Talk:Windows 7/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~


  • Oppose - It's not a codename either. It's just a working name. Microsoft spells it Windows 7. I have never seen Microsoft spell it Windows "7" and I have never heard Microsoft say that 7 is a codename. Josh 16:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - Go here it is referred to as "Windows ‘7’ — the internal name for the next version of the Windows Client OS ".--Chetblongtalk to me 17:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    Comment - That's just how Foley typed it. Josh 19:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - As per Josh, The working name is 'Windows 7' as a whole, the 7 is as part of the name as Windows is. AndrewJDTALK -- 19:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Ziff Davis Net is not an official partner of microsoft, and nowhere in the internal documents is Windows Vienna / 7, referred to as Windwos "7" It is referred to simply as 'Windows 7'
  • Oppose. I know I was the one that put Windows "Vienna" in quotes, but this is a slightly different situation. Same goes for Office, I haven't seen it referred to as Office "12". — Alex Khristov 00:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Change to Neutral: on the other hand, either I'm wrong or the Office 12 article is. — Alex Khristov 00:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - it is fine as it is, it could turn out to be Windows 7, or something like Windows Fobboldedoodle -- if it's the former, we're fine, if it's the latter (or something else), we can set up a redirect. Douglas C (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It is typed without in most places. It is fine the way it is right now. Besides, Microsoft may announce a new name for it soon. This is just a codename.

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Can Microsoft count? 95=4, 98=5, 2000=6, XP=7, Vista=8...81.156.219.217 20:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Some of those are minor versions. 95=4, 98=4.1, 2000=5, XP=5.1, Vista=6...Josh 20:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Windows ME 5.0 Windows XP 5.1 Windows Vista 6.0 Windows 7 7.0

Windows Me was 4.9 -- Imperator3733 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You sure? Anyways, that doesn't matter. ME belonged to the 9x series (that ended with ME). XP (5.1) belongs to the NT series and is a successor of Windows 2000 (5.0) not ME. --soum talk 14:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes. It's on the Windows Me page and I have looked on an actual Me copy. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 14:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a continuum: there are two seperate version number lines for the two kernel types. "Windows" (DOS-based, obselete) and "Windows NT" (current). So major release of the Windows kernel had version numbers 1, 2, 3, 3.1, 4.0 (95), 4.1 (98), 4.2 (98SE), and 4.9 (ME). Major releases of Windows NT had version numbers 3.1, 3.51, 4.0, 5.0 (2000), 5.1 (XP), 5.2 (Server 2003), and 6.0 (Vista). Don't confuse the two: for example, both Windows 95 and Windows NT 4 had a version number of 4.0 in their respective different codebases, but obviously weren't the same. -- simxp (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, this looks like it's basically just Vista. Shouldn't it be Windows 6.1? -Grim- (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows 6.1 is Vista SP1/Server 2008 -- Imperator3733 (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Vista SP1/Server 2008 is Windows 6.0 SP1. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they're 6.1 ([1]). The kernel was improved more during the development of Server 2008, and SP1 gives Vista that updated kernel. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd trust one of Paul's screenshots over what he typed. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hm. That's interesting. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, the so-called Windows 7 is version 6.1. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Windows 7 builds install on top of Vista SP1 (Windows 6.1) -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Installing on top of an old version doesn't result in the new version using the old version number. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Might if it is linking in Vista resources and binaries for stuff that hasn't changed. --soum talk 07:29, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Link

I would like to propose the following link to be addedd to the article: http://www.windows7forums.com

206.248.73.22 23:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

This website doesn't exist. You probably meant http://windows7forum.org, don't you?

yeah it does exist...i'm a member! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.131.66.32 (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S: There are no topics on page http://windows7forum.org. Kubek15 (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

windows7forum.org is now just an ad website, no content there about Windows 7. www.windows7forums.com was down for some time, so probably that's why you said that it doesn't exist. From what I see, windows7forums.com is the largest forum out there about Windows 7, so that's hwy I suggested it. Coolest-tech (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ribbon

Ribbon in Windows 7 makes a few claims which look to be at least a bit like OR. And the phrasing of the section is vague. "May" and "will" are exclusive of each other when talking about whether a feature would be included. Can someone fix this section? I'm not "in the know" about Windows 7 to be able to do it myself. -- Lewellyn 14:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

interesting

I'd very much like to learn more about this. It's also very strange to see a Microsoft product not have a "criticism" section on it. Then again, you'll never find out just how they're screwing you until you buy the product. 74.65.1.16 16:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the product is only in various forms of development without even having released a beta; why would there be criticism already? Gotta love fanboys. RoamingComedian (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


---

Windows 7 looks great. I hope they keep that name and it's not some codename they'll drop later. Vista was bulky, but the MinWin system sounds WONDERFUL. I love Windows XP, NT, etc., and I think Microsoft gets a lot of flack for no goddamned good reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.12.77 (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Being one of the largest companies in the world, it brings a lot of flack for no reason. I agree with you that Microsoft is a good company, I mean if they weren't, imagine what would happen. I don't even wanna think about it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.56.244 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

---

I read somewhere (either on Wikipedia or Slashdot) that Microsoft is replacing their codebase with a brand new (and *not* backwards compatible) one. The thing I remember specifically is that this new technology would replace things like COM, COM+, .NET, etc. Can anyone comment on whether or not Microsoft is planning on obsoleting .NET?? ImMute (talk) 14:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That came from this who-knows-who-the-guy-is's article. And to that, a Microsoft employee gave a nice succint answer. --soum talk 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Kernel update

There will be a major kernel update in the upcoming OS. It would be interesting to include this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.246.40.54 (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for this? Josh (talk | contribs) 15:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Seven? It should be about 12..

title.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.106.143 (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The sequence is:

  • Windows 1 is Windows 1
  • Windows 2 is Windows 2
  • Windows 3.0 is Windows 3.0
  • Windows 3.1 is Windows 3.1
  • Windows 95 is Windows 4.0
  • Windows 98 is Windows 4.1
  • Windows Me is Windows 4.9
  • Windows XP is Windows 5
  • Windows Vista is Windows 6
  • And so this must be Windows 7. Georgia guy 16:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

After ME, you got the numbers wrong.

  • 2000 5.0
  • XP 5.1
  • Server 2003 5.2
  • Vista 6

What about NT? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.85.204 (talk) 21:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

NT 3.1 is 3.1
NT 3.5 is 3.5
NT 3.51 is 3.51
NT 4.0 is 4.0
2000 is 5.0
XP is 5.1
Vista is 6.0
7 is 7.0
Are we done discussing this now? Josh (talk | contribs) 21:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
NT are the ones they count by... Since XP and 7 are based off the NT codebase, not the 9x one, they count by the version of NT...

Official Codename Change

The official codename has been changed internally at Microsoft to "Windows Schwarzer". Will the article be changed even though there hasn't been a public press release? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.190.108.19 (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. There's no proof. Josh (talk | contribs) 02:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Doing a web search of "Windows Schwarzer" returns no results pertaining to Windows 7. RoamingComedian (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, when I did a Google search, I got 38 results, and they all appear to be German. Georgia guy (talk) 23:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Considering "schwarz" means "black" in German, "Schwarzer" could mean "Blackcomb". I'm no expert. ZtObOr 23:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of MinWin section

Two times now, the MinWin section of this article has been deleted. The given rationale was "per mark Russinovich Eric's demo was a different research project. see http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=365911" and "per mark Russinovich Eric's demo was a different research project. see http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=365911 ...not the same as Erik clearly that is known stop swapping this." I watched that video. He says MinWin is different from Server Core. That's absolutly true. It is part of Windows 7, though. This article is about Windows 7, not Server Core. Please discuss this here before removing it again. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone resize the logo? Kubek15 (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed it as not being an official logo. Please see your Talk page for more. — Aluvus t/c 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

External links

The following external links don't belong in this article:

  • http://www.windowsvienna.com -- it's a rarely-updated blog with no interesting information
  • http://www.windows7.cc -- another blog, doesn't contain any useful information
  • http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp -- while it's tempting to link to Thurrott because that's what we've done elsewhere, this page doesn't actually have any useful information on it either

Unless there is substantial improvement in the quality or informative value of any of these sites, they will continue to be removed from this article. -/- Warren 18:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I highly agree with Warren's view on this, putting aside my personal feelings toward these particular sites. I was about to revert anon's revert, but Warren beat me to it. I certainly hope that this doesn't turn into an edit war over blog entries on an unreleased version of Windows. I'd hate to be at all involved in a lame edit war. ;) I'm all for external links, provided they add to the article. -- Lewellyn talk 23:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
There is absolutely no need for these ELs. What reliable information does it provide that is not already in the article? And if it ever includes any useful information, it will be incorporated into the article. So, these will always be redundant. --soum talk 02:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree as well and had to wipe those again. I see nothing unique and reliable on these pages that this article doesn't cover already. And nothing more in depth than the topics of this article either, really. They also seem to be coming as a package. :-P I just wish the people adding those would discuss them on the talk page first. Anyway, I wrote precisely that when I did my reverting edit just now. — Northgrove 10:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's kinda strange...

...how Windows first started using numbers for version control (Windows for Workgroups), then switched to year numbers (95, 98, and finally 2000), then switched to codenames such as "NT", "XP", and "Vista", and is switching back to numbers.

And I never knew that Vista was version 6. I kind of lost track around 3.1, because we just call them by codenames as laymen.

ZtObOr 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think 7 will be the final name. We probably won't know for another year. Georgia guy (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, XP and Vista weren't codenames, per se... XP had no fewer than 10 codenames for its various incarnations... And Vista was codenamed "Longhorn". (Note that most recent non-embedded Windows codenames, at least since NT 3.5, are geography-related...)But, NT really was the codename for NT 3.1. ("NT OS/2", which is a history all its own!) And "Me" was short for "Millennium Edition". I think they're using "Windows 7" as an interim name since it's had a few code-names now... But that's enough of my history lesson and speculation for today! ;) -- Lewellyn talk 20:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I... see...
I can see why people are having trouble following version numbers for Windows. I don't keep track of them myself, and thought, hmm. Windows 7. Strange... ZtObOr 23:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Can't follow version numbers? Jesus, does no one else use a command prompt now and then? Nil Einne (talk) 08:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't even need to use command prompt. Just run 'winver'. Evils Dark (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

MinWin

@Anon: The evidence has been presented here and here. They all show that mark and eric are talking about the same thing. Specifically from the Mark interview:

"...Eric Traut gave a talk at University of Ohio about something called MinWin and there's a lot of confusion about what MinWin is and how it relates to Server Core...So, a lot of people when they heard MinWin again thought 'Oh, that's the MinWin that was the basis for Server Foundation or Server Core' and actually the MinWin that we're talking about today is something pretty different and the MinWin that we're talking about today is really what Rich Nason/Rich Plexer done with the help of a bunch of other people, analyze the dependencies and carve out the lowest smallest core component of Windows that would be a standalone testable slice of Windows...So, it can be built seperatly from the rest of the Windows source tree and can run independently of the Windows source tree as Eric showed in his VM demo...

(Emphasis mine)

Is that not proof enough that they are talking about the same MinWin? Again from the Eric video,

...This is the core of Windows 7...

Is that enough for you or do you need a formal proof that two and two equals four? Watch the videos again, I suggest. Join the discussion if you feel otherwise, not engage in edit war, failing which there will be no option but to block the IP address you are editing and ever have edited from (and don't think for a moment that I would hesitate before blocking the entire IP range assigned to your ISP if need be). Show us some evidence that the MinWin kernels being talked about by Eric and Mark are not the same project. Sure Eric layered a different code on top of MinWin for the demo than what would go on top of it for Windows 7. The MinWin build itself might be from an entirely different branch for that matter but that does not make any difference: they are still the same project. It has been a demo of the MinWin that "is the core of Windows 7". The code that will go into Windows 7 might be different from what was demoed - in fact that is to be expected of an under-development software - but that does not make them different projects altogether. The evidence presented here backs this up - that they (Eric's MinWin and Mark's MinWin) are the results of the same MinWin effort. On the contrary you have not provided any evidence to back up your claims. Or else quit making the changes, which, frankly, will be viewed as disruptive. --soum talk 18:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC) It's a third part program. It's not Windows 7!

New information

TG Daily http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35641/118/ reported that they received word that the milestone 1 alpha of Windows 7 was shipped to "key partners" and that the targeted release date for the OS is in second half of 2009. They also say that it has shipped in x86 and x64 versions. They also said, "An interesting feature that has been highlighted by Microsoft is the ability of the M1 software to handle a heterogeneous graphics system consisting of multiple graphics cards from different vendors. A new version of the Media center is already integrated in this software, but supports PC speakers only at this time." The also report that "The M2 code drop is currently scheduled for April/May 2008, M3 will follow in the third quarter." Also, http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080111/new-ui-framework-future-windows/ Istartedsomething.com mentions Microsoft making a new Windows UI. Can someone update the article with this info please? Althepal (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently working on it. It should be up in a minute or so. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
A friend of mine who is on the shell team at Microsoft confirmed that this article is in fact correct. Unfortunately, all this build consists of is the new kernel (built off MinWin) with a slightly modified version of the Vista UI slapped on top. - A. Friend
Here are a couple more sources, if anyone can cite them or put more information into the article. http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archives/2008/01/windows_7_goes.html

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-7-set-for-late-2009-release-201142 Althepal (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

From http://www.windowsvienna.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=33 apparently the build numbers might be 3546 or 3627. Any chance it can be mentioned in the release table? Also http://www.rssblogpro.com/forget-vista-windows-7-is-here has more info. Althepal (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Builds 3546 and 3627 would be Longhorn. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Longhorn? They were the 4xxx builds of version 6.0.??? as against these builds which has a post-Vista version number. A release isn't identified just by the build number. Anyways, the sources cited would not categorize as reliable sources. So, I say we should wait for a reliable confirmation (btw, the rssblogpro blog doesn't list the build numbers anymore).
No, there were Longhorn builds preceding 4xxx -- these belong to Longhorn Milestone 1-3. Milestone 4 started at build 4000. The talk of Windows 7 builds that I've seen so far have been at builds 64xx and onwards. I'd guess that the 3546/3627 talked of there that "float on torrent sites" are stuff under faked names. — Northgrove 16:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, now there are tons of news articles on Windows 7. http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9855257-56.html?tag=nefd.lede http://vista.blorge.com/2008/01/22/microsoft-patents-3d-interface-to-be-part-of-windows-7/ http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080122/neowin-forum-review-windows-7-m1/

Like info on the UI and M1. And it seems there is someone who used the M1 release and says the build number is 6.1.6519.1. Does this sound right? Is that enough to include in the article? Althepal (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Some guy in a forum who claims to have used it is not a reliable source and it seems rediculous that version 7 would have a version number of 6.1. - Josh (talk | contribs) 05:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that ridiculous (I think?). Windows Vista finished at 6000 and had builds starting around 3000. But I guess you're right. While it would be cool if that forum post is true, I guess you're right it's not reliable enough. Althepal (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the he was talking of a 6.1 version for Windows "7" though, not the builds. But yes, the builds are completely arbitrary in where they start. When MS "rebooted" the Longhorn project, they just picked a round and nicely sounding number (build 5000) to separate it from the former Longhorn builds. Sometimes, they get lower build numbers than preceding operating systems, but I think that's also normal, especially if they start using a new kernel (MinWin?). — Northgrove 16:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
The 6.1 version seems correct after checking with other sources on AeroXP.org. The Windows "7" build line seem to rather consistently use a 6.1 version internally. At this point, with this short timeframe for the final version (2H 2009), I'd actually venture to guess that there was a change of plans at MS after the Windows 7 codename had been revealed, and that it's rather going to be what XP was to 2000; a less major release, at least to the end user. But in either case, the 6.1 numbering looks to be correct from what's been seen by e.g. checking message headers of certain Microsoft employees posting on newsgroups, etc. As soon as the public gets hold of a build, or a screenshot / information verified to be authentic is released, we'll know for sure. — Northgrove 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be an "insider" who confirmed the M1 review and clarified some points. I don't know if this is really reliable either, but they seem to support each other. Perhaps there could be mention in the article of the "review", noting that it is possibly incorrect? I don't know. It seems interesting. Here's the link by the way http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080123/insider-confirm-windows-7/ . I don't know if that's reliable enough or not. I personally would vote to make some mention, but I guess it doesn't hurt to wait a while longer before putting info in the article. Althepal (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots and confirmation?

It seems there may be real screenshots of M1 leaked. They don't seem to be faked, but I guess anything is possible. They support both the M1 review and the "insider" response, as well as initial reports. It all seems like too much effort without enough reason for it to be a hoax. Here's the address http://ctfblog.977mb.com/wordpress/?p=830 I suggest you take a look. I vote to include (possibly qualified) the information of the review and insider response, as well as this screenshot http://img33.picoodle.com/img/img33/4/1/24/f_pic2m_c1b0808.jpg for the infobox. Althepal (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them on this page. I think that page is the original source, since the screenshots show a registration for user "zhou", and that's the guy running that blog. They also haven't had ugly watermark texts slapped onto them there either. IMO, they look authentic anyway, and I was also not really that surprised they have trickled out either, now that M1 was shipped to some partners. If legit, now we have the compile date of that M1 drop too (2007-12-20, 15:25). ;-) — Northgrove 02:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey, yeah. Well, it looks real enough to me. Does anyone have any objections of using http://www.thinknext.net/content/2008/01/7desktop.jpg in the article, as well as mentioning the release as being on 12/20/07, plus maybe some details of M1 based on the insider? Althepal (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
They are fakes, there are several clear items that show that they are fake. The "Feedback Button" on the desktop is a clear giveaway for several reasons. First, this is an alpha build, they wouldn't have something like that unless it was a public build. The second giveaway is the gadget Windows 7 "Rate your Experience" the problem with that is twofold, they wouldn't have that kind of capitalization (with the your not capitalized, but the other two words were), and that kind of gadget would only be in a public beta. TheSpeedster (talk) 02:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I thought some work on Windows 7 was being done in India, and I have had experience with HP Support Live Chat where the tech support people (who are most likely from India) would always capitalize Nouns. "Rate your Experience" might therefor be the result. And it is M1, remember? Do you think they care about something like that? And why wouldn't Microsoft give the "key partners" an easy way to give feedback? So while I can't say 100% for sure they are really real, the items you brought up don't make me think it is less likely. Althepal (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The major thing though is the Feedback Button. Even though this was released to various partners, it would have something more official as the title, like "Submit a Bug Report" or something like that. And the development is being done in Redmond, because that's where Microsoft is located, the work in India might be for localization. (forgot to sign it.) TheSpeedster (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
This is obviously not going to be confirmed genuine anytime soon so i personally think its best to keep it out until something official surfaces. However, some of the features of the build match statements made by others claiming to have used it. It's in a grey zone, but i would'nt say its fake right off the bat. Looking at screenshots of Longhorn and Neptune builds, this being real is not that far of a stretch. Verdict? Real.

I can belive that some Screens. are not a Fake, but have you ever looked at the windows(frame). Some of them lookes like Vista. And there is also available a PSD on DeviantArt, which is editable. Look at this and this . (Sry, for my english. I'm a austrian Pupil) --Cruscher (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You can sign your comments by typing four tildes so we know who you are. =) I think the screenshots look rather too much like Vista to be believable, though since it's in an early stage it is possible. I just really think they would wait to add the Aero glass effect till later in the development stage. Entbark (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
They already added the Aero glass effect with Vista, so they didn't have to add it at any point in Windows 7 development. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The second image you posted Cruscher is a concept image by someone over Here. I believe that from here on out, there should be no screenshots or build numbers posted (nobody is even certain if the build's are 7.0.6xxx or 6.1.6xxx or even 7xxx TheSpeedster (talk) 23:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Those other screenshots are known that they are faked. And I think there is enough support to say that it is 6.xxxx instead of 7.xxxx. The final version will most likely be build 7000 or something. Althepal (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Eh, with regards to the aunthenticity of the screenshots, does it not seem odd (and fake) to anyone else that Microsoft would be assigning version names like "Ultimate" to a pre-alpha first milestone? I would have thought that would have been the last thing they would do pre-RTM. 86.42.199.50 (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Longhorn build 3683, which came only about a year into Longhorn development, was labelled as "Longhorn XP Professional". - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft for if we decide to write about this (for the Releases section):

"Various sources have published information, screenshots and video that supposedly detail Windows 7 Milestone 1, with a version number of 6.1.6519.1. Features described include Gadgets being integrated into Windows Explorer, a Gadget for Windows Media Center, and a new XPS Viewer. An included feedback tool reportedly lists the ability to store Internet Explorer settings on a Windows Live account, Windows Presentation Foundation versions of Calculator, Paint and WordPad, and a 10 minute install process as coming features." - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I like it with a few cosmetic changes. go ahead and add, if you want, I will keep a watch. --soum talk 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with allowing it is that we don't know if that is the official M1 build. And the only sources we have are a suspect Chinese site that had fake screenshots, as well as one Neowin user. TheSpeedster (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's okay. It makes it clear that Microsoft isn't saying anything, yet it provides what is most likely the case. And there also was an 'insider' who confirmed, right? Not to mention someone in this talk page who also says they have 'a friend' at Microsoft who could confirm it. But I think perhaps the release date should be changed from January 2008 to December 20 2008, as per the screenshots which are most likely real. Althepal (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is a YouTube video which match the M1 screenshots from the Chinese blog. http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2133 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-crFaYLW-xk I highly doubt that this guy would put so much effort into making an entire fake video, and all the details from the reviewer, insider, and video match each other too much to me to have high doubts. And M1 was released, so one would also expect screenshots and such non-faked information to be out there. Althepal (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't get too excited by the video, its too blurry to prove anything, and the only things that you can see (the about screen) can be easily faked. As well as they have already been posted around various forums and the general consensus (+ a few "insider"s) have said its a fake. There is no non-faked material out there at this minute. It was released only to key partners, and probably under the strictest of NDA's, so don't expect any information to be real. TheSpeedster (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
It is known that M1 is out there, so we already know it is possible for someone to get screenshots and screencast. And with a whole screencast, you know the screenshots weren't just drawn. However, you can say Photoshop was used to change some images in the system itself. However, as can be seen in some new screenshots and the screencast, there are features seen that, as far as I know, aren't 3rd party software. I'm pretty sure this is the real deal. If there isn't opposition, I would feel confident using any information or screenshot from the thinknext.net blog in this article. http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2150 Althepal (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that that video is real. It seems pretty close to the video here. My main reason is the buttons on the Start Menu in the second video to pin/un-pin programs. That could be easy to fake for a screenshot, but it seems a lot harder to fake with a video. I just don't think that many people would be motivated enough to fake a feature like that. I know that I wouldn't -- I had never even thought of something like that until I saw the video. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

There are more screenshots which match the screencasts and screeshots of the Chinese blogger as well as the neowin review and insider confirmation. http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35814/140/ I have almost zero doubt now that the info is real, and I would just like a little feedback from other editors here before modifying the article. Althepal (talk) 01:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm still a bit sceptic about the screenshots. Why would they call it Windows 7 Ultimate? I doubt they would start having different versions of 7 now at the milestone stage. All of the screenshots I've seen can easily be photoshopped, or system files can be changed to display such information. Plus, they don't really show anything new that you probably can't get/mod in Vista. Just things saying 'Windows 7'. It's hardly a milestone if it's just vista with one or two new bits and Windows 7 slapped around instead of Vista. Has there actually been any real statement from Microsoft confirming their authenticity? If their hasn't, then I highly suggest removing them until screenshots are oficially released or confirmed by Microsoft. -jamiepgs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.195.97 (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you need to look at the milestones for Vista. Early ones were called "Longhorn XP Professional" and looked almost exactly like XP.Althepal (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

secn break

While the info seems most definitely real, it is not for us to decide. Lets go by reliable sources for this. Once this is appears in mainstream press (whether via the thinknext blog or other ways irrespective), we can source (and ref to) from them. --soum talk 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/141917/bloggers_early_version_of_windows_7_leaked.html It talks about the screenshots and review. But of course we won't get any official word unless a news site interviews one of the people with the build. Althepal (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
That article is based on two random people who have no credibility on the internet. I think the policy should be until we get screenshots from Microsoft (through PDC or WinHEC) that nothing of that variety should be posted.
Microsoft won't post screenshots for months. The leaked screenshots are most defiantly real and imo would provide the most accurate information for the article. Althepal (talk) 05:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The whole thing is that people have faked screenshots before and people have believed that they are real. These aren't reliable screenshots, and have been generally disproven around various tech communities. It doesn't help the article to show the stage of devlopement right now anyways, because basically it would just be a screenshot of Vista SP1. TheSpeedster (talk) 07:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The present stage is M1 and that is what the article deserves. Sources have confirmed these screenshots, and TG Daily has also confirmed with matching screenshots. TG Daily is not known to fake. Also, these screenshots match real information, and they are not just photoshop jobs either (you can't use photoshop to make a video or screencast). Previous (fake) screenshots are from before M1 was released, do not match any Microsoft development trends, and were accepted as mock-ups of what people want. These screenshots are real, widely accepted, confirmed, completely match past trends and current information, and would not be easy to fake like those other ones. No matter that M1 looks much like Vista. That's what M1 is. I'm sure you would agree that Windows 98 deserves a screenshot even though it looks like Windows 95. Althepal (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


It's a fake

Turns out this is all a fake. [2][3]. That was a prank "release" of Windows 7. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Just becuase fakes were uploaded to pirating websites doesn't mean any of the other information wasn't real. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Since that information was all based on the fakes wouldn't that make that information... fake? Remember, all this "release" news came via one Chinese website and has now been debunked by several reputable sites. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh...It'd help if I knew Chinese...Does the Chinese site say it they got Windows 7 from one of those websites? - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
They don't say where they got it from on the Chinese site, but they're denying it's a fake saying they'd never fake screenshots. But they also offer no proof to oppose that view. [4]. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Also thought I'd point out that the other US based site that briefly had the descriptions of Win 7 on it (and later deleted it) were noted as probably being fake in the very blog thread that the descriptions were listed in [5]. There seems to be little credible evidence to support any actual use of Win 7 to date. And seeing as reliable sources are needed for the entry it should be left out for now until some credible website has used the OS release. Gateman1997 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Dude, it's not a fake. Microsoft delivered it to key partners. The Chinese guy said that he got a hard copy and not from online. It was confirmed that an M1 was released, and just because someone posted an empty torrent that means nothing. Didn't you see the video? That's not something easy to fake. And there is no reason to assume it's fake either. And TG Daily also posted screenshots showing the same exact stuff. It's real, so get used to it. Althepal (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Their descriptions were from neowin. The Neowin descriptions are in serious doubt as they were both deleted and partially debunked in a single webboard thread. And yes I've seen the video, and I've seen pages linking to the video claiming it's a fake (yes it's easy to fake videos too since these "Win7" releases are almost identical to Vista. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
M1 is supposed to be almost identical to the previous version. Yet there are obvious things in it that cannot be done in Vista. And again, if TG Daily also posted the screenshots that show the same exact software, why on earth would you still doubt it? Althepal (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You can mod Vista to look like Seven as well, take http://betaarchive.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3443 for example, a website took these to be real screenshots, but obviously they aren't. Its simple to trick people, especially when there is nothing to compare it to. There are no real screenshots, there are no reliable sources available yet. Nothing, end of story. Until something leaks this should (and I think is) the policy. TheSpeedster (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course you can do things like that. Except those don't match expectations for an M1, nor do they have the features supposed for Windows 7. Anyhow those are put out as fakes, while the other ones are put out as real by two different sources. Althepal (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

My partial revert

Yesterday I posted two screenshots and some info on the M1 build. It was reverted. However, let me quickly explain why it shouldn't be reverted. Firstly, the screenshots are real, confirmed by TG Daily. No reason whatsoever to believe they are faked, esp when videos accompany them. It was removed becasue it was "confirmed a prank". That is a misunderstanding. The screenshots came from actual copies shipped to individuals. They never said they downloaded it from a torrent. A fake torrent means nothing. If you revert me again, I don't care, and I'll leave the article. I was just doing this for the better interest of the article and people who read it. You want to point to specualative sources which indicate that a three year development begins at every interview or that it is impossible for hard copies to have been shipped to anyone? Be my guest. Althepal (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

For now I accept your arguments regarding the screenshots, but the release date is being clearly noted as being out to possibly 2011 now on multiple sites. And they are still quoting 3 years from this month as the release date which would put it in 2011. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I'll leave that alone, but I still don't think Microsoft meant 3 years from now, regardless of the newspapers that ran with the WinVistaClub. I'll just say, even though the tentative schedule shown to TG Daily shows H2 2009, a "3 years" would logically mean total from the start point (of late 2006), and Microsoft would never intentionally have a five year development term, I'll let the article stay at whatever you want.
(By the way, even though you already accepted my arguments about the screenshots, I just also want to point to Image:Windows_Longhorn_Build_3683.png, an early milestone of Vista which shows similarities to the early milestone of Win 7. Those aren't doubted either.) Althepal (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
The reason that those are accepted is because the build actually leaked to the public.TheSpeedster (talk) 02:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I know. I'm just using it as an example of how an early milestone build is expected to look, which only match the screenshots out there which are put out by two sources as real. Althepal (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
OK I see your point. I still disagree with your stance on the screenshots, since this is an encyclopedic site, it should not have screenshots which have not been proven to be real, yet have several well known places stating that they are fake.TheSpeedster (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Whatever. We disagree, so what. I still disagree about the 2011 date, you still disagree about the screenshots, but I think it's at least at an okay compromise. By the way, what sources say the screenshots are fake? I have seen nothing that refer to the screenshots, let alone something official. The only source I can think of is talking about empty iso images on torrents, but that has nothing to do with what was shipped (Microsoft doesn't use torrents, and people who decided to put of fake torrents don't mean anything about M1.) Althepal (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
See also my comment under the section "Just a warning on release date articles" on this talk page. I have it on a "Microsoft spokesperson" that MS indeed meant "since the Vista release", i.e. late 2006. So 3 years after this would be late 2009. So far I believe everything on 2010, 2011, and later have been misunderstandings of various quotes in media, perhaps due to assuming Vista development started sometime late last year, or this year, for some reason. You never know with journalists. — Northgrove 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There have been no official news articles stating that they are faked. However several forums that I've been with (Pro-Networks, BetaArchive, and to a lesser extent strafeRight) all agree (and one member in particular who is an "insider" said they are fake) that they are a bit suspicious, and probably fake. Heck even one of the newest screenshots from ThinkNext has 16-bit Icons instead of 32-bit icons, as well as the MCE gadget that says "Play Music+Picture" which should be "Play Music+Pictures". TheSpeedster (talk) 07:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TheSpeedster, I have every reason to believe they are real. I've seen tons of places where people agree they are real, just like you say people said people agree they are suspicious. So what if it has 16-bit icons? Just more reason to believe, since it would be difficult to fake the differences. As far as the MCE gadget, that is a brand new one. Either they are going to fine tune it later (since it doesn't matter at all right now), or they mean "Play music while showing its album art" or something. Again, can you explain how TG Daily gets perfectly matching screenshots if they are not real? M1 is out there. I don't understand why it is so hard for people to believe that these screenshots are real. It's not like we're saying earth is the 4th planet from the sun. Althepal (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Forum postings by pseudonymous people aren't even the slightest bit reliable. If someone isn't willing to put their real name to their opinions, then we should ignore what they say. Wikipedia has a policy of using Wikipedia:Reliable sources. -/- Warren 16:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Therefore the screenshots should not be used, because this blog is of an unknown person, and for all we know MinWin could be the "M1" code drop, since Operating Systems are built from the ground up. TheSpeedster (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Again, TG Daily is a reliable source. The "code drop" isn't MinWin, that's been around for a long time. The M1 of a Windows OS should be exactly what is seen in these screenshots. Who cares if the blogger is anonymous? It is confirmed by the similar screenshots from a reliable source. Althepal (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
How does the fact MinWin has "been around" for "a long time" mean that the recent "code drop" isn't MinWin? Windows 7 in general has also "been around" for a long time. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I meant that MinWin is just a kernel that has been publicly displayed. It is known that MinWin is simply the base of Windows 7 and other future Windows OSes, like Windows Mobile. An M1 code drop is the first milestone alpha of a full os, not just the kernel. (You can't use a kernel itself to test programs, for example.) Althepal (talk) 00:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
The same source that initially reported the "M1" code drop also said it included a new version of Media Center, which surely isn't something that would be in MinWin. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem is, we are only going by these two sources. One is a Chinese blog, and the other is a deleted Neowin post. Neither of those are covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources, and are not even varifiable by anyone (which would fall under the Wikipedia:Verifiability clause). And there are blatant mistakes in the screenshots, with spelling and grammar, which obviously MS wouldn't have (even if its an alpha drop). Plus Vista/XP didn't leak anything until later in the process (Vista Being M3). So I'm still gonna contend that the screenshots should be taken down. -- TheSpeedster

TheSpeedster, if Vista and XP didn't have leaked information for the first milestone, how can you say for sure that Microsoft wouldn't have the so-called "spelling and grammar mistakes" (and I see no spelling or grammar mistake, by the way, just some things which could probably use some fine-tuning). Microsoft didn't want any milestone leaked for Vista. M3 was leaked. But that's no reason to believe that an M1 of a different operating system couldn't be leaked. Finally, I don't know how many different ways there are to say it: TG Daily, a reliable source, shows concurring screenshots. You don't need five different newspapers showing leaks before its reliable. Althepal (talk) 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but there is still an air of suspicion related to the ThinkNext screenshots (as I've stated several times). That's all I have to say for now, since the TG Daily builds don't have the full tag to them (they only have Build 6519 rather thank 6519.1.winmain.071220-1525). And the Windows Mail still says "Windows Vista", even the earliest builds of LH had Longhorn XP Professional (as well as For testing purposes only, compared to Evaluation copy). I still think this guy is trying to get some publicity with a modded Vista SP1 rather than a M1 build. Until it leaks or WinHEC/PDC or any Microsoft official screenshots we can't trust it. TheSpeedster (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
The TG Daily screenshots match it completely. It had the full detail, but it was just blurred (probably to protect the original person who it was shipped to). These screenshots do say "Windows 7 Ultimate", and you have no way of knowing if the M1 of Vista still mentioned "XP" (which, by the way, it does right in the codename). This first code drop is basically MinWin with a modified Vista UI, with most of it still being just taken from Vista to make a usable and complete OS. The fact that it still mentions "Vista" in some areas proves nothing. And who cares if it says "Evaluation copy" or "For testing purposes"? It's the same thing, Microsoft could have (and has) used either one. We're not looking for an exact Vista development repeat, you know. Althepal (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
But look at the forth screenshot enlarged. This wasn't blurred and it (on TG Daily) reads: "Evaluation copy. Build 6519.winmain.071220-1525".
Yes, but did the e-mail program in Longhorn say Longhorn? An even better question would be "Were any leftover XP features in Longhorn that were likely to be dropped from the final version (Windows Mail will probably be dropped from Windows 7 in favor of Windows Live Mail.) rebranded as Longhorn?" I know Longhorn build 4015 (Milestone 5) still had Windows XP Tour (although to be fair that was a slight rename from Tour Windows XP). - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Release dates

Microsoft has officially stated that Windows 7 would take 3 years to develop. The H2 2009 date, which claims to come from Microsoft, is consistent with that. So is the e-mail sent to Winvistaclub. Yet people keep trying to add 3 years to whatever year is current and claiming that as the release date. Stop doing this. It makes no sense. The 3 years of development don't restart everytime Microsoft talks about them. They started only when they started, in 2006. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Anyhow, Microsoft wouldn't go to a Vista fan club to get a message out. They would post something on their website or go to a reliable source like TG Daily. With just 2 more milestones before Beta, 1.5 to 2 years is plenty of time. Microsoft won't make the same 5yr release cycle mistake they did with Vista unless they want everybody to get frustrated of waiting and switch to OS X. Althepal (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
TG Daily isn't the ONLY reliable source. I'm seeing multiple sources now saying up to 2011. And they're all reputable. This should be noted until MS feels free to refute it. Gateman1997 (talk) 16:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Hold it Gateman. ALL those sources saying "2011" are based on an alleged post at a Vista fan club site. Likely faked. MS would not go to them to put out info. Even if it's real, as has been clarified by other reputable sources, a three year development process doesn't begin at the time of the interview. It began in Nov 2006 when Vista finished. The 5 year delay in Vista was not planned for and hurt the company, and they're not going to do that again. Althepal (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to not use the first_release_date paramater, and just include the 3 year development qoute, from which all the interpretations are derived, in the prose? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Why? A compromise is already there, stating the range and "tentative". Simply stating the 3 year development is done in the article itself, by the way. Althepal (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
As it stands now, it reads as if Microsoft actually gave that range, which they did not. I personally think first_release_date should only be used after the software is released, to avoid sounding like a crystal ball. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Bill Gates announced in a speech that"Windows 7 may come 'in the next year'" <- i think this article should be changed to reflect that. Source:http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9911470-56.html A. S. Castanza 23:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)

External links?

Well, I think there should be some links to some external site for more info. So that I think are good are: http://www.windows7forums.com and http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/tags/Windows+7/default.aspx Coolest-tech (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would you link to a forum? Only link to news and info sites. Althepal (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Agred, if there's info on a forum that can be verified, I'd prefer at the very least a link to the forum post. A whole forum will probably just be treated as advertising. — Northgrove 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Let the news and information sites do that, and we'll quote them. It's not up to us as Wikipedians to determine whether information found on a forum is correct, or if it's important enough to publish in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia:Verifiability requires us to use reliable sources; forum postings don't fall in this category unless they are widely quoted by notable publications. -/- Warren 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a warning on release date articles

I saw this one linked to from Wikipedia:

First read the pretty bold header, next note how Mary Jo's source doesn't even mention the year "2010".

Also, there's recently been these news posted around the web:

So these are all part of the same news chain. The problem happened when The Inquirer quoted WinVistaClub. They took their speculation as facts, and WinVistaClub actually received this mail from Microsoft:

Windows 7 is still in the planning stage and will take approximately 3 years to develop.

— WinVistaClub's Microsoft source

Note that no start year was given by Microsoft. So let's check up on this further with yet another source (CMP Channel):

We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect the development to take approximately 3 years since the release of Windows Vista.

— Microsoft spokesperson to CMP Channel

The vital bit here is bolded by me. Since we now have the start date, which would be late 2006 (Vista's release), Windows 7 has according to MS been in development since at least the release of late 2006, and is expected to be for around three years after this. Which ends up being 2H 2009, the date we were using before this series of news were even started! I think this is an example in journalists not checking up with their sources well; they actually ended up saying the post 2009 date was "told by Microsoft", when this in reality originated as a speculative bit by WinVistaClub due to their lack of information on the start date of Windows 7's development. So be careful with making changes to the article at least from these news. — Northgrove 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, another add-on to this by me... I see some of you are already on top of things here! (and now also in a few comments above my small "investigation" here) Good job. Hopefully my CMP Channel source above can help clarify the situation here. I think it's simply a canned Microsoft reply (the quotes were almost identical, besides for the missing start year Microsoft counts from in the first one). I think I'll reapply the comment if it was removed though, just so no one will remove the 2009 date entirely, because that actually still looks like the more accurate one to me. — Northgrove 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Good job. That clears everything up. It doesn't really matter much, it at least mentions 2009 now, but simply stating H2 2009 with your source for the Microsoft quote is the most reliable and encyclopedic way to go. But who knows? Microsoft might slip a couple years again like with Vista? lol Althepal (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah we can probably change it to "H2 2009-2010" now since 3 years from Vista is arguably sometime between November 2009 and January 2010 depending on when they consider Vista's release, either OEM, business or general release. Still I'd wager we'll see Windows 7 in 2012 more likely than not knowing MS. ;) Gateman1997 (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Lol. 2012 Windows 7 delay = Windows now (in 2012) has 30% total market share, Mac has 60%, and Linux has 10%. Vista was an exception, but I wouldn't be surprised if they delay Windows 7 also. Althepal (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
You're probably not far off on your market share except I'd add XP in there for a significant portion. I know my company has already decided to skip Vista completely last week after months of deciding if and when to go to Vista. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Good choice. XP is much better to work with and much more reliable than Vista, stuff a business needs. Vista market share is already picking up speed, but nothing like previous versions were by this time. Althepal (talk) 23:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Guess it depends on how you define "picking up speed". Vista only has 11% of the market after a year and 3 months since it's release. And that's with it preinstalled on most systems sold today. XP is still out selling it at last check, which is frankly a sad commentary on Vista. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, this isn't a discussion forum. There are plenty of places to discuss your opinions on Windows marketshare, but this talk page isn't it. -/- Warren 09:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Spoil sport. Gateman1997 (talk) 00:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Bill Gates announced in a speech that "Windows 7 may come 'in the next year'" <- i think this article should be changed to reflect that. Source:http://www.news.com/8301-13860_3-9911470-56.html A. S. Castanza 23:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)
But that wasn't a confirmation. --soum talk 04:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Its better than any other speculative release date we have so far.A. S. Castanza 04:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)

TG Daily

Everyone can agree that TG Daily qualifies as a reliable source, right (they are well known, respected, and they tend to fact check pretty well). Okay. Read this article from them: Windows 7 M1: Nothing to get excited about. The author obtained a copy of the Windows 7 M1 (DVD) and confirmed that the screenshots are what you would see if you had a copy. He says that, basically, the M1 installs on top of Windows Vista (whatever version you may have, thus the reason for saying "Windows 7 Ultimate" in the screenshots or having software copyright for Windows Vista) and basically applies some new code to it, to test if this new code is stable. (The author says that it runs a faster better than regular Vista but is a bit unstable, by the way.) Well, there you go. The explanations for everything and all the confirmation you need (reliable source getting an actual copy). He also said that Microsoft says the development of 7 would take "3 more years", pushing the date to 2010-2011, but maybe he's making the same mistake as the other people who mistook the start-date, because he said the the documentation from Microsoft he saw pointed at Q3 or Q4 of 2009 or earlier. Althepal (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

So that solves both issues then. It was a real release, even if more of a shell release. And the release date is infact somewhere between Q3 2009 to 2011 like we have in the article. Gateman1997 (talk) 20:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Windows 7 as a server product

As far as I can tell, there's really been no indications at all that "Windows 7" will also be a server product. Microsoft has only stated that the next version of Windows Server will be 64-bit only, but I don't think that's been correlated with "Windows 7". Has anyone seen anything about this? If not, I suggest we move that detail to History of Microsoft Windows (which badly needs updating anyways), and focus on the client version, since that's all that seems to be talked about in the press. -/- Warren 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This job listing is the closest I could come to finding a reliable source for the existence of Windows 7 server version, and it's call Windows Server 7, according to it. By the way, someone has jumped the gun and created a Windows Server 7 (and a Windows 8) article today. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Huh... interesting. That "Windows 8" stuff looks like blogger speculation, though. It might need to be deleted if more reliable sources can't be found. -/- Warren 21:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Can we consider a job advert (on a non-MS site) to be reliable source to base our claim that the successor to server 2k8 will be win server 7 (or at least is currently codenamed so)? I think its still premature to be claiming so. --soum talk 14:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


More M1 info

It looks like thinknext http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2160 and istartedsomething http://www.istartedsomething.com/20080214/windows-7-more-screenshots-raiker/ are providing more information on the M1 build, including screenshots of the new version of Calculator, info about a tool which automatically reinstalls the computer (next best thing to using Unix which doesn't need to be reinstalled, huh?), and a new video, among other things. Check it out, I think the article can be updated and maybe include another screenshot. Speaking of which, there is a gallery of screenshots here http://whatsnext.ru/e107_plugins/autogallery/autogallery.php?show=Windows%207%2F1.Build%206519.winmain.071220-1525 Althepal (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

External links

I do not think this link should be included in the article under the external links section. Wikipedia policies clearly state that forums should normally be avoided, and I don't see why this should be an exception. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I didn't want to just slash it without consulting with other editors watching the page. Anyone else have any thoughts? - Ahunt (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Problem solved, I think - Ahunt (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Important and useful information

An article on LiveSide about Windows 7 + Windows Live. This article explains that Microsoft will be getting rid of software like Photo Gallery and perhaps even Internet Explorer versions that are built in to windows and making seperate Windows Live versions. --Titan602 (talk) 20:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

This is just a personal blog of someone's opinion. The information does not actually come from Microsoft. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 21:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it did. --Titan602 (talk) 09:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just look at the line above the post title: These are the personal opinions of the respective authors - not Microsoft's. Plus it is written in a totally speculative style. Both the LiveSide post as well as the Mary Jo Foley/Ken Fisher articles referenced. --soum talk 09:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

External Links / Dev Corvin

I added the external link section back in, and I added a link to thebetaguy/dev corvin. I'm not that familiar with this area, but Dev seems to have new information which could possible be integrated into the article? I may have acted too soon, I couldn't find much backround on Dev. Seems like he might currently work for Microsoft but in an unrelated area. Feel free to revert. Hilary Gage (talk) 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell is the beta guy? Is there any proof of what he claims? Thats why neither his blog is linked nor is his articles used as references. Its the same as with Shipping Seven blog - we have no idea what they are saying is for real. Thats why they can be used here as reliable sources. --soum talk 09:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
You actually fell for that crap? Someone at Microsoft answered him with a pretty succinct answer: "No." ... -/- Warren 16:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Confused

This information is somewhat contradictory. On one hand, you have Minwin, (which is confirmed by Microsoft to be real), they are basically rebuilding the entire kernel.

On the other hand, even before they have a GUI down pat, they are, for some reason, adding abstract features like extra right-click options.

Why would they work on GUI stuff if they don't even have a full kernel yet? Wouldn't it be easier to just build the foundation first and THEN develop features so you don't have to port them all?ZappyGun (talk) 14:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thats not related to the article itself; as such it is not suitable to be discussed here. But rather technology forums. However, I will answer just this one here. Even though the kernel is being changed (actually, not changed; it still will have the NTOS kernel. Rather they are doing lot of housekeeping for a better organization), high level shell functionality will be shielded from the change by the layers in between. So, doing that concurrently won't be a problem. But you are right; drastic changes to the UI won't appear till the basics are right. Small changes such as these won't cause any problem. --soum talk 14:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Windows_7/Archive_2&oldid=1140196634"