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
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.
quote: and the next Windows iteration will be highly different from Vista.
quote: Agreed. I would think they would be saving money by just keeping the same OS but patching it.
quote: I actually preferred XP's long life...
quote: There is only one feature microsoft needs to implement: Windows without a registry.
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."
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?