Windows 7 to skip straight to release candidate stage

All that praise about the Windows 7 beta’s relative polish may not be unwarranted. According to a post on the Engineering Windows 7 blog, Microsoft doesn’t plan to release any additional Windows 7 betas—instead, it will skip straight to the release candidate stage.

Windows Engineering Senior VP Steven Sinofsky states plainly, “The next milestone for the development of Windows 7 is the Release Candidate,” although he notes out that his post “is in no way an announcement of a ship date, change in plans, or change in our previously described process.” Indeed, Microsoft purportedly told partners about its plans for a single beta at the Professional Developers Conference last year.

Right now, Microsoft is sifting through user feedback and focusing heavily on “quality and performance,” which should help get Windows 7 to a “known shippable state”—that’s the RC build. The release candidate will be provided as a refresh for the beta, and Sinofsky expects a “broad set of folks to be pretty interested in trying it out.” (His post doesn’t specify whether the RC will get a public release.)

If everything goes smoothly, Microsoft could start shipping Windows 7 before the holiday season. That’s not a given, though. Windows Senior VP Bill Veghte told CNet News last month that that the shipping schedule “could go either way,” and Windows 7 might ship before or after the holidays depending on polish and ecosystem support.

Comments closed
    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 14 years ago

    Epic fail. You in no way are able to back up your outlandish and non-factual claims and resort entirely to ad hominem attacks because you refuse to see that yours is an entirely emotional, rather than factual, argument.

    Part of the problem with thinking that these features mean something is that you fail to grasp that there’s always been an abundance of freeware on the pc side that the Mac doesn’t have (though slightly better since the dawn of OS X). Again, claiming that these differences are more significant than Win95 to Win 7 is sheer idiocy, But I won’t keep you from hugging your mac night and day if that’s what you want to do.

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    I did the Vista32 to Win7-32 upgrade on a brand new notebook, and it went real well. I didn’t lose anything, and Win7 is much smoother. Had to uninstall mcaffee, but I didn’t want it anyway.

    Win7 does look a bit more mac-ish, with the widgets. I kinda like the clock and calendar, but I disabled the slideshow. I tried a .NET app we wrote, and it works well with Win7 – apparently the framework was already installed.

    • jss21382
    • 14 years ago

    I’d upgrade from vista to win7 in a heartbeat, the beta running on one of my old machines is much faster/smoother than my newer machine running vista sp1, now if vista sp2 turns it into windows 7 minus some features I’ll stick with vista on that machine.

    • clone
    • 14 years ago

    r[

    • bozzunter
    • 14 years ago

    I understand you have problems with reading:

    “Here I’ll be you for a minute: “There are more differences between Vista and Windows 7 than from Mac OS 6.x to 10.5.x”. Sounds idiotic, no?”

    I just said “from 10.4 to 10.5” but I understand they’re too big numbers for someone who may be able to count from 1 to 2.

    About the rage: I simply quoted the main new features from 10.4 to 10.5, but I understand you didn’t get it.

    • axeman
    • 14 years ago

    I don’t whine about it. If Microsoft didn’t pander to all the whiners who expect all there old crap to work forever more, the Windows OS would be altogether better for it.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    I disagree, but I would support the statement than 10.0 -> 10.5 was something along those lines. They’re like two entirely different operating systems yet both are somehow “10”

    • ltcommander.data
    • 14 years ago

    One justification of the number change from Tiger to Leopard and the charge for it is support for full 64-bit apps. Another is improved security through sandboxing and application signing among other improvements. Afterall, improved security is one of the major justifications for Vista over XP. Another justification for some might be full UNIX certification. Others from a development perspective include Core Animation to make it easier to develop more graphically complex/interactive user interfaces in applications, new Objective-C 2.0 language, integration of Python and Ruby into the core Cocoa frameworks as a development option, integrated DTrace for in depth performance analysis, etc.

    These are major under the hood changes, besides user facing new features like Time Machine, Spaces, Quick Look, Boot Camp, etc.

    • destroy.all.monsters
    • 14 years ago

    Yes and these are *so much more* than the difference between Win 95 and Win 7? Precisely how?

    Let’s see – you made an asinine comment and you were called on it. You follow up by bringing up things are in no way supportive of your first comment. So you are either a mac zealot or have no clear grasp of logic and argumentation, or are brain damaged. Pick one.

    Here I’ll be you for a minute: “There are more differences between Vista and Windows 7 than from Mac OS 6.x to 10.5.x”. Sounds idiotic, no?

    I’m glad you have an OS you like. We all need something we can work with. But getting emotional about an operating system is idiotic and what you’re presenting here isn’t an argument – it’s a moment of undirected nerd rage.

    Me – I’ll consider the mac when they get a real file system, dump the antiquated drop down menus and bar and have a user interface that looks (more) like Nextstep and less like Lifesavers. But I sure don’t *love* Windows.

    • bozzunter
    • 14 years ago

    Let me see…

    Quick look (I explain it as you’ve surely never seen Mac Os apart from reading/writing in a post) – You can instantly open any file with spacebar

    Time Machine – Backup system with version history

    Spaces – Deals with virtual desktop

    Expose – F9 – You see all the windows opened at a glance. F10 – You see all the instances of the program opened. F11 – You see the desktop

    Much improved Applescript, which lets you automate almost everything.

    Stacks – to deal with files from the dock

    New sidebar in Finder – To access groups of items, favourite folders and so on, compare it to Explorer window…

    Of course this is just Apple’s hype, so go on babbling on Mac Os.

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    “There are more differences between Mac Os X 10.4 to 10.5 than from Windows 95 to Windows 7.”

    I’d like some of what you’re smoking.

    • bozzunter
    • 14 years ago

    There are more differences between Mac Os X 10.4 to 10.5 than from Windows 95 to Windows 7.

    From Vista to Windows 7 there are basically a polished UAC (which should be done in the first instance), a new taskbar and people say they love new features, pretty funny.

    As far as I’m concerned, I’ll be glad if Windows 7 will work with my 20 PCs, that’s all. To expect from Microsoft a bunch of features which make you increase your everyday productivity is useless, as much as the rubbish which is constantly posted here about Mac Os.

    • thebeastie
    • 14 years ago

    If MS are genuine about making a good product and not just squeezing max profits it will release this new version of their OS 64bit only.

    There is no argument its going to need more memory and everyone body knows Vista can’t have enough memory, using Vista enjoyably under 32bit with a max of 3.5gigs available is a bad greed fueled joke.

    • UberGerbil
    • 14 years ago

    Yes and XP was a Win2K service pack.

    Never mind. Troll on.

    • clone
    • 14 years ago

    isn’t this Vista service pack 2 by another name?

    • jstern
    • 14 years ago

    How did they screw it up?

    • UberGerbil
    • 14 years ago

    Actually, I’d suggest $199 Ultimate, $149 Business, $99 Home, and a $49 upgrade from Vista (though that would be tricky to enforce with the actual media, they certainly could use the activation database as a way of offering rebates to existing Vista retail customers).

    • UberGerbil
    • 14 years ago

    You don’t want a game that has DX10 “support” — you want a game that was designed around DX10. Quick ports from DX9 and bolted-on alternate codepaths aren’t really going to offer much, as the current games show. Unfortunately, because of the slow uptake of Vista there wasn’t a lot of interest on the part of the studios to put in the effort and swallow the cost of a DX10 rewrite. And with studios closing left and right, that may not change for a while even if Win7 takes over the world.

    • UberGerbil
    • 14 years ago

    You already posted the same thing in the forums, and I responded there. You shouldn’t expect the latest drivers to make it into any given beta, and your feedback should go to Intel, not MS.

    • Krogoth
    • 14 years ago

    I am not certain, but AHCI drives seemed to be the cause of my NTFS meltdown on the “7” partition.

    • derubermensch
    • 14 years ago

    Symmetrically opposite experience over here. 7 has been nothing but a dream to use on a refurbished Compaq CQ50-105NR laptop with an Nvidia 8200m video chipset. The only defect I noticed was WMP12 needing polish (IE8 as well but that update is already in the pipeline).

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 14 years ago

    I’ve personally never seen it in person.

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 14 years ago

    He’s being sarcastic. dx10 so far hasn’t brought anything new to the table outside of tech demo’s.

    • shaq_mobile
    • 14 years ago

    is it? i didnt notice a difference… then again i dont really play any dx10 games 😀

    i might reinstall bioshock… whats a good game that has dx10 support? i just recently installed the windows 7 beta and i wanna see some cool special effects!

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    I don’t have the money or the reason to switch to ATI (especially not the reason), so I’ll wait to see if Microsoft and nVidia figure out the above-maximum resolution issue and the refresh rate problems. Stuff work perfectly in Vista, so it can’t be _[

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    Well, in any case I stand corrected.

    You don’t have to format the target partition for the Win7 install.

    The Win7 install will do this for you (c;

    Plus

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    However, Captain Shortsight, it also gives you the tools to create new partitions and start the installation there. I can’t recall if the setup allows shrinking/extending volumes, but you can do that with certain software tools (or with no additional effort by using Vista), prior to the setup, if needed.

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    More on the Win7 “custom” install (only choice if you have XP):

    “THIS OPTION DELETES EVERYTHING ON THE DRIVE OR PARTITION YOU SELECT, INCLUDING YOUR PROGRAMS AND SETTINGS.”

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    Ok – I’m at the install menu for Win7 beta. Here are the options:

    Upgrade: to a newer copy of windows and keep your files settings and programs. (only works from vista>win7)

    Custom: Install a new copy of Windows. THIS OPTION DOES NOT KEEP YOUR FILES SETTINGS AND PROGRAMS. The option to make changes to disks and partitions is available when you start your computer using the installation disk.

    Any questions?

    • ChronoReverse
    • 14 years ago

    And yet ATI’s drivers worked fine from launch in terms of stability.

    Not to mention some of the changes to DX10 was forced by Nvidia themselves.

    • Austin
    • 14 years ago

    r[<>o(<]r I see far too many people with Vista Home Basic, man it sucks total a$$ that M$ would ever release such a pile of poo to make Vista look cheaper. While we're at it I think the big companies penny pinching sucks too, but then that's nothing new I guess.

    • Scrotos
    • 14 years ago

    I did when Win2K got end of lifed and I couldn’t buy a new video card that would work with it because the OS wasn’t supported by ATI or nvidia drivers. And it seemed like more and more games and applications were refusing to install on 2K, instead requiring XP. I ran into that with some game demos a few years back and just said to hell with it, went to XP.

    Now I’m on Vista and not really liking it, but it came with the new computer I got and XP will probably be EOL’ed in a few years so I figure I might as well get used to the new OS. Blah.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    The first element of humor is truth.

    I don’t mind saying that. What I mind is when you lie. 😉

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    Funny how things are like that on the Apple side, whereas everyone complains with bloody tears how Windows keeps breaking backwards compatibility.

    Reminds me of the devotion I’ve seen in that Apple parody video by The Onion, someone said “I’d buy almost anything that’s shiny and made by Apple”.

    • chem
    • 14 years ago

    Windows 7 and AHCI. Anyone noticed problems in the beta with their new SATA drives in AHCI mode and an Intel ICHx board?

    §[<http://derek858.blogspot.com/2009/01/windows-7-intel-sataahci-lockups.html<]§ that blog post indicates that Win7 comes with old drivers, and is not usuable for many/most desktop machines out of the box. Boo! I was hoping to not have to install Intel Matrix drivers with Win7, as they've been a source of crashes for me in XP. also, if you have the beta, please read that post and give MS feedback about the bug. I do not have the beta but I really hope this gets fixed before release.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    Apple is ruthless – backwards compatibility isn’t an issue. Tiger got dropped like a hot potato (with a very few exceptions – iTunes, Safari, security updates) when Leopard released. The same is true of every other Mac OS release since Jobs returned.

    But it’s progress I’m willing to pay for.

    • eitje
    • 14 years ago

    for me – and recognize, this is only true in any substantive fashion for *me* – the only difference between 10.4 and 10.5 is that 10.5 supports the iPhone SDK.

    So, I had to pay twice, just to get that functionality. In all other ways, 10.5 does nothing for me that 10.4 did not already do.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 14 years ago

    Dude, you just said a swear!

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    I invite you to not be so ignorant. At least research a little. Follow the evolution of the OS.

    This link will link to all older versions, as well as discuss the previous 10.4 release:
    §[<http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2005/04/macosx-10-4.ars/2<]§ and this one discusses 10.5: §[<http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5.ars<]§ Look at 10.0, which released in 2001. 10.1 was a free update, 10.0 SP1. Then look at what was added/improved/changed in every release since then.

    • Scrotos
    • 14 years ago

    I dunno, what SKUs does OS X have?

    Retail: 1 license or family pack, 5 licenses.
    Commercial: Server for 10? users, or server for unlimited users.

    The only real difference is retail versus server. They both ship with full 64-bit support and all the whistles and bells except for licenses on the server SKU.

    There’s no OSX Basic, OSX Home, OSX Business, OSX Ultimate, OSX Server, OSX Advanced Server, and OSX Datacenter Edition, throw in 64/32 bit editions for most of those too.

    My point is there’s no honest NEED to split the SKUs that much besides trying to create a market to make more money, which is why people who know, well, anything are bitter about this.

    • alex666
    • 14 years ago

    BS. I installed W7 over an XP installation without any issues.

    • no51
    • 14 years ago

    Yes. Sell ONLY the $399 Ultimate edition and nothing else please. OEM? Retail? One SKU to rule them all!

    • blacksteel
    • 14 years ago

    The experience I’ve had with Windows 7 have been mostly positive. I still think it needs more performance improvements. A single core and 1GB of RAM can do most of the basic tasks like Email, listening to music/video, internet and Office.

    If you are doing more than video editing I would add more than 2GB and use a dual to quad core. It will slow down on heavy applications if you have less.

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    The thing is, what you call “major releases” are hardly so major.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    oh, awesome, let’s change the argument.

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    “Wrong on all counts-Windows 7 Beta can be installed on the same HDD partition as a XP installation.””
    ————————————————————————————
    Ok – so now I have to start the Win7 installation again on an XP machine, so I can cut & paste the error msg.

    My point was simply that if you had Vista – it was a no brainer. If you have XP, it’s a lot more work, not that it wasn’t possible.

    • 5150
    • 14 years ago

    I read that as “One f%#%ing skull”. Perhaps that is what it feels like when you shell out $100 for an upgrade.

    • Vaughn
    • 14 years ago

    From what i’ve read DX11 will be out with Win7, should get more developer support compared to DX10. Anandtech has a good article on it aswell.

    §[<http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=3507<]§

    • Krogoth
    • 14 years ago

    I am afraid that “7” is going to follow the same SKU scheme as Vista.

    • indeego
    • 14 years ago

    I’m still having too much fun with the incredible advantages of DX10. It is like a whole new worldg{<.<}g

    • Krogoth
    • 14 years ago

    Wrong on all counts.

    Windows 7 Beta can be installed on the same HDD partition as a XP installation. However, I would not recommend it. Anyway, you usually have to play around with partitioning if you are installing any new OS.

    Windows 7 is MS’s attempt to sell “Vista SP2” to those who were on the fence for a variety of reasons.

    • albundy
    • 14 years ago

    Which means DX11 will be out along with it, right? Any DX11 video cards out there? New Shader Model? LoL!

    • Vaughn
    • 14 years ago

    Windows 7 is pretty much an upgraded vista. I look forward to its release to play around with it. I honestly think all the people holding out and staying with XP will get a nice slap in the face from windows 7 which is still just vista!

    Most of the people complaining about the hardware requirements are just too cheap to upgrade. I’m referring to home users only not enterprise!

    Computer memory is the cheapest I think i’ve even seen it since i’ve been into computers.

    Bring on Windows 7 aka Vista second Edition!

    • SPOOFE
    • 14 years ago

    I don’t understand your point. Apple puts out updates more frequently and charges for ’em… and Windows puts out new releases less frequently and charges for ’em with sporadic updates for free? Is that an accurate summary of the situation?

    If so… how was he trolling, again?

    EDIT: Nevermind, I re-read your post after I got a little caffeine in my brain; I see what you’re saying.

    • indeego
    • 14 years ago

    If the driver model is almost the exact same as Vista, then shouldn’t every driver for Vista also work for windows 7? This just isn’t the case IME. I had to download 4 separate drivers for my 3 year-old system.

    And if this is the case with a simple beta, then why wouldn’t MS put more public releases out there to make sure drivers are all working when 7 is released?

    Finally, I’ve seen Vista recommend older drivers that present issues even after a user has upgraded to the newest and most stable drivers. This almost certainly is a bug, and I can’t imagine what noobs do when they see this.

    Sounds like Vista almost all over again, at least as far as compatibility goesg{<.<}g

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    You got it the other way around, Microsoft changed the driver model and some OS mechanics relatively shortly before launch. The third party vendors (especially nVidia) could’ve still completed, but everyone agreed that the move wasn’t fair overall.

    Now they have “past experience” and a proper pre-release they should be familiar with since years (nearly Vista), I trust they’ll be able to do it right.

    • derubermensch
    • 14 years ago

    ONE fucking sku!

    • Vaughn
    • 14 years ago

    Dear Novice Computer user,

    No one says you have to buy the new OS if your current one is working perfectly fine!

    Love,
    Common Sense

    • indeego
    • 14 years ago

    I can recall Vista RC1 and RC2 sucking donkey ballistical poo.

    Alls I done know is 7 crashed on me doing the most basic of tasks, and I said, hmmm, ok, maybe I’ll try it again after SP1g{<.<}g

    • maxxcool
    • 14 years ago

    But it does cost $$$ to move to a “new” version (.3 to .4, then .4 to .5).

    Worse I have to buy a mac to get the OS “legally”…

    So I concur with the statement above mine… 600$ to try osx? no thanks.

    • ludi
    • 14 years ago

    If someone is actually still hoarding a machine from 2002 as a primary workhorse, then sure. I don’t think that describes the average computer enthusiast. My XP Pro license that I bought in 2003 has lived on four different system configurations so far.

    • designerfx
    • 14 years ago

    oh and sorry forge, not the comment I intended to reply to

    • designerfx
    • 14 years ago

    Actually, I’ve heard word from a MS developer who is a close friend of mine that Windows 7 actually might be released to Vista users for free. Don’t hold your breath, but it would make sense.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 14 years ago

    Forge is on point.

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    This is my POV. Vista is broken, Win7 is the fix. XP is not broken, and also doesn’t have the same hardware requirements of Vista.

    XP came out in 2002? Meaning many XP machines will not have the hardware to support vista/win7.

    So, people with XP machines built between 2002-2007 will likely just build a new machine to run Win7, while people that bought vista machines in 2008, will likely migrate to Win7.

    Everything I’ve heard about Win7 is good. I’d like to have it on at least one machine.

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    I mis-spoke. I haven’t completed the install yet – but here is what the 2 people that did told me. One said they installed over Vista, and lost nothing. The other said he was on XP, so he chose to format his drive, and do a clean install of Win7. I tried to install it on an XP system, and it said it could not keep my files, that I had to use “custom” as the install type, at which point I decided not to install it on that pc.

    Plus

    • no51
    • 14 years ago

    Kinda hard to pony up $599 to “try out” OS10.

    • Forge
    • 14 years ago

    Yes, because OSX 10.5 released just before Vista and 10.6 will release just before Win7. Oh wait, both MS and Apple charge you for new releases, and MS just got lazy and kicked out nothing between XP and Vista???

    Whoops! Your troll is showing!

    Major OSX releases (10.X.Y to 10.Z.Y) are a paid upgrade, just like Vista->Win7 is. Service pack releases (10.X.Y to 10.X.Y+1) are free, just like MS service packs. They also come out a lot more often while often doing similar amounts of work.

    This ‘Apple charges for service packs’ troll is old, outdated, and makes you look quite the troll. Anyone with a clue knows you’re wrong, and the clueless are being misled. Thanks.

    • Sargent Duck
    • 14 years ago

    You need to get out more.

    I know of many people who have XP on thier machines (including myself) who are eagerly looking forward to Win 7.

    And why would I need a new PC? I have a partition seperated just for my OS, so I wipe XP and install Win 7. Why do I want to keep my old OS files anyways? All my data is stored on other partitions.

    • Forge
    • 14 years ago

    You can upgrade Vista64 to Win7-64. You can upgrade from XP 32 to Vista32 or WIn7-32. You can not upgrade from XP32 to Vista64 or Win7-64.

    You can’t upgrade from XP64 to much of anything, but that’s because MS always hated XP64.

    These are not Win7 issues, they are bitness issues, and they are not new.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    spoken like someone who’s never used OS X

    • tesla120
    • 14 years ago

    Id upgrade, i was a big fan of all the betas and RCs of vista and then they screwed it up on release… if they keep win7 good I think it would be worth the money if you honestly say a use for it. home users wont matter, in the business world though if you had everyone running win7 networking advantages could out weigh the costs

    • Kaleid
    • 14 years ago

    They do that? Sons of..*bleeep*

    • Usacomp2k3
    • 14 years ago

    I’m excited about some of the network-sharing features in Win7, as well as Media Center. We’ll see.

    • PeterD
    • 14 years ago

    If that’s true, they’ll get stuck sooner or later: clienst knowing that you can’t trust the compatibility and efficiency of a new OS, will wait to buy it.
    Vendors knowing the new stuff isn’t sold, will wait to upgrade their drivers.
    Clients noticing the drivers don’t get upgraded, will wait buying the new OS.
    Circle.

    • Xenolith
    • 14 years ago

    Then you will be waiting a long time. 3rd party vendors do their own thing. It doesn’t matter if the release date is April 2009 or April 2012, they won’t be done. That is why MS released Vista when things weren’t done… because the other folks wouldn’t have done any work on driver support without the pressure of Vista being on the street.

    • jstern
    • 14 years ago

    I say, if you have Vista, then stick to it, if not upgrade to Windows 7. For the people who are outraged because they think Microsoft is out to get their money, just think of it as a name change for the same product, that’s not meant to replace what you just bought. I mean if you have a little money upgrade if you want. I look at it more as let say Apple refreshing their macbooks or something, you don’t have to re buy your laptop just because it was refreshed 2 months after you bought it. I guess my problem is with the people who say thing like, “I got Vista and now Microsoft wants me to buy Windows 7. (95, 98, Me, 2000, XP) It just means that every hundred dollars Microsoft would have made in 2010 with Vista, they’re now going to make it with Windows 7.

    • StashTheVampede
    • 14 years ago

    What’s holding up Windows7 from being released in Vista SP2. Get the SP out for the world and Windows7 will be knocking on OEMs doors.

    • khands
    • 14 years ago

    +Infinity, they really need to cut the price of their OS’s, especially in area’s not quite as well off as the US and Western Europe.

    • ludi
    • 14 years ago

    For my part, I have XP, skipped Vista, planning to go to Windows 7 next. Whether that happens on a current machine or on a new build depends on M$’ release schedule.

    • End User
    • 14 years ago

    I’m currently running Vista on two of my systems and Windows 7 beta on my MacBook Pro. The UI for Windows 7 is much better. The new taskbar is a big improvement as is the new windows management functionality (finally!!!!!). The improvements are definitely worth the upgrade as far as I am concerned.

    • jstern
    • 14 years ago

    It’s a conspiracy, right?

    • PetMiceRnice
    • 14 years ago

    My plan right now is to buy a new laptop to replace my Windows XP-based laptop a few months after Windows 7 comes out. For now, Windows XP is doing a great job for me and I don’t expect that to change over the next year. I never did adopt Vista in any shape or form on any computer and I’ve done perfectly well without it. At the same time, I realize XP is not going to be viable forever and so Windows 7 seems a logical upgrade path.

    • Buub
    • 14 years ago

    Nonsense. There’s never any reason for a reformat unless the filesystem is corrupted. You can quite easily do a “clean” install on an existing filesystem. The installer will delete your Windows directory and make a new one. That is no less clean, from an OS perspective, than reformatting the drive. Either will give you a new Windows directory with a fresh OS.

    • kmansj
    • 14 years ago

    Yeah, having to buy your service packs stinks

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    It’s far from done, there are audio and display issues that need to be fleshed out further either in Windows or via the respective vendor drivers, and I’d rather have an OS launch that has everything in place.

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    At least they’re not doing it as often as Apple.

    • Smurfer2
    • 14 years ago

    I’m glad Microsoft loves us. 🙂

    • Arkwald
    • 14 years ago

    Dear computer users,

    Please send us money again.

    Love,
    Microsoft

    • IntelMole
    • 14 years ago

    So your suggestion is to upgrade to 64-bit *[

    • Corrado
    • 14 years ago

    I agree. I picked up a copy of Vista Home Premium OEM/System Builder when I could grab it from Newegg for $79.99 shipped. If I could get Win7 for this price, I would buy it in a heartbeat. As it stands, it will be $199+ for the first few months/year of its existance. This is just too much for a retail price if you ask me. There should be 3 skus, Ultimate, Business, Home. Ultimate should be $149, Business and Home should be $99 retail. You should also be able to get Home, use it, and upgrade it to Ultimate on the fly for $50 and a new CD-Key from MS.

    • Corrado
    • 14 years ago

    I’ve been using the Windows Live stuff, and quite frankly, its VERY nice. The Live Photo Gallery is nicer than iPhoto, Windows Live Mail is basically a cut down Outlook 2007. It includes a calendar and what not. Its what Outlook Express SHOULD have been way back when. Its a very capable email client, and combines the functionality of iCal and Apple Mail into 1 program. Windows Live Messenger 9 works. I don’t use it only because I don’t want more than 1 IM client installed and I use Digsby, so its redundant for me. If they integrated AIM connectivity into it I’d use it. Live Writer doesn’t insterest me, but it does work as it should. I used it a few times just to get a feel. I’m very impressed with the integration of Windows Live software into Windows 7, and the way it all works together. I’ve said it a few times, and I’ll say it again. I think Win7+ActiveSync/WinLive has OS X + MobileMe/iLife beat.

    • Meadows
    • 14 years ago

    You couldn’t be more incorrect. Vista uses a new bootlist system, which is why it needs hackery to create a dual-boot system with XP. However, Windows 7 continues the trend, which is why it’s riskless and effortless to keep both systems for current Vista users.

    • Xenolith
    • 14 years ago

    You don’t have to format your drive to install Windows 7 over XP. I managed to install W7 beta on my netbook without wiping the drive. The Windows XP stuff was moved into the windows.old directory.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    2000->XP took right around 2 years, and we’ve already been MORE than 2 years since Vista. So they’v ehad plenty of time.

    • Master Kenobi
    • 14 years ago

    Actually Vista to Win 7 has about the same number of changes as 2000 to XP. New UI, minor tweaks under the hood. Drivers, Software, Themes, ets… all port from one to the other without issue in both instances. Quite frankly This literally is 2000 to XP all over again.

    • ColdMist
    • 14 years ago

    Ya, Right! My primary OS is XP, and I am dual-booting Win7 right now.

    You just have to have unpartitioned space to install it on. I left 20GB on my Raptor a long time ago to dual-boot linux or whatever.

    Please don’t spread lies.

    • thermistor
    • 14 years ago

    I imagine that there are fewer changes between Vista and 7, compared to 2000 and XP. Based on the pace of change/innovation at MS, I can hardly believe that 7 is much more than window dressing on Vista.

    Having said that, I am a very satisfied Vista64 user. I can’t ever see going back to XP for any reason; then again, I don’t have a stack of old hardware/software that Vista ‘broke’.

    • derFunkenstein
    • 14 years ago

    1.) It’s a beta, and MS says they will allow upgrading from XP down the road
    2.) It’s a beta and you should never trust your real data to a beta. What are you doing upgrading from XP unless it’s your current system.
    3.) it doesn’t reformat your hard drive; it puts everything in a Windows.old folder, so stop with your FUD. We get enough of that crap from your blindly-pro-AMD posts as it is.

    • roont
    • 14 years ago

    id be happy to upgrade my main OS from 64bit XP to 64bit W7 and totally skip vista.

    • CasbahBoy
    • 14 years ago

    The relatively dramatic difference in directory structures is probably the real reason (unless one can do an ‘upgrade’ of Windows XP with Vista already?)

    Anyone who chooses an upgrade specific or “install over” Windows operating system is either nuts or just asking for trouble anyway. Shunt some files over to a spare drive or back up the smaller ones to optical media or something and do a format and reinstall proper.

    • pluscard
    • 14 years ago

    If you have XP – you have to format your drive to use the Win7 beta. However, if you have Vista – you can install over, and keep your files.

    What this tells me – Win7 is targeted at the disappointed Vista users.

    I don’t see XP users buying Win7 – not until they get new pcs.

    • Forge
    • 14 years ago

    My first thought on reading this was ‘release date predicated on code quality my bum’, but seeing as how little changed between Vista and 7, I guess it’s not all that much of a stretch to be looking at RCs already. Aside from UI tweaks and UAC rework (which SHOULD be free to Vista after all the irritation it caused), most of the stuff changed in 7 is not the OS itself, but the ten thousand mini-apps normally bundled with it. The core OS changes in 7 are very minimal, it’s probably good that they’re looking at the Windows Live BS now, that stuff is frequently broken.

    • Xenolith
    • 14 years ago

    Windows 7 is done… only minor tweaks remain. The hold up is IE8 and Windows live essentials. Still plenty of work to be done there.

    • Decelerate
    • 14 years ago

    Weren’t they going RTM by July?

    I’d imagine release to be a couple of months from then, but holidays?

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 14 years ago

    The 32-bit to 64-bit Vista upgrade cost me all of $10 from Microsoft’s web site.

    • IntelMole
    • 14 years ago

    My current plan is to upgrade from 32-bit vista to 64-bit W7, all in one fell swoop.

    I have a half gigabyte of RAM to reclaim!

    • JustAnEngineer
    • 14 years ago

    I doubt that there will be a convincing reason to upgrade from Vista to Windows 7. They’re not going to be very significantly different. XP users, however, should be eager to upgrade to 64-bit Windows 7.

    • firestar07
    • 14 years ago

    They should reduce the price of this compared to how they priced vista. Users dont believe a newer OS from msoft justifies their pricing structure. It gets more accentuated in the current economic conditions.

    • Farting Bob
    • 14 years ago

    Good news, if they can start selling retail W7 by Q409 and in a good state (unlike vista when it was released) then it’ll get adopted pretty quick with XP and vista users thinking of upgrading.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!