Windows 7 is Christened "Windows 7"???

[Ajax_Undone]

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx


The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.

Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.

Great Name:D:D:D

[burfadel]

Anyone know whether this will be a 32 & 64 bit release as well? I think Microsoft would be idiotic releasing it in 32 bit, in 2 years time 3gb of RAM definitely won't be enough for the majority of tasks except for word processing, and the workaround, PAE, has never worked properly across the majority of hardware configurations which is why 32 bit vista doesn't have it. Most people buying computers in 2 years will have 6gb of RAM since Nehalem has triple channel memory, it will only be cheap computers that have 3 gb!

[Sharktooth]

last time i read about it, they said both 32 and 64 bits.
but those were unofficial info.

[burfadel]

Has anyone read another article on windowsvistablog:
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

So it is Windows 7 with a build name of 6.1. That's fine, but it means there won't be a Windows 7.x at all, simply because it will confuse people too much! Since Vista isn't called Windows 6, they could have easily called it Windows 6 or 6.5 etc, it wouldn't have really mattered. They are just trying to disassociate it as much as possible from Vista, despite it being just a heavily revised Vista much like 98/98 SE as opposed to 95.

The interesting thing will come about the different product levels, such as Basic, Business, Home Premium and Ultimate. Those that have bought Ultimate should get a full retail disk equivalent to their Ultimate at the cost of a normal upgrade version (or discounted versions) simply because they paid so much to start with and haven't really been delivered the extra features as promised. Dreamscene isn't really practical and the game Tinker certainly weren't worth the premium they've paid. There are some features of both Business and Home Premium that many people use, but they're just simple things that certainly don't warrant the extra cost. How many people actually use Media Centre?.

[Ajax_Undone]

Well this is fully understandable after all we would be calling XP in the respect to source versioning would be 2.600.x.x. The reversion always climbs with out the end product fallowing suit.

Tho some projects use the revision as the version for product release like FFD some use the build number like x264... Either way you look at it Windows 7 is the next re-release of the same old Windows (The Now With More Eye Candie Edition)

[video_magic]

I am probably going to stick with XP (SP2 and some other updates) for the next 5 years at least. It has the most reasonable balance for supporting the newer hardware which I require for the tasks which I wish to carry out and the amount of 'bloat' it carries - much of which I am able to turn-off.

I have used Vista on other peoples' computers and saw no 'reason' to use it My Self. Windows 7 looks like much the same case.......

[burfadel]

Why not XP SP3 + updates?

In terms of upgrading a computer that came with XP, its not worth going to Vista. Microsoft's main problem with Vista is making a 32 bit version, if they stuck with just having an x64 version, it would only be able to be distributed with new computers, hopefully with 2gb or more. Vista is definitely not suited for older computers or low spec computers, a 5 year old computer just won't run Vista, same with a 2 yr old computer that is a lower spec. It was like when XP came out people trying to run it on 64mb or even 128mb of Ram, it just doesn't like it! - even 256mb or 512mb isn't really enough!

If you bought a new computer now, Vista x64 is the only way to go :) XP just won't support new hardware, or you won't get the full benefit of new hardware. An example of this is DX 10/10.1 on new graphics cards, USB 3 when it comes out, along with many other features. Microsoft is not wrong in not supporting these for XP, XP is a tired operating system and shouldn't be used on new high spec computers. If someone has a good enough computer (in reality, not by their perception of what's good), and has it set up correctly and disabling some features of Vista, such as programme Superfetch which I have posted about the correct way to disable in another post a while ago (the most widely spread information on how to disable it is wrong, and may lead to worse performance), along with many others the peformance is actually quite decent. If you use a properly set up and updated Vista x64, and then look at XP, you find XP isn't as good as what you remember. In fact XP can be slower and crash more than Vista!

Microsoft was just trying to maximise profits like any other business, and I for one will not be recommending the 32 bit version of Windows 7, if they do release it, as it will be pointless - imagine by that stage how many people will have 4gb of RAM? Microsoft won't be able to shake the Vista image in this case! As said previously, PAE has been around a long time but is definitely not reliable unless in Server environments with minimal outlaying specs of systems, and this is why its disabled under Vista. Its just not compatible with much of the hardware out there! - it would be a nightmare to implement by hardware manufacturers through their software, and all can be avoided by migrating to x64.

Buying a new Nehalem rig, with 6gb of RAM Windows 7 x64 is definitely an attractive option. Only a fool would use a Nehalem system with XP, or limit it to 3gb of ram to use with 32 bit Vista.

[Shakey_Jake33]

A nice, non-pretentious name. Great.

I agree that Microsoft should have shipped Vista as 64-bit only, it would have boosted 64-bit adoption, and we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now where people are somewhat stuck at 2-3GB RAM because of irrational 64-bit phobia caused by inaccurate heresay and rumours about 64-bit compatiblity 'issues'. But we know Microsoft desperately wanted to promote the illusion that Vista would work on hardware as low as 1GHz.

Real disappointing they're seemingly attempting to continue that with Windows 7, however.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I agree that Microsoft should have shipped Vista as 64-bit only

And ignore all people with none-64-Bit CPU's ???

Why should they have limited the range of possible customers? Their target is to sell, sell, sell ...


(From a user's perspective they should have given WinXP x64 more attention instead of releasing Vista)

[Inventive Software]

XP x64 was kind-of a WIP kludge of 64-bit server code and 32-bit desktop code. It should die a horrible death as soon as.

[video_magic]

Why not XP SP3 + updates?

......

When I installed SP3 (tried it a couple of times) I remember I had problems with it feeling slower and periodically less responsive.
When I stay with SP2, and just install selected updates which I have already got saved, and a few driver updates, my system runs fine.


I've paid enough over the years for different Windows (and DOS) since 199x, and been mislead and lied too even, by Microsoft - I see no reason in giving them any more of my money when I have got a system that does what I want just about.

[burfadel]

And ignore all people with none-64-Bit CPU's ???

Why should they have limited the range of possible customers? Their target is to sell, sell, sell ...


(From a user's perspective they should have given WinXP x64 more attention instead of releasing Vista)

There aren't too many new machines that aren't 64 bit, I believe only the bottom of the bottom Intel Cpu's are (or are they). In any case, it wouldn't be too wrong for me to say any CPU that doesn't have x64 instructions shouldn't be running Vista in the first place. For those using old Pentium 4's, in most cases they do not have the specs to run Vista, in terms of both graphics and more importantly memory! If Vista was only x64 bit, then only x64 capable CPU's would be produced. Its only the fact that there is a 32 bit option that 32 bit CPU's are/were still being produced! In fact, it does not cost any extra for those CPU's to have the x64 instructions, its only a marketing exercise to represent the bottom of the bottom end CPU's.

Basically, those that cannot run x64 should stick with XP, there would be very few people without x64 capable CPU's that find Vista's speed adequate when compared to XP's. Vista is only suitable if you have a computer that is capable enough for it (in reality, not what people think is capable enough)!

If you really want speed, you should try out Windows 98SE, or even Windows 95 or 3.11. They really fly, 3.11 loads up instantaneously, and even 98SE is stupidly fast and runs Office 97 and other apps of the day with lightning speed, even on computers where Vista seems a bit sluggish. Windows 3.11, 95/98SE etc do not have the features required to get the most out of new systems, and thats EXACTLY the principle behind XP and Vista. Vista does not represent too much of an advantage over XP for 32 bit applications, except for Directx 10 (and 10.1 with SP1 for ATI users). Actually Directx 10 games are those that require large amounts of RAM, and Vista 32 bit is limited to 3gb!, 4gb is much more suitable.

Thats why I say to people, and its truthful, that Vista x86 does not give you anything that XP doesn't give, especially for older computers. For new, high spec computers its almost pointless running Vista x86 not only due to the memory constraints, but also because Vista x64 has been proven to be faster (look it up) :). Not to mention that it is future proofed for future applications that may make use of 64 bit instructions.

All the above aside, it would also be better for hardware vendors, since they would only have to test and qualify one driver instead of two!

Microsoft wouldn't have lost out so much since there wouldn't be so much negativity towards Vista since those with inadequate older systems wouldn't be able to run it anyway! And by having a 2gb memory install limit even though initially they may have been limiting the market for the OS, in the long run the usage would be similar and since there would be those limitations in place, systems would be capable of running it, significantly limiting the complaints about its speed, often by those that have old Pentium 4's with 1gb of ram, which is definitely not adequate to run it. Microsoft would also have benefitted since they wouldn't have to test and develop two operating systems, and patches thereof. Actually there are three base versions of Vista, x86, x64 and IA64.

[KoD]

Vista had to be toned down because Microsoft's hardware OEM partners told it they can't sell hardware able to run Vista and expect to make a profit out of it.

Also, what kind of applications are you using on a desktop PC that requires 6 GB of memory, may I ask ? How common is that scenario for 80% of the buying customers out there ? And do you really believe that most companies, and even individuals that buy computers' most important requirement is to be able to play games, and require the latest DirectX for that ?

Yes, a switch to 64 bit systems will happen, but that's mainly because all CPUs that are going to be sold will be 64 bit, and drivers will finally have matured without causing bsods like it was in the beginning when Vista was launched. Now, these are some sensible reasons. Speed of execution is rarely a factor that is really taken into account, otherwise you'll naver have slow, managed, memory hungry and memory trashing Net or Java applications so widespread out there, you'll only have native code applications. And I'm speaking of application servers here, where speed is supposedly important.

Please consider coming back from the imaginary world you are living in, and come down to terms with reality as fast as possible. It's for your own long term benefit.

[burfadel]

My point of 6GB was referring to Nehalem systems, not your everyday E8200. The first Nehalem's to be released will have triple channel memory (socket 1366), so you are limited to either 3gb of ram or 6gb of ram to get the throughput benefit. I have read that if you run 2gb or 4gb (2x1gb or 2x2gb) of RAM you simply do not get dual channel memory, you get single channel memory. That is a lot of bandwidth loss! Later Nehalems will be released with dual channel memory, however they will be using a lower end socket 1160. As far as I am concerned, if you want to buy such a high end system buying only 3gb of RAM seems to be limiting yourself, and your next step up is 6gb, where x64 is your only option. Thats what I was referring to! Sure, there will probably be many companies selling high end Nehalem computers with only 3gb of RAM, but as far as I am concerned thats pointless. If you want to spend so much on a performance processor, then you obviously want to either make it last or use it for high end gaming or video editing, both of which benefit from more RAM. Not to mention Vista loves RAM.

All the above aside, regardless of whether 32 bit was a good idea for Vista or not, in my opinion its not a good idea for Windows 7 to come in 32 bit simply because of the memory limitations with NEW systems, and especially memory limitations with Nehalem. You're free to run single channel or 3gb yourself if you end up with a socket 1366 machine, as long as you don't mind the processor waiting for data to be paged from the disk :)

I should put out I'm a realist, and I don't stick with one brand just because its got the name. I buy what I believe is the best value for money at the time that suits my wants or needs. I simply do not see Vista x86 as beneficial over XP, and I am definitely not the only person that has that opinion.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

XP x64 was kind-of a WIP kludge of 64-bit server code and 32-bit desktop code. It should die a horrible death as soon as.

WinXP works 100% stable and it doesn't come with all the annoying crap of Vista. Plus it's far less demanding for the hardware.

Nope, it's Vista that is superfluous!

Of course I see the reason for M$ to release and push Vista while keeping WinXP x64 small. Their job is to sell licenses and make money... :rolleyes:

[Shakey_Jake33]

XP x64 was kind-of a WIP kludge of 64-bit server code and 32-bit desktop code. It should die a horrible death as soon as.

XP 64-bit works lovely here, thank you.

[Ajax_Undone]

TO take reason to all arguments.. Vlite and nlite take and allow you to remove the bloat from both Vista and XP both 64/32 versions... As far as I can see they are just the same crap only one has more of it.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

TO take reason to all arguments.. Vlite and nlite take and allow you to remove the bloat from both Vista and XP both 64/32 versions... As far as I can see they are just the same crap only one has more of it.

Maybe right. But tell us one single thing that Vista does actually better than WinXP x64...

(And don't say the new 3D theme, that is just useless bling-bling. Also don't say DX10, that could have been released for WinXP very well. They just didn't want to)

[Inventive Software]

From what I read, it allocates memory far better than any previous version of Windows. Which it should, it being based on server code.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

First you say the XP x64 is useless, because it's based on 64-Bit server code and now you say the same reason makes Vista superior :p

Besides that: An improved memory manager is worth a Patch. Maybe it's worth a Service Pack. But is it worth a new and bloated OS? Definitely not!

[Ajax_Undone]

Maybe right. But tell us one single thing that Vista does actually better than WinXP x64...

(And don't say the new 3D theme, that is just useless bling-bling. Also don't say DX10, that could have been released for WinXP very well. They just didn't want to)

Ummm uh well nope can't think of anything... Like I said in my second post same old windows With new crap added...

Bit locker drive encryption and speech to text are not worth the amount of money they are asking for... My vote is that they should release the new Windows 7 for only x64 bit and I think that I Will Not buy it till at leased SP1 if not SP2... The Speed of the next release tells me that Vista isn't and wasn't doing to hot on the market at 500USD a pop...

I am also hearing chatter about Office 2011 and MP12. And it just sounds like more eye candy. So all those out there looking to get them. Fairly warned; says I...

WMP 12 has a whole new DRM System in place and Office 2011 is just another UI face lift...

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Bit locker drive encryption....

Before I trust M$ to protect my data, I'd rather use TrueCrypt with "Full System Encryption" and Pre-Boot Authentication :cool:

Works with WinXP, it's OpenSource and it certainly doesn't have any backdoors...

[burfadel]

As I said, Vista (and Windows 7) is only beneficial on the latest hardware, there is no benefit to older hardware and it can run slower simply due to limited memory that older systems have. Vista shines on new hardware that has 4gb of RAM (x64), and in my opinion is far more stable than XP ever was. I'm not talking about RTM here, XP RTM wasn't exactly a shining example of an OS either! Its for the simple fact that Vista has no benefit for older systems that a 32 bit version shouldn't have been released. If a 32 bit version wasn't released, then people with older computers couldn't complain about it being slow simply because its not available to them! XP should have had one final upgrade, to the Server 2003 code like XP x64, helps with maintaining it as well, and still be sold with the low end computers. For everyone else have Vista x64 with a 2gb minimum to ensure performance! They could even make some money with the server changeover code by charging a nominal fee, say $25, for the purchase of it and extending the licence to the end date of Server 2003, which will be maintained longer than XP. Thats sensible greed, Vista 32 bit is stupid greed. The update of XP to 5.2 (release 2, service pack 3, whatever you want to call it) would actually save them money as well, even if they didn't charge for it. There would be 2 less operating systems to maintain, and it would advantage hardware vendors like I said previously as you only need one vista driver, and server 2003 (5.2) uses the same drivers as XP!

I think the poor success of Vista supports my argument.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Vista shines on new hardware that has 4gb of RAM (x64), and in my opinion is far more stable than XP ever was.

WinXP x64 is able to use 4+ GB of RAM just fine, which it does on my machine. Also tell me how stability can be improved over 100% ??? :p

I'm yet to see the first bluescreen or system freeze during regular work on my WinXP x64 machine...

[burfadel]

WinXP x64 is able to use 4+ GB of RAM just fine, which it does on my machine. Also tell me how stability can be improved over 100% ??? :p

I'm yet to see the first bluescreen or system freeze during regular work on my WinXP x64 machine...

My statement is still correct, I said XP not XP x64. XP x64 uses the same code as Server 2003 and Server 2003 x64, which is 5.2. XP is only 5.1. Before moving to Vista x64 I had XP x64, and I agree that the reliability and performance of XP x64 far outshines XP as well.

[Shakey_Jake33]

I've been using XP 64-bit for the past 5 or 6 months, and I've been extremely impressed with it. I'm no Vista hater by any means, but there are specific (admittedly quite obscure) games which I play that clashed with Vista's audio stack (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If22zfLggA4). Ultimately, I'm going to use the operating system that is best for the programs and applications that I use, and I went with 64-bit because it allows me to use the full 4GB RAM of my laptop.

It doesn't deserve the bad reputation it's somehow gained, it's performed just as good as standard XP for me. You just have to be prepared to jump through a few hoops now and again (such as downloading the Windows Live Messenger .msi file because the Live Installer doesn't work, or grabbing the 64-bit Windows Media codecs from the Windows Media Encoder, etc.).

[burfadel]

Yes sometimes Microsoft programmes don't work properly with Windows, silly isn't it? A very large number of people can't get Call Of Duty to work on any flavour of Windows for example, and its a MS game!

[turbojet]

How are the XP x64 users playing blurays?

[LoRd_MuldeR]

How are the XP x64 users playing blurays?

No different then anybody else, I guess :confused:

[Shakey_Jake33]

I assume turbojet is refering to a UDF2.5 driver, maybe.

[turbojet]

I was asking because I don't know of any UDF 2.5 driver for xp x64 outside of anyDVD-HD which is around the same price as vista.
UDF 2.5 is the only thing useful in the video realm I can think of that vista x264 has, but xp x64 lacks.

For the average joe this is a pretty big deal.

[talen9]

Yes sometimes Microsoft programmes don't work properly with Windows, silly isn't it? A very large number of people can't get Call Of Duty to work on any flavour of Windows for example, and its a MS game!

Bad example, I'd say ... developed byInfinity Ward, published by Activision, which is now owned by Vivendi (per Wikipedia) ... I doesn't see any link to Redmond ;)

[LoRd_MuldeR]

I was asking because I don't know of any UDF 2.5 driver for xp x64 outside of anyDVD-HD which is around the same price as vista.

PowerDVD for example claims to require "Windows XP or Windows Vista" to "play Blu-ray Discs".
And WinDVD lists "Windows XP SP2, Windows Vista" as minimal requirements for "Blu-ray Discs".

So, no problem for Blue-ray playback on WinXP, all the popular s/w players should work...

[turbojet]

Sure both those player will play blurays. But how do you get xp x64 to recognize the bluray without buying anydvd-hd?
Those players cant play it if windows cant recognize the bluray.

[kinematic]

The thing I don't understand is why alot of consumers play the "upgrade your hardware" game every time MS releases a new OS and claims you need the latest stuff for optimal performance. The only thing MS does one OS after another is screw the consumer. Can you imagine a Linux distro saying you need the latest and greatest to run their OS......nobody would ever touch it yet when MS says it the consumer falls in line like the good sheeple they are.

[LoRd_MuldeR]

Sure both those player will play blurays. But how do you get xp x64 to recognize the bluray without buying anydvd-hd?
Those players cant play it if windows cant recognize the bluray.

I'm pretty sure they can ;)

I've never seen any remark like "this player requires AnyDVD to play Blue-ray on Windows XP" on the PowerDVD or WinDVD web-site :p

[turbojet]

Ugh, try those players in xp x64 if you dont believe me. Even in xp x86 you need to install a udf 2.5 driver (free one is available but not for x64) to recognize blurays.
Vista x86 and x64 natively support UDF 2.5.

[Satviewer2012]

Well eventually, MS will discontinue support for XP. They cannot be expected to continually funnel money into XP support without making money out of it, it just would not make business sense. Since they aren't selling many new machines with XP pre-installed, and few, if any, people are still purchasing the XP operating system off the shelves, MS isn't making much (if any) money off XP anymore. So at some point due to lack of hardware and software support, we will be forced to upgrade to the next operating system (just as we upgraded from Win98) whether we want to or not.

[Shakey_Jake33]

I asked the same question a few months ago and got pointed to this file.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=140021

[turbojet]

Oh nice find, I will try it out, thanks!

[zambelli]

I'm usually all for simplicity, but I really think "Windows 7" is a terrible name. Windows versioning over the years has been arbitrary at best. The whole argument for calling this the "7th generation of Windows" completely glosses over the fact that Windows 3.1 and Windows NT 3.x were COMPLETELY different operating systems yet used the same major version number. Same goes for Windows 95/98/ME and NT 4.0. Different kernels, same version number. Based on that logic, XP should've been "Windows 6", and Windows 7 should've been like "Windows 8" or "Windows 9" or something. :confused:

I wouldn't be surprised if the final product name ends up being different after all.

[zambelli]

Microsoft was just trying to maximise profits like any other business, and I for one will not be recommending the 32 bit version of Windows 7.
No, trust me, it wasn't a business-driven decision or a political decision. Remember than the Vista (aka Longhorn) product development started in 2003 when 32-bit computing was still the norm. All internal build processes were designed for x86 primarily and had to be extended to x64 once the decision was made to simul-build everything in 64-bit.
And the so-called x64 paranoia wasn't entirely without reason. Microsoft, unlike Apple, depends on hundreds, possibly thousands of hardware vendors, all of which must be rock stable at launch time if the OS is expected to be rock stable. Going to every hardware vendor in 2004 or 2005 and saying "You have to rewrite all your driver code for x64 because we'll no longer support x86" would've probably delayed Vista until year 2063.

[burfadel]

Still Windows 7 shouldn't be released as 32 bit, there are already many people who have found the 3gb limit of 32 bit and it doesn't really allow for good gaming to by stuck with 3gb for the next few years. Those that are business oriented should stick with Vista SP2 (when it comes out), they don't need the VistaSE. Windows 7 is just an updated Vista, don't let Microsoft fool you in to thinking otherwise. Its is Windows 6.1, they just want to separate it from the negativity surround vista.

[audyovydeo]

Call me old-fashioned (after all, the only software I ever bought were OS/2 2.1 and Solaris/x86 2.6) but I tend to think of RAM as something needed by my applications, on top of the OS footprint.
The fact that M$oft has made it acceptable to intelligent people that an OS requires 2 freaking Gigabytes of RAM is a tribute to M$oft marketing.

Which is why the M$ naming scheme is just more vapourware to me. I've proposed elsewhere to rename "Windows" to "Footprint" :


Microsoft Footprint 7 version 6.1.xxxx



cheers
audyovydeo