Windows 7 release date : October 22nd, 2009

Quote:

---

This is one of those posts where I’m truly excited to be writing. I get to tell you when Windows 7 will be on store shelves! According to input from customers and partners we’ve made a lot of progress with Windows 7.

Our milestone-to-milestone approach for Windows 7 is built on a great deal of feedback from customers and testers. This has been pivotal to the development of Windows 7.

I blogged a few weeks ago that it’s looking like we’ll have Windows 7 ready in time for the holidays.

Since then we’ve made enough progress to feel really good about announcing today that Windows 7 will be in stores beginning October 22nd.

I don’t know about you but I can’t wait to see Windows 7 sitting on store shelves!

Some people may not be able to wait for Windows 7 to arrive before having to order a new PC (like parents who are sending their sons or daughters off to school who need of a PC to take with them). Fortunately, there is no need to wait. Soon, customers will be able to take advantage of the Windows 7 Upgrade Option Program. This program enables participating retailers and OEMs to offer a special deal to upgrade to Windows 7 for customers purchasing a qualifying PC. I’ll be doing another blog post about this program with a date and more details when we get closer to availability.

Obviously, Release To Manufacturing (RTM) is an important milestone on the path to GA. We anticipate that we’ll be able to make the RTM code for Windows 7 available to our partners sometime in the 2nd half of July. We also expect to be able to make RTM code for Windows Server 2008 R2 available to our partners in this time frame as well.

---

I've been using the RC and i'm definitely impressed.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/win...dows-7-is.aspx

I may hold out for Windows 8. It seems there was a post a while back saying that it was already in the making. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by westin

I may hold out for Windows 8. It seems there was a post a while back saying that it was already in the making. :D

---

Lol, they probably already have the next three versions started. A friend of mine who I went to college with was working there once, and when he first went inside the product development area, they were doing Office for Windows 95, and they already had the next version, and the XP version of Office running on machines there testing them out. So they had Office XP already in a working state back in like 1995 or 1996 or so.

BeTeWrangler,

If you enjoyed the resources Windows 7 Team Blog gives then you will also enjoy and benefit from Microsoft Springboard. There are several videos, forums and even a tips / tricks section for all Windows 7 RC users. Check it out...

http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft TechNet / Springboard

Hmm, is everyone going to jump in head first before waiting for SP1 ... ?

hell yeah.....unless microsoft gives me a reason not too.....nvm

Win7 seems to be a lot like Vista. Does the licensing preclude VM's again?

I got an RC version going on this Linux unit.

Isn't Vista still based on NT? I'm more interested in what the server version is going to be based on. I know that NT is the basis of 2000, XP, and Vista is like XP with a nicer paint job and way steeper system requirements, and 7 seems to be based on Vista too, so is there ever going to be a product like, "Windows NT - X" or something for 2010?

I know some people might be thinking I'm being sarcastic but that name seems cooler than the Ski resorts they use on pre-released products.

I'd like a newer version of actual NT, without the super steep system requirements and RAM candy. I'd still be using 2000 if it was going to stay in production with security and bug fixes. 2000 and XP are the only two OSs from Microsoft I personally actually liked other than NT's design ideas. (NTFS and the other stuff NT had) why can't you guys do that again? NT and 2000 had system requirements anyone could have met at the time without much in terms of upgrading, it was for the most part stable, and then Vista...

Oh, and, can someone there make an Email client that's good? You know, getting rid of the preview pane that opened up viruses and worms for you, and making it look like either Vista's Mail client, or something like Outlook XP?

I don't think you're being sarcastic - I think you're being clueless.

I'm guessing you're stuck in the past... IE5 with IIS2.nothing or something...

Try running Server 2008 (or even 2003...), SQL Server 2005 or 2008, IIS 6+... Throw .Net 3.5 in the mix, add VS2008...

You can keep testing out OSes to see which one has the best email client (It's Outlook, of course) or which one lets you mix your music best, but maybe it's time to grow up and look for a decent platform. You bring your LAMP stuff, I'll bring the most mature platform the world has ever seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Negative

I don't think you're being sarcastic - I think you're being clueless.

I'm guessing you're stuck in the past... IE5 with IIS2.nothing or something...

Try running Server 2008 (or even 2003...), SQL Server 2005 or 2008, IIS 6+... Throw .Net 3.5 in the mix, add VS2008...

You can keep testing out OSes to see which one has the best email client (It's Outlook, of course) or which one lets you mix your music best, but maybe it's time to grow up and look for a decent platform. You bring your LAMP stuff, I'll bring the most mature platform the world has ever seen.

---

Wtf?

I have Server 2003 EE, and I don't use LAMP.

As for mature Platforms, Microsoft can maybe stake some claim if they bring back XENIX. The most mature platform still in use today was started in the 1960s. After 40 years, I think I can say you got that part a little off. And why the hell would I test an "OS" for an email client? OSs have nothing to do with Email Clients unless it's Outlook. Everything else is almost entirely cross platform. Or works on others with emulation.

Clueless... Yea, THAT is the term used for someone who doesn't have enough money to buy a brand new machine to run an OS...

Well, what I don't like about Windows 7 is that is looks a lot like Vista. They should fix it before anyone actually tries to use it.

"Mature" has nothing to do with age.

As for email clients: your comment about "a preview pane that opened up viruses and worms for you" made me assume that you're stuck with Outlook 97 or something...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kevomate66

Well, what I don't like about Windows 7 is that is looks a lot like Vista. They should fix it before anyone actually tries to use it.

---

You have to be kidding me ! Windows 7 looks like vista in minimal of terms, if you're talking about the start button yeah they both have it ! But except that the looks and usability has been revamped!

Vista started off as a recourse hog but now “every” laptop manufacturer that I see offers 3 GB to 4 GB RAM. I think that’s because DDR3 has come in and DDR2 is on its way out. Vista runs amazingly well even on 2 GB RAM. I have 8 GB on my laptop but a large part of it is devoted to multiple virtual machines running on my laptop. Also it is "definitely" more responsive then XP and is definitely more stable. Windows 7 is far better no doubt but Vista isn't bad at all (I know I’ll get clobbered for saying that)..

As far as server grade OS.. I think Server 2008 (and R2) is a milestone in server OS development there is a huge development from server 2003 era.

I think we should accept certain inalienable (marketing / to an extent true) facts- Every subsequent OS (2000 > xp > vista > 7 > and so on) will be MOST SECURE OS EVER BUILT. Vista is way better in being secure then XP, yes UAC is a F-up but I actually started liking after a while it gives me a certain amount of peace knowing I’m sitting on administrator account and typing this rather then logging off and logging onto a lesser privileged account..

Personally, I would expect operating systems to look pretty similar given that they pretty much do the same thing. Also there is the marketing aspect?.........people generally don't like dramatic changes so there is an incentive to preserve the familiar look and feel of previous versions.

I believe that the main problem with Vista was the "Vista Ready/Vista Capable" debacle. Hardware was being sold that was basically incapable of supporting all the features of the OS. I look on that as being more of a marketing gaffe than anything fundamentally wrong with the OS.

Quote:

---

yes UAC is a F-up but I actually started liking after a while it gives me a certain amount of peace

---

I hardly noticed it, as I had been running third party applications with similar functionality since Win 98 :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nihil

Personally, I would expect operating systems to look pretty similar given that they pretty much do the same thing. Also there is the marketing aspect?.........people generally don't like dramatic changes so there is an incentive to preserve the familiar look and feel of previous versions.

I believe that the main problem with Vista was the "Vista Ready/Vista Capable" debacle. Hardware was being sold that was basically incapable of supporting all the features of the OS. I look on that as being more of a marketing gaffe than anything fundamentally wrong with the OS.



I hardly noticed it, as I had been running third party applications with similar functionality since Win 98 :D

---

That's more or less true now. KDE4 for example, has all the GUI stuff like Vista, where KDE 3.5, is more like the XP / 2003 look that can be customized beyond what most people care to do.

Gnome is like that too, and that's the two most you'll see in that area, but on a Server, the GUI should be turned off. RAM wasted on GUI crap you don't need for a machine that doesn't even have a monitor, is kind of silly.

Neg:

My comment was about exactly that, I don't even have Office 97 here, but used it and thought that was terribly bad in opening up stuff before you did.

That DOESN'T mean, though, that I think it still does. I was pointing out a mistake from the past.

And I know mature has nothing to do with age. But even Microsoft use that little OS you seem to think is inferior. Remember Hotmail? It still ran FreeBSD for YEARS after Microsoft said Unix was dumb. They were using it on Hotmail, the back ends still use it, and even the "We have the way out" anti-Unix ad campaign was running FreeBSD.

The stupid thing is that wen I posted I wasn't saying a word about which OS I use, or even bringing up Linux and BSD, yet because I posted, someone had to bring that up and assume whatever they assumed. I didn't say a word about Linux, or BSD, or anything else I use, and was talking about Microsoft Windows, by itself, and some things I'd like to see happen there.

So why did this turn into who's OS is better argument when I get blasted for that?

Love this thread!

Just some quick points here:

2000 was not based on NT (That can be argued, but not here - It would require it's own thread)

VISTA's kernel was completely re written. Including some FreeBSD code in the networking layer. (Yea M$ got busted and had to remove the code) One of the biggest reasons Vista sucks and will not network any better than a windows 95 box

Windows 7 kernel ROCKS! Between bench testing, user groups and my testing. This is a very nice OS and is in NO WAY close to VISTA. I am thinking; however, it is what M$ wanted VISTA to be.

As for using it. I haven't upgraded to the RC yet, I'm still using the BETA!

ByTeWrangler,

It's fantastic that you are having such a great experience with Windows 7! As you have discovered, several changes have been made to ensure the best user experience possbile. For those who are still unsure about Windows 7, or even hesitant, Microsoft does have a site with whitepapers, tutorials, walkthroughs and screen casts on all the “under the hood” features in Win 7. Check out the Springboard site for Windows 7 on TechNet here http://tinyurl.com/832nco

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dinowuff

Just some quick points here:

2000 was not based on NT (That can be argued, but not here - It would require it's own thread)

VISTA's kernel was completely re written. Including some FreeBSD code in the networking layer. (Yea M$ got busted and had to remove the code) One of the biggest reasons Vista sucks and will not network any better than a windows 95 box

Windows 7 kernel ROCKS! Between bench testing, user groups and my testing. This is a very nice OS and is in NO WAY close to VISTA. I am thinking; however, it is what M$ wanted VISTA to be.

As for using it. I haven't upgraded to the RC yet, I'm still using the BETA!

---

.. Doesn't windows shutdown every 2 hours ? One of the reason's for moving to RC was that ..

I think microsoft sold us beta OS (vista) to get to 7.. :)

Gore > All I'm saying is that some of your comments made me think that you were comparing apples to oranges; i.e. you were comparing a recent *nix version to a not-so-recent Windows version. This is the post I'm referring to, btw - http://antionline.com/showpost.php?p=948734&postcount=8

I couldn't care less about what OS you use - if you can make it do what you want it to, I'm all for it. I'd love to be in a situation where I know so much about both of them that I just flip a coin and go with whatever option I'm dealt...

I guess I decided to go with Windows... I can't even keep up with all the basics pertaining to Windows, let alone Windows AND *Nix.. I have nothing but admiration for folks who do everything and anything across platform... I can't do that, though, so I picked something... Turned out to be .Net... and in doing so, I got to compare some platforms... I won't compare them in this thread, though :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Negative

Gore > All I'm saying is that some of your comments made me think that you were comparing apples to oranges; i.e. you were comparing a recent *nix version to a not-so-recent Windows version. This is the post I'm referring to, btw - http://antionline.com/showpost.php?p=948734&postcount=8

I couldn't care less about what OS you use - if you can make it do what you want it to, I'm all for it. I'd love to be in a situation where I know so much about both of them that I just flip a coin and go with whatever option I'm dealt...

I guess I decided to go with Windows... I can't even keep up with all the basics pertaining to Windows, let alone Windows AND *Nix.. I have nothing but admiration for folks who do everything and anything across platform... I can't do that, though, so I picked something... Turned out to be .Net... and in doing so, I got to compare some platforms... I won't compare them in this thread, though :D

---

Ahhh, I was wondering when you were going to realize I wasn't. I was really just asking about future versions and if they were going to stay with NT style, or, maybe move to something totally different...And had I remembered, would have asked about WinFS, which is one of the more interesting things.

Also, Powershell would be nice as a default, I'm not sure if it is though. I just downloaded it because it works great and has basically a built in Bash shell style... I'm not sure what to call it because it's a lot like a Bash Shell and made killing processes easy, and listing them and... If you don't have it already get it, it's nice.

And being in the situation where you're able to use multiple OSs without any problem at all, isn't all it's cracked up to be. You give up nice portions of a social life for a year at least before you get here lol. (That's why I take breaks and catch up afterwards). One thing I'd like to see that I can do on BSD and Linux is screwing with the Windows Kernel to customize it. Unloading drivers you aren't going to use and freeing up RAM because you unload those drivers too and taking out crap you don't want does speed things up a bit. But that's becoming less of an issue with the current prices on RAM and the amount of it you can use with any given OS now.

But yea, most of my machines dual boot Windows and either Linux or BSD because I can use all three just fine as a Desktop, or server, or, with my laptop, I use that mainly to make music, do some email and web browsing, and screw around with new stuff I'm testing out.

I also still have a copy of BeOS Pro here on CD. I bought it years ago when they actually still existed. I can use that too. OSs are one of the things that made more sense to me. I can't code Assembler or anything like that or very much in C++, but I can do Web Development, Perl, Batch stuff, Shell scripts, and generally have no issues with that between Windows, Linux (both SysV and BSD style Init) and FreeBSD and Solaris, and then do the same for BeOS. I memorized that though.

No... I'm not talking about the "my machines run this" kinda stuff... I'm talking about running systems... and systems that are being run by other systems.

I'm not talking about home-and-garden stuff...I think you know that, yet your last three paragraphs again are about how great you are...

If you'd be prevented from talking about yourself, Antionline would be quiet...

For those who want to save some money :

http://store.microsoft.com/microsoft...hpfeature_win7



Don't forget to check if your machine has minimum requirement's :

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...e-advisor.aspx


I'm searching for this but does anyone know if an OEM will be eligable for an upgrade or will it be full purchase ? I got my laptop with both XP and VISTA (business)..? It should not be eligable but i'm hoping for it .. :p

You might also try this:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

to check applications compatibility ;)