01/18/2008, 1:35pm, EST
Friday, January 18thWindows 7 moved up to late 2009?
Microsoft may be set to release the next version of Windows sooner than expected, an allegedly leaked roadmap reveals to TGDaily. The operating system, internally referred to as Windows 7, is said to be in an accelerated development process which will see the software released to manufacturing in the second half of 2009. While flexible, the plan may see the Vista successor released as early as fall 2009, months ahead of a projected 2010 launch for the OS.
The schedule is purportedly backed by Windows 7 already being available in its first Milestone release to testers, a benchmark that Microsoft uses to check the progress of its code. This release has come early and should see a second milestone as early as April or May with a third and possibly final milestone available in the summer before Microsoft concentrates on beta (near-complete) releases, the roadmap says.
Reasoning for the stepped up schedule is uncertain but may be an attempt to counter a perceived lukewarm reception to Windows Vista, whose January 2007 launch has been slow to gain support and has pressured the company into extending the sales period for Windows XP until June. One of the frequently cited reasons behind the cautious approach to Vista has been a lack of tangible benefit from upgrading to the new OS.
,
, 27
,
,
,
,
,
, 
subscribe to comments
for this article
But, MS is one of those companies that just can't meet deadlines, so it remains to be seen if they can pull it off.
Anyway - I am still trying to figure out the relevence of the codename:
Windows 7
seeing as how even if you eliminate Win Me [as a crappy stopgap] and Win 2000 [as being server tech - NT5]
Windows 7 still falls in line under the #8 position in succession_
3 - v 3.1 4 - v '95 5 - v '98 6 - v XP 7 - v Vista 8 - Winodws 7
Is Ballmer really that bad at counting?
Anyway - I am still trying to figure out the relevence of the codename:
Windows 7
seeing as how even if you eliminate Win Me [as a crappy stopgap] and Win 2000 [as being server tech - NT5]
Windows 7 still falls in line under the #8 position in succession_
3 - v 3.1[br /] 4 - v '95[br /] 5 - v '98[br /] 6 - v XP[br /] 7 - v Vista[br /] 8 - Winodws 7
Is Ballmer really that bad at counting?