OT: Microsoft Finalizes Windows 7

by **Voyager** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:19 am

I'll probably wait until January when they get a few bugs out of it before I upgrade from Windows XP Pro. I'm also glad to hear that you can run Windows 7 on low-end machines without having to have a quad processor to get the same speed I got from XP on a single processor. Vista sucks!

(CNET) -- Microsoft on Wednesday said it has finalized the code for Windows 7, paving the way for the new operating system to make its way onto retail shelves and new PCs in time for its October 22 launch.

The software maker is hoping the response to the new operating system differs from the lukewarm reviews and compatibility challenges that marked the release of Windows Vista, which hit the market in January 2007.

In contrast to Vista, Windows 7 has been marked by the company consistently hitting its deadlines and receiving largely positive feedback along the way.

"That is our final engineering milestone in what has been a three-year journey," said Mike Angiulo, general manager for planning in the Windows unit.

Windows 7 relies on the same underpinnings as Windows Vista, but adds a lot of features aimed at making the operating system both look and perform better.

Visually, it does a better job of managing open windows through an improved taskbar and a feature that lets users peek at one particular window or see the desktop that is hidden below all of the windows. On the performance side, it boots up and shuts down faster, and can run better on Netbooks and low-end machines.

Whereas Vista suffered several delays and saw its feature set change significantly in the years it was being developed and tested, Windows 7 looks very similar to the early developer preview version first shown at last October's professional developer conference.

"It feels great to be here on time," said Tami Reller, the Windows unit's chief financial officer, who recently added marketing responsibility for Windows as well.

Microsoft plans to offer Windows 7 in a number of different versions ranging from a low-end "starter edition" to an ultra-high-end "ultimate version." However, it expects most people in the U.S. and other developed markets to run either the Home Premium or Professional editions.

The company has been conservative in talking publicly about the product, waiting until features or dates were largely set in stone before discussing them widely.

Things were also fairly calm in the "shiproom" -- the conference room inside Microsoft's Redmond headquarters where the Windows team meets to discuss outstanding bugs and issues before executives ultimately sign off on that the code is final.

With Vista -- which was a more major update to Windows -- it was a place of contentious debates up to the last minute about which issues needed to be fixed and which could be addressed later.

"When you are going through the end game, sometimes it is really bumpy; sometimes it is not," Angiulo said. "It's been really mellow this time."

Microsoft hasn't changed the code for Windows 7 since July 13, with much of the past 10 days spent just waiting to make sure long-term testing turned up no significant issues.

"After we produce a build, all the different teams will go through their test path," said Iain MacDonald, the general manager of the Windows Server unit. Microsoft also on Wednesday finalized the server version of Windows 7 -- a modest update known as Windows Server 2008 R2.

The actual build that Microsoft is using as the final one -- build 7600.16385 -- has already leaked to the Web -- several days ahead of Microsoft's confirmation that it was, in fact, the final version.

One of the last notable changes to Windows 7 was the incorporation of changes that were made to Windows as part of the last monthly "Patch Tuesday" bug fixes.

Angiulo said closer cooperation with computer makers, as well as the predictable schedule, has meant that a wide variety of new PCs should be ready to launch with Windows 7 in October.

"The (PC makers) have been working on a variety of systems--super-amazing thin and mobile systems," he said. "They are also working on really inexpensive low-end machines and all-in-ones.

Microsoft is also hoping, particularly since the underpinnings are similar to Vista, that users won't find the same sorts of compatibility issues that cropped up when that operating system first hit the market.

The entire PC ecosystem -- from retailers like Best Buy to computer and hardware makers -- are all hoping that Windows 7 can provide a boost to what has been a rough year.

"Our customers are very excited about Windows 7," Dell's Jim Ginger said. "We know because they tell us."

by **bluejeangirl76** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:31 am

Good news. As long as it does reject all of my peripherals and is actually compatible with my programs, I'll be happy. Windows Pissta is a stone cold nightmare. :evil:

by **Don** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:38 am

I have been running the RC build on an old pentium 4 Dell with 1 gig of ram. I did not have to install one single driver and it runs just as fast as XP.
When the final releases, I feel comfortable enough now to put it on my dual core gaming machine which is probably 4 times quicker than my Dell.

by **Rhiannon** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:52 am

*shudders* Windows.
I'm not some geeky apple geek (like my boss), but honestly, I've been interfacing with Windows OS since 1994, and Macintosh since 2008 (excluding the archaic Apple in my Mom's office in 1989)... I will never be able to bring myself to purchase any Microsoft product. Ever. Again.

Mac OS X has been amazing, in fact, at this moment I'm running Adobe Illustrator with four active files (all over 20MB each), Photoshop, Bridge, Toast Titanium, Safari, SuiteCase Fusion, Mail, FileMaker Pro under two databases, Shiraz server & design, Fetch (which is busy uploading a 356MB zip file to an ftp), and have items queued to two printers and EFI Colorproof XF processing them.

And I'm having no issues with processors or drives, and sure as shit no "Virtual Memory Minimum" errors. Screw Microsoft. :lol:

by **Eric** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:04 am

Rhiannon wrote:*shudders* Windows.
I'm not some geeky apple geek (like my boss), but honestly, I've been interfacing with Windows OS since 1994, and Macintosh since 2008 (excluding the archaic Apple in my Mom's office in 1989)... I will never be able to bring myself to purchase any Microsoft product. Ever. Again.

Mac OS X has been amazing, in fact, at this moment I'm running Adobe Illustrator with four active files (all over 20MB each), Photoshop, Bridge, Toast Titanium, Safari, SuiteCase Fusion, Mail, FileMaker Pro under two databases, Shiraz server & design, Fetch (which is busy uploading a 356MB zip file to an ftp), and have items queued to two printers and EFI Colorproof XF processing them.

And I'm having no issues with processors or drives, and sure as shit no "Virtual Memory Minimum" errors. Screw Microsoft.

WOW..someone stayed in a Holiday Express last night!

Seriously, every other Microsoft release is good. They release something without enough testing/proper testing.....let consumers struggle with the bugs for 2 years...fix all the bugs and release it under a different name. 95-BAD...98-Good (specifically SP2) 2000/ME-BAD....XP Good (specifically XP PRO) Vista-Bad....Windows7-Good?

by **Voyager** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:10 am

Rhiannon wrote: Mac OS X has been amazing, in fact, at this moment I'm running Adobe Illustrator with four active files (all over 20MB each), Photoshop, Bridge, Toast Titanium, Safari, SuiteCase Fusion, Mail, FileMaker Pro under two databases, Shiraz server & design, Fetch (which is busy uploading a 356MB zip file to an ftp), and have items queued to two printers and EFI Colorproof XF processing them.

I'm a graphic designer too, and I have thought about switching over to a Mac - which is what most graphic designers prefer. However, I am running Photoshop CS4, Illustrator CS4, Dreamweaver CS4, Flash CS4, After Effects CS4, Fireworks CS4, and Camtasia Studio 5 all on a Dell Precision 390 with a quad processor, 4GB RAM, and Windows XP Pro. I never have any errors whatsoever, and I can run all these programs at the same time without any performance loss. So I don't really see the need to buy a Mac. If I was running Vista, I'm sure that wouldn't be the case. I am sure Microsoft lost a LOT of customers to Apple due to Vista.

by **Rhiannon** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:25 am

Eric wrote:Seriously, every other Microsoft release is good. They release something without enough testing/proper testing.....let consumers struggle with the bugs for 2 years...fix all the bugs and release it under a different name. 95-BAD...98-Good (specifically SP2) 2000/ME-BAD....XP Good (specifically XP PRO) Vista-Bad....Windows7-Good?

This is true enough... I did like Windows95, though. Then again all I used the computer for back then was for AOL 3.0 and playing Myst. :lol:

I had a friend with Windows 2000/ME, and that OS was an absolute abortion in functionality. Holy cow. And I've heard enough horror stories out of Vista to never go near it. I've never had longer than a 10 minute interaction with a Vista PC.

by **bluejeangirl76** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:34 am

Rhiannon wrote:I had a friend with Windows 2000/ME, and that OS was an absolute abortion in functionality. Holy cow.

Yeah... Windows ME was pretty dysfunctional. My first (at home) PC ran ME, and this is the truth - the day I set it up, right out of the box, it ran for maybe 10-15 minutes before the first lock n' crash. :roll:

by **Rhiannon** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 6:42 am

Voyager wrote:I'm a graphic designer too, and I have thought about switching over to a Mac - which is what most graphic designers prefer. However, I am running Photoshop CS4, Illustrator CS4, Dreamweaver CS4, Flash CS4, After Effects CS4, Fireworks CS4, and Camtasia Studio 5 all on a Dell Precision 390 with a quad processor, 4GB RAM, and Windows XP Pro. I never have any errors whatsoever, and I can run all these programs at the same time without any performance loss. So I don't really see the need to buy a Mac. If I was running Vista, I'm sure that wouldn't be the case.

I run the Adobe CS4 Master Suite (Encore, Bridge, Premiere Pro, Fireworks, Flash, Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, Contribute, AfterEffects, etc) on my Mac all at the same time with no problems either. That Dell you have is the one that really rivals the Mac's performance, right? I'm on a MacBook Pro that interfaces with a 24" Apple Cinema Display, so I can work simultaneously on both screens. My harddrive is only 150GB, and my RAM is 4GB... but I'm linked to a MacServer with several hundred GB available so that helps. :lol:

But what has me sold (graphically) on Mac is the screen resolution and especially if you're working heavily with match-critical designs and need the best WYSIWYG, in my personal experience *nothing* compares to Mac. Really, it's all the same data (if you work from pdfs mostly as I do), but if you're working on something and you rip it to a printer and what comes out is a drastic difference from your screen most people (meaning: your clients who don't know any better) are going to think you've done something wrong with their art. PMS is a PMS, CMYK... ok, there's a little margin of error, but I've had horror stories about people sending me a file that was pinkish on my screen, a light red on the proof, but on their screen (which MUST be right!) it's damned near maroon! :lol:

I am sure Microsoft lost a LOT of customers to Apple due to Vista.

So true. But the recent Microsoft commercials with the shoppers choosing the PCs (usually based on price) has Apple freaked out. They said they were planning to introduce a cost-effective MacBook under $1000... but all they did was re-market the basic MacBook that was already $999. :roll:

Durrrrr...

by **Rick** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:46 am

I was beta testing Windows 7, and it seems like a great OS. The first big update they did to it screwed the pooch for me though. It doesn't seem to want to support my video card. When I would boot it up, all I would get is a screen that looked like the horizontal hold was out of whack. I run dual monitors, and the first version of 7 always did that to the secondary display, but after the big upgrade, it started doing that to both displays. I hope they fix that, because I'm seriously wanting to get this OS. If they don't fix it, replacing this video card, which I hate to think of, is the other option.

by **Voyager** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:54 am

Rick wrote:I was beta testing Windows 7, and it seems like a great OS. The first big update they did to it screwed the pooch for me though. It doesn't seem to want to support my video card. When I would boot it up, all I would get is a screen that looked like the horizontal hold was out of whack. I run dual monitors, and the first version of 7 always did that to the secondary display, but after the big upgrade, it started doing that to both displays. I hope they fix that, because I'm seriously wanting to get this OS. If they don't fix it, replacing this video card, which I hate to think of, is the other option.

Or just stick with XP. I always say, if it's not broke, why fix it? Like Rhi so aptly stated in her post above, if you want a high-end boutique PC, buy a Mac. If a barebones rig works okay for you, then keep running that dog! But I'm like you... I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 to get a better OS than XP... but I am definitely going to wait until the first service pack comes out, which I'm guessing will come out sometime in early 2010.

by **Voyager** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:05 am

Rhiannon wrote:
Voyager wrote:I'm a graphic designer too, and I have thought about switching over to a Mac - which is what most graphic designers prefer. However, I am running Photoshop CS4, Illustrator CS4, Dreamweaver CS4, Flash CS4, After Effects CS4, Fireworks CS4, and Camtasia Studio 5 all on a Dell Precision 390 with a quad processor, 4GB RAM, and Windows XP Pro. I never have any errors whatsoever, and I can run all these programs at the same time without any performance loss. So I don't really see the need to buy a Mac. If I was running Vista, I'm sure that wouldn't be the case.

I run the Adobe CS4 Master Suite (Encore, Bridge, Premiere Pro, Fireworks, Flash, Illustrator, Photoshop, InDesign, Contribute, AfterEffects, etc) on my Mac all at the same time with no problems either. That Dell you have is the one that really rivals the Mac's performance, right? I'm on a MacBook Pro that interfaces with a 24" Apple Cinema Display, so I can work simultaneously on both screens. My harddrive is only 150GB, and my RAM is 4GB... but I'm linked to a MacServer with several hundred GB available so that helps.

But what has me sold (graphically) on Mac is the screen resolution and especially if you're working heavily with match-critical designs and need the best WYSIWYG, in my personal experience *nothing* compares to Mac. Really, it's all the same data (if you work from pdfs mostly as I do), but if you're working on something and you rip it to a printer and what comes out is a drastic difference from your screen most people (meaning: your clients who don't know any better) are going to think you've done something wrong with their art. PMS is a PMS, CMYK... ok, there's a little margin of error, but I've had horror stories about people sending me a file that was pinkish on my screen, a light red on the proof, but on their screen (which MUST be right!) it's damned near maroon!

I agree, the display on the Mac whoops a PC's ass. Right now I'm doing web design exclusively and nothing that would require match-perfect design. But when I owned a printing business for 12 years before my current business, I owned about seven Macs along with an AGFA imagesetter. We did a lot of political printing and it required match-print design. The Mac is the only way to go for high-end graphic design and video.

by **Rick** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:06 am

Voyager wrote:
Rick wrote:I was beta testing Windows 7, and it seems like a great OS. The first big update they did to it screwed the pooch for me though. It doesn't seem to want to support my video card. When I would boot it up, all I would get is a screen that looked like the horizontal hold was out of whack. I run dual monitors, and the first version of 7 always did that to the secondary display, but after the big upgrade, it started doing that to both displays. I hope they fix that, because I'm seriously wanting to get this OS. If they don't fix it, replacing this video card, which I hate to think of, is the other option.

Or just stick with XP. I always say, if it's not broke, why fix it? Like Rhi so aptly stated in her post above, if you want a high-end boutique PC, buy a Mac. If a barebones rig works okay for you, then keep running that dog! But I'm like you... I'll probably upgrade to Windows 7 to get a better OS than XP... but I am definitely going to wait until the first service pack comes out, which I'm guessing will come out sometime in early 2010.

Excellent point. I have zero problems with XP. I thing it's the best OS they've ever released.

But once 7 is out officially, I'll download a hacked version to see if it will work with my video card before I buy it.

by **Sarah** » Fri Jul 24, 2009 1:14 pm

Voyager wrote:Or just stick with XP. I always say, if it's not broke, why fix it?

Eh, why not give the latest and greatest a try, especially when it has overly positive reviews so far? Win 98 (good) -> ME (bad) -> XP (good). Everyone switched to XP. Now XP (good) - Vista (bad) - 7 (good?). Honestly I don't know why you'd cling to a 7 year old OS that isn't supported anymore when there are apparently good things on the horizon from Windows. I can understand not upgrading but downgrading to XP on a new machine after 7 gets its footing is probably a waste.

by **MBPL** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:19 am

I have had problems with Windows Vista and Photoshop Elements 4 (stalls a lot). Not sure why, not computer proficient. I might jump ship and try a MAC with my videos, not sure yet. Think I will wait and see with the new Windows, gage people's reponses, bugs, etc.

by **Triple S** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:54 pm

Rhiannon wrote:
Eric wrote:Seriously, every other Microsoft release is good. They release something without enough testing/proper testing.....let consumers struggle with the bugs for 2 years...fix all the bugs and release it under a different name. 95-BAD...98-Good (specifically SP2) 2000/ME-BAD....XP Good (specifically XP PRO) Vista-Bad....Windows7-Good?

This is true enough... I did like Windows95, though. Then again all I used the computer for back then was for AOL 3.0 and playing Myst.
I had a friend with Windows 2000/ME, and that OS was an absolute abortion in functionality. Holy cow. And I've heard enough horror stories out of Vista to never go near it. I've never had longer than a 10 minute interaction with a Vista PC.

Wouldn't you have been like 5 or something back then? :lol:

(I used to play Myst and Doom after work almost every day, good way to take out the day's frustrations

)

by **Don** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:58 pm

I used Amiga computers up until O/2 Warp came out (around the same time Commodore went bankrupt, killing the Amiga brand). After messing around with that, I went to Windows 98 and have stayed a Microsoft user ever since.

by **Rhiannon** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:01 pm

Triple S wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:
Eric wrote:Seriously, every other Microsoft release is good. They release something without enough testing/proper testing.....let consumers struggle with the bugs for 2 years...fix all the bugs and release it under a different name. 95-BAD...98-Good (specifically SP2) 2000/ME-BAD....XP Good (specifically XP PRO) Vista-Bad....Windows7-Good?

This is true enough... I did like Windows95, though. Then again all I used the computer for back then was for AOL 3.0 and playing Myst.
I had a friend with Windows 2000/ME, and that OS was an absolute abortion in functionality. Holy cow. And I've heard enough horror stories out of Vista to never go near it. I've never had longer than a 10 minute interaction with a Vista PC.

Wouldn't you have been like 5 or something back then? (I used to play Myst and Doom after work almost every day, good way to take out the day's frustrations )

Pshh... 11! :lol:

Though I started playing Myst back in '92 or '93 I think... great game.

by **Triple S** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:10 pm

Rhiannon wrote:
Triple S wrote:
Rhiannon wrote:
Eric wrote:Seriously, every other Microsoft release is good. They release something without enough testing/proper testing.....let consumers struggle with the bugs for 2 years...fix all the bugs and release it under a different name. 95-BAD...98-Good (specifically SP2) 2000/ME-BAD....XP Good (specifically XP PRO) Vista-Bad....Windows7-Good?

This is true enough... I did like Windows95, though. Then again all I used the computer for back then was for AOL 3.0 and playing Myst.
I had a friend with Windows 2000/ME, and that OS was an absolute abortion in functionality. Holy cow. And I've heard enough horror stories out of Vista to never go near it. I've never had longer than a 10 minute interaction with a Vista PC.

Wouldn't you have been like 5 or something back then? (I used to play Myst and Doom after work almost every day, good way to take out the day's frustrations )

Pshh... 11!
Though I started playing Myst back in '92 or '93 I think... great game.

That it was. I remember going to the computer store one day after work - I'd pretty much aced Doom and Myst and was looking for a new game. After showing me a few games, the sales clerk asked how old my child was. When I told him it was for me (standing there in my business suit and high heels - standard wear back then - the look on his face was priceless

). Ended up with Half Life - loved that one too.

by **Rhiannon** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 3:43 pm

Triple S wrote:That it was. I remember going to the computer store one day after work - I'd pretty much aced Doom and Myst and was looking for a new game. After showing me a few games, the sales clerk asked how old my child was. When I told him it was for me (standing there in my business suit and high heels - standard wear back then - the look on his face was priceless ). Ended up with Half Life - loved that one too.

Playing a geek card, but... my first computer (that was all mine, not my Dad's) was a Compaq Presario in 1997... it came with a copy of Microsof Encarta... which had a medieval quiz game/maze thing based on the encyclopedia's articles... and a fractal generator and a planetary orbit simulator. Those were theeee best.

by **strangegrey** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:49 pm

Rhiannon wrote:Playing a geek card, but... my first computer (that was all mine, not my Dad's) was a Compaq Presario in 1997... it came with a copy of Microsof Encarta... which had a medieval quiz game/maze thing based on the encyclopedia's articles... and a fractal generator and a planetary orbit simulator. Those were theeee best.

Good lord, girl...get back in the kiddy pool!

My first computer was an Atari 800....programs needed to be loaded from either a cartridge or a cassette tape.

by **WykkedSensation** » Sat Jul 25, 2009 6:58 pm

I decided to give Vista a try 6 months ago, and it has been amazing so far, with no problems.
I run it with service pack 2, Intel quad core 2, a humongously big hard drive (1tb), 6gb of ram, and 64bit op system.
This thing absolutely flies, and up to now has been trouble free.

by **Pacfanweb** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 1:07 am

They'll have to pry my XP from my cold, dead hard drive. All Windows 7 is, is just Vista with some tweaking. I haven't liked what I've seen of Vista so far. So no, thanks.

by **Voyager** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:25 am

WykkedSensation wrote:I decided to give Vista a try 6 months ago, and it has been amazing so far, with no problems.
I run it with service pack 2, Intel quad core 2, a humongously big hard drive (1tb), 6gb of ram, and 64bit op system.
This thing absolutely flies, and up to now has been trouble free.

There you go... it works good if you have a super beefed-up PC (quad core processsor, lots of RAM, 10K RPM hard drive, running 64-bit version, etc.). If you try to run Vista on a "normal" computer, it is slower than a turtle. The other thing is, if you run XP it blows Vista away in speed. So even though I have a super beefed-up PC, I'd rather go with XP vs. Vista due to the increased performance.

Windows 7 is supposed to be less of a resource hog. I think it will be a good product, and will sell like hotcakes to everyone who passed on buying Vista - which includes a lot of big businesses and organizations.

by **Rick** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:38 am

Voyager wrote:
WykkedSensation wrote:I decided to give Vista a try 6 months ago, and it has been amazing so far, with no problems.
I run it with service pack 2, Intel quad core 2, a humongously big hard drive (1tb), 6gb of ram, and 64bit op system.
This thing absolutely flies, and up to now has been trouble free.

There you go... it works good if you have a super beefed-up PC (quad core processsor, lots of RAM, 10K RPM hard drive, running 64-bit version, etc.). If you try to run Vista on a "normal" computer, it is slower than a turtle. The other thing is, if you run XP it blows Vista away in speed. So even though I have a super beefed-up PC, I'd rather go with XP vs. Vista due to the increased performance.

Windows 7 is supposed to be less of a resource hog. I think it will be a good product, and will sell like hotcakes to everyone who passed on buying Vista - which includes a lot of big businesses and organizations.

I've got the Western Digital Raptor, and it makes a hell of a difference. They're too damn expensive though. I was working on my computer one day and leaned my hand on the data cable for that hard drive and broke the connector. I almost threw up. I kept it in a drawer for about a year, and one day I figured I might as well try to fix it, it's not doing any good like it is. With my big fat unsteady fingers, and stacking two pair of reader glasses on my nose, I managed to glue the connector back together, and it's what I'm using right now.

WS's computer is a monster. Damn.

Website · by **steveo777** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 8:42 am

Mrs. Gates did not understand the true meaning of Microsoft until she married Bill.

by **bradwjensen** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 10:41 am

I must say, Windows 7 looks decent compared to what Windows Vista is.. I like the new task bar too (I tried some of the betas.)
I'm a Linux user myself, but I still use Windows XP Professional in Virtualbox so I can run all the Adobe Master Collection apps.

Personally, I'm really excited for the next version of Ubuntu Linux to come out, along with the other top distros.

by **Rick** » Sun Jul 26, 2009 12:55 pm

bradwjensen wrote:I must say, Windows 7 looks decent compared to what Windows Vista is.. I like the new task bar too (I tried some of the betas.)
I'm a Linux user myself, but I still use Windows XP Professional in Virtualbox so I can run all the Adobe Master Collection apps.

Personally, I'm really excited for the next version of Ubuntu Linux to come out, along with the other top distros.

Man I tried to start a command line version of one of the distros to run a Half-Life server, and never could get it to work. Was fun learning that stuff though.