I just saw this on Networkworld.com. Considering that Microsoft almost never makes their target dates (especially this far out), I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it would be moved way back. Windows 7 is a great performer and will serve people well for a long time to come. It would be to Microsoft's benefit to really take their time on Windows 8 so as not to end up putting out another Vista.
I agree, I can't really see Microsoft trying to replace Windows 7 before 2013. It has been a market success - several businesses and some governmental agencies in my area are making the switch to Windows 7 in the next two months. Word of mouth has been miles beyond the wom for Vista.
What I do see is the incorporation of native SATA 6Gb/s and USB 3.0 drivers in a future service pack. I had hoped it would be SP1, but as the adoption has been slow and it nears final testing stages, I hope they are in SP2. AMD has already added SATA 6Gb/s and USB3 to many of its boards and Intel is putting out its first in the coming month.
Well, I jumped from XP to 7, so if this news is true I may do the same by skipping to "Windows 9" (if that's what they end up calling it).
Of course that depends on what new features "Windows 8" is able to deliver.
bad news for Microsoft if people are use to a longer product cycle, they will have to make some big changes if they want people to move from 7 to 8.
but don't think that windows 7 is the greatest, Microsoft might have a few aces up its sleeve that will make windows 7 look like XP.
Windows 8 release target has been pretty common knowledge. Unless it's horribly delayed, I think everyone expects it to come out in about two years... probably late 2012. That's probably when I'll buy my next computer. Hopefully my current one will last. My graphics card died last week.
A two year product cycle just isn't going to cut. Look at all the complaints from Vista users over the short cycle to W7. Then factor in the fact that in the enterprise market, which is MS's major concern, XP is still the dominant OS. W7 is catching on and is a hot item but many at the enterprise level are still waiting and they aren't big on early adoption so there is no way they'd skip W7 with a SP or two to go to W8.
IMO I'd like to see some major UI and shell changes for W8/W9 but I doubt it would happen only because that means some major risk that MS isn't likely to take on. If anything I see them going to go the cloud with W8 and pushing it as more of a 'home' OS that's dumbed down and even more 'user friendly' and less power user oriented than W7 or XP have been.
Microsoft won't stray TOO far from their windows roots. The main reason windows sells is compatibility. If they break that, there would be no good reason to stay with windows instead of going with linux or even gizoogle's OS for free.
[citation][nom]choirbass[/nom]It means that Windows XP was 'long' overdue to be replaced. That shorter product cycles are more necessary.[/citation]
No. It means that WinXP was good enough to last this long. That, and Vista had problems.
Win7 is more like Vista SE than a new operating system.