Print 102 comment(s) - last by Leper Messiah.. on Oct 15 at 3:41 PM

Pre-beta Windows 7 OS will be given to developers at coming conferences

Microsoft Windows Vista is still considered relatively new on the market and some users have not yet upgraded from Windows XP to Vista for a variety of reasons. Microsoft is continuing to allow certain types of computers to run Windows XP thanks to its lower cost and overhead.

Despite being released less than two years ago to the general public, Microsoft is hard at work on the replacement for Vista. DailyTech reported that the next Microsoft PC operating system -- codenamed Windows 7 -- had its first setback in September.  Microsoft had planned to offer the first Windows 7 Beta in October of 2008, that date slipped to December 2008.

Microsoft's Mike Nash wrote in a blog post that Microsoft would be providing a pre-beta version of Windows 7 exclusively to developers to attendees at the PDC and WinHEC developers conferences.

Nash also wrote in the blog post that Microsoft has decided on the final name for the next Windows operating system, and it's one we are familiar with. Microsoft has decided to call the operating system Windows 7. This is the first time a Windows operating system has kept its codename as the official name.

Nash wrote, "The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows.  We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or ‘aspirational’ monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista.  And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new ‘aspirational’ name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows."

Details on Windows 7 are still scant, but Nash says that Microsoft will be sharing more in the coming weeks. To this point, feature wise it is known that the OS will support multi-touch and use the same driver system as Windows Vista.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I know a lot of people will not like this comment...
By Oralen on 10/14/2008 12:39:33 PM , Rating: 4
But I'm sorry, I REALLY hope Microsoft turns away from their "ribbon" ideas for Windows 7.

Even if a lot of people like Office 2007, I hate it. And it's my job to teach new users to use Office apps. So I know them quite well. And all of my colleagues hate 2007 too.

Every time some critic admires the new ribbon in a review, it's always a beginner saying that. Someone who doesn't really WORK with it.

Sure, the ribbon system presents basic functions at a glance... But as soon as you want something a little more advanced... Now you have to hunt down deeper to regain the type of control you had with the 2003 menus.

On top of it, when you reach beyond the ribbon, what do you find: the exact same boxes that existed in 2003.

And nothing new, except better drawings, quickshapes effects, shadows, and so on.

To me, Office 2007 feels like a dumbed down version of 2003.

Office for dummies.

What, the concept of "menu" was too complicated ? It was one of the strengths of the Windows platform: one menu to rule them all. The same basic entries, everywhere, and then you add more menus as you need them for your app.

If they do that to Windows 7, it will feel like "Ugly Mac OS 7" : not as nice looking as Mac Os (because let's face it, Microsoft has always sucked at that), and on top of that, you will lose all the control you had over Windows.

They will not make it simpler.
They will make it simple-looking.

And god help you when you need to do something that is not simple.

By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 12:49:58 PM , Rating: 4
Poor Oralen,

The fact of the matter is that newbs are more productive in Office 2007 than they were in any prior version of Office. If you can't handle change then you shouldn't be in the IT field.

I'm submitting a letter to have your Geek Card revoked!

By Oralen on 10/14/2008 1:59:25 PM , Rating: 3
More productive newbies ?

You know, the firms who actually PRODUCE a lot of documents do not hire or care about newbies.

I'm not talking about newbies. I am talking about people who NEED to be productive, and precise, or they get fired.

And as far as resisting changes... I like change. But not when it's just a useless facelift. And, in order to be ready for that change, I've had 2007 installed on my machine since the beta was released...

But... Right now... I am not allowed to teach it.

Because my employers, in a very logical move, are waiting for enterprises that asks for employees proficient in 2007 before asking me to teach it.

And right now... They are still asking for people who know how to use Office 2003. I am serious.

And... The Geek Card... Keep it. I don't need it. I'm only allowed to be a geek OUTSIDE of my working hours. During the daytime, I'm supposed to listen to what paying customers are asking for.

What I REALLY meant to say in my post, is this:

If Windows 7 comes out with another nice interface, but removes your ability to tinker with the registry, because it's not "pretty", or "safe", will the geek that you are like it? I won't. (Even if I don't have the card anymore ;-).

They are talking about scaling back UAC for Windows 7, because it's pissing off people.

But what will they remove? Just the UAC warning? Or the ABILITY to DO what was prompting that warning in the first place?

That is what is scaring me.

I respect those who use a Mac, but Windows has it's own strong points. Control is one of them. The ability to tinker with everything is one of them.

But when I look at Office 2007, I am afraid they will remove that in the next version of Windows.

By inighthawki on 10/14/2008 1:19:59 PM , Rating: 5
For someone who knows where everything is and was, I can see you becoming frustrated that some of it is out of place or in some cases harder to get to...

But for those people who do NOT know where everything is, which represents like 90% of the people using office, it becomes a very intuitive and ingenious ui approach to categorize the features in ways for most people to get what they need in the easiest possible way.

When i upgraded to the new office 07 interface, i was quite simply amazed because the most commonly used features i needed and used were right there, and if i wanted anything, it took only a matter of seconds to scan through the tabs rather than 20 minutes and online searching to find something that was hidden away in dialogue boxes through the old menu system. Be as it may, you may not like it, and it may be less productive for you...but it helps far more people

By Oralen on 10/14/2008 2:20:43 PM , Rating: 3
"...90% of the people who use Office..."

Are using it once a month, in their home, to whip out a letter to their grand'ma.

Those who are ACTUALLY working with it, everyday, in... their office, (in companies who have paid for it a great chunk of money in volume licenses)...

They are using more than "the most commonly used features" .

They are using the advanced features that made Office the most indispensable business software in the world.

Mind you, they are not using ALL of the advanced features of Office. Nobody does. They are using what is pertinent to their own job.

But the ribbon does not allow an easy access to ANY advanced function the way the menu did.

I am not saying that your own feelings, when you switched to 2007, are invalid.

But people who are using it to earn their wages think differently.

By inighthawki on 10/14/2008 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 3
I completely respect your opinion as well, I'm just saying that I feel that it is nicer and benefits more people than those who work in their office. Not to mention i think your idea of 90% of the people using office is a little skewed. Many students, for example like myself, use word 07 to type reports and essays all the time. Granted i rarely use some of the more "advanced" features of word, it's still used commonly by many people very often.

Of course, it is necessary to also find other opinions. I've heard people who use word quite often say they don't like it, but the reasoning is usually that they can't find stuff. So your opinion is great, my opinion counts, but we really would need a large number of people from both sides to prove any kind of point here.

By Nik00117 on 10/15/2008 3:41:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree, I use word a lot. I'm not in school and my job doesn't relove around it. I do have run a small business and use excel for accounting. Fact of the matter is I like this new system. Ribbion is great and at first I thought "ah this is gay!" then ig ot to used to it and was like "O nvm"

By SunAngel on 10/14/2008 3:30:36 PM , Rating: 2
why is it that you think all americans are stupid, lazy, and boring? my guess is many use office more than to just send a letter to granny. it's easier to just hand write it. while i will agree with you that a major of americans are unimaginative, but dumb, lazy, and lathargic...i see your point but can't totally agree. if anything i would call them dopeheads.

By feraltoad on 10/14/2008 6:02:15 PM , Rating: 4
Sounds like the solution is to offer a "Classic View" a la Control Panel to keep both groups happy.

By zshift on 10/15/2008 10:54:03 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. A "classic view" option is exactly what office 2007 needed. I'm guessing, however, that the only reason microsoft didn't add this in is because they either wanted to start a total shift in GIU in preparation for their new os, or they didn't add anything really "new" (aside from new styles and matching color schemes for charts, etc.) so they didn't want people to realize <sarcasm>"hey! microsoft just charged me for the same product as the previous version but with preselected color schemes! boy, that $199 upgrade charge was well worth it!" </sarcasm>

seems like microsoft marketing didn't work so well for vista/office 2007 (with no help from apple, of course ;^) )

By inighthawki on 10/15/2008 11:15:30 AM , Rating: 1
Although vista didnt get quite the kick it should have, from what i've seen, office 07 has been very widely popular among almost everyone. Its rare i see anyone open up office on their computers without seeing 2007 these days.

Personally, i'm really looking forward to windows 7 and the new interface, and i REALLY want to see if they alter anything else to make it more intuitive and such.

By Howard on 10/14/2008 11:04:39 PM , Rating: 2
Why would anybody buy Office to use once a month?

OK, so why would Microsoft cater to pirates?

By AnnihilatorX on 10/15/2008 1:16:49 PM , Rating: 1
I have no problem in finding stuff I need from ribbon

True geeks use hotkey shortcuts
Geeks or experienced would be able to learn and remember where an obscure feature is. They would customize the ribbon to include those. And perhaps write AutoHotkey script to pick them up.

By d0gb0y on 10/14/2008 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 3
Office for dummies.

Isn't that the point?

By kelmon on 10/14/2008 1:45:59 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I can appreciate that the Ribbon may be better for new users but I don't know any experienced users who like it for the simple reason that they can't find anything. It was a laudable goal but one that alienated the current user base. The Ribbon in Windows would likely do the same so I can only suggest to Microsoft that they take baby steps and not do some sort of giant leap. Vista really didn't do the company many favours and annoying users with a new interface in Windows 7 won't help them much either. By all means evolved to deliver something better but it needs to be better for all, particularly when you have such a large and diverse user base as Windows.

By Flunk on 10/14/2008 3:38:46 PM , Rating: 1
I like the ribbon, there you are. It takes a bit of time to get used to it, get over it.

By mars777 on 10/14/2008 10:20:41 PM , Rating: 3
the Ribbon may be better for new users but I don't know any experienced users who like it

Microsoft cares about increasing sales (->new users). Old users can whine all they want but they are bound to Office and they cannot do anything to change that... that means MS doesnt lose customers, they just make new ones (the dumb ones) :)

By Motoman on 10/14/2008 3:23:32 PM , Rating: 1
I have to agree about the ribbon crap. OMG. I gave Office 2007 an honest year - wasn't going to get rid of it before I really, really tried to get along with it.

Once a year passed, it was uninstalled, and 2003 went back on.

Not to date myself, but I got a computer science degree in 1994 and have been in IT ever since. Truth be told, I don't honestly do *much* with Office...pretty basic Word docs, Excel spreadsheets, PowerPoints. Nothing fancy at all. Don't ever even use things like mail merge or anything.

I ***HATED*** that stupid ribbon interface. I could not find anything I wanted...god it was stupid. Mind-blowingly obvious things, like saving or printing, became a huge pain in the ass.

The ribbon interface is a massive, steaming pile of shite. If Windows 7 comes out with the ribbon throughout, I guess I'll be on XP for another few years...

Vista provides absolutely nothing valuable...and has all the downsides as a bonus. If Windows 7 also provides nothing valuable, but adds more downsides (like the ribbon), it'll tank even faster than Vista.

By Zshazz on 10/14/2008 5:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
I personally don't understand why you found it so difficult to get use to. I found the interface to be far more intuitive and more memorable. Saving & printing are done from the office button (which use to be the file menu) or the customizable quick access toolbar, if you use them without the usual "ctrl+s" and "ctrl+p" shortcuts. Most of your stuff is under the Home tab. If you want to change how the document is being viewed, you go under the view tab (zoom and such is under here, as well as if you want to view 2 pages at once). If you want to change how the page is laid out (such as indentation, columns, margins, etc) then it's the Page Layout tab.

I could go on, but it just goes to show you how everything is laid out. Sure, if you're use to the old interface, it should be difficult to switch over (and they really should have offered to support the old layout for this reason alone), but new users will find the new interface easier to use and more effective for the most part.

By Motoman on 10/14/2008 9:09:46 PM , Rating: 2
Saving & printing are done from the office button (which use to be the file menu) or the customizable quick access toolbar, if you use them without the usual "ctrl+s" and "ctrl+p" shortcuts.

...that's kind of my point right there. The only shortcuts I ever use are for copy & paste...have never used them for printing/saving, and I think that's pretty consistent with the vast majority of basic users who don't do anything but click on icons.

I think it's safe to say that the 2 most-used functions in Word (or Excel for that matter) are Print and Save. What kind of a blithering idiot would hide those 2 functions under a menu by default - not having any way to Print or Save on the effing ribbon, and instead "oh, well you can customize this one little toolbar with the unique functions that you personally use a lot." Like Print and Save!? That's like somebody selling a laptop without an optical drive and expecting people to like it. Oh wait...

By noirsoft on 10/14/2008 10:11:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hidden? Save is on the quick toolbar by default, and how is "print" more connected to the word "file" than the office mennu, which is the main menu for the program?

Both are less hidden than before once you take ten seconds to stop foaming at the mouth and use the program.

By therealnickdanger on 10/14/2008 3:35:51 PM , Rating: 1
The only thing I don't like about Office 2007 is the removal of DBF export. It's the bread'n'butter of my daily work... At least the newest version of ArcGIS supports Excel files natively.

By Flunk on 10/14/2008 3:37:28 PM , Rating: 3
I use Office a lot and although it took a little while I think I am just as productive in 2007 as I was in 2003. What simplifying the interface really has done is make it easier for novice users and I think that is a good thing (unless you train people to use Office that is).

All computer programs change with time and it's impossible to keep everyone happy. In my line of work (computer programming) I have to deal with change a lot. Some things you just have to deal with, even you admit that it's not really any worse, just different looking.

By enlil242 on 10/14/2008 5:17:41 PM , Rating: 2
Even if a lot of people like Office 2007, I hate it. And it's my job to teach new users to use Office apps. So I know them quite well. And all of my colleagues hate 2007 too.

I don't know why they just couldn't give users the option to switch between UI's. That would ahve solved that issue right then and there...

By mforce on 10/15/2008 4:16:50 AM , Rating: 2
Actually MS will probably try to make something "cool" again forgetting that they're not Apple. Maybe they should stick to making a quality OS that works.
It's my hope that MS will concentrate more on the inner working of the OS and not redo the menus and stuff, add bling ...
As for the new Office 2007 ribbon , I only took a look at it once , thought it was gay and returned to using Open Office. Sure , I agree , MS Office is more advanced and stuff but for my basic needs OO works just fine.

By johnadams on 10/15/2008 8:04:16 AM , Rating: 2
I hate Office 2007's ribbon crap. The ribbon thing is for newbies. At least give us an option to revert back to the Office 2003 menu-based system. But no, Microsoft considers all its users to be retards who don't know how to use menus.

Classic Menu for Office 2007 v3.93

By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 9:48:52 AM , Rating: 2
$30? Screw that. I'll learn to use the new ribbon. I didn't pay $30 for Office 2007 ($20 through work).

By johnadams on 10/15/2008 3:33:32 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. Some users are willing to pay $30 bucks to make the ribbon go away.

I'm sticking with Office 2003 + Compatibility Pack. Say NO to M$ marketing bullcrap.

Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
The thing that people don't realize is that Vista was a huge change from XP. Most of the changes in Vista were 'under the hood' which makes it hard for most people to appreciate it.

Although the underlying tech of Vista was fantastic, secure, modern, and rock solid; its usability was mearly 'better' than XP. People, however, were expecting revolutionary.

Windows 7 is going to be built off of the awesome tech of Vista and vastly improve upon the usability.

We already know from the Win7 Engineering blog that they are working hard on improving usability, and we know from leaked screen shots that they are making the Office 2007 Ribbon a key cornerstone of Windows 7.

Other things we know are that they are removing some of the consumer apps like Movie Maker and Photo Gallery and making them apart of the Windows Live suite which is a free download... I imagine this will be Microsoft's competitor to iLife.

All in all things are looking really really good for Win7.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By BansheeX on 10/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 12:26:33 PM , Rating: 3
Although I haven't checked you are probably right that sys-requirements between XP and Vista are the highest... but Vista was also the longest delayed release of Windows so I don't think that really matters that much. Any hardware setup within the last 3 years will run Vista with all it's bells and whistles enabled.

My sister-in-law recently got a $400 Compaq laptop that runs Vista as well as my desktop, sikly smooth with Aero enabled.

Also most organizations don't make an effort to upgrade OSes. They only update their OS when it conicides with a hardware refresh.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By kelmon on 10/14/2008 1:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
From the perspective of my corporation, we upgrade the OS when support for the current one expires. Usually the hardware is replaced before this time but not always.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 4:24:57 PM , Rating: 1
I find it hard to believe that a corporation will actually, company wide, run a Windows install or upgrade on hardware currently in use.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By Garreye on 10/14/2008 12:31:58 PM , Rating: 4
unfortunately they bulked up the system requirements with unnecessary visual fluff

If you don't like aero, turn it off, but for everyone who owns a GPU that can handle aero (which is pretty much every GPU made in the last few years) why not take advantage of its processing power to run the graphical interface of the OS. To me this is much better than wasting CPU cycles with the interface when the CPU could be doing more useful things.

I think it was the largest sysreq jump between any Windows version ever

It was also the longest time between windows releases, so the largest sysreq jump makes sense.

When you have businesses and schools with pentium 4 512mb computers using your product, you can't be making demanding moves like that.

It seems to me that every business/school should be doing some research before upgrading the OS on their PCs. At which point it would be obvious that it is better to stick with XP unless they are upgrading their hardware first. Even if they think Vista might work they should be doing trials on a few PCs before doing a full upgrade to every PC, during which time they would figure out the hardware is insufficient. But for those people who have sufficient hardware the security advantages alone from Vista are worth upgrading for imho.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By lifeblood on 10/14/2008 12:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
It seems to me that every business/school should be doing some research before upgrading the OS on their PCs.

You'd think, and you would be wrong. I worked at one university, and taught part time at another. At the University where I worked, the CIO wants everyone on Vista for bragging rights about how "modern" and "high tech" the university is. At the college where I taught, the IT folks tested and certified all the College supplied apps. The specialized apps the departments used were ignored. Luckily the science department tested their apps, found most didn't work, and told the IT shop they would not be touching their PC's.

I think that is Vista's failing. It made a bunch of older apps quit working, but didn't provide any new "killer" feature people wanted. All it's improvements were, for the most part, under the hood.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By StraightPipe on 10/14/2008 1:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
It really shoudl be quite good OS. The big problems with Vista on release were due to new API's for sounds, graphics, and more.

Most companies dug in their heals and didnt want to develop new drivers, so there were lots of problems with Vista initially.

This new OS will be more evolutionary than revolutionary, so it will be built on the back of Vista SP1, allowing M$ to smooth out any problems they have remaining.

One big complaint that Win7 will not fix, is ridiculous overhead. There's no going back to trim bloat at this point. They've attempted to address this by making Windows7 Modular, but we wont know how effective this is until we get our hands on the betas.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By BansheeX on 10/14/2008 9:09:18 PM , Rating: 4
If you don't like aero, turn it off, but for everyone who owns a GPU that can handle aero (which is pretty much every GPU made in the last few years) why not take advantage of its processing power to run the graphical interface of the OS.

You don't understand, are you aware of what kind of onboard crap Intel has been pumping out on laptops and desktops? They are the #1 graphics supplier on the market. That is the market. To release a 2d interface that is 3d intensive in this market is asinine. It makes no difference to "offload" things to the GPU when the GPU's suck and the functionality benefit of doing so is completely outweighed by the costs. Look at the emerging netbook market,for god's sake. Vista on them sucks balls. Why? To whose benefit? There are all kinds of ways that MS can REDUCE resource intensiveness... by making code more efficient. By removing existing bloat. By disabling pointless background services by default that no one uses. But they don't, they just keep piling on.

It was also the longest time between windows releases, so the largest sysreq jump makes sense.

And yet, the functionality increase barely budged. Sysreqs go up 6x, functionality barely budges. Open a word document and surf the web on XP with 512mb, same experience and more responsive on XP. What is wrong with that picture? We're not talking about complex 3d games that will continue to demand greater computer resources in its quest towards virtual reality. We're talking about 2d windows, 2d documents, 2d icons, and a 32-bit 2d background image, just like XP but 3x as demanding. We have reached diminishing returns in aesthetics and functionality for this environment with well coded applications. You can't keep justifying 1.5gb RAM increases just to keep doing these exact same things as quickly as their predecessor. You can't keep adding animation after animation to justify it either. That stupid dog in the XP search bar was not progress even though it ate up more resources, believe it or not.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By noirsoft on 10/14/2008 10:17:56 PM , Rating: 2
You really don't understand a thing about computer graphics, do you?

The Aero interface uses 3d hardware to make the UI more responsive and to offload drawing form the CPU to the GPU. All the animations are just a free bonus due to the new compositing model.

And, to counter you, my laptop with 2 gigs of RAM is more responsive with Vista than it was with XP, and certainly more responsive than an XP machine with 512 megs of RAM. And a WIn98 machine with 128 megs of RAM is more responsive than an XP machine with 128 megs of RAM. Your point?

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By MamiyaOtaru on 10/15/2008 12:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
Apparently [i]you[/i] don't understand. Offloading to a [i]crappy[/i] GPU (which is most of them; thanks Intel) is no improvement at all.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By rudolphna on 10/15/2008 9:14:39 AM , Rating: 2
while they arent good for gaming.. Intel's graphics run vista fine. I have an older machine with a 3Ghz P4 and a gig of ram, with an Intel GMA950 graphics running Aero just fine. Intel graphics can handle Aero fine. Just dont try running Crysis on them and youll be fine.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By akugami on 10/14/2008 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
I'd disagree, the original reason Mac's sell is because they were the original place for powerful desktop publishing and productivity apps. To a large degree Mac's and PC's are essentially on equal footing in those areas. Legacy use of Mac's still dictate their use in a lot of areas.

Mac's used to be faster than PC's even if only by a small degree, and then the AMD vs Intel wars happened and the CPU's used in PC's took off and left the PowerPC chips in the dust. Which is why we need AMD. In today's world, Mac's are no faster than PC's. The only limiting factor is that Apple does not use the latest chips but to be honest, Joe Computer doesn't need a 3+ ghz quad core anyways. Something along the lines of a 2ghz dual core is good enough for what 95% of the general computing public needs.

Your comments also make it seem like Mac OSX didn't modernize the underpinnings of what makes it run. This is not true and it can be said that Apple modernized it's OS before Microsoft did. Especially with the lateness of Vista and it's scaled back promises.

Believe it or not Joe Computer likes things to be idiot proof. One can argue that the Mac OS is powerful enough for 95% of computer uses while keeping things easy enough to use so the new users don't feel too overwhelmed. These 3D window gimmicks also may or may not detract from the user experience but this is up to individual users. Much like the 3D window gimmicks in Vista, it's all a matter of personal taste.

I've been using Vista x64 for a year now. I have not owned a Mac in over 10 years though I plan to get a Macbook Pro this year or next to complement my desktop.

As for the Windows 7 name, I'm ok with it. They seem to be aiming for utilitarian and that points to shooting it towards corporate users more than home users though. Hopefully they will optimize the OS for speed and functionality. There are some OS changes from XP to Vista that annoy me though I can live with it.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 4:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
I understand Apple's target market and I think they are doing a fantastic job at marketing towards them.

As for the Windows 7 name, I'm ok with it. They seem to be aiming for utilitarian and that points to shooting it towards corporate users more than home users though.

You bring up Mac and then say Windows 7 sounds utilitarian? I dunno, OSX sounds a lot more utilitarian than Windows 7 IMHO.

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By Ammohunt on 10/14/2008 2:05:20 PM , Rating: 3
I run Mojave it suits my needs perfectly. Vista is jsut another Windows Me

RE: Windows 7 Will be Awesome!
By KashGarinn on 10/15/2008 4:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
The thing I'd like to see is them making the OS be able to run on low end hardware.

Got an old 2ghz pc with 512mb ram? Or something even older? Then I definitely feel that a breakthrough OS should support it. why? Because the future is in virtual machines, and being able to run the OS on minimal hardware means minimal virtual machine hardware costs, and less overhead.

If you can run it efficiently and well on very low resources, then there's less chance of the OS interfering with the programs you want to run, and Vista interferes ALOT with programs with all its background tasks and services.

That's why I'm hoping that they base windows 7 on being as efficient a virtual machine OS as possible, because virtual machines are the future.

No one runs an OS just to run the OS.. you want the programs and systems which run on top of the OS, that's why the OS should be as invisible as possible.

I'm pretty sure they'll screw things up, yet again.. to me what they seem to be doing is taking vista and putting the Office ribbon on top.. that's not change, it's "the change you deserve" type mentality instead of "the change you need"

Expect the windows 7 hype bubble to burst.

If only they called it "Windows 7 of 9".
By Ordr on 10/14/2008 11:15:31 AM , Rating: 5
Their profits would be astronomical.

By HakonPCA on 10/14/2008 11:24:37 AM , Rating: 3
9 pieces of 8

RE: If only they called it "Windows 7 of 9".
By FITCamaro on 10/14/2008 11:47:29 AM , Rating: 5
That'd only work if the circle that the Windows logo was printed on was Jeri Ryan's breast.

By Ordr on 10/14/2008 11:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
It's not too late.

RE: If only they called it "Windows 7 of 9".
By kattanna on 10/14/2008 12:17:08 PM , Rating: 5
oh come now.. we all know her true designation was 6 of 9, but that wouldnt fly on network tv


By stirfry213 on 10/14/2008 1:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you, I needed that laugh!

By noirsoft on 10/14/2008 10:21:06 PM , Rating: 2
I always thought it was supposed to be 2 of 36...

By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 9:52:15 AM , Rating: 2
Double of D.

By dcalfine on 10/14/2008 10:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
It's not terribly creative, but not stupid the way "XP" and "Vista" were. I like the name, frankly. It sounds solid, as I hope this new operating system will be.

RE: Well…
By mmntech on 10/14/2008 11:44:04 AM , Rating: 2
The Register offered a plausible explanation for the name. They don't want to call it anything flashy so as not to overshadow Vista. Hopefully Windows 7 will be more than the chintzy kernel update and paint job that Vista was.

RE: Well…
By Flunk on 10/14/2008 4:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it's likely to be a paint job OS. Vista included a lot of rewrites behind the scenes. The paint jobs are always the most popular versions anyway. Look at Windows 98 or XP. Much more popular than 95 and 2000, which they are respectively based on.

RE: Well…
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
Win98 was more of an 'under the hood' update of Win95.

Windows XP wasn't really THAT popular until Vista came out... pretty strange mob mentality on display. In fact Win98SE was quite popular for the first few years XP was on the market.

If Vista is So Solid...
By cubdukat on 10/14/2008 12:53:48 PM , Rating: 2
...why is MS scrambling to replace it so soon?

It has the potential to be good, but they blew it big time. MS themselves have acknowledged as much

I am getting ready to build a new HTPC system, and it's going to be based on either XP (which is only marginally better than Vista) or Linux (if I can get all the hardware going), but definitely not Vista. About the only thing that would stop me is if XP can't do Blu-Ray, but I suspect it can.

After having used it for almost a year, I can safely say there is nothing I'm doing with it now that really needs Vista--especially not gaming.

Aero is definitely a nice touch, but I could live without it.

When Win7 hits, I am going to wait a full year before I even consider using it.

RE: If Vista is So Solid...
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 1:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
It's not soon.

All releases of Windows were at intervals of 3 years or less, with the notable exception of Vista which was 5 years.

By homernoy on 10/14/2008 1:46:16 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 and the Intel i7 anyone?

Won't be long until: "The new Dell XPS featuring the i7 processor. Dell recommends Windows 7".

Lame, I's ;)

RE: Wintel
By Pigbristle on 10/15/2008 1:33:38 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 and Intel i7 anyone?

Remember when Windows "XP" was released October 2001?
AMD released the Athlon "XP" October 2001.
Coincidence? don't think so!!

And if my memory serves me right, AMD shifted quite a few of those babies.

Maybe Intel & Microsoft learned a lesson there?

Should hire Nvidia's marketing team
By Bateluer on 10/14/2008 11:02:11 AM , Rating: 2
I mean, who doesn't love the name of Nvidia's products, eVGA Geforce GT260 Core 216 Superclocked Platinum Fata1ty L33T Edition?

MS should get a clue. ;)

bout time
By Oroka on 10/14/2008 3:36:27 PM , Rating: 2
This makes sense. No more cutesy names, no more dates that mean next to nothing, just the version number. Windows 7. This is probably an attempt to make windows cool again (ala OS9, OSX). It is a long road, but not impossible.

Love it
By Nehemoth on 10/14/2008 5:37:42 PM , Rating: 2
The Best Idea from Microsoft since slide bread.

Windows 7 has already generated to much good publicity so is a non brainer stick with this great name.

I love it, maybe buy it.

Windows Hasta la Vista
By AnnihilatorX on 10/15/2008 1:13:13 PM , Rating: 2
DT is a bit late on this news but

Windows 7 is so uninspiring though.

Why not name it to
Windows: Hasta la Vista
Windows: VII


whats the point
By Leper Messiah on 10/15/2008 3:41:35 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that vista doesn't really offer a big reason to upgrade over Windows XP, unless you have to have DX10. Prefetch is nice if your computer has the guts to run vista, but man I've fixed some computers running 1GB of RAM and its dog slow. Yeah RAM is dirt cheap, but linux will run on just about anything. Simply changing the OS and doing the same exact things shouldn't require twice the RAM.

When it comes to the UAC/ribbon crap in windows 7, removing the ability to have precise control over your system is going just going to force the more adept users over to linux.

By EntreHoras on 10/14/2008 11:41:01 AM , Rating: 1
Isn't Seven the name choose by George Constanza for his first son??

Hello, my name is Windows Seven Constanza.

(stupid post, I know)

By ineedaname on 10/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Disappointment
By Bateluer on 10/14/2008 11:03:53 AM , Rating: 3
Meh, Vista is rock solid and blazing fast, when given the proper resources, which are at bargain basement prices right now.

Windows 7 removing several Windows components that most user's don't use and adding them as downloadable options makes more sense though.

RE: Disappointment
By noxipoo on 10/14/2008 11:06:48 AM , Rating: 1
who expects the greatest thing since sliced bread when a new version of the OS comes out? I haven't seen anything like that from any of the OS vendors. If they can get better driver support, less memory footprint, and better 3rd party software support, I'll be going to it and not wait 2 years like Vista.

RE: Disappointment
By Spivonious on 10/14/2008 11:10:17 AM , Rating: 2
Vista has very few flaws. From all I've read, Windows 7 will be a much improved Vista. UAC will actually be helpful, the taskbar/start menu will have often-asked for features, and dual monitors will finally be properly supported.

RE: Disappointment
By Locutus465 on 10/14/2008 11:23:18 AM , Rating: 4
Windows Vista is a solid OS, personally I could never go back to XP ever. The UI enhancements are great, and if you actually give vista the proper system reasources (yes, as another poster stated they in fact are dirt cheap) then Vista will kick the living crap out of XP in the performance department.

At this point I'd say that the ney sayers need to actually give the system a try for decent period of time, pretty soo they'll realize they can't switch back.

RE: Disappointment
By anotherdude on 10/14/2008 11:44:24 AM , Rating: 4
I'm actually quite pleased with my Vista 64 install. As far as I can see Vista is fine and dandy. I predict history will show Vista was a very good OS which was unfairly smeared by the valley centric, apple loving, tech press and assorted other ABM basement dwellers and of course by the hundreds of millions of Apple TV dollars.

RE: Disappointment
By Meinolf on 10/14/2008 11:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
I like Vista too have had it for almost 2 years. I had minor issues with a scanner because HP doesn't want to put a driver out for Vista isn't Microsoft fault.

RE: Disappointment
By phatboye on 10/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disappointment
By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 4
As far as gaminng goes Vista is simply on par with XP.

However with Vista's SuperFetch feature loading applications is far faster on Vista than on XP.

Also the self-maintenance that Vista does means that you don't get Windows Rot like on XP... I've had my Vista install since May 07 and It runs as fast as the day I installed it, despite all the crap I've installed/uninstalled on it.

RE: Disappointment
By StraightPipe on 10/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disappointment
By inighthawki on 10/14/2008 1:27:22 PM , Rating: 3
You mean except for the fact that its extremely useful? Having unused ram is stupid if it can be put to use. You are aware that vista doesn't just fill it with crap right? It has a very smart way of deciding which apps the person uses the most and properly loads the cache of those apps.

"then when you need some ram (to play a game or watch a DVD)"
this feature works on games too you know...those are technically "application" as well. DVDs...well if you ever have an issue running those then i suggest upgrading your computer immediately. Running a DVD in wmp11 on vista should take no more than about 3 seconds after the drive has spun up to speed.

RE: Disappointment
By StraightPipe on 10/14/08, Rating: 0
RE: Disappointment
By anotherdude on 10/14/2008 2:02:28 PM , Rating: 4
whenever I see a stick of RAM 'wear out' I'll start worrying then, until that time I bougt it so please, put it to good use.

For those who say superfetch gets in the way of anything at all I say link to a solid study or GTFO.

RE: Disappointment
By anotherdude on 10/14/2008 2:05:45 PM , Rating: 3
That 1.3 must not be actually requiered, since Vista will run on 1 gig or even 512 - are you sure you understand how this superfetch thing works exactly?

RE: Disappointment
By inighthawki on 10/14/2008 3:21:51 PM , Rating: 2
It caches applications based on how commonly they are used. If the ONLY thing you use on your gaming rig is cod4 of WoW, etc, there's a very good chance it WILL be in there, that is to say, vista DOES know you want to play that. Plus how is this a disadvantage to having it COMPLETELY off? Isn't having a game or a web browser properly cached already an advantage?

If the app isnt being used and you need room, it simply overwrites the ram. If you use it, well it's already there! If you need to use it and it's not cached, it takes x amount of time to boot. With it cached, slightly less. With caching off, you NEVER have an advantage in performance. Where is your logic?

RE: Disappointment
By Zshazz on 10/14/2008 5:19:48 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, that's a different type of memory that uses the wear leveling algorithms.

The type of memory that wears out is called "Flash memory" (the stuff that the majority of SSDs are made of).

DDR memory is completely different. It doesn't wear out nearly fast enough to worry about (the computer's processor would wear out before the RAM would ... since the CPU has integrated memory - L2 cache for instance - similar to DDR and it's used significantly more)

RE: Disappointment
By rudolphna on 10/15/2008 9:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is, is that with most computer replacements.. Its often not because they "wore out" but because they are obsolete. Hell, the projected life of processors is about 7 years. Ive had a Pentium II machine running in teh basement since I bought it. My son has a K6-II laptop running Win98 he uses for school. I dont think we will ever get to a point where the computers will "wear out" in anything except fans, and Harddrives.

RE: Disappointment
By Spivonious on 10/14/2008 1:33:50 PM , Rating: 3
Data loaded by Superfetch doesn't need to be unloaded. New data simply overwrites it.

RE: Disappointment
By Nacho on 10/14/2008 1:36:33 PM , Rating: 3
causing uneeded wear on your RAM

Since when does RAM "wear out" more when it is allocated/used by a program?

RE: Disappointment
By Flunk on 10/14/2008 4:54:04 PM , Rating: 3
When you don't understand how electromigration works.

RE: Disappointment
By arjunp2085 on 10/15/2008 2:11:03 AM , Rating: 2
You Turn off The computer the DATA in the RAM IS LOST FOREVER.... IN FACT RAM has Refresh mechanism that Keeps Refreshing the data stored in in Practically every 3 ms(milli seconds)

There is no Question of wearing down....
It is only Flash Drives that have the trouble...

A Ram is made of a Gate and a capacitor

flash is made of a few gates

Confused by this "simple" naming convention
By drkicker on 10/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Confused by this "simple" naming convention
By EntreHoras on 10/14/2008 12:29:04 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 3.11 = 3.11
Windows 95, 98, ME, NT = 4
Windows 2000, XP = 5
Windows VIsta = VI = 6
Windows 7 = 7

RE: Confused by this "simple" naming convention
By MozeeToby on 10/14/2008 12:57:42 PM , Rating: 3
I think you mean...

Windows 3.11 = 3
Windows 95, 98, ME = 4
Windows NT , 2000, XP = 5
Windows Vista = 6
Windows 7 = 7

Although NT was released before even 95, it serves as the basic architecture for 2000, and XP. Also, by that logic, Vista and Windows 7 should be given the same number since 7 is basically Vista with some improved UI and less annoying UAC.

By EntreHoras on 10/14/2008 3:50:12 PM , Rating: 3
I'm sorry, but as a person who worked several years supporting NT, I'm completely sure that NT is Windows Version 4.

By Flunk on 10/14/2008 4:49:35 PM , Rating: 3
Actually it's more complicated than that, Windows and Windows NT are completely different OSes. I'm going to skip versions before 3.0 to make this simpler.

Windows 3.0 = 3.0
Windows 3.11 = 3.11
Windows 95 = 4.0
Windows 98 = 4.1
Windows Me = 4.9
There are no more Windows releases past this point

Windows NT 3.1 = NT 3.1 (This is actually the first NT release)
Windows NT 3.5 = NT 3.5
Windows NT 4.0 = NT 4.0
Windows 2000 = NT 5.0
Windows XP = NT 5.1
Windows Server 2003 = NT 5.2
Windows Vista = NT 6.0

I'm missing a few incidental versions such as Win98SE but it gives you an idea. I should note that the origional Windows and NT are completely different OSes. NT was just designed to be compatible with Windows programs.

Realistically Windows 7 should be Windows 6.1 because it's based on the same kernel as Vista.

By amanojaku on 10/14/2008 7:38:29 PM , Rating: 3
Wait, wait, wait. I'm pretty sure ME was version -8

By theapparition on 10/14/2008 1:58:25 PM , Rating: 2
Just worth noting that NT also came in a version 3 flavor.

By mikefarinha on 10/14/2008 12:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Start -> Run -> winver

Version 5.1 (Build 2600.xpsp... SP3)

RE: Confused by this "simple" naming convention
By Digobick on 10/14/2008 12:52:20 PM , Rating: 4
Keep in mind that XP and Vista are based off the Windows NT kernel. Based on that, here's how they came up with the name:

Windows NT 3.1 = 1st release
Windows NT 3.5 = 2nd release
Windows NT 4.0 = 3rd release
Windows 2000 = 4th release
Windows XP = 5th release
Windows Vista = 6th release
Windows 7 = 7th release

By MarcLeFou on 10/14/2008 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 3
Didn't they rewrite the whole kernel from the ground up for Vista ?

If so, then its not based on the NT codebase anymore.

According to wikipedia this is the numbering of windows releases :

Windows 3.11 = 3.11
Windows NT 3.1 = NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5 = NT 3.5
Windows NT 4 = NT 4
Windows 95 = 4
Windows 98 = 4.1
Windows ME = 4.9
Windows 2000 = NT 5
Windows XP = NT 5.1
Windows Vista = NT 6

If you know a bit about the timeframe of windows version, you'll notice that both the "regular" kernel and NT kernel were at the same numbering system at about the same time through their respective lifespans (ex : win95-Me and NT4 were both used in the same timeframe with ME slightly extending over 2000 territory). Taking that into account, I'd say windows 7 is fitting no matter were you stand.

I have to say it...
By MDE on 10/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: I have to say it...
By xsilver on 10/14/2008 12:30:49 PM , Rating: 1
I know your post was a joke but 10/7 does not equal 3.
I guess touching OSX might screw up your math skills ;)

Microsoft is a joke as always.
By on 10/14/08, Rating: -1
RE: Microsoft is a joke as always.
By homernoy on 10/14/2008 2:54:27 PM , Rating: 2
Hey the PS3 is great, I agree. I have one in my living room and one in my bedroom (used 60GB), mostly for Blu-Ray playback. As far as all the MS sucks rhetoric, to each his own.

RE: Microsoft is a joke as always.
By FITCamaro on 10/15/2008 9:53:35 AM , Rating: 2
What crack are you smoking that makes IE7 not run on a P4?

"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki