Windows 7: Now with improved Calculator!

DigDug2000

So Win7 is being revealed today, and there's no thread in here. What's up with that?

Live blogs:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10074795-56.html?tag=mncol;posts
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1674

Einhander

They want it out next year?

So this pretty much makes Vista a stabler version of ME, right?

DigDug2000

Yeah. It sucks that they keep working on improving stuff and releasing every 3 years or so. Theres some pics too. The new taskbar looks very strange:

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12354_22-244222.html

Daedalus

Vista got a bad first impression despite it not being all that bad an operating system, so Microsoft is rushing Windows Seven out the door that's basically the same thing with a different name and a handful of new, largely cosmetic features.

Dark Shroud

Einhander wrote: »

They want it out next year?

So this pretty much makes Vista a stabler version of ME, right?

Not even close. Me was total garbage. Vista was never garbage.

DigDug2000

Daedalus wrote: »

Vista got a bad first impression despite it not being all that bad an operating system, so Microsoft is rushing Windows Seven out the door that's basically the same thing with a different name and a handful of new, largely cosmetic features.

Please don't start the FUD already. A bunch of the stuff seems UX oriented, but that's most of the stuff people bitched about. A new taskbar/launchbar. Easier home networking. Better interaction between your home network and a work laptop. Libraries to make organizing files easier (that's that whole WinFS stuff people bitched about, done even better).

And that all comes with lower RAM footprints. Faster startup. The ability to run on a netbook presumably.

But hell.... it's largely cosmetic.

Dark Shroud

DigDug2000 wrote: »

Daedalus wrote: »

Vista got a bad first impression despite it not being all that bad an operating system, so Microsoft is rushing Windows Seven out the door that's basically the same thing with a different name and a handful of new, largely cosmetic features.

Please don't start the FUD already. A bunch of the stuff seems UX oriented, but that's most of the stuff people bitched about. A new taskbar/launchbar. Easier home networking. Better interaction between your home network and a work laptop. Libraries to make organizing files easier (that's that whole WinFS stuff people bitched about, done even better).

And that all comes with lower RAM footprints. Faster startup. The ability to run on a netbook presumably.

But hell.... it's largely cosmetic.

I was trying to avoid being drawn in but your responce was just too nice. Many people don't seem to do real research on MS at all. I can't stand that people still think WinFS is a file system.

Way over simplified, Windows7 is being built from the same code base & kernel as Server 2008 & Vista sp1. Only it's been updated and very refined. MS is not branching their code base anymore to keep the process simple. Which is why Vista SP2 will probably occur around Windows 7's launch, to up date it's code & kernel again. FYI Vista pre-SP1 is based on Server 2003.

Silvoculous

I still say the Ribbon in apps like Paint and Wordpad is largely pointless.

TychoCelchuuu

I say it's better to have Ribbon in everything than just in some things.

Silvoculous

For a streamlined universal appearance? Yes. But Paint/Wordpad/etc are such simplistic apps that even with the features I heard were going to be added, it wouldn't be enough to justify forcing the average computer user to migrate from the standard menu system.

GnomeTank

Dark Shroud wrote: »

I was trying to avoid being drawn in but your responce was just too nice. Many people don't seem to do real research on MS at all. I can't stand that people still think WinFS is a file system.

Way over simplified, Windows7 is being built from the same code base & kernel as Server 2008 & Vista sp1. Only it's been updated and very refined. MS is not branching their code base anymore to keep the process simple. Which is why Vista SP2 will probably occur around Windows 7's launch, to up date it's code & kernel again. FYI Vista pre-SP1 is based on Server 2003.

The part about Vista being based on Server 2003 is flat wrong. Server 2003 was the last of the NT4 based kernels. Vista is an entirely new micro-kernel, from the ground up. That's why it had all the initial driver issues, it's a fresh kernel. It may have taken some of the improvements that 2003 pioneered, but it is not "based" on Windows 2003.

All OS's from here on out, Server 2008, Windows 7, etc. are all based on the new Windows 6 micro-kernel. Just like 2000, XP and 2003 are refinements of the NT4 kernel.

Zell

New taskbar looks like it might either be completely awesome or horrible. If it ends up being horrible, I'm also sure there will be no option to use the old taskbar.

ZackSchilling

I like how the new taskbar is basically the Mac OS X dock with most major usability complaints addressed.

But it's not as pretty!

ArcSyn

Looks nice. Now the wait until I can get myself a copy.

Oh, are they going strictly 64bit with this iteration? Or we still going to have 32bit versions of Windows?

I like that they are trying to streamline it into being light enough to fit on netbooks.

Lucky Cynic

ArcSyn wrote: »

Looks nice. Now the wait until I can get myself a copy.

Oh, are they going strictly 64bit with this iteration? Or we still going to have 32bit versions of Windows?

I like that they are trying to streamline it into being light enough to fit on netbooks.

They will still have 32bit flavors. Apparently however the business (or was it the server) versions would be 64bit only.

Also: I love Vista. I think it's a real nice upgrade from XP and a needed one. My system was so very damn zippy and fresh and it performed very well.\

I think the secret to Vista is having a nice custom theme to go with it, and a dual core processor and at least 3 gigs of memory.

Peewi

DigDug2000 wrote: »

Yeah. It sucks that they keep working on improving stuff and releasing every 3 years or so. Theres some pics too. The new taskbar looks very strange:

http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12354_22-244222.html

That looks like it has a fair amount of improvements compared to Vista. I've been wanting a new computer for quitea while, but now I'm considering waiting until Windows 7 has been released.

Lucky Cynic

Remember, they are designing Windows 7 with touchscreens in mind as well.

Janin

GnomeTank wrote: »

The part about Vista being based on Server 2003 is flat wrong. Server 2003 was the last of the NT4 based kernels. Vista is an entirely new micro-kernel, from the ground up. That's why it had all the initial driver issues, it's a fresh kernel. It may have taken some of the improvements that 2003 pioneered, but it is not "based" on Windows 2003.

All OS's from here on out, Server 2008, Windows 7, etc. are all based on the new Windows 6 micro-kernel. Just like 2000, XP and 2003 are refinements of the NT4 kernel.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc162494.aspx

Vista uses the NT kernel, and is certainly not a microkernel.

Daedalus

Microsoft does have a microkernel-based operating system in an early development phase, but it sure isn't Vista or Server2008 or Seven, I'll tell you that. Vista is heavily based on the 2000/XP series of kernels, and it had driver problems because they made major changes to the driver--kernel interface. They made some changes to the kernel between XP and Vista, but it certainly wasn't a rewrite.

Senshi

hahahahahahahahaahaahhahahahahahahahahaha

windows 7

please

Desert_Eagle25

Senshi wrote: »

hahahahahahahahaahaahhahahahahahahahahaha

windows 7

please

hahahahahahahahaahaahhahahahahahahahahaha

Intelligible posts?

please

Senshi

retards are exempt from that rule

wait

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Azio

I'm happy with Vista. Why would I ever upgrade to this. It looks like they just copied OS X. Etc, etc.

Cyvros

mcdermott wrote: »

Lucky Cynic wrote: »

ArcSyn wrote: »

Looks nice. Now the wait until I can get myself a copy.

Oh, are they going strictly 64bit with this iteration? Or we still going to have 32bit versions of Windows?

I like that they are trying to streamline it into being light enough to fit on netbooks.

They will still have 32bit flavors. Apparently however the business (or was it the server) versions would be 64bit only.

Also: I love Vista. I think it's a real nice upgrade from XP and a needed one. My system was so very damn zippy and fresh and it performed very well.\

I think the secret to Vista is having a nice custom theme to go with it, and a dual core processor and at least 3 gigs of memory.

Naw, 2 gigs is more than enough.

I've actually found 1 gig is fine, even with Aero Glass and the Sidebar up. Hell, 1 gig could cope with Vista and Firefox when it had those horrible memory leaks.

That said, my Mum's got essentially the same specs, but 2 gigs of RAM, and it's insanely slow (even just after a fresh install).

Azio

Hey kids!

WINDOWS VISTA AERO DOES NOT AFFECT DESKTOP PERFORMANCE

How many times will this need to be repeated before it fucking sinks in?

Cyvros

Azio wrote: »

Hey kids!

WINDOWS VISTA AERO DOES NOT AFFECT DESKTOP PERFORMANCE

How many times will this need to be repeated before it fucking sinks in?

My apologies. Too many things to remember.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Fraz

Azio wrote: »

I'm happy with Vista. Why would I ever upgrade to this. It looks like they just copied OS X. Etc, etc.

I hope they can get it to run well on a netbook.

Seeks

Eh, looks pretty much like KDE with a start button.

Granted, I guess that's not a bad thing, but still.

Barcardi

so.... i should still get vista 64 when i build my computer soon, right?

head asplode

Azio

In all seriousness, this appears to be Vista Reloaded. They've kept all the good parts of Vista and fixed some of the crappy parts. For example, the network and display control panels are no longer complete disasters. And UAC now has more states than simply On and Off. I'm definitely looking forward to this release.

Dritz

Looks a lot like KDE4 but as said above that's not a bad thing. I probably won't ever go back to Windows but this does look like a solid release. Those annoyed by the 'rapid' release cycle between Vista and 7 need to realize that XP to Vista was an exception to the usual release cycle of Windows. 7 is right in line with the way Microsoft usually updates.

Daedalus

I want a Windows front-end that works essentially like a video games console because that's all I use Windows for anymore.

Or, failing that, I want Games Explorer to work right with Steam games without having to endlessly fuck around with it.

Beyond that I really don't give half a shit.

Bamelin

The tech blogosphere is abuzz with talk of Windows 7. And especially now that Steven Sinofsky, Microsoft's boss of the Windows crew whipped out his Lenovo S10 (or was it an Eee? See for yourself below) running the sparkling new OS at the PDC. If a current-gen netbook is capable of running this OS - think about how well it will run on netbooks once its released in late 09/10 (and hopefully not later than this).


Apparently the netbook he used (whatever it was) has 1GB of RAM and after booting Windows 7 had "half of its memory free". Pretty impressive for a bleeding edge OS! This ties in with Asus' Jerry Shen raving about Windows 7. It looks like Vista will be the OS that never was (for netbooks at least).



It seems that instead of Microsoft Window's historical approach of requiring users to undertake a mainframe computer upgrade between versions, Microsoft has now opted for a Windows that is alot gentler on systems and leaves more RAM and CPU power available for running applications. It sounds like Windows 7 is really optimized to start faster and performance has been a big focus in its development so far.


Not only will performance improve but battery life optimization has been taken into concern in the OS's development. Also the obligatory UI overhaul is in there too... transparency galore. Multitouch makes a frontline appearance.


Windows 7 sounds like the perfect netbook OS and it looks like Microsoft actually gets netbooks.


Check out an in-depth Win7 walkthrough here at Laptop mag.
More here at Engadget.

http://www.electricvagabond.com/2008/10/microsoft-windows-7-coming-to-netbook.html


My guess is that win7 is in anticipation that the netbook market is going to be very VERY big over the next few years.

Pheezer

Dritz wrote: »

Looks a lot like KDE4 but as said above that's not a bad thing. I probably won't ever go back to Windows but this does look like a solid release. Those annoyed by the 'rapid' release cycle between Vista and 7 need to realize that XP to Vista was an exception to the usual release cycle of Windows. 7 is right in line with the way Microsoft usually updates.

Really?

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95?

Windows 95 to Windows 98?

Hell, even 98 to Me was over 2 years. The only thing you could compare the timeline to might be WinMe to WinXP which is not a flattering comparison. Then again, this wouldn't be the first time Vista reminded me of Me, either.

Daedalus

Pheezer wrote: »

Dritz wrote: »

Looks a lot like KDE4 but as said above that's not a bad thing. I probably won't ever go back to Windows but this does look like a solid release. Those annoyed by the 'rapid' release cycle between Vista and 7 need to realize that XP to Vista was an exception to the usual release cycle of Windows. 7 is right in line with the way Microsoft usually updates.

Really?

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95?

Windows 95 to Windows 98?

Hell, even 98 to Me was over 2 years. The only thing you could compare the timeline to might be WinMe to WinXP which is not a flattering comparison. Then again, this wouldn't be the first time Vista reminded me of Me, either.

This is coming out September 2009 at the earliest.

Vista came out in November 2006.

What's the problem?

Fraz

Pheezer wrote: »

Dritz wrote: »

Looks a lot like KDE4 but as said above that's not a bad thing. I probably won't ever go back to Windows but this does look like a solid release. Those annoyed by the 'rapid' release cycle between Vista and 7 need to realize that XP to Vista was an exception to the usual release cycle of Windows. 7 is right in line with the way Microsoft usually updates.

Really?

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95?

Windows 95 to Windows 98?

Hell, even 98 to Me was over 2 years. The only thing you could compare the timeline to might be WinMe to WinXP which is not a flattering comparison. Then again, this wouldn't be the first time Vista reminded me of Me, either.

According to this website's timeline,

Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was 40 months

95 to 98 was 35 months

98 to ME took 24 months

They broke the pattern when Vista took about five years until in was released after XP.

Unless they release Windows 7 in January (Vista went out to consumers Jan. 2007, business Nov. 2006), it will be about three years.

exis

I'm looking forward to this. Vista has been calling to me but I haven't quite found myself wanting to upgrade yet. Once this becomes available on MSDNAA I think I'll finally leave XP behind for good. It's not that I'm averse to touching Vista, but if this is going to be out by even mid-2010 I don't really want to get myself used to it before switching OS again.

Lucky Cynic

Didn't they say Vista SP2 will come before 7?

XP

powersurge

Gah slow up MS. Vista isn't the horrible OS that folks think it is. More of a geek urban myth now. Kind of sucks though... I JUST purchased my 2nd copy of Vista yesturday to use with my Macbook Pro. Had planned to use an old XP disc but I forgot it was an upgrade copy and my other copy of Vista is running on my desktop (64bit wee) so I had to pick up a copy of Vista 32bit OEM flavor for the lappy. :x