SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) on Tuesday announced the date the latest version of the Windows operating system, Windows 7, will be in general commercial availability: Oct. 22.
The milestone comes amid intense pressure on the world's largest software maker to reverse its perceived missteps with Windows 7's predecessor, Vista, and as evidence mounts that computer makers are increasingly considering alternatives to its ubiquitous operating system.
"We feel confident that we will deliver Windows 7 with our partners on Oct. 22," Bill Veghte, senior vice president for Microsoft's Windows business, said.
While the date confirms Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft will be able to get the latest version of its most important product onto retailer's shelves and into manufacturer's computers by the all-important holiday season, it also means the company will miss some opportunity to get the product into the hands of school children and students going back to school in the fall.
Windows generated around one-third of Microsoft's $60 billion in 2008 sales and is on more than 90% of the world's personal computers. Microsoft has been under unusual pressure to deliver a smooth launch for Windows 7 to avoid some of the glitches which affected its predecessor, Windows Vista.
Vista's launch, in late 2007, was dogged by compatibility problems with other software applications and components, and many corporate customers avoided the product, saying it required costly hardware upgrades, preferring to rely on an earlier version of the operating system, Windows XP.
With Windows 7, Microsoft also needs to address another growing challenge, the growth of the so-called "netbook" computer. Sales of these small, low-cost machines, designed for lightweight computing, have soared over the past two years, appealing to cash-strapped consumers, and Microsoft has been less successful in persuading the computer manufacturers to bundle Windows with the machines than it has with the larger desktop and laptop makers.
This week at a computer show in Taiwan, Acer Inc. (2353.TW), the world's third-largest computer maker by revenue, said it will launch a low-cost computer that runs on Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android operating system.
While Microsoft's Windows is still expected to ship on the overwhelming majority of low-cost netbooks, Acer's move is seen by some analysts as prefiguring a trend towards building computers which rely less on proprietary software operating systems, posing a particular challenge for Microsoft.
Veghte said that notwithstanding Acer's experiment with Google, Microsoft's hardware partners were "betting heavily on Windows 7."
I feel that Snow Leopard will beat Windows 7 to market. There is a great advantage to Apple to get the new OS out well before the back-to-school season. Early August is the latest Apple can release in order to make the back-to-school season.
Obviously, Microsoft is missing that mark, but it really wants to make the Christmas season. They're hoping to retain Xmas sales by announcing the October date.
Microsoft and Apple are two fairly different companies, with vastly different goals.
Microsoft's primary goals are profit, market share, upsell activity, and wide compatibility.
Apple's primary goal is elegance (ie ease of use, stability, style).
I base this both on what their stated objectives are, and what they've been willing to sacrifice other things for in their respective histories.
Microsoft goals make releasing a new OS a much more complicated problem than Apple's.
Microsoft has to run lots of numbers (they have many enterprise products with vastly complex licensing and upgrade paths), maintain a market share to hang on to the "positive feedback loop" that's kept them in business despite their shortcomings, consider the technical impact on their other products which are in mission critical paths (Exchange, SQL Server, etc), and will continue to work on the vast array of third party hardware and software that makes up both a single PC, and PC networked environment.
Apple only has ensure their new OS works with the hardware ecosystem they created, doesn't break existing USB drivers, and sports an adequate "wow" factor to justify the upgrade.
Apple gets another boost from the fact that they based OSX on FreeBSD, which has been being independently developed, tested, and hardened the whole time Apple was playing around with neat graphical features to lay on top.
Apple's focus is also a much tighter than Microsoft. Their mobile devices are all running of pretty much the same mobile OS, and have the added advantage of not having to play "catch up" to Apple, the way Zune/Windows Mobile etc must. They aren't trying to make a video game system (Apple TV is far simpler, and not being developed much). Not to mention staying out of the whole "play catch up to Google" game Microsoft seems intent on playing.
And if that isn't enough evidence yet, just consider that Apple has stated they're shooting for an earlier release than Microsoft has - and of the two companies, Apple has a much better track record of hitting their milestones than Microsoft ever has.
Market share's a bitch. Apple doesn't *want* majority market share - not just because of the inevitable complexity it brings to an already complex industry -but also because if they ever *did* achieve it... their current "stable ecosystem" would be a blatant monopoly abuse. But as it is, they build their tools without any care whether they become the most popular in the marketplace and just worry that their popular with the people who pay enough of a premium for them to make the whole endeavor profitable.
You hit just about every point needed. And you are 1000% right about Apple being happy without being the majority of the computer market share, because them having a competitor is exactly what they need, but they don't want to be the one EVERYONE uses because there is too much negative talk about the companies who hold the majority, just because they are the biggest name. Apple has a exponentially increasing value of their name. In 1995 Apple didn't mean sleek, simple, and functional (it did, but not in the same way it is now). It was just another company. Apple has done a great job setting themselves apart and making themselves a great competitor. Apple never plays catch up because Apple doesn't try to innovate, they invent. It comes down to that Apple will do their own thing, and it won't matter if they deliver before or after microsoft because microsoft users aren't mac users.
Microsoft and Apple are two fairly different companies, with vastly different goals.
Microsoft's primary goals are profit, market share, upsell activity, and wide compatibility.
Apple's primary goal is elegance (ie ease of use, stability, style).
I base this both on what their stated objectives are, and what they've been willing to sacrifice other things for in their respective histories.
Microsoft goals make releasing a new OS a much more complicated problem than Apple's.
Microsoft has to run lots of numbers (they have many enterprise products with vastly complex licensing and upgrade paths), maintain a market share to hang on to the "positive feedback loop" that's kept them in business despite their shortcomings, consider the technical impact on their other products which are in mission critical paths (Exchange, SQL Server, etc), and will continue to work on the vast array of third party hardware and software that makes up both a single PC, and PC networked environment.
Apple only has ensure their new OS works with the hardware ecosystem they created, doesn't break existing USB drivers, and sports an adequate "wow" factor to justify the upgrade.
Apple gets another boost from the fact that they based OSX on FreeBSD, which has been being independently developed, tested, and hardened the whole time Apple was playing around with neat graphical features to lay on top.
Apple's focus is also a much tighter than Microsoft. Their mobile devices are all running of pretty much the same mobile OS, and have the added advantage of not having to play "catch up" to Apple, the way Zune/Windows Mobile etc must. They aren't trying to make a video game system (Apple TV is far simpler, and not being developed much). Not to mention staying out of the whole "play catch up to Google" game Microsoft seems intent on playing.
And if that isn't enough evidence yet, just consider that Apple has stated they're shooting for an earlier release than Microsoft has - and of the two companies, Apple has a much better track record of hitting their milestones than Microsoft ever has.
Market share's a bitch. Apple doesn't *want* majority market share - not just because of the inevitable complexity it brings to an already complex industry -but also because if they ever *did* achieve it... their current "stable ecosystem" would be a blatant monopoly abuse. But as it is, they build their tools without any care whether they become the most popular in the marketplace and just worry that their popular with the people who pay enough of a premium for them to make the whole endeavor profitable.
not to nitpick but PC refers, at least in this discussion, to Personal Computer. I realize that PC's are usually associated with windows. That being said all PC's, apple, microsoft, *nix are PC's.
Who cares? I enjoy running dd-wrt and installing mini packages on my router imac. Far more powerful than Windows 7 and Snow Leopard combined. If Microsoft didn't get Windows right in the first 6 iterations, what makes you think it will be any better in the 7th? Also, I hear Snow Leopard is just a Snow Job. Not many new features in this one. Wow!
Embedded Linux all the way dudes!
IMHO - think Apple is going to Axe this version of the OS like the did with Copland etc and just go and buy an OS from another company like Microsoft ;).
Tune in Monday for some hints and seeds from the Apple gods.
Personally, and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me, I don't mind whether Snow Leopard beats 7 to the market. If it does, then great, if not, Snow Leopard will still be much better and Micro$oft are bound to make 7 too complicated, too expensive and ruin it. I've been using the beta, it's just a more stable Vista... still memory hungry, still crashes, still waaaay too confusing to do something like set up a network or change your background. It's crap.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Comments
http://online.wsj.com/articl
http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090602-711873.html
By Jessica Hodgson
Of DOW JONES NEWSWIRES
SAN FRANCISCO (Dow Jones)--Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) on Tuesday announced the date the latest version of the Windows operating system, Windows 7, will be in general commercial availability: Oct. 22.
The milestone comes amid intense pressure on the world's largest software maker to reverse its perceived missteps with Windows 7's predecessor, Vista, and as evidence mounts that computer makers are increasingly considering alternatives to its ubiquitous operating system.
"We feel confident that we will deliver Windows 7 with our partners on Oct. 22," Bill Veghte, senior vice president for Microsoft's Windows business, said.
While the date confirms Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft will be able to get the latest version of its most important product onto retailer's shelves and into manufacturer's computers by the all-important holiday season, it also means the company will miss some opportunity to get the product into the hands of school children and students going back to school in the fall.
Windows generated around one-third of Microsoft's $60 billion in 2008 sales and is on more than 90% of the world's personal computers. Microsoft has been under unusual pressure to deliver a smooth launch for Windows 7 to avoid some of the glitches which affected its predecessor, Windows Vista.
Vista's launch, in late 2007, was dogged by compatibility problems with other software applications and components, and many corporate customers avoided the product, saying it required costly hardware upgrades, preferring to rely on an earlier version of the operating system, Windows XP.
With Windows 7, Microsoft also needs to address another growing challenge, the growth of the so-called "netbook" computer. Sales of these small, low-cost machines, designed for lightweight computing, have soared over the past two years, appealing to cash-strapped consumers, and Microsoft has been less successful in persuading the computer manufacturers to bundle Windows with the machines than it has with the larger desktop and laptop makers.
This week at a computer show in Taiwan, Acer Inc. (2353.TW), the world's third-largest computer maker by revenue, said it will launch a low-cost computer that runs on Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android operating system.
While Microsoft's Windows is still expected to ship on the overwhelming majority of low-cost netbooks, Acer's move is seen by some analysts as prefiguring a trend towards building computers which rely less on proprietary software operating systems, posing a particular challenge for Microsoft.
Veghte said that notwithstanding Acer's experiment with Google, Microsoft's hardware partners were "betting heavily on Windows 7."
-By Jessica Hodgson, Dow Jones Newswires; 415-439-6455; jessica.hodgson@dowjones.com
Same time last year they said
Same time last year they said same time next year. No?
Whoops
I meant yes...
I didn't read all the question (I know, stupid)... I just say the words "Windows 7" and "October 22nd 2009" and thought no, so clicked...
Which is first
It would be a mistake if either OS is rushed to be first at the expense of reliability
Yep.
I feel that Snow Leopard will beat Windows 7 to market. There is a great advantage to Apple to get the new OS out well before the back-to-school season. Early August is the latest Apple can release in order to make the back-to-school season.
Obviously, Microsoft is missing that mark, but it really wants to make the Christmas season. They're hoping to retain Xmas sales by announcing the October date.
I love the idea of someone
I love the idea of someone giving an operating system for Christmas. Some sort of geeky reverse-nostalgia.
Who cares?
Does it really matter who's first to market? If Windows 7 comes out first, do I have to sell all of my Macs and buy ugly PCs?
yes and you'll actually have
yes and you'll actually have to burn your macs first then buy all new PCs.
mwahaha
mwahaha
Does it really matter?
What matters is that they don't release a buggy POS like 10.5.0-10.5.6.
Of course (here's why)
Microsoft and Apple are two fairly different companies, with vastly different goals.
Microsoft's primary goals are profit, market share, upsell activity, and wide compatibility.
Apple's primary goal is elegance (ie ease of use, stability, style).
I base this both on what their stated objectives are, and what they've been willing to sacrifice other things for in their respective histories.
Microsoft goals make releasing a new OS a much more complicated problem than Apple's.
Microsoft has to run lots of numbers (they have many enterprise products with vastly complex licensing and upgrade paths), maintain a market share to hang on to the "positive feedback loop" that's kept them in business despite their shortcomings, consider the technical impact on their other products which are in mission critical paths (Exchange, SQL Server, etc), and will continue to work on the vast array of third party hardware and software that makes up both a single PC, and PC networked environment.
Apple only has ensure their new OS works with the hardware ecosystem they created, doesn't break existing USB drivers, and sports an adequate "wow" factor to justify the upgrade.
Apple gets another boost from the fact that they based OSX on FreeBSD, which has been being independently developed, tested, and hardened the whole time Apple was playing around with neat graphical features to lay on top.
Apple's focus is also a much tighter than Microsoft. Their mobile devices are all running of pretty much the same mobile OS, and have the added advantage of not having to play "catch up" to Apple, the way Zune/Windows Mobile etc must. They aren't trying to make a video game system (Apple TV is far simpler, and not being developed much). Not to mention staying out of the whole "play catch up to Google" game Microsoft seems intent on playing.
And if that isn't enough evidence yet, just consider that Apple has stated they're shooting for an earlier release than Microsoft has - and of the two companies, Apple has a much better track record of hitting their milestones than Microsoft ever has.
Market share's a bitch. Apple doesn't *want* majority market share - not just because of the inevitable complexity it brings to an already complex industry -but also because if they ever *did* achieve it... their current "stable ecosystem" would be a blatant monopoly abuse. But as it is, they build their tools without any care whether they become the most popular in the marketplace and just worry that their popular with the people who pay enough of a premium for them to make the whole endeavor profitable.
Ok
You hit just about every point needed. And you are 1000% right about Apple being happy without being the majority of the computer market share, because them having a competitor is exactly what they need, but they don't want to be the one EVERYONE uses because there is too much negative talk about the companies who hold the majority, just because they are the biggest name. Apple has a exponentially increasing value of their name. In 1995 Apple didn't mean sleek, simple, and functional (it did, but not in the same way it is now). It was just another company. Apple has done a great job setting themselves apart and making themselves a great competitor. Apple never plays catch up because Apple doesn't try to innovate, they invent. It comes down to that Apple will do their own thing, and it won't matter if they deliver before or after microsoft because microsoft users aren't mac users.
Of course (here's why)
Microsoft and Apple are two fairly different companies, with vastly different goals.
Microsoft's primary goals are profit, market share, upsell activity, and wide compatibility.
Apple's primary goal is elegance (ie ease of use, stability, style).
I base this both on what their stated objectives are, and what they've been willing to sacrifice other things for in their respective histories.
Microsoft goals make releasing a new OS a much more complicated problem than Apple's.
Microsoft has to run lots of numbers (they have many enterprise products with vastly complex licensing and upgrade paths), maintain a market share to hang on to the "positive feedback loop" that's kept them in business despite their shortcomings, consider the technical impact on their other products which are in mission critical paths (Exchange, SQL Server, etc), and will continue to work on the vast array of third party hardware and software that makes up both a single PC, and PC networked environment.
Apple only has ensure their new OS works with the hardware ecosystem they created, doesn't break existing USB drivers, and sports an adequate "wow" factor to justify the upgrade.
Apple gets another boost from the fact that they based OSX on FreeBSD, which has been being independently developed, tested, and hardened the whole time Apple was playing around with neat graphical features to lay on top.
Apple's focus is also a much tighter than Microsoft. Their mobile devices are all running of pretty much the same mobile OS, and have the added advantage of not having to play "catch up" to Apple, the way Zune/Windows Mobile etc must. They aren't trying to make a video game system (Apple TV is far simpler, and not being developed much). Not to mention staying out of the whole "play catch up to Google" game Microsoft seems intent on playing.
And if that isn't enough evidence yet, just consider that Apple has stated they're shooting for an earlier release than Microsoft has - and of the two companies, Apple has a much better track record of hitting their milestones than Microsoft ever has.
Market share's a bitch. Apple doesn't *want* majority market share - not just because of the inevitable complexity it brings to an already complex industry -but also because if they ever *did* achieve it... their current "stable ecosystem" would be a blatant monopoly abuse. But as it is, they build their tools without any care whether they become the most popular in the marketplace and just worry that their popular with the people who pay enough of a premium for them to make the whole endeavor profitable.
not to nitpick but PC refers,
not to nitpick but PC refers, at least in this discussion, to Personal Computer. I realize that PC's are usually associated with windows. That being said all PC's, apple, microsoft, *nix are PC's.
Naw, man... "PC" is the
Naw, man... "PC" is the chubby, funny guy on the commercials.
... it will be here when it
... it will be here when it gets here..
Who cares? I enjoy running
Who cares? I enjoy running dd-wrt and installing mini packages on my router imac. Far more powerful than Windows 7 and Snow Leopard combined. If Microsoft didn't get Windows right in the first 6 iterations, what makes you think it will be any better in the 7th? Also, I hear Snow Leopard is just a Snow Job. Not many new features in this one. Wow!
Embedded Linux all the way dudes!
IMHO - think Apple is going to Axe this version of the OS like the did with Copland etc and just go and buy an OS from another company like Microsoft ;).
Tune in Monday for some hints and seeds from the Apple gods.
Isn't Windows 7 just Vista
Isn't Windows 7 just Vista 3.0?
Personally, and I'm sure
Personally, and I'm sure everyone here will agree with me, I don't mind whether Snow Leopard beats 7 to the market. If it does, then great, if not, Snow Leopard will still be much better and Micro$oft are bound to make 7 too complicated, too expensive and ruin it. I've been using the beta, it's just a more stable Vista... still memory hungry, still crashes, still waaaay too confusing to do something like set up a network or change your background. It's crap.
Maybe to retail, but Win7
Maybe to retail, but Win7 will be RTM next month.
First or second it will still
First or second it will still be a piece of crap.