backtop


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

Disappointment
By ineedaname on 10/14/2008 11:01:53 AM , Rating: -1
I really have high hopes for windows 7 to not be like vista but the realistic side of me knows better. I remember they originally said they wanted windows 7 to be a low footprint OS but from what I've read so far it seems like its just a redone vista. I guess we'll see when the new betas ship.




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.
http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/amd_nvidia_win...

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
quote:
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


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Related Articles













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