing? Or here's a concept: just release the OS in a stable and secure state in the first place!!

All that being said, I put Vista Home Premium on my gaming machine. Oblivion doesn't run very well on it, but everything else is ok. But in the gaming category, I REALLY miss XP. So when I need to get my sanity back, I go back to my trusty laptop, which will probably be running XP until the day it dies. I like the interface of Vista a lot, but the gaming performance gets a D+ for now.




Weak
By XToneX on 2/12/2007 10:25:42 AM , Rating: 1
... They said there were plenty of things they wanted to put in Vista but didn't so they pushed it out anyway... shows how much effort they put into their crap. I hope vista falls on it's face... HARD.




Yeah, time.
By mindless1 on 2/14/07, Rating: 0
"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki