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.

heh. You mean like how Apple does with OS X?

haha exactly, except when apple releases an OS it works...

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

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)

maybe they will just make upgrade to Vista's look
and bring back real Longhorn features that were dropped out of Vista

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.

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.

I think these are real. And no, Windows 7 will have a new interface, but you have to wait for M2 or M3.

fake screenshots!

Funny that Windows 7 will actually be Windows 6.1 (or Vista 2)... Ah, marketing!

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.

I was of the understanding that both commands worked in the Powershell, which, by the way, is amazing.

actually Vista SP1 will make it 6.1 just like Server 2008

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.

A chrome-plated turd is a turd nonetheless

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"...

I think they are Fake!
Zoom in on the text, they look fake to me.

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!

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.

@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.

Still looks like the same old windows with some KDE superkaramba widgets on the desktop...imagine that

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

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.

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...

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.

yeah u r right some tells me this has happened longhorn like

@ #15 Jesse : No you're wrong in your assumptions. Vista NEEDS the RAM they specify to run properly, the RAM included with new Macs is not NEEDED to run the OS, it just means that more apps will run simultaneously with little to no virtual memory (ie Hard drive space used as RAM) usage, therefore much more quickly. OS X will actually run in about 64-128Mb of RAM. It runs with 96Mb of RAM on a decade old G4 tower sat next to me under the desk - no problems at all, even with it's original 16Mb ATI graphics card.

I agree with comment #3 Rob - MS really need to pull their finger out and improve the codebase significantly, dumping legacy support natively and going for a much sleeker and less bloated system - it will improve performance dramatically. If they want to continue legacy support, take a leaf out of Apple's book and write an emulator (like Classic for OS 9 support in X, and then Rosetta for PPC support on Intel) to handle the transitional period which at most would be a couple of years. This is perhaps the most important issue they tackle if they want to be taken seriously again in the OS market.

These screens look like Vista, but that's to be expected given the early stage of build (GUI just isn't important yet), but let's hope MS don't do what they were suggesting, (that is, dumping the complete kernel rewrite in favour of basing it on the same old tired NT kernel). That one factor alone made my heart sink completely when I read it, because XP's performance is abysmal and Vista is even worse. Productivity is far more important to me than eye candy.

Looks like rubbish next to Linux's Gnome and KDE interfaces. How unexciting Windows 7 looks.

well have you seen ubuntu's desktop? sorry but its U-G-L-Y!!! so stop dissing Microsoft cos i bet u anything u couldn't do what they-re doing! so just sit there with your donut and your coffee in front of your screen and think before you write!

Jesse: Apple Macs do not have 2 GB as a standard. It's not a limitation nor a requirement. Leopard requirements are officially 512 MB (straight from the box). It will run on less, however, the practical working recommended level of memory (from experience) is 1GB. The fact that many new systems ship with 2GB is a bonus, not a requirement...

I'm using about 850MB of RAM at the moment on the 7100 build with half a dozen programs open.