Windows 7 Builds already in Progress!

[FATILA]

I expect we'll be "seeing" Win7 much later than previous Windows builds. To stop competitors swiping their ideas and then rebranding them as their own later down the line *ahem*, and to diminish expectations of features.

[Xilo]

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.

My 'crap' or 'good' assessment is based off the OS at the time compared to previous versions. 95 was revolutionary compared to 3.1/3.5. 98 was built on 95 but 98 was chalk full of small little annoying bugs and odd quirks. Then, 98SE was released and significantly improved it making it a great OS. 2000 was a great step up from 98 and is still a good operating system, just dated. ME was just horrible. XP had it's initial problems, but was quickly ironed out. XP probably had one of the biggest impacts in desktop computing and it's reign will never be matched. And Vista... Well, the jump from XP to Vista was more disappointing then any Windows release jump to date. Maybe Vista is just another 98 and needs a SE release to really give it that oomph it needs to really make users want to switch.

I expect we'll be "seeing" Win7 much later than previous Windows builds. To stop competitors swiping their ideas and then rebranding them as their own later down the line *ahem*, and to diminish expectations of features.

Yeah, a transparent task/menu bar is such a huge idea that was stolen... I don't know what these other OS developers were thinking... :rolleyes:

Edited December 23, 2007 by Xilo

[winlonghorn]

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

Yeah I agree there. That logo sounds really cool. :) I can't wait to see the new interface whenever it comes out. :) This is great news. :)

[ANova]

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.

Are you aware of the difference between todays 32 bit and "64" bit processors? All newer processors are both 32 and 64 bit ready, the 64 bit aspect of them is merely an extension to the 32 bit x86 Intel architecture. The whole point of x86-64 is to allow the system to address more than 4 GB of memory which is supposed to speed up tasks and processes not slow them down. I can't imagine how running x86-64 would be any slower than running standard x86 unless the os simply doesn't handle the execution of code under the extension that well. I certainly hope win7 isn't a dog like Vista, that's its biggest problem. The os shouldn't be big and bloated just because faster hardware is available, it should introduce new features and allow for better productivity while still exercising as good or better efficiency.

[1Frothy]

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

That was really intelligent. :rolleyes:

Shows your intelligence and technical prowess.

Vista is as good a product and possibly better than Windows XP when it first shipped, at least Windows Vista supported more hardware than Windows XP when it first shipped. Sure Microsoft made some big decisions with Vista but my experience shows that Vista with SP1 is a very polished and high quality release.

Yeah I agree there. That logo sounds really cool. :) I can't wait to see the new interface whenever it comes out. :) This is great news. :)

I think the new UI in Windows 7 will introduce some ideas from Office 2007 (since Office 2007 and Windows 7 share the same UI Guru) but I don't think changes will be monumental.

[Xilo]

More hardware supported? You do realize there has been a significant amount of hardware released since Windows XP was released. Of course it will support more if there's more hardware. :wacko:

[winlonghorn]

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.

While I agree with most of your comments, I disagree with your reasoning for build numbers. They artificially incremented xp to build 5000 for NT5 and vista to build 6000 for NT6. What makes you think they wouldn't do that again for windows seven? :)

[winlonghorn]

(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...

Big fluffy penguin huh? Are you going to move to the arctic too? :D LOL

[notuptome2004]

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 = ME Xilo think it crap cause i cant figure it out it is to new and complex and uses all my hardware for a change and i cant figure it out Me got Core 2 with 2gb ram and 8800 video card to just sit here and do nothing and idle me not buy to be used

XP = good

ME = crap

2000 = good

98 SE = good

98 = crap

95 = good

vista is only crap because you cant figure it out .

[FATILA]

Yeah, a transparent task/menu bar is such a huge idea that was stolen... I don't know what these other OS developers were thinking... :rolleyes:

Quite a few features (no not the UI) were in alpha builds of Longhorn and showcased in 2003, then they mysteriously appeared elsewhere. By the time Vista hit all of a sudden Vista was copying that said OS(s).

[Hurmoth]

Vista is as good a product and possibly better than Windows XP when it first shipped, at least Windows Vista supported more hardware than Windows XP when it first shipped. Sure Microsoft made some big decisions with Vista but my experience shows that Vista with SP1 is a very polished and high quality release.

Oh yeah, Vista is better than XP because it supported more hardware out of the box. I don't think that matters at all IMO because it doesn't take much to go and download a driver. What makes an OS better than its predecessor is its performance on the same hardware (newer hardware of course since the newer OS will require more resources). I've been running Vista x64 for about a week, week and a half and I still prefer XP on Vista.

But what I think some of you fail to realize is that all of this is personal taste. Who really gives a damn what someone else is running? Does it make your life better to know that someone else is running Vista over XP or Mac over Windows or Linux over Mac or whatever? Do you sleep better at night because you know that someone else finds Vista better than XP? I'm sorry, but if you answered yes to any of that, maybe you need to see someone about that. Maybe finding a hobby outside technology?

[ANova]

Vista is as good a product and possibly better than Windows XP when it first shipped, at least Windows Vista supported more hardware than Windows XP when it first shipped. Sure Microsoft made some big decisions with Vista but my experience shows that Vista with SP1 is a very polished and high quality release.

Vista is better because it supports more hardware? Yeah, maybe that's because it's more than five years newer, doesn't mean it's better.

I'm sorry but there was nothing wrong with XP when it was released either outside of the usual unavailable drivers. The rest were just vulnerabilities yet to be discovered. Vista has more underlying problems and deficiencies for many people, its poor performance being the biggest. XP was only slightly slower than 98se or 2000, Vista is as much as half the speed and requires much heftier hardware just to equal that of XP's performance. Some people see that and don't consider Vista's few noticable improvements to be worth it, no one cares about the supposed improved memory management or audio stack. I certainly don't have any qualms with the way XP handles them.

[notuptome2004]

Vista is better because it supports more hardware? Yeah, maybe that's because it's more than five years newer, doesn't mean it's better.

I'm sorry but there was nothing wrong with XP when it was released either outside of the usual unavailable drivers. The rest were just vulnerabilities yet to be discovered. Vista has more underlying problems and deficiencies for many people, its poor performance being the biggest. XP was only slightly slower than 98se or 2000, Vista is as much as half the speed and requires much heftier hardware just to equal that of XP's performance. Some people see that and don't consider Vista's few noticable improvements to be worth it, no one cares about the supposed improved memory management or audio stack. I certainly don't recall ever hearing complaints about XP's implementation of said subjects either now or in the past.

so your saying that Vista is slower then XP on YOUR system well mmmm that is YOUR system not mine. vista on my rig is well far faster then XP could be anyday i dont have things tweaked at all but vista is just faster at alot of things. Evan gaming in some cases not all Cases but some are evan faster but in some cases it is the same FPS so besides all that vista offers new that is new and besides it being more efficient at multitasking i would say Vista is damn better in every way .

oh and i found this vista video someone made on youtube of Vista running on a system with 1gig ram but cant remember the CPU but this due shows major multitasking or of sorts should show ya what to expect tho with only 1 gig ram but i would say try what you see on the video in windows XP and see if your system is still running cause some of them apps he is running requires alot of ram .

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=76...h&plindex=0

[Mr. Dee]

While I agree with most of your comments, I disagree with your reasoning for build numbers. They artificially incremented xp to build 5000 for NT5 and vista to build 6000 for NT6. What makes you think they wouldn't do that again for windows seven? :)

Do you even read what you type?

Windows 2000 Professional (NT 5.0) is build 2185

Windows XP (NT 5.1) is build 2600

Windows Server 2003 (5.2) is build 3790

The last Longhorn builds that existed prior to the reset were builds 4074, 4083, 4092. Freak_power was assuming that because Vista RTM is build 6000 and the version of of the NT kernel is 6.0, it will be the same case 7. But as someone said, build numbers during development of Vista were inflated and it will likely happen for Windows 7. Right now, no one knows where the build numbers are at, especially with Server 2008 being stuck at 6001 since Vista RTM.

[AltecXP]

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.

Thats the exact specs of my machine (ferrari 5000) and it runs the Vista x64 Ult. SP1, Office 2007 SP1, Visual Studio 2005 SP1, Firewoks and Dreamweaver CS3 wonderfully.

2.0 x2 turion

2GB DDR2 667

5400rpm SATA HDD

ATi X1600

Never have any performance problem. I suggest you check your drivers, or learn how to use the OS.

I'm tired of people bitching about problems, I've ran Vista on a Core Duo 1.6GHz and 2GB ram and integrated Intel graphics. THe only issue I had was the graphics card not being the greatest for running demos that make FULL use of the DWM(heavy fade/sliding/glass effect) but the OS itself ran perfectly fine for email, office, internet, VS05 and dreamweaver.

Edited December 23, 2007 by RenderItBlue

[Mr. Dee]

Thats the exact specs of my machine (ferrari 5000) and it runs the Vista x64 Ult. SP1, Office 2007 SP1, Visual Studio 2005 SP1, Firewoks and Dreamweaver CS3 wonderfully.

2.0 x2 turion

2GB DDR2 667

5400rpm SATA HDD

ATi X1600

Never have any performance problem. I suggest you check your drivers, or learn how to use the OS.

I'm tired of people bitching about problems, I've ran Vista on a Core Duo 1.6GHz and 2GB ram and integrated Intel graphics. THe only issue I had was the graphics card not being the greatest for running demos that make FULL use of the DWM(heavy fade/sliding/glass effect) but the OS itself ran perfectly fine for email, office, internet, VS05 and dreamweaver.

Yes, it is a Acer Ferrari 5000. That part about learn how to use the OS was very uncalled for, I have been testing and reviewing Windows Vista since 5112, experimented with Alpha releases prior to that, written numerous hardware and software reviews on it in addition to tips and tricks. I do know how to use the operating system. I am running the latest software and updates on it so I don't know if its just me setting a high expectation. I don't run pre-release software on it, so your performance boost might well be attributed to SP1. My aim is to keep this machine as pristine as possible.

[AltecXP]

i have only had SP1 for a few days, and have been testing Vista through out the beta at work on all ranges of machines and only the loer end (700-1500MHz single core)and under 1GB or ram and less then 128MB video were the machiens that I have had any issues on, even then Home Basic wasnt to bad on those machines for just regular office work.

Writing reviews means nothing.....look at the respect Paul T. gets...anyone can type up a review...what matters is how accurate the review is.

[notuptome2004]

i have vista running ona desktop system i built 3800x2 @ 2ghz default speed with an 8600GTS and 2GB of ram and have 0 issues with vista and performance is flying off the roof tops just fast as can be, no the only few reason i see Mr Dee haveing so much issues is either he is running default drivers or he has his notbook running on power save mode and the CPU is running at the lowest speed it can to save power and or well he has a bunch of stuff disabled that in vista could do more harm then good on performance

[Hak Foo]

I honestly was disappointed in the lack of a boot screen, because I recall that it was said that the boot screen was one of the features they'd slip in just before it went gold, so there'd still be something new for the public-beta users.

Also, it's worthwhile to have some sign of life at every stage of boot, so you know it hasn't just hung entirely. The hard disc light and noise can help, but I'd bet it's frustrating for SSD laptops.

[winlonghorn]

Do you even read what you type?

Windows 2000 Professional (NT 5.0) is build 2185

Windows XP (NT 5.1) is build 2600

Windows Server 2003 (5.2) is build 3790

The last Longhorn builds that existed prior to the reset were builds 4074, 4083, 4092. Freak_power was assuming that because Vista RTM is build 6000 and the version of of the NT kernel is 6.0, it will be the same case 7. But as someone said, build numbers during development of Vista were inflated and it will likely happen for Windows 7. Right now, no one knows where the build numbers are at, especially with Server 2008 being stuck at 6001 since Vista RTM.

Ok, pardon me. I made a mistake. It has been a while since I used xp. There is no need for being derogatory here! Well yes, it is stuck at 6001 because they are following a pattern at least now if not before. :)

[zhangm Supervisor]

I honestly was disappointed in the lack of a boot screen, because I recall that it was said that the boot screen was one of the features they'd slip in just before it went gold, so there'd still be something new for the public-beta users.

Also, it's worthwhile to have some sign of life at every stage of boot, so you know it hasn't just hung entirely. The hard disc light and noise can help, but I'd bet it's frustrating for SSD laptops.

Its not good to slip things in after testing has been completed. Remember those WGA woes that Microsoft has experienced? You know what caused them? Someone didn't test the changes sufficiently, and they ended busting a lot of ****. Vista has a boot screen. It consists of a small animated bar. It does exactly what you're talking about, and nothing more.

[1Frothy]

Oh yeah, Vista is better than XP because it supported more hardware out of the box. I don't think that matters at all IMO because it doesn't take much to go and download a driver. What makes an OS better than its predecessor is its performance on the same hardware (newer hardware of course since the newer OS will require more resources). I've been running Vista x64 for about a week, week and a half and I still prefer XP on Vista.

Sure it may not take much but Vista's Windows Update and driver installation is generally easier for most to use and understand. Heck I plug in my Sony Ericsson W700i through the USB connector and Vista downloads all the drivers for me and installs the device without delay; that's much easier than going to the Sony Ericsson site and actually having to look for and download drivers. The overall experience with this scenario is far better in Vista, generally.

But what I think some of you fail to realize is that all of this is personal taste. Who really gives a damn what someone else is running? Does it make your life better to know that someone else is running Vista over XP or Mac over Windows or Linux over Mac or whatever? Do you sleep better at night because you know that someone else finds Vista better than XP? I'm sorry, but if you answered yes to any of that, maybe you need to see someone about that. Maybe finding a hobby outside technology?

I really don't care about the operating system on individuals PC's and sure, everyone will have a different experience with the same operating system. When Vista first shipped in November 2006, I didn't care much for it. I had nothing but rubbish with my PC and Vista. Then I realised it was my nasty Nvidia chipset and rubbish drivers from Nvidia. But now I'd not like to go to Windows XP. I am interested in a fair and balanced discussion, so people just posting 'Vista = Rubbish' makes me thing 'Got a loon here'. ;)

[1Frothy]

I honestly was disappointed in the lack of a boot screen, because I recall that it was said that the boot screen was one of the features they'd slip in just before it went gold, so there'd still be something new for the public-beta users.

I can understand your disappointment. The boot screen it's a critical feature but it is something that, in my line of work, I rely on a customer to know what operating system their running. And the SOE we use turns off all the prettiness so a Windows 2000 desktop looks the same as a Windows XP desktop and almost identical to a Windows Vista Desktop. So sometimes the easiest way to deal with people requiring support is for them to restart and watch the boot screen. Bam, problem, Vista hasn't got one. So they watch it and say that it's just 'black', so I think 'Vista'.

The other and more psychological issue is that when Joe Bloggs who has been a Windows user since Windows 2000 and knows the Windows Startup and then suddenly get's a Windows Vista PC and a black bootscreen, they thing 'Ok it's broken' or some customers have echoed the view that Vista looks unfinished and rushed since it doesn't have a boot screen, apparently.

[ANova]

so your saying that Vista is slower then XP on YOUR system well mmmm that is YOUR system not mine. vista on my rig is well far faster then XP could be anyday i dont have things tweaked at all but vista is just faster at alot of things. Evan gaming in some cases not all Cases but some are evan faster but in some cases it is the same FPS so besides all that vista offers new that is new and besides it being more efficient at multitasking i would say Vista is damn better in every way .

Vista is damn worse in every way save for a couple minor improvements here and there like the task manager and renaming without extensions being selected. I don't buy your Vista is faster on your system statement at all. Have you looked in task manager? 22 running processes will always win out over 60. There is alot more happening in Vista's background than XP's.

oh and i found this vista video someone made on youtube of Vista running on a system with 1gig ram but cant remember the CPU but this due shows major multitasking or of sorts should show ya what to expect tho with only 1 gig ram but i would say try what you see on the video in windows XP and see if your system is still running cause some of them apps he is running requires alot of ram .

I've run Vista on a 1GB machine with a P4 3.4 GHz and an X850 XT, I would hardly call that a slow machine but Vista is much slower on it than XP, or any other os I ran on the machine for that matter.

[1Frothy]

So stick with Windows XP. ANova, you think Vista is rubbish, you're entitled to that view. Good luck with that.

Don't let us try and convince you otherwise...

...at the same time understand that a lot of people run Vista and find it a worthwhile product.