Windows Vienna in 2009

[mb]

Article says end of 2009, which will likely be early 2010. That fits just fine with the current "3-5 year" plan. Funny, people complain Vista took too long, and now people are complaining Vienna is too soon.

 

[bigdaddy51]

Maybe they will name it VISTA 2.0

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: supafly
Article says end of 2009, which will likely be early 2010. That fits just fine with the current "3-5 year" plan. Funny, people complain Vista took too long, and now people are complaining Vienna is too soon.

Who's complaining considering how vista turned out, Vienna could be the XP release compared to ME that Vista is turning into.

 

[13Gigatons]

Originally posted by: bfdd
If they do release a "radical new OS" in 2009 and I spent 400 on Ultimate Retail I will flip the ****** out on Microsoft.

What fool buys the full version, either get the half priced OEM or the update version.

 

[Vampirrella]

Im kinda glad im waiting before hopping on the vista bandwagon. Some are saying vista = winME = yikes! I hope for all of you who bought vista that it isnt true.

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
Vienna was called Black Comb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_%22Vienna%22

Every future Windows since 2k has been called Black Comb at some point. It's the OS that's perpetually 5-10 years away.

 

[kedlav]

a.) Never going to make that release date
b.) Never going to make that release date
.
.
.
y.) Bad business sense. IT related companies already have little desire to switch to an untested OS and probably won't until well after Vista SP1 has been released, if then. There's no incentive to switch now with XP in a very healthy state, and if you're in Q1 2008 and you know you're talking about a year and a half before a new, better OS is released, time to save your cash.
z.) Box manufacturer's already aren't thrilled with Vista, given the poor driver support and demanding h/w needed for true Vista compatibility(i.e. DX10 support so all the *shiny* isn't taken away, allowing people to realize they just dropped $2000 on a prettier, less reliable version of XP)

 

[fraquar]

Originally posted by: kedlav
a.) Never going to make that release date
b.) Never going to make that release date
.
.
.
y.) Bad business sense. IT related companies already have little desire to switch to an untested OS and probably won't until well after Vista SP1 has been released, if then. There's no incentive to switch now with XP in a very healthy state, and if you're in Q1 2008 and you know you're talking about a year and a half before a new, better OS is released, time to save your cash.
z.) Box manufacturer's already aren't thrilled with Vista, given the poor driver support and demanding h/w needed for true Vista compatibility(i.e. DX10 support so all the *shiny* isn't taken away, allowing people to realize they just dropped $2000 on a prettier, less reliable version of XP)

Ask IT departments when they plan on switching to Vista and they are likely to laugh you and I out of the building.

Look for a new Server platform to be released (and embraced by IT) before any MEANINGFUL desktop update comes to the market.

 

[greytautumn]

Recall that MS has stated that they want to shorten the OS upgrade cycle. Here at work, I don't know if I'll be in a position to have Vista deployed by 2009!

There's enough dependencies of apps, that it takes forever for them to certify a new OS or service pack (XP SP2 was a nightmare here).

I still run 2000 on my office desktop. We'll get Vista shoved down our throats sooner rather than later, and we will not be ready, at least in the enterprise.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: supafly
Article says end of 2009, which will likely be early 2010. That fits just fine with the current "3-5 year" plan. Funny, people complain Vista took too long, and now people are complaining Vienna is too soon.

Their world view on software is distorted.

My favorite operating systems are released every 6 months.

Previous to XP Microsoft released operating systems about on the rate of one a year...

Just going by PC Windows..
Windows 2.0/Windows/286/Windows/386 -- 1987
Windows 3.0 -- 1990
Windows 3.1 -- 1992 (Windows 3.11, released shortly after was the first usable version of Windows. Previous for this Microsoft used Unix for all their software development)
Windows NT 3.1/3.5 -- 1994
Windows 95 -- 1995
NT 4.0 -- 1996
Windows 98 -- 1998
Windows 98 SE -- 1999
NT 5.0 (Windows 2000) -- 2000
Windows ME -- 2000
NT 5.1 (Windows XP) -- 2001
NT 5.2 (Windows 2003)-- 2003
NT 6.0 (Windows Vista) -- 2007

So for desktop releases it went...
92, 95, 98, 99, 00, 00, 01, then 07, now slated for 09.

Vista was originally slated for 03, I beleive.

 

[drag]

Last time I checked, maybe a year ago, WinFS and the other missing features were supposed to be released gradually for Vista and XP Pro features. However, I bet that timeline is now BS, considering that MS is releasing a new OS in two years AND that MS said that Vista was held up because of SP2 for XP.

WinFS is dead. Programming team disbanded and any code that was worthwhile was absorbed into the SQL server stuff, supposadly.

Avalon exists in a de-balled form in Windows presentation foundation, Ditto for Indigo and the 'Windows Communication Foundation'.

You have those promised features right now, at least as much as your going to get them. So don't hold your breath on them showing up in Vienna other then improvements to the existing Vista features.

 

[Smilin]

One word..


D U H !!!



You mean MS developers aren't going to just go on vacation for a few years then get back to work? Of course they are starting on the next product.

I would imagine Vienna has been in the works *before* vista was released.

 

[stash]

This is a funny thread....

 

[Bateluer]

I'd rather have several years between OSs, gives drivers a chance to stabilize and be optimized. No sense in changing the way everything works every few years.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I'd rather have several years between OSs, gives drivers a chance to stabilize and be optimized. No sense in changing the way everything works every few years.

That didnt happen with every windows release - only the huge ones: 95, 2000 and Vista.

I do hope that MS comes through on their promise to break all legacy compatibility - Windows could use a complete overhaul like it got with Win95.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I'd rather have several years between OSs, gives drivers a chance to stabilize and be optimized. No sense in changing the way everything works every few years.

That's what enterprise customers have been telling MS. The release cycle of server OSs reflects this to some degree.