Windows 7 Shots Leaked

[craigwhiteside]

There's no telling how legitimate these shots might be, and it's quite clear that these screens won't be giving us any juicy details about Windows 7 anytime soon, but we couldn't pass on images that purport to be the first from a super-secret test build of Windows 7 seeded to "key partners." So, anything to see here? Not that we can tell, from the looks of things we're looking at a copy of Vista with the name "Windows 7 Ultimate" tacked on, but there's no telling what's happening under the hood. We know we can't wait to pay another few hundred dollars for a barely noticeable upgrade to Vista that will re-break all driver support, how about you?



Source






No matter how you slice it, Microsoft surely has an interesting ride with Vista. It is this OS that has cost several billion dollars to develop and was intended to revolutionize the way we work with computers. It didn't quite happen and Vista probably has drawn more criticism than any other of the firm's OSs before. But, of course, it isn't quite what you would call a failure, since more than 100 million copies have been sold in a year or so.

I am wondering: Where does Microsoft go from here? Vista SP1 is the traditional one-year check-up and patch for OS, but are Vista's ideas here to stay? The talk about 7 is already beginning to gain traction – and of course I was interested in what ideas Microsoft has for the Vista successor. Lucky me, I am in the right spot to actually take such early software for a test drive. And here's my impression.

I was able to obtain a Windows 7 M1 DVD image (2.7 GB in size) to create the disk necessary for install. This M1 version actually is not a standalone Windows version, but requires Vista as a foundation. To be exact, Vista isn't enough, you will need Vista SP1, which you will be able to get in mid-March, but which has been available to Microsoft's partners for several weeks now. On my standard Core 2 Duo-based PC, M1 actually installed on top of Vista Ultimate SP1 without any problems.

The install itself looks very similar to a regular Vista install routine, indicating that Microsoft hasn't spent any time on this part of the software yet. What is interesting however, that this M1 could only be configured to match the Vista SP1 version: Accordingly, I ended up with a "Windows 7 Ultimate".

After getting Aero back up running (you will have to adjust the Windows Experience Index manually), you really start wondering what is actually different here. I have been poking around in the Windows 7 system and it simply is running piggy-back with Windows Vista in this stage. All icons are the same, the overall look is the same, and most of the functionality is the same - minus a few crashes and incompatibilities here and there due to the early code.

M1 includes an automatic dual-boot install, which I found out later. The system I loaded the upgrade on has become a dual-boot system, which I was never given the option to select. Yes, I admit I did not read the EULA and I did not scan the fine print (and who really does, especially in such an early version) as it installed. So, my system has the option to either boot to Windows 7 or boot to Windows Vista Ultimate when it is turned on.

You can dig around more in the technicalities of Windows 7, but I was not able to discover anything especially interesting here either. The system feels slightly faster than the regular Vista – memory usage is at about 500 MB with no other software running in the background. Overall, the potentially new and much leaner kernel isn't there yet.

It isn't difficult to conclude that there is no way that this is what Windows 7 will look like. What is happening here is that new code is using Windows Vista as a cover. The simple purpose of M1 is to get a first idea how stable and compatible the code is with certain hardware and applications. If Vista wasn't there, you'd only see raw code and a basic UI. This is how early we are in the development of Windows 7. Of course, as time goes by, it would not surprise me a bit, if the GUI changes. Each release will have something new. This is how it was in the past and there is no reason to change that approach now.


So, when will we see Windows 7 in stores?

Microsoft said that it will be at least another three years until the release, which would put it into the 2010/2011 timeframe. And we still remember the Vista delays. So 2011 should be a good guess. What strikes me however, is that the source I was receiving M1 from, as well as Microsoft M1 documentation, point to a much earlier release date. Right now, we are looking at Q3 or Q4 2009 for sure, possibly earlier.

Source

[Kyro]

The first M1 screen are more than a week old

[Xolair]

Yeah, this'll probably be equipped with DX15 or something.

[Kyro]

Originally Posted by Xolair

Yeah, this'll probably be equipped with DX15 or something.

DX11 ^^'

[CDdude55]

Just looks like Vista.

[Valdez]

If it is true, then vista will have a long life... (windows 7 (6.1) will be compatible with vista (6.0) like windows xp (5.1) is compatible with win2000 (5.0) and win2003 (5.2) )

[btarunr]

It says "Windows 7 Ultimate" and "Version 6.1" ?

Isn't Windows 7 supposed to be Windows Version 7.0 ??

[craigwhiteside]

its just a beta version of 7.0, they just named it to 6.1

[btarunr]

Craig, Win7 is supposed to have a spanking new kernel, with a change in kernel, there's a version change al tough we're not quite sure at all if it's the same NT derivative or the MinWin. If there's such a drastic kernel change, they'll definitely label it version 7 ? or if it's in beta, 0.7?

[craigwhiteside]

ya i know, they are testing the kernel and optimizing it as we speak.
the kernel they have now i believe isnt much different from vista's

[Kyro]

Not beta too early ... milestone 1 aka M1

[Xaser04]

Originally Posted by CDdude55

Just looks like Vista.

As stated in the op post:

Originally Posted by op

It isn't difficult to conclude that there is no way that this is what Windows 7 will look like. What is happening here is that new code is using Windows Vista as a cover. The simple purpose of M1 is to get a first idea how stable and compatible the code is with certain hardware and applications. If Vista wasn't there, you'd only see raw code and a basic UI. This is how early we are in the development of Windows 7. Of course, as time goes by, it would not surprise me a bit, if the GUI changes. Each release will have something new. This is how it was in the past and there is no reason to change that approach now.

Thats why it looks like vista.

[btarunr]

Isn't this discouraging for potential buyers of Windows Vista? That a new OS is already in the works and a M1 is released in less than 18 months of the release of Vista?

[jbizzler]

I imagine it's discouraging to buy Vista for a computer that already has another OS on it that you're happy with, but if you're in the market for a brand new computer, waiting 18 months for an OS we know very little about would be silly, especially since 18 months is the soonest we could see it, where we'll probably see it later.

Basically, if you're happy with XP, don't upgrade to Vista. If you're getting a new computer, and you're interested in Vista, go ahead and get one with it.

My guess is the 6.1 is either because it's Vista SP1 or they're using a numbering sheme where M1 to 7 is just 6.1.

[tzitzibp]

microSOFT should just give everyone a break..........

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by jbizzler

I imagine it's discouraging to buy Vista for a computer that already has another OS on it that you're happy with, but if you're in the market for a brand new computer, waiting 18 months for an OS we know very little about would be silly, especially since 18 months is the soonest we could see it, where we'll probably see it later.

Basically, if you're happy with XP, don't upgrade to Vista. If you're getting a new computer, and you're interested in Vista, go ahead and get one with it.

My guess is the 6.1 is either because it's Vista SP1 or they're using a numbering sheme where M1 to 7 is just 6.1.

Windows XP will live for another 18 months at least *prays*. So for people upgrading or owning a copy of Windows XP it's discouraging but for those buying a new machine pre-installed with an OS, there's no choice unless the system manufacturer has a provision to sell his system without an OS in which case users will opt for Windows XP as it's still selling or use a copy of it which they own. In such a case it becomes sensible to wait for the newer OS than end up in a transition phase similar to that between Windows Me and XP where users had to buy XP just to get rid of the extremely buggy Windows Me, the biggest practical joke ever played by Microsoft (thus far).

[Basard]

I liked them more when they were called "Windows 3.1" the 95's and XP's and Vista kinda suck. It sounds more high tech with the decimal versions....

People like to say "Seven" just as much as they like to say "Vista" "Ranch," or "Chipotle"... they don't know what they are eating, but they sure like the way it sounds.. haha, thats what I think anyways.

[Steevo]

/leaves for connect

[candle_86]

Originally Posted by btarunr

Isn't this discouraging for potential buyers of Windows Vista? That a new OS is already in the works and a M1 is released in less than 18 months of the release of Vista?

it didnt stop you from buying XP now did it?


and for refrance Vista codename longhorn had the XP desktop for a long time the new interface was one of the last things changed and it changed twice during beta to what you have now.

[AddSub]

Hilarious and sad at the same time.

MS is done, permanently.

[btarunr]

Originally Posted by candle_86

it didnt stop you from buying XP now did it?


and for refrance Vista codename longhorn had the XP desktop for a long time the new interface was one of the last things changed and it changed twice during beta to what you have now.

When XP was around and Longhorn Mx (milestones), RC's (release-candidates) were doing rounds, nobody was hating Windows XP, they just thought "okay this is going to be a good OS", but now that a significant number of people are not happy with Vista and that these people feel that Vista isn't a worthy successor to XP, such people will be inclined to wait for the newer OS, which if turns out to be good, they'll adapt it, else reject it and use Vista more out of compulsion, and meanwhile maintain a Windows XP installation. That explains why it's discouraging even while not being compulsive.

[candle_86]

lol if the normal person had listened to people like me that where on the Vista Beta team they would have realized something was wrong. No one listens though.

[btarunr]

Oh but normal people are normal, they won't realise your divine grace and line up for the wisdom.

Jokes apart, I guess people didn't care much about beta-testers discovering flaws in Longhorn beta because they thought a beta is a beta anyway and is bound to have bugs/flaws that MS would take note of with the help of the testers and fix. Unfortunately it didn't quite happen.

[Ketxxx]

more than 100 million copies have been sold in a year or so.

Yeah.. well thats easy to do when MS put a time limit on XP licences, and basically force pre-build companies to buy Vista and use it on their new systems

[ShadowFold]

YAY! Im not gonna have to get vista! I wonder if they will be 100$ for a OEM? Well this is considering if it doesnt suck like Vista.