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

End of Article

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

Waethorn July 22, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

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.

notawindowsuser July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

"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.

lotsamystuff July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

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.

MozillaGen July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

"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?

MozillaGen July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

"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

Waethorn July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

@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

notawindowsuser July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

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.

MozillaGen July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

"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.)

will84 July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

MozillaGen, I enjoyed reading the article you liked to. Thanks!

bonchsucks July 23, 2007 (Article Rating:

)

See More Comments 1 2 3

You must log on before posting a comment.

If you don't have a username & password, please register now.