Microsoft Confirms Windows "7" - MGX Conference

[SharpGreen]

To all those that say "scrap 32bit": Microsoft would have to be really stupid to scrap the 32bit consumer Windows, as this would eliminate over half of thier profits. If they were really in this to make money they won't be scrapping 32bit windows anytime soon, since a very select few people have 64bit processors.

[BoDEAN]

Maybe Microsoft will finally get it right this time. Sure missed the ball with Vista (err, ME ][ )

[woqqqa]

Maybe Microsoft will finally get it right this time. Sure missed the ball with Vista (err, ME ][ )

And maybe a giant walrus will rampage through Alaska, killing people and wreaking havoc, until he's finally stopped by the X-Men, Superman and the National guard. Maybe. :laugh:

[Menge]

Starter Edition: don't get me started on this one. I live in Brazil. I got my hands on a computer using this. I tried to make it work well on the office's network... But it simply refused cause it's SO CRIPPLED (resolution-wise, can only have 3 windows open at the same time!). What's worse is that the guy who bought it got that version cause he didn't know better... I was quite sorry for him after that.

All other versions: Good and all... But it all feels like a puzzle! Why not make one version. Charge a price and let that be! Crippling versions only causes confusion for customers who don't know better and grief for people who have to deal those computers afterwards.

So, Microsoft is meeting the needs of different types of users, not everybody wants XBOX or Media Center or Tablet or Unix System or Multi-Lingual or Domain Join support.

Yes. Not everyone wants those. Hence they should be optional installs. But why should a customer buy one thing only to find out later on that this new thing that Microsoft was marketing so much isn't on his version - it's on the more expensive one!

The way Microsoft markets Windows makes it feel like it's a great thing. But when you go buy it, you find out that it's a big maze to get the correct version for your needs and sometimes you want "this and that" but "this" is on one version and "that" is on another one, hence you have to jump onto Ultimate to get what you want - and then they charge your left kidney for it!

I personally like the Linux and OS X way of things: you always get the whole deal and install only what you need. The whole "bits and pieces" distribution that Microsoft does isn't good for the customer. It's bad. VERY bad. They end up paying more for less. It's horrible, imo...

[George P Global Moderator]

Having 32bit support could be anything really. By 2010 or whenever it's out, 32bit support could be virtualised for apps and even hardware. But the core OS itself could be fully 32bit. I think this is why adding a hyperviser is the key to things giong forward for them.

We'll have to wait and see really. I don't worry about the subscription parts, it's just extra services like OneCare that you can sign up to. It's not like they're going to ripout parts of the OS we have already and charge you for them. That would be stupid, and lose them money, and they're not stupid and don't like to lose money.

[Mr. Dee]

Starter Edition: don't get me started on this one. I live in Brazil. I got my hands on a computer using this. I tried to make it work well on the office's network... But it simply refused cause it's SO CRIPPLED (resolution-wise, can only have 3 windows open at the same time!). What's worse is that the guy who bought it got that version cause he didn't know better... I was quite sorry for him after that.

All other versions: Good and all... But it all feels like a puzzle! Why not make one version. Charge a price and let that be! Crippling versions only causes confusion for customers who don't know better and grief for people who have to deal those computers afterwards.

Yes. Not everyone wants those. Hence they should be optional installs. But why should a customer buy one thing only to find out later on that this new thing that Microsoft was marketing so much isn't on his version - it's on the more expensive one!

The way Microsoft markets Windows makes it feel like it's a great thing. But when you go buy it, you find out that it's a big maze to get the correct version for your needs and sometimes you want "this and that" but "this" is on one version and "that" is on another one, hence you have to jump onto Ultimate to get what you want - and then they charge your left kidney for it!

I personally like the Linux and OS X way of things: you always get the whole deal and install only what you need. The whole "bits and pieces" distribution that Microsoft does isn't good for the customer. It's bad. VERY bad. They end up paying more for less. It's horrible, imo...

You obviously knew better than the other guy but still end up purchasing the PC with it. As for the other guy, what kind of PC shops do you have over there? Don't they have decent staff working there to tell you the differences and trade offs? If you want the Windows with all the features, buy Ultimate, no ones stopping you. And you can't tell Microsoft what not to sell or how to market their product. They know that users don't want every thing, so they create "choices". Choices is what makes the world (depending on where you live) a nice place. Learn to evaluate your needs. I know a lot about computers, but I still have the common sense to do some research before buying a new PC. My brother has no need for MCE, thats why he chose Vista Business, he could get work done by joining a domain and still experience a lot of the nice features that Vista includes such as Instant Search, Media Player 11, Photo Gallery and MovieMaker.

Linux is not functional yet bloated with crap, two different user environments that make learning it a sin. OS X does not deliver the value it advertises. To get all the features, you have purchase a brand new Mac which can range in prices from 700 to 3,000 dollars. OS X does not include iLife, it only comes on new Macs. Similar applications in iLife come bundled with Vista already.

[MrKuro]

I hope in the next release they stick to just one version, and maybe offer upgrade modules as the user needs though windows live marketplace or something. Too many retail versions just confuse the average user. Or heck go back to the good old days of windows before xp , when you got everything on one copy, everybody is equal.

[irratioпalgээk]

To all those that say "scrap 32bit": Microsoft would have to be really stupid to scrap the 32bit consumer Windows, as this would eliminate over half of thier profits. If they were really in this to make money they won't be scrapping 32bit windows anytime soon, since a very select few people have 64bit processors.

Really, are you being serious? AMD has been shipping 64 bit processors for years and Intel for about two years. You really think there will still be people using 32 bit only processors in 2010?

[Mr. Dee]

Really, are you being serious? AMD has been shipping 64 bit processors for years and Intel for about two years. You really think there will still be people using 32 bit only processors in 2010?

Do some research before making wrong statements:

AMD 64 was introduced in Fall of 2003

EM64T or (Intel 64) was introduced in June 2004.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EM64T#History

AMD only had a 10 month lead with x86-x64, although, I do admit AMD brought it to market first and Intel adopted and implemented the technologies from the AMD 64 in their Pentium and Celeron processors to stifle AMD from stealing market share at a rapid pace. I know I will still be running my Dell 8300 P4 3.2 GHz, 2.6 GBs of RAM in 2010. Heck, my ALR Pentium 75 MHz, 24 MBs of RAM still works just fine and I use it to play games every now and then.

Same for my 1996 Zenith GT Workstation Pentium 133 MHz, 32 MBs of RAM, my other brother is using it now with Windows 98, but he is planning to buy a new laptop next year, but the point is, it still works, "10 years after". In fact, he's a teacher and runs AutoCAD 98 on it with no issues, he also charges students 10 dollars who do not have a computer to complete their SBAs (School Based Assignments) and 20 dollars to print it. Look at that, he's even making money off it.

[irratioпalgээk]

What?! How was my statement wrong?

I said AMD has been shippinh 64 bit processors for years - so if the first AMD 64 was out in late 2003 that makes it almost 4 years.

So far I can't see a problems with my statement.

Then I said Intel has had 64bit processors for about two years, by your numbers the Intel 64 bit processor has been out for 3 years. Ok I was wrong by a year.

So I still can't really see that anything I've said is really wrong.

So before slinging mud, perhaps take a chill pill first.

[Menge]

You obviously knew better than the other guy but still end up purchasing the PC with it.

Yes. I had no say in the purchase. It was done before I arrived. Back then, each doctor bought their own machine and brought it in.

As for the other guy, what kind of PC shops do you have over there? Don't they have decent staff working there to tell you the differences and trade offs?

Nope. We don't people that explain that properly to customers. Nor do we have customers who want to get informed. They just want the sale. 80% of the shops here have sales people who don't have the faintest idea of the hardware they're selling. And software companies like Microsoft take advantage of that specific demographic.

If you want the Windows with all the features, buy Ultimate, no ones stopping you. And you can't tell Microsoft what not to sell or how to market their product. They know that users don't want every thing, so they create "choices". Choices is what makes the world (depending on where you live) a nice place. Learn to evaluate your needs. I know a lot about computers, but I still have the common sense to do some research before buying a new PC. My brother has no need for MCE, thats why he chose Vista Business, he could get work done by joining a domain and still experience a lot of the nice features that Vista includes such as Instant Search, Media Player 11, Photo Gallery and MovieMaker.

Choice is good. Don't get me wrong. But look at the very reason why Linux fails as a mainstream OS: too many choices. No well defined desktop standard and all.. Too much choice is bad and frustrating. But then again... As you said: I can't tell Microsoft how to market and sell their products. I have only one power: NOT to buy from them :)

Linux is not functional yet bloated with crap, two different user environments that make learning it a sin. OS X does not deliver the value it advertises. To get all the features, you have purchase a brand new Mac which can range in prices from 700 to 3,000 dollars. OS X does not include iLife, it only comes on new Macs. Similar applications in iLife come bundled with Vista already.

Linux isn't very functional. That's true... But it comes with everything you might want from it. There's no "halfway there" package. OS X is also complete in that aspect.

OS X definitely delivers the value it proposes. I know it to be true. I have an OS X machine here and it's completely awesome. You're right. OS X doesn't include iLife. But then again, OS X doesn't cost $399. It costs $129 and iLife costs $79. That is WAY less than what Microsoft charge for a comparable version of Vista. Vista comes with some "similar" applications (2 of 5 iLife apps, to be precise). But Vista's are nowhere as rich and capable as iLife's.

[SharpGreen]

Really, are you being serious? AMD has been shipping 64 bit processors for years and Intel for about two years. You really think there will still be people using 32 bit only processors in 2010?

Yes, I was dead serious. I for one will still have the same 32bit computer in 3 yrs, as im sure most of the world will. You can't honestly expect the entire windows using world to switch to 64 bit in just 3 years.

[irratioпalgээk]

Yes, I was dead serious. I for one will still have the same 32bit computer in 3 yrs, as im sure most of the world will. You can't honestly expect the entire windows using world to switch to 64 bit in just 3 years.

M8 That's sad. But its your choice. I don't think that people who inhabit Jurassic computer technology should influence future technologies and innovation.

[ATLien_0]

I really Just hope to see only 2 varients of "7". Client and Server.

When you go to install the client version, it would ask you how you will use this computer home, business, or both. There is no need to have 7 variations and different price tags. If you look at it Vista Home Premium and Business both have the same number of features, but yeat Business is $100 more.

[George P Global Moderator]

^^^ That's not true, Business has a few features not in Home Premium. You should look again at the list.

[ATLien_0]

what i mean is that home premium has features that business doesnt like media center and business has features that home premium doesnt have. when you look at the list the number of features that each has is really close. its more the whole price discrimination that gets me

[Izlude]

I prefer config files! Is it true the registry causes most cases of PC slow down? Defragmenting is ungodly!!!

[George P Global Moderator]

The registry and harddrive fragmentation are two different things. Every filesystem fragments over time, it's just that most *nix based fs' take a active role in keeping files from fragmenting before writing to your hdd, while NTFS takes care of the problem after the fact with defragmenting apps/tools. I'd really hope MS updates/changes NTFS to better handle fragmentation before it happens insted of just defrag in the background when the system is idle how Vista is set.

The registry slows things down a bit after a long time of installing and uninstalling apps. If you just setup the system, install the apps you need, and then don't install and uninstall like crazy, the registry doesn't become a mess. It's dead links in there that slow things down. The hope is that in the future MS will get rid of it, using virtualisation, so that apps can still be compatible. Newer apps should start to use some new model, maybe not the old config/ini way, though that does work fine also now that we have hdds up to 1TB.

I don't know, it's up to MS and the developers.

[freak_power]

32bit What a waste for Microsoft....Seriously drop the damn 32bit OS once and forever. If you still own P4 2.8Ghz you shouldn't have Vista installed at first place.

[Mr. Dee]

32bit What a waste for Microsoft....Seriously drop the damn 32bit OS once and forever. If you still own P4 2.8Ghz you shouldn't have Vista installed at first place.

For someone who probably still lives with his/her parents, that is easy for you to say. But for a large company with many in house (custom) applications, a 32-bit version of Windows 7 is a blessing and will provide them the option of upgrading those systems to take advantage of the latest technologies and still maintain compatibility with legacy applications that cannot be immediately rewritten.

[Boktai1000]

I'm disappointed... i think theres been enough time for people to buy 64 bit processors, and they are going extremely cheap, by 2010 i don't think anyone should have an excuse to not have one, not to mention how much more cheaper they would be even and more efficient. Also 1 version would be nice, this is the next logical update to MS OS's.

[Mr. Dee]

I'm disappointed... i think theres been enough time for people to buy 64 bit processors, and they are going extremely cheap, by 2010 i don't think anyone should have an excuse to not have one, not to mention how much more cheaper they would be even and more efficient. Also 1 version would be nice, this is the next logical update to MS OS's.

So what about my powerful 3.2 GHz P4 (32-bit) with 2.6 GBs of RAM, 128 MB GPU, 250 GB Hard disk? Why should it be left behind when it could take advantage of Windows 7 32 Bit?

What about my brothers Dell Inspiron Core Duo 1.6 GHz Dual Core (32) Bit with 1.2 GBs of RAM, Shared graphics, 80 GB Hard disk? Why should it be left behind?

What about my Sister in laws Dell, 1.6 GHz Sempron (x86-x64), can hardly run Vista x64 but does just fine with the x86 version instead, has 768 MBs of RAM, shared graphics? Why should it be left behind? Why??

As for the one version, get real, people need choices. I admit the SKUs can be consolidated, but not down to just 1 version. I believe Business SKU should replace Enterprise and also be used as the Small Business SKU. Home Premium should replace Ultimate as the high tier consumer SKU.

Not everybody wants all the features.

[freak_power]

So what about my powerful 3.2 GHz P4 (32-bit) with 2.6 GBs of RAM, 128 MB GPU, 250 GB Hard disk? Why should it be left behind when it could take advantage of Windows 7 32 Bit?What about my brothers Dell Inspiron Core Duo 1.6 GHz Dual Core (32) Bit with 1.2 GBs of RAM, Shared graphics, 80 GB Hard disk? Why should it be left behind?What about my Sister in laws Dell, 1.6 GHz Sempron (x86-x64), can hardly run Vista x64 but does just fine with the x86 version instead, has 768 MBs of RAM, shared graphics? Why should it be left behind? Why??As for the one version, get real, people need choices. I admit the SKUs can be consolidated, but not down to just 1 version. I believe Business SKU should replace Enterprise and also be used as the Small Business SKU. Home Premium should replace Ultimate as the high tier consumer SKU. Not everybody wants all the features.

I don't want to be rude but you 3.2 P4 is a crap...by any means.

For someone who probably still lives with his/her parents, that is easy for you to say. But for a large company with many in house (custom) applications, a 32-bit version of Windows 7 is a blessing and will provide them the option of upgrading those systems to take advantage of the latest technologies and still maintain compatibility with legacy applications that cannot be immediately rewritten.

Dude they can't even upgrade to Windows Vista, and what makes you think that Windows 7 is gonna run better then Vista and have better compatibility. By the time Windows 7 is released those computers will be in a garbage can.

[Mr. Dee]

I don't want to be rude but you 3.2 P4 is a crap...by any means.Dude they can't even upgrade to Windows Vista, and what makes you think that Windows 7 is gonna run better then Vista and have better compatibility. By the time Windows 7 is released those computers will be in a garbage can.

Its crap to you, but not to Microsoft, thats why they are planning a 32-bit version of Windows 7 just for it. :p Thank goodness people like you don't even have the scruples to even make it through an interview at MS. If you did work there you would be spreading useless propaganda when you should be spending time in the labs hitting the switch compiling my beta copy of Windows 7 x86 beta 1. You only care about having the latest and greatest just to prove who has the bigger "you know what". You can't even give a decent reason why 64 bit needs to be mainstream by 2010.

Has Adobe announced that they will be releasing a 64-bit only version of Adobe Creative Suite in 2010 which will be Windows 7 64-bit supported only? In fact, an Adobe Program Manager made it clear that 64-bit is not even relevant to products like Photoshop. Products like Alias Wavefront Maya, Adobe Premier don't have any plans to be 64 bit. The actual tools that will take advantage of a 64 bit cop. Not even Speech recognition in Vista x64 has any impact on on the operating systems performance?

http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/photo..._multicore.html

What about Quark, AutoDesk? Are they begging for 64 bit? Not even the Office team at MS are yearning to develop 64 bit versions of the desktop apps.

The funny thing about it, the standard amount of memory in systems in 2010 will probably be 2 to 3 GBs, and the max Windows 32-bit can handle is 4 GBs, the majority of most users won't even be needing that by then. So what will you be needing an OS that can handle 128 GBs of memory so bad for? The standard amount as I said will be 2 to 3 GBs of RAM, so what will be the point of even using a 64 bit OS when 32 bit Windows will be able to handle a max 4GBs?!?!?!?!?!

Instead of acting childish about the issue, focus on areas that need real improvement, like being more multicore aware, improved boot sequence, battery life, improved I/O, better memory management, the way the system handles security.

I am on Vista x64 everyday anyway, you can read my review at the following link:

http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns...#33;15997.entry

As for why Windows 7 might be better on those computers? You just never know, changes to the kernel might improve performance for older systems. Look at Mac users, they have said that with each upgrade of the operating system, the Mac OS gets faster on older systems. I have seen Mac OS X Panther boot in 15 seconds from Apple logo to desktop on an iMac G3 with 512 MBs of RAM. Why the same can't happen for Windows 7? Vista x64 on my Ferrari 5000 currently takes about 39 seconds to boot. And others have complained:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=378

Most 32 bit applications with 16 bit installers run just fine on Vista x86 and XP x86, but cannot run on Vista x64 or XP Pro x64. So why can't it be same for Windows 7 x86? Microsoft has the resources to develop Windows 7 32-bit, stop letting it bother you, they have done the market research and analyst. And when I say they have the resources, they have it. The developed a 64 bit version of Windows 2000 Professional for Itanium that was never released and ended releasing XP for Itanium instead. NT is portable and it seems maintainable on multiple architectures. They are delivering value through Windows 7 by still supporting 32 bit systems.

Thank you MS, with love!

[WelshBluebird]

I don't want to be rude but you 3.2 P4 is a crap...by any means.

maybe compared to newer CPU's for gaming and video encoding. But if your not a PC gamer, and don't do CPU intensive tasks, then a P4 3.2Ghz is easily more than enough.