Thank goodness. I like this a lot better than all of those idiotic marketing names like Vista and XP that have no meaning at all. Oh yeah, "Vista will bring clarity to my world" or something. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense...

Wow, 105++ comments. We really care! :))

No we don't. We're just that bored.

windows 7 1/2 (service pack 1) :-)

7.5 SP1?

I suppose that's worse than 10.5.2?

*yawn*

I was hoping they would name it Windows 7. Keep it simple and to the point.

I hope that this new version number convention will stay in the future. Personally, I am not picky about version names but I prefer them to be consistent.

Good. I like the name Windows 7.

What crap. Almost all their other product names have a year in the name...

Perhaps this is the *beginning* of a change in their product naming?

Next Windows name after "7" will be... "Windows 2012"!

Sure. Whatever.

Don't you have a bike to go ride or something?

Aside from, of course, Windows 1, Windows 2, Windows 3.0, Windows 3.1, Windows 3.11, Windows NT, Windows ME, Windows CE, Windows Mobile, Windows for Workgroups...

Windows 1.x, 2.x, 3.0, 3.1, NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 3.51, NT 4.0, Me, XP, Vista

Windows 95, 98, 2000

Yeah I guess that's almost all. :P

To my understanding there were several flavors of Vista from Basic to Premium, including a separate purchase for 64 bit at a steep price. Regardless, I prefer to use XP on Service pack 3 all my workstations on the wi-fi run beautifully and quickly.

What in the world does this have to do with the naming of Windows 7... can't we stay on topic here?

What he means to say is, if you have all these levels of on version, how do you place a version number on them? RIGHT SIR? lol

Windows 7-Basic? Maybe... Or maybe Windows 7-SE versus just Windows 7.

Or maybe they'll figure no one wants to be left out of all the features and they'll go back to old roots and make all equal and mighty powerful as the next.

Yeah...

Apparently the sheep are too confused by words such as, 'Basic, Home, Business, and Ultimate"

I think we need to start using decimals to describe functionality. Some crypto hash, perhaps?

Force the nitwits to actually *think* before making *any* purchase.

In the same way that XP was little more than a MASSIVE Service Pack for Win2K, Windows 7 will be that for Vista. That being said, despite the Touch foolishness that will be the next gadfly golly-gee-whiz-fad nonsense (touch ANYTHING ain't gonna be worth spit until they find a way to keep the screens in question from becoming a greasy debacle), that OS looks like it will have what it takes to get me off XP64 - that is if the various design teams meet the scuttlebutt listed on Wikipedia as design criteria and improvements. If it turns out to be the same empty debacle Vista was after the glowing pie-in-the-sky Longhorn fantasy, well...

...on XP64 I'll still have 128Gb memory address space, speed, stability and hardware support (even for superlative sound quality and multimedia which is what matters to me thanks to the Asus Xonar line).

Here's hoping it's Lucky Number 7.

Actually, XP has had touch since 2002. The touch will become multi-touch in Win 7.

I disagree with your statement that 7 will be a "massive SP for Vista." Check out these lists of enhancements in Win 7: http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp

XP had significant improvements over 2K as well (driver stack re-architected / DirectX extensions that actually worked / et. al). That however did not stop Microsoft itself from internally referring to it as a massive SP for 2k. It is a trend thay have continued with Win 7(again, the information is from internal references (engineers) and is humorous to me because it indicates that they learned little, if anything, from the last time this happened - history tends to repeat itself in such a situation).

They are building on platforms.

They did it with Windows 3 and windows 95...and are now doing it with Vista.

This isn't anything new or surprising. They put out a massive release, and then for the next release or two (or three), tweak it, fix, it, optimize it, and add a feature here and there.

I wouldn't expect anything different, I would suggest that others not expect anything different, and I would be greatly surprised if they varied from that routine by starting from scratch again.

Dude, I never expected them to start from scratch (hell, Vista ain't from scratch - there are bugs there that have been in Windows since 3.x!!).

My contention is that if they had taken the extra 10 to 12 months to test the OS and had put a bit more thought into the whole deal instead of subjecting themselves to the scope creep that seems to perennially plague all their projects, the change that will be windows 7 over Vista would not be quite so necessary.

Easy for me to say?

Sure!

Here's why:

Microsoft themselves admit (only internally of course) that they COMPLETELY underestimated what it would take to bring the NT kernel to the consumer experience which is why XP, and even more importantly, XP SP1 were necessary. Given that nugget of knowledge, one would think that they would (logically) have capitalized on it when building Vista.

They rather obviously didn't.

Hence Windows 7.

Exactly... thus my issue with Apple naming all of their "new" OS's "new os's" when they're merely updates... Windows 7 will be more like a fancy service pack with a heavy price tag filling it with "features" and "fixes" that should have been in the previous OS to begin with..

Have you noticed the real play down of any goodies in 7,compare that with Longhorn,when a lot of the bells and whistles were chucked overboard ,because they got over their head,with to much to complete.Their going the opposite way,keeping everything quite,and what seems to be a virtual Vista update.

According to the blog, they aren't actually planning on many new features. Just tweaking, fixing, and streamlining existing features in Vista.

Just as 3.11 was to 3, and 98 was to 95. Vista is simply the new base from which they are working.

WDS 4 fixed a *lot* of the issues with the Vista indexing, the SP1 upgrade fixed more issues than anyone would care to count, but from a usability standpoint greatly cleaned up UAC prompts. Expect more of the same from Win7. More options in search refinement (possibly varying levels/granularity on a per folder basis?), more informative UAC prompts, better I/O handling, and faster performance all around.

I doubted it at first, but it looks like Win7 may actually require less resources than Vista...though I still doubt they'll lower the reqs in their marketing or on the box.

They're also pulling out quite a few apps they have "live" versions of, which should appease at least a few of the uppity "bloat" folks.

uppity "bloat" folks?

I resemble that remark! :)

You, being the old fart that you are (as I am as well - no canard intended) should remember a day when compilers were tight and great pride was taken in writing clear, concise, efficient, fast code that didn't require a mainframe to run it correctly. Today we have the nouveau (and utterly puerile) "let's throw more hardware at it - it's cheap" mindset, which is enormously symptomatic of the complacency (and rank stupidity) of our times.

Just sign me "Glad to be an uppity bloat bloke" and old enough to know better. :) :) ;)

BTW, and completely off-topic, how did you find the new Enigma?

Hopefully, Win7 will be a step in streamlining some of that inefficient code.

It looks like one of the "biggies" that they are focusing on, according to their blog.

BTW, and completely off-topic, how did you find the new Enigma?

Haven't actually had time to grab it yet. Extended family health problems arose. I probably won't get a chance to hit the stores for "fluff" for a month or two.

My sympathies, dude. Hope it all goes well.

Cheers!

what ever their reasons for choosing it, I don't care. I like the name regardless, I'm glad it stuck at the end.

ps - that's a lot of comments below!

Well at least those numbers won't be from the year it's released. I'm surprised it won't be named "Windows VII."

yes alot of windows versions of windows have come but the last 2 version of windows have been based on the 6.0 kernel. so all windows versions did have numbers but they were not advertised commercially. here is a rough list i have up from the past versions of Microsoft windows NT versions. feel free to correct me if some of the versions are wrong

Windows NT 3.1
windows NT 3.51
windows NT 4.0
windows 2000 - 5.0
windows server 2003 - 5.2
windows XP - 5.1
windows Vista - 6.0
windows server 2008 - 6.0

There was NT 3.5 but it was replaced by 3.51 in less than a year.

This is actually Windows 6.1, regardless how they label it! Kind of like the difference between Windows 2000 and XP, except this time they had to shake some of the negativity surrounding XP. The main problem with Vista is that it came out in a 32 bit version. People with older or lower spec computers (in reality, not their perception), had problems running it purely because of them being a low spec/older computer! It was the same when XP came out, computers that could run Win 98 fine could struggle under XP.

Vista should have been x64 only, then it would have only been used on newer computers that are more closely suited spec wise! Not to mention that you can only use around 3gb of ram under 32 bit, and this won't change as the 'workaround - Physical Address Extension, never works properly on a large scale across a large number of systems. Compatibility is something people will mention about x64, but most issues aren't related to the OS, its the developers writing software for the OS that haven't written their programmes correctly. Some quite old programmes may not run but Windows is pretty much alone in the capability to run old software, which had been both good and bad (bad in the sense that backwards compatibility contributes to bloat).

I just hope when Windows 7 comes out that there are suitable upgrade paths available for Vista users, and a cheap upgrade path available for those that forked out the large amount of money for the Ultimate version which has truly failed to deliver as promised. I think instead of an upgrade disk, that Ultimate users should be entitled to a replacement disk, especially those that purchased the retail version (even if it means paying the upgrade price).

You said something I have been thinking for months... it should ONLY have been 64bit.

Vista x64 requires driver signing, which is incompatible with...well...life. XP x64 is the only x64 Windows version i'm going to use until driver signing restrictions are removed.

But Microsoft knew that Vista was a resource hog and would frustrate many PC users with older hardware. They tested it extensively and new this ahead of time. This should have told them they were going in the wrong direction.

In fact even with high end hardware, Vista is still slower than XP so it's not the hardware being older, it's the fact that Vista is incredibly bogged down with unnecessary code.

No matter how you look at it, anytime a new OS is slower than it's predecessor, that is REgression not PROgression. Apple's Mac OS X Puma was faster than Cheetah, Jaguar is faster than Puma, Panther was faster than Jaguar, Tiger is faster than Panther, Leopard is faster than Tiger and Snow Leopard will be considerably faster than Leopard which is difficult to believe considering how lightning fast Leopard already is at version 10.5.5 That's the way it's suppose to be. That's the Apple way and that's why I'm a proud die hard Mac user today.

The biggest change that Leopard introduced to the Mac was the blue screen of death. Talk about a step backwards.

Driver signing should have been more strictly enforced a long time ago. No manufacturer should be allowed to create unstable, buggy hardware drivers for Windows or any other OS for that matter.

Facinating. So does that mean MS should not make changes after the code has gone Gold in order to not break many printer drivers as they did with XP?????????????

Yeah - those damned 3rd party vendors!

Driver signing has much, but not all to do with stability. Driver signing simply means Microsoft approves it, but it certainly doesn't mean it is without issue.

Case in point: every 3-d video driver ever released.

That doesn't take into account hardware created for specific needs, like in a scientific or industrial context, where the driver will never be redistributed, only for in-house use. That's a quite common situation.

But it must be understood that driver certification and driver signing is NOT the same thing.
The WHQL program is used to ensure that drivers are of sufficient quality by testing whether the driver is compatible with the "Windows Logo" guidelines, whereas the so-called 'Authenticode' program is used to sign the driver for public or private use, without any certification from MS.

What's up with your name?

OS X (which is slower than MacOS 6) is for losers.

Do you even use a Mac? There is NO blue screen of death in Leopard... the only thing Apple has caused a Blue Screen of Death on was iTunes giving WINDOWS errors on iPhone syncing in version 8.0.

Agreed... nor should M$ be allowed to create buggy operating systems what plague the hardware manufacturers to death :)

Google: leopard blue screen of death

:)

That was an issue at hand during install... not the same thing as the Windows blue screen of death... hasn't occurred once the OS is correctly installed...

People are making it out to be some Windows Like error... it is not...

Thanks for pointing out my retardedness too PC_Tool... appreciate it buddy!

That was an issue at hand during install

Still an issue, still a BSOD, still directly related to Leopard.

People can "make" whatever they want of it...and generally do. ;)

Also a BSOD signifies a problem with hardware, OSX does have the same thing you call them kernel panics...

It was an apple driver that caused that FYI

All software is buggy. Following your ideal, none would exist.

obviously microsoft consulted with their experts that work in a top secret room several floors below ground at microsoft way and the gypsies recommended to use the number 7 for luck.

what i also heard is that microsoft didn't go for the witch doctors recommendation to call it Windows Voodoo because it sounds pretty much like Windows DooDoo.

I like it, simple, I might just buy the next Windows if it's look is as simple as it name.

Thank God it's not another stupid name. I think this is the best Windows name ever.

Windows? I thought that died of neglect years ago. It's still around, hmph?

Well, Western Union was still sending telegraphs until a couple years ago. You never know.

That technology is so dead people can't even spell it. What Western Union used to send for 145 years (since before the Civil War up until two years ago) were telegraMs

How did Western Union send those telegraphs? Fedex?

Yeah, nobody uses Windows anymore. Also, the sky is now green and cows fly. Hmph.

Anyone else notice Windows 7 is a bit odd, considering there have been more than 7 versions?
Some of the past ones:
1,
2,
3, (and 3.1, WFWG 3.1, WFWG 3.11),
NT 3 & 4,
Windows for Pen,
Windows95(at least 2),
Windows98(A,B,C),
WindowsME,
Windows2000(several flavors),
WindowsXP(home, pro, tablet, media center, etc.),
Vista,
2003 server,
2008 server,
then 7?
(and that's not even mentioning CE, PowerPC or Windows mobile, and probably others)

Go to the cmd prompt in Windows, type ver, and look at the output.

And after you've looked at the output, check out this list which explains Windows versions:
http://en.wikipedia.org/...ws#Timeline_of_releases

What I DO find odd is that Windows 7's version will be 6.1 :)

Or run->winver

What I DO find odd is that Windows 7's version will be 6.1 :)

Careful with that crystal ball stuff. Version numbers have been known to change prior to release of the actual product to the public...

Since Vista is a Mac rip why not continue in the Mac ripping tradition by calling it's next OS Windows Snow Leopard? ^__^

Guys, Windows really blows. M$ just can't innovate, they've long ago ceased to inspire and offer originality. That's why they keep a close eye on all things Apple. Believe it or not, the biggest Apple fanboys in the world, even bigger than me are all on Microsoft's payroll.

MS being the largest Mac developer is rather ironic...

So, while I agree that OSX is quite nice, how about overcoming Steve's anal fears and releasing it (in unsupported form) for the larger PC market that adhers to the Intel Roadmap and actually captuing increased market share?

That is, unless your real fear is that the Mac simply can't compete...

Its pretty sad when the idiots at Apple (read: Steve Jobs) are so convinced that OSX and the Mac are better, but, unlike the larger populace, fear that the products can't compete in an open market!

Walk your big talk, fanboy.

f**

A mac rip off yet it was in development for 6 years - ok then

Also, even Apple's GUI wasn't or their OS, its a combination of Nextstep and BSD. Even the original idea for the Mac was taken from Xerox along with MS.

Everyone copies, its just the way things are in a capitalist world.

One day when you stop being a fanboy you will see that competition is a good thing and makes companies work harder.

In the end the consumer will win.

I feel Windows 7 will be a lot better then Vista because they took way to much flack over it and assumed they could continue to go untouched but OSX & Linux are proving to be a pain in MS side. So no more half-assing things or they will end up like Apple did in the 90s.

Almost forgotten.

Dude, enough already. Why don't you go post on a Steve Jobs Gay Blog or somethin'

Yer, and recent MS add had a screen running on Apple software.

OS X is for losers.

Hence Apple will (as I mentioned months ago) sub-license Windows and release the next hardware upgrade with Windows Vista Lite (so pretty Apple hardware is not overtaxed) pre-installed.

And Apple uses Windows for production of their Ipods and uses Windows in their stores as well...moving on...

Umm... actually Apple uses their own systems in their stores for ALL of their operations... and they do run OS X, not Windows in their stores... try going in one some time instead of making things up because you want to try and believe they have crappy products.

totally agree bro!

The terminals they use to check you out, are not all Apple systems and definitely not used in all stores.

Also, with the Ipods that came with viruses because they were made using Windows machines.

Nice!

I had a good laugh at that one! Short and sweet.

It is about time!!!!!! Version numbers should be version numbers. Being in IT for 20 years has drove me crazy when they started with Windows 95. I have had so much trouble having to explain that Windows 2000 is NOT Office 2000 etc.... THANK you Microsoft. I hope the rest of the lemmings will follow suit.

So I'm not alone! I get people that are shocked that Windows doesn't include Office. Or users asking be why we upgraded to Office 2007 rather than Office Vista...

I also carry that notion!!, my boss as of last week tried putting in a Windows XP disc to install office 2008 on her new laptop... made sense to me :)

it's so dull... i had come up with a name that i dreamt to see as official. i would have loved

"Windows Cielo"

1) it looks so next-gen,
2) it means "sky" in spanish which is close to "vista" in some sense... and is spanish too,
3) is also related to the new trend of "cloud computing",
4) if it had a bright light-blue cloudy background it would have related to the history of windows too!
5) names in other languages are so cool and sound original!

oh, so sweet...

Yup, so ethereal!

Now you tell us the difference between Diet Coke and Coke Zero!

Yup, fancy names that lack a clear distinction from a predecessor and a clear indication of function work great.

Don't they? ;-)

didn't quite get what u meant, but about cokes, one has less sugar and some sweetener and the other has that typical strong sweetener alone, which is disgusting.

Wrong. Neither have sugar!

The fact is, a cute trendy name that fails to offer an understandable distinction fosters neither customer understanding nor a compelling reason to buy...

Image is cute if you are selling fashion, but there is something to be said for alluding to substance in a product oriented toward funtional purposes.

It looks like a cheap, unreliable Korean car name that will break down the first time you have the audacity to drive the thing. No, I much prefer Windows 7 to Cielo. :P

you hurt my feelings!

yeh, 7 is... is... better?

We are talking MICROSOFT and you deny the importance of IMAGE! i can't believe it! being the world what it is these days--

(...ugh i dont wanna write anymore...)

there...there...there...

It will be alright...unless that is if you really buy Windows 7 and then...well, I'm sure we'll have plenty of time to discuss that in (overdue) time...

;-) ;-)

Taste. Coke Zero tastes better. [smiles]

No ... Pepsi Max (introduced in 1993) tastes better than both put together.

One has low sugar, one has no sugar?
And I believe they used entirely different recipes. Coke Zero is normal Coke without the sugar, and Diet Coke is a different (and s***tier) recipe.

Low sugar or no sugar they taste exactly the same.

yuck - Pepsi is sweeter and less carbonated.

Amazing isn't it that none of the aove have an accurate idea as to what the differences are between Diet Coke and Coke Zero?

A great example where poorly planned naming conventions have only obsfucated the market rather than contributing to a compelling distinction and reason to buy.

Does everyone love how boring "Windows 7" is that we are now comparing soda preferences? I love it!!

screw all the soda, just gimme a beer any day!

Maybe they should spend less time thinking of names, and more time coding an OS that actually works.

Right, because the people who name the OS are the same ones who write it. It's a shame Microsoft can't hire more employees. As it is all work on the OS has to stop until they think of a name.

They're running out of imagination.

You mean they used to have it?

Microsoft has had a lot of things, including good software at one point, but imagination isn't one of them.

Except for Microsoft Research, but corporate never uses anything they do.

Regardless of the name it's going to be over bloated and a pain in the ARSS to implement as Vista was.

Indeed.

Well they're aiming for it to be less resouce-hoggy and more modular last I heard.
If they stick to that then maybe it stands a chance.

They made a lot of promises with Vista that never came through as well. It finally primarily is just eye candy which some are way too easily impressed with.

i've been hearing that since... the 80's

I would argue that only simpletons are fixated on the eye candy.

A complete from ground up new IP stack.
A completely new I/O stack that supports priorities, better threading, assync calls and cancellations.
New sound and graphics frameworks that help minimize the damage poorly written drivers can do, and can often recover from them.
New task manager (And resource monitor).

There are a TON of other things as well, but if you think the "primary" thing changed is eye candy, then we probably know the only thing you care about.

Har, har.

Yet, it has many more problems than one wouldn't expect from such a mature OS company. Even the new SP1 added many of its own problems as well while fixing a few of the old.

All of that doesn't mean much to the majority of users.

Well, given that it runs like a dog, and doesn't do anything _better_ than XP, I'd say all the changes underneath the covers, of which I am well aware, don't amount to diddly, do they?

But it does things better as listed and there are more. On a newer machine with SP1 Vista really moves. YMMV but for me Vista does a lot of things better then XP

Its small things but still makes things easier

-instant search from the start menu

-when grouping like items (mp3,rar,zip,mpg) it can be put in a group and you only need to click on the group name to select all

-readyboost (a portable swap file)

-utilities that are more in depth when there is something wrong

-updates integrated into the system rather then using a website (no more ie need)

-the interface is a lot smoother, and aero graphics are actually handled by the card not the system

-When items are loading you have an idea of how long it will take rather then staring at a hour glass

- Ability to repartition the hdd whenever

- Defrag runs in the background

- When I put it to sleep it goes to sleep not sits and waits 30 seconds before it shuts down

- Ability to repartition the hdd whenever
- Defrag runs in the background
- When I put it to sleep it goes to sleep not sits and waits 30 seconds before it shuts down
Oh, yeah! New technology we never had. Like the first in Windows NT 3.1 and the last two in Windows XP.

I would agree wholeheartedly.

Try it now that SP1 has been released. Teh general consensus among non-MSFT trolls is that it performs on par if not "better" than XP on systems built for Vista (Not the 6-year old builds for XP).

You're right about that last bit. The majority of users find that it works just fine, so yeah, your constant flood of BS means nothing to them.

Those are improvements on the old tech.

I notice you didn't bother to comment on the rest of the functionality... (readyboost, integrated WDS, etc..)

Never said NEW I said BETTER, learn to read, ok?

Also I stated FOR ME, not you or him.

Troll better next time...

That has been my experience so far Tool... guess we can agree on something :)

sjc001, have you actually EXPERIENCED any issues yourself or have you just read the floods of people touting how bad it is because they know NOTHING about how to manage hardware correctly that is has caused them nothing but trouble for the mere fact that they have no idea what they are doing? I'd bet your one of the "I am a computer expert" MS Word users that has no idea what your doing around a PC that if you have experienced issues, their your own causing...

I've fixed 3 pieces of software from vendors we deal with on a constant basis, knowing NOTHING of their internal workings nor source, managed to correct all their issues in a matter of hours, and low and behold, they release a "Vista" ready version... seems that they had no real issue to begin with, just st00pid developers not having a clue what they're doing...

How is it going to be over bloated? What does that mean anyway; are you still running a 386?

You do know that they have already removed Movie Maker, Windows Mail, Windows Messenger and Photo Gallery from the OS, right?