Windows 7 Builds already in Progress!

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I don't get the resetting from the beginning. They've started out with Windows Server 2003, which was basically more or less the latest trunk code, then they've done that reset and jumped on a freaking fork of older code with patches, just to then reset again jump back onto Windows Server 2003, but this time in its code reviewed and SP1'd version. That is totally crazy and stupid, because it makes absolutely no sense to do that in the first place, assuming that the switch to XPSP2 was indeed true and done as everyone claims, because I'm inclined to not believe it.

I don't know why people bother to speculate about rather mundane details of the organizational structure of the Windows codebase or the order in which code may have migrated from one place to another. Why not go outside, enjoy some fresh air. There's a lot of misunderstanding about how a Windows release starts out and how it comes together. But the truth is that it really doesn't matter. The Vista code is the Vista code. It's not the Server 2003 code or the XP SP2.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Brandon Live

[Mr. Dee]

I don't get the resetting from the beginning. They've started out with Windows Server 2003, which was basically more or less the latest trunk code, then they've done that reset and jumped on a freaking fork of older code with patches, just to then reset again jump back onto Windows Server 2003, but this time in its code reviewed and SP1'd version. That is totally crazy and stupid, because it makes absolutely no sense to do that in the first place, assuming that the switch to XPSP2 was indeed true and done as everyone claims, because I'm inclined to not believe it.

Actually, Longhorn development started on the Windows XP 'RTM' codebase, not XP SP2. Because the codebase for XP RTM couldn't handle some of the technologies being planned for Vista, especially from a security point of view, they had to use something more modern and fundamentally secure to begin with. This was Server 2003 SP1, we must also remember that Windows Server compared to client goes through more rigorous testing for code hardening.

I am not sure about Windows 7, but because Vista RTM is more fundamentally secure, they might be building off that branch instead of resetting and building off say Vista SP1 or Server 2008.

[Glowstick]

The earliest leaked builds had the 3790 build number. Guess whose that was.

I don't know why people bother to speculate about rather mundane details of the organizational structure of the Windows codebase or the order in which code may have migrated from one place to another. Why not go outside, enjoy some fresh air. There's a lot of misunderstanding about how a Windows release starts out and how it comes together. But the truth is that it really doesn't matter. The Vista code is the Vista code. It's not the Server 2003 code or the XP SP2.

It's called boredom. Get off your high Microsoft horse.

This was Server 2003 SP1, we must also remember that Windows Server compared to client goes through more rigorous testing for code hardening.

It's the same goddamn operating system. Microsoft tried something new with Win2K3 by keeping it somewhat longer in development and beta to implement more features, that's why there appears to be a split, but quickly regretted this due to the maintenance nightmare. That's one reason why they've decided to bring Vista to the codelevel of Longhorn with SP1. Hell, the 64bit version of XP _is_ Win2K3.

Before XP/2K3, the binaries between client and server, apart from clustering and explicitely server stuff (which was obviously missing), were exactly the same down to the last bit. And it's going to be the same again once Vista hits SP1.

Edited January 13, 2008 by Tom Servo

[Brandon Live Veteran]

The earliest leaked builds had the 3790 build number. Guess whose that was.

Actually, the earliest leaked builds pre-date Server 2003 (build 3790), but not by a lot. The reason should be obvious. The Windows Client team started their early Longhorn coding sometime between XP RTM and Server 2003 RTM, and took a snapshot of the then-current "main" branch to base that code upon. Of coures, as I said before, what's in those builds in that temporary fork of the code doesn't really matter... since it all ends up in the same place.

It's called boredom. Get off your high Microsoft horse.

Being bored is one thing. Bickering about what code the Windows team "started with" when building Vista seems pretty pointless. Plus with a product whose version numbers go 5.1 -> 5.2 -> 6.0, I don't see why there's any argument in the first place.

It's the same goddamn operating system. Microsoft tried something new with Win2K3 by keeping it somewhat longer in development and beta to implement more features, that's why there appears to be a split, but quickly regretted this due to the maintenance nightmare. That's one reason why they've decided to bring Vista to the codelevel of Longhorn with SP1. Hell, the 64bit version of XP _is_ Win2K3.

But since I'm here and not sleeping, I may as well join in the pointless conjecturing. It's hard to say that Microsoft was "trying something new" by forking the client and server releases and letting server take more time. XP was the first Windows release that really had to worry about shipping both a Home version and a Server version (plus a Workstation in between). So before XP, the Home and Server OSes weren't even built on the same architecture. It was entirely uncharted territory for Windows at that point, so there was no established practice. In fact, branching Server and Client was more like the old way of doing things (where 9x and NT were on seperate schedules).

So given that, I'd say we're "trying something new" with the new model, where the first release of Server 2008 is SP1 ("Windows 6.0 SP1" I guess you'd call it). Although technically, we did it before with XP x64 edition, as there was no non-SP1 version of that either. So maybe it's not entirely new after all.

[Glowstick]

Being bored is one thing. Bickering about what code the Windows team "started with" when building Vista seems pretty pointless.

People bicker about a lot out of boredom. Take a look at threads about TV series, movies, music, books, games, etc. Stop being a spoilsport.

So before XP, the Home and Server OSes weren't even built on the same architecture.

I'm talking the Windows NT line solely. Because before people started using Windows NT at large, there wasn't any bickering whether it's fine to run the server version on the desktop or not (what started with XP/2K3 and by extension already with Windows 2000 for "cutting edge" consumers), because there wasn't a Windows 98 Server Edition. I don't really care about Win9x at this point. Windows NT client and server were the same, are the same and will be the same, unless Microsoft introduces a completely new operating system for one of the two areas or truly forks them and has two team working on the branches independently.

Although technically, we did it before with XP x64 edition, as there was no non-SP1 version of that either. So maybe it's not entirely new after all.

That's just a product naming issue, because XP64 is Windows Server 2003 x64 (which was only released to public with Windows Server 2003 SP1). I mean, gee, when I go look for the newest service pack for XP64, Microsoft tells me to download service pack 2 of Windows Server 2003.

The main point I'm complaining about is that a whole lot of people here on Neowin are still pretending like the server is a whole different operating system. (Whether the people using the server version on their desktop are doing it _legally_ or not is a different thing.)

[Hell_Of_Doom]

People bicker about a lot out of boredom. Take a look at threads about TV series, movies, music, books, games, etc. Stop being a spoilsport.

I'm talking the Windows NT line solely. Because before people started using Windows NT at large, there wasn't any bickering whether it's fine to run the server version on the desktop or not (what started with XP/2K3 and by extension already with Windows 2000 for "cutting edge" consumers), because there wasn't a Windows 98 Server Edition. I don't really care about Win9x at this point. Windows NT client and server were the same, are the same and will be the same, unless Microsoft introduces a completely new operating system for one of the two areas or truly forks them and has two team working on the branches independently.

That's just a product naming issue, because XP64 is Windows Server 2003 x64 (which was only released to public with Windows Server 2003 SP1). I mean, gee, when I go look for the newest service pack for XP64, Microsoft tells me to download service pack 2 of Windows Server 2003.

The main point I'm complaining about is that a whole lot of people here on Neowin are still pretending like the server is a whole different operating system. (Whether the people using the server version on their desktop are doing it _legally_ or not is a different thing.)

As a Programmer i know that you don't rewrite everything from the scratch but you reuse the code from shared library. Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server share the same code. Those two are not different architectures. Windows XP and Windows Vista share a lot of code. Microsoft doesn't write notepad application from scratch...that's for sure...just one example.

Actually, Longhorn development started on the Windows XP 'RTM' codebase, not XP SP2. Because the codebase for XP RTM couldn't handle some of the technologies being planned for Vista, especially from a security point of view, they had to use something more modern and fundamentally secure to begin with. This was Server 2003 SP1, we must also remember that Windows Server compared to client goes through more rigorous testing for code hardening.

I am not sure about Windows 7, but because Vista RTM is more fundamentally secure, they might be building off that branch instead of resetting and building off say Vista SP1 or Server 2008.

Somehow i have a feeling that Windows 7 will be based on Longhorn 4xxx code.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

As a Programmer i know that you don't rewrite everything from the scratch but you reuse the code from shared library. Windows XP and Windows 2003 Server share the same code. Those two are not different architectures. Windows XP and Windows Vista share a lot of code. Microsoft doesn't write notepad application from scratch...that's for sure...just one example.

The Windows XP code is the Windows XP code, and the Windows Server 2003 code is the Server 2003 code. They aren't the same. Server 2003 is a newer iteration (versioned 5.2). Vista is a newer version than that. The next release will be a newer version still. They each build on the one that came before. I don't know why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Somehow i have a feeling that Windows 7 will be based on Longhorn 4xxx code.

Are you high?

[XPero]

The Windows XP code is the Windows XP code, and the Windows Server 2003 code is the Server 2003 code. They aren't the same. Server 2003 is a newer iteration (versioned 5.2). Vista is a newer version than that. The next release will be a newer version still. They each build on the one that came before. I don't know why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

Are you high?

I know you work for MS so you know more than us, but there is no doubt that shell32.dll (for instance) in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are the same, or at least share 99% of the code. And that applies to the 99% of the files present in both OSes. Who cares about version numbers? You can artificially raise the build number of a file without changing a line of code, cant you?

Vista SP1 and Server 2008 are in sync, so you can no longer say they are different.

Somehow i have a feeling that Windows 7 will be based on Longhorn 4xxx code.

No way. It will be based on Vista code. And guess what? Windows 8 will be based on Windows 7 code. This chain will break when MS take Singularity as a serious Windows succesor.

[Mordkanin]

No way. It will be based on Vista code. And guess what? Windows 8 will be based on Windows 7 code. This chain will break when MS take Singularity as a serious Windows succesor.

Singularity is a research project which they use to study managed code, and has led to improvements to .NET.

AFAIK, they don't have any plans to ever turn it into an actual product. There's noting wrong with NT. It's a good foundation for an OS.

[XPero]

Singularity is a research project which they use to study managed code, and has led to improvements to .NET.

AFAIK, they don't have any plans to ever turn it into an actual product. There's noting wrong with NT. It's a good foundation for an OS.

I didnt say the contrary. I just said that every version of Windows will be based on the previous one. Simple as that.

[Glowstick]

The Windows XP code is the Windows XP code, and the Windows Server 2003 code is the Server 2003 code. They aren't the same. Server 2003 is a newer iteration (versioned 5.2). Vista is a newer version than that. The next release will be a newer version still. They each build on the one that came before. I don't know why this is a difficult concept to grasp.

That's only because they left the server version longer in development and didn't bother to sync it up. Vista SP1 will be Server 2008 will be Vista SP1. Unless you're going to tell me the same thing like someone here did regarding Windows 2000 and before (where everything minus the server utility code was bit exact), telling me that the DLLs in the service packs following the sync-up carry two seperate code sections, one for each OS edition.

AFAIK, they don't have any plans to ever turn it into an actual product. There's noting wrong with NT. It's a good foundation for an OS.

The whole userland has gone wrong, due to pandering too much to backwards compatibility.

[Hell_Of_Doom]

I know you work for MS so you know more than us, but there is no doubt that shell32.dll (for instance) in Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 are the same, or at least share 99% of the code. And that applies to the 99% of the files present in both OSes. Who cares about version numbers? You can artificially raise the build number of a file without changing a line of code, cant you?

Vista SP1 and Server 2008 are in sync, so you can no longer say they are different.

No way. It will be based on Vista code. And guess what? Windows 8 will be based on Windows 7 code. This chain will break when MS take Singularity as a serious Windows succesor.

I meant the concept and some GUI solutions, like 3D Picture in login screen etc...

[tunafish]

i just home windows 7 removes windows compatability thing and uses virtual sandboxing to run the programs. As sometimes compatability in windows xp and vista dont work well

[Brandon Live Veteran]

That's only because they left the server version longer in development and didn't bother to sync it up. Vista SP1 will be Server 2008 will be Vista SP1. Unless you're going to tell me the same thing like someone here did regarding Windows 2000 and before (where everything minus the server utility code was bit exact), telling me that the DLLs in the service packs following the sync-up carry two seperate code sections, one for each OS edition.

Not entirely sure what you're saying there.

With XP, the service packs were built out of a fork of the XP code, although most of that code was either ported from winmain or ported back there later. I wasn't here then, but I'm sure there were several reasons for that including different teams owning each release and their independent schedules. As you know, with Vista SP1 that is not the case. I believe this to be an improvement in the process. Hopefully time will prove that to be true.

The whole userland has gone wrong, due to pandering too much to backwards compatibility.

Vista improved it in a great many ways. And you can't really fault something that has worked so well for so many people. Yeah, there are trade-offs for compatibility, but gosh darn it, people seem to like compatibilty.

[vartaxe]

i just want winfs back!

Edited January 24, 2008 by vartaxe

[Windam]

You know from all this talk.. I'm actually holding out on buying an iMac.. I'm going to wait to see what 7 has for the future.

I'll stick with my 65nm Pentium 4 for another 2 years :laugh:

It's a smart move in my opinion

[tunafish]

i just want winfs back!

the whole design of longhorn there looks WAY better than the final vista release.

The gadgets bar looks way better as well! The design looks way better for the windows etc. Dam!

[MMaster23]

i just want winfs back!

oh wise WinFS fan.. tell us all how exactly WinFS would help YOU.

Just because you didn't get it in Vista RTM, doesn't mean you're missing out on something...

[neufuse Veteran]

Wow some people need to learn about Code branching / forking / shared code / versioning.... ect...

[Lt-DavidW]

Windows 7 Builds already in Progress!, But guess what - It still looks just like Vista

See below...

[vartaxe]

i remember the whistler very well!

[Steven P. Administrators]

See below...

Thank you for proving my point. I have stated this a few times already but some people just don't get it lol.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

See below...

Fake! It says "Whistler Professional" and Longhorn never had a SKU listed there, and as we all know everything must always look the same as Longhorn alphas. Oh, Microsoft would clearly never release anything with scribbled in white ink labelling it.

Seriously though, you guys crack me up.

[Island Dog]

This is entertaining to say the least.

:D

[vartaxe]

its not fake! i have that build! was the first build of "xp" and it was called whistler! nothing todo with longhorn!

edit: basically it was released quickly after win 2000... and it is 100% win 2000... just have a different version number a different boot screen that displays whistler!