Windows 7

[sylux92]

Not sure if this was already posted, as the search feature is down, but have any of you heard of Windows 7? Apparently its a new OS that supposed to be coming out in about a year. It is supposed to be newer than vista, but with Microsoft you never know. Here is a link to an article: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1132.

 

[Kingwad]

There is always a next version of windows. After Windows 7 comes out Microsoft will start making a new one. However, the roumers that it will be released in 2009 are not right (though widespread thanks to the people not fact-checking before they release news on the internet. Nobody wants to be the last with a story, so they just parrot whatever roumours they find).

Source

 

[OSW]

guess what, i herd there was liek windows 8 coming out after windows 7!

 

[CockroachMan]

If it comes out next year it will probably be just Vista with some corrections.. that's not enough time to make a decent new OS.

Windows is in urgent need to be totally remade, Microsoft promised they would do that with Vista.. and in the end it's just the same thing.. but prettier and slower

Damn Microsoft! I don't need more shinnier and transparent windows! I need a decent memory management, File system and security! Like Unix has.. since 1978

 

[SkH]

It's FAKE.

 

[mojoex]

if they release it next year they're idiots.
there was a 6 year gap between xp and vista.
SP1 isnt even out for vista yet.

 

[legendofphil]

If I remember rightly there are several versions of Windows in development, excluding the upcoming service packs for XP and Vista.

 

[Westside]

Even if they do release it next year, it will probably what Windows 2003 is to Windows XP.

 

[Urza]

Microsoft has already stated that 2011 is closer to the targetted release date.

 

[phlyjedi]

Even if they do release it next year, it will probably what Windows 2003 is to Windows XP.

2003 is in a different class then XP, Vista, and Windows 7.

2003 is a server, and it's next version comes out next month called Windows Server 2008.

Also for everybody getting mad 2009 is too early, as a few people have already mentioned, it was an error, its 2011, here is another source:

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/28/windows...more-like-2011/

Not to mention they have been working on this for a long while now, it is aka Blackcomb(Vienna). I remember reading about it back in 2004. IIRC they are already working on another version of Windows(8) after 7, which is slated to be released 2014, but I am not sure if that has been canceled or not.

 

[Kingwad]

if they release it next year they're idiots.
there was a 6 year gap between xp and vista.
SP1 isnt even out for vista yet.

The six year gap was due to the fact that they scrapped most of the Vista code and started over when they needed to go in a different direction. It was a mistake. No version of windows had ever lasted that long before, and no version will likely ever last that long again.

 

[Westside]

if they release it next year they're idiots.
there was a 6 year gap between xp and vista.
SP1 isnt even out for vista yet.


The six year gap was due to the fact that they scrapped most of the Vista code and started over when they needed to go in a different direction. It was a mistake. No version of windows had ever lasted that long before, and no version will likely ever last that long again.

True, I mean 95, 98, 2000, and XP (2001).

Although 95,98,2000 were pretty similar in structure.

 

[Urza]

Although 95,98,2000 were pretty similar in structure.

What are you talking about? Win2k is built on the NT kernel and has a completely different architecture from the DOS-based 95 and 98.

 

[phlyjedi]

if they release it next year they're idiots.
there was a 6 year gap between xp and vista.
SP1 isnt even out for vista yet.


The six year gap was due to the fact that they scrapped most of the Vista code and started over when they needed to go in a different direction. It was a mistake. No version of windows had ever lasted that long before, and no version will likely ever last that long again.

True, I mean 95, 98, 2000, and XP (2001).

Although 95,98,2000 were pretty similar in structure.

I am not trying to pick at you or anything, but it would be 95, 98, ME, XP. 2000, like 2003 is a server. Since XP is NT based like 2000, 2000's successor was considered to be XP, but 2003 was the true successor.

 

[Hit]

I hope it will be good, as Vista sucks so badly i won't use it ever, i have used it ones(About a week or two) was so terrible reinstalled back to windows xp

 

[Westside]

Although 95,98,2000 were pretty similar in structure.

What are you talking about? Win2k is built on the NT kernel and has a completely different architecture from the DOS-based 95 and 98.

Sorry I meant 95,98.