Sunday, February 22nd 2009

Microsoft Confirms Windows 7 Release Candidate Will Launch on April 10 2009

In an exclusive interview with the guys at Neowin.net, Microsoft have confirmed, that provided no serious problems arise, they are on track to release Windows 7 RC on April 10. As yet the only changes which are known about, are User Account Control (UAC) fixes which prevent malware from disabling UAC all together.

More information about the development of Windows 7 comes from Geeksmack, with their email conversation with Steven Sinofsky, Microsoft Senior Vice President of Windows. Sinofsky said, "We have received an amazing amount of feedback, many suggestions for new features too, during the beta—over 500,000 suggestions just from the Send Feedback button." What was also interesting to note, "... by far the most humorous element has been that the build numbers blogged about are higher than our current build. Today’s build is 7046, but it hasn’t completed yet :-)"
Sinofsky is also said to have spoken to Ars Technica, and said that, "The build will be available broadly".Sources: Neowin.net , Geeksmack , Ars Technica
Add your own comment

45 Comments on Microsoft Confirms Windows 7 Release Candidate Will Launch on April 10 2009

#1
EnergyFX
DaveK said:
Speak for yourself. I switched to Vista SP1 on my new rig from XP SP2 and it's extremely slow.

Not only that, creating Rars takes ages, it didn't with XP. An hour to fit around 4.5GB into a Rar? Fuck that, took less than 30 mins on XP.

Boot is slower, browsing files in My Documents with thumbnails takes forever for them all to load, didn't on XP. Waiting on Uninstall programs to show, slow. Opening folders in the start menu? slow.

I've been using XP for about 5 years and Vista is nowhere near faster than XP for me.

I'm waiting for Windows 7 to come out, I didn't have any speed issues with that on my old rig.
I don't work with RARs much, but everything else you listed is near instant on all three of my systems, and one is a 2 year old laptop.

Maybe it's your system.
Posted on Reply
#2
farlex85
Yeah I think something's wrong there. Everything you mentioned DaveK, including rar, are much faster on vista than xp on my machine. Something is amiss on your system.
Posted on Reply
#3
onscreen
Without Vista, Microsoft will not learn from their mistake and improve it in Windows 7.
Posted on Reply
#4
J-Man
Binge said:
I'm excited to upgrade to something more stable than Vista. Not to say it was too unstable, but more stability can't hurt. :toast:
Me never had problems with Vista at all. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#5
ShadowFold
DaveK said:
Speak for yourself. I switched to Vista SP1 on my new rig from XP SP2 and it's extremely slow.

Not only that, creating Rars takes ages, it didn't with XP. An hour to fit around 4.5GB into a Rar? Fuck that, took less than 30 mins on XP.

Boot is slower, browsing files in My Documents with thumbnails takes forever for them all to load, didn't on XP. Waiting on Uninstall programs to show, slow. Opening folders in the start menu? slow.

I've been using XP for about 5 years and Vista is nowhere near faster than XP for me.

I'm waiting for Windows 7 to come out, I didn't have any speed issues with that on my old rig.
Well for one you're running DDR1. And you could have had a lot of spyware. When ever I try XP it's slower than ass compared to Vista.
Posted on Reply
#6
driver66
DaveK said:
Speak for yourself. I switched to Vista SP1 on my new rig from XP SP2 and it's extremely slow.

Not only that, creating Rars takes ages, it didn't with XP. An hour to fit around 4.5GB into a Rar? Fuck that, took less than 30 mins on XP.

Boot is slower, browsing files in My Documents with thumbnails takes forever for them all to load, didn't on XP. Waiting on Uninstall programs to show, slow. Opening folders in the start menu? slow.

I've been using XP for about 5 years and Vista is nowhere near faster than XP for me.

I'm waiting for Windows 7 to come out, I didn't have any speed issues with that on my old rig.
You have an extremely slow system :{ :ohwell:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 @ 2.0GHz < *cough*
Motherboard: ASRock 4 Core Dual VSTA
Cooling: 5x120mm, 1x200mm, Stock Intel Cooler
Memory: Crucial 2048MB DDR2 PC2-4300 @ 296MHz
Video Card: 512MB Sapphire X1950Pro
Posted on Reply
#7
Ser-J
Don't want to sound repetitive, but once again, at where vista is at right now, we are totally fine. Vista improved dramatically and people are finally giving up their lovely XP, that they have been using for some time. I wish Microsoft took more time and made sure W7 is not just a polished out Vista, but a completely new and redesigned OS.
Posted on Reply
#8
Triprift
I agree with you it seems to me MS have been listening to much to the negative vibe surrounding Vista and want to slip it under the carpet and bring out a shiny new os to try and make everyone happy.
Posted on Reply
#9
ShadowFold
I think they should get 7 out. Business wise, it's VERY smart. Get Vista SP2 out, slap a new UI on it, call it something else and people will buy it. The average computer buyer hears "OH MY GOD VISTA ALWAYS CRASHES AND ITS SLOW ON MY HP PENTIUM 4 CPU OMG!" and they go, oh it sucks, Pentium 4's are king!! For us techies it's just Vista SP2..
Posted on Reply
#10
DaveK
ShadowFold said:
Well for one you're running DDR1. And you could have had a lot of spyware. When ever I try XP it's slower than ass compared to Vista.
I'm not running DDR1, I'm running DDR2. Last time I checked DDR2 PC2-4300 was DDR2. Second, this is a fresh install of Vista and as soon as I installed Vista I got Firefox, AVG and Spybot S&D and have checked for spyware and got nothing. It's pretty hard to get a lot of spyware in 3 days by installing a few demos and applications.

driver66 said:
You have an extremely slow system :{ :ohwell:

Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E4300 @ 2.0GHz < *cough*
Motherboard: ASRock 4 Core Dual VSTA
Cooling: 5x120mm, 1x200mm, Stock Intel Cooler
Memory: Crucial 2048MB DDR2 PC2-4300 @ 296MHz
Video Card: 512MB Sapphire X1950Pro
Nice to know my system is extremely slow. My old rig ran XP and Windows 7 fine, but Vista slow, guess that was just my other extremely slow system. Programs like Firefox and Paint Shop Pro run fine, but Vista stuff like loading thumbnail previews and opening pictures is slow. But, that's just my extremely slow system. It's not like XP would run faster on it, oh, wait...
Posted on Reply
#11
Triprift
Sounds like youd be happier with XP then and i and many others here will be happy staying with Vista for the time being everyone to there own i say.
Posted on Reply
#12
omiknight52
I've been using the windows 7 beta man I can't wait- Though I'll be moving to mac os X.
Posted on Reply
#13
Tau
DaveK said:
I'm not running DDR1, I'm running DDR2. Last time I checked DDR2 PC2-4300 was DDR2. Second, this is a fresh install of Vista and as soon as I installed Vista I got Firefox, AVG and Spybot S&D and have checked for spyware and got nothing. It's pretty hard to get a lot of spyware in 3 days by installing a few demos and applications.



Nice to know my system is extremely slow. My old rig ran XP and Windows 7 fine, but Vista slow, guess that was just my other extremely slow system. Programs like Firefox and Paint Shop Pro run fine, but Vista stuff like loading thumbnail previews and opening pictures is slow. But, that's just my extremely slow system. It's not like XP would run faster on it, oh, wait...
Vista would run like crap on your system.... as by Vista standards it IS slow. I wouldent try to run vista on anything less than your specs.... and IMO that DDR2 is pretty slow (no offence, no flam intended)

Vista shines on a machine with enough power, and when you tweek it a bit it runs pretty damn spanky, kill off a few services, tweek a couple settings and you have a nice fast OS.

Now im not a Vista fanboy... i run XP on my main desktop, as well as my HTPC (HTPC will be switching to 64bit vista/7 here soon enough), i run Vista Business on my primary laptop... mind you its not exactly a slow laptop, T9300, 4GB, 7200RPM HDD, dedicated video etc.

Vista with enough power flys, vista without enough power is a POS.... though its like that with ANY operating system... people need to stop blaming vista. Go run XP on a 400Mhz pentium 2, with 128MB ram, and tell me it runs nice.
Posted on Reply
#15
kylew
DaveK said:
I'm not running DDR1, I'm running DDR2. Last time I checked DDR2 PC2-4300 was DDR2. Second, this is a fresh install of Vista and as soon as I installed Vista I got Firefox, AVG and Spybot S&D and have checked for spyware and got nothing. It's pretty hard to get a lot of spyware in 3 days by installing a few demos and applications.



Nice to know my system is extremely slow. My old rig ran XP and Windows 7 fine, but Vista slow, guess that was just my other extremely slow system. Programs like Firefox and Paint Shop Pro run fine, but Vista stuff like loading thumbnail previews and opening pictures is slow. But, that's just my extremely slow system. It's not like XP would run faster on it, oh, wait...
No one has pointed out that he most probably has a slow ass HDD and it's struggling with Vista's indexing.

If it's a fresh system, it will be busy indexing things, if your HDD is slow then your experience of opening folders is going to be slow especially while indexing is going on.
Posted on Reply
#16
eidairaman1
yup indexing uses unnecessary Cycles, that's the way of NT, beyond that NT was never meant for the Consumer Market.
Posted on Reply
#17
kylew
eidairaman1 said:
its going to RC too quickly i think.
Why's that?
Posted on Reply
#18
Sasqui
Funny, Windows NT release was build 1381

Windows 7 RC is build 7046 ... they doing builds 3 times a day or what?
Posted on Reply
#19
messa
Bleeding Edge Lemmings

Windows 7 is Not faster than XP!
It has been proven and it will be proven more when the final is released.

Vista is Not faster than XP and made no improvements to user productivity.
In fact many things took an extra click or two in Vista.

So just to be clear here..
They are not faster and not more productive.

If your computer is mainly used as a toy for ammusment purposes then Vista and Win7 will work great for your needs.

Either of these will give you a shinny new OS that's more engaging and as a byproduct enables you to justify your obsession to purchase extremely overpriced bleeding edge hardware.

Think People!
Posted on Reply
#20
crazy pyro
Honestly, you are talking rubbish it's been proven in several benchmarks of boot up times that win 7 is faster than both of them.
Also XP is sooo incredibly insecure, maybe I've got used to UAC popping up and stopping viruses installing themselves but I was on the internet without AV for 5 minutes to get firefox and anti-virus and I've got a virus that seems to redirect me to ad sites when I google stuff.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment