Microsoft broke silence on its Windows 7 plans today in a blog post from Chris Flores.In an honest post the Microsoft spokesperson killed off some rumours regarding Windows 7:
"Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. While these changes will increase our engineering agility, they will not impact the user experience or reduce application or hardware compatibility. In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7."
Flores also commented that "We are well into the development process of Windows 7, and we're happy to report that we're still on track to ship approximately three years after the general availability of Windows Vista."
So it looks like Microsoft are targeting a Q4 2009 RTM date and general availability before the holiday period of 2009 this time? A poll created by Microsoft follower Ed Bott put the date at September 30, 2009 which I think is very much spot on.
View: Communicating Windows 7
Sigh, there hasn't been a new kernel since Windows NT 4.0 - yes, Windows 2000/XP/Vista whatever are all NT with crap piled on top of it. Just like 98/Me were Windows 95 with crap piled on top of it.
Sigh, there hasn't been a new kernel since Windows NT 4.0 - yes, Windows 2000/XP/Vista whatever are all NT with crap piled on top of it. Just like 98/Me were Windows 95 with crap piled on top of it.
you can say the same of Linux where every distro share the same original kernel with just a minor upgrade. :-P
Sigh, there hasn't been a new kernel since Windows NT 4.0 - yes, Windows 2000/XP/Vista whatever are all NT with crap piled on top of it. Just like 98/Me were Windows 95 with crap piled on top of it.
you can say the same of Linux where every distro share the same original kernel with just a minor upgrade. :-P
I share stgeorge's sentiments. Sure, you can say the same thing about Linux, but the difference is that you can customize Linux to your machine. You can't do that with the NT kernel, which means that if you must run Windows then you must suffer with whatever extra driver support et al. is compiled into the kernel. This is one thing that I find extremely nice about Linux. I like the ability to tune the core of the OS to my machine, making it as fast as it can be.
Sigh, there hasn't been a new kernel since Windows NT 4.0 - yes, Windows 2000/XP/Vista whatever are all NT with crap piled on top of it. Just like 98/Me were Windows 95 with crap piled on top of it.
you can say the same of Linux where every distro share the same original kernel with just a minor upgrade. :-P
I share stgeorge's sentiments. Sure, you can say the same thing about Linux, but the difference is that you can customize Linux to your machine. You can't do that with the NT kernel, which means that if you must run Windows then you must suffer with whatever extra driver support et al. is compiled into the kernel. This is one thing that I find extremely nice about Linux. I like the ability to tune the core of the OS to my machine, making it as fast as it can be.
Why would you WANT to customise the linux kernel? What have you got to gain from it?
Note there's a difference between GNU/Linux as a whole and Windows as a whole - the kernel is just one part of it.
Sigh, there hasn't been a new kernel since Windows NT 4.0 - yes, Windows 2000/XP/Vista whatever are all NT with crap piled on top of it. Just like 98/Me were Windows 95 with crap piled on top of it.
you can say the same of Linux where every distro share the same original kernel with just a minor upgrade. :-P
I share stgeorge's sentiments. Sure, you can say the same thing about Linux, but the difference is that you can customize Linux to your machine. You can't do that with the NT kernel, which means that if you must run Windows then you must suffer with whatever extra driver support et al. is compiled into the kernel. This is one thing that I find extremely nice about Linux. I like the ability to tune the core of the OS to my machine, making it as fast as it can be.
I'm sure windows can afford to loose some weight in it's kernel, but don't think Linux's one is necessarily all that small if a small kernel is what you want.
I'm not even sure it would be too intelligent of MS to make a radical change since Vista already.
I'm not even sure it would be too intelligent of MS to make a radical change since Vista already.
Well, they introduced alot of new API's in Windows Vista, so I'd say they'll keep adding new api's, modularise Windows so that they can scale it down to different devices. From the outside we might not see much change, but I'd say that the modularisation should allow for easier maintenance and less issues with updates in the future.
Its good to see Microsoft realise what needs to be done - and doing it.
Yes but wasnt xp pretty much an upgrade tyo win 2000? Considering drivers and stuff can be installed and used on both os's?
Yes but wasnt xp pretty much an upgrade tyo win 2000? Considering drivers and stuff can be installed and used on both os's?
Windows 200 was NT5.0, XP was NT5.1, XP really was just a tweaked Win2000 with a nicer UI (and a few other bits and pieces, like moviemaker and such, but the Core OS was incredibly similar). But this was enough to really separate XP from 2000, so even if Win7 is just a "tweaked Vista" as some people believe, it could very well be an exceptional OS.
If you want to make the comparison you are it's more akin to what windows 98 was to 95. A lot of the core will stay the same but with a lot more refinement thrown in.
If you want to make the comparison you are it's more akin to what windows 98 was to 95. A lot of the core will stay the same but with a lot more refinement thrown in.
xp is the first consumer os built on nt, but its considered an update to both win2000 and winME since its unified for both business and home use
Windows 7 builds on Vista code base.
Its compatibility with Vista is good
Vista deployment will ease future migration to Windows 7.
Devices 7 Application Compatibility will improve. That will be the focus.
UI changes will be minimal
No major changes in the hardware requirements will be there in Windows 7, over Vista.
Windows 7 will have 32bit and 64 bit versions, and both will be priced at roughly the same level.
Microsoft have said that they will do a major release, and then a minor release ( O/S ) every two to three years, so none of this is a great surprise! Microsoft will know by now what people like, and ESPECIALLY dislike about Vista
In another two years, we will all be going down the route of cloud computing
In a bit of irony, the same things that kept users tied to Windows... will keep them clinging to a massive, somewhat dated platform. In truth, however, there is really nothing wrong with this approach. The majority of business users do not need the latest options, nor does it have to be streamlined. What they need is a product that is very fault redundant and stable. Windows 2008 and Vista can deliver on this.
Not if I can help it. Cloud computing won't take off that rapidly with ISPs acting the way they are, and the bebefits aren't that great for the end user.
He was 5 months behind, I was 1 month ahead.
http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=638331
Still doesn't make sense. Why would Microsoft RTM a product like Windows 7 in late September 2009 and wait until January 2010 to release it world wide? Thats a 5 month gap! Windows 2000 RTMed in November 1999, GA February 2000, 4 month gap. Windows XP was RTMed in August 2001 with General availability in October 2001 (3 month gap), Windows Vista RTMed November 17 2006, GA January 31st 2007 3 month gap again.
Here is a quote from what I said:
Using a more realistic development cycle, I would conclude that, at the end of October 2008, we will see a public developer preview of Windows 7, then starting February 2009 will be 11 long months of development resulting with RTM in December 2009 and world wide availability in February 2010. Also, this would be the 10th anniversary of Windows 2000's release world wide.
The reason why I even said February is the realistic effort to have it available everywhere, but it seems that development is following a strict pattern to Vista, RTM November 2009 and GA January 2010. Which means Windows 7 Beta 1 might show up this August or September.
We getting a another revision of out it. Well at least getting rid of the sh!tty name "Vista" and UI because I hate it.
Microsoft keep two flavor operating system or just stick to one like Mac OS...
Honestly but I never expected it to be faster, rather hardware will have caught up and the OS probably won't be slower so it should better for more people.
I do think that most of the underpinning technologies in Vista are ok, perhaps they could be optimised and extended but the core is ok.
I know the background on memory usage on Vista, that it caches as much as it can to RAM which is a great idea, however i have found that it causes more disk thrashing when i use it. So i wouldn't mind it being a little leaner also.
Im sure Microsoft can come up with some clever ideas with regard to the UI, fingers crossed. Also im not sure when everyone is obsessing with the Kernel, it's important i grant you, but it doesn't really make that much of a difference. Take for example the BSD/Mach kernel of Mac OSX, the UI is what really draws the attention. As ive said above a couple of times, i think microsoft needs to concentrate on the UI.
Of course, they would need to also provide a modern, efficient.. multi platform framework/API, and would, therefore, likely license Cocoa as well (to compile new applications for multiple architectures). This can be done effectively in Windows, but it would serve a dual purpose. It would provide a bridge so that applications written on Cocoa could run on on Windows. This would be similar to the Yellow Box environment that ran on Windows in the past.
Better yet, why does Microsoft not simply license OSX and provide prior compatibility in much the same way that Mac provided classic. It of course would be a bit more complicated with the Windows API, but it could be done.
ive invented a device for laptop pc and for handheld technology to help it become more mobile so far i havent seen anything like it before it can have up to five functions it will also be good when the stretch screen arrives i also have ideas for a community software and can also be applied for advertisement and ideas for the computer game.
ive called microsoft for this one but they said they only accept ideas certified by fortune 500. ive already emailed fortune 500 they havent respond can anyone help me with this one pls thx.
ive invented a device for laptop pc and for handheld technology to help it become more mobile so far i havent seen anything like it before it can have up to five functions it will also be good when the stretch screen arrives i also have ideas for a community software and can also be applied for advertisement and ideas for the computer game.
ive called microsoft for this one but they said they only accept ideas certified by fortune 500. ive already emailed fortune 500 they havent respond can anyone help me with this one pls thx.
All I can do with that is pity the person, say "Wow!" (funny how a comment can make me say that, but Vista can't) and laugh maniacally. Thanks for sharing it. ^_^
Years ago, I would have agreed with you, but now I know better! These people are out there. They're operating motor vehicles, voting, serving us food... *shudder*
Win 7 = Server 08 with added gui crap and some more tweaks.
Shame I was really hoping for a new windows based on a whole new kernal.
Sigh.
What you get with Vista SP1 is Server 2008. As of Vista SP1, Microsoft no longer maintains a seperate client and server codebranch. Basically what this means is that when you're running Vista SP1, every single binary on the system has been compiled from the exact same source code that the corresponding binary in Server 2008 has been compiled from.
Why? Do you know what a kernel even is? Why would you want a new one?
So you obviously are talking out of your ass. Please try again when you're better informed about the development of Windows.
The Windows Kernel is already pretty good I don't know why people keeping bashing it and thinking MinWin is the holy grail.
The Windows Kernel is already pretty good I don't know why people keeping bashing it and thinking MinWin is the holy grail.
The engineer in charge of kernal development said at lecture at the Univ. of Chicago (I believe) that the new kernal would be the core of the next windows OS. A brand new core, not a stripped NT core, that had full compat. with current drivers and software that ran in only 40meg of memory. For windows that is the holy grail.
A vista style OS that runs in less than 400 Mb of memory because the gui, explorer, and kernal have all been re-written and completely optimized.
A fresh start. Windows needs this.
MinWin is a stripped Windows NT kernel with minimal userland features.
MinWin is a stripped Windows NT kernel with minimal userland features.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34455/140/
MinWin is a stripped Windows NT kernel with minimal userland features.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34455/140/
MinWin was a stripped down version of the NT kernel used to flush out some of the interdependancies in the kernel. It was never a 'new' kernel. It was just a stripped down version of NT. It couldn't really do anything, as too much was missing from it.
MinWin is a stripped Windows NT kernel with minimal userland features.
http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34455/140/
Read and understand what you posted..thanks...
The kernel is good as it is right now. Vista features a lot of changes that took many by surprise and kept them from
changing. Maybe Windows 7 won't feature more changes, but instead a refinement of the ones that were introduced in Vista.
The hardware requirements will be the same for "recommended" because by then, the majority of users will be running core 2 duos or amd new cpu's, along with the value video cards found today or even previous-gen high end cards.
Keep dreaming Windoze fanboy. You know full well that OS X's "point releases" ALWAYS one ups anything M$ releases. Don't get ****ed at me because Microshaft is spoon feeding you Windoze Vista 2nd edition.
Keep dreaming Windoze fanboy. You know full well that OS X's "point releases" ALWAYS one ups anything M$ releases. Don't get ****ed at me because Microshaft is spoon feeding you Windoze Vista 2nd edition.
Are you joking?
Half of the crap Apple has put into their OS has been in direct response to whatever presentations and alphas Microsoft was releasing while Longhorn was still in alphas and suffering from development issues.
Apple claimed a list of 300 'new features' in Leopard. If 10.5 has 300, Vista's improvements over XP/2003 number in the thousands.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.