RSSAnd so it begins: The Windows 7 marketing push
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 27, 2008, 11:37 AM
Microsoft is speaking on the record about Windows 7 for the first time, though the message is controlled and diluted. The important takeaway is that the next Windows operating system will not be a major overhaul to Vista.
This morning, Microsoft officials have begun to speak publicly about the edition of Windows that follows Vista, as a real product whose development is under way. But just like the last go-round, what they're saying mainly revolves around the fact that they're speaking publicly.
"What is a little different today is when and how we are talking about the next version of Windows," reads a blog post from Windows product manager Chris Flores this morning. "So, why the change in approach? We know that when we talk about our plans for the next release of Windows, people take action. As a result, we can significantly impact our partners and our customers if we broadly share information that later changes. With Windows 7, we're trying to more carefully plan how we share information with our customers and partners. This means sharing the right level of information at the right time depending on the needs of the audience."
The aim here is to present the appearance of openness; but in the attempt, as is notable from the above citation, Flores gave away perhaps too much of Microsoft's motivation, by referencing Windows' customer base using the marketing term "audience."
There is, and probably will continue to be, more "talk" from Microsoft about the next Windows, certainly for at least the next 19 months. Two weeks ago, company chairman Bill Gates made clear that major Windows release life cycles will be contained to three years. Flores expanded on that statement this morning ever so slightly, saying, "We're happy to report that we're still on track to ship approximately three years after the general availability of Windows Vista."
As Vista users will recall, "general availability" took place in January 2007, although business license holders began receiving their first editions the previous October. Though Microsoft would certainly prefer for general availability of Windows 7 to take place before the holidays, this sets the company's "track" destination at the start of 2010.
And while that may sound like plenty of time, unless Microsoft has plans for an expedited beta program, it would need to start its first round of betas for Windows 7 next month (June) in order to match the amount of time the company provided for Vista testing. Of course, that's assuming a year-and-a-half's worth of testing is necessary for this go-round; and based on the theme of today's messages from Microsoft, Windows 7 may not be that ambitious.
"Windows Vista established a very solid foundation, particularly on subsystems such as graphics, audio, and storage. Windows Server 2008 was built on that foundation and Windows 7 will be as well," Flores wrote. "Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. While these changes will increase our engineering agility, they will not impact the user experience or reduce application or hardware compatibility. In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7."
In other words, think of Windows 7 as more than a service pack, less than an overhaul. Microsoft will apparently not be repeating the same marketing approach with 7 as with Vista, which was touted as so much of an improvement that users should seriously consider upgrading their systems. Apparently this time, that kind of incentive will not be applied.
Typically Microsoft launches a marketing initiative such as this by granting at least one exclusive interview to a member of the press; and this time, it was with CNET's Ina Fried. In a dialog published early this morning with Microsoft's senior vice president for Windows and Windows Live, Steven Sinofsky, Fried asked some very pointed, probing, and appropriate questions of the Windows marketing chief, and his limited and well-considered answers were published verbatim.
At one point, Fried asked Sinofsky whether Gates' remark that Windows 7 would be coming in some form next year, referred to the company's beta road map. Sinofsky would only say, "What I think I want to say is what I just said, which is we said we'd be out there with a release of Windows 7 three years after the general availability of Windows Vista. We're excited; the investments that we have are really about producing a major and significant release at that time."
What we can infer from Sinofsky's comments to CNET's Fried, as well as Flores' blog post, is that Microsoft may be taking a cue from Intel with regard to its "tick-tock" cadence for product introductions; only for Microsoft, the interval between events will be three years. Windows 7 may be to Vista what Windows 98 was to Windows 95: quite literally, a second try to get everything right.
The basic underlying platform of Windows, including driver support, should remain steady for Windows 7, Sinofsky stated. Significant re-engineering will not be required, particularly from the many partners whom Sinofsky cited as having already contributed to the discussion of what Windows 7 should include.
After all was said, however, it turns out very little was actually said, except for just enough to get the buzz going on Windows' latest release.
While both Sinofsky and Flores illustrated how they wish to engage in more of an open dialogue with this next release, Microsoft MVP Brandon LeBlanc responded to Flores' message this morning with a little word of warning: "Please hold off on asking any questions targeting anything specific (like features, betas, etc) about Windows 7 just yet as we'll [be] unable to give you answers."
Same lyrics, different song: I'll wait for Win7-SP1 before giving it a thought.* But let's give it a shot anyway.
Rather than evolving Vista, it might have been a good time to really rethink and reconsider the windows kernel. What's not working with the windows kernel is that it requires massive amounts of memory to run the basic OS. Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has benchmarked various tasks under different versions of Windows and Office found they were slower on Vista (on new hardware) than on Windows 2000 on old hardware. That's right — you're upgrading to Vista to actually run slower on brand-spanking new hardware.
Windows suffers from another problem, which is 20+ years of cruft. Right now, there are three different C APIs for memory management alone. Only one was current but all three were supported so code going back as far as Windows 3.1 had a shot of running. It's time Microsoft dumped some of those APIs the way Apple did with the Carbon migration prior to OS X. Why dump those old API's? Because they lock in old, out-dated concepts and practices, which can interfere with new kernel development. Even if they're just wrappers around the new APIs, they should go away now.
Windows is by far the worst kernel available by any comparison with either Linux, BSD, or its cousin, OS X. For one thing, it lacks real time capabilities (which Windows CE ironically provides); the thread scheduler is counterintuitive, and the filesystem is slow (especially over network shares). The part I especially love is the random waiting while network browsing returns information about computers, printers, and networks.
Windows isn't evil, but by Jove, it does need a lot of work. It would be nice to see Microsoft stop horking around with Yahoo or Zune and focus on it's core competency — the OS — before it begins to look like its core incompetency.
For all those needing backwards compatibility, as so many have mentioned below, Microsoft could provide a virtual machine/hypervisor to run Vista. Given the sour press, they could have taken the hint and really pushed the edges of the envelope. Instead, they're going to deliver the same, day-old bread to jaundiced consumers and tech writers who can pull their past critiques and post them as new.
Of course, in the interim, they are probably going to promise dozens of innovative ideas which they will drop once they realize the turd they're polishing won't support it, just as we saw with the run-up to Vista's release in late '06/early '07.
It's time to reconsider how we (as consumers) look at Windows. Normally, you think of Windows as an OS that runs on hardware which is essentially fungible. Given headaches Vista caused (and businesses avoided like the plague), it might be time to look at Win7 as a product that you will buy with hardware from a quality vendor. In other words, forget about upgrades, just buy a new machine. That is, wait on each windows 'upgrade' until it's time to buy a new computer and just buy a complete working package instead of 'rolling out' (in a corporate environment) or upgrading (in a home environment).
________________________________________________
*Meanwhile, I'm too busy having a blast with Linux!
Score: 0
Nice cut and paste hackjob.
*laughing*
The least you could do is give credit for your inglorious plagerism.
http://osnews.com/thread?315793
What? Zaine have an original thought? Un-heard-of.
Classic.
Score: 0
"It would be nice to see Microsoft stop horking around with Yahoo or Zune and focus on it's core competency — the OS — before it begins to look like its core incompetency."
Way too late for that.
Score: 0
I hate these vicious anti-Windows/Microsoft posts from pro-Linux/Apple idiots who pretend they know what they're talking about. There's absolutely no way to please these guys. No matter what Microsoft does, they find fault with it. They always ask for some kind of Holy Grail operating system that is impossible to achieve not only by Microsoft, but by any company or individual. It kills them to know that their "free" open source OS cannot compete with a $10+ billion budget OS put out by Microsoft. Yes, it's hard to swallow, but Linux is a joke as far as competing for the desktop space goes. Don't get me wrong, Linux has its uses in the server segment, but it won't be a competitor to Windows any time soon on the desktop. Don't even get me started on Apple and their "special" flavor of Linux that only runs properly on their own ridiculously over-priced hardware. Steve Jobs can run those iMac Twenty-something Cool Guy vs. Middle Aged Pinko PC Guy ads until he turns blue in the face. The only people they're attracting is idiots with deep pockets, yuppies, and (ironically) middle aged, computer illiterates who want something simple with a one button mouse to check their e-mail.
Score: 0
I think Microsoft should adopt Blizzards time tables. "The product will be release when it's ready"
Some might argue that, if Microsoft follows this logic, they will never release a single product. That might be true, but in my opinion, putting a three year time limit is a bad idea.
Score: 0
They probably would if their target market would be guys living in their mum's basement. Unfortunately it is business instead and hence follows the whole old professional software development process again...
Score: 0
Windows 7 will be the best operating system out there. And Vista is the best. Just wonders why people have problem with Vista. I have Vista installed so 5 computers and they all work great w/o any hardware or software problem. Oh yes you will need to upgrade many software esp. anti virus programs like Norton, McAfee that are compatible with Vista. So when you get a software for Vista look for Windows Vista certified logo. And if you are still using old programs and blame vista for compatibility issues, then it's your problem.
Score: 0
"Windows 7 will be the best operating system out there."
Only if Microsoft drops all that legacy fat that is allowing people to run apps from 10+ years ago.
Score: 0
Oh I have no problem running Vista either...I just hate the fat hog, that's all.
Score: 0
Try Windows Server 2008. It's what Vista should have been. It runs much better for me.
Score: 0
I agree. Microsoft should make a new version of windows from scratch and solve the old apps issue by using virtual machines. I'm pretty sure there is still some files from windows 3.1 in vista somewhere
Score: 0
There is - Go look at the "Install New Font" dialog. A minuscule thing, but it proves your point. There is no doubt a ton of house cleaning to do.
Score: 0
oooops, double post.
Score: 0
You'll want to look at the 64 bit version of Windows 7. By then apps will have caught up and be native 64 bit.
Score: 0
3 years to develop something slightly better than a service pack, and of course going to cost a couple hundred bucks. Can't wait to not buy it.
Score: 0
If we're lucky, MS will adopt the Apple OS upgrade model. I'm dreaming, aren't I?
Score: 0
dreaming heh, man your mind just took a walk off the map.
Score: 0
I think Microsoft has to go back to what made them successful in the first place. Stealing OS' from others. Since Windows 95 I haven't seen any real changes in the Windows OS.
Score: 0
You must be kidding me. XP is light years better than 95. Remember "dll hell"?
Score: 0
Over the weekend I had to clean a XP PC infested with super spyware and malware. And I had to go through hell to delete dll's and registry value that come back 1 second after you delete them. Is that the kind of hell you're referring to? Personally I never had dll or malware problems on 95. So yeah dll problems on XP are light years ahead of Win95.
Score: 0
One note is that Vista's "betatesting" was fairly worthless. They rewrote and changed so much of the OS that even RC's of Vista were dramatically different than what it has ended up being. (I can recall RC1 being barely useable, and I dumped it immediately as a viable OS.) Those companies that developed drivers basically had to start from scratch upon Vista's final code signing.
Score: 0
And the Vista crows had a nerve to blame these companies for writing bad drivers. [rollseyes]
Score: 0
This is absolutely true.
My group got so tired of trying to keep up with MS's changes that we just decided to wait for their last try. They were a mess right up until the end - a total waste of resources to keep trying to hit their moving target.
Score: 0
Well, if Windows 7 is to come out in 2010 and is to be an improved Vista, then that's not all bad. I rolled back to XP after 6 months with Vista. I found that Vista had some quirks and things that I couldn't do - XP had none. I came up with the simple question "What would I miss if I dumped Vista?" -- answer: nothing.
I appreciate Vista for being more stable for me than XP. Applications can take XP down for several minutes if and when they spiral out of control. Vista does not let this happen. Vista also sucks my resources and I have a very modern machine -- the speed change is noticeable. So - this being said - I'd love to use Vista again - and I had Vista SP1... not a big deal ... if Windows 7 is going to be a full realization of what Vista can be, then I'm happy.
Score: 0
"I appreciate Vista for being more stable for me than XP. Applications can take XP down for several minutes if and when they spiral out of control"
I agree with most everything you wrote, but I just don't see the instability of XP. I ride it hard and it just keeps going without troubles. Part of why many saw no reason to "upgrade".
Score: 0
Another troll article to boost those hit counts, eh?
Nothing new or solid here, just Scott's guesses as to the "aim" of this, or the "in other words" of that....
Typical Troll fodder.
Enjoy guys. I'm not even going to bother beyond this post.
Score: 0
Thanks for stopping by and adding your important insight, which the industry watches with bated breath.
Score: 0
Someone's having a bad day huh ?
Score: 0
You mean bad life? :P
Score: 0
bla............. bla...........bla.........
Score: 0
Come on. You know how much fun we have doing this. If we didn't enjoy it we wouldn't be here.
Score: 0
You should know since, after all, you are the lead one, tool.
Score: 0
He has a life? [smiles]
Score: 0
Exactly. This was my favorite part:
"After all was said, however, it turns out very little was actually said"
Score: 0
OWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW
The STUPID!!!!!! IT BURNS!!!!!! (Toolie made a YouTube video!)
Score: 0
*laughing*
Sorry, couldn't resist. *LOVE* that video. That was funny as hell.
Thanks, man.
Score: 0
Wow toolie!!! Someone must really dig you putting all this time into setting up that page :) Incredible....
Score: 0
Ain't it grand?
To think of the time and effort spent...all for me.
Almost makes one blush, ya know?
Score: 0
Think this person might have a thing for you? You know, like those who profess to detest that which they secretly desire? :)
Score: 0
Don't most folks grow out of that during adolescence?
Oh, wait...I forgot who we were talking about. ;)
Score: 0
...and we'd been getting along so well.
I suppose you just couldn't resist, right?
An Anti-Vista topic....Me...
Just too much for your will to bear, eh? ;)
Score: 0
What will come first? Vista SP4 or Windows 7 :P
Score: 0
Windows ME never made it to a SP other that SP VISTA.
Score: 0
You can't compare Windows Vista to Windows ME. Windows ME was so unstable it would give BSOD's before the installation was finished if a clean install was done. Vista has been completely stable since the public Release Candidate 1 version. It's very rare that Vista itself crashes and when it does it's almost always because of a poorly written driver or application. Not Microsoft's fault.
Score: 0
Why are people still talking about ME when a) it's in the museum, and b) XP and Vista are based entirely on NT/2000.
Score: 0
LMAO LMMFAO
Score: 0
It was a joke crack-head.
Score: 0
Whatever
Score: 0
Windows XP SP7 has a better chance than Vista!
Score: 0
Haha!
Score: 0
i agree ... ME jokes are so 1998
Score: 0
Windows ME is the best OS Microsoft ever produced.
Score: 0
Sarcasm? Otherwise you'd have to be a moron to think that an OS that doesn't even finish installing itself before it displays a BSOD.
Score: 0
;-)
Score: 0
If Apple could make a product that worked worth a crap, I wouldn't ever use Windows. Linux/MAC would be great.
Score: 0
Out of curiosity I'd like to hear your opinion on that. Care to expand?
Score: 0
Every app that I have ever used from Apple, Quick Time, Itunes, Iphones, MAC OS, all are choppy, and error prone. Just do a simple search on all the problems Apple and their products. I don't need to search as I have experienced them first hand.
Score: 0
I bought my MacBook Pro last June for school as I wanted a smaller lightweight laptop compared to my other one. I have been running Tiger with only 1 install (fresh wipe after I bought it day 1). I have yet to have any problems except on third party applications. I have yet to have the need to reformat do to the system getting slower. On the other hand I have had vista since Launch date last year and reformatted twice do to patches and the release of SP1 (I always format and install SPs on fresh OSs). Apple has been extremely stable in comparison to Vista. While Vista I upgraded to a 8800 GTX from a 7800 GTX and since it was actually designed for Directx 10 my video card errors stopped. Since Vista has been stable requiring no formats of any kind.
Score: 0
I am glad that you hardly use your MacBook Pro. Enjoy your so called error free computing life. While the rest of the world looks for something that works.
Score: 0
"I have yet to have any problems except on third party applications."
Isn't that the whole point of a computer? To be able to run third party apps? I'm sure If you install a fresh version of windows without adding any third party apps, it will run perfectly without any problems. That's why Macs are so "secure" and "stable". Because there's barley any useful software available for Macs.
Score: 0
"I'm sure If you install a fresh version of windows without adding any third party apps, it will run perfectly without any problems."
You summed it up well. Vista is stable. Problems occur when you add Flash/nVidia/Roxio, etc. I don't have the numbers in front of me (Google is your friend), but in the first year of Vista either approx. 33% or 66% of blue screens were due to nVidia.
Should it be that way? No. Can you lay it all on Vista? No. BetaNews is becoming the new /. *sigh*
Score: 0
mmh...I can see you switching to Mac in about 3 to 6 months ;-)
Score: 0
"...barley any useful software available for Macs..."
BARLEY: Noun, a hardy cereal that has coarse bristles extending from the ears. It is widely cultivated, chiefly for use in brewing and stockfeed. This calls for a Bud Light!
Score: 0
"While the rest of the world looks for something that works."
People use Windows not because it is superior but because it is what is being shoved up their faces at work or school, so they don’t care, just as long they can surf Facebook, write emails and chat. Anyone who thoroughly and professionally uses both Windows and Mac will tell you that both OS's have their strength but when push comes to shove Mac is the better choice.
Score: 0
This, based on the rumours we'd heard about a much leaner kernel and architecture is frankly a huge disappointment - do Microsoft really give a monkeys about their customers and the thousands of complaints about Vista and where they went wrong with it?
This is so sad, and as far as I'm concerned basically means that Windows hit a peak with XP and its downhill from now on....
Score: 0
I had heard that Windows 7 would finally throw out the registry and adopt a more secure Unix-like architecture. Legacy applications would be handled by a virtual machine interface. It appears that it is not to be and I think it is a missed opportunity.
Score: 0
On a 32-bit operating system if Microsoft handled legacy applications by using a virtual machine like Apple did on Mac OS X for PowerPC this would be a big mess. The memory requirements for this type of Windows operating system would be equal to or greater than the memory requirements for Vista.
As for the registry, apparently there is a project underway to introduce a registry equivalent to Linux.
Score: 0
"The memory requirements for this type of Windows operating system would be equal to or greater than the memory requirements for Vista."
Are you expecting any different? Every new Microsoft OS has had elevated requirements. I expect that will always be the case, as long as Intel, AMD, and Microsoft work together.
Score: 0
You're serious? Linux with a registry? WTF, I think windows without a registry would be great, Linux with a registry would be going backwards. The one thing that Mac OS X deos right is not have a registry.
Score: 0
I would have hoped that we would have completely transitioned to 64 bits by 2010.
Score: 0
I very much like the idea of the tick-tock ideal that Intel has in place, and if Microsoft decided to use that it can only end well as far as I can see.
Score: 0
Windows-7, as in lucky-7 ?
Perhaps Microsoft's plan will be to skip Windows-13 in the future.
Score: 0
It's a code name, the final name will not be Windows 7. Also they picked it because this version will be NT 7.0 (Vista was NT 6.0)
Score: 0
They most likely would skip 13 like they did for Office.
Score: 0
Maybe someone can anwser this question
Why does Vista work crappy on my desktop PC(AMD dual core 4400+ 2gb ram), but is very stalbe on my laptop(Intel Centrino 1.6GHz 1gb ram). I personally don't have a problem with either O/S.
Score: 0
maybe you are right.
but i'd bet on that microsoft has a secret back room with a highly sophisticated team of forecasters comprising of tarot card readers, astologists and witch doctors with expertise in voodoo dolls.
as they say, every little bit helps.
Score: 0
Vista didn't work well on my AMD x64 processor but works great on my Intel. AMD imo has gone down the s***ter.
Score: 0