This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that we should start a development of Windows 7 page which lists the various builds like the Development of Windows Vista page. Since there already two builds that have had screenshots, and one of them has leaked to the Internet. TheSpeedster ( talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"It is the first time since the 1996 release of Windows NT 4.0 that the version number is also used as its marketing name"
Wrong. Windows 7 is not actually windows NT 7. It will be windows NT 6.1 or 6.2.
Secondly, it isnt the 7th version of windows, let alone the 7th version of NT unless they are missing out some versions.
NT 3.x Nt 4 NT 5 (win2k) NT 5.1 (xp) NT 5.2 (server 2003) Nt 6.x (vista and server 2008)
Then maybe it would be windows 7...
either way its name is retarded and that comment needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 ( talk)
Windows 7 will be called Windows 7 but the version number of the NT kernel will be 6.1 - @user who say is vista is and and ms determine this is 7 then it's 7 - that's just the consumer name of the OS, MS will be giving the kernel version no. 6.1. Hence a lot of confusion and a major or minor release debate (imho whoever decided that the windows built on nt 6.1 would be called 7 made a very bad decision) GoddersUK ( talk) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I vote we change it to was. The act of scheduling is over, therefore it should be past tense. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon ( talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Warren seem to have remove many external links and claim they are WP:EL Illegal Operation ( talk) 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "as of January 2008" belongs in the sentence? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
needs updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.94.249 ( talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
it says that server 2003 was codenamed Whistler but, no, whistler was windows me...not sure whether or not to fix it myself so im putting it on here ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.163.155 ( talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Whistler was the codename for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. [1] Windows Me was codenamed Millennium. [2] - Josh ( talk | contribs) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Windows Server 2003 codename was Windows Server .Net 85.140.110.22 ( talk) 09:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it me or is the image EXACTLY the same as windows vista? -- Ashleyfagan ( talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.179.50 ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Has the name changed from Windows 7 to Windows fiji? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadom ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone just removed the screenshots from the article, claiming they're "not reliable" because they "are depicting a product still in dev." Well, that's exactly what Windows 7 is right now. Its a product still in development. Hence, the screenshots are appropriate for the time being. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sinofsky interview does not confirm anything about MinWin, either way. MinWin never was a "new" kernel (it was bloggers who hyped it to be so); it was the plain old NTOS kernel (see the Russinovich interview) packaged in an extremely modular way. Compare that with what Sinofsky said: "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". It seems both are stating pretty much the same thing. Interpreting Sinfosky's comments to mean that MinWin doesn't feature in Windows 7 is pretty much bloggers' and tech journalists' spin on it. We need better sources that that to authoritatively claim that there is no MinWin in Windows 7. At best we can say that due to MS not being "transparent" enough, there is still a lot of confusion whether MinWin is a part of Windows 7 or not. With that, we can also avaoid taking an authoritative stance on either side of the fence. -- soum talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What Eric said is that "[MinWin] is a set of components that they had taken out of Windows 7". All this is, the incorrect assumption of a few journalists that they were building Windows 7 off of this, in reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it. Thats all it is. A. S. Castanza 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Microsoft Norway, MinWin and Windows 7 are two diffrent projects. See this page and search for MinWin: http://google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digi.no%2Fphp%2Fart.php%3Fid%3D774246&hl=no&ie=UTF8&sl=no&tl=en. "Zakariassen believe in the first place is not that Windows 7 will be based on MinWin." The rest of the translation is worse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.3.236 ( talk)
Well, now this is interesting. It's an interview with a PM on the Server Core team from a few months ago, who is very explicit in saying that Minwin is actually in Windows Server 2008. Go to about 2 minutes in to the video. -/- Warren 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility [issues] for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas.
Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed - at least on the enterprise desktop. What Microsoft's aging (in the U.S., NT is almost old enough to vote) OS needed was a heart transplant. What it got was a new name, a fresh change of clothes and an A.M.A. discharge from the ER.
Urban legends are strange creatures. Even when they're exposed for what they are - tall tales seemingly "legitimized" through frequent retelling -- people continue to believe the lie.
Case in point: "MinWin." For months, so-called industry "experts" were speculating that Microsoft would make a clean break with Windows 7 -- that core elements of the OS would be rewritten from the ground up and that backwards compatibility would be relegated to the domain of virtual machines and emulation.
Central to this theory was "MinWin." Citing the now infamous "Eric Traut demo," they claimed as fact that Microsoft was retooling the Windows kernel to make it lighter and less monolithic. Never mind that doing so would likely break the entire Windows hardware/software ecosystem. "MinWin" was the future. It was new. It was "cool." And as any industry media professional will tell you, it's the "cool" new technologies that drive page views.
Of course, now we know better. The whole "MinWin" bubble burst last week when, through various Microsoft web postings and interview comments, it was revealed that Windows 7 would in fact be more akin to "Windows Vista Second Edition": An evolutionary update that builds upon the existing NT 6.x kernel architecture as manifested in Windows Vista.
Undaunted, the "MinWin" true believers continue to cling to the legend. "If not Windows 7, then some future version," they say. "MinWin is coming." In fact, it could be here "today" if Microsoft would just "strip away all the user-mode bloat they've tacked onto Vista and its derivatives."
Well if the answer is "abject confusion" then, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and avoid speculation, perhaps the article needs to either say that there is "no information" and leave it at that or else indicate the different positions. The danger with the latter is making it not read like the National Enquirer. Whether you take Microsoft's paper as Kennedy has (he states in his article that he has confirmed with Microsoft that there is no MinWin in W7 have a look at more recent writing from him at Intervention: How to salvage Windows 7 and Windows 7: R.I.P.) or believe the earlier reports that there is, the article needs amending. As it stands it doesn't reflect what we know, even if that is to say that "we don't know". - Ahunt ( talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if you don't like what Kennedy has said than there are lots of other IT writers talking and writing about about what last week's white paper The Business Value of Windows Vista said. Many of them are calling up the key people at Microsoft and writing about what they have been told. A good example is Mary-Jo Foley of ZDNet, a pretty reliable source. On June 2nd, 2008 she wrote an article entitled MinWin: Is it or isn’t it part of Windows 7?. The whole item is fairly short and worth reading. Here are a few quotes:
Confusion over exactly what MinWin is — Is it a concept? a new operating system kernel? a floor wax? a dessert topping?) — and how/whether it will be part of Windows 7 is still rampant, a week after Microsoft “communicated” about Windows 7 via a Q&A with News.com.
The official word from Microsoft’s Windows Engineering Chief Steven Sinofsky seems to be that MinWin — the slimmed-down Windows core many expected to be at the heart of Windows 7 — is not going to be part of Windows 7.
Here’s what Sinofsky said (and didn’t say) about MinWin last week: Sinofsky: “We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you’ve been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.”
Again, it would be nice if Microsoft’s Windows client team would just come out with a clear statement as to what MinWin is and how it will figure with Windows 7. But it seems it’s not time to communicate that message yet… at least not according to the official (non)disclosure schedule.
What I am continuing to get from all the writers who are talking to Microsoft's dev team is somewhere between "MinWin is not going to be part of Windows 7" to "MinWin is the Vista kernel" to "abject confusion". This Wikipedia article still does not reflect the state of what we know for certain about Windows 7, there is still too much unsubstantiated rumour and wishful thinking for an encyclopedia article. If we don't know that the article should say that we don't know. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this all continues to at best add up to "not enough reliable information for an encyclopedia article". I propose therefore that this section of the article therefore either quote a wide range of the conflicting information or else simply state that there is no reliable and verifiable information about the subject at present. As it stands the section of the article is not accurate - it lends great weight to some opinions that have been called into question.
For instance much of this section hangs on Eric Traut's comments who is quoted as saying:
“Now, this is an internal only - you won’t see us productizing this - but you could imagine this being used as the basis for products in the future. This is the Windows 7 source code base, and it’s about 25 megs on disk. Compare that to the four gigs on disk that the full Windows Vista takes up. We don’t have a graphics subsystem other than text in this particular build, so you can see that’s our Windows flag [referring to an ASCII art splash screen]."
“[I]t’ll be a while before you can build something directly on top of this really tiny core. … Like I said, we don’t have any productization plans for it. We’re definitely going to be using this internally to build all the products that are based on Windows." [4]
and ignores what Sinofsky said:
“We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you’ve been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.” [5]
I am finding that this article is not well presenting the level of confusion and uncertainty about MinWin.
I realize it is an emotionally charged subject for some editors, because if Windows 7 does turn out to be just more Vista (only moreso) and not a new, faster, lightweight Windows, then as Kennedy well pointed out:
"Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed...". [6]
The point of the matter is that, while there are editors who would like to see Windows saved and might even shape this article to influence Microsoft's decision-making (yes Wikipedia is very influential, the media uses it as their first stop in many cases - Wikipedia articles have caused things to happen in the real world - see this article for an odd result of inaccurate information in Wikipedia) I believe that the article needs to reflect either the "diversity of opinion" on this matter or at least the "diversity of confusion" out there. It can't be as one-sided as it is at present. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Warren: Please read WP:Civil. This is no way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. - Ahunt ( talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
According to source number 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel T ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is out of date. It would be valid before the Release of Windows 7 M2, but now it is after the release and will need to be updated! Jasper Deng ( talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose an external links section to this article that contains the numberous sources disiminating Windows 7 information such as:
while the information here is great, I think there is also value in people more readily finding these sources.
-- Josh-H-Phillips ( talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
With so many criticisms of this article and the fact that Windows 7 M2 hasn't been released in April or May 2008 this article needs a complete makeover. Those who watched the Windows 7 M2 video on Youtube haven't read that it is a fake. Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
MinWin should not redirect to Windows 7 because Microsoft has confirmed it won't be included in the OS. -- 76.213.136.145 ( talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says in the "Unveiling" section that "the build of Windows 7 which was on display had a new taskbar, which was double the normal size". Are you sure that this is new? The taskbar has been able to be expanded since at least Windows 98. In XP and Vista you have to unlock it first, but after that you can drag the top of the taskbar to make it larger. -- Imperator3733 ( talk) 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Focus section contains too many unnecessarily detailed quotes on general improvement promises reflecting MS's vision. Since there aren't any details on actual shipping features, it should be written in reported speech and summarized. - xpclient Talk 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any useful information in the focus section. Maybe it was required when nothing was known about windows 7 but it is not needed now. 87.112.72.59 ( talk) 16:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In the MinWin Section
I noticed someone changed kernel to "Components and Libraries" for the Windows API, and I'd say that this is partly correct, but the Win32 API doesn't run as the foundation for modern windows programs, the .NET Framework does(Currently in 3.5 Stable)
Not do mention that the Windows API is even older than the Win32 API. This article is becoming inconcise in the way it labels things.
When will the official final name of Windows 7 be confirmed?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm not sure what the exact procedure is, but with the constant stream of vandalism that this article has been the subject of the past several weeks, I think it would be a very good idea to get this article partially protected, so that (at least some of) the vandalism stops. -- Anthony S. Castanza ( talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "On May 21, 2008, Microsoft posted a job opening for Windows 7 regarding work to implement VHD support, i.e. support for single-file containers that represent an entire hard drive including partitions, and transparently performing I/O operations on this as a typical hard drive, including boot support. [32]"
Isn't that just like "mount -o loop" on linux which has been around since forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 ( talk) 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article says nothing about M2 and M3. Most websites now say that the "screenshot" really is a modified version of Vista SP1 Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
there is no confirmation what so ever of any release date, the source cited gave an ambiguous statement of "Based on Vista, Windows 7 is expected to be released in January 2010"......this hardly seems to confirm anything, doesn't even sound like its what they are claiming Rodrigue ( talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)....
I found this news article last weekend. It talks about Windows 7 already at Milestone Build 3. Here is the news article: Windows 7 Looking Like a June 2009 Delivery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.241.2 ( talk) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I updated the information, Although now I can't remove the citiation needed tag KB1KOI ( talk)16:00 EDT 2008-09-15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.136.176 ( talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft is going to hand out pre-beta builds at the Professional Developer Conference and the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference Windows Vista Team Blog
Is thinknext.net leaking screenshots really important enough to be mentioned in the article? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree that while the screens are useful, where they came from isn't very important, as long as they can be judged reliable. -- Resplendent ( talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The thinknext.net source needs to be changed anyway, as the blog post has been taken down. - mickiscoole Talk 01:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
this article contradicts itself: "Release date: Expected June 3, 2009" vs. "Windows 7 is expected to be released in January 2010" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.64.83 ( talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw the Windows 7 M3 screenshot, there is a blue thing on the right to the taskbar. What is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darremon ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Err... what?
Yes, I read the reference article. But come on, the tightest timeline I can think of is:
- Beta 1: now, mid October;
- Beta 2: mid January
- RC: April
- RTM: May
- public release: mid June
Being beta 1 "expected" at best for October 27, and the fact that MS declarations and "supported rumors" always oscillated between "early 2010"-"late 2009"-"3 years after Vista", there's no reason to really think this date is reliable.
Maybe their "internal roadmap" pointing to June 3 is the roadmap to RC, or who knows.
This looks to me like unsubstantiated rumors. Maybe it could be cited somewhere in the article, but not within the main info box.
--
151.16.160.139 (
talk)
09:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Before anyone decides to edit the 6801 to 6780, here are images of build 6801. Also you will have notice that the build tag is not present.
http://winfuture.de/screenshots/Windows-7-Meilenstein-3-Build-6.1.6801-3540-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.53 ( talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyoune here no what the rectangle beside the taskbar is for? -- Oli W 93 ( talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
...what will happen when the version numbers of Windows reach 95?? Georgia guy ( talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the final name for Windows 7 is Windows 7. http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx
-- Resplendent ( talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
How is this the 7th version of windows? There was 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 (3.1),95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista... that would make w7 the 10th windows-11th if you inclued 3.1 . How is it the 7th? bob bobato ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Its not even the 7th NT relese let alone NT 7. It will be 6.1 or 6.2 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.36.92.18 (
talk)
09:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It's rumored that its being numbered 6.1 to keep compatability, and that at the final release it will be changed to 7.0, but until then we can only speculate Redekopmark ( talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says, the first beta will release in december, but on some sites (also on german wiki) i read it's already on october 28th (next week). Do you know wether this date might be correct? -- Oli W 93 ( talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"Windows 7 (formerly codenamed Blackcomb and Vienna) is the next version of Microsoft Windows and the successor to Windows Vista.[3][4] Microsoft has stated that it is "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe", and that "the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar."[5]"
I am new to this discussion, but it seems to me - that the first few paragraphs describing this entry are not clear to most prospective audiences.
I did edit partially the introduction - through deletion - but I would encourage the regular editors of this entry to return to this entry's summary from a "first look" experience of someone coming in from a mainstream "tech section" newspaper audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheez ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is Windows 7 not mentioned as a code name? The reason that the product was named as Windows 7 (same as the code name) doesn't mean that Windows 7 was never a code name.
Mugunth( ping me!!!, contribs) 06:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | PLEASE NOTE: Per Wikipedia's content policies, this article not a venue for advertising your web site or discussion forum about Windows 7. Any such links that are added to this page will be speedily removed. | ” |
I don't see why this should be the case; I propose "s e v e n u s e r.com" to be added to the external links as it provides and consolidates news from around the web and, in some cases removing jargon and making it easier for people to understand. The content is relevant to this article and would be purely in the interest of expanding the user's knowledge of this topic.
What do you think?
SomeCallMe 1 ( talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
SomeCallMe 1 ( talk) 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A quote of Microsoft's CEO stating that the new product is better than the old one is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Paul Thurott, there are two new builds: the one distributed at PDC and one that was only demonstrated. Be sure not to get these confused when writing and adding references. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Two builds? Where on earth did all of these come from? 6.1.6926.winmain.081009-1855, 6.1.6932.winmain.081017-1835, 6.1.6933.winmain.081020-1842, 6.1.6935.winmain.081022-1857,
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I think that we should start a development of Windows 7 page which lists the various builds like the Development of Windows Vista page. Since there already two builds that have had screenshots, and one of them has leaked to the Internet. TheSpeedster ( talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
"It is the first time since the 1996 release of Windows NT 4.0 that the version number is also used as its marketing name"
Wrong. Windows 7 is not actually windows NT 7. It will be windows NT 6.1 or 6.2.
Secondly, it isnt the 7th version of windows, let alone the 7th version of NT unless they are missing out some versions.
NT 3.x Nt 4 NT 5 (win2k) NT 5.1 (xp) NT 5.2 (server 2003) Nt 6.x (vista and server 2008)
Then maybe it would be windows 7...
either way its name is retarded and that comment needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 ( talk)
Windows 7 will be called Windows 7 but the version number of the NT kernel will be 6.1 - @user who say is vista is and and ms determine this is 7 then it's 7 - that's just the consumer name of the OS, MS will be giving the kernel version no. 6.1. Hence a lot of confusion and a major or minor release debate (imho whoever decided that the windows built on nt 6.1 would be called 7 made a very bad decision) GoddersUK ( talk) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
I vote we change it to was. The act of scheduling is over, therefore it should be past tense. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon ( talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Warren seem to have remove many external links and claim they are WP:EL Illegal Operation ( talk) 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps "as of January 2008" belongs in the sentence? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
needs updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.94.249 ( talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
it says that server 2003 was codenamed Whistler but, no, whistler was windows me...not sure whether or not to fix it myself so im putting it on here ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.163.155 ( talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Whistler was the codename for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. [1] Windows Me was codenamed Millennium. [2] - Josh ( talk | contribs) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
No, Windows Server 2003 codename was Windows Server .Net 85.140.110.22 ( talk) 09:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it me or is the image EXACTLY the same as windows vista? -- Ashleyfagan ( talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.179.50 ( talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Has the name changed from Windows 7 to Windows fiji? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadom ( talk • contribs) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Someone just removed the screenshots from the article, claiming they're "not reliable" because they "are depicting a product still in dev." Well, that's exactly what Windows 7 is right now. Its a product still in development. Hence, the screenshots are appropriate for the time being. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Sinofsky interview does not confirm anything about MinWin, either way. MinWin never was a "new" kernel (it was bloggers who hyped it to be so); it was the plain old NTOS kernel (see the Russinovich interview) packaged in an extremely modular way. Compare that with what Sinofsky said: "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". It seems both are stating pretty much the same thing. Interpreting Sinfosky's comments to mean that MinWin doesn't feature in Windows 7 is pretty much bloggers' and tech journalists' spin on it. We need better sources that that to authoritatively claim that there is no MinWin in Windows 7. At best we can say that due to MS not being "transparent" enough, there is still a lot of confusion whether MinWin is a part of Windows 7 or not. With that, we can also avaoid taking an authoritative stance on either side of the fence. -- soum talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What Eric said is that "[MinWin] is a set of components that they had taken out of Windows 7". All this is, the incorrect assumption of a few journalists that they were building Windows 7 off of this, in reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it. Thats all it is. A. S. Castanza 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Microsoft Norway, MinWin and Windows 7 are two diffrent projects. See this page and search for MinWin: http://google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digi.no%2Fphp%2Fart.php%3Fid%3D774246&hl=no&ie=UTF8&sl=no&tl=en. "Zakariassen believe in the first place is not that Windows 7 will be based on MinWin." The rest of the translation is worse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.3.236 ( talk)
Well, now this is interesting. It's an interview with a PM on the Server Core team from a few months ago, who is very explicit in saying that Minwin is actually in Windows Server 2008. Go to about 2 minutes in to the video. -/- Warren 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility [issues] for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas.
Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed - at least on the enterprise desktop. What Microsoft's aging (in the U.S., NT is almost old enough to vote) OS needed was a heart transplant. What it got was a new name, a fresh change of clothes and an A.M.A. discharge from the ER.
Urban legends are strange creatures. Even when they're exposed for what they are - tall tales seemingly "legitimized" through frequent retelling -- people continue to believe the lie.
Case in point: "MinWin." For months, so-called industry "experts" were speculating that Microsoft would make a clean break with Windows 7 -- that core elements of the OS would be rewritten from the ground up and that backwards compatibility would be relegated to the domain of virtual machines and emulation.
Central to this theory was "MinWin." Citing the now infamous "Eric Traut demo," they claimed as fact that Microsoft was retooling the Windows kernel to make it lighter and less monolithic. Never mind that doing so would likely break the entire Windows hardware/software ecosystem. "MinWin" was the future. It was new. It was "cool." And as any industry media professional will tell you, it's the "cool" new technologies that drive page views.
Of course, now we know better. The whole "MinWin" bubble burst last week when, through various Microsoft web postings and interview comments, it was revealed that Windows 7 would in fact be more akin to "Windows Vista Second Edition": An evolutionary update that builds upon the existing NT 6.x kernel architecture as manifested in Windows Vista.
Undaunted, the "MinWin" true believers continue to cling to the legend. "If not Windows 7, then some future version," they say. "MinWin is coming." In fact, it could be here "today" if Microsoft would just "strip away all the user-mode bloat they've tacked onto Vista and its derivatives."
Well if the answer is "abject confusion" then, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and avoid speculation, perhaps the article needs to either say that there is "no information" and leave it at that or else indicate the different positions. The danger with the latter is making it not read like the National Enquirer. Whether you take Microsoft's paper as Kennedy has (he states in his article that he has confirmed with Microsoft that there is no MinWin in W7 have a look at more recent writing from him at Intervention: How to salvage Windows 7 and Windows 7: R.I.P.) or believe the earlier reports that there is, the article needs amending. As it stands it doesn't reflect what we know, even if that is to say that "we don't know". - Ahunt ( talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Well if you don't like what Kennedy has said than there are lots of other IT writers talking and writing about about what last week's white paper The Business Value of Windows Vista said. Many of them are calling up the key people at Microsoft and writing about what they have been told. A good example is Mary-Jo Foley of ZDNet, a pretty reliable source. On June 2nd, 2008 she wrote an article entitled MinWin: Is it or isn’t it part of Windows 7?. The whole item is fairly short and worth reading. Here are a few quotes:
Confusion over exactly what MinWin is — Is it a concept? a new operating system kernel? a floor wax? a dessert topping?) — and how/whether it will be part of Windows 7 is still rampant, a week after Microsoft “communicated” about Windows 7 via a Q&A with News.com.
The official word from Microsoft’s Windows Engineering Chief Steven Sinofsky seems to be that MinWin — the slimmed-down Windows core many expected to be at the heart of Windows 7 — is not going to be part of Windows 7.
Here’s what Sinofsky said (and didn’t say) about MinWin last week: Sinofsky: “We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you’ve been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.”
Again, it would be nice if Microsoft’s Windows client team would just come out with a clear statement as to what MinWin is and how it will figure with Windows 7. But it seems it’s not time to communicate that message yet… at least not according to the official (non)disclosure schedule.
What I am continuing to get from all the writers who are talking to Microsoft's dev team is somewhere between "MinWin is not going to be part of Windows 7" to "MinWin is the Vista kernel" to "abject confusion". This Wikipedia article still does not reflect the state of what we know for certain about Windows 7, there is still too much unsubstantiated rumour and wishful thinking for an encyclopedia article. If we don't know that the article should say that we don't know. - Ahunt ( talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this all continues to at best add up to "not enough reliable information for an encyclopedia article". I propose therefore that this section of the article therefore either quote a wide range of the conflicting information or else simply state that there is no reliable and verifiable information about the subject at present. As it stands the section of the article is not accurate - it lends great weight to some opinions that have been called into question.
For instance much of this section hangs on Eric Traut's comments who is quoted as saying:
“Now, this is an internal only - you won’t see us productizing this - but you could imagine this being used as the basis for products in the future. This is the Windows 7 source code base, and it’s about 25 megs on disk. Compare that to the four gigs on disk that the full Windows Vista takes up. We don’t have a graphics subsystem other than text in this particular build, so you can see that’s our Windows flag [referring to an ASCII art splash screen]."
“[I]t’ll be a while before you can build something directly on top of this really tiny core. … Like I said, we don’t have any productization plans for it. We’re definitely going to be using this internally to build all the products that are based on Windows." [4]
and ignores what Sinofsky said:
“We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you’ve been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.” [5]
I am finding that this article is not well presenting the level of confusion and uncertainty about MinWin.
I realize it is an emotionally charged subject for some editors, because if Windows 7 does turn out to be just more Vista (only moreso) and not a new, faster, lightweight Windows, then as Kennedy well pointed out:
"Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed...". [6]
The point of the matter is that, while there are editors who would like to see Windows saved and might even shape this article to influence Microsoft's decision-making (yes Wikipedia is very influential, the media uses it as their first stop in many cases - Wikipedia articles have caused things to happen in the real world - see this article for an odd result of inaccurate information in Wikipedia) I believe that the article needs to reflect either the "diversity of opinion" on this matter or at least the "diversity of confusion" out there. It can't be as one-sided as it is at present. - Ahunt ( talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Warren: Please read WP:Civil. This is no way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. - Ahunt ( talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
According to source number 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel T ( talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is out of date. It would be valid before the Release of Windows 7 M2, but now it is after the release and will need to be updated! Jasper Deng ( talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to propose an external links section to this article that contains the numberous sources disiminating Windows 7 information such as:
while the information here is great, I think there is also value in people more readily finding these sources.
-- Josh-H-Phillips ( talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
With so many criticisms of this article and the fact that Windows 7 M2 hasn't been released in April or May 2008 this article needs a complete makeover. Those who watched the Windows 7 M2 video on Youtube haven't read that it is a fake. Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
MinWin should not redirect to Windows 7 because Microsoft has confirmed it won't be included in the OS. -- 76.213.136.145 ( talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The article says in the "Unveiling" section that "the build of Windows 7 which was on display had a new taskbar, which was double the normal size". Are you sure that this is new? The taskbar has been able to be expanded since at least Windows 98. In XP and Vista you have to unlock it first, but after that you can drag the top of the taskbar to make it larger. -- Imperator3733 ( talk) 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The Focus section contains too many unnecessarily detailed quotes on general improvement promises reflecting MS's vision. Since there aren't any details on actual shipping features, it should be written in reported speech and summarized. - xpclient Talk 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think there is any useful information in the focus section. Maybe it was required when nothing was known about windows 7 but it is not needed now. 87.112.72.59 ( talk) 16:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
In the MinWin Section
I noticed someone changed kernel to "Components and Libraries" for the Windows API, and I'd say that this is partly correct, but the Win32 API doesn't run as the foundation for modern windows programs, the .NET Framework does(Currently in 3.5 Stable)
Not do mention that the Windows API is even older than the Win32 API. This article is becoming inconcise in the way it labels things.
When will the official final name of Windows 7 be confirmed?? Georgia guy ( talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Now, I'm not sure what the exact procedure is, but with the constant stream of vandalism that this article has been the subject of the past several weeks, I think it would be a very good idea to get this article partially protected, so that (at least some of) the vandalism stops. -- Anthony S. Castanza ( talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Quote: "On May 21, 2008, Microsoft posted a job opening for Windows 7 regarding work to implement VHD support, i.e. support for single-file containers that represent an entire hard drive including partitions, and transparently performing I/O operations on this as a typical hard drive, including boot support. [32]"
Isn't that just like "mount -o loop" on linux which has been around since forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 ( talk) 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This article says nothing about M2 and M3. Most websites now say that the "screenshot" really is a modified version of Vista SP1 Jasper Deng ( talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
there is no confirmation what so ever of any release date, the source cited gave an ambiguous statement of "Based on Vista, Windows 7 is expected to be released in January 2010"......this hardly seems to confirm anything, doesn't even sound like its what they are claiming Rodrigue ( talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)....
I found this news article last weekend. It talks about Windows 7 already at Milestone Build 3. Here is the news article: Windows 7 Looking Like a June 2009 Delivery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.241.2 ( talk) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I updated the information, Although now I can't remove the citiation needed tag KB1KOI ( talk)16:00 EDT 2008-09-15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.136.176 ( talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft is going to hand out pre-beta builds at the Professional Developer Conference and the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference Windows Vista Team Blog
Is thinknext.net leaking screenshots really important enough to be mentioned in the article? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree that while the screens are useful, where they came from isn't very important, as long as they can be judged reliable. -- Resplendent ( talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The thinknext.net source needs to be changed anyway, as the blog post has been taken down. - mickiscoole Talk 01:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
this article contradicts itself: "Release date: Expected June 3, 2009" vs. "Windows 7 is expected to be released in January 2010" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.64.83 ( talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw the Windows 7 M3 screenshot, there is a blue thing on the right to the taskbar. What is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darremon ( talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Err... what?
Yes, I read the reference article. But come on, the tightest timeline I can think of is:
- Beta 1: now, mid October;
- Beta 2: mid January
- RC: April
- RTM: May
- public release: mid June
Being beta 1 "expected" at best for October 27, and the fact that MS declarations and "supported rumors" always oscillated between "early 2010"-"late 2009"-"3 years after Vista", there's no reason to really think this date is reliable.
Maybe their "internal roadmap" pointing to June 3 is the roadmap to RC, or who knows.
This looks to me like unsubstantiated rumors. Maybe it could be cited somewhere in the article, but not within the main info box.
--
151.16.160.139 (
talk)
09:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Before anyone decides to edit the 6801 to 6780, here are images of build 6801. Also you will have notice that the build tag is not present.
http://winfuture.de/screenshots/Windows-7-Meilenstein-3-Build-6.1.6801-3540-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.53 ( talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Does anyoune here no what the rectangle beside the taskbar is for? -- Oli W 93 ( talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
...what will happen when the version numbers of Windows reach 95?? Georgia guy ( talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Apparently the final name for Windows 7 is Windows 7. http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx
-- Resplendent ( talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
How is this the 7th version of windows? There was 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 (3.1),95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista... that would make w7 the 10th windows-11th if you inclued 3.1 . How is it the 7th? bob bobato ( talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Its not even the 7th NT relese let alone NT 7. It will be 6.1 or 6.2 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.36.92.18 (
talk)
09:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
It's rumored that its being numbered 6.1 to keep compatability, and that at the final release it will be changed to 7.0, but until then we can only speculate Redekopmark ( talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
The article says, the first beta will release in december, but on some sites (also on german wiki) i read it's already on october 28th (next week). Do you know wether this date might be correct? -- Oli W 93 ( talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
"Windows 7 (formerly codenamed Blackcomb and Vienna) is the next version of Microsoft Windows and the successor to Windows Vista.[3][4] Microsoft has stated that it is "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe", and that "the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar."[5]"
I am new to this discussion, but it seems to me - that the first few paragraphs describing this entry are not clear to most prospective audiences.
I did edit partially the introduction - through deletion - but I would encourage the regular editors of this entry to return to this entry's summary from a "first look" experience of someone coming in from a mainstream "tech section" newspaper audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheez ( talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Why is Windows 7 not mentioned as a code name? The reason that the product was named as Windows 7 (same as the code name) doesn't mean that Windows 7 was never a code name.
Mugunth( ping me!!!, contribs) 06:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
“ | PLEASE NOTE: Per Wikipedia's content policies, this article not a venue for advertising your web site or discussion forum about Windows 7. Any such links that are added to this page will be speedily removed. | ” |
I don't see why this should be the case; I propose "s e v e n u s e r.com" to be added to the external links as it provides and consolidates news from around the web and, in some cases removing jargon and making it easier for people to understand. The content is relevant to this article and would be purely in the interest of expanding the user's knowledge of this topic.
What do you think?
SomeCallMe 1 ( talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
SomeCallMe 1 ( talk) 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
A quote of Microsoft's CEO stating that the new product is better than the old one is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Paul Thurott, there are two new builds: the one distributed at PDC and one that was only demonstrated. Be sure not to get these confused when writing and adding references. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Two builds? Where on earth did all of these come from? 6.1.6926.winmain.081009-1855, 6.1.6932.winmain.081017-1835, 6.1.6933.winmain.081020-1842, 6.1.6935.winmain.081022-1857,
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |