Windows 7 Is Here! Don't Give Vista SP1 and XP SP3 a Second Look

Windows 7, the successor of Windows Vista and the next iteration of Windows is here. Forget about Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows XP Service Pack 3, Microsoft has currently began serving an early development milestone of its next Windows operating system to partners.

Before Steven Sinofsky, having moved from leading the building of the Office System, and currently the Senior Vice President, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, took the helm of the Windows development project from Jim Allchin, former Co-President, Platforms & Services Division, the successor of Windows Vista was referred to internally with the codename Windows Vienna.

This aspect has changed under Sinofsky, and Microsoft is currently hard at work developing Windows 7. the number illustrates a strategy to label products in development by their product number rather than a codename. And since Windows Vista was the sixth Windows operating system to come out of Redmond...

Although Microsoft has yet to serve the final bits for Vista SP1 and XP SP3, key partners of the company have already received the "Milestone 1" (M1) of Windows 7 for code validation purposes, sources indicated to TG Daily. These first Windows 7 bits are nothing more than a very early development milestone of the next version of Windows. At this point in time, Windows 7 M1 is in alpha stage.

Windows 7 M1 has shipped in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, but only in English. The alpha build of Windows 7 also comes with a new edition of Windows Media Center, no word yet if the release is in any way connected with Windows Fiji. As Vista brought to the table the first integrated version of Windows Media Center, Windows Fiji was planned as the next version of WMC but as a standalone product. In addition, Windows 7 M1 also features the ability of joggling with multiple graphics cards from different manufacturers simultaneously. In this manner Microsoft is introducing support for interoperable heterogeneous graphics system.

While Windows 7 M1 has already been made available for testing to a selected group of Microsoft partners, the second milestone of the next Windows version is planned at this point in time for April/May 2008, with M3 supposedly dropping in the third quarter of this year. The Beta and Release Candidate dates have not been determined so far. Still, the first beta of Windows 7 could be made available in early 2008, with the release to manufacturing date moved from 2010 to 2009. Microsoft has so far failed to offer official confirmation of Windows 7 M1.

Source: Softpedia

http://www.msfn.org/comments.php?shownews=21756

I hope this operating system will be better than Vista, though I think 2009 is a bit too early. Lets hope Microsoft learned their lesson this time and make an operating system that is less bloated and more efficient. But whatever, if the money is in for them.... fine by me.

i also think that it is way too early. there is no time for adding new features and seeing how the public responds to it

when it be released let`s buy it.....it`s still so far,I think...you know, the Beta period of Windows Server 2008 will end in March....

I just don't get it. XP is a perfectly usable OS that runs most software reasonably well on most hardware - given a knowledgable user. Vista is a huge step backwards with regards to everyday usability - but the oh-so-colorful interface made a lot of people actually buy the marketing hype. Vista introduced a lot of new problems that have never been heard of in the days of XP. Even today its real-world performance is nowhere near that of XP. And yet, with so many questions unanswered by Vista there are fanboys crowding to carry yet another hype?

Why is it that people are so eager to burn good money on a mere operating system? Ask people why they bought Vista - you get "Directx 10!" as a reply. Wow, so all Microsoft will have to do is make Directx 11 yet another proprietary technolgy to boost their sales of Windows 7.

um.. actually vista is a step forward for me in everyday usability. it makes things alot easier to do. why do you hate it so much?

Vista is a good OS. if you compare it with XP SP0, its a GREAT OS. It has a few issues that don't exist in XP but all in all, if the hardware is capable of it and good drivers are available for a given system, I would rather deploy a Vista machine than a XP SP2 (or SP3) machine.

The first reason is my PCs are used by students. Some like using tech thats familiar to them while others feel like we are 'being cheap' if we have dont have the latest greatest software, then we are not teaching them anything that will be relevant to their future. (better example is office: no one wants to learn MS office 2003 once they know that MS office 2007 is different)

The second being people treat newer technology better. if i deploy and old PC out to an area where it cant be monitored well, people will beat the hell out of it. You would think they would get more frustrated with newer tech but that hasnt been the case for years. In my environment, if its new it gets treated better if its old 'junk' then people get the impression that its ok to trash it.

The third being that with XP there is so much about the OS that I have changed on my different builds its like working with 10 different OSes. XP seems like its just been patched so much that its struggling to keep up with the market. also the security in it seems like an afterthought (not that im a fan of UAC -actually the opposite i think its a step in the right direction for the home 'user' but too naggy for a corporate/academic enviroment)

What I wish MS would have done with Vista was ship it in x64 and make the x86 version available (exactly opposite of what they did) because seriously, any new PC that ships with vista is gonna have an X64 core and anyone wanting to upgrade a 'high end' x86 only machine could still use the x86 version. but if they are actually planning on dropping 7 in 2009, if they drop it as x64 being the main version (or only version) then the decision to keep Vista primarily 32bit makes more sense. Unfortunately that would make Vista exactly what ME was supposed to be (a transitional product for older PCs) but if it means getting the PC market to using a 64 bit architecture, then its worth it because I think weve reached the limit of what we can do in x86.

What I wish MS would have done with Vista was ship it in x64 and make the x86 version available (exactly opposite of what they did) because seriously, any new PC that ships with vista is gonna have an X64 core and anyone wanting to upgrade a 'high end' x86 only machine could still use the x86 version. but if they are actually planning on dropping 7 in 2009, if they drop it as x64 being the main version (or only version) then the decision to keep Vista primarily 32bit makes more sense.

I don't think this will happen yet until more software and drivers become *stable* under x64. I'm not sure about Win7 yet, but you can still run it in both flavors, so perhaps Vista wasn't the last x86 OS after all...

Why I hate Vista?

I've posted this before, and I'll post it again. I hate it because its slow, a memory resource hog (Which is the main reason why I hate it so much), has a lot of issues, and its impossible for you to copy huge files and file copying takes longer than previous Windows which is even more annoying. The folder layout is just horrible and the toolbar looks ugly.

I'll wait till Windows 7 comes out, hopefully that won't disappoint and by that time Microsoft would have learned their lesson.

I hate it because its slow, a memory resource hog (Which is the main reason why I hate it so much), has a lot of issues, and its impossible for you to copy huge files and file copying takes longer than previous Windows which is even more annoying.

While those are vague, I'm sure you have your reasons for feeling this way. That stuff can almost always be corrected, but I understand some people just don't have good luck running Vista on their hardware.

The folder layout is just horrible and the toolbar looks ugly.

Well, personally I liked the W2K interface myself, but aero and the new breadcrumb and explorer layout actually grew on me over the past two years. I actually like it now .

I'll wait till Windows 7 comes out, hopefully that won't disappoint and by that time Microsoft would have learned their lesson.

Bad news for you, then - Win7, based on Vista. If you don't like Vista, Win7 isn't gonna be your cup-o-tea then either.

win7 kernel is base of servercore of server 2008

win7 kernel is base of servercore of server 2008

...which is also the same as the Vista SP1 kernel. It will be similar to 2000, based on NT's kernel with only minor changes, or XP based on the 2000 kernel with only minor changes. Vista's kernel was a huge change from XP, so I don't expect another huge jump just yet.

Well, personally I liked the W2K interface myself, but aero and the new breadcrumb and explorer layout actually grew on me over the past two years. I actually like it now .

I'm in the same boat here. When I first saw screenshots, I thought to myself "what a waste of space". But then you realize that the "wasted space" (1) can be turned off and (2) can be useful for organizing your data. The breadcrumb layout is MUCH faster to use than anything available in XP, and in terms of overall usability everything "fits". All of the menus and options for the Vista-like programs are in the same place. Sure, it takes you a couple of days to re-learn where they are, but once you do, it's the same for all of them - Explorer, IE7, Office 2007 (Outlook is the only noticable exception), Photo Gallery, WMP11, etc etc. You now have just one major learning to do, and the rest falls into place.

@thunderbolt - I personally find Vista to be much faster on my laptop than XP was. When I say faster... I say it with a grain of salt. Two major factors come into play with this. First - Vista handles my multitasking much better than XP does. I can run a simulation in Matlab and not worry about it bogging down the rest of my system (I'm still running a single-core CPU on my laptop) - switching back to another program is much smoother and there's far less delay. Secondly - I can go about my work much faster. For example, when starting a program - hit the start button, type the first few characters, press enter - *presto* - Program's opened. Before, I'd have to take my mouse or touchpad, move it to an icon or the start menu... You might laugh at this, but when you've got your fingers on the keyboard already, that extra second to move the mouse makes a difference in terms of time and ergonomics.

I just don't get it. XP is a perfectly usable OS that runs most software reasonably well on most hardware - given a knowledgable user. Vista is a huge step backwards with regards to everyday usability - but the oh-so-colorful interface made a lot of people actually buy the marketing hype. Vista introduced a lot of new problems that have never been heard of in the days of XP. Even today its real-world performance is nowhere near that of XP. And yet, with so many questions unanswered by Vista there are fanboys crowding to carry yet another hype?

People said the same thing when Windows 2000 was released...and then again when Windows XP was released. Honestly, XP wasn't all that great until SP2 was released. Windows 2000 wasn't all that great until SP3, and some would argue maybe not even until SP4. I have a feeling we're going to see much the same with Vista...SP1 is going to make things better, SP2 will make it great. It's not exactly a bad operating system now. As someone else mentioned, it's definitely better than XP was at RTM or even SP1.

Ask people why they bought Vista - you get "Directx 10!" as a reply. Wow, so all Microsoft will have to do is make Directx 11 yet another proprietary technolgy to boost their sales of Windows 7.

I'm pretty sure that since Windows 7 is based on the Vista/Srv 2008 kernel that DX11, and probably DX12, will work on Vista. Let's look at DX9 for example...it was ported all the way back to Windows 98. The main reason that DX10 wasn't ported back to XP is because the driver model in the Vista kernel is completely different from 2000/XP. Could they have done it? Sure. But do you realize how much of a headache that would've been for hardware manufacturers? It's bad enough as it is right now that they have to develop different drivers for Vista than they do for XP. Now throw DX10 into the mix on XP...now we have three different possible drivers; 1 for XP w/ DX9, 1 for XP w/ DX10 and one for Vista. Not to mention what that would do for games developers.