 Comment #1 by Mike on 2008-01-24, 14:24 GMT |  reply to this comment |
Yep, looks an awful lot like Vista to me. This is starting to sound more like the old Microsoft "if-the-current-OS-stinks-rename-it-and-rush-it-out-under-the-new-name” trick all the time. Word is it’s fast-tracked for late 2009 release, but will come out even sooner, like 1Q or 2Q. That means Vista is now off primary development. So....that probably makes this version a lot more like the old Windows 98 SE hybrid than a totally new OS version. Trying to get the stink off of it with a “new and improved” label.
|
 Reply #1.1 by treveera on 2008-01-26, 17:15 GMT | | heh. You mean like how Apple does with OS X?
|
|
| Reply #1.2 by whitsle433 on 2008-01-27, 03:54 GMT | | haha exactly, except when apple releases an OS it works...
|
|
| Reply #1.3 by Steve on 2008-06-18, 10:40 GMT | | Actually, not always, remember the mess that was leopard when it released, they were running around censoring like crazy on their forums if the bsod was mentioned XD good old hypocritical apple
|
|
| Reply #1.4 by Me. on 2008-06-23, 04:45 GMT | | If you haven't noticed, its only on build 6519, milestone 1, RC 1, which is the first release. The OS is based on the Windows 7 Kernel using Vista GUI, the GUI development isn't done until the later builds (nearing the RTM version)
|
|
|
| Comment #2 by Solarstone on 2008-01-24, 14:41 GMT | reply to this comment |
maybe they will just make upgrade to Vista's look
and bring back real Longhorn features that were dropped out of Vista
|
|
| Comment #3 by rob on 2008-01-24, 16:42 GMT | reply to this comment |
It would be nice if they fixed what's wrong with the codebase before expanding into another OS.
Many linux distros have all the eye candy Vista has, and at a much lower memory and cpu usage. There is no technical reason why Microsoft cannot take a page out of their book and achieve the same level of performance.
If Microsoft chooses to again undermine and responsiveness for looks, I'll have to pass on Windows 7.
|
|
| Comment #4 by leon on 2008-01-24, 17:15 GMT | reply to this comment |
Wow, I just love how some people talk about how this is a disappointment because it looks just like Vista. But what these ignorant people need to remember is that this is M1. ALL WINDOWS VERSIONS START THIS WAY. So stop your whining. You all did enough of that when Vista came out.
|
|
| Comment #5 by Matt on 2008-01-24, 17:25 GMT | reply to this comment |
I think these are real. And no, Windows 7 will have a new interface, but you have to wait for M2 or M3.
|
|
| Comment #6 by gag on 2008-01-25, 01:05 GMT | reply to this comment |
fake screenshots!
|
|
| Comment #7 by Jay on 2008-01-25, 04:18 GMT | reply to this comment |
Funny that Windows 7 will actually be Windows 6.1 (or Vista 2)... Ah, marketing!
|
|
| Comment #8 by matt on 2008-01-25, 10:04 GMT | reply to this comment |
Did anyone else notice something peculiar in the screenshot of the Windows Powershell? If you actually read the text, you will see that the person typed "ls" to list the contents of the directory. Previously in all versions of windows, the command was "dir". "ls" is a unix command... This only further supports my suspicions that newer windows versions are based on BSD code.
|
| Reply #8.1 by daveshax on 2008-01-29, 09:43 GMT | | I was of the understanding that both commands worked in the Powershell, which, by the way, is amazing.
|
|
|
| Comment #9 by Jeremy on 2008-01-25, 12:31 GMT | reply to this comment |
actually Vista SP1 will make it 6.1 just like Server 2008
|
|
| Comment #10 by Shutup on 2008-01-25, 13:18 GMT | reply to this comment |
Of course it looks like Vista. Its M1.
If they write a new kernel it will be 7.0
If they update the current one it will be 6.1
It could be Vista 2nd Edition or it could be a really good program.
At this stage, its still too early to tell. With Vista SP1 around the corner I wont care much about Windows 7 until it hits beta at the end of this year or the beginning of next.
|
|
| Comment #11 by Osmooms on 2008-01-25, 13:56 GMT | reply to this comment |
A chrome-plated turd is a turd nonetheless
|
|
| Comment #12 by AyJayCee on 2008-01-25, 21:30 GMT | reply to this comment |
At the moment the version is 6.1, they will artificially increase the build number to 7000 prior to shipping i would think. The 6.1 will probably stay as its just an indication of which kernel version the client is built on... being 6.1.
but lets just remember this is early... anything could happen.
also point to some benchmark results that accurately gauge vista's memory/performance against compiz/beryl/etc. its easy to trashtalk but find some solid evidence. what happens when compiz/etc crashes? orphaned window manager. what happens when aero crashes? you get fallback gdi.
want to talk performance? turn off readyboost and superfetch to take vista's featureset down to linux... stop any heavyweight sql server instances and there isnt alot of difference. so explain to me what is "wrong with the codebase"...
|
|
| Comment #13 by mrT on 2008-01-26, 11:12 GMT | reply to this comment |
I think they are Fake!
Zoom in on the text, they look fake to me.
|
|
| Comment #14 by Matthew on 2008-01-26, 22:58 GMT | reply to this comment |
Looks very vista like...just what we need...lets see, i bet windows 7 will require 4 or 8gb of ram to function properly since vista required basically 2gb, xp only 1gb and win 2k, the best windows OS, 512mb!
|
|
| Comment #15 by Jesse on 2008-01-27, 17:36 GMT | reply to this comment |
To Matthew.....can you slow down and read what others are saying. It would be stupid to build something to require more memory than what Vista asks for to function properly. And yes it looks like Vista "NOW", but when released it will look different. And FYI...Apple Mac give 2gigs of RAM as a standard...so don't think they are any better.
|
|
| Comment #16 by Cobra on 2008-01-28, 05:52 GMT | reply to this comment |
@AyJayCee
[quote]
so explain to me what is "wrong with the codebase"...
[/quote]
Well lets see....
The NT kernel is pushing 15 years; not to mention that code way back from Windows 1.01 is still lingering around in there. Why in the year of 2009 when this is supposed to be released do people still need the capability to run old programs from 20 years ago? Any code or subsystems that old needs to be removed. You'd be surprised how much better and faster programs run when the old stuff is dropped and things are optimized. But Windows ain't that program.
There comes a time, which IMO should be soon if not quicker, that Microsoft should take a page from Apple and virtualize all of the old legacy crap in their OS and gradually start removing it all together. That would be the smartest move.
The kernel is a total mess. The so-called rewriting of the Vista kernel wasn't a rewrite. It was a splitting of code and subsystems from the kernel that should never have been in there to begin with. There is absolutely no reason why a display driver error should be able to bring the entire system to its knees. More often than not, errors in Windows are caused by buggy drivers that are hooked in to the kernel. Such trivial systems should not be there. It might have made sense back in the days when PCs were not very powerful and (most) everything needed to be running in the same space, but in this day and age is not that time. Every other OS in the world gets better and more streamlined while Windows gets more bloated and gets features on top of feature on top of features that stem back 20 years ago.
It's time to clean up the code and move forward.
|
|
| Comment #17 by M$heckler on 2008-01-29, 21:59 GMT | reply to this comment |
Still looks like the same old windows with some KDE superkaramba widgets on the desktop...imagine that
|
|
| Comment #18 by ck on 2008-01-31, 00:56 GMT | reply to this comment |
Who cares about screenshots if they look EXACTLY like Vista Ultimate?
All this article did was say windows7 will have support for 2 video cards from different makers, which is cool. But the article also said it would be released next year and I just read an interview that said at least 3 years... so is the article right or not? doubtful... so all we have in this article is speculation and screenshots of vista ultimate? wow
|
|
| Comment #19 by Matt on 2008-02-01, 10:11 GMT | reply to this comment |
You people need to learn how to wait. Remember how awesome the old longhorn builds were? Look what they turned into. I thought Leopard was going to be crappy when I watched the keynote, but Ive upgraded to it and have learned my lesson... you people should too.
|
|
| Comment #20 by MundaneRaptor on 2008-02-06, 14:31 GMT | reply to this comment |
if it really is windows 7... then i want to see a video taking us through the DXDiag Window and the system info screen... otherwise i call a foul!! i wont fall for media fodder... we need to see the 'real' goods, not some 'about' window that you can use to impress the tourists...
|
|
| Comment #21 by Abhinav K on 2008-06-28, 06:38 GMT | reply to this comment |
Please Don't go to its gui.
Even the earlier builds of Vista had the same XP Interface (although it had been tweaked a little but not much)
Someone has said they will require 4-8 gb of ram.
but Gates has confirmed in a n interview that Win7 will run the specifications of Vista. For this they have created a reducified their NT 6.0 kernel to MinWin (currently having version 6.1) that requires only 40 MB of ram compared to NT6 which requiers 76 mb. and has only over 100 files compared to NT6 2000 files.
|
Digg this!
Slashdot it!
Add to del.icio.us
Stumble!
Submit to Reddit
Add to Technorati
Furl
PDF
SHARE YOUR OPINION ABOUT 
DO YOU WANT TO CONTACT US?