Windows Seven: Think 2010

Windows Seven: Think 2010

Summary: At Microsoft's Global Exchange (MGX) annual sales conference in Orlando this week, Microsoft shared a bit more -- albeit at a high level -- on Windows Seven, according to a copy of a slide deck I saw that was distributed to the field sales force during the conference. Among the information shared was that Microsoft is anticipating it will take at least three years from now to get the next version of Windows client out the door.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Windows, Microsoft
233

Windows Seven now has an official ship target -- 2010.

At Microsoft's Global Exchange (MGX) annual sales conference in Orlando this week, Microsoft shared a bit more -- albeit at a high level -- on Windows Seven, according to a copy of a slide deck I saw that was distributed to the field sales force during the conference. Among the information shared was that Microsoft is anticipating it will take at least three years from now to get the next version of Windows client out the door.

Last time anyone got Microsoft to talk dates about Windows Seven, the next big Windows client release, a Windows exec slipped up and said something about 2009.

Microsoft officials told MGX attendees that the company is currently internally planning Windows Seven. So far, the company has determined Windows Seven will come in both 32- and 64-bit flavors. No word on how many SKUs or any kind of guidance on features was provided, but Microsoft did say it would address both consumer and business segments with Windows Seven. Microsoft is mulling the concept of how to extend Windows Seven with subscription-based services, according to the deck -- more like Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP), which Microsoft currently offers to its Software Assurance customers, than Windows Live, however.

(MDOP builds on top of the Windows Vista Enterprise Centralized Desktop SKU -- also only available to Software Assurance volume licensees. It includes: asset inventory, SoftGrid application virtualization, diagnostics and recovery toolset, advanced group-policy management and desktop error-monitoring capabilities.)

Maybe this talk of extending Windows with certain Software Assurance-only subscription services is what spurred the Gartner Group to predict this week that Microsoft plans to make Software Assurance mandatory? Not sure….

Before Microsoft delivers Windows Seven, it plans to roll out an update to its current MDOP offering, Vista Service Pack 1 and then another MDOP update, according to the deck. Microsoft made no dates -- tentative or otherwise -- available for these planned releases via the deck.

Microsoft officials confirmed the veracity of this Windows Seven information. (I know! Shocking! Right after I spent the week dinging them for increasing opacity!)

The long version of Microsoft's statement, courtesy of a Windows client spokesperson:

“As part of our ongoing outreach to enterprise customers and partners, Microsoft has begun sharing plans for how they will continue to deliver value to businesses in the future, including Software Assurance customers in particular. As part of this, we are sharing some preliminary information on Windows ‘7’ -- the internal name for the next version of the Windows Client OS -- as well as updates on other future Windows-related releases such as the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack. Microsoft is scoping Windows ‘7’ development to a three-year timeframe, and then the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar. In the meantime, Microsoft is dedicated to helping customers deploy and get the most business value from their PCs using Windows Vista and related technologies like the Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack, and we’re encouraged by the response and adoption of these products so far.”

Short answer: Yes, it is going to take us at least three years to release Windows Seven. Longer if it's buggy and doesn't hit the "quality bar."

The Windows teams a while back set themselves the goal of releasing new versions of Windows client and Windows server every two years, alternating between major and minor releases. Microsoft's Office team has prided itself on releasing like clockwork new versions every 24 to 36 months.

Topics: Windows, Microsoft

About

Mary Jo has covered the tech industry for 30 years for a variety of publications and Web sites, and is a frequent guest on radio, TV and podcasts, speaking about all things Microsoft-related. She is the author of Microsoft 2.0: How Microsoft plans to stay relevant in the post-Gates era (John Wiley & Sons, 2008).

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

233 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • All I can say is...

    My $400 for Vista Ultimate had better damned well last me at LEAST three years!

    They ain't getting any more from me for a while. Especially since the "ultimate" hasn't been so "ultimate".

    It's been an ultimate ripoff
    BitTwiddler
    • All I can say is

      Your an idiot for paying $400 for an OS. M$ loves fools like you.
      DarthRidiculous
      • & they think APPLE users are crazy ,,,

        Sheesh ! At least when I buy Mac OS X for 199.99 , I can install it on five machines . That there is a value . 129.99 for installing Mac OS X on one machine . Windows users have to be the biggest bunch of nuts on the planet . Would Windows users be willing to pay for a box of C.R.A.P. that costs $400.00 ? Far be it from me , but if they want to burn money like that , why not just give it to me . I could find better uses for the money .
        Intellihence
        • Blackjack and hookers? No, that's Bender isn't it.

          Anyone paying full retail price for Vista Ultimate needs their head seeing to. Here in 'rip-off-Britain" I can buy an OEM copy for ?115.14. Although that's ?26.14 more than OS X that's still almost ?80 less than $400 (and about ?285 less than the RRP over here).
          odubtaig
        • $129 for an OS!! SIGN ME UP!!!

          [i]129.99 for installing Mac OS X on one machine.[/i]

          When I installed Vista on my 3 year old PC, I was kind of choked that it cost me $400. Are you now saying that I can walk down to my local computer store, pay $129.99 for OSX, and install it on my 3 year old PC? That's great! That will save me $270! I'm guessing I don't have to upgrade my hardware or anything silly like that. After all, I've heard horror stories of how slow Vista is and how OSX gets faster and faster which each version. Since Vista just flies on my desktop, I'm guessing that with no hardware upgrades at all, OSX will be so blindingly fast on my 3 year old PC, I will be left in awe at how great Apple developers really are. Eh, even if I do have to upgrade my hardware, I still have the $270 I saved from the OS. $270 should pay for any hardware upgrades I need in order to make my 3 year old PC compatible with OSX, right?
          NonZealot
          • Sure it will

            Just stop being a cheapskate and buy yourself a Macintosh PC so you can have the best of three worlds together . Mac OS X , Linux & anything Windows . Oh I forgot , you can't afford a PC , you have to go to the bargain hut and buy yourself C.R.A.P.

            P.S. For a last note , APPLE is in the hardware business , but then again you should know that Zealot .
            Intellihence
          • Don't be a cheapskate?

            But you were the one going on and on about how much cheaper OSX was compared to Windows. Hmm, maybe I should tell you to stop being such a cheapskate and just buy Vista Ultimate!!

            OUCH OUCH OUCH!!! :)
            NonZealot
          • You missed the point old chap .

            Apple is in the business of hardware , all I was referring to about Apple was the price for the OS was/is of value . Stop spinning it Zealot . You are well known on ZDNET for spreading F.U.D. most of the times . This happens to be one of those times .
            Intellihence
          • Hardware business?

            You mean like HP or Gateway? They buy everything from the same ODMs.<br>
            So you are saying the facilities in Cupertino are hardware manufacturing facilities? Really now. Got any links of photos showing the Mac being built? I'd be interest to see how much manufacturing goes on in Cupertino. <br>
            Or, are you saying they just rebrand the same hardware everyone else uses and the Apple logo makes it worth that 5000% markup?
            <br>
            xuniL_z
          • Oh Xunil I love you .

            When are we going to get married . I like how you respond with all your FUD and lies . It sure makes the other posters want to run away and hide .
            None_Zealot
          • Don't you mean a 129.99 dollar upgrade?

            You talk about it like it's a full version of an OS when in truth it's more an upgrade. Just as MS's upgrades have a prerequisite of the buyer having an earlier MS OS, doesn't Apple's new OS have a prerequisite of the buyer having a Mac?

            With MS's upgrade pricing at 199, it pretty darn close, the difference in pricing most likely due to the fact that it runs on anything.

            Including the new Macs.
            John Zern
          • He's a child...what do you exptect.

            (nt)
            fr0thy2.
          • Yes.. and no...

            [b]You talk about it like it's a full version of an OS when in truth it's more an upgrade. Just as MS's upgrades have a prerequisite of the buyer having an earlier MS OS, doesn't Apple's new OS have a prerequisite of the buyer having a Mac?

            With MS's upgrade pricing at 199, it pretty darn close, the difference in pricing most likely due to the fact that it runs on anything.

            Including the new Macs. [/b]

            The problem here with that logic, is that when you buy an upgrade to Vista, and you install it on a computer that meets the hardware requirements, Vista's installer pretty much replaces ALL of the operating system files anyhow. I would imagine that the OSX installer does pretty much the same thing.

            Vista's installer merely checks for the EXISTENCE of a previous version of Windows either on the hard drive before renaming the C:\Windows folder to C:\Windows.OLD and dumping itself on your hard drive.

            Given OSX only runs on Macs, you're quite correct in assuming that the buyer of an OSX upgrade would need to own a Mac.
            Wolfie2K3
          • Sorry, don't like apples...if you represent them.

            (nt)
            fr0thy2.
          • You mean you still pay for your OS?

            I don't think I have ever bought an OS. Yup, I'm pretty sure I've never bought one. So Windows Vista Ultimate for $400, Mac OS X for $129, and I don't waste one cent on either.
            dansen926
          • I to will buy 1,000 copies of Mac OS X.

            I've had it with Microsloth and all their lies .
            None_Zealot
          • How is the ZUNE market nowadays ? <NT>

            <NT>
            Intellihence
          • I don't know. Good enough that Apple

            has to keep mentioning it, so I guess it worries them a bit.
            John Zern
          • Actually it's not that bad....if you actually did any reasearch

            (nt)
            fr0thy2.
          • I heard the the Zune market is a complete and utter failure .

            My friends have told me so many times that the Zune isn't going anywhere . Microsoft did all it could to do emulate Apple , but to no avail . I also heard that the X-Box market is being smashed apart . X-Box bursting into flames , X-Box scratching CDs . Seems as every piece of hardware that Microsoft makes is complete and utter C.R.A.P. I wonder why ?
            None_Zealot