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

RE: Disappointment
By phatboye on 10/14/2008 11:57:30 AM , Rating: 0
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.

I call BS on that one. I have yet to see any benchmarks where Vista will "kick the living crap" out of anything, let alone XP. I've done my own in-home benchmarks, and although they where pretty crude benchmarks that shouldn't be taken as anything scientific, they seem to follow most of the benchmarks showing that XP is indeed faster than Vista.

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

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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