RSSWindows 7 will be lean, faster, and even embedded
By Nate Mook | Published October 28, 2008, 7:01 PM
Just two weeks after releasing Windows Embedded Standard 2009 based on Windows XP, Microsoft said Tuesday that the next version -- code-named "Quebec" -- will be built atop the Windows 7 code base.
The news is significant, because it indicates that Microsoft is serious about making Windows 7 capable of running on devices with limited power. During the PDC keynote Tuesday, Microsoft Windows head Steven Sinofsky showed the audience a netbook (or sub-notebook) running Windows 7. Most netbooks currently ship with Windows XP or Linux.
Microsoft still uses Windows XP for its embedded platform, despite the operating system being 7 years old. The company hasn't been able to slim down Windows Vista enough to make it workable in embedded environments. There is an "Embedded Enterprise" version of Vista, but it has the same hardware requirements as the full OS and simply offers a customizable interface.
Sinofsky said that Microsoft has done a lot of work to fix the slowdowns and bulk introduced in Windows Vista. From boot times, to menu response, Windows 7 promises to be leaner and faster than its predecessor.
In addition, the operating system can be componentized -- an essential feature for embedded devices. Developers can pick the technologies and features they need in order to size the OS for their device, with only the drivers, services and applications they need.
By migrating to Windows 7, Windows Embedded Quebec will offer a number of important improvements over the aging XP code base, including multi-touch interface support, gesture support and Windows Presentation Foundation. Silverlight 2 and Internet Explorer 8 with private browsing will be included; Silverlight 1.1 and IE7 are currently offered in WES 2009.
Perhaps more importantly for developers, they can build applications for Quebec using Visual Studio 2010, just as they would for Windows 7, with full 64-bit support.
Microsoft hasn't set a release date for Quebec, but it will likely arrive around the time Windows 7 launches in early 2010.
But how does this affect non-embedded systems? The changes that Microsoft is introducing in Windows 7 to make it capable of being slimmed down will positively impact full PC use as well. Mike Nash, vice president of Windows Product Management at Microsoft, told BetaNews that Windows 7, even with its new features, will run equally as fast -- if not faster -- than Vista on the same PC hardware.
"Windows 7, even with its new features, will run equally as fast -- if not faster -- than Vista on the same PC hardware."
Hasn't that been the basic marketing crap in setup for every version of Windows since 95? You could definitely agree with the new features part, but "faster"? You could pick any machine you want and I can guarantee that Windows 3.11 screams compares to Vista or any modern MS OS.
Score: 0
|If Windows 7 only runs "equally as fast" as Vista, they can go straight to Hades with it. A modern, dual core, 2 gig ram, $500-$550 laptop feels like a speed demon with XP. On Vista, it feels half the speed (lower responsiveness, not benchmarks). Windows 7 had better be a lot FASTER than Vista.
Score: 0
|Hey shelb, you might want to delete your criticisms of Vista. Microsoft fanboys at this site like PC_Troll will get their panties in a wad and attempt to prove that Vista is the greatest thing since slice bread and the real problem lies with "stupid" people who don't understand how to use vista.
Score: 0
|You've got my vote on all counts.
Score: 0
|If someone wants to use a subjective standard like "responsiveness" instead of a quantitative standard like benchmarks, that is their right.
Obviously he comes from a different set of experiences than I do. It's not his fault, it's not even a bad thing. It is merely another opportunity for us to work together and find commonality and hope to share with the world.
Hope and Change, friend.
Score: 0
|I am starting to have more positive expectations for Windows 7. It seems to be more of a major upgrade to Vista than originally touted. Microsoft appears to be listening to the users. If only they could eliminate the registry, it would be outstanding.
Score: 0
|Unfortunately that's deeply entrenched now, and is likely to stay for quite a while yet.
Score: 0
|if the pc "only" ran microsoft windows and that was the only thing installed on the pc, then the registry would not be needed.
obviously, you have no idea behind its purpose but know how to make a stupendous remark.
Score: 0
|I know the registry is entrenched and not likely to go away. It would break compatibility with the installed base of applications. I have visions of supporting existing apps using a virtual machine running the existing version of Windows. That would free the operating system designer to correct fundamental limitations. Today's hardware seems sufficiently powerful to support such a step but, unfortunately, it will not happen.
Score: 0
|well, might as well begin digging a plot for vista, since W7 is on it's way out to market.
perhaps the life span for vista is a product and a reflection of the failed American market, bloated and greedy for resources.
any suggestions for what its tombstone should read?
Asta La Vista
(the irony - lol)
Score: 0
|I have tested Windows 7 M3 and believe me it's much faster than Vista. Vista 7 beta is gonna be more interesting to test and I can't wait to do that. I have even noticed that games run much faster. The guys @M$ are working hard to make the OS more robust. Am sure there will be much more tweaks in the beta release and the OS will be much faster!!
Score: 0
|The best part?
The beta/alphas are stable. Rock solid. They've totally redone their dev. methodology and every feature put back into the main development branch is put in 100% tested and functional. They could ship the main branch as Win7 tomorrow and it would be more stable than any OS they've produced to date.
Can't wait to get my hands on it.
Score: 0
|Careful now. You're sounding a little fanboyish.
*Edit* Not that I disagree.
Score: 0
|*shrug*
The change in their development process between the two OSes is night and day. I'm excited MSFT finally seems to be getting their s*** together.
Score: 0
|I really agree, but I am nonetheless still cautious about what will actually be delivered.
Score: 0
|LOL. He's always been fanboyish for M$.
Score: 0
|bas****.
Now I'm salivating.
Score: 0
|I was once too, for years. Now I'm leavened: I'm famboyish about stuff that works.
Vista never could be in that category.
Score: 0
|If they could ship any day by now as you state I am just worried about all the time they have left to stuff it full of junk and bloat...
Score: 0
|They've pulled a lot out of it and are basically putting it back together.
If they released today, we'd be missing a lot of functionality Vista had.
Score: 0
|MS still doesnt get it, the last sentence illustrates my point. "as fast...than Vista". The world is speeding at warp and MS OS is crawling, so will the ugly perceptions of Vista
Score: 0
|Well, at least they are not alone...
Score: 0
|It's gonna be much better than faster than Vista. Have you ever tried Vista x64? it's more secure and faster than Vista x86.
Score: 0
|wow Windows 7 check out this blog for more info:
http://www.jaiderbertoli...-windows-7-will-be-lean
Score: -1
|BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
you suck !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Score: 0
|"Windows 7, even with its new features, will run equally as fast -- if not faster -- than Vista on the same PC hardware."
look at the title (lean and faster) and the fail-safe comment by mike nash at the end.
just imagin, bulky vista and thinner windows7 running at same speed? question is: to upgrade or not to upgrade?
Score: 0
|I was thinking the same thing. The title of the article caught my attention but the ending statement was more of a caveat so Windows users won't get their expectations up too high in terms of performance differences over Vista.
What's really sad is that Vista 2nd edition (Windows 7) will still be slower in performance than Mac OS X Leopard and will be completely manhandled by Snow Leopard which will be a fully 64-bit OS that will be blazing fast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiAN8wM72M8
Score: 0
|Crap OS X sucks man. Crap OS X Snow Leopard will be fully 64-bit OS? Vista x64 is already there. What makes you think it will be slower in performance when it's official beta version has not even been released. Games run much faster on Windows 7 M3 than on Vista. Go get a life. Apple sucks
Score: 0
|It's because I have a life that I use Mac OS X. I got away from big brother. Something you obviously aren't smart enough to do.
Score: 0
|Your comments suggests someone who has never actually read any George Orwell.
Score: 0
|Proprietary ideology controlled Apple is for losers.
Score: 0
|I got away from big brother.
..to a platform that is the most closed and locked-in platform in existence aside from the iPhone?
Yeah... you did real good there, genius.
Score: 0
|Didn't Jobs consider IBM as big brother? and ended up needing their help later on to stay in the game?
So if your hero Steve Jobs has to huggle up next to big brother to be able to get stuff done, then maybe, just maybe... He isn't all that different then big brother either?
It's already been said, if you think MS is like big brother, then you've got a lot of balls saying that Apple is better. They are more locked down, closed off, and controlling then any other company out there.
Score: 0
|"I got away from big brother."
Really? Ever heard of the iPhone app kill switch?
Not that Windows 7 will be any better. They are adding TC to it.
Score: 0
|Are you kidding? Apple is the bona fide neo-fascist regime of computer manufacturers and worse yet has brainwashed all the AppleLemmings (TM) into believing they are the second coming. No one wants to talk about Leopard - Apple's Vista. No one wants to talk about how they've essentially - under the guise of being "open" - locked up the machine and apps for decades.
Anyone on the outside can see this. None of the Apple True Believers can.
Utterly FANTASTIC marketing.
Score: 0
|...
Someone's got some sexual orientation issues?
Score: 0
|You can't compare Mac OS and Vista. I have both. I have been extremely disappointed in the amount of applications that are available for the MAC. A Mac simply is intended for Novice users, unless used for graphic arts. Plus there pricing is outragous. I built a PC for $1200 that simply destroys my $2400, Dual Core 2.8ghz iMac.
Im about to give it to my 86 year old grandmother. She'll have better use for it then I can.
Score: 0
|i guess that name Quebec would be useful for Im A Mac tv ads, because "blame canada... blame canada..."
seriously how is it possible not to slim down the code, there are so many features added in, and loaded each time vista boots, im sure the removal of a number of these would help.
not really convinced that microsoft is taking the failure seriously...
Score: 0
|Didn't they announce this like two years ago? Oh...nevermind, that was Apple saying OSX would power the iPhone.
Score: 0
|Check out Puppy Linux.
"a small, fast operating system running from CDs, USB sticks and hard disks"
You don't even need a hard drive in your pc!
Boots right off a cd. puppylinux dot org
Score: 0
|That OS is awful! Even M$ has standards compared to that crap!
Score: 0
|here's the thing. just the other day I downloaded from bittorrent a cut down version of XP called Micro XP.. stipped bare but is only 90Mb in size..
It boots in a microsecond and even though I'm running it in a virtual machine, it's blindingly fast - faster than my desktop version of XP by a considerable margin.
If some guy on the internet can get XP working so well and so small, why the hell can't microsoft - it's their product?
Score: 0
|Where's the profit in doing that? Plus, there is such thing as billable hours as well. You know, the kind of thinking that has made America the mess it is now.
Score: 0
|You are aware, of course, the majority of the functionality has been removed?
retestrak.nl
He's got a forum there and goes into great detail what he's removed from his tiny/micro editions.
Score: 0
|they're freaking MICROSOFT for god's sake !!!
they should be able to design a freaking OS with a footprint as small as that of windows 95 yet robust like windows server 2003 and able to run in my freaking cellphone
Score: 0
|Yes, in imaginary land where dogs are made of candy and time runs backwards.
Getting it to run with as small a footprint as Windows 2000 would be hard enough.
Score: 0
|Microsoft is Byzantine. Efficiency is not in their nature. They'll just buy a company that makes the product they want and claim it as their own.
Score: 0
|lol I actually miss the days of windows 2000. It what I spent most my time on anyway...
Score: 0
|Not at all impossible. All they'd have to do is dump the ridiculous broken hardware workarounds the company has been forced to develop over the last decade because arseholes like Sony and Creative Labs couldn't get their act together when building hardware.
Score: 0
|Yeah, too bad Microsoft has to succumb to the whiny cries of hardware vendors and in hand rely on cheap hacks in the underlying system to keep them satisfied
Score: 0
|