Print - Windows 7 Now Due in 2010, Microsoft Says

Windows 7--the successor to Windows Vista and whose codename was first revealed here in WinInfo back in January--is now on the docket for 2010, Microsoft says. Contrary to prior reports, Windows 7, previously code-named Vienna, will be a major Windows release and will ship in both 32-bit and 64-bit variants for both consumers and businesses. This suggests that Microsoft's intention to move entirely to the 64-bit x64 codebase is proceeding slower than hoped.

At a partner conference earlier this month, Microsoft hinted that it would put the Windows client on the same type of release schedule as Windows Server, with a major release every four years interspersed by minor updates at the two-year point between each major release. Given Vista's 2006 release date, a 2010 nod for Windows 7 makes sense, since it's now considered a major release. But Microsoft won't say whether we can expect a minor Windows update first, in 2008. The company does say that Vista SP1 will ship in that year, however.

The few new details we have about Windows 7 came during Microsoft's annual sales conference late last week in Orlando. The company is apparently researching whether it can offer Windows 7 to customers on a subscription basis as well as the more typical enterprise licensing, retail, and PC bundle options. Windows 7 is the internal codename for the next major release of Windows, Microsoft notes, and the name is subject to change. The Windows 7 codename reflects the fact that this release is indeed Windows 7.0 (Vista was Windows 6.0).

If you're looking for more information on Windows 7, please check out my Windows 7 FAQ. It's early yet, but I'll continue updating the FAQ as more information becomes available.

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp

i think what would make the most sense would be to differentiate the 32-bit and 64-bit versions by restricting the 32-bit version to only limited "Basic" editions ala Windows Vista Home Basic, or possibly for a more device-centric SKU for UMPC's and the like, which typically have low power requirements (both wattage, and "oomph" compared to their larger brethren). WOW64 compatibility and virtualization just needs to be improved to help with finicky 32-bit code. 64-bit code in your pocket just doesn't make sense anytime soon though, as we're only JUST starting to break ground on the desktop. ....and NO, losta, Apple didn't pioneer anything with OS X since the code is still a great deal 32-bit as are many high profile applications. only Leopard features half-competent 64-bit capabilities, and it'll be a while before software devs start taking advantage of it. the real pioneering was started with Intel on the Itanium IA64 architecture. ....the idea of software subscriptions, even for an OS, makes a lot of sense moving forward too. i personally like the idea that consumers would be able to get the benefits of software assurance. XP

So Leopard can run 32-bit and 64-bit applications natively side by side, and 64-bit Vista needs to run 32-bit Applications under virtualization, but it's Leopard that has the half-competent capabilities? Nice spin you should work in politics.

"WaeBonch", were you the kind of kid that would hit a hornet's nest with a stick? Paul's article never mentioned Apple, so why are you--once again--the first to bring them up (and in the first post, no less)? Are you THAT desperate for attention? I'm going to swim right by your (lame) bait.

I also heard Windows 7 could be released in 2009. Maybe 2011. 2013? It'll ship when Microsoft ships it. As for 64-bit, who cares besides digital content creators, movie editors, etc.? The market may be quite a bit different in 2010 (or whenever Windows 7 ships) and Microsoft may decide to go with only a 64-bit version after all. You're working with files over 4 gigs in size and have more than 4 gigs of memory, and 64-bit benefits you. Sure, the 64-bit version of Vista, for example, has some security enhancements (Address Space Layout Randomizer). Otherwise, so what? I don't care about 64-bit, your grandma sending e-mails doesn't care, your kids doing research papers don't care - maybe in 2010 the subject will sound more horns.

"The Windows 7 codename is due to the fact that this release is indeed Windows 7.0 (Vista was Windows 6.0)." Speaking in past tense about Vista already?

"So Leopard can run 32-bit and 64-bit applications natively side by side" AHAHAHAHAHA! no, THAT'S marketing spin. if you think that, then you don't have a clue as to how x86-64 architecture works. "native" x86-64 mode only runs 64-bit code. being able to run 32-bit code "side-by-side" at full performance requires x86-64 Compatibility Mode which would also require a complete system reinitialization (ie. reboot), after which there is a huge performance drop in 64-bit processing to accommodate 32-bit applications. the only other option IS virtualization through software ("emulation"), of which there is at least an equal performance hit, but only on the 32-bit applications. to run "natively", OS X would be doing 32-bit emulation through a software layer, which is no different than Windows for x86-64. either way there is a performance hit. "64-bit Vista needs to run 32-bit Applications under virtualization" no, THIS is how they're currently doing it: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/win64/win64/wow64_implementation_details.asp for compatibility reasons, i would prefer complete hardware-level pre-OS system virtualization as seen in the forthcoming version of Virtual Server (codename Veridian) because it allows native-mode performance without any compatibility hickups. complete operating systems (not just applications) run side-by-side on that model, each under a virtualized system. all of the hardware is exposed as if it were native though, not stripped-down emulated components which is how todays virtualization works. currently this isn't in huge demand in the desktop space (about as much as 64-bit is), but in the server space, it makes a great deal of sense. possibly when Veridian gets released, Microsoft might start work on a desktop variant ("Virtual PC 2010"?), but that's anyones guess at this point. XP

@Weathorn When in legacy mode, the processor functions exactly like a standard x86 CPU it runs a 32-bit OS and 32-bit code exclusively, and none of x86-64's added capabilities are turned on. when in 64-bit long mode that things start to get interesting. To run application software in long mode you need a 64-bit OS. Long mode provides two sub-modes--64-bit mode and compatibility mode--in which the OS can run either x86-64 or vanilla x86 code. So legacy x86 code (both 32-bit and 16-bit) runs under a 64-bit OS in compatibility mode, and x86-64 code runs under a 64-bit OS in 64-bit mode. Only code running in long mode's 64-bit sub-mode can take advantage of all the new features of x86-64. Legacy x86 code running in long mode's compatibility sub-mode, for example, cannot see the extended parts of the registers, cannot use the eight extra registers, and is limited to the first 4GB of memory. These modes are set for each segment of code on a per-segment basis by means of two bits in the segment's code segment descriptor. The chip examines these two bits so that it knows whether to treat a particular chunk of code as 32-bit or 64-bit. There be no performance penalty for running in legacy or compatibility mode versus long mode. The two backwards compatibility modes don't give you the performance enhancing benefits of x86-64 (specifically, more registers), but they don't incur any added overhead, either. A legacy 32-bit program simply ignores x86-64's added features, so they don't affect it one way or the other. http://arstechnica.com/cpu/03q1/x86-64/x86-64-3.html

I love Ars Technica. They also have an excellent read about why Windows Vista is a much bigger upgrade than what meets the eye. It's "Vista: More than just a pretty face" at: http://origin.arstechnica.com/reviews/os/pretty-vista.ars/1 "Vista is not simply XP with a new skin; core parts of the OS have been radically overhauled...Never before have significant subsystems been gutted and replaced in the way they are in Vista." I'm curious to see how all the mistakes Microsoft made with Vista will play out with Windows 7.

"As for 64-bit, who cares besides digital content creators, movie editors, etc.?" Currenly 'my standard' is 2GB on a machine. I don't see why I won't be at 4GB by 2010. And I am not content to use 3.1-3.4GB of my memory because of physical addressing space decreed by my mobo. It's not a matter of necessity, it's a matter of price/performance. RAM is always becoming cheaper and cheaper. If I can get above linear (10% performance increase across the board for 10% price increase vs the system cost) I'm all for it. Dispite the rumors, I don't believe Vista will perform much better in my scenario with 4GB vs 2GB. P.S. Windows 7.0 should drop 32-bit support. Given a 5 year rollover for most modest size businesses, I'd think by 2010 everyone would be running 64-bit chips (and if AMD keeps their current track record, I'd fathom that all those chips would be C2D or C2Q chips). The only PC I still own that is 32-bit is an archaic laptop (that I still love) and it can _barely_ run Vista, God help it try to run Win 7. (For the curious P4 1.7GHz, 512MB PC2100, GeForce440 Go 32MB dedicated... and yes, it runs Vista.)

@notawindowsuser you should've read Intel's whitepapers on the subject when they first introduced it in the Pentium 4 line - even they said that 32-bit code would optimally run on a 32-bit OS because of performance issues inherent in the translation from software emulation layers from a 64-bit OS. they touted the performance hit at approximately 10-20% when running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit OS as compared to running them natively in their own 32-bit environment. of course, they also stated that the same app optimized for 64-bit would run considerably faster too. i would bet that with the Core microarchitecture that improvements have been made to Intel 64 (what used to be called EM64T). XP

@bonchsucks Hey no problem, Ars Technica is one of the best tech. sites on the 'Net. I also wish comments could be edited after posting, since I never find my spelling mistakes until after I hit 'Submit' haha.

There's also "Vista: Under the hood" at: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/vista-under-the-hood.ars/1 An important thing to note is that this article also explains why Vista sucks up more memory (a common complaint) than XP - it doesn't use more just for the hell of it. Some people are too busy bashing Windows Vista to realize what a release it really is.

"The company does say that Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) will ship in that year, however." They did? I though they poo-pooed any and all release dates last week? Whatever. Windows 7 is going to be the same story all over again. - Vista SP2 will be out and stable - Windows 7 will come out 2 years late - People will whine and cry about the hardware requirements and wonder why they have to upgrade to Windows 7 when Vista SP2 is so damn good. - Apple will poke fun at Windows 7 because it copies "OS Whatever Apple has out then" - Paul will hate the beta versions, then give the final release 4 or 5 Paul Heads and say it's a revolutionary OS and Microsoft has outdone themselves. - Flame wars will be alive and well here on the WinInfo site.

@RunTime - - Apple will poke fun at Windows 7 because it copies "OS Whatever Apple has out then" Don't forget to add the $129 per minor upgrade for OS X... --tayme

I'd like to thank Paul for the article. I like to stay informed. Second, I'd like to thank both notawindowsuser and MozillaGen for the Ars Technica website. I have more places and articles to read. Thanks. I'll pass it on to my friends. Now to the business at hand, Windows 7. Thanks to the various electronics retailers in Dallas (ie: Fry's, MicroCenter, and Altex.), I've managed to upgrade a decent GQ machine to a AMD Athlon 64 X 2 dualcore with 1 Gig of memory. Also thanks to one of those retailers, I also have a Fujitsu Lifebook with a Turion 64 mobile processor with a Gig of memory. Since I have all of the hardware in the 64 bit world, I am pretty much ready to say goodbye to 32 bit OS'es and let them fade to black. First, the problem is many of the 3rd party vendors have not written much in terms of 64 bit programs or applications. ITunes for Windows is a 32 bit program. Many of these guys are just now getting into making their programs compatable. I have a feeling that making them compatable for Vista 64 and others are far from a truely well written bug free and full performance version. Second, COST! Dallas is paying almost 3 dollars a gallon for gas. The average grocery bill for a family of four is about $230 dollars every 2 weeks. Add utlities, city services, etc and buying a 64 bit, dual, quad, or any piece of technology can be very bit hit on consumers when income has not risen very much. (Thank you, President Bush and members of the Republican Party.) I say we keep 32 bit processors and continue to push the technology forward until 64 bit CPU's are cheap enough where the average person can buy one at Wal-Mart for $300 bucks. The last problem is backward's compatability. Since virtualization is now the wave of the future, I don't see how hard it would be to update today's virtualization programs to include 16 bit and 32 bit programs. It shouldn't be that hard to make versions for all pc's. The 4 gb wall can be broken as others have been.

"I say we keep 32 bit processors and continue to push the technology forward until 64 bit CPU's are cheap enough where the average person can buy one at Wal-Mart for $300 bucks." actually, as far as processors go, Intel is dropping the price on the Q6600 QUAD-CORE processor, which ALSO happens to support Intel 64 (which is the same as everything else they make, save for device CPU's) to about $300US!! it's not hard to find a system in the super-ultra-budget market with a 64-bit CPU, except for maybe Sempron systems. almost every system does - even Celeron's from 2 years ago do. XP

"I'm curious to see how all the mistakes Microsoft made with Vista will play out with Windows 7." I'm sure they'll expand on those mistakes with "Windows 7" in much the same way they did with Vista vis-à-vis XP.

Maybe the real reason Leopard got delayed was that Apple's employees were too busy ridiculing Microsoft on Windows forums. By the way, just a thought - if creating podcasts and videos was so easy on Macs, I wonder how some of the people who comment on this site still have jobs.

>Maybe the real reason Leopard got delayed was that Apple's employees were too busy ridiculing Microsoft on Windows forums. Good stuff! Or Leopard was delayed a few months to put out a product line that will add another 33% to 50% of current revenues to Apples bottom line. >... I wonder how some of the people who comment on this site still have jobs. God knows and she wonders about this. Some of the comments on this site make for easy reporting to upper management. Now that Y2K has passed and the HIPAA rollout is 3+ years under way, many are asking if the extra funding given to IT for these projects is any longer necessary, and if so to what extent? The other question coming to the surface is IT meeting the demands of its end users/company vs ITs policy. Vista (sp1) Vista (sp1)

"(Thank you, President Bush and members of the Republican Party.) " I'm sorry if this is callous, but blaming the highest eschelon of establishment for not getting a pay raise is a bit... uh, I don't know an appropriate word... hippy-ish? And if you ask me, judging by the sales of fairly expensive consumer electronics, the pay of middle-class should be doing just fine. I'm sorry but the fundamental reason the dems _let_ someone like Bush gain power was this sentament of 'the shortcomings of me are someone elses fault'. "I say we keep 32 bit processors and continue to push the technology forward until 64 bit CPU's are cheap..." 50USD doesn't seem bad for 64-bit support. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116040