Take it as a sign that Windows Vista failed to perform the imagination of Windows users, or take it as a sign that sensationalism sells. Either way, the rumor mill is heating up with claims that the successor to Windows Vista that is new Windows 7 released in this year.
Some users have viewed early constructs of Windows 7, including a poster at Neowin. Ars Technica has also seen an older build, a more recent build was reportedly described as Milestone 1. APC Magazine claims to have seen a roadmap which puts M2 in an April/May time-frame, and a M3 in the third quarter of this year. All of this points to a late 2009 launch, they say, which is shown by this road map.
Arguing about whether or not Windows 7 will launch in late 2009 is pointless. No one can say about the future, and Microsoft's own history shows that its roadmaps and predictions are not to be faithful. A more fascinating question is should Microsoft be interested for late 2009? Should the company be aiming at a date, or should it be aiming at an experience? To be sure, a software company can't construct without some kind of general time-frame.?
In its early days as Longhorn, perhaps the project was too important. But once Microsoft rebooted Longhorn's development more than two years into the process, the firm made a critical error in a panic, it aimed on when the product would ship, not when it would be ready. Unfortunately, Vista did become date-driven, and even Gates seemed to admit that Vista launched before it was ready when Gizmodo talked to him at CES this year. Admission or not, it's quite clear that things that were not totally together where included on the shipping train, and that the releasing time became more important than the quality of the launch.
With Windows 7, Microsoft needs to present in a big way. I personally wouldn't call Windows Vista a bomb, but Microsoft has lost serious mindshare and respect in the many years since Windows XP, due to Vista. Vista will still sell well, if only because the momentum of the growing PC market will not allow otherwise. It does not views that Vista is driving PC growth, however, and even among Vista fans, the mood is bad.
If you can't avoid a mistake, then you do the next best thing and analyze from it. You don't want to move too fast in an effort to fix your mistake, because you can end up making another, costlier one. In Microsoft's case, the firm can easily perform the trials and tribulations that Vista has brought it. But should the firm launch another operating system that fails to gain a critical, but positive views, it will signal a true crisis for the company's desktop business.
Once released in a couple of weeks, it will have taken Microsoft about 16 months to deliver the first Service Pack for Windows Vista. A November 2009 Windows 7 release would have afforded roughly 36 months of time between Vista and Windows 7, or a bit more than twice the time consumed by Vista SP1 efforts. Keep in mind that a Windows 7 Milestone 3 in Q3 2008 leaves about a year for beta testing, by this time, the construct should be very close to feature complete. As such, this would mean that Windows 7 would need to reach feature-completion status over the next nine months.
For More Detail Online backup and restore and window 7
