Windows 7 6519 Leaked

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Agreed. After Vista you'd think MS would get totally away from the look and feel but if they are continuing to build on Vista then why not just call it Vista SP3.

That's like saying that Windows 2000 should've just been Windows NT 4 SP6 or something. Or that Leopard should've been OS X 10.4.7. Or that Windows 3.1 was just Windows 1.0 SP4.

It's a ridiculous thing to say, especially when you haven't even seen Win7 yet.

[Soldiers33]

any screenshots of the desktop and stuff?

[TruckWEB]

That's like saying that Windows 2000 should've just been Windows NT 4 SP6 or something. Or that Leopard should've been OS X 10.4.7. Or that Windows 3.1 was just Windows 1.0 SP4.

It's a ridiculous thing to say, especially when you haven't even seen Win7 yet.

When it's M. Balmer that goes on to say that Win7 will be Vista but better.... Oh yes he did, it was posted a while ago. So, when we remember that WinXP SP2 did bring new stuff in the OS, why would Win7 not be Vista SP3 ??

Vista was the Duke Nuken of the OS, it took a long while to turn gold. With the short dev cycle of Win7, it's not going to be a revolution, just evolution.

[Jason S. Global Moderator]

this whole naming scheme e-fight is retarded.... reminds me of that special olympics picture. it's just the name of an operating system people.

[TruckWEB]

this whole naming scheme e-fight is retarded.... reminds me of that special olympics picture. it's just the name of an operating system people.

The fight is not only because of a name, you see, you're going to pay to get Win7... If it was SP3 for Vista, it would be free, like the SP2 for WinXP, even if it was a major SP.

It's the money milking process that Microsoft puts on that irritate me. We are going to pay to have what Vista should have been from day 1.

So they failed to bring tons of money with Vista, they are going to try it again with Win7.

[Mikee99]

When it's M. Balmer that goes on to say that Win7 will be Vista but better.... Oh yes he did, it was posted a while ago. So, when we remember that WinXP SP2 did bring new stuff in the OS, why would Win7 not be Vista SP3 ??

Vista was the Duke Nuken of the OS, it took a long while to turn gold. With the short dev cycle of Win7, it's not going to be a revolution, just evolution.

Windows XP was basically Windows 2000, but better.

[Mr. Dee]

When it's M. Balmer that goes on to say that Win7 will be Vista but better.... Oh yes he did, it was posted a while ago. So, when we remember that WinXP SP2 did bring new stuff in the OS, why would Win7 not be Vista SP3 ??

Vista was the Duke Nuken of the OS, it took a long while to turn gold. With the short dev cycle of Win7, it's not going to be a revolution, just evolution.

Actually, Windows Vista was developed within a normal time frame.

Windows XP - October 2000 to August 2001 = 11 months

Windows Vista - August 2005 to November 2006 - 18 months

What confuses people is 2003 to August 2004 period when Longhorn was in alpha. The project was reset and they started over.

[Kirkburn]

The fight is not only because of a name, you see, you're going to pay to get Win7... If it was SP3 for Vista, it would be free, like the SP2 for WinXP, even if it was a major SP.

It's the money milking process that Microsoft puts on that irritate me. We are going to pay to have what Vista should have been from day 1.

So they failed to bring tons of money with Vista, they are going to try it again with Win7.

You think Vista is a commercial failure, or something?

It's not even a bad OS, but I doubt that'll convince you.

No, Windows 7 is way more than XP SP2 was.

[TruckWEB]

Actually, Windows Vista was developed within a normal time frame.

Windows XP - October 2000 to August 2001 = 11 months

Windows Vista - August 2005 to November 2006 - 18 months

What confuses people is 2003 to August 2004 period when Longhorn was in alpha. The project was reset and they started over.

I know about the code reset, but still, It took them a while anyway... Code reset = bad project direction?

I'm running Vista Ultimate x64. I don't have any problem with it, but will all the buzz around WinXP, how Microsoft is keeping it alive longer than they would like, how business did not buy into Vista, .... I guess it could be called a failure.

I'm just afraid that Win7 will not offer anything revolutionary. Only a better Vista.

[Mr. Dee]

Its interesting that people would call Windows 7 SP3 without even actually experiencing it. As some have said, I guess Windows XP would Windows 2000 SP5 since its actually NT 5.1. We need to look beyond the kernel version. Its about the experiences that are built on top of it.

[TruckWEB]

No, Windows 7 is way more than XP SP2 was.

How do you know that? It's not even in Beta....

[Kirkburn]

How do you know that? It's not even in Beta....

Because it's already more than SP2 was? SP2 just had a security overhaul, not new features like multi-touch, revamped interfaces, etc.

[Mr. Dee]

Because it's already more than SP2 was? SP2 just had a security overhaul, not new features like multi-touch, revamped interfaces, etc.

Actually SP2 for XP was a significant update that even made some changes to the kernel for security sake. This even introduced some incompatibilities. I remember NERO requiring an update to work again, so did some security products from Symantec and McAfee.

[Kirkburn]

Actually SP2 for XP was a significant update that even made some changes to the kernel for security sake. This even introduced some incompatibilities. I remember NERO requiring an update to work again, so did some security products from Symantec and McAfee.

Yes, but that's not "features".

[Roger H. Veteran]

If Win7 wasn't coming out for another 3-4yrs you'd see everyone upgrading to Vista in another year or 2. With XP SP2 not coming out till like what, 2004 that's when most people jumped on and not after reading much about it and other testing. XP came out in 2001 and that's why it is where it is now. There's no way in hell most of you here and other businesses will be using XP in 2011 unless it's just on some old machine. I can't tell when last i saw Windows 98 or 2000 anywhere.

[Mr. Dee]

Yes, but that's not "features".

Hmm:

Windows Security Center

Internet Explorer 6 with Pop-Up Blocker

Internet Explorer Download Monitoring

New Attachment Manager

New Windows Firewall turned on by Default

Automatic Update Enhancements

Improved Wireless Support

Improved Bluetooth support for devices

Sure, there were no features in Windows XP SP2. :rolleyes:

If Win7 wasn't coming out for another 3-4yrs you'd see everyone upgrading to Vista in another year or 2. With XP SP2 not coming out till like what, 2004 that's when most people jumped on and not after reading much about it and other testing. XP came out in 2001 and that's why it is where it is now. There's no way in hell most of you here and other businesses will be using XP in 2011 unless it's just on some old machine. I can't tell when last i saw Windows 98 or 2000 anywhere.

I will agree that you rarely see Windows 98 machines, but there are still quite a few Windows 2000 system still around. Just last month I had to decommission up to 30 of them and I have at least 70 more to go. In addition to that, businesses are well known for slower upgrade cycles. Those 2000 machines we replaced are not preloaded with Vista Business, but with Windows XP Professional. We do have downgrade rights and all the systems come with Vista media. But because we are still using certain applications that have not been upgraded, we are taking a more cautious approach. Vista is on the agenda, but not until after Service Pack 2 is released and more testing. Give us until about 2010 to 2011 and then again, it will be phased.

[Kirkburn]

Hmm:

Windows Security Center

Internet Explorer 6 with Pop-Up Blocker

Internet Explorer Download Monitoring

New Attachment Manager

New Windows Firewall turned on by Default

Automatic Update Enhancements

Improved Wireless Support

Improved Bluetooth support for devices

Sure, there were no features in Windows XP SP2. :rolleyes:

What, and you think that's what Windows 7 is going to be? Upgraded versions of IE, security and device support?

[Mr. Dee]

What, and you think that's what Windows 7 is going to be? Upgraded versions of IE, security and device support?

My reply was in no relation to that. It was in relation to XP SP2 being a major update or not. I whole heartedly know that Windows 7 is a major release.

[Kirkburn]

My reply was in no relation to that. It was in relation to XP SP2 being a major update or not. I whole heartedly know that Windows 7 is a major release.

Fair enough, I just don't really count that changes SP2 made as particularly important end-user features (which is what matters for Vista-->Win7). As security features, they were great though.

[Mr. Dee]

Fair enough, I just don't really count that changes SP2 made as particularly important end-user features (which is what matters for Vista-->Win7). As security features, they were great though.

Are you reading what you are writing. When it comes to end-user features, end user experience comes first. If you have viruses, Trojans, pop ups interfering with your general computing experience, then its a bad end user experience. Which made the security changes in XP SP2 detrimental.

[Kirkburn]

Are you reading what you are writing. When it comes to end-user features, end user experience comes first. If you have viruses, Trojans, pop ups interfering with your general computing experience, then its a bad end user experience. Which made the security changes in XP SP2 detrimental.

No, I'm not saying that. Security is important - but Vista already has that. XP SP2 improved the security experience, Windows 7 has little need for that, so it's not comparable.

Windows 7 is about doing things far more "useful" to the end users than preventing security problems.