New user interface for ‘Windows 7'?

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

David Flynn23 July 2007, 2:29 AM

Microsoft has named the date for the next version of Windows, and the woman behind the Office 2007 interface is in charge of an all bets are off UI refresh for Windows too.


The post-Vista edition of Windows doesn't yet have a name, but it's got a date - 2010 - and it's getting a fresh look.

The former was revealed at Microsoft's Global Exchange sales conference in Orlando last week, according to Windows watcher Mary Jo Foley. Foley cites a PowerPoint presentation indicating that "Microsoft is anticipating it will take at least three years from now to get the next version of Windows client out the door." A Microsoft spokesperson confirmed to Foley that " Microsoft is scoping Windows ‘7' development to a three-year timeframe, and then the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar."

If you're wondering what happened to the codenames of Vienna, and before that Blackcomb, which were originally attached to the OS, Windows senior VP Steven Sinofsky has banished those ciphers name as a sign of his desire to refocus the team on the steak rather than the sizzle. It's in keeping with Sinofsky's previous reign over Office 2000, XP/2002, 2003 and 2007 - all of which were known only by their internal version numbers (such as Office 2007 being ‘Office 12') before being christened with a marketing label.

"No fancy codenames for you!": Windows veep Steven Sinofsky goes back to basics with 'Windows 7'"No fancy codenames for you!": Windows veep Steven Sinofsky goes back to basics with 'Windows 7'
The next edition of Windows will technically be the seventh generation of the Windows NT codebase which is now the foundation for the client OS (the clock starts at Windows NT 3.1; this was followed by NT 4, while Windows 2000 was also ‘Windows NT 5' and XP a mere 5.1, until Vista clicked the meter over to Windows version 6).

And as he did with Office 2007, Sinofsky has declared that all bets are off when it comes to the UI of Windows 7. He's hired Julie Larson-Green, who lead the Office 2007 user interface team under Sinofsky's watch, as VP in charge of the "the Windows User Experience" or UX program.

Larson-Green was pivotal in the dramatic redesign of Office 2007, which ditched the long-established model of menus and toolbars - which had grown cluttered and out of control over two decades of development - for that single integrated and context-morphing ‘ribbon'. Few could argue that Windows isn't in need of a similar cleanup job - the iconic overload of Vista's Control Panel is a prime example of a once-friendly UI turned ferral.

Jensen Harris, who was program manager for the Office 2007 UX team and now fills Larsen-Green's role in fine-tuning the face of Office 14 (not wishing to tempt fate, they're skipping 13!) recalls that it was Sinofsky who drove the suite's radical interfacelift.

"It originated with Steven Sinofsky" Harris told APC in a recent interview. "Steven had certainly noticed, like we all had, the growing interface clutter around the core Office apps, and he thought we should put a set of people together and at least think about this. But I sometimes think that he didn't really expect us to actually replace the entire UI!

"Maybe Steven asked for a lot so we would deliver more than just a little, because it would take a lot to budge people from the way things had been for 20 years. Perhaps his thinking was to ask for a mile in order to get just 200 feet. But we ended giving him the whole mile, and then some".

Julie Larsen-Green: she changed the way Office 2007 looks and works, and now she's got the same job on the Windows 7 teamJulie Larsen-Green: she changed the way Office 2007 looks and works, and now she's got the same job on the Windows 7 team
Harris recalls that Larsen-Green was a staunch advocate for rethinking the way Office worked and, more importantly, that way users wanted it to work. "She recruited me to do something bold to change the UI of Office. I was very sceptical at first - my feeling was that we would never be bold enough to actually make a real change, that really what we were talking about was doing some other incremental bandaid on top of the way things used to work. (But) Julie really sold me on the idea that she was really serious about trying to understand the problems with the UI, and if we can understand it and can come up with the idea, that we can go and do it."

Of her new role in the Windows team, Harris observes "Julie is definitely a champion of building great user experiences, and I know that in Windows she'll be looking to do the same types of things that she did in Office, which espouse great design values. Whether or not that means we'll see such a radical overhaul of the UI in Windows 7, I think it's too early to say".

Two things are certain: Sinofsky is a serious agent of change for the Windows OS, and Larsen-Green hasn't been brought into the Windows 7 UX team to keep things the way they are.

Related stories


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Wes:

Maybe its better to get Vista working before thinking of a new version. The three year timeframe also looks very interesting.

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Phaltran:

I think this qualifies as an admission that Vista does not work and probably will not work without major changes and qualification that it only works on specific, newer, higher-end hardware. (I had a brand new Core 2 Duo system with Vista, but the performance difference between Vista and XP was night and day, so I stuck with XP.)

Personally, I could care less about Vista. I'm sticking with XP, regardless of MS or OEM views or support, until 7 comes out as a *hopeful* upgrade or I finally decide to switch to Linux.

29 February 2008, 8:46 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

tin:

Some of this makes using Windows sound like they want it to be an adventure or something... I am of the opposite opinion that an OS should just be the basics that let you run other things.

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

McBanjo:

Maybe we'll also see some of those interesting pie-menus from the Microsoft R&D Team as-well.

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

ora410:

#1 Optimise, optimise, optimise its performance - why do we need to buy a new PC/upgrade so much whenever new Windows release?

#2 Release only one version (32 vs 64 bits) please - one for all, no more from basic & whatever to ultimates.

#3 Keep your promise - whatever you dropped from initial Vista features, please put it back. Otherwise, please do not promise it.

#4 Please, please give us a way to get rid of all those fancy stuffs off the disk - yes off the disk, turning off services/applications won't help much.

#5 Sale it cheaper, that will be even better.

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

zahadum:

this era of glasnost at microsoft is indeed a refreshing if sobering experience!

for a long time, one of the chief criticisms of microsoft (other than their cyber-gangsterism, which got them prosecuted by governments around the world) has been the appallingly bad technology - and the culture which just didnt give a damn about shipping os much shiite.

so in a way it doesnt really come as much of a shock to read the words - directly from a flasgship program manager - about the intellectual inertia & mediocrity which has characterized redmond from the get-go.

" I was very sceptical at first - my feeling was that we would never be bold enough to actually make a real change, that really what we were talking about was doing some other incremental bandaid on top of the way things used to work."

Can anyone imagine a truly great company thinking this way - real innovation & value-add are almost like an allergic reaction at microsoft.

i suppose that it is possible that windows7/vista2 might represent a change for the decade+ of dismal cairo/longhorn failure ... but the areo UI is not the only problem with vista; the core platform is also at issue, and other recent comments dont seem very clear .... winFS seems definitely a lost cause; and elsewhere, microsoft is talking about a service-oriented 'cloud os' ....

of course alot of people continue to believe that the problem with microsoft is not that it has its head in the clouds, but rather that it has its head up its ass!

The new crew at microsoft says the culture of crap can change.

Can pigs fly?

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

MCSEBear:

Windows NT 3.1 = Version 1 of NT
Windows NT 4 = Version 2 of NT
Windows 2000 = Version 3 of NT
Windows XP = Version 3.1 of NT
Windows Vista = Version 4 of NT


That makes Windows 7 actually Version 5 of Windows NT. Someone seriously needs to bitch slap everyone in the MS marketing department. Quick, before they call it Windows LIVE 7.

29 February 2008, 8:31 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne:

"Windows NT 3.1 = Version 1 of NT"

I think your problem is right there ;-)



29 February 2008, 8:46 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

David Flynn:

Yep, the key is that NT 3.1 equals, well, NT 3.1, not '1.0' in Microsoft parlance. Microsoft skipped the 1.x and 2.x generations of NT in order to give it parity with the standard Windows 3.1 consumer client, and when Windows transitioned to the NT foundation in XP they just kept the numbers in step.

Of course, things could be worse – they could call it "Windows Live Vista 7 Premium"... 

 



29 February 2008, 8:46 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

themic:

heh. I really hope they just name it 7, or Seven, or 7even, even. We really need to rid the world of the "Windows" trademark. It brings about bad thoughts in most communities. Besides, Windows is an old concept - it is almost like bragging about supporting the internet.

29 February 2008, 8:46 PM (9 months ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

David Flynn:

It's getting so hard to predict what nomenclature Microsoft will adopt for its OS client, not due to Apple-like secrecy but that they have never really stuck with any naming model for more than a few editions, and lately it's getting ever more seemingly haphazard.

Just when we we getting used to Windows 1, 2, 3 and were expecting 'Chicago' to be Windows 4.0, it became Windows 95 and Microsoft moved to year-based edition numbering for the OS, Office and other packages. Which was actually fine by me, until they tossed 'Windows ME' into the mix, and then moved to a client brand of 'XP' (for 'eXPerience') for the OS and suite (although the individual Office apps were still branded as 2002, as was XP itself)... XP was supposed to be a client-side branding, but the OS and Office were the only ones to adopt this.

Thankfully we skipped the entire .NET moniker (at one stage we were looking at 'Windows .NET'), but in the long haul from XP to 'Longhorn' they of course shifted to 'Vista', all the while as other operating systems continued with the year (eg Windows Server) or went back to a single digit (eg Windows Mobile) for various reasons of their own.

So after the 'XP' and 'Vista' rabbits being pulled screeching and kicking out of the marketing dept's hat, it really is anyone's guess what Microsoft could come up with 9and what might be the 'in' thing) by the time Windows 7 arrives. Maybe Sinofsky (who in his Office days eschewed fancy name frippery for version numbers and years) might kick it back to 'Windows 2010' (as in 'twenty-ten').

Or maybe, here's a thought, they could emphasis the human aspect of Windows and the 'personal' side of the PC, and give it the name of a real person. A nice, friendly, non-threatening name like 'Bob' ?

 

 



29 February 2008, 8:46 PM (9 months ago)report abuse