when is windows 7 releasing

[Nimesh]

i heard that windows 7 would outperform xp & wont suffer any compatability issues like vista does?

 

[ghostchamber]

I think they're going for 2011 for a release date.

I'm curious where you got that information. I'm also curious what compatability issues you're speaking of in Vista.

 

[SuperSubZero]

i heard it would cure cancer AND leave my floor sparkly clean. Oh and it makes a great dessert topping.

 

[diablerie]

Apparently, Windows 7 is set for 2011. Since the release date is so far off, anything you hear about at this point is just rumour and speculation. But, considering Microsoft's history, whatever compatibility problems you're having with Windows Vista will only be worse in the next version.

 

[Sagan]

But will it run Crysis?

 

[Deleted member 133315]

But will it run Crysis?

only at 640x400 and in 16 bit mode.

 

[pxc]

Don't worry, it won't be released as a surprise. There will be betas long in advance and release candidates months before it comes out. Windows 7 is not even up to the beta period yet.

3 years from Vista's early 2007 release puts an estimate around 2010. Of course there could be delays that push that date later.

Vista's compatibility is fine. You may get UAC prompts for poorly written applications that assume admin login, trying to access areas outside of recommended guidlines in place since Win2K. Unsigned "1337 proggies" also have problems auto-starting in the 64-bit version. 16-bit installers and applications are not compatible with Vista x64. Lastly, programs written to specific versions of Windows like older internet security suites and disk defragmenters need to be updated to Vista compatible versions.

 

[Mithent]

Windows 7 is intended to have similar system requirements and compatibility to Windows Vista; it appears to be very much an evolution of Vista rather than a substantially different OS. I've not heard anything about whether it will perform better, but generally Vista's performance is now not substantially different from XP's anyway, since SP1 and driver improvements.

Microsoft do seem to be treating the Windows 7 development process as much less public than that of Vista, though - since a good part of Vista's bad press was from dropping features like WinFS, this is probably a good idea.

(As an aside, apart from driver issues which can't be avoided when the driver model changes, most Windows incompatibility problems between versions are due to developers not sticking to the published APIs or making assumptions that tie them in to a particular version of Windows. If something is part of the Win32 API, it should be thoroughly tested that it still works as expected in all future Win32-compatible versions of Windows. If they're going to poke around in undocumented areas and change things through abnormal routes, or make the wrong assumptions, things break. Vista has a huge list of programs with associated workarounds that Microsoft has had to develop to allow many of such programs to work.)

 

[Wolf-R1]

Don't worry, it won't be released as a surprise. There will be betas long in advance and release candidates months before it comes out. Windows 7 is not even up to the beta period yet.

3 years from Vista's early 2007 release puts an estimate around 2010. Of course there could be delays that push that date later.

Vista's compatibility is fine. You may get UAC prompts for poorly written applications that assume admin login, trying to access areas outside of recommended guidlines in place since Win2K. Unsigned "1337 proggies" also have problems auto-starting in the 64-bit version. 16-bit installers and applications are not compatible with Vista x64. Lastly, programs written to specific versions of Windows like older internet security suites and disk defragmenters need to be updated to Vista compatible versions.

Would "poorly written applications" include the domain administrative tools for AD domains?

 

[Joe Average]

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of questions related to Windows 7 at such an early stage in its development - and even the fact that Microsoft dared to make it public knowledge. I don't know if that bodes badly for Vista (as most people would probably say), or it bodes well for Microsoft to be confident enough to say "ok, here's the next big thing... it'll be out in <xx> years... be on the lookout for it."

Vista isn't that bad, it really isn't, it's just the new kid on the block basically and people will take time to get used to it. If people look at this from an accurate perspective and take the past into consideration, we've seen all this shit before, with each release of a "new" version of Windows, from Windows 95 on, seriously. Well, at least someone like myself can look at this stuff accurately because I've trained, supported, fixed, repaired, helped beta test, and been a user of each version of Windows that's ever been put in a box by Microsoft. Not everyone can say that because a lot of people out there were still in diapers when that event so long ago happened with the release of Windows 1.0 - some weren't even born after that, go figure.

I can understand the concept of wanting to look for "the next big thing," but geez... whatever screenshots or announcements you read about Windows 7 right now will mean absolutely Jack Shit 6 months from now, forgotten a year from now, and never even amount to a hill of beans once Windows 7 - or whatever they choose to call it - actually hits store shelves years from now. Everything that exists today is simply conjecture and wild speculation - but of course that's what forums and the Internet are for, right?

 

[nameless_centurian]

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of questions related to Windows 7 at such an early stage in its development - and even the fact that Microsoft dared to make it public knowledge. I don't know if that bodes badly for Vista (as most people would probably say), or it bodes well for Microsoft to be confident enough to say "ok, here's the next big thing... it'll be out in <xx> years... be on the lookout for it."

Vista isn't that bad, it really isn't, it's just the new kid on the block basically and people will take time to get used to it. If people look at this from an accurate perspective and take the past into consideration, we've seen all this shit before, with each release of a "new" version of Windows, from Windows 95 on, seriously. Well, at least someone like myself can look at this stuff accurately because I've trained, supported, fixed, repaired, helped beta test, and been a user of each version of Windows that's ever been put in a box by Microsoft. Not everyone can say that because a lot of people out there were still in diapers when that event so long ago happened with the release of Windows 1.0 - some weren't even born after that, go figure.

I can understand the concept of wanting to look for "the next big thing," but geez... whatever screenshots or announcements you read about Windows 7 right now will mean absolutely Jack Shit 6 months from now, forgotten a year from now, and never even amount to a hill of beans once Windows 7 - or whatever they choose to call it - actually hits store shelves years from now. Everything that exists today is simply conjecture and wild speculation - but of course that's what forums and the Internet are for, right?

go on. tell us how you really feel.

 

[Azhar]

I am absolutely amazed at the amount of questions related to Windows 7 at such an early stage in its development - and even the fact that Microsoft dared to make it public knowledge. I don't know if that bodes badly for Vista (as most people would probably say), or it bodes well for Microsoft to be confident enough to say "ok, here's the next big thing... it'll be out in <xx> years... be on the lookout for it."

Vista isn't that bad, it really isn't, it's just the new kid on the block basically and people will take time to get used to it. If people look at this from an accurate perspective and take the past into consideration, we've seen all this shit before, with each release of a "new" version of Windows, from Windows 95 on, seriously. Well, at least someone like myself can look at this stuff accurately because I've trained, supported, fixed, repaired, helped beta test, and been a user of each version of Windows that's ever been put in a box by Microsoft. Not everyone can say that because a lot of people out there were still in diapers when that event so long ago happened with the release of Windows 1.0 - some weren't even born after that, go figure.

I can understand the concept of wanting to look for "the next big thing," but geez... whatever screenshots or announcements you read about Windows 7 right now will mean absolutely Jack Shit 6 months from now, forgotten a year from now, and never even amount to a hill of beans once Windows 7 - or whatever they choose to call it - actually hits store shelves years from now. Everything that exists today is simply conjecture and wild speculation - but of course that's what forums and the Internet are for, right?

I think the reason why Microsoft released information about Windows 7 with screenshots is because they wanted to debunk rumors where people were saying it would be modular and not as "bloated" as Vista was regarding needless eyecandies and special effects. As screenies dictates, Windows 7 will be no different than Vista visual-wise - so far.

I agree 100% that there's absolutely nothing wrong with Vista. The OP is just another sad brainwashed victim of FUD who can't do his own research or understand how operating systems work. He's going to be in for a major disappointment when he finds out Windows 7 will suffer the same initial incompatibility with core software (anti-virus and system tools).

To the OP: Vista's "incompatibility problems" only lies in the direction of system utilities understandably due to the fact that it's built differently from previous Windows. Virus scanners from Windows 2000 did not work in XP, remember? And if you're running 8-bit or 16-bit software, then you need to keep up with the times. 32-bit has been around for a decade.

 

[pxc]

Would "poorly written applications" include the domain administrative tools for AD domains?

Yeah, you wouldn't want to be prompted for escalated actions like running "domain administrative tools." That's totally ridiculous.

I was talking about regular desktop applications that cause unnecessary UAC prompts ("poorly written applications that assume admin login") in a post concerning compatibility. I underlined the applications part to make it clear for you.

 

[Uberbob102000]

It's the SAME core as Vista so it will not be significantly different from Vista. It'll be more of an evolution.

 

[GushpinBob]

@Ahzar and Joe Average

I wouldn't say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with Vista; every operating system has its shortcomings including the latest version of Windows itself.

However, I do agree that way too many people are making a "mountain out of a molehill" about its problems (several which have been fixed in SP1). The same thing happened when XP was released; publications and many IT people criticized its "Fisher Price" interface, the minimum requirements were slightly too outlandish (XP required 64MB of RAM, but in order to actually *do* anything you needed 128MB, an amount of RAM that was seen only preinstalled on "mid-high-end to high-end" systems), a lot of 9x/Me software broke despite "compatibility mode", and the introduction of "Product Activation" rolled many heads. In addition to that, many (especially those in IT) criticized XP as it offered too little as an upgrade from Windows 2000 (which also had the advantage of lower minimum system requirements). I, myself was an early adopter of XP ("fleeing" from Me ) and I had my share of software woes. Need For Speed 4 and 5 (which was my favorite game at the time) refused to run, my Roxio CD burning software didn't work, and I had to go out and buy a new version of PowerDVD. Plus, I was "wow'd" and pissed at the new interface at the same time; I liked the cleartype and the fading menus with the shadows however my P3 @ 933MHz chugged with all that "bling" on. Now XP is considered as "all you ever need" out of a Windows OS and I believe that the same thing will happen to Vista when Windows 7 is shipped.

To keep on the topic of this thread, Windows 7 is definitely going to be an evolution of Vista but we can't do anything but wait to see what the next version will be really like. It may be a slight change with some features added here and there (a la Win95 -> 98) or it may be something that will look completely different in the end. (Kind of how XP looked like 2000 in the early stages of development, then used the "Water Color" and "Professional" themes before "Luna" was introduced. Don't forget that Vista did the same thing with XP's "Luna", then *barf* "Plex" before finally moving to the Aero Basic and Glass interfaces)

 

[SippieCup]

i heard that windows 7 would outperform xp & wont suffer any compatability issues like vista does?

you do know that windows 7 is built off of vista right?


technically it would have all the compatibility (or as you say, compatability) issues that vista has.


which would still just be 1 or 2..

 

[Azhar]

Gushin, you're taking my words too literally. Of course Vista isn't perfect. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with it in an everyday home environment providing of course you have the hardware to run it. That goes for all operating system, even Linux and OSX.

 

[Mabrito]

i heard it would cure cancer AND leave my floor sparkly clean. Oh and it makes a great dessert topping.

I heard it actually cures AIDS.....

 

[LoStMaTt]

Windows 7 is supposedly going to be Microsoft's version of "OSX" and honestly I hope it is.

From what I have seen and read Windows 7 is supposed to be what Vista was dreamed to be. It will not be compatible with most stuff that is pre vista which is a GOOD thing in my opinion. Reason being is that all of this compatibility that has to be programmed into Windows causes the bloat that we saw in Vista.

If they can have a clean slate to start from, a good base for developers and programmers then Windows 7 will be absolutely awesome. .NET Framework development has really taken off and is doing really well.

 

[Mithent]

From what I have seen and read Windows 7 is supposed to be what Vista was dreamed to be. It will not be compatible with most stuff that is pre vista which is a GOOD thing in my opinion. Reason being is that all of this compatibility that has to be programmed into Windows causes the bloat that we saw in Vista.

If they can have a clean slate to start from, a good base for developers and programmers then Windows 7 will be absolutely awesome. .NET Framework development has really taken off and is doing really well.

They're not rebuilding the OS. From Microsoft's Windows Vista blog:

the long-term architectural investments we introduced in Windows Vista and then refined for Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 will carry forward in Windows 7. Windows Vista established a very solid foundation, particularly on subsystems such as graphics, audio, and storage. Windows Server 2008 was built on that foundation and Windows 7 will be as well. Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista. While these changes will increase our engineering agility, they will not impact the user experience or reduce application or hardware compatibility. In fact, one of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7.

Backwards compatibility is crucial for Microsoft; they couldn't ever drop or severely cripple support for older applications because there would be immense resistance from businesses, consumers and developers. Apple can get away with this more because they have a much smaller ecosystem that they have more control over, and few enterprise users who absolutely must keep using an ancient Visual Basic program that's just crucial to their business. I'm sure they'd love to be able to get rid of Win16 now, but it's hanging on pretty well so far - Windows 7 is still going to have a 32-bit version, I believe.