backtop


Print 42 comment(s) - last by KOOLTIME.. on Apr 6 at 2:28 PM


Installing the test build of Windows 8...  (Source: winreviews.ru)

Hmm, the test build looks a lot of like Windows 8... note the humorous disclaimer/legal warning, though.  (Source: winreviews.ru)
Site has posted screenshots of installation process and desktop

Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) must either be very frustrated with its Russian offices and OEM partners or very pleased with them, depending on whether or not it actually secretly wants test builds of its upcoming software to be leaked.  Microsoft Russia leaked information on the availability of Windows 7 Service Pack 1 and screenshots of Internet Explorer 9's beta, before they were publicly available.

Now yet another major leak has been sourced to Russia -- new screenshots of a Windows 8 test build.  The info leaked on Winreview.ru, a site that in recent weeks leaked a test build of Office 15.

If the shots are authentic, they show the current candidate of the install dialogue.  Few surprises appear in the dialogue.  As one inspects, it informs the user that their usernames/programs/etc. will be carried over from their previous Windows install.  And the installer performs a brief compatibility test, before actually initiating the install process.

About the most interesting note is that the process for now is sporting images that indicate that Windows 8 will stick with traditional keycode stickers, rather than a more futuristic licensing scheme.

Slightly more interesting is a single leaked screenshot of the newly installed version of Windows 8 in action.  Text on screen dubs the build a "Microsoft Pre-Release Windows Operating System.  It also indicates that the build carried the number "Build 79xx..." and the clock shows it was likely installed on Tuesday.

Despite reports of a possible switch to a radically different graphical user interface, the interface of the test build is identical to Windows 7's from what is seen.  It's still possible that Microsoft could re-skin the OS with a new GUI later in the development process.

The desktop contains a humorous warning, stating:
shh... let's not leak our hard work

Microsoft Confidential

Unauthorized use or disclosure in any manner may result in disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment (in the case of employees), termination of an assignment or contract (in the case of contingent staff), and potential civil and criminal liability.

Whoops.  Well maybe someone is in trouble.  But we've now gained a possible at the current state of what may be a piece of Microsoft next Windows push.

Windows 8 is expected to land in late 2012 or early 2013.  Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer dubs it his company's "riskiest" product.


Comments     Threshold


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

Why the rush?
By quiksilvr on 3/31/2011 9:36:17 AM , Rating: 4
Let's just stick with a nice OS until like 2015. Don't rush 8 just yet.




RE: Why the rush?
By piroroadkill on 3/31/2011 9:42:24 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah. I'd rather they took an approach where they worked on making it really awesome, and took a while.

We're fine with Windows 7 for now. They'd also shoot themselves in the foot if they said it was coming out in 2012 or something - companies wouldn't bother migrating to Windows 7 if 8 was round the corner (within XP extended support.. 2014!).


RE: Why the rush?
By Lonyo on 3/31/2011 10:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 8 will probably be similar to Windows 7 in many ways, hopefully the major driver changes etc are done with.
Migrating to 7 wouldn't suddenly mean you were nowhere when 8 comes out. You don't always have to have the latest and greatest. Also 7 is 18 months old so it's had more time to be checked out/etc. You don't really want to jump on a brand new OS day of release if you are looking at broad stability.

And as for general new releases, everyone seems to be stuck in Windows XP -> Vista mode, acting like that is or ever was the norm.
Simple fact is that MS historically has had frequent OS releases with more like 2 or 3 years between most new OS releases. Just because Vista came a long time after XP doesn't mean MS should stop releasing new or updated OSs


RE: Why the rush?
By omnicronx on 3/31/11, Rating: 0
RE: Why the rush?
By ekv on 3/31/2011 1:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
similar to OSX.
Is it true OSX is going to use ZFS? If so and your guess is right, Microsoft is behind the technology-curve and quite seriously. It'd suggest bureaucratic inertia has all but stopped development (forward momentum) of Windows.

[The cloud is nice, but it's not like it's THE answer].


RE: Why the rush?
By Mitch101 on 3/31/2011 2:21:16 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is making a cloud too but to each their own as long as Apple claims to have 10% Microsoft is not a monopoly. Welcome friend.

Back to the cloud I can see a use with mobile devices but otherwise Im not sold on it. My internet connection is significantly slower than my hard drive or even a usb stick can make the cloud seem insignificant to me.


RE: Why the rush?
By ekv on 4/1/2011 2:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering if you misunderstood me. I'm not a big Apple fan. But the advantages of ZFS are unmistakable. Windows 8 w/o such features seems rushed. What is Microsoft thinking? Are they?

The cloud is the big buzz word. It's not a make-or-break thing for me personally. I like what Amazon just did with the storage space ... being able to access your music, whenever / wherever. Beyond that, I'm not sure what it does for the average Joe User.


RE: Why the rush?
By TormDK on 4/1/2011 8:12:56 PM , Rating: 2
You forget something.

Windows 8 will have ARM support. Every single device currently on the marked will be able to run Windows 8 in a years time. That is huge from where I'm sitting, with nearly limitless potential to further increase markedshare and platform dependancy. With a re-release of the Live Platform for gaming, and likely a new Xbox at the time of Windows 8 release it's going to be a risky OS release, as Ballmer says.

Adding cloud on top of that is just icing on the cake.


RE: Why the rush?
By melgross on 4/1/2011 10:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
I believe they did say this was coming out in late 2012. Third quarter if I remember correctly. Of course, this is MS, so that could be extended.


RE: Why the rush?
By Flunk on 3/31/2011 10:04:17 AM , Rating: 2
Because that wouldn't make them as much money?

Blindingly obvious, I know.


RE: Why the rush?
By AssBall on 3/31/2011 7:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
I get that it is a probably a good decision for Microsoft overall. I don't see where most consumers fit in though. If Window's 8 is going to be out in a couple years I really don't have any motivation to upgrade from Vista to 7. I'll just wait for 8 now.


RE: Why the rush?
By NellyFromMA on 4/1/2011 12:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
Considering Windows 8 won't be out for a solid year longer at least, if you want to stick it out that long feel free, but you're probably not saving yourself very much. I expect the Windows 7 upgrade packages to be priced aggresively but that's just pure conjecture mixed with anticipation of where the market will be by the time win8 is a reality.


RE: Why the rush?
By Da W on 3/31/2011 10:10:10 AM , Rating: 4
It seems like windows 7, with improved code behind, made more modular, put support for legacy device as a separate module, to boot faster, run lighter and work on tablets and ARM soc. Chances are you won't need it on a PC if you already got 7.

I don't see the point of a new PC GUI since this one works fine. However they could produce additonnal GUI, if you boot in tablet mode, boot in Xbox mode (wouldn't that be nice) or boot in media center mode.


RE: Why the rush?
By kingmotley on 3/31/2011 10:59:21 AM , Rating: 5
I don't see the point of computers, since my typewriter works fine.


RE: Why the rush?
By Da W on 3/31/2011 1:44:51 PM , Rating: 5
You can't have porn on a typewriter!


RE: Why the rush?
By Drag0nFire on 3/31/2011 2:30:26 PM , Rating: 5
(insert ASCII porn here)


RE: Why the rush?
By Mitch101 on 3/31/2011 2:44:09 PM , Rating: 3
Ahh if I weren't reading the posts during your post you'd owe me a coke.

Kids today they will never appreciate the days of dot matrix and the wonderful noise it used to make.


RE: Why the rush?
By vortex222 on 4/1/2011 4:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
my kid does. My home office has an OKIData ML320 still ripping out 20-30 recepts a day. The kid is the one who has to re-feed it.


RE: Why the rush?
By Mitch101 on 3/31/2011 2:39:51 PM , Rating: 2
You can but its ASCII.


RE: Why the rush?
By masamasa on 3/31/2011 11:05:00 AM , Rating: 2
Complete agree.


RE: Why the rush?
By omnicronx on 3/31/2011 12:56:12 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously people, Windows XP is still with us 11 years after release as the primary OS around the world and you wonder why every single OS manufacturer including MS is ditching that kind of development in favour of an iterative approach?

Get used it to, gone are the days where OS development involved hitting the reset switch every X number of years.

Not only is it smarter from a monetary standpoint, its also smarter from a development standpoint.

You just can't give users 5-6-7 years to get entrenched within an OS, at that point there is little incentive to ever move over which is a bad thing for innovation in the marketplace and in the end, the consumer.


RE: Why the rush?
By Mitch101 on 3/31/2011 2:59:47 PM , Rating: 2
XP being out 11 years gave others a chance to catch up and come up with a few new ideas XP didn't have. So Microsoft is going to a 2-3 year product cycle to keep their OS ahead of their competitors. Sure competitors will get a function or two that is innovative but they will have to deal with Microsoft releasing new stuff too and quickly.

But then I look at Windows 7 and say wow they improved everything from calculator, paint, and even backup/recovery and wonder why the heck is anyone still using XP? The tools to move your data from XP to Windows 7 are awesome. I did a Windows 7 to Windows 7 move and it took everything including my auto completes in firefox. Windows 7 is seriously the best of Microsoft since XP over 98.


RE: Why the rush?
By lecanard on 3/31/2011 8:15:26 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that if they let people get too entrenched with one OS, it's almost impossible to get them to upgrade. The 5-year XP-Vista gap is one big reason why so many people still have XP, whereas nobody still used Win 98 three years ago.


RE: Why the rush?
By B3an on 3/31/2011 9:11:27 PM , Rating: 2
Why do comments like this get rated up?
The last thing we need is another XP holding everything back. MS need to update more regularly (same with software like IE as well, by the time IE10 is out IE9 will look like IE8 does right now - s**t). If they dont then people will just switch to other OS's that get updated more, can do more, and look more shiny.

No one forces you to upgrade. So if the OS works stick with it. But for everyone else atleast they have a choice. Look at the improvements MS made going to Win7 from Vista and they has less time to work on Win7 than with Windows 8.


RE: Why the rush?
By voodoochile123 on 4/6/2011 2:31:22 AM , Rating: 2
A new IE does not need a new operating system. Secondly, you are forced to upgrade when they limit the support for older OS's, when software you want to use no longer works well (or at all) on older OS's, and when you absolutely have to upgrade to be able to have things like DX10/11, or to get access to more of your RAM.

I was forced to move on Win2k when games started requiring something that XP had and it didn't have. I was pretty annoyed but I went along with it because that was my only option. I've since gone to Win 7 64 bit, but only because I got it through work for cheap. There isn't really much advantage for me in this.

Gaming is massively held back these days by consoles, so I don't really need any upgrades. I have Dx11 now and access more RAM, but nothing to really use it. The problem with them rushing more OS's, is that it forces people to buy them when they aren't really all that necessary in reality, and most of the features could have just been included as updates or service packs.

I'm all for progress, but I want meaningful progress. None just yet-another company mass producing their rushed products to rudely milk their customers. Electronic Arts have made that the new norm in gaming, and I'd rather not see it happen in OS's too.


Obviously FAKE...
By aguilpa1 on 3/31/2011 12:58:09 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see any bubbles.... ;>




By spamreader1 on 3/31/2011 2:26:38 PM , Rating: 2
winsxs folder works, that damn thing still freaks out all kinds of monitoring software.




you see something?
By Calabros on 3/31/2011 3:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
its the Desktop of their riskiest product ever? whats risky about this SameOS Home Premium?




Windows Live Integration
By johannesburg on 3/31/2011 3:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting to see the live icon on the bottom right, a sign Microsoft is massaging Live deeper into its Windows...

I wonder what new features it will bring with deeper OS integration.




XP can live another 10 yrs
By vision33r on 4/5/2011 9:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
Windows XP has been thoroughly modified in the business community for their purposes. The reason why XP still survives because it's minimalistic.

Vista and even Windows 7 comes with tons of features business IT does not want on the PC.

Many businesses just want a simple and easy to manage OS without tons of crap running in the background like Vista has.

XP uses very little memory and runs business apps just fine, so why should they upgrade?

Microsoft has bloated the OS and made it harder for some businesses to deliver a low memory footprint OS as a thin client.




NO SPAM OS ??
By KOOLTIME on 4/6/2011 2:28:48 PM , Rating: 2
Id be happy with a super slow OS dont care 1 bit about speedy menues or gimmicky looking areo desktop stuff at all.

How about a virus add spamming pop-up, marketing scammer free internet useage OS ??

OH wait thats impossible but snappier menu's will make everyones lives better right ?

install clean windows OS, on 1st use lauch to MSN.COM and the marketing adds will show your home town listed already.

aka the infamous this "city" mom ( which is conviniently shows your city now where you live ) earns 6000 dollars a week for a few hours of work a week, add spam. who hasnt seen that add yet right. Thats just on 1st time run after a brand new OS install going to MSN.COM a so called safe web site ?? Your tracked and spammed forever the second your computer hits the internet.

Build a broswer that doesnt have the bility to download to a persons system info, while installing tracking systems to it as well, then we'd be talking about a good OS.

Make a browser like we had 20 or so years ago, it did not have tracking or spam pop-ups abilites were not invented yet, lets go back to those days.

AHHH they days before POP-UPS were invented the good ole days - am I right or am I right ???




windows = lol
By Argon18 on 3/31/11, Rating: -1
RE: windows = lol
By wushuktl on 3/31/2011 11:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
whotf is still using a computer with less than 1ghz? Why does this matter to anybody?


RE: windows = lol
By bigboxes on 3/31/2011 11:18:44 AM , Rating: 2
Are you telling me that you are still using a ten-year old pc that runs at 1 Ghz? I loved the old gal, but you really don't see an improvement with Win7? You are either ignorant or a liar.


RE: windows = lol
By FaceMaster on 3/31/2011 11:20:52 AM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista. So that disproves your first statement. I don't know what the system requirements for 8 are, but you obviously do since you're trumpeting your comment with so much authority you MUST be right. But the last statement you make is wrong, Windows 7 is far more protected against viruses and the like than previous versions. Your last statement looks like you're trying to troll. You might think it's clever, but I just think it makes you look childish, silly, and in need of a good correcting. Enjoy.


RE: windows = lol
By DanNeely on 3/31/2011 11:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Windows 7 has the same requirements as Vista. So that disproves your first statement.


This actually understates the situation. Win7's official requirements didn't change, but it runs much faster on low end hardware. Vista on an atom was painful. Win7 runs acceptably on it, although browser bloating means that if you have more than a few tabs open 2gb of ram will be beneficial.


RE: windows = lol
By AkuPyro on 3/31/2011 11:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
Really, even in the world of Apple, sense the times of 10.0/10.1, requirements have bumped up. Quite sure if you want eye candy it will come at a price. Funny though that I can still run Windows 7 on a 7 year old machine fine that has 2 GB of RAM and an old as dirt P4 (that's max for it) and taking the eye candy off. Think its time to upgrade that 15 year old machine eh?


RE: windows = lol
By Helbore on 3/31/2011 12:40:33 PM , Rating: 2
I bet you still run a text-only OS on an Intel 386 (no co-pro, of course!) with 2MB of RAM.

I bet Windows 95 really pissed you off.


RE: windows = lol
By lamerz4391 on 3/31/2011 2:13:09 PM , Rating: 5
How does Steve Jobs' c0ck taste? You seem to be a conniseur, so you should know.


RE: windows = lol
By brandonicus on 3/31/2011 6:45:19 PM , Rating: 1
Obvious Troll...is Obvious.


RE: windows = lol
By dsumanik on 4/1/2011 11:11:26 AM , Rating: 3
I'd like to see ms offer a performance version of Windows... No legacy support, and bare minimum services for gaming, rendering, gpu general computing and workstation performance, no excess software like games Backup/restore/media center/Accessories/ domain/ group policy support etc.

Strip it down to a lean, mean fast installing OS monster with a GPU accelerated GUI.

Call it windows redline or something,

Something like this would revive interest in the pc


RE: windows = lol
By voodoochile123 on 4/6/2011 2:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
Who has lost interest? I'm a big gamer and I wouldn't say that any of that is necessary.

Some of those things you can choose to not install, or just uninstall them yourself, but it's not even important to do that anyway. The disk space usage of all that stuff is microscopic compared to the size of modern hard drives, and it has no affect on boot time or game performance either.

Windows 7 boots fast, and it's extremely fast on my SSD. With DX11 the gui is gpu accelerated, so I would say that this is already a lean, mean, fast OS monster. I love gaming on my PC, the only problem I have is that the majority of games these days are held back by the lowest common denominator - the consoles.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki