Take it as a sign that Windows Vista failed to capture 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—currently dubbed Windows 7—could be released as early as next year, as opposed to sometime in 2010, as currently expected.

The scuttlebutt (condensed): some users have seen early builds of Windows 7, including a poster at Neowin. Ars Technica has also seen an older build, as we told you about more than a month ago. 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 timeframe, and a M3 in the third quarter of this year. All of this points to a late 2009 release, they say, which is indicated by this "road map."

Arguing about whether or not Windows 7 will ship in late 2009 is pointless. No one can predict the future, and Microsoft's own history shows that its roadmaps and predictions are not to be trusted. A more interesting question is: should Microsoft be aiming 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 develop without some kind of general timeframe. The question is what's most important: the date or the product?

Microsoft, please take your time

In its early days as Longhorn, perhaps the project was too ambitious. But once Microsoft rebooted Longhorn's development more than two years into the process, the company made a critical error: in a panic, it focused on when the product would ship, not when it would be ready.

Gates originally had it right. In the thick of Longhorn development problems in 2004, Gates tried to reassure everyone that the release would not become date-driven. To this day, it remains a literary classic to me (and, well, probably only to me):

This Is Not a Date-Driven Release

We have things where we say

The train is leaving on this date

Whoever has their act totally together

By that date the train will leave

And the train could have a lot of people on it

Or it could be

Fairly empty

—W.H. Gates III

Unfortunately, Vista did become date-driven, and even Gates seemed to admit that Vista shipped 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 departure time became more important than the quality of the release.

With Windows 7, Microsoft needs to deliver 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, primarily on account of Vista. Vista will still sell well, if only because the momentum of the growing PC market will not allow otherwise. It does not appear that Vista is driving PC growth, however, and even among Vista fans, the mood is somber.

What's Microsoft to do? If you can't avoid a mistake, then you do the next best thing and learn from it. You don't want to move too quickly in an effort to fix your mistake, because you can end up making another, potentially costlier one. In Microsoft's case, the company can easily weather the trials and tribulations that Vista has brought it. But should the company release another operating system that fails to gain a critical, but positive reception, it will signal a true crisis for the company's desktop business. While Microsoft can't wait until 2012 to release a new version of Windows, it shouldn't be putting a shipping date before the need to make this release rock solid.

Of dates and timeframes

Once launched in a couple of weeks, it will have taken Microsoft about 16 months to deliver the first Service Pack for Windows Vista (Vista was released for businesses in November of 2006). A November 2009 release of Windows 7 would have afforded roughly 36 months of time between Vista and Windows 7, or a little more than twice the time consumed by Vista SP1 efforts. Sounds doable, eh? Keep in mind that a Windows 7 Milestone 3 in Q3 2008 leaves about a year for beta testing; by this time, the build should be very close to feature complete. As such, this would mean that Windows 7 would need to reach feature-complete status over the next nine months (or, within ~24 months of Vista being released to manufacturing).

There was once a time when Microsoft could accomplish quite a lot in such a short timeframe. Windows 98 was released in June 1998, and within only 40 months' time, Microsoft had released two major desktops OSes: Windows 2000 in February of 2000 and Windows XP in October of 2001. (Not to mention Windows ME in 2000, as well.) Sure, there were two separate teams involved back then, when there was a bifurcation between NT and the consumer desktop. The point is, Microsoft could do it back then, but I'd argue that company was a lot stronger then.

To regain its strength, Microsoft has to do two things. First, it cannot let Windows 7 ship without the spit and polish that Windows Vista didn't get. When time hasn't been spent on refining the experience, the rough edges come to annoy customers. Everything put in the OS needs to be ready for prime time, or be left out. That's not a timing issue, but a philosophical one. Related to this, Microsoft must therefore not bite off more than it can chew.

Second, and more importantly, Windows 7's milestones, beta process, and release to manufacturing should not be date-driven, but by the company determining what Windows 7 needs to be a truly worthy release. Rather than worry about Software Assurance customers, Microsoft needs to worry about righting its ship. If Windows 7 is a bomb, there won't be many Software Assurance customers left to worry about appeasing.

Windows 7 needs to bring with it the redemption of Microsoft. That, my dear reader, cannot and should not be rushed.