Windows 7 Builds already in Progress!

[+devHead Subscriber²]

No ****, you think they start a week before RTM?

Exactly; I read somewhere that in actuality, they work on the present and the next OS simultaneously, and when the present one is finished, they move all those folks over to work on the next one.

[ccuk]

And this is coming from a member who has Steve Jobs picture as an avatar. Yes, really illuminating... :rolleyes: .

For the most part, Vista has been stable on my side. The only reason I'm not using it at the moment is because some of my programs don't work on it such as RPG Maker 2003 and LightWave 3D. If Microsoft could somehow improve program capability in Windows 7, then it could go far.

Scirwode

Whilst I completely understand where you are coming from regards program compatibility... I wish Microsoft would scrap the NT base enitrely and start a fresh. And likewise all the program makers like Adobe and Autodesk etc etc could work WITH Microsoft to create an easy to use developer suite. To create applications faster with greater stability and security.

I just feel the existing windows codebase has run its course, today we need security on an equal footing with UI and compatibility. I just don't feel that Vista offers the same level of security as Unix, Linux and Mac OS X.

[Scirwode]

Almost makes you wonder why they drift into threads like these. I doubt 7 looks any different from Vista at this point. And I really hope Microsoft can keep the rumor mill in check. People get their expectations raised whenever some nodescript idiot goes blabbering about some feature that *will* be in the next version of Windows. Then of course, Microsoft denies it and everyone is disappointed.

But I doubt program compatibility will come from Microsoft. Yeah, Vista broke a lot in order to bring about some much needed security reform, as well as trying to enforce better user habits such as not logging in as the administrative user by default. It really needs to be the third party software companies that take responsibility for their customers by ensuring that their products remain compatible.

Whilst I completely understand where you are coming from regards program compatibility... I wish Microsoft would scrap the NT base enitrely and start a fresh. And likewise all the program makers like Adobe and Autodesk etc etc could work WITH Microsoft to create an easy to use developer suite. To create applications faster with greater stability and security.

I just feel the existing windows codebase has run its course, today we need security on an equal footing with UI and compatibility. I just don't feel that Vista offers the same level of security as Unix, Linux and Mac OS X.

I can understand both of your points but then you have to take into account that Windows is mainly a business OS in a sense that nearly every major company uses at least Windows 2000. Most of their software is coded for their platform so it's quite easy to understand why they don't take to changes easily.

That said, I do wish that the third software party companies release patches to ensure their programs are able to run on a given OS, regardless of the version. Take me for example, I upgrade only when I have the necessary sources (i.e. money). I was using Photoshop 5.5 when 7 was out, Photoshop CS when CS2 was out and I only upgraded to CS3 now. Other examples is my LightWave 3D which I'm still using version 7.5 at this moment. Unfortunately LightWave 3D 7.5 doesn't work well in Vista ( I can't get Modeler to run) so I'm basically stuck with XP. Unfortunately, instead of releasing a patch, they release a new version, which is 9.3. Sure it's compatible with Vista, but it costs money to upgrade it.

Unless Microsoft do something drastic, then companies like these will continue to get away with moves like this.

Scirwode

[Argote]

The direction of Windows 2008 Server core and the "MinWin" demonstration show Windows 7 moving in the modular architecture of *nix operating systems. Hopefully it's POSIX complaint too... glad they finally decided go this route.

AFAIK Vista is already POSIX Compliant

[hughes28105]

From the screenshots I see of windows seven. there going to be a hard time or a long time before people are ready to install windows seven. there no start button or task bar people are going to get confused about how to use windows 7 and they are not going to adopt it as fast as Microsoft thinks. i personally don't like the idea of getting reed of the task bar or start button. it would make people think twice about upgrading expecally for people how just gotten use to the taskbar and startbutton. :crazy: :huh: :no:

[Hurmoth]

From the screenshots I see of windows seven...

There are no real screenshots out of Windows 7. Any that are out there are pure fakes. According to most articles I've read, Windows 7 is still running the Windows Vista UI, so there's no changes at this time that would distinguish 7 from Vista.

[spenser.d]

Whilst I completely understand where you are coming from regards program compatibility... I wish Microsoft would scrap the NT base enitrely and start a fresh. And likewise all the program makers like Adobe and Autodesk etc etc could work WITH Microsoft to create an easy to use developer suite. To create applications faster with greater stability and security.

I just feel the existing windows codebase has run its course, today we need security on an equal footing with UI and compatibility. I just don't feel that Vista offers the same level of security as Unix, Linux and Mac OS X.

It would be nice, but that won't happen for the same reason Intel won't change from an architecture that's dated in the 80's. Business is business - they change the code around (or Intel changes it's architecture to something more logical), they lose tons of business, and tons of money. It's too bad.

-Spenser

[freak_power]

Microsoft needs to clean folders and redo folder organization cause it's a mess right now, especially under Users.

I hope they drop 32bit version cause there is no point of having 32bit Windows 7 in 2010 because you can't utilize more then 2gb and that's not gonna be enough for 2010's games and apps.

Any 32bit development is such a waste of money and time. They should go for 64bit instead, with 32bit emulation like in x64 Vista and that will do it.

90% people will have 64bit CPU by 2010 and if they don't it means that computer is not Windows 7 ready and by any means old P4 wont be ready.

A Windows release after Windows 7 should drop 32bit emulation as well and go for pure 64bit computing.

Don't look at this from this perspective and year 2007. 3 years down the road 32bit CPU's will be past, you will be only able to find them in some garage storage forgotten. Also that's 3 more years for developers to jump into 64bit. To be honest, x64 Vista is doing fantastic cause it has great software/hardware support and it's just getting better.

I guess that Windows 7's final build will be around 7000 number aka NT7 and then server version NT7.1

Edited December 21, 2007 by freak_power

[Mr. Dee]

Microsoft needs to clean folders and redo folder organization cause it's a mess right now, especially under Users.

I hope they drop 32bit version cause there is no point of having 32bit Windows 7 in 2010 because you can't utilize more then 2gb and that's not gonna be enough for 2010's games and apps.

Any 32bit development is such a waste of money and time. They should go for 64bit instead, with 32bit emulation like in x64 Vista and that will do it.

90% people will have 64bit CPU by 2010 and if they don't it means that computer is not Windows 7 ready and by any means old P4 wont be ready.

A Windows release after Windows 7 should drop 32bit emulation as well and go for pure 64bit computing.

Don't look at this from this perspective and year 2007. 3 years down the road 32bit CPU's will be past, you will be only able to find them in some garage storage forgotten. Also that's 3 more years for developers to jump into 64bit. To be honest, x64 Vista is doing fantastic cause it has great software/hardware support and it's just getting better.

I guess that Windows 7's final build will be around 7000 number aka NT7 and then server version NT7.1

Your understanding of technology is very juvenile and naive, I would recommend you stop spewing your mindless crap around these forums, they are making you look real bad. First of all, Microsoft is the developer of the OS, they understand the market, they have highly educated folks out there doing the research, understanding demographics, the needs of businesses and consumers and their long term strategy. Microsoft knows what it will take to run Windows 7, "you" don't. Microsoft realizes that the industry can't just get up and jump straight to a new platform and architecture at a whim, 32 bit has been around for the past 20 years. 64 Bit Windows just hit the mainstream in 2005 with the release of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and the uptake was not successful. With Vista, most OEMs continue to distribute systems with the 32 bit version of Vista which shows that the industry is still not fully behind 64 bit Windows and the same can be said for other platforms such as Linux, even Apple realizes that their users are not fully ready for 64 bit thats why they combine 64 and 32 bit binaries in Leopard for compatibility reasons.

You claim that every 64 bit system will be able to successfully run Windows 7 64 bit when its released. How do you even know this and you don't even have access to the code to determine it. Have you tried running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on a AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz with x86-x64 instructions? I have and its horrendous, but that same system runs Vista x86 just fine, the same will be true for most 64 bit systems today, the most powerful 64 bit CPU today or last year might not run Windows 7 64 bit well, but it might just do well running Windows 7 32 bit, these are the things you need to take into account.

You can't guess that Windows 7's final build will be around 7000 when there have been daily builds that have been compiled before and after Windows Vista was released. Look at Longhorn, Microsoft jumped from 4074 straight to 5000 without a concrete reasoning except the code base being reset. Right now, everything concerning Windows 7 is mostly speculation, who knows, a year from now, the codebase on which 7 is currently being built could be reset and Windows Server 2008 SP1 codebase could be used instead.

[zhangm Supervisor]

We see hesitant business adoption of Vista a year after release - imagine how long it would take for businesses to upgrade to a pure 64-bit environment if it were forced on them.

[1Frothy]

We see hesitant business adoption of Vista a year after release - imagine how long it would take for businesses to upgrade to a pure 64-bit environment if it were forced on them.

Who's forcing business to go to 64bit? Windows 7 is going to be released in both flavors if we are to believe Paul Thurrot.

I think however that in 2010 when Windows 7 is due; both users and businesses will be ready to adopt a 64bit operating system.

[zhangm Supervisor]

Who's forcing business to go to 64bit? Windows 7 is going to be released in both flavors if we are to believe Paul Thurrot.

I think however that in 2010 when Windows 7 is due; both users and businesses will be ready to adopt a 64bit operating system.

No one, hopefully. Care to read the couple posts above mine to get an idea of what I'm talking about? By 2010, I'm guessing most businesses will have successfully completed the migration from Win98/2K to XP or Vista.

Microsoft needs to clean folders and redo folder organization cause it's a mess right now, especially under Users. I hope they drop 32bit version cause there is no point of having 32bit Windows 7 in 2010 because you can't utilize more then 2gb and that's not gonna be enough for 2010's games and apps. Any 32bit development is such a waste of money and time. They should go for 64bit instead, with 32bit emulation like in x64 Vista and that will do it.

[freak_power]

Your understanding of technology is very juvenile and naive, I would recommend you stop spewing your mindless crap around these forums, they are making you look real bad. First of all, Microsoft is the developer of the OS, they understand the market, they have highly educated folks out there doing the research, understanding demographics, the needs of businesses and consumers and their long term strategy. Microsoft knows what it will take to run Windows 7, "you" don't. Microsoft realizes that the industry can't just get up and jump straight to a new platform and architecture at a whim, 32 bit has been around for the past 20 years. 64 Bit Windows just hit the mainstream in 2005 with the release of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition and the uptake was not successful. With Vista, most OEMs continue to distribute systems with the 32 bit version of Vista which shows that the industry is still not fully behind 64 bit Windows and the same can be said for other platforms such as Linux, even Apple realizes that their users are not fully ready for 64 bit thats why they combine 64 and 32 bit binaries in Leopard for compatibility reasons.

You claim that every 64 bit system will be able to successfully run Windows 7 64 bit when its released. How do you even know this and you don't even have access to the code to determine it. Have you tried running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on a AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz with x86-x64 instructions? I have and its horrendous, but that same system runs Vista x86 just fine, the same will be true for most 64 bit systems today, the most powerful 64 bit CPU today or last year might not run Windows 7 64 bit well, but it might just do well running Windows 7 32 bit, these are the things you need to take into account.

You can't guess that Windows 7's final build will be around 7000 when there have been daily builds that have been compiled before and after Windows Vista was released. Look at Longhorn, Microsoft jumped from 4074 straight to 5000 without a concrete reasoning except the code base being reset. Right now, everything concerning Windows 7 is mostly speculation, who knows, a year from now, the codebase on which 7 is currently being built could be reset and Windows Server 2008 SP1 codebase could be used instead.

AMD Sempron 1.6 runs Vista x64 just fine, <snip> you need more then 1GB of RAM for X64 edition or maybe there is some other reason but Sempron is for sure not. I think you should read a bit more and educate yourself before you jump into any conclusion. I will explain to you again so it might be much clearer for ya.

By 2010 you won't see any 32bit CPU on the market, and todays highend quad 64bit cpu will be low end 2010 cpus. Why would Microsoft release OS to support 32bit platform when there is no 32bit CPU and if they are we are talking about 5-6 years old P4s which will not be 'Windows 7 Ready'. The only question which remains is 32bit software support and that's already done via emulation under x64 XP and x64 Vista and there is no single problem or performance penalty.

And i want you to be sure that Microsoft is not always right, and if you think they are always right you're retard dude...switch the subject of your life to some other professional field.

I just guessed the build for Windows 7 to be around 7000 by following the logic. If you click 'about Windows' under help in windows explorer you will read Windows Version 6, build 6000. So, it's logical to say next release is Windows Version 7, build 7000.

Also remember that Vista X64 is 90% supported hardware/software wise. Name me any company and i'm 90% sure that Vista X64 is supported, including x64 Windows XP.

Note: I said 32bit Windows OS can't utilizie more then 2GB of RAM, but I meant 3GB of RAM.

Edited December 22, 2007 by bmaher

[Mr. Dee]

AMD Sempron 1.6 runs Vista x64 just fine, <snip> you need more then 1GB of RAM for X64 edition or maybe there is some other reason but Sempron is for sure not. I think you should read a bit more and educate yourself before you jump into any conclusion. I will explain to you again so it might be much clearer for ya.

By 2010 you won't see any 32bit CPU on the market, and todays highend quad 64bit cpu will be low end 2010 cpus. Why would Microsoft release OS to support 32bit platform when there is no 32bit CPU and if they are we are talking about 5-6 years old P4s which will not be 'Windows 7 Ready'. The only question which remains is 32bit software support and that's already done via emulation under x64 XP and x64 Vista and there is no single problem or performance penalty.

And i want you to be sure that Microsoft is not always right, and if you think they are always right you're retard dude...switch the subject of your life to some other professional field.

I just guessed the build for Windows 7 to be around 7000 by following the logic. If you click 'about Windows' under help in windows explorer you will read Windows Version 6, build 6000. So, it's logical to say next release is Windows Version 7, build 7000.

Also remember that Vista X64 is 90% supported hardware/software wise. Name me any company and i'm 90% sure that Vista X64 is supported, including x64 Windows XP.

Note: I said 32bit Windows OS can't utilizie more then 2GB of RAM, but I meant 3GB of RAM.

Shows how little you know, please go back to pen and paper you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole of nonsense. An AMD Sempron 1.6 GHz with 1 GB of RAM will not run Vista Ultimate x64 Ultimate well, it might run Vista Home Basic x64 well. But don't make up erroneous lies it will run the best version of Vista flawlessly when you don't have any proof to show. I am running Vista Ultimate 64 bit on a AMD X2 Turion 2.0 GHz, 2 GBs of RAM and the performance in my opinion is still not satisfactory.

By 2010 you won't see any 32bit CPU on the market, and todays highend quad 64bit cpu will be low end 2010 cpus.

Thats exactly my point, todays 64 bit CPUs will be low end and might not run the 64 bit version of 7 well like it does Vista 64 bit today.

Microsoft release OS to support 32bit platform when there is no 32bit CPU and if they are we are talking about 5-6 years old P4s which will not be 'Windows 7 Ready'. The only question which remains is 32bit software support and that's already done via emulation under x64 XP and x64 Vista and there is no single problem or performance penalty.

The last time I checked, both AMD and Intel processors contain something called x86-x64 which means they both contain instruction code to run both 32 and 64 bit software. Thats why the AMD 64 was such a hit and Intel followed suit. There is no such thing as emulation in XP Professional x64 or Vista x64, its running code at full speed, there is no need to 'translate' code which is what Emulation would do.

And i want you to be sure that Microsoft is not always right, and if you think they are always right you're retard dude...switch the subject of your life to some other professional field.

Well, 1 billion users running Windows, over 500 million running Microsoft Office, over 50 billion dollars in revenue each year, I would call that doing something right. Your idea of success is warped.

I just guessed the build for Windows 7 to be around 7000 by following the logic. If you click 'about Windows' under help in windows explorer you will read Windows Version 6, build 6000. So, it's logical to say next release is Windows Version 7, build 7000.

What crazy logic you have, you didn't even read the part where I said, the Windows Team, reset the codebase and jumped from 4074 to 5000. Lets go down memory lane for a moment because you truly don't have any idea of what Windows is.

Windows NT 4 build number is 18xx if my memory serves me right - its version 4, so why isn't build number 4000 then???

Windows 2000 which is NT 5 build number is 21xx, so why isn't the build number 5000

Windows XP which is NT 5.1 build number is 2600, so why isn't the build number 5100

Windows Server 2003 is NT 5.2 build number is 3790, so why isn't the build number 5200

See the illogic of what you are saying? Windows 7 could end up being 6500, 6800 or 7300, we don't know but the version number does not necessarily mean it will match the build number, in the case of Vista it was just coincidence or they wanted to round it off since it was so close anyway, doesn't mean the same will happen for 7.

Also remember that Vista X64 is 90% supported hardware/software wise. Name me any company and i'm 90% sure that Vista X64 is supported, including x64 Windows XP.

Adobe Creative Suite 3, AutoDesk AutoCAD 2008 and my issue isn't related to XP Professional x64, its Vista x64 since that is currently released version of Windows on the market.

[y_notm]

What crazy logic you have, you didn't even read the part where I said, the Windows Team, reset the codebase and jumped from 4074 to 5000. Lets go down memory lane for a moment because you truly don't have any idea of what Windows is.

Crazy logic as in the Windows team intentionally bumped the build number to 6000? Windows Vista's build numbers were inflated all through the development process (builds were increasing by 16 day to day at some points) to get it to that number. If they had gone straight build number increments it would have topped off around 5400.

It's a new versioning scheme that I would expect to carry on for some time. The build number now also indicates Service Pack level, and Microsoft reserves 15 build numbers for SPs now. So Windows Vista Gold (SP0) is build 6000, SP1 is 6001, SP2 is 6002 and so on. Notice that build numbers haven't incremented on Windows Server 2008... ever? It's been 6001 since Vista was finalized. This is because it will be Windows Version 6.0, Service Pack 1.

It's a new idea that began with Vista (as such looking back at previous window releases for build numbers is irrelevant in this discussion), and I would expect 7's final build number to be 7000 now. Build numbers are essentially arbitrary now and in no way reflect the amount of main Window builds compiled to date, so the Windows team is free to make them whatever they want really.

Edited December 22, 2007 by y_notm

[GCNaddict]

Your understanding of technology is very juvenile and naive, I would recommend you stop spewing your mindless crap around these forums, they are making you look real bad.

Shows how little you know, please go back to pen and paper you are just digging yourself into a deeper hole of nonsense.

What crazy logic you have,

See the illogic of what you are saying?

Just about everything you said is 100% Right, Mr. Dee. However, if your intention is to drive a point, you might be more successful without using derogatory language.

[tomwarren Veteran]

this thread is a fun read :)

Why won't there be 32bit CPUs in 2 years time? What about mobile CPUs? Do you think Intel/AMD only make CPUs for Windows Desktop? Do you not realise that not everyone is using a 64bit cpu?

[Glowstick]

What do you call mobile CPUs? Laptop, UMPC? The newer ones are AMD64/EMT64 variants.

[chris.baldwin]

Wow. That is really exciting. I wonder when the Beta for Windows 7 will start then?

Good to hear Windows 7 at least has a boot screen with a logo, that's 1 better than Vista already.

:p

Brilliant!

Anyways techincally anything Windows make from now on has to be better than Vista! If Windows 7 is a cop out - I'm switching to mac!

[Mr. Dee]

What do you call mobile CPUs? Laptop, UMPC? The newer ones are AMD64/EMT64 variants.

The point is, todays most powerful 64 bit CPU might not necessarily run Windows 7 like a champ. The big issue these days is how hardware has gotten ahead of the software especially in multi-core processors. Windows 7 might change all this and todays most powerful 64 Bit CPU could be like a Sempron running Windows 7 64 Bit but could run 32 bit Windows 7 just fine. Why put good hardware to waste when there is still a lot of power left in it to run the latest OS.

Brilliant!

Anyways techincally anything Windows make from now on has to be better than Vista! If Windows 7 is a cop out - I'm switching to mac!

Windows is way better than OS X right now, in fact, Apple has proven they are no way better than Windows, look at the lousy start of Leopards launch, bugs that resulted in losing data if you moved or copied data throughout the Finder, 31 patches for Leopard regarding security. The fact that Windows Update system is 5 years ahead of OS X's Software Update should make you think seriously before jumping to Apple's platform, not everything over there is a bed of roses.

[1Frothy]

Brilliant!

Anyways techincally anything Windows make from now on has to be better than Vista! If Windows 7 is a cop out - I'm switching to mac!

(Y)

I don't think Microsoft can afford to do another Vista, I always threatened to go to Mac if Windows turned into something I didn't want but then I used a Mac for three weeks at work and I was so thankful and happy when I went back to PC and Windows. I just don't understand Jobs and his design logic. Maybe I'm just not meant to be a Mac / OSX user.

So if Windows 7 fails, and I think there is no real chance since Mr Sinofsky has taken the reigns of the Windows Team, then I'm switching to Ubuntu and buying a big fluffy penguin. ;) Actually I like Ubuntu already...

[Jelly2003]

I've got faith that Windows 7 will be pretty good.

Microsoft has definitely learned from it's mistakes and I really think that they'll make an effort to make Windows 7 much better.

Remember when Longhorn/Vista was announced?

Microsoft were promising revolutionary features, they were releasing Alpha builds, there were screen shots all over the net, they were getting people excited years away from it's release.

It took them 5 years to release Vista, it was a big mistake, because for the consumer they promised what they couldn't deliver and for business/enterprise they broke a predictable release cycle. MS now seem very keen to build a predictable release cycle and be as transparent as possible about that which is great for business.

For the consumer to date there is very little information about W7, all I've heard about it is that:

* we know that it uses a lean componentised kernel that allows it to isolate the various components of the system

* the lead interface architect (or whatever the role is called) for Office 2007 is now in control of the Win7user experience

The rest of the "Windows 7" facts is just pure speculation.

To date Microsoft haven't promised anything for 7 that they haven't already delivered.

On another tangent, Hypervisor seems very interesting (application level virtualisation). In theory Microsoft could write a very lean base kernel (which they already have done) and when a software application loads a virtual environment is created for it to run inside of.

They could create a library of application environments that could be capable of behaving very much like previous versions of Windows, so from the application's point of view it could still believe that it's running on an older version of Windows.

I don't know how games would benefit from this, depends how good the technology is, but most applications might still run despite there being major changes to the Windows platform.

Anyhow that's my 2c.

[Xilo]

I think Windows 7 will be a good operating system. If you notice Microsoft's track record for general Windows releases, it alternates in quality between releases.

Vista = crap

XP = good

ME = crap

2000 = good

98 SE = good

98 = crap

95 = good

[libertas83]

I think Windows 7 will be a good operating system. If you notice Microsoft's track record for general Windows releases, it alternates in quality between releases.

Vista = crap

XP = good

ME = crap

2000 = good

98 SE = good

98 = crap

95 = good

Really? I thought Windows 98 was much better than 95, and they kept improving it with the 98 SE. Besides, Vista is still better than 98 SE so your measurements are a little off, but hey, thats nostalgia for you.

[Jelly2003]

Calling Vista crap is a little harsh.

It's a good OS but it is much less than what was originally promised.

Thus far, my Vista experience has been good but not great.

And I also agree that Windows 98 was a good Windows release, but 98SE really polished it and made it better.