Microsoft Confirms Windows "7" - MGX Conference

[xpablo]

I'm not sure how Microsoft gets version 7 from this?

Windows 3.1/3.11

Windows 95

Windows 98

Windows ME

Windows XP

Windows Vista

Windows 7 (shouldn't it be 9? Not to mention Windows 2000/2003)

Also, Steve Jobs might be a jerk, but Microsoft could take some pointers from him:

"Screw you guys, we're changing the Nano to something totally different. Too bad if you just bought one a week ago." "Oh, and we're dropping the IPhone by $200. K thx bye."

That's what Microsoft needs to do when it comes to 64-bit. Grow some balls and say "Screw you guys, this is the future, deal with it. If your current crappy 32-bit program doesn't work with 64-bit, then find another one."

Enough with this p**s-farting around trying to make everything compatible with 10 year old programs. I like Vista, but it could've been absolutely amazing if it wasn't trying to be backwards-compatible with everything.

Prizm

Windows (1.0)

Windows 2.0

Windows 3.0 , 3.1 , 3.11

Windows 95

Windows 98

Win 2k

Win ME

Win XP

Win Vista

Next should be Windows 10.

But since ver 1, 2 & 3 were not operating systems that brings it to 7.

[spenser.d]

I don't understand what the fuss is about. I don't remember any fuss about a version number for XP (which is labelled version 5.x) or Vista (6.x). They aren't going to skip to 10 from 6 :rolleyes:

What does it matter anyways. I can't believe people are stooping this low just to criticize MS.

-Spenser

[Prizm]

What does it matter anyways. I can't believe people are stooping this low just to criticize MS.

-Spenser

Eh? I'm not criticizing at all. I figured there must be some logic to it, but I didn't know how they got there. But it looks like the other guys have answered my question (the build series').

Prizm

[spenser.d]

^^^Yeah, I didn't really mean to solo you out there, I didn't read into the thread much and assumed a bunch of people were posting the same thing, instead of just one person asking a question :blush:

-Spenser

[Steven P. Administrators]

Windows (1.0)

Windows 2.0

Windows 3.0 , 3.1 , 3.11

Windows 95

Windows 98

Win 2k

Win ME

Win XP

Win Vista

Next should be Windows 10.

But since ver 1, 2 & 3 were not operating systems that brings it to 7.

There were multiple variants of 4 and 5 namely

Windows (1.0)

Windows 2.0

Windows 3.0 , 3.1 , 3.11

Windows 95 (4.0.950)

Windows 98 (4.10.1998) SE (4.10.2222) Win ME (4.99.3000)

Win 2k (5.0.2195)

Win XP (5.1.2600)

Win Vista (6.0.6000)

[nonick]

Are you people kidding or what?

There is NO connection between Win9x windows (95/98/98se/me) and WinNT (NT4 (anyone remembers that?), NT5 (aka win 2000) NT5.1 (aka win XP) NT6(aka vista) and now NT7 for the newest OS.

The Win9x line was discontinued with ME. They switched to NT line instead.

[Stokkolm]

The 386 processor was the first home PC 32-bit processor distributed in 1986. In 1995, Windows 95 was the first 32-bit Microsoft OS. Thats 9 years from the processor introduction to the operating system software running full 32-bit.

Therefore, in thoery, the first practical 64-bit processor was the AMD Athlon64, introduced in 2003. In 2012 theoretically, we should see a 64-bit Windows leading the way. It would make sense to keep the 32-bit stuff for Windows Seven, but for the one after that it should be ditched.

I'm pretty sure that the rate at which consumers buy new computers has multiplied several times since the 80's and early 90's. Also, the rate at which companies are producing software has multiplied several times. Both factors serve to effectively cut the 9 years you stated, to I would say, no more than 5 or 6. There is no reason to release a 32-bit OS in 2010.

Even if they did release a 32-bit version for the people who don't have 64-bit compatible processors, how good would it run? People complain about Vista, because of the system requirements and slow load times, it will just get worse if they continue to support hardware that is over 5 or 6 years old. Releasing a 32-bit version will only serve to make performance worse and then we will have more false reviews talking about how the OS sucks just like Vista, when in reality, it is much better than the previous version.

Edited October 2, 2007 by jzetterman

[jago_lfn]

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.

I doubt they will hit the garbage that soon. It's totaly up to what applications will work with the OS. I know a few local furniture stores that still run dos with monochrome monitors just because the database software they started out on many years ago only works in dos. Open your mind and stop thinking one way.

[+Frank B. Subscriber²]

There were multiple variants of 4 and 5 namely

Windows (1.0)

Windows 2.0

Windows 3.0 , 3.1 , 3.11

Windows 95 (4.0.950)

Windows 98 (4.10.1998) SE (4.10.2222) Win ME (4.99.3000)

Win 2k (5.0.2195)

Win XP (5.1.2600)

Win Vista (6.0.6000)

When you're as pedantic as I am you separate the DOS-based Windows versions from the NT-based ones:

DOS-based:

• Windows 1.0x (1985)
  
• Windows 2.x (1988)
  
• Windows 3.0 (1990)
  
• Windows 3.1 (1992)
  
• Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (1993)
  
• Windows 95/4.0.950 (1995)
  
• Windows 98/4.10.1998 (1998)
  
• Windows 98 SE/4.10.2222 (1999)
  
• Windows Me/4.90.3000 (2000)
  

NT-based:

• Windows NT 3.1 (1993) - version number 3.1 given in order to keep it in sync with the DOS-based version
  
• Windows NT 3.5 (1994)
  
• Windows NT 3.51 (1995)
  
• Windows NT 4.0 (1996)
  
• Windows 2000/NT 5.0.2195 (2000)
  
• Windows XP/NT 5.1.2600 (2001)
  
• Windows Server 2003/NT 5.2.3790 (2003)
  
• Windows Vista/NT 6.0.6000 (2006)
  
• Windows Server 2008/NT 6.1.xxxx (2008)
  
• Windows 7/NT 7.0.xxxx (2009?)
  

[primexx]

DRivers!!!

The longer they keep producing 32 bit systems, the longer the manufactures will screw the 64 bit population over with lack of drivers.

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&a...#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!

Considering that we have to switch all computers over to 64 bit (at least) by 2038, it might be a good time to start, don't you think?

no its not.

There are still a crap load of computers being sold that only have 512MB RAM (and thats only cos of vista, before vista, there were loads with only 256MB).

2GB may be the standard for PC gamers and people who are members of neowin, but for the majority of people, 1GB is standard I would say.

I don't know what kind of world you live in, but the bare bottom that's being sold nowadays is 512 megs, and that's really rare and limited to the most bargan computers you could get. The vast majority of computers are now being sold with 1 gig ram, and many are being sold with 2 gigs. I'd also put my estimate of the standard at 1gb right now, but it'll just keep increasing over the next few years, it's very probable that we'll hit the 4 gig mark by 2010.

The 386 processor was the first home PC 32-bit processor distributed in 1986. In 1995, Windows 95 was the first 32-bit Microsoft OS. Thats 9 years from the processor introduction to the operating system software running full 32-bit.

Therefore, in thoery, the first practical 64-bit processor was the AMD Athlon64, introduced in 2003. In 2012 theoretically, we should see a 64-bit Windows leading the way. It would make sense to keep the 32-bit stuff for Windows Seven, but for the one after that it should be ditched.

According to moore's law, the adoptation rate should be many times faster this time than it was in the 32 bit days.

[Ayepecks]

Subscription-based = no buy from me

[Budious]

Subscription-based = no buy from me

Depends on their future release model. If Microsoft goes to a regular feature update model much like OSX with minor number updates about once a year a subscription service could be far cheaper than buying each release and paying an upgrade license. If the release span is 6 years as was XP to Vista then it would probably be cheaper to purchase the full license.

[Herculean]

The situation is simple for microsoft, just make OEMs preload 64bit versions of "7" by default on new machines and bam, all the joe users out are soon to be running 64bit windows.

[Glassed Silver]

Here's to another "We need ten years to step up" total switch by Microsoft! :)

Glassed Silver:mac

[Mr. Dee]

Are you people kidding or what?

There is NO connection between Win9x windows (95/98/98se/me) and WinNT (NT4 (anyone remembers that?), NT5 (aka win 2000) NT5.1 (aka win XP) NT6(aka vista) and now NT7 for the newest OS.

The Win9x line was discontinued with ME. They switched to NT line instead.

Technically, Windows 9x and NT share some heritage, there is DNA in the code to prove it, things like COM, OLE and the Shell. Also, I remember upgrading from Windows 95 to Windows NT Workstation 4.0 and my files and applications were carried over successfully. The same could be done for Windows 9x to Windows 2000, so they also share a high level of compatibility with each other and with applications written for them. Office for Windows 95 work just as well on NT as it did on 9x.

You could say Windows 2000 and Vista are technically incompatible in respects to upgrading, the minimum requirement for upgrading to Windows Vista is Windows XP 32-Bit. I hope the changes to the directory structure and backup/recovery tool improvements make upgrading from Windows Vista to Windows 7 a worthwhile experience.

I should be able to restore files, applications and personal settings from a Vista Complete PC Backup and be up and running in mins.

[+Tantawi Subscriber²]

OH why not just let 32bit code die already!! it's not like PCs that will be capable to run Windows Seven wont be 64-bit capable too!

[Mr. Dee]

OH why not just let 32bit code die already!! it's not like PCs that will be capable to run Windows Seven wont be 64-bit capable too!

What a strange thing for you to saying knowing the majority of folks living in Egypt can't afford machines with the specs you are running. In fact, a majority of users I bet are running Semprons with XP or Starter Edition.

Walk like an Egyption

[Steven P. Administrators]

When you're as pedantic as I am you separate the DOS-based Windows versions from the NT-based ones:

DOS-based:

• Windows 1.0x (1985)
  
• Windows 2.x (1988)
  
• Windows 3.0 (1990)
  
• Windows 3.1 (1992)
  
• Windows for Workgroups 3.11 (1993)
  
• Windows 95/4.0.950 (1995)
  
• Windows 98/4.10.1998 (1998)
  
• Windows 98 SE/4.10.2222 (1999)
  
• Windows Me/4.90.3000 (2000)
  

NT-based:

• Windows NT 3.1 (1993) - version number 3.1 given in order to keep it in sync with the DOS-based version
  
• Windows NT 3.5 (1994)
  
• Windows NT 3.51 (1995)
  
• Windows NT 4.0 (1996)
  
• Windows 2000/NT 5.0.2195 (2000)
  
• Windows XP/NT 5.1.2600 (2001)
  
• Windows Server 2003/NT 5.2.3790 (2003)
  
• Windows Vista/NT 6.0.6000 (2006)
  
• Windows Server 2008/NT 6.1.xxxx (2008)
  
• Windows 7/NT 7.0.xxxx (2009?)
  

Oh! I just did the consumer ones and concentrated on the version numbers not the kernel ;)

[PGHammer]

I'm pretty sure that the rate at which consumers buy new computers has multiplied several times since the 80's and early 90's. Also, the rate at which companies are producing software has multiplied several times. Both factors serve to effectively cut the 9 years you stated, to I would say, no more than 5 or 6. There is no reason to release a 32-bit OS in 2010.

Even if they did release a 32-bit version for the people who don't have 64-bit compatible processors, how good would it run? People complain about Vista, because of the system requirements and slow load times, it will just get worse if they continue to support hardware that is over 5 or 6 years old. Releasing a 32-bit version will only serve to make performance worse and then we will have more false reviews talking about how the OS sucks just like Vista, when in reality, it is much better than the previous version.

The complaints about the slow load times are because, compared to Vista, XP is a lightweight OS (therefore, *of course* it's going to run faster). Worse, XP is the *old comfortable pair of shoes* because it's been a five year lag between XP's launch and Vista's launch; therefore users (especially business users) have had years to get used to XP's foibles. Realistically, there is little difference in the case of PCs with between 1 GB and 1.5 GB of RAM (in some areas, XP will lead, while in others, Vista will lead; it all is very task-dependent). However, when you start actively multitasking, that is where Vista, not XP, really begins to stretch out and take command; despite Windows XP's lighter (in fact, much lighter) code weight, it is not very multiple-task-friendly by any stretch. When running multiple applications (especially multiple apps from even a single productivity suite, such as Office 2003, let alone the larger Office 2007), even Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005 (the largest version of Windows XP, which is a true superset of the most commonplace single-disc version, Windows XP Professional Edition), simply can't stand up under the additional stress as well as Windows Vista Home Premium, let alone Vista Ultimate. The vast majority of the complainers are perfectly willing to sacrifice stability under load for speed; worse, they are also perfectly willing to sacrifice security as well (witness all the gripes about UAC). I don't know about you; however, lost productivity due to BSODs (commonplace under heavy load, even with MCE 2005; practically non-existent under Vista) is still productivity I should not have to lose if avoidable. With Vista, it's productivity I can not have to worry about losing, especially under loads that would cause BSODs in Media Center Edition, because I can load it to that point, and beyond (often *far beyond*). I regularly run applications in the background under Vista that I would not even consider running in the background (or in half the cases even with other tasks running) in MCE 2005 (such as backups to DVD at full speed); that is a luxury that a lot of users (especially power users) would *kill* for.

For me, in Vista Ultimate, it is, in fact, business as usual!

Stability (especially under load) and security have it all over speed (at least for me), especially when I don't have to give up much in the way of speed, even with older hardware. Increased performance under load actually enables me to negate most, if not all, of any advantage I would have running XP (if XP were as stable as Vista, which it certainly isn't), so increased stability trumps speed that way as well. Having *never* had a BSOD due to anything other than user error since Vista RC2 shipped is something that hasn't happened for me personally since Windows 2000 Professional was in the homestretch (and then I did much less multitasking). Having had only *three* BSODs (for any reason, and that includes user error) in over a year is unheard of. To have all three be due to user error, and that is going along with a heavy load of beta testing (applications and utilities, especially Windows Live OneCare) and recover with little fuss from all except one (again, this was due to user error) is something that Windows XP can't claim (in fact, no version of any operating system I have ever run, or tested, has that sort of stability *except* Vista; not Linux, not Solaris, not other versions of Windows). I don't have the latest and greatest hardware. In fact, I have rather old (I even went so far as to call it *mostly dead*) hardware, as, except for the graphics card, none of it is manufactured anymore (and thus can't be found anywhere except parts bins or eBay). Whether we like it or not, there are still lots of users in this same situation, especially in emerging markets (the Middle East and even eastern Europe in particular, let alone the Asian "tigers"). Except for rich students, lots of the techies-in-training may have a hodgepodge of hardware similar to mine (in fact, that's how I was able to put together this system). It works, and works darn well.

Sometimes, that's what's needed.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Well, there were...

1) Windows NT 3.1

2) Windows NT 3.5

3) Windows NT 4.0

4) Windows 2000

5) Windows XP

6) Windows Vista

[Krome]

Nevermind.. didn't know you talking bout NT-based OS... but then again shouldn't 2003 on that list?

[Hankyone]

Its going to take them another 5 yrs *sighs*

Already tired of Vista?

[Brandon Live Veteran]

The 386 processor was the first home PC 32-bit processor distributed in 1986. In 1995, Windows 95 was the first 32-bit Microsoft OS. Thats 9 years from the processor introduction to the operating system software running full 32-bit.

Actually, Windows 3.0 was the first version of Windows with 32-bit addressing.

Further, Windows NT was released before Windows 95 and was "fully 32-bit". Plus, it didn't really matter that DOS had 16-bit components since it could still address 32-bits worth of memory, could use protected mode, etc.

Also, there have been 64-bit versions of Windows since NT 3.1.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Nevermind.. didn't know you talking bout NT-based OS... but then again shouldn't 2003 on that list?

XP / 2003 are pretty much the same release. Likewise, 3.51 isn't in the list either.

[Morpheus Phreak]

XP / 2003 are pretty much the same release. Likewise, 3.51 isn't in the list either.

With some serious hacks done to it ;)

BTW I'm somewhat disappointed that I didn't get you see you up at Winstock.

With search being a big topic presented I thought you would have wanted to peek your head in the door at least ;)