Posted on 04/23/2009 12:25:37 PM PDT by aft_lizard
New build hasn't been leaked to torrents -- yet
Microsoft's Windows 7 is perhaps one of the most hotly anticipated tech products of the year. Its beta builds have thus far showcased both polish and Microsoft's willingness to improve and take constructive criticism. Microsoft has over 2,000 planned bug fixes for the Release Candidate phase, and recent builds have given users just a taste of the promising new OS's potential.
Hot on the heels of the leak of RC build 7077 to the torrent world earlier this month, Microsoft has delivered a major milestone build to OEM partners and TAP gold customers. Microsoft reportedly compiled the new build, 7100.0.winmain_win7rc.090421-1700 (build 7100, for short), on Tuesday, and has already began distribution.
While some are likely eagerly awaiting the build to hit torrents, for home testing, Microsoft may actually beat leakers to the punch. Microsoft announced via its Partners page plans to launch a semi-public distribution of the release candidate by May 5th to MSDN/TechNet customers. The official release will invariably also be shared by these customers over torrent. The 7100 build seems a likely target for the release.
There's potential, though, that the posting could be a mistake, as a Microsoft Online Chat Concierge spokesperson commented, "Currently the Windows 7 RC has not been available through the TechNet subscription yet, only the Microsoft OEM partners such as Dell, Siemens are taking part in the RC's this period of test."
Regardless, whenever DailyTech get its hands on release candidate 7100, a features update piece can be expected. Until then, like the rest of community, we have to wait and see.
I already gave all the proof anybody needs. You gave nothing. NT is not new from the ground up. The sources are simple reality, the Windows box that’s probably in front of you right now has tons of DOS legacy in it, some of which I already listed.
Define what you mean by DOS.
Since this is now public :)
http://www.withinwindows.com/2009/04/24/secret-no-more-revealing-windows-xp-mode-for-windows-7/
Over a month ago, we were briefed about a secret Microsoft technology that we were told would be announced alongside the Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC) and would ship in final form simultaneously with the final version of Windows 7. This technology, dubbed Windows XP Mode (XPM, formerly Virtual Windows XP or Virtual XP, VXP), dramatically changes the compatibility story for Windows 7 and, we believe, has serious implications for Windows development going forward. Here’s what’s happening.
XPM is built on the next generation Microsoft Virtual PC 7 product line, which requires processor-based virtualization support (Intel and AMD) to be present and enabled on the underlying PC, much like Hyper-V, Microsoft’s server-side virtualization platform. However, XPM is not Hyper-V for the client. It is instead a host-based virtualization solution like Virtual PC; the hardware assistance requirement suggests this will be the logical conclusion of this product line from a technological standpoint. That is, we fully expect future client versions of Windows to include a Hyper-V-based hypervisor
No you haven't. You have stated that just because Windows continues to support DOS functions, through a DOS Shell; that the OS is based on a DOS kernal, where we have shown and posted sites that cite the NT Kernal. You have presented nothing but an ancedote, no references, no proof. Just insistance that you are correct and we are wrong.
Your good work, no matter how many times you repeat your error, do not make the error the truth. Just because an OS supports legacy commands, does not mean the machine is actually running DOS at any level. Quite the opposite, the whole concept of 'Emulation' means that a software package can 'pretend' to be something that it is not. For example, your PC is not a Nintendo Game Boy - but you can download and run a Game Boy Emulator Linky and now your PC will act like a Nintendo Game Boy. You can then download the Game Boy ROMs and run any game you want on your PC. Does this mean that Windows is NOW based on a Game Boy? Similarily, you can download and run a MacIntosh emulator that used to run on the older MacIntosh computers. Does that now mean that Windows is based on DOS, the Nintendo Game Boy and the Apple MacIntosh?
Nope, this is what we call emulation. DOS is running on emulation in your Windows environment.
Then there is this little bit of wisdom:
Early versions of Microsoft Windows were an application that ran on top of a separate version of DOS.[17] By the early 1990s, Windows saw heavy use on new DOS systems. With Windows for Workgroups 3.11, DOS was almost reduced to the role of a boot loader for the Windows kernel; in 1995, Windows 95 was bundled as a standalone operating system that did not require a separate DOS license. With Windows 95 (and Windows 98 and Me, that followed it), the MS-DOS kernel remains, but with Windows as the system's graphical shell. With Windows 95 and 98, but not ME, the MS-DOS component could be run without starting Windows.[18] With Windows now separated and DOS compatibility getting worse with each upgrade, DOS fell into disuse as the majority of computer users migrated to the more popular programming platform. Modern versions of Windows, such as XP, allowed DOS-native software to operate (though such software often ran at a reduced capacity due to Windows resource requirements and memory usage); Windows Vista, however, has removed DOS compatibility entirely, requiring the use of DOS extenders or emulators to run any DOS-native program.
Vista x86 can still run 16-bit DOS apps in a VDM. It is the 64-bit version (x64) of Vista that drops all 16-bit compatibility.
The chances are very high that you have a total of 4 Memory DIMM slots. You know the memory, and the speed; what you may not be aware of is the fact that most North Bridges (IO Controller in Intel-ese) have the capability of reading dual channel. If you populate the 2 front most DIMMs and the 2 rear DIMMs identically (ie. a 1 Gig and a 512K in slots 1 and 2; then a 1 Gig and a 512 Meg in slots 3 and 4); you will DOUBLE the memory bandwidth to your memory.
If you put the two 1 Gig sticks in slots 1 and 2, then fill the rear most slots with 512Meg sticks, that configuration will work, but you will be forcing your motherboard to read the memory with a single channel. Simply stated, mirror whatever is in the first 2 slots, in the 3rd and 4th slot. If you put a 1 Gig DIMM in slot one, and have slot 2 empty, put the other 1 Gig DIMM in slot 3 and leave slot 4 empty. If the two 'banks' of DIMMs are identical, your chipset will read each bank simultaneously, and you'll maximize the performance from your PC without over-clocking or doing anything perilous.
That may be true, but the discussion we were having was trying to convince another Freeper that Windows is not based on a DOS shell. This person is convinced that all Windows does, is make a nice user interface for DOS commands, that at the heart of Windows lies a DOS Operating System.
Devnet and I were trying to tell him that DOS essentially died with the release of Win95, that the NT kernal essentially is a new, from the ground up re-write. This person insists, that because he can still run DOS commands, this is proof that Windows is just a DOS based application, sitting on top of DOS.
You’re lying about what I said. Don’t lie about what I said.
I never lie; you quotes are taken verbatium from your posts. In it's entirety, you said
I already gave all the proof anybody needs. You gave nothing. NT is not new from the ground up. (Emphasis is mine) The sources are simple reality, the Windows box that’s probably in front of you right now has tons of DOS legacy in it, some of which I already listed.
Here's yet another source, as you apparently have not learned that you are in error.
Windows NT 3.1 was the first version of Windows released by Microsoft that was not based on a DOS kernel. NT 3.1 used a clone of the Windows 3.1 UI, but, unlike Windows 3.1, NT 3.1 was a 32-bit operating system written from the ground up.
You see, unlike you; Devnet currently does this stuff for a living, and I used to do R&D work on the hardware side. When someone starts spouting misinformation, it is best to educate them (not insult them, humiliate them or browbeat them) so they understand their error. Your misstatement has ramifications that are entirely untrue, and will be a huge impediment to someone trying to learn about how an OS functions. This may not impact you in the least; but you will very likely create a Machiavelli Mechization in your efforts to helps someone. On your part, it will be an honest, honorable and friendly piece of advice; the result will look like you sabotaged the recipient.
But that’s not what you said I said. Here’s what you said I said: This person insists, that because he can still run DOS commands, this is proof that Windows is just a DOS based application, sitting on top of DOS.
And your quote just proved that’s a lie.
As for what’s best to do, you and Devnet have done nothing but browbeat attempt to humiliate and insult me.
I made no misstatement, and understanding that there’s still DOS logic and code in the gut of Windows won’t impede anyone learning how to use it. In fact it will help, very often when you run into something in Windows that just seems too stupid to be true remembering that it’s been built on top of a 30 year old single user single threaded no communication with other computers OS helps a person understand why the hell they did that.
And I’ve been in the industry for 15 years, mostly working the Windows world. So you can stop waving your “quals” around I don’t care, and stop making assumptions to compound your lies.
Can you provide ONE source? I’ve given 3 sources showing your error, from microsoft, from developer sites and from an archive site on ‘ancient OS’s’.
Can you provide one site that states what you are asserting? If you like, I can list many, many sites on programming, the NT kernal, as well as college courses dealing with multi-thread computing.
Google is your friend. Just show one reputable web-site that states that Windows is still built on top of DOS, or uses DOS, or is built from a DOS kernal.
Good luck.
you haven’t presented anything showing an error on my part. You’ve presented great arguments against YOUR version of what I said, but YOUR version is not what I said.
References please.
I’m not sure I fully understand but if I do have you looked at Clonezilla?
I use Clonezilla to make an image of a PC:
http://clonezilla.org/
I use SyncToy to backup my files: http://www.microsoft.com/prophoto/downloads/synctoybeta.aspx
Did you catch this gem?
Windows 7 will grab the GPU to run the desktop, and it can't share the device. If it were even possible, you could possibly assign the GPU to XPM, but that would mean you'd lose GPU acceleration for the desktop, CPU use would spike, and things would start to resemble molasses in the winter very quickly. This much brain twisting logic is unlikely to be implemented even if it could somehow technically work. Basically, the host OS, Windows 7, can and must own the GPU fully.
What does this mean? It means XPM will only 'see' a generic 2D video card, and if you are really lucky, it will see some basic 3D features. Want games to run? Nope. Want hardware accelerated sound? Nope. TCP/IP acceleration? Nope. Anything cool? Nope. You will be stuck with the virtual equivalent of a Best Buy special from 5 years ago, a PC that looks up to the blistering graphics power of an Intel 965 chipset.
Let's just say that "The Inquirer" makes a very good case that XPM is far from what MSFT is promising.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.