Windows 7 build 7032 screenshots leak

As Windows is getting ready for its RC release, we have WinFuture post screenshots of Windows 7 Build 7032, compiled on January 29, 2009 at 6:12PM. Last weekend Windows 7 Build 7022 got leaked to the internet. Currently the only official build available to testers and the general public is build 7000.

There are a few noticeable changes in this build when compared to the (leaked) 7022 build

The Home Group also has a new icon

Two new themes - Architectures and Characters are new to this build besides the addition of various new wallpapers.

However, this build does not include the UAC fix and most probably they would be included only in the RC build as Microsoft had said earlier.

If you've missed our coverage of the new features in Windows 7, check out the links below:


*Images Courtesy: WinFuture
*Please refer to WinFuture for good quality images

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

DTV update, stations ignore Obama

Next Story

Dell Launches Wasabi PZ310 ultra-mobile inkless printers

51 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

What I still don't like about the taskbar is that you can't tell the difference between already running apps and pinned apps very easily while just looking at them. I think many "normal" users will get thrown of by this approach. Also, no text labels by default may confuse many people.

jim87654 said,
What I still don't like about the taskbar is that you can't tell the difference between already running apps and pinned apps very easily while just looking at them. I think many "normal" users will get thrown of by this approach. Also, no text labels by default may confuse many people.

I turned on text labels however some things work better with no text labels like sticky notes.

Actually you can, if you hover over a pinned icon it does not highlight but has a small white mark on the bottom, running apps actually have color on the whole icon. At least on mine it does this. however there are many things missing from build 7000 to 7022 in the way of icons etc and screen savers as well.

I did fresh install of 7032 from 7022 and I haven't been able to see any differance or feel any performance increase. However, IE8 has not crashed on me in the 4 days. It looks like IE8 doesn't like one of my add-ons. As far as I can see or tell the time spent on a fresh install of 7032 has not shown any benifit.

I did reinstrall 7022 from a backup image and removed all the IE8 add-ons but the crash happened again after about 2 hours of using IE8 :(

atleeit said,
i will be testing 7032 build later tomorrow to see what changes there has been :)

OMG will the people complaining about the start menu please have a few beers and relax. It's fine. It's not that ugly. It doesn't stand out and overshadow the other icons... chill. I love it when some people get stuck on some small irrelevant thing like that. Who cares if the start button is square or slightly rounded or whatever - it will still do the exact same thing... jeez.

Shiranui said,
I love these new 'screenshots' that show nothing more than version number changes...

...and few new themes, and new control panel icons, new home groups and yes - show us that they're doing new builds and people are using them... What did you really expect at that point? A new default background of Steve Ballmer sweating balls and jumping like a monkey?

Why do they still have the tabbed screen saver window popup (like in xp)? Instead, shouldn't it be part of the personalize window, like the themes & wallpaper?

Same as with Vista Enterprise. By default, Enterprise does not install them. But if you go to Control PanelPrograms and FeaturesTurn Windows features on or off and tick Games and hit OK. There they are. I'm sure Windows 7 Enterprise will be much the same.

I noticed the games section is missing from the start menu. Is this because it is Enterprise Edition? I thought Enterprise was a superset of Home Premium? No biggie or anything... just wondering :P

Windows XP and Office 2003 are still the mainstay at most companies from what I have seen. Vista and Office 2007 didn't offer much new or they confused people who had been accustomed to the older versions.

hardgiant said,
Windows XP and Office 2003 are still the mainstay at most companies from what I have seen. Vista and Office 2007 didn't offer much new or they confused people who had been accustomed to the older versions.

My local school has just ditched it last copies on Office 2003, 2007 all the way.

I can't think of any reason why Vista would have little benefits over XP in a workplace. It's essentially the same operating system with new features and a pretty GUI. What I don't understand is why no one has a valid reason for not using Vista or Windows 7. "XP is better" isn't a good enough reason. It's an out-dated OS that served it's purpose and is now succeeded by 2 OS. The tech industry is stagnating when people are clinging to out-dated OS. With that said, I'm looking forward to Windows 7.

scratch42069 said,
The tech industry is stagnating when people are clinging to out-dated OS. With that said, I'm looking forward to Windows 7.

It's stagnating when people are clinging to an OS because the new OS doesn't have enough enticement to get them to switch.
This certainly was the main reason for me to keep XP. It was not because I'm afraid of change (quite the contrary actually) and it was not because of Vista's issues (which it certainly has) but simply because I could not think of any new features Vista would offer me that XP couldn't already (for me personally, for others it might). And the pretty GUI is a matter of taste. I think Vista's UI is too busy and inconsistent for my liking. And yes, Seven is not world's apart from Vista in terms of looks, but there are A LOT of refinements in Seven people might not notice at first sight, but to me they make a lot of difference. Windows Seven however does offer me enough reason, hence why I am using Seven as my main OS since the 7000 build leaked and I'm really liking it.

Work where I work, and replace 20 desktops that have XP with Windows Vista. All of a sudden it seems like the 20 employees forgot how to use a pc. It waste's a lot of time to educate / train employees to do the exact samething they were doing with XP ( I dont see the start menu etc.. ). Also we need to configure the pc's with a ton of GPO's to make our applications work properly. For what? we see no benefit, it actually makes us lose productivity from the example above.

Id love it if they made a module based OS, maybe a bunch of thinapp type programs. That way if you install a program and remove it, 50%of the registry entries arent still in your HKLocal Machine etc. Each app would be in its own sandbox. It would fix a lot of conflicts / improve speed etc.. They could look at there softgrid technology. They should design OS from scratch.. People could take existing apps and convert them and the new OS can run the legacy apps. Imagine if your press power button on pc, comes up with a menu with a list of these sandbox apps, it would take 5 seconds to boot.

Im not trying to start a flame war, but we have been implementing Vista when we replace an employee's pc with a new one, so we have a mixed environment of Vista & XP machine. We admit we have made a mistake, and all new machines will have XP. We have about 300 computers and almost half of them are Vista. I looked at Ultimate for the laptops because of bitlocker, and it works pretty well, but we definetly don't need all of the Ultimate features and it wasnt cost effective for us to get software assurance and get Vista Enterprise edition. With group policy addon's available for free in XP ( adjust power management via group policy ) i can't see one benefit Vista has brought to the table for our environment. I can definetly count the loss of productivity ( maybe part of this is due to running a mixed environment ) but like i mentioned i can't list one benefit of Vista for us over XP.

With this being said, I think Microsoft is off target again with Windows 7 in the enterprise. I have already read articles how many companies are looking to hang onto XP even after Windows 7 releases. Our IT department will prob run Windows 7 with an XP virtual machine or vice versa so we can play with it at replace. But I still don't see any specific reason why any enterprise would want to upgrade to Windows 7 at this point. Its especially not worth my time testing / troubleshooting our apps to work in it.

I also see a lot of enterprises implementing thinclients / terminal servers / xenserver / vmware vdi , where all there users run there apps off Server 2003 and the company owns 0 Microsoft client licenses. Obviously Microsoft makes money off terminal server licenses as they should, but its a trend that is going to continue to grow.

And beta testers are still stuck with build 7000.... Illegal torrent users have stuff faster than we (beta testers) do!

This is the last week for the preview download of 7000 for everybody. I hope for a new build right after that.

yup. MSDN, Technet and Microsoft Connect are still hosting build 7000 and the next public/beta tester build will most likely be the release candidate

Nacho3891 said,
Every new build has new icons to offer... In this build (7032) I see they changed Control Panel icon, which is nice :)

and it looks more polished overall

Since the 6801 or something the UAC slider has been where it is in 7000, 7022 and 7032. The sliders position isn't really an issue, it's the underlying foundation of UAC which is the security risk. Sure moving the slider will give you that warm and fuzzy feeling but the risk still remain.

It's like a sleeping security guard, hes just as useless as a missing one. They will fix the issue in RC version of Windows 7 and the slider will prolly still be in the same spot cuz it's a good spot to be.

SHoTTa35 said,
Since the 6801 or something the UAC slider has been where it is in 7000, 7022 and 7032. The sliders position isn't really an issue, it's the underlying foundation of UAC which is the security risk.

The issue doesn't occur with the bar maxxed out.

So what is different in this build than 7000 other than walls? Screenshots are good and all, but physical change info is more important IMO :)

That said, does anybody know when will these build be available on connect?

It's likely backend changes for stability, etc. Not everything is noticable, somethings are extremely suttle and hard to find.

Plus, post-beta everything is feature locked. You shouldn't be seeing much new material outside of fixes (stability, security, or broken feature --> fixed feature) and looks.

Seems like the out-of-place Start Button still remains. :/

I really hope they fix this by the final release. They should make it a parallelogram of some type (not sure of the exact term to be honest, but something more rectangular, without 90 degree edges necessarily). Probably something thematically similar (but bolder) than the Close (X) button in Aero windows.

Bottom line: it should integrate into the new Taskbar, and anchor it in place visually. It just looks awful as it is. I mean, you know there's a problem when the Quicklaunch icons are arguably "louder" than is the Start Button.

Idk, I think that the start menu is a little redundant now that you can pin folders/icons/etc. to the taskbar. You don't need the links that the current start menu has really as it can be replicated in a number of ways.

You do need the search function and all programs link though, I just think that the start menu needs a revision.

xiphi said,
Looks fine, IMO.

artfuldodga said,
i agree, i like the new superbar alot, they could take a pixel or two off the height but hey, its still good.

Not to be condescending, but you guys don't have a good handle on visual design fundamentals. The Start Button, as it is at present, breaks a lot of rules. And it's not rule-breaking of the good kind.

I see no issue with the start button. If anything I find the "shutdown" button in the start menu to be the one thats off

Turbonium said,
I mean, you know there's a problem when the Quicklaunch icons are arguably "louder" than is the Start Button.

Again I don't see the issue. The start button isn't moving anywhere so it doesn't have to be loud. If anything IMHO it shouldn't stand out as it shouldn't be competing for attention with the icons the user has pinned because those are ones they want to see.

I'd understand if the start button wasn't in a static position, but it is. You don't have to look for it but rather just flick to the bottom left in order to get to it. Making it loud would just distract from any other icon you may want.

Not to be condescending, but you guys don't have a good handle on visual design fundamentals. The Start Button, as it is at present, breaks a lot of rules. And it's not rule-breaking of the good kind.

Irrelevant. It's all about what consumers like. Besides, I highly doubt theres a written and official "rule" that states the start button cannot be the same size as the taskbar, or cannot be round, etc. Guidelines maybe. But I (and many others) like it the way it is, and thats all that matters.

I agree 1000% with Turbonium. The start button does not sit well in the taskbar and I noticed this from the first time I saw screen shots of Windows 7. They need to rethink that but I really don't see them making any changes to it at this point in development.

Smigit
Again I don't see the issue. The start button isn't moving anywhere so it doesn't have to be loud. If anything IMHO it shouldn't stand out as it shouldn't be competing for attention with the icons the user has pinned because those are ones they want to see.

I'd understand if the start button wasn't in a static position, but it is. You don't have to look for it but rather just flick to the bottom left in order to get to it. Making it loud would just distract from any other icon you may want.


Based on that logic, why not just replace the Start Button with a spacefilling coloured box? Or better yet, why not just remove the Start Button completely and have that area of the screen be "understood" as being the Start Button area, since we can just whip our mouse into that corner anyway?

It's not like I don't know about GUI design issues and the "infinite space" corners of the screen. The fact is, infinite space is no excuse for second-rate design from a company like MS, with the resources it has.

And you misread my "loud" example. "Loud" is relative. Solid design is about making things just loud enough, without being overbearing. It's about good balance and composition. If you make the Start Button just right, given the other screen variables, it will not be overbearing. Vista's Start Button is perfect for the GUI environment of Vista. It's "louder" than the QuickLaunch icons, but doesn't overpower the rest of the screen in the least; i.e. you only see it if you are looking for it.

And if you're going to design a new Taskbar, using the old Start Button from Vista is just lazy and a missed opportunity. The only reason I see them doing this is because they are trying to keep the new GUI image they built with Vista; they don't want to make too drastic of a change between Windows versions. So as someone already mentioned, it's more than likely a business decision rather than an aesthetic one. Which is sad to say the least.

Yeah, I also dislike that button; for being about an entirely different concept than applications running, it's looking all too similar. But I doubt MS will do anything about it at this point, and they probably think it's looking too good to touch. Remember that Microsoft isn't all too picky on themes, and what they let pass as for Windows XP.