Windows 7 will go gold next week, reports claim

Microsoft will have completed Windows 7 in just a week’s time, if the folks at Neowin have their facts straight. They quote both "sources close to the company" and prior reports from Wzor and GeekSmack, all of which suggest the new operating system will reach release-to-manufacturing status on July 13.

If that’s correct, Windows 7 will be complete and ready for mass consumption at that point. However, as Neowin points out, Microsoft still doesn’t intend to release the OS officially until October 22. That’s pretty standard procedure: Vista went gold on November 8, 2006, but it didn’t reach store shelves until January 30, 2007—also around three months later.

Since the RTM build should be identical to what comes in Windows 7 boxes on October 22, Microsoft probably won’t offer it in free, public test form like the release candidate. Still, Neowin says TechNet subscribers, MSDN subscribers, and other Microsoft partners will get their hands on the build for testing purposes. That should help ensure third-party software and drivers play nicely with the new OS come launch day.

Comments closed
    • Krogoth
    • 13 years ago

    Home Premium is more than sufficient for all non-business needs. Ultimate Edition never made any sense for the vast majority of users.

    At least this time around the Ultimate Edition only has a slight premium over Professional.

    • WaltC
    • 13 years ago

    W7 is Vista two years later…;) I’m greatly interested in the “family pack” concept, though I wish it applied to other versions of W7.

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    Of course, Win7 is better than Vista. It’s bound to be better. First of all, it couldn’t get much worse, could it? Secondly, it’s kind of a SP2 for Vista.
    But: is it good in itself? Is it better than XP? That is: is it better than XP if you leave out all kind of fancy stuff lots of consumers just haven’t asked for?
    Or, also, even if it is better: is it worth the cost of upgrading or changing your system?
    In this kind of discussions people always seem to forget that an OS is a basic building block of your computer. It’s all of that, and at the same time not more than that.
    It means that it defines what can and cannot be used on your pc.
    But if your current pc can handle the things you want it to handle, than you don’t need the new OS.
    For me, that’s always the bottom line with a new OS.
    My problem is not: is the new OS better?
    My approach is: has the old OS become too bad?

    • MadManOriginal
    • 13 years ago

    I believe his point is that it’s the website that should be displaying useful information and it ought to do so in all browsers without extensions.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    Nope. Extend the functionality of the site for my needs. Example: Youtube is a video site, yet the video screen is amongst the smallest portion of the page and my HD preference never works, even though I’m almost always on a high speed network. Greasemonkey changes that quite nicely.

    Craigslist has listings for items, yet you must click in each one to see images. Greasemonkey enables me to see images for all items, right on the listing page, and the listing text, just by hovering over the title text.

    etcg{<.<}g

    • oldDummy
    • 13 years ago

    the browser shows the site content that I wish to view.
    it does not and should not dictate what site I want to view.
    I cannot praise IE8, but it is the best of the current crop for showing all content. That is not “fair”, I know, but it is the reality of the time.

    • UberGerbil
    • 13 years ago

    And an /[

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    You exaggerate, and that is cuteg{<.<}g

    • Valhalla926
    • 13 years ago

    I’m in the same camp as elmopuddy, and I will provide a reason.

    The part I can’t stand is Windows Explorer. I don’t want it to sort everything alphabetically, I want to sort it to my way. If they give me an option to disable auto-arrange, my argument would break down, but until they do, I’m not upgrading.

    And even if they did, there would be nothing to necessitate an upgrade. Vista works just as well as the RC does. In my limited experience, there was nothing groundbreaking in Windows 7 that wasn’t in Vista. There was nothing revolutionary, nothing that made me say “Wow!” Sure, the taskbar looks different, but hardly behaved differently than it did in Vista.

    I’ll probably get Windows 7 the same way I got Vista: Wait till I build/buy a new computer, and get a new OS. Until then, there is nothing that makes me want Win7.

    • sativa
    • 13 years ago

    after using both vista and win7, i personally prefer win7 by a large, large margin. It is mostly the same (obviously) but it is so much more polished. It’s like Apple’s design team spent a week with Vista and made some obvious changes.

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    Like they did with Fling.

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    Couldn’t get worse.

    • 5150
    • 13 years ago

    After the X25-M review Cyril did on the Kingston model, I’m starting to think this too.

    • designerfx
    • 13 years ago

    whoopty do. SSD’s aren’t even remotely mature yet, and plenty of them have problems even with trim. Look at the same X25 that had problems out the box and is improving, but basically is only good until you install crap on it (and then write speed slows to a crawl).

    I wouldn’t suggest an SSD for a good year or two yet, probably.

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    An alternate point of view is if a site doesn’t work with your browser, and the browser does everything it can in its power to remain standards compliant, perhaps the site shouldn’t be used? Because the vast majority of sites work with the vast majority of the big 5 browsers, with minor issues that persist in every browser.

    Also one’s browser should be tailored to the user’s philosophy. If one needs specific functions from a browser and the browser doesn’t fit their needs, you can’t be expected to stay with that browser.

    Now’s where I inject Firefox into the conversation. It allows me to view any web page, exactly how I wish it to be viewed, using extensions which are highly customizable. Two examples are greasemonkeys scripts that make visiting youtube and craigslist bearable and functional. I cannot imagine using those two sites without greasemonkey anymoreg{<.<}g

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    Possible on Vista as wellg{<.<}g

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    I tend to look at the criticality/how the exploit is listed when I view my vulns:

    §[<http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=imp&period=all&prod=19089<]§ §[<http://secunia.com/advisories/graph/?type=imp&period=all&prod=12366<]§ Also to consider: How fast issues are addressed, and what tools you can use to mitigate the issues? Also IE has an active, in use exploit going on right now and MSFT is silentg{<.<}g

    • ChronoReverse
    • 13 years ago

    While that’s true, you need to have UAC on for Protected Mode to work (which is something I wish Mozilla would implement into Firefox myself). Therefore, FF is also running at lower privileges (although not nearly as low as IE8 Protected Mode) and not able to do as much damage even with a code execution vulnerability.

    • barich
    • 13 years ago

    As I said, this was intended as a reply to #5. It irritates me when people suggest Firefox as a “more secure” browser than IE. I’m using Firefox right now, mainly for the extension support, but it’s not more secure. It hasn’t been since Vista was released with IE7 and Protected Mode.

    How is ActiveX any worse than the NPAPI plugin mechanism that other browsers use? When Flash or any other plugin is exploited, it really doesn’t matter whether it’s an ActiveX control or an NPAPI plugin.

    What good does it do someone who knows about a hole in IE to keep quiet about it? Either they disclose it to Microsoft, or they develop malware to exploit it, at which point researchers can examine the exploit to find the vulnerability. Do you think people hold on to otherwise unknown vulnerabilities so that they can feel special?

    In any case, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, it really doesn’t matter if IE has more vulnerabilities or not. I don’t believe that it does, and the data supports me. But the important part is that IE runs with very low privileges in Protected Mode. Firefox does not have anything similar. So, since I hope we can at least agree that both browsers have had vulnerabilities that allow for arbitrary code execution, which browser would you rather get hit by an exploit in? One that allows it to do whatever it wants to your system, or one that has limited privileges and only allows write access to Temporary Internet Files?

    • barich
    • 13 years ago

    I assume you have links to prove this? Because I remember stuff like this, recently: §[<http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=174<]§ . Maybe if they're trying to hack XP or if they purposefully cripple Vista by turning off UAC/IE Protected Mode. Or if they count any code executed as a win against the OS even if that code has essentially no privileges because of Protected Mode. I will accept that Chrome is probably safer and more secure than IE. It has a similar sandboxing mechanism and has far fewer reported vulnerabilities. However, it also has not been out as long as IE7, so we'll see what the numbers look like when it's a bit older.

    • barich
    • 13 years ago

    I would probably safer in a farmhouse in the midwest with the doors unlocked. I would be more secure in Baghdad in a heavily reinforced underground bunker.

    I can understand why people choose “safer” and not “more secure.” But should civil war break out in the midwest, you’re screwed.

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    What’s Windows Vista? Fancy form of swine flu?

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    “Firefox might be safer than IE, because it is targeted less than IE,”

    Well, is that a reason to avoid Firefox and choose for IE?
    Are you going to move from New York to Bagdad simply because “NY is only safer than Bagdad because there is no civil war going on”?

    • Grigory
    • 13 years ago

    ^ This.

    • voxfiux
    • 13 years ago

    Windows media plays blurays!!! on win 7!

    • VaultDweller
    • 13 years ago

    I’ve been using it as the OS on my main PC since the public beta.

    Why wouldn’t I use it on a primary machine? If I installed it on a spare PC that I never use, no useful ‘testing’ would actually be accomplished.

    Why is this always portrayed as being such an insane risk? Seriously, what’s could go wrong that seems so dangerous? If it has any problems, I just have to reformat and and reinstall/reconfigure software again. It’s time consuming, yeah, but beyond that big eff’ing deal. If you have the foresight to image your hard disk before installing Windows 7, you don’t even need to worry about the reconfiguration task if you revert to your old OS.

    • oldDummy
    • 13 years ago

    IE8 has problems with multiple auto-update tabs being open. They are not alone with that, it might be a jawt problem.
    I grow tired of IE8 freezes but there are no alternatives when looking through a single browser lens. What a site is “optimized for” is of no interest to me.
    I am a consumer that wants a browser which works. Thats all.
    Currently IE8 is the closest to that “ideal”.

    • eitje
    • 13 years ago

    I love being able to hit Windows+# to open a program directly from the taskbar list. Tasty.

    • Voldenuit
    • 13 years ago

    l[

    • Forge
    • 13 years ago

    Somewhat in reply to you, more a reply to the GP:

    IE and Security:

    Despite what Secunia and friends claim about IE security, every year when they have black hat conferences, the first platform to get holed and begin sinking is Windows, and ~90%+ of the time, it’s an IE/ActiveX hole.

    • jpostel
    • 13 years ago

    So by “better”, you mean more compatible with sites that design for IE?

    I happen to be on the company end of a product designed to only work with IE. I HATE having to find excuses for customers that ask why it only works with IE. “What is this, 1997? You guys just don’t like Netscape?” I’ve seen this from the inside and had discussions with developers. It boils down to legacy crap for us, but that is really no excuse anymore.

    All that said, anyone designing a production web app/site without testing at least IE and Firefox is just stupid and lazy.

    • Forge
    • 13 years ago

    Ah, so you’re an offline NetBSD user? How did you get this post onto the intertubes?

    There is no ‘secure’, there is only ‘less insecure’. Also, user habits and education generally count for more than software design choices.

    • glynor
    • 13 years ago

    What this comment has to do with anything in the article escapes me. However, I’ll take the troll-bait for just a small comment…

    IE still supports ActiveX, which was a terrible idea in the first place, and which STILL provides the programmer far greater control over a remote system than even Java does. Of course, in those slanted “number of security holes” counts, these don’t count as security vulnerabilities because they are by design or they count as separate applications. That, and Firefox is open source so it’s code can be easily scoured for security vulnerabilities, leading to more publicly documented cases. That doesn’t mean IE isn’t also vulnerable to a lot of things we don’t know about (and who knows who DOES know and is keeping it quiet), just that we know more about what Firefox might be vulnerable to.

    People can count things in different ways to support whatever preconceived notion they want to market.

    • Kurlon
    • 13 years ago

    I agree with him, I can’t take Safari seriously as a browser at the moment. And I’m an Apple user on OSX, on Apple hardware no less. This latest Safari is more crash prone than any prior versions I’ve used, with a few bizarre rendering issues that aren’t present in other webkit browsers.

    • barich
    • 13 years ago

    Edit: This was supposed to be a reply to #5.

    Firefox is absolutely not more secure than IE8. Firefox has had many more reported vulnerabilities, and it does not run in a sandbox like IE8 does on Vista/7. Chrome is similarly secure to IE8, as it also runs in a sandbox and has had a similar number of reported vulnerabilities.

    Firefox might be /[

    • Dashak
    • 13 years ago

    When you’ve got some reasoning to back up your bias against W7, I’d be more receptive to your criticism… so when you say you “can’t stand W7” and you’ve responded to elmo’s comment about Vista and W7 “[not being] much different,” then you’ll forgive me for not taking you seriously along with the other Vista/W7<insert OS here> resistant users who “don’t like it” without foundation.

    • wibeasley
    • 13 years ago
    • oldDummy
    • 13 years ago

    Regarding running a beta on a primary: That is the only way to really put some quality time in with a OS, IMO. The released beta was very close to a finished product, which raises other questions….

    IE8: While I have tried other browsers I always would need to use IE8 for sites that wouldn’t work correctly. I don’t want to utilize more than one browser.
    Still waiting for a better one and would welcome it.

    • superjawes
    • 13 years ago

    But Vista got bad press. People didn’t like Vista in January 2007, so nothing Microsoft could do would make people love it. Make a shiny new service pack and call it Windows 7 and you have marketing gold.

    • adisor19
    • 13 years ago

    OH NOES, he mentioned an Apple product !

    Adi

    • jss21382
    • 13 years ago

    I’ve been running it as my only os since the public beta

    • danny e.
    • 13 years ago

    I thought you were trying to be serious for a minute and was going to respond.. but then I saw you add Safari to your list so I knew you were just joking.

    • henfactor
    • 13 years ago

    Vista service pack two anyone?

    • elmopuddy
    • 13 years ago

    It was cool to bash Vista, and now its cool to praise W7..

    Personally I can’t stand W7, Vista x64 is running quite nice for me.

    EP

    • henfactor
    • 13 years ago

    I find it funny how all the Vista haters are saying W7 is going to be so much better, when in fact the two aren’t that much different!

    • Neutronbeam
    • 13 years ago

    Neither Firefox [better security and hundreds of customizable extensions], Chrome [simpler. much better security], Opera Bittorrent support, built-in email, gestures, text to speech], OR Safari [well, speed I guess] are suitable replacements for IE8? Wow, you must be extremely selective or have really specialized browsing needs. Hope you can find a replacement for IE8 eventually.

    • PeterD
    • 13 years ago

    Which nutcase installs beta’s on a primary computer?
    Beta’s are to be installed on spare computers, just to test.

    The early bird gets eaten.

    • oldDummy
    • 13 years ago

    Windows 7 will be welcomed when it gets to retail.
    It is tough to use a beta OS on a primary computer. When any problems happen anything beta is the first thing I remove. So while I had all intentions of giving the beta a good workout, within a few weeks Vista was back.
    First impressions were favorable, I liked it. Don’t care for IE8 but have yet to find a suitable replacement.

    • Decelerate
    • 13 years ago

    TRIM support comes out-of-the-box for Win7?

    • gtoulouzas
    • 13 years ago

    Can’t wait for TRIM support and the corresponding hardware releases and firmware updates from SSD manufacturers.

    Other than that, I don’t see anything particularly impressive about the forthcoming release…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this post with your friends!