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.
Actually, buy an external HDD and use robocopy. About as simple as it comes.
I doubt it. Windows 7 is still Windows, basically another warmed-over version of Vista/XP/NT/98/95/MS-DOS. It's barely usable.
If Microsoft creates a decent operating system someday, it won't be called "Windows". Until then, Apple has plenty of upside potential, and Microsoft will probably continue to flatline or decline.
That is generally the best practice anyway. You're playing with fire if you do an in-place Windows upgrade.
Home Basic .........$129.00
Home Premium ...$129.00
Business ..............$129.00
Ultimate ..............$129.00
"We think you'll choose Ultimate."
You are talking about clean installs, and I totally agree. My XP machines, if/when they get re-done with Win7, would be fresh installs by choice anyway.
But IMO this is only painting over the dirt. A REAL "start from scratch" is an architectural change, not just a clean install.
What Microsoft REALLY needs to do, that Apple did a decade ago, is declare their existing OS architecture dead, take the generally excellent Windows XP Explorer-based GUI, and place it over an operating system that isn't riddled with holes and patched together with spit and baling wire.
NT died (architecturally speaking) a few years ago, and it fell over with Vista, but they're doing a "Weekend at Bernie's", propping the cadaver up and flogging it yet again. Apple was doing the same thing with the old MacOS by version 9. End of the road.
Apple made the right choice, by using NextStep and relying on the solid Unix underneath for security. Virtually all of the Mac's security issues since then have been in the GUI/application layers (no surprise). By contrast, the NT model has the GUI and apps with their fingers in the kernel nearly as badly as when Windows was WIN-over-DOS.
While everybody gets excited about Win7, I'm planning to wait for the REAL change, when Microsoft wises up and ditches NT for a real operating system architecture. Yes, I think that's Unix (among the currently available practical choices), but I don't expect MS would agree.
The Win-XP GUI over BSD Unix would be heaven for me. I use OS-X and Linux too, and prefer OS-X for the BSD underneath. But I dislike their GUIs relative to Win-2K. And I generally brain-damage my XP boxes back to Win 2K Classic -- but I realize this isn't everybody's cup of tea. ;-)
One problem: That's one of the things that's old, full of holes and generally broken both technically and in usability.
Keep .NET, WPF, UAA, WDDM, etc., and ditch everything underneath and build a new UI on top. No native backwards compatibility, period. Anything from the old days can run in its own seamless VM. Microsoft is lucky there since the VM technology wasn't mature enough back when Apple designed Classic mode for OS 9 under OS X.
I'd be interested to know what "improvements" there really are, and I don't care about goofy little graphics features that require a 300 dollar video card.
Don't even bother with "security" improvements, they're just something that the virus writers haven't cracked yet.
Too late, they've already been cracked. IIRC, Windows 7 UAC is basically useless.
No don’t keep .net, not unless they can either invent real downward compatibility or ditch it entirely. .net’s “include all previous versions to be downwardly compatible” methodology has made it a complete pig.
> One problem: That's one of the things that's old, full of holes and generally broken both technically and in usability.
Well, I'll agree that Explorer has its problems, architecturally and otherwise. But in terms of its model and presentation, I like it the best of what's out there. It'd have to get re-implemented anyway if it was layered over a real OS, so maybe they can do it without the annoying hangs and slow operations.
> Keep .NET, WPF, UAA, WDDM, etc., and ditch everything underneath and build a new UI on top.
Yeah... as long as the new UI can be made to look like Win2K Explorer by applying sufficient beatings. ;-)
> No native backwards compatibility, period. Anything from the old days can run in its own seamless VM. Microsoft is lucky there since the VM technology wasn't mature enough back when Apple designed Classic mode for OS 9 under OS X.
That's a truly excellent point.
I agree clean install is the way to go.
I predict Win 7 will be the major upgrade path for XP users. This platform is fantastic. I have been using it for months and I develop software so I really put my machines through a brutal work-out daily and this is by far the most stable OS from Microsoft yet.
Before this I had to install Windows Server 2008 as a workstation to get this level of stability.
It is fast as well and there are some really great improvements to the user interface.
If you are wondering about the upgrade path...just by an upgrade to Vista now, hold onto it...you will receive a free upgrade to Win 7 and you can go from XP to Vista right to Win 7 in a two step upgrade. I would say though that clean install is the way to go.
I assume you can support that statement with facts?
Do you have a link to articles describing how UAC has been *cracked*?
*What Microsoft REALLY needs to do, that Apple did a decade ago, is declare their existing OS architecture dead, take the generally excellent Windows XP Explorer-based GUI, and place it over an operating system that isn’t riddled with holes and patched together with spit and baling wire.*
They are doing that - the OS division at microsoft research is devoting a tremendous amount of resources to the problem as is portions of the OS group.
Install the latest version of .net on your machine. First notice that the download is HUGE, then go to windows\microsoft.net\framework and notice there will be a folder for every “final” version (1.x, 2.x and 3.x) in there. .net supports previous versions by INCLUDING them, 1.1 code runs against 1.1, 3.5 supports it by including 1.1 in the install.
Like I said earlier MS has been publicly urging the public to test it so your assertion dead on, they don’t care right now you get it, just get it and test it. You get a free OS(temporarily) and MS get’s free testers, a win win for both parties.
159MB for versions 1.0.3705, 1.1.4332 2.0.50727, v3.0 and v3.5
It works nearly perfectly for backwards compatibility and really doesn’t take up that much disk space.
Most every other application on my system takes up more space than that.
> They are doing that - the OS division at microsoft research is devoting a tremendous amount of resources to the problem as is portions of the OS group.
I don't doubt that they're devoting tremendous resources to trying to re-invent the wheel -- they've been at it for way too long, unsuccessfully. It's way past time to PRODUCE something and market it.
It's not that they're stupid. Microsoft has wonderful and brilliant people. But they're stuck in "NIH" (Not Invented Here) mindset.
If Microsoft could just admit that they were right 30 years ago when they were a Unix company, and go back to their OS roots.
MICROSOFT ALREADY KNOWS THE ANSWER. They just can't admit it.
It “works” but it’s huge. It also sucks to try to package. The app I work on had to go from CD to DVD for distribution because the .net redistributable pushed it over the line. And if they keep this path it’s just gonna get bigger.
Try the sinsupersite, he has a list of everything that is different. One big thing is that pretty much everything from the media center to IE are optional installs, so if you like to have a light and quick install that is one thing. Another is that some key features are now accessible through Windows Live because of the antitrust issues.
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.