Talk:Windows 7/Archive 5

Image Viewer

OMG, the worst error ever and they just don't fix it

When u do any change to a picture in the Image viewer of Windows the changes are automatic saved with No alternative! :@

I beg them to solve it or at least give us the alternative --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 09:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already mentioned at Windows Picture and Fax Viewer#Known issues. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility

Paul Thurott has written an article about compatibility issues with the Beta, which makes me doubt the final release's compatibility.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed Features

This section makes some dubious claims. For one, the Windows Live Essential download, which includes Photo Gallery, Mail, Messenger, etc., is said to lack features that were present in the Vista counterparts that shipped with the previous OS. In fact, I believe many of the Windows Live programs have a greater number of features, not fewer. They also have the advantage of being very frequently updated. The article should be edited to reflect this, and Microsoft's reasons for removing the programs from the OS (customer in control policy, antitrust reasons, software as services, easy download and frequent updates, etc.) -> in other words, I think Windows Live needs to be addressed better in the Windows 7 article. Anyone agree?

_/|\_I don't know why the Removed Features section claims that the classic start menu and taskbar will be
removed. Nor do I know why the Inkball game is supposedly removed. This section cites no references and these
claims are the most questionable.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure as the the reasons as to why they we're removed but I can tell you that Ink Ball is not found anywhere in the beta release, I'm not sure about the classic start menu and taskbar, i don't see an option for them but I didn't look all that hard Redekopmark (talk) 19:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Inkball only appears in Tablet Edition windows products. Is there a tablet addition of the Windows 7 beta? APL (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I may be wrong there. The article mentions that it also appeared in Vista Home Edition. Still, Can't imagine it's very fun with a mouse. APL (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It does indeed come with Vista Home Premium, not sure about other editions. --Resplendent (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It also comes with Ultimate. But anyway, mentioning it has been removed if the only evidence we have is it's not included in the current beta is an incredibly bad idea. We need a reliable source saying Microsoft has decided to remove it. There could be plenty of reasons why it's not in beta, only one of them is Microsoft has decided to remove it completely Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Inkball is not only included in the tablet edition of Windows. I know that Vista Ultimate contained Inkball, I remember even the betas, hell even the TCP (Technical Previews) of Vista (Ultimate) included Inkball. So the fact that Windows 7 Beta1 (and only beta as the next release will be an RC), does not contain Inkball is a possible indication that Windows 7 will not ship with inkball at all. Also to the one guys question, no there does not seem to be a tablet version of Windows 7, atleast not from what I have heard, however I think that some editions (like Ultimate) of Windows 7 will ship with tablet capability just as Vista did. About the classic start menu, I have not found the option to use the "Classic" start menu anywhere, however Win7 is still beta and they might add it in to the RTM build or it might already be there but just "locked" sort of like how the pre-betas of Win7 didn't ship with the superbar turned on, but with a simple hack you could enable it.TheSameGuy (talk) 07:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Home Premium, Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate are the tablet editions of Vista. Therfore, they come with Inkball. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have Windows 7 build 7057 and the numeric keypad is present on the on screen keyboard. It's just turned off by default. Click Options and tick 'Turn on numeric keypad'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.162.163 (talk) 13:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Beta Release

The date of the release of the Beta should be January 7 (Release on MSDN to TechBeta and TechNet customers) or January 9 (Release to public) ?? - Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 06:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The 7th. The "preview release" field is for announced, official releases to a wide audience. Whether that audience is developers, IT people, or end users isn't really the judging factor. We've generally filled this field out based on whether you can get your hands on the preview release for free, or for a reasonable cost (ie. tens or hundreds of dollars, not thousands), and without having to sign NDAs or other contractual engagement. Warren -talk- 21:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 CPP Allows anyone to download a beta testing version of the windows 7 OS.. see http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx to download your testing copy! 10 January 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.211.1.120 (talk)

The article should say about the unlimited product keys with just 5 keys. Microsoft is only giving 5 product keys when downloading to everyone so it's not limited to 2.5 million keys as the article says. My edit saying that got deleted so I'm just putting it in discussion seeing some people don't agree. And the webpage I cited didn't talked about hacking though it uses that word, it isn't hacking, read the article please. And, has anyone found another citation for that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajavax (talk • contribs) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It was now added with proper reference. David Guzmán Araiza 01:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dajavax (talk • contribs)

the classic classic task bar can be added it hasn't been removed all you have to do is unpin all your superbar icons, select use small icons in the taskbar properites, then select in task bar buttons "never combine" then change the theme to windows classic and there you have it the classic classic taskbar the classic start menu however can't be added

Screenshot

Where the heck did that new screenshot come from? It doesn't show Aero, and I am very suspicious, as this image is of the same build. Why was the screenshot downgraded like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aero? I took a screenshot of that right when I got it. It's unmodified. I made it look like the other screensots of other Windows OSes, with the StarMenu and System window. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aero is the default appearance theme in Windows Vista and Windows 7. It appears differently on low-end computers, such as virtual PCs. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Josh, in the digital age the image is either near-perfect or undisplayble-there is no gray area like you suggested. The screenshot is using the Windows Basic window appearance, not Aero, which is what is used when Aero won't work.

Reverted edits

Thanks guys, for finally telling me why my edits get reverted. I'll stop trying to revert the stuff.

But some things need resolving:

• Shouldn't there be a Welcome Center behind the Start Menu, like Vista's image?
• Shouldn't "build 7000" be "Build 7000"? --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 21:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 by default will not show the Welcome Center on Startup.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hardware Requrements

I have added some minimum specs for build 7000 (beta version).

However i could not find any recommended specs. one can only assume this is because microsoft still claim windows 7 to be a "work-in-progress" and so they do not know the full "power" of the operating system. another reason may well be cause they rely on users that have downloaded the beta version to inform them how well it runs, this however is only my own speculation, and bares no evidence. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The page you used as a source identifies the specs you put in the article as "recommended", not "minimum". Warren -talk- 00:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I belive that page to be wrong as all other sources i have seen so far state that those are minimum, rather then recommended. Kira Chinmoku (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

These are minimum requirements but are listed as Reccomended by Microsoft.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Another issue is that Windows Vista 64-bit required twice as much hard drive space as the 32-bit version which is making me worry.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw in the page than this are minimum recommended, should specific in the page --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 10:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am running windows 7 on a P4 2.4GHZ 512Mb ram shared graphics memory laptop. It exceeds my expectations and runs as fast as XP, 'minimum recommended' is what it states, 'recommended'. It DOES, as a beta, run on lower spec. I think this should be made known to people thinking about upgrading. The Aero interface is not usable on my system though. Nevertheless everything else is fine, I have given microsoft many positive feedback posts (although quite a few negative)taking into account my systems limited capability. I think they may/should revise the minimum spec. I have purposefully used an older spec machine to see how it coped as I have sucsessfully run XP on a 32mb system which seems laughable by W7's min specs! Obviously I have no solid evidence but like I say I have a beta copy and maybe a little caution such as 'may run on lower spec machines' may be helpful, true and informative to people. Sorry if I'm out of line here, I'm not a regular contributor to wiki but some of the information I was looking for prior to downloading W7 was definetly not here. Hope I've been helpful reather than useless.

The article stated "since Windows 7 is similar to Vista", but this is a rather big assumption as pertains to hardware requirements, so I've removed that. airstrike (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Editions

The editions has not been published, so, what are we seeing is just an speculation and is not right to put this info as official

If I'm wrong let me know and put some reliability sources --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 10:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, Sotcr (I finally got it correct!)! I don't know who is coming up with these ideas about editions because there are few references to this topic. Certainly there will be an Ultimate edition but everything else is almost 100% likely to be bogus.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The editions are officially announced. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/feb09/02-03Win7SKU-QA.mspx . So it is no longer speculation. Windows 7 Home Premium, Windows 7 Professional, Windows 7 Home, Windows 7 Ultimate and Windows 7 Starter Edition. CCubed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.149.134.64 (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Start Menu

I got the Beta and there was a new start menu that was apparently installed overnight. It is extremely transparent except in the programs list. Each shortcut, however, has it's text almost camouflaged against the background. I do not know how to do screenshots and posting them so I will ask Warren and Redokopmark to do it. I found it by setting the taskbar to small icons and to combine when taskbar is full.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Sidebar-still there but in disguise

The Windows Sidebar is still there in the Beta. It just now doesn't restrict gadgets to one side of the screen. I know it because Windows Task Manager still displays "sidebar.exe" like Vista.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The sidebar.exe program doesn't exist in Windows 7 64-bit, instead Sidebar.exe is now integrated into the DWM.exe process. Is this in the 32 bit version? And is there a screen shot of it? Ccubed

Where does the name come from?

It's not the seventh OS that Windows has released by any means, so where did they get seven from? Windows: 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, Seven???? To me it's the tenth =major= operating system (not including variations like Pro and Server). 64.80.57.251 (talk) 16:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95 (4.0), 98 (4.1), 2000 (NT 5.0), XP (NT 5.1), Vista (NT 6.0), Windows 7 (NT 7.0)

Hope that helps --87.102.68.201 (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Mm, this one upthere is wrong :P --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 04:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

This has already been discussed (but that discussion is now in the archives). The versions 1 and 2 were not using the NT kernal. In fact, Windows 7's version is 6.1. However, Microsoft counted Windows 95 as the first true Windows version, regardless of previous numbers. This has led people to believe that Windows 7 would be a minor release, but that is clarified by a post on the Windows Blog.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Versions 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 95, 98, and ME were not using the NT kernal. Originally the operating systems using NT were called as such (Windows NT). Windows 2000 was then built using this kernal, and XP shortly afterwards, Vista and Windows 7 following. --Neutralle (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "counted Windows 95 as the first true Windows version". Ignoring DOS-based Windows for the moment, NT-based Windows releases to date have been:

• Windows NT 3.x
• Windows NT 4.0
• Windows 2000 (aka NT 5.0)
• Windows XP/Server 2003 (aka NT 5.1/5.2)
• Windows Vista/Server 2008 (aka NT 6.0)

Hence the next major release theoretically should be NT 7.0. However, as has been pointed out, Windows 7 (or at least all builds so far released) actually has the version number 6.1, as it's not radically different from Vista. So I guess the marketing people were expecting Windows 7 to be a major release, but the engineers disagreed :-). Letdorf (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

anti-trust

Why does this section exist if all windows versions are scrutinised by regulatory bodies? It is not relevant to the article if it is a process that all windows releases go through. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this section should exist on all pages regardless, unless it becomes a seperate page, most likely becoming a stub. Because there is no real reason for it to have a page of its own, it is therefore shown on each Windows page of which the anti-trust arguement is relevant. --Neutralle (talk) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

But why is it relevant, if all windows releases are subject to the same scrutiny? It is not a process that inhibits the release date, is it? Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 03:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Next major version of Windows?

Unlike its predecessor, Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade to Vista

What will be the next major release of Windows? When do they plan to release it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

When it's finished, presumably. Warren -talk- 20:04, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, when it's finished. But has Microsoft said anything about a potential release date or beta test schedule? It appears that Windows 7 isn't much more than a service pack for Vista. Maybe that's why it's coming out so soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.35.97 (talk) 21:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

This is wrong-Windows 7 would not be Windows 7 if it were just a service pack for Windows Vista. They do have a new service pack in development for Vista, that shares some code but is entirely different from 7.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 will be the major release, some people thing than just becouse the number is 6.1 is going to be an "upgrade", but in fact, Windows 7 is a major update and is not "to soon", this stick to the 3 year plan of Microsoft --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 22:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is said that Microsoft were working on a new version of Windows to be the successor of Windows XP. Microsoft then diverted their attention to developing service packs for XP because of bugs and glitches being found, and also security patches. It can be seen that what was meant to be the next Windows release was essentially split into two. Windows Vista was released containing only a portion of the features meant to be released in the successor to XP, and Windows 7 fulfils the rest as an upgrade (hence why many people see it as a service pack rather than a new, major release. --87.102.68.201 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder that this talk page should only be used for article development and not as a general discussion forum for Windows 7. --Resplendent (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This has everything to do with the Windows 7 article. The major/minor release issue is really important.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe this to be a major release. The Windows 7 Website states that this will be a major release. There is no better source than that.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems somewhat trivial to me, but I guess we can agree to disagree! --Resplendent (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Claricication Please: So is it a New Operating System or just windows Vista with a new name and some updates? Seriously, this article ought to explicitly state whether Windows 7 is Vista or not and make it clear. Otherwise it's just a bunch of Microsoft propaganda to help them shake off the bad publicity that Vista got because it's a horrible OS. If this is the exact same horrible OS, people should know.Whytehorse1413 (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

There are no official sources to confirm this, everything on the web is speculation as people have a tendency to badger Microsoft and its products. From the last sentence in your comment " If this is the exact same horrible OS, people should know", looks like your edits are POV driven too. Please keep your opinions to yourself. Thank you. –Capricorn42 (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's both, actually. Windows 7 (NT 6.1) is quite like Windows 3.1, Windows 98 (4.1), and Windows XP (NT 5.1) in that they don't change the fundamentals of how the core operating system works, but a great many things that sit atop that core operating system have changed. Warren -talk- 15:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In the end, it's an almost philosophical question: what makes a new version of a piece of software "fundamentally different"? Microsoft have branded Windows 7 as a different product to Windows Vista, so saying it "is Vista" is clearly wrong. But as Warren says, they've internally versionned it 6.1, suggesting that it "is fairly similar to Vista" - more different than, say, Vista was from XP.

Except for when development takes a radically new direction (as with the move to the Windows NT core for 2000 and XP, or Apple's move to Unix for Mac OS X, every new version of a piece of software is the previous version with "some updates" - what, and how many, those updates are, is not something that can be neatly defined and labelled. - IMSoP (talk) 00:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What people are calling the "internal" version number (6.1 for Win7) is the version number of the Windows NT kernel, so I would assume (though have no source to back it up) that the number is incremented according to how big the changes to the kernel, rather than userspace tools, have been. The kernel had a lot of changes from XP to Vista, hence the major version number change, but I get the impression from the "Features new to Windows 7" page that most of the changes in 7 are higher level changes; hence the kernel version number only increases by .1. So is it "just Vista with minor changes and a new name"? Well, possibly yes if you define "Vista" to be the NT kernel 6.0; but, no if, as most people, you define it to be the union of the kernel, userspace tools, the shell, middleware, etc. -- simxp (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Animations

Don't you know if Windows 7 will bring us animations like Ubuntu? I mean, minize, maximize and draging windows animations ¿? --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 07:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It does though they happen real quick. You can make this suggestion to Microsoft.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Ubuntu never brought animations though did it? Beryl/Compiz now Compiz-Fusion did.Lmcgregoruk (talk) 01:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Im' sorry I don't understand veery much English, u mean than Ubuntu does'nt have the animations by default? Is a third-party aplication? And I can install that in Windows? :) :) --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 23:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

See Compiz Fusion. This cannot be installed on Windows. –Capricorn42 (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't expect Windows to be as advanced as other Operating Systems..--ITInfinity (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Your comment would have had greater impact and ironic potential if it wasn't posted several days after it had already been pointed out that the feature already exists in Vista... -- simxp (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Minimize and Maximize animations already exist in Windows Vista, if you have Aero enabled. If by "dragging window" animations you mean the "floppy rubber windows" effect, these existed in an early alpha of Vista (see, e.g., demo from PDC 2003), but were removed on the grounds that they impeded, rather then helped, usability. -- simxp (talk) 15:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I'm impress, thanks for the info! ;) --190.10.2.113 (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Windows 7 features Windows Aero, a feature originated from Windows Vista. Ffgamera (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Why is Direct2D in "See also" section? I think, it has nothing to do with Windows 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.17.199.227 (talk) 18:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

These all have to do with the OS. It is used in most of the games. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Post-Beta Build 7025 and editions

Tom's hardware in this articlewrote about a build 7025, the first one to be split into editions. But Paul Thurott denounces this as bogus.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The Beta release is no longer availible

It says so on the Windows Team Blog.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it says it will stop being available on February 10. - Josh (talk | contribs) 06:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's been unavailable for about two months now, even before February 10. There was a download limit, February 10 was just the absolute end but you can still get keys if you manage to get an ISO. CCubed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.149.134.64 (talk) 15:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Release Date

In the article, there is no longer any release date mentioned. Was this just done because there is no concrete planned release date? Personally, I'd prefer there to be some date there, even if it is old. 129.97.227.204 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft has stated that it is planned for a 3 year development timeframe, but the final release date depends on the quality of the product. They have never set a release date. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 01:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Still: many readers come here looking for a release date (myself included) and come out short. Even estimates/speculations could be useful (here's one), provided they are sourced and based on at least some hard data. GregorB (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I've now added an ETA, with reference. Letdorf (talk) 12:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC).

Removal of Windows Mail?

I am using Windows 7 build 7000. It seems that Windows Mail is going to be included after all, at least in Windows 7 Ultimate (I am using the beta version of Ultimate). See the link for the screenshot. This is a default installation with very few non-default applications installed (I didn't install an email client though, as I use hotmail). [1] Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 21:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. The Windows Mail app is included in the Windows 7 Beta but is hard to get to. This is something that will probably be included in all editions, not just Ultimate.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just referring to my use of Ultimate so as not to seem like I was commenting on all editions, just in case it were not included in some of them. If your information is correct, then the article needs to be corrected. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 22:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I just corrected the article. Ζρς ι'β' ^¡hábleme! 22:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot

I wonder who put up that screenshot. Welcome Screen doesn't belong there.209.155.146.2 (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Codename

"formerly codenamed Blackcomb and Vienna" really? this seems to indicate the codename for win7 was longhorn http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2uj7cxv&s=5 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.43.172 (talk) 20:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Longhorn was Vista's codename!!! Read before posting!Jasper Deng (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Longhorn was Vista's codename. This must be a glitchy build. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I know it was Longhorn, i mean the codename of win7 is the same codename of vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.137.43.172 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not... your article is outdated.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Outdated? Could you please provide a screenshot from windows 7 showing the codename? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.225.147.250 (talk) 15:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why that screenshot has something that seems to be Win7 labelled "Longhorn", but Longhorn was most definitely the codename for what eventually became Windows Vista and Windows Server 2007. There would be absolutely no sense in calling two releases by the same codename.

I suspect it's unlikely there'll be many screenshots showing earlier codenames for what's now "Windows 7", because they were used only early on in development. "Blackcomb" was used for many years for various plans - originally, it was to come straight after "Whistler" (Windows XP), but "Longhorn" was inserted in between, and eventually became Windows Vista. Microsoft renamed it as "Vienna", presumably once they'd got Vista out of the way and started seriously working towards it, but had come up with "Windows 7" by the time there was much for the public to see.

Most screenshots will simply show "Windows 7", which was announced as the "codename" before they confirmed that it would also be the final name. - IMSoP (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Firefox/Chrome as default for Win7 = LOL!

It is lol if says Windows 7 will bundled with 3rd party browser. I think it is only a joke. Otherwise OEMs do it.Junk Police (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Error under References

I think this may be an error:

[{{{preview url}}} info]

It's the top most entry under References. Thoughts? --TylerM89 (talk) 17:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem appears to be in Template:Infobox OS version. I've started a discussion on the talk page over there. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

--

Reference Number 25's URL is incorrect for the neowin RC release date article as of Feb 22.

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/02/20/exclusive-windows-7-rc-set-for-april-10th-2009

My account's not old enough to change it yet. -- KamilionCA (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed features: "Combined taskbar buttons no longer numerically show how many windows are in their stack"?

Wtf? Is there no way to get this back??? Why on Earth would this remove something like this????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.221 (talk) 21:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And the the invert selection thing in windows explorer.. seriously what the hell? I'm calling bullshit. Where are the sources?

Damn it's locked so I can't even add tags. Somebody mind doing it for me please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.221 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The number was replaced by making it look like that number of taskbar buttons are stacked on top of each other, but there's a maximum of 3 for that. I have the beta, and there doesn't seem to be any way to bring the number back. I'm not sure where I would find the invert selection thing. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

"Invert selection" is/was a menu item within the "Edit" menu of Windows Explorer's main menu (File Edit View Help). You need to press the "Alt" key to display the main menu because it is hidden by default starting with Windows Vista. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Classic Taskbar removed?

What is Classic Taskbar? Classic Taskbar is when running programs and non-launched programs appear separately with the newest program to the extreme right.

With one exception, which is listed separately, that's how the Windows 7 taskbar works, when you unpin all the programs from it, set up the Quick Launch toolbar, and do not rearrange the buttons. The separately listed exception is that buttons for the same program always appear next to each other. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Classic taskbar is a removed feature because it is impossible to achieve the following in Windows 7: (esp when the taskbar behavior is unchanged from Windows 95 to Windows Vista)

* Show how many windows are in a stack when taskbar buttons are combined

* Disable grouping (placing next to each other) similar taskbar buttons

* Not keep the taskbar always on top

* Toggle the clock

* Access the window menu (Restore, Move, Size, Minimize, Maximize and Close) directly by right-clicking without using the keyboard

* Disable dragging of buttons and notification area icons

Makes it at least 3-4 exceptions, but even 1 exception that changes program order is enough, so it isn't classic/legacy behavior. Then comes all the argument of adapting to the new behavior and getting rid of so-called "obsolete" methods but fact is the behavior changes considerably. - xpclient ^Talk 13:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The features that were removed from the taskbar should be listed individually, rather than dubbed the "classic" Taskbar user interface. This is different from the classic Start Menu, a distinct option in Windows XP/Vista. What is toggling the clock? Isn't dragging those buttons and icons a feature new to Windows 7, not a feature that could be disabled in Vista? - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Actualy, if you right click the new task bar in the empty space and go to properties under the advanced tab you can revert the task bar to classic mode.--Koman90 (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't have an Advanced tab. You're not talking about build 7000; are you? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

the classic taskbar is the well windows 2000 taskbar and it still exists in windows 7 it is just hidden a bit better —Preceding unsigned comment added by Azarien (talk • contribs)

Fish at Desktop

Can someone tell me what's the name of that fish on the Desktop? I know that it's some kind of "fighter" but I want precise name... Thanks in advance! --Wladimir (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a betta (get it?) fish, which apparently is also known as a Siamese fighting fish. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But the air bubbles are actually nonsense. I have this fish (the third one now, two have had died) and they don't make any bubbles in the water as they're able to breathe atmospheric air on the surface.--Azarien (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 build 7057

I heard Windows 7 build 7057 is out: [Removed per Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking] Maybe some info about that could be included? Jerebin (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Found some download links [Removed per Wikipedia:External links#Restrictions on linking] :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.241.114.72 (talk) 02:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

One more Removed Feature

Most mouse pointers are removed leaving only Magnified, Windows Aero, Windows Black, Windows Inverted and Windows Standard. See image for details: http://img27.imageshack.us/img27/9397/mousepointers.png 124.13.32.131 (talk) 00:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:OR. Does not belong in Wikipedia. TechOutsider (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Link to Windows 7 Wikia?

Would I be allowed to add a link to the Windows 7 Wiki on Wikia? I have seen many other articles that link to external wikis, but I am a bureaucrat on that wiki so I would like to check if it would be considered spam. Thanks. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I usually don't mind external links, IF they add something very useful, but after seeing that page, I have to oppose that, that wiki is very imcomplete, and even if it had much more information, most of that would fit well on wikipedia, so I have to say a link to that would be a bit pointless. Just my opinion.... see also the official guidelines about this: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided SF007 (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

mspaint?

The mspaint feature was improved so much it could be its on photoshop in Windows 7. Why don't i see anything about it? ⊕Assasin Joe ^talk 19:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Paint is still nowhere near photoshop. Its drawing tools have simply gone from "terrible" to "fair". Althepal (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The ability to search contents of files using Windows Search

What does this mean? It needs clarification. It is certainly possibly to search within files in my experience with the Beta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.119.203 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed features: Windows Sidebar (replaced with Desktop Gadget Gallery)

This would be better placed in the New and Changed Features section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.119.203 (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Opens Poll - I believe It Would but lets make this work official. All those in favor of moving the changing of "windows sidebar" to windows gadget gallery" Please Reply with a Support vote all those against please respond with an oppose vote.--Koman90 (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Grouping Taskbar Buttons

According to http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/496-taskbar-button-grouping-enable-disable.html you can group taskbar buttons, so the part about this being removed is not true. Can someone verify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.20.68 (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Those instructions are actually for disabling combining (using one button for multiple windows). Grouping (putting similar buttons next to each other) cannot be turned off. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

New window features should reference Linux

The section on this page which discusses the "new" window management features such as snapping, and auto restore when maximized windows are dragged should mention that Linux window managers (and other OS's?) have had these features for a considerable time already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmelliot (talk • contribs) 06:02, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Window manager would be a better place to outline the history and development of window managers. Putting it here would smell of someone pushing an agenda..... Warren -talk- 14:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)