Introducing Windows 7, Codename Translucency, Milestone Sinofsky
section: windows, for your questions: KezNews forum, 28.1.2008
Introducing... Windows 7, codename Translucency, Milestone Sinofsky... After a diluvian leak of Windows 7 information, from intimate details to screenshots and videos, Microsoft has finally managed to talk Windows 7.
The Redmond company has been hard at work on the next version of the Windows Operating system, as soon as it was done with Windows Vista. Throughout 2007, Microsoft has given details about the next Windows iteration. Windows 7 will be delivered in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors, with a new core, the MinWin kernel stripped down of all dependencies with the remaining components of the operating system. And there was even talk of an official timetable, initially interpreted as pointing to 2010 for the delivery of Windows 7.
The debut of 2008 brought with it Windows 7 Milestone 1 Build 6.1.6519.1, shifting the focus away from the imminent releases of Windows Vista Service Pack 1 and Windows XP Service Pack 3. And once the Windows 7 genie was out of the bottle, details came pouring in about Windows 7 M1. From the new Windows Media Center to the official timetable featuring M2 in April/May 2007, M3 in the third quarter and the Betas, Release Candidates and the RTM date apparently all squeezed into 2009. Apparently, because Microsoft keeps completely mum on Windows 7.
And then there were the leaked screenshots of Windows 7. The images were taken with a grain of salt, and the high level of skepticism survived even the availability of a low-quality video of Windows 7. But outside of leaked information, the muzzle put on Windows 7 is functioning to perfection, gagging all details. Steven Sinofsky, Senior Vice President, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, is responsible for erecting a wall of silence around the successor of Windows Vista. The official policy over at Microsoft, concerning the Windows 7 project, is a new translucent strategy, as opposed to transparency. Essentially, Sinofsky will not promise and underdeliver, but instead will say nothing in the hope that users will take all that Microsoft will eventually has to give with both arms.
On the heels of leaked details, screenshots and videos, Microsoft finally talked Windows 7, but of course that the Redmond company has nothing to say. "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. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release," said a Microsoft representative to CRN.
"We are currently in the planning stages for Windows 7 and expect it will take approximately 3 years to develop. The specific release date will be determined once the company meets its quality bar for release," a Microsoft spokesperson revealed to The WinVista Club. "We’re continuing to work with our partners on the development of Windows 7, and are not sharing any additional information at this time."
Sure enough, doing the math on the potential dates for the final release of Windows 7 is rather easy. Taking into consideration the consumer launch of Vista in January 2007, Windows 7 will come in 2010. But judging from the release to manufacturing to businesses dates of the latest Windows client, Windows 7 is indeed aimed at a time before the 2009 holiday season. But predicting what Microsoft will actually do is an entirely different matter altogether.
source:
news.softpedia.com
Send link 2 friend | Permalink
MORE RELATED ARTICLES:
Introducing Windows 7 Milestone 1 Build 6.1.6519.1 || Installing Windows 7 Milestone 1 Build 6519 || Windows 7 Milestone 2 M2 available on Torrent Websites || Windows Codename Perception || Windows Codename Mojave Is Live
Comments(26)
reality is that windows vista is not doing as well as microsoft had hoped. i guarantee
anyone reading this that they will release it at or just before christmas 2009. why?
people are going back to xp, migrating to a mac, linux, anything than vista. vista stinks
plain and simple. its me 2 all over again and everyone knows it! if microsoft admitted
the truth no one and i mean no one would touch vista with a ten foot pole. of course they
hope to sell as many copies of the os as they can. if people thought they were going to
possibly get a better os why would they want to fork over more money for a stepping stone
os like vista?
i must be one of the few people that actually likes vista, i have had absolutly no issues
or crashes since changing from xp pro 64 to vista 64.
and that makes two of us!
vista x86 and x64 are both slow as shit and are memory whores
i migrated from xp to vista and no problems at all... i must be one of those without
problems... x86 and x64 no problems so far.
i dont see why everyone hates vista....i love and have been using it since rtm.
as for vista being a resource hog, well dont expect it to run on the same specs as on
the old xp machine you might have.
im running it on my laptop , cpu t7200 2gig
ram and its running smoothly.
i am an it professional. not only does vista use more ram memory it also uses cpu
threads...vista uses alot more than xp..(no surprize!) i mean even with a high grade quad
core the os can only utilize so much ram and threads...which is why vista is a resource
hog and runs slow. plus, it has too many services running in the background (microsoft
spyware to collect information about the user)sapping yet more resources. xp more
resembles windows 7. it is cleaner, its easier to configure and it does not have drm
infection integrated into the os core quite like vista. i have an endless stream of
clients that request me to 'upgrade' them back to xp.
i see many more migrating to
linux distros, mac becuase they are so very unhappy with vista. it forces the user to
basically relearn basic windows commands, scrambles where everything is.
in short,
microsoft will probably release windows 7 on or before xmas 09, due to lost marketshare
because of the train wreak known as 'vista'.
see... the thing i have an issue with here, is that people are saying that vista runs
better if you have a better computer. right... but you take that same computer and run xp
on it. wow look an extremely fast os! running vista sp1 and xp sp3 on the same computer...
its a no brainer which is faster.
simple tasks are just made a slight bit more
complicated in vista... and all that it really has going for it, is its pretty theme...
which can be perfectly emulated on xp. and if you really want just pretty... go with
linux... running ubuntu on any computer that can run linux would look great.
wtf? you buy a quad core and 4 gigs of ram what the hell for? did you buy just to look at
it or do u want to use it. vista preloads all of your apps into the memory to start it up
quicker. 50% more than xp. it frees the ram anyway when you need to play a game or
anything that requires the resources. not used ram is wasted ram.
by general design vista has too many services running svcking memory and processor.
after 6 months i switched back to xp pro, no regrets. xp uses memory more efficiently.
microshaft will not fix vista, as windows 7 is their new baby. vista is merely their cash
flow. i hate me2.
windows vista is a memory hog compared to xp but i want you to understand that vista is
also 6 years older than xp and the only reason xp runs so well is because your running xp
on these brand new computers do some memory tests on a 2001 xp ready computer compared to
a vista ready 2007 computer and come back to me.
vista has had issues with microphone recordings on my computer, so i had to go back to
xp. also windows media center had lots of issues with my tv tuner card (even though it's
a really popular card). other than that i guess the eye candy was nice, but i believe
function is more important than style.
to everyone saying vista is a resource hog - get stuffed! it works better than xp and get
off your 7 years old computers - about time you bought a new one. xp is rubbish!
i still say that you should run the os you are comfortable with, since that is the one
most efficient for you. vista certainly uses more ram and cpu threads, it should; it's
2007 sofware using 2007 technology. i'm running a dual boot with vista and xp and i
readily prefer vista. it actually runs the graphic apps that i use much quicker than xp.
but i can't knock xp, because it has been a workhorse. some of us old coots remember
when we had to use punch cards to program the old ibm mainframes, so any windows or mac os
looks good to us. having over 30 years of working with a whole bunch of different
systems, i must say i prefer vista. the only problems i have seen are usually from the
losers that pirate the software. did anyone really think that the pirate versions of
vista would actually work well? microsoft probably dropped those edited copies onto as
many torrent sites as possible to screw up the pirating community. i actually ran another
disc with a pirated version of vista ultimate and it was definately not the same stuff.
geez folks, get a grip, we could all still be stuck with dos instead of having a mutitude
of os platforms to work with.
wyodad....
you say there is a difference between the pirated vista and the
bought one?
that clearly shows your stupidity.
the only difference
is the keycode..
//sd
i love how computer tutor claims to know so much about windows 7 that he can
"professionally" assert its similarities to windows xp. you ignorant moron.
{one of the few, ericko, asolram, smith, will, zero,realitprofessional, sirchunks, kn}
all differnt names
and the reply posts are written by just 1 microsoft p.r agent.
this spinner is here to do vista damaged control. the guy is such an ass-hole-idiot to
think that keznews readers are as dumb as he is. he pretents to be 9/10 differrent
readers to defense vista and mock any readers who think vista is an even bigger pile of
sh!t than the old shit-windows-me. he blames all vista problems on the keznews readers by
saying that we all use 7 years out-dated computers to run vista.
read jaryth000's
comments again. most of us have computers that are 5 exceed the ms computer recommdation
level for vista. many of us have the fastest graphic cards, the top of the line amd &
intel cpus and 4-8 giga ram. but vista is running 5-10 times slower than xp and 15-20
times slower than linux on the same computers.
vista don't die suddenly but it's
just fukking slow. it's so slow that so many vista users are dying from waiting for
vista executions.
i hate people like you. you should get a life. i just said that i like vista and you
called me a lot of names.
i actually work fixing and selling computers, and i
recommend xp a lot to my clients, but i also recommend win98se to the clients that have
older computers, and i barely recommend vista because they want to install it in really
crappy computers.
but guess what? i like vista, and i like it a lot! i actually
went back to xp once, but i missed vista soo much that i installed it again, it was a
little slow, and so what? i liked it anyway.
6 months ago i bought a new
laptop, it has a c2d t7500 2.2ghz, 2gb ram and nvidia 8600mgt, it runs vista really well,
and i like it a lot. i'm actually dual booting vista/xp because i really need to use some
old programs that don't work with vista, but that's it, no more xp for me.
let me tell you again, my name is erick amaya and i like vista a lot.
you don't like
vista and i respect it, you should do the same and respect me and the others or better,
just die!
i said that vista was a little slow, and that's because i installed it in a laptop with
a pm 2.13ghz, 1.5gb ram and ati radeon x700
now that i have my new laptop,
vista runs really well
when vista came out sure it had problems
but the new sp1 solved like everything
transfers are way faster and ive never had a blue screen. and another note "if your
hardware is fn shit then dont bitch about vista not working on your computer cause your to
cheap to upgrade your windows 95 capable hardware.
you all guys are two damn idiot i should come to you and kik you one by one
i'm sweet twat
vista is a great os and is probably the most stable os to date. true it is not selling as
hoped for, but that is not because it is bad. it is because many people have computers
that are just not up to the extra resource gobbling that the os does. businesses are not
upgrading because that is too costly to buy a new os and in many cases new computers to
handle it. vista really does not do anything much that xp doesn't do, but it is more
stable and that is a good thing. vista has received alot of complaints because of its
demand for a better computer and in many cases this results in it running slower than xp
under the same circumstances. windows 7 is not due out until 2011 and that may be delayed,
but it will not be earlier. microsoft has stated that while people are slow to change from
xp, vista sales will increase. currently 70% of world's computers run xp, 10% vista. not
that bad in a year.
this is my rig:
p5k3 deluxe wi-fi
q6600-g0
2gb ddr3 1333 mhz
hd3870
at this specs vista just su..s, so stop saying that vista works fine on new hardware,
it dosen"t!!!
i was stupid to buy this vista sh.t, and now i'm back to xp, after 5
or more reinstalls, several crush with no reason, applications hangs and so on...
so
bye bye vista, will see what windows seven can do.
the only real download like for windows 7 milestone 1 is:
http://www.microsoft.com/_sinofsky/private/w7m1.iso. unfortunately the link was deleted.
if anybody have a copy of w7m1.iso, please share it with us.
havent you guys learned anything. when 95 came out, it used only a little of ram, then
when 98 came out it used a little more. and when xp came out very few machines were able
to run it. so companies such as hp and compaq decided to include more ram in their
systems. same is the case with vista. for all those that hate vista, stfu and stop your
complaining. give vista some time, let those companies mature a little more, and go out
and buy yourself some more ram. jeeez. i hate when people complian.
No new comments are allowed for this article.
For your questions use our KezNews Forum
Windows 7 and reality
By Wild Bill on 29.01.2008 - 01:01