Jump to content



Photo

Windows 7 M1 is here...


  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic

#256 netRunner

netRunner

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 22-January 08

Posted 16 July 2008 - 09:41

<snip>

People in the comments said it's real.



This fake.

Windows 7 Milestone 2 (Vista SP1 Customized Install DVD)


#257 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:20

This fake.

Windows 7 Milestone 2 (Vista SP1 Customized Install DVD)


While there is at least one fake M2 build out there, there is also at least one genuine copy of M1 floating around (in fact, I'm entering this from it, installed in a VM, of course).

It doesn't look *that* different, on first glance, from Vista (expected); however, there are some noticeable differences compared to Vista (for example, the Classic Start Menu is gone). Another neat trick that M1 has (that Vista lacks) is *font scalability* (however, it isn't on-the-fly, *yet*). In fact, the entire display (from fonts to icons) can be scaled (either up or down). I'll likely throw Microsoft Office 2007 at it to see what M1 can do.

#258 EchoNoise

EchoNoise

    Destron.

  • Joined: 20-December 05
  • Location: Australia

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:37

LOL, the screenshot says "Please What" :rofl:

#259 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 18 September 2008 - 05:37

But is it really worth the download before Windows 7 even reaches a respectable milestone like Beta 1?

Personally, I'm content hunting and looking at screenshots until Microsoft actually starts the beta cycle.


At least one genuine leak of M1 exists (in fact, I'm running it in a VM amd typing these words from it). Some features that Vista has (the Classic Start Menu, for example) are missing. However, display scaling (fonts, the taskbar, even the icons) is back. Is it ever. You even have up to 125% scale-up. While Windows XP and even Windows 2000 could do it, neither did it all that well, so it wasn't a feature that I missed much in Windows Vista. However, M1 does it well, and it's easy to implement; even better, you only have to logout and log back in (ala Linux) to have it take effect. (Sounds like *someone* remembered Jim Alchin and his *kill the excess reboots* mantra from the days of NT4.) 7 is basically planned to be more an *evolution* (ala Windows 2000); however, does anyone remember the impact Windows 2000 Professional had? (Windows 2000 Professional was the first NT-based operating system I recommended for regular use; not just over NT 4, but even over Windows 98 Second Edition, let alone Windows ME-ouch.) Windows 2000 Professional's improvements were not all that obvious unless added all together (compared to Windows NT 4 Workstation, especially with Service Pack 5 or 6 applied); however, it was the *little things* that Windows 2000 improved that were the real wake-up call to NT users that migrated (and even 9x users like me that crossgraded).

A great operating system isn't always made up of lots of big things; Windows 2000 Professional certainly wasn't.

#260 Revolution.

Revolution.

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 03-January 08

Posted 19 October 2008 - 23:31

Posted Image


where can i get this as a skinn? :D it looks slick ... !



anyone????????

#261 Eric

Eric

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 12
  • Joined: 02-August 06
  • Location: Greenville, SC

Posted 19 October 2008 - 23:44

I heard that 'OS X 11' is here too! build 1337.


Wouldn't that be OS XI?

#262 Mr. Dee

Mr. Dee

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 11-April 03
  • Location: Caribbean
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro, Windows 7 Professional, Windows XP Professional

Posted 20 October 2008 - 02:07

At least one genuine leak of M1 exists (in fact, I'm running it in a VM amd typing these words from it). Some features that Vista has (the Classic Start Menu, for example) are missing. However, display scaling (fonts, the taskbar, even the icons) is back. Is it ever. You even have up to 125% scale-up. While Windows XP and even Windows 2000 could do it, neither did it all that well, so it wasn't a feature that I missed much in Windows Vista. However, M1 does it well, and it's easy to implement; even better, you only have to logout and log back in (ala Linux) to have it take effect. (Sounds like *someone* remembered Jim Alchin and his *kill the excess reboots* mantra from the days of NT4.) 7 is basically planned to be more an *evolution* (ala Windows 2000); however, does anyone remember the impact Windows 2000 Professional had? (Windows 2000 Professional was the first NT-based operating system I recommended for regular use; not just over NT 4, but even over Windows 98 Second Edition, let alone Windows ME-ouch.) Windows 2000 Professional's improvements were not all that obvious unless added all together (compared to Windows NT 4 Workstation, especially with Service Pack 5 or 6 applied); however, it was the *little things* that Windows 2000 improved that were the real wake-up call to NT users that migrated (and even 9x users like me that crossgraded).

A great operating system isn't always made up of lots of big things; Windows 2000 Professional certainly wasn't.


Windows 2000's most dramatic improvements were under the hood, I could keep my Computer running for weeks, months without rebooting for the very first time. Although, it was possible with NT 4 Workstation, it wasn't a real guarantee. Another great feature of 2000, it has Direct X, Power Management and USB support. Initially device driver support was a problem, I remember my 56K modem and Lexmark Z11 Printer not being supported, but drivers did become available over time. We can't necessarily compare Vista/7 to 2000/XP, since both were different in their marketing strategies. Windows 2000 Professional was primarily a business operating system, Windows XP was about bringing the reliability of NT with the ease of use of Windows 98 to the consumer for the first time.

Windows Vista, was about continuing a legacy of ease of use while bringing advancements in security and defining scenarios on the PC while introducing new opportunities for developers to create connected applications that would build on APIs such as Avalon and Indigo. The security kind of took away from the original premise and along the way things like device driver support suffered because of the changes to the device driver model itself. Windows 2000 coming from NT 4, actually improved this, and XP strengthened it. Windows Vista brought improvements in the name of security and reliability, things like device driver signing, Patch Guard and moving graphics drivers away from the kernel. Windows 7 will of course, make the investments IHVs and ISVs made in Vista continue with 7, while building on existing functionality in the OS, what that is, I don't know.

#263 SMELTN

SMELTN

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 23-July 05
  • Location: Alabama
  • OS: Windows 7 Ultimate, 2012 Macbook Pro, CR-48 Chromebook from Google
  • Phone: iPhone 5s

Posted 20 October 2008 - 02:15

looks nice..

#264 PGHammer

PGHammer

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Accokeek, MD
  • OS: Windows 8 Pro with Media Center x64

Posted 28 October 2008 - 12:34

Windows 2000's most dramatic improvements were under the hood, I could keep my Computer running for weeks, months without rebooting for the very first time. Although, it was possible with NT 4 Workstation, it wasn't a real guarantee. Another great feature of 2000, it has Direct X, Power Management and USB support. Initially device driver support was a problem, I remember my 56K modem and Lexmark Z11 Printer not being supported, but drivers did become available over time. We can't necessarily compare Vista/7 to 2000/XP, since both were different in their marketing strategies. Windows 2000 Professional was primarily a business operating system, Windows XP was about bringing the reliability of NT with the ease of use of Windows 98 to the consumer for the first time.


That is precisely what I meant.

In most cases, you couyld actually run the same application on Windows 2000 vs. NT 4 (even where NT 4 had Service Pack 6 applied, while 2000 Pro was un-patched), and 2000 would run NT 4 into the turf (on identical hardware). One of the biggest (and least noticeable until you actually had to do so) improvements in 2000 Pro vs. NT 4 had to do with the printer setup (especially in terms of network printing). *Finally*, you could browse printers by location, by length of print queue, or even by capabilities (NT 4 wouldn't let you do most of that sort of printer browsing). Not exactly obvious until you actually needed to use it.

I had already crossgraded from 98 SE to Windows 2000 Pro when the company I was working at upgraded from NT 4; folks that knew me had been wondering why my grin kept growing when Windows 2000 Pro was added to desktop after desktop. As each user was upgraded, the grins started spreading, and they realized why I was grinning; real usability had come to town.