Microsoft points to 2010 as Windows 7 release year

The next version of Windows has already been the subject of a number of official statements from Microsoft, and the company has made no secret that it intends to cut the release cycle for its next operating system to around three years. However, the software behemoth hasn’t made it clear exactly when the three-year development cycle started, leading some to pin the release in 2009 while others favor 2010.

Luckily, the folks at Softpedia have managed to coax a more definite answer from Microsoft about the subject. They quote an e-mail from the software company as saying, “We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and development is scoped to three years from Windows Vista Consumer GA. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release.” In this case, the “GA” stands for “general availability,” referring to Vista’s January 30, 2007 public launch (and not the November 2006 enterprise launch).

In other words, Windows 7 is clearly scheduled to come out some time in 2010, presumably in the early part of the year. That schedule more closely reflects the consumer Windows release cycles from the 1990s, when Windows 3.1, Windows 95, and Windows 98 succeeded each other at roughly three-year intervals. The cycle was broken by the quick succession of Windows ME and Windows XP, followed by the five-year dry spell between the launches of Windows XP and Windows Vista.

Comments closed
    • herothezero
    • 11 years ago

    Exactly what is the appeal–particularly to businesses–of releasing new OS builds more than a three-to-five year schedule? Does anyone really think businesses want to upgrade faster than that? The consumer market is one thing–hell, look at the Macolytes buying point releases every year for $129–but I don’t see the demand for greater OS build releases in business.

    • YvonneJean
    • 11 years ago

    Hmm, what struck me most was the 2010 part of the title. “Twenty-Ten” would be a good year to stick on any product. Sounds so futuristic.

    • ish718
    • 11 years ago

    direct x 11?lol

    • indeego
    • 11 years ago

    2012 here we comeg{

    • odizzido
    • 11 years ago

    Windows 7…..this time it might not suck.

      • danny e.
      • 11 years ago

      agreed.. it has some potential to be what Vista should have been.
      .. as long as they dont keep going crazy with the trend to non-ownership model.

        • Krogoth
        • 11 years ago

        You never own your OS in the first place. It has been like that since DOS 6.22! You just own the license that gives you the right to use the software.

        GPL is a bit different beast though.

          • danny e.
          • 11 years ago

          you’re wrong for a couple of reasons. firstly, I do indeed own the copy of the O/S on the media. I can do whatever I want with it… MS does not own it and will not come after me when I take it and destroy it. I am not damaging their property. I also paid for a license to use the O/S which is where the TOS come into play.

          As for older O/S’s .. owning the media meant you could also do with it what you wanted as far as selling the O/S + license to someone else if you no longer wanted it. Current license agreements restrict or eliminate this altogether.

          at any rate.. even now you still own the copy of the o/s on the media. whether or not you have a license to use it is a different story.

          the main thing I was talking about was that the limitations on what you can do with your copy have been increasingly restrictive.

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            You only own the media itself not the contents on it.

            If you don’t understand this then you clearly do not understand how software licensing works in the first place and never bother to read any EULA. It is like signing for a loan without reading the conditions for it.

            Anyhow, the difference from Vista and previous software in regards to copy-protection is that it “actively” tries to enforce the conditions of the license. Instead of only doing it once during installation process. BTW, Vista is not the only software doing this. AAA software now and down the road are adopting similar schemes.

            Funny, that even non-corporate licenses of XP did this long before Longhorn existed. The only crowd who are working up a storm are pirates.

      • funkymunky
      • 11 years ago

      I see a parallel between Vista and ME
      Maybe W7 will be the XP saviour

        • Krogoth
        • 11 years ago

        Vista has nothing in common with ME. If anything it closer resembles 95. Where 7 is most likely going to be 98. An update of 95 that includes what was originally promised.

    • emorgoch
    • 11 years ago

    I really could have sworn that back in 05/06, MS was saying they were going to move to smaller, incremental releases on a closer to 18 month cycle once Vista was released.

    Not saying 18 months vs 36 is good or bad, just that was what they were originally saying.

    • emi25
    • 11 years ago

    I recommend for the Microsoft CEO to get back all the 486dx2 with 64 MB RAM machines they used 20 years ago, and put the programmers to release a smocking fast OS on them. If they can not, hire somebody who can.

      • alex666
      • 11 years ago

      64mg of ram? Try 4, 8, maybe 16.

        • barich
        • 11 years ago

        I don’t think that 486s were around in 1988 either.

          • zgirl
          • 11 years ago

          They arrived in ’89. and 64MB of RAM certainly wasn’t prevalent in home machines. Hell 4MB was well over $300 back then. IIRC. I know I didn’t hit 64 myself until 96-97ish

      • danny e.
      • 11 years ago

      14 years ago I bought a high-end machine.
      it was the P5-60 with 8MB RAM.
      20 years ago the 486 wasnt around and everyone was probably still on 1MB of RAM

    • JokerCPoC
    • 11 years ago

    Let Me guess Windows 7 won’t be compatible with XP or Vista and We’ll need new software and maybe new hardware. XP x64 is good enough for Me.

      • DrDillyBar
      • 11 years ago

      The Milestone 1 build of Windows 7 requires Vista SP1 to install at the moment, so it’ll likely be more like Vista, with MinWin. More details were a link deeper into the link Cyril posted. ( §[< http://news.softpedia.com/news/Windows-7-Milestone-1-M1-Ultimate-Build-6-1-6519-1-78871.shtml<]§ )

      • BKA
      • 11 years ago

      Good luck running an OS that will be ten years old by then. By that theory Windows 98 should be good and sufficient to run todays software and hardware.

      I mean unless you new to computing, since Windows 3.1 hardware requirements have doubled. It’s nothing new.

      Technology will continue to move along. I welcome advancement and realize that no software or hardware is 100% bug free, has never been.

      Anyways, I don’t expect them to keep a 2010 release date. If it does get released in 2010, people will moan and cry about all the bugs and it should have stayed in development longer. Delay it and people complain they want it NOW.

      Can’t wait to hear all the posts about how Microsoft is forcing everybody to run Windows 7.

        • indeego
        • 11 years ago

        Unix is ~40 years old and works fineg{<.<}g

          • StashTheVampede
          • 11 years ago

          Please point me to a location where said Unix machine is still in working order. I’d also LOVE to see what hardware you have to run Unix on.

          Unix, the original, is DEAD. What comes from its ashes are BSD and SystemV variants.

            • asdsa
            • 11 years ago

            We have many fully working and heavily used Unix stations in our school which is top 73 university in the world. One popular station uses “Compaq Tru64 UNIX V5.1B (Rev. 2650)” and hardware is Compaq Alphaserver ES40 quad processor.

            • StashTheVampede
            • 11 years ago

            The poster asked for Unix.

            I want *real* — not stuff made this millennium. Unix’s concepts and security model have lasted for a loooong time, but the original Unix is dead.

            • asdsa
            • 11 years ago

            whatever man

            • indeego
            • 11 years ago

            LOL. Then WIndows is dead. The CLI and command shell is dead.

            LOL. Post of the weekg{<.<}g Did I mention: LOL?

            • Krogoth
            • 11 years ago

            CLI dead?

            Nope, it is well and alive for many reasons.

            In fact, MS eventually realized this and made Server 2008 the first MS OS that can run purely from CLI since DOS 6.22.

        • leor
        • 11 years ago

        xp-64 is actually based largely on the server 2003 code, so it will be 7 years old in 2010.

        finding drivers will be a whole different story though . . .

          • barich
          • 11 years ago

          Finding drivers for XP x64 is hard enough now, never mind a few years down the road.

            • shank15217
            • 11 years ago

            XP 64 has about the same driver support that vista 64 has. I am running xp 64.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 11 years ago

    Vista 2K10 SE?

    • DASQ
    • 11 years ago

    Here come the DURR M$ NEVER RELEASE ON TIME comments.

    I guess it’s welcome news to those who wanted to skip Vista.

      • poulpy
      • 11 years ago

      Welcome news only if the result is a quality OS and not a botched job that got out of control and is released just because the deadline is there.

      • ssidbroadcast
      • 11 years ago

      Thanks, DASQ. I’ll start:

      Headline should read: Microsoft points to 2010, really meant 2013.

      • yogibbear
      • 11 years ago

      For once i would like MS to go with the “when it’s done” statement rather than giving out timelines this early.

        • danny e.
        • 11 years ago

        because they release whether or not its done.. see vista.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This