Windows 7 RC1 branch builds being compiled?

This news has come to us in the form of a build tag which sports the typical naming scheme for milestone branch builds. 7048.winmain_win7rc1.090211-1625 is the tag. As you can see, this build was compiled on February 11th 2009 at 4:25 PM. On one hand it is good to see Microsoft moving this quickly with the development of Windows 7, but on the other it is a little concerning.

Microsoft has only officially released one build (7000) which went to beta testers and the public alike. One build is not enough to gather enough feedback to move ahead this quickly IMO. Windows is a far more complex piece of software than Office and I hope Mr. Sinofsky can learn that before this beta cycle is over.

News source: GeekSmack

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Another exploit targets IE7 bug

Next Story

Obama launches Recovery.gov

26 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I read in Ars Technica that build doesn't exist confirmed by Microsoft employee... We must wait some days more.. Or we can't?

TheARC

A shame someone didn't quote the drivel that the original poster of comment #2 made. I'd love to have read it Based on the replies, it sounds to me like it was a load of self-righteous twaddle.

It started something like "What a meaningless article" which I sort of agree with, however the original poster made a huge rant about it.

They did it wrong with Vista. They won´t do it wrong again with Windows 7, as we can already test on build 7000.

This is RC1 for god sake... If it is called number 1, they are certain that they might release a candidate 2.

We should concern only after testing RC1.

luis mazza said,
They did it wrong with Vista. They won�t do it wrong again with Windows 7, as we can already test on build 7000.

This is RC1 for god sake... If it is called number 1, they are certain that they might release a candidate 2.

We should concern only after testing RC1.


Sorry, but thats rubbish. By definition, an RC build (no matter the number) is one that Microsoft think is ready to be released. Thats what Release Candidate means! They put it out to make sure that everyone else has the same opinion. If not, they act on the feedback and put out a second RC build. Once the majority of people agree that RC build is ready, they turn that build into the RTM.

Planning ahead for multiple RC builds is a complete contradiction to what an RC build is actually for.

It is also a contradiction the fact that we are being given a chance to test a Windows Beta version and help it to be coded correctly and then we will have to pay it´s full price when its released. Though we still do it.
A contradiction is not necessarily a bad thing these days, as you can see.

How is that a contradiction? Do you even know what the word means?

When signing up to do techbeta testing, it clearly states that a free copy of the product is not guaranteed. Anyone beta testing solely to get something for free is doing it for the wrong reasons. Out of interest though, how do you know we WONT receive a free copy this time around? Has that been confirmed somewhere and I missed it?

You seem not the type of person that really has a sense for abstraction or creativity. But you do like to make a super sense of everything. That´s a contradiction.

Would you be complaining and saying that there wasnt enough time spent testing a Service Pack if they had spent 2.5 years on it? Because realistically, Windows 7 is more like a service pack for vista than a full new OS & Kernel. A very good one though at that. and with millions of testers around the world i'm sure they have gathered plenty of feedback.

definitely need to quit with the 7 being only a Vista service pack thing. That's like saying Windows XP is only a service pack to Windows 2000. Even that was more true for say XP RTM - SP1. When SP2 came out it gave XP a great overhaul to bring it into the "current" as it was already outdated when it was released.

Windows 7 on the other hand doesn't have much in the ways of visual differences compared to Vista but it's definitely more than just a few updated DLLs and exe's. Much much more!

What I think is that Windows 7 is far more stable then any other Windows especially Vista. There are issues but mostly with software compatibility and for sure it should be because it still almost all of the software manufacturers haven't given there Windows 7 compatible programs. One thing I have read in one Article for the reason why the Kernel version is 6.1 instead of 7, is because if they change the Kernel version for the OS almost 100% softwares will crash. Unless and untill the software manufacturer make there software compatible. Beside that the bugs in the OS will always remain and will be found at later stages as "No One's Perfect", same goes for OS. I myself have issues with Windows 7 but those all issues are related to Software compatibility. And as Kojio said this is RC1 and there might be RC2 and then RTM after which there will be a Final Release.

One build is not enough to gather enough feedback to move ahead this quickly

This is completely true and was obvious with Vista testing.

The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

No it's not. An RC build =/= code freeze. It is a release canidate. Hence, the RC1. If the RC1 does well, then they will make a final RTM build. Otherwise, there will be an RC2 build. Besides, there is software vastly more complicated than Windows, that gets by with far less public testing. Windows 7 is not meant to be complicated, it's meant to be a streamlined O/S.

But let's ignore rational thought for the sake of sensationalist news articles. All the cool news media outlets are doing it!

You said "That's often not how RC's work at Microsoft." and yet you link to an article which only quotes the Windows Vista development as of recent. Your posted article contradicts your own statement.

You should also look into the fact that Vista went through an RC2 stage before being pushed to RTM, which further destroys your argument. ^_^

Windows 7 will be pushed out the door to soon and then it will be fixed with sp1 just like Vista and XP. Microsoft can't break there bad habits.

I agree entirely. There should be at least one interim build between milestones. Doing away with Beta 2 is one thing, doing away with every single other released build between Beta 1 and RC is another entirely different thing. Without an interim build, theres no way to confirm if our reports on Beta 1 have been fixed, and by definition Microsoft believes the RC build ready to be released. How can they know this if the testers are not given the opportunity to verify bugs have been resolved from the previous build.

I'm sorry but this beta just feels entirely different to any previous Windows beta I've been involved with. Microsoft seem to be moving along at lightning pace and it just feels like us Tech Beta participants are being left behind. While it's true that Beta 1 of Win7 is more stable than Vista was at the RC stages, thats no excuse to bypass due diligence and process. This just seems to me to be another example of Microsoft planning a release based on a fixed rigid timetable, rather than basing it on product readiness.

TCLN Ryster said,
I agree entirely. There should be at least one interim build between milestones. Doing away with Beta 2 is one thing, doing away with every single other released build between Beta 1 and RC is another entirely different thing. Without an interim build, theres no way to confirm if our reports on Beta 1 have been fixed, and by definition Microsoft believes the RC build ready to be released. How can they know this if the testers are not given the opportunity to verify bugs have been resolved from the previous build.

I'm sorry but this beta just feels entirely different to any previous Windows beta I've been involved with. Microsoft seem to be moving along at lightning pace and it just feels like us Tech Beta participants are being left behind. While it's true that Beta 1 of Win7 is more stable than Vista was at the RC stages, thats no excuse to bypass due diligence and process. This just seems to me to be another example of Microsoft planning a release based on a fixed rigid timetable, rather than basing it on product readiness.


They sure as Hell didn't release Vista on a rigid timetable. If you want an example of an OS being forced out the door to meet a date bugs be damned, look no further than Ubuntu.