Vista already being replaced?

[plumber4578]

Looks like Vista will be short lived. Don't jump to Vista yet. Microsoft is bumping it's next OS to 2009. » Windows 7 debut in 2009? Another reason to skip Vista | Hardware 2.0 | ZDNet.com

 

[KSoD]

Umm with any previous knowledge of the Windows OS cycle you would know that XP was not supposed to be out for 6 years before the next version of windows.

Windows 95 came out. Then 3 years later Windows 98. 2 years later Windows ME. Juat about 2 years later came XP.

So if you notice the cycle is just about every 2-3 years Microsoft releases a new OS. This wasnt the case after XP. They had some issues with it and they delayed Longhorn/Vista.

Plus Windows 7 is not slated till 2010. They are off by 1 year.

 

[forrestcupp]

But this is a very recent article claiming that MS has bumped the date forward a couple of months to put the release in the second half of 2009. It's possible.

I just don't like the idea of having to pay that kind of money every 2 or 3 years. It makes me consider going back to predominantly using Linux.

 

[peterhuang913]

But this is a very recent article claiming that MS has bumped the date forward a couple of months to put the release in the second half of 2009. It's possible.

I just don't like the idea of having to pay that kind of money every 2 or 3 years. It makes me consider going back to predominantly using Linux.

I had 98, skipped ME, 2000 then got XP. It save money ^^

 

[KSoD]

But this is a very recent article claiming that MS has bumped the date forward a couple of months to put the release in the second half of 2009. It's possible.

I just don't like the idea of having to pay that kind of money every 2 or 3 years. It makes me consider going back to predominantly using Linux.

No M$ has not bumped it up. This is just another one of those reports from people who just like to get readers. M$ officially has only announced Windows 7 in 2010. Reading thru the sources you find this:

Several industry sources have confirmed to TG Daily that a very early version of Windows 7, previously code-named Blackcomb Vienna, already has been shipped to “key partners” as a “Milestone 1” (M1) code drop for validation purposes.

This is not M$ saying nothing. They have only released the M1 code for Windows 7. Which is normal for the 2-3 year beta cycle/release cycle. M1 code is the very first alpha code for the new build. It is nothing more. It isnt even considered a alpha build yet. It is the M1. They still have M2, M3, M4 and possibly M5 to get thru yet. then you have the Codename Builds (Windows 7 builds) then you will get the Official Statement on the new name and then you will get those Beta Builds. This is the same cycle that Longhorn/Vista went thru.

So now Windows 7 did not get Officially bumped up at all. It is still slated for 2010 just like M$ has said. This is just the reporters taking another shot at M$ and VIsta. Nothing more.

Look at the release cycle of Longhorn. First build leaked in Nov 2002. This was a internal build. From there it goes on till April of 2005 when they abandon the Longhorn code and start over with the Vista code. this is at the time the announce the name change from Codename Longhorn to Windows Vista. We start to see the first Beta builds of Vista get released in July. Build 5112 is the first build released with the new name and new code.

Story goes on thru the Beta and finally in Nov of 2006 they release it. Just over a year with the new coding and name. So we have a long time before it goes from Milestone code to Alpha builds (Internal) to Betas that get released (Leaked). That process alone can be anywhere from 12-18 months. Which that alone will take us to mid to late 2009. Still have to get the Betas done then. So i would not expect to see Windows 7 anytime before 2010 like M$ had originally said.

 

[aaronkupen]

But this is a very recent article claiming that MS has bumped the date forward a couple of months to put the release in the second half of 2009. It's possible.

I just don't like the idea of having to pay that kind of money every 2 or 3 years. It makes me consider going back to predominantly using Linux.

Who says you have to spend that money every 2 to 3 years? People I know are still happily using 2000. And I would think most people on this forum are XP users.

 

[forrestcupp]

Who says you have to spend that money every 2 to 3 years? People I know are still happily using 2000. And I would think most people on this forum are XP users.

Sometimes I'm one of those guys that gets the itch to have what's new. That has gotten me in trouble before. That's one reason Linux is good for me. I can always get what's new without having to pay for it. But then, there are still some things Linux can't do well yet.

 

[Trotter]

I still haven't got to install Vista, myself. I was all set to put it on an empty partition and my drives took a dump. Soon, soon...

Maybe by the time the new OS comes out I will be able to build a new rig to capitalize on it. That's the only way I would shell out to get it... or it was given to me.

 

[Redmo0n]

Imo, don't read that article, save 2 minutes.

 

[aaronkupen]

Sometimes I'm one of those guys that gets the itch to have what's new. That has gotten me in trouble before. That's one reason Linux is good for me. I can always get what's new without having to pay for it. But then, there are still some things Linux can't do well yet.

That's my point. Microsoft isn't making you upgrade every two years.