![]() | 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. |
Quote from Microsoft Announcement:
The company also delivered a pre-beta build of Windows 7 to PDC attendees and announced plans to release a full Windows 7 beta early next year.
So, beta1 should be out in Q1 2009. Assuming there will be at least a beta2 (can we assume this? I can't think of an O/S coming out with just one beta on its shoulders), the "June 3, 2009 prediction" is confirmed to be totally insane.
Can we remove it and let it fade in the oblivion of dreamy rumors?
The most likely release period is Q4 2009, at this point. Possibly later. --
151.16.165.229 (
talk)
20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, ok. As long as there is no new info, I suppose we can keep note of the June 3 prediction, but it must be clear that it is just a rumor grounded on nothing. I'm changing a couple of words to reflect this. -- 151.65.47.81 ( talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft has already confirmed that Windows 7 will be undergoing the following development phases: M3 - Build 6801, the one in PDC Beta - Build 7000, the one already out Release Candidate Release-to-manufacturing
Check Softpedia Microsoft News section for more details... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.158.179 ( talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the support status say "unsupported", "not yet supported", or something similar until anyone knows? Does Microsoft actually offer Pre-Beta support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.37.152 ( talk) 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ive moved the features of windows 7 to a new page. Seeing where microsoft is reveling features over the next week or so i though it would be a good idea. -- Thunderpenguin ( talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Who removed the titles seperating the Builds section? This is just not acceptable. 209.155.146.2 ( talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Jasper Deng: You really need to read WP:Civil and also WP:Consensus to find out how to work with other editors in creating an article. Writing things like "I will not have anything else accepted, unless all three are moved to their own pages." is not going to get your way here - you need to learn to discuss, negotitate and compromise to achieve consensus. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Jasper Deng, it is good to unindent when the indentation becomes excessive. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but we can ask for a third opinion. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
remove it, its very possibly fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.224.150 ( talk) 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What's up with that line that crosses the middle of the screenshot? Who put that in there? Jasper Deng ( talk) 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the discussion for splitting the "Builds" section. Should we do it? Is it too early? Should more than just builds be included? Discuss... -- Mephiles602 ( talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is really not much difference between the builds. Why not create a Pre-beta and Beta section once Windows 7 beta has been released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.121 ( talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't "superbar" just a made up name? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well the question isn't really what sounds better, but what is the terminology that Microsoft is actually using - that is what should be in the article. Anything else would really be fancruft. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"The GUI evolution delivered by Windows 7 is designed to bring what Microsoft is internally referring to as the Superbar, or the enhanced Taskbar."
I think you won't find a clear answer yet. It's neither superbar nor taskbar/enhanced taskbar. What we can say is that the "thing" is the taskbars successor. So using the termini taskbar seems to be wrong to me. And because Microsoft is talking about a superbar internally, also if this might only be a working title, I'd use this expression in the article. The best solution will be to put it in quotation marks - that shows it's a correct but not official expression. In that's in fact the case. -- Oli ( talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to know what editions will be availible for sale, and what will they be called. So far the pre-release builds all have been labeled with "Ultimate." I am coming to believe they will be the same as Vista, but I am not sure. Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Redekopmark claims that he has a copy of build 6801. I want him to get screenshots of Task Manager and perhaps other features like the logon screen. On the "Features New to Windows 7" page he personally said that he would be willing to do such a thing. I want Josh to evaluate the possiblity of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 ( talk) 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems like ya'll are doing original research. Gerardw ( talk) 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I know we're not supposed to speculate, but I think the question of what the "7" in "Windows 7" actually refers to is kind of fundamental. We currently have someone quoted as saying "Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows"; yet the sense in which this is true is so far from simple that any attempt to explain it is dismissed as "speculation" or "original research".
So, what should we say about the name? Perhaps simply that as the history of Microsoft Windows is quite complex, it is not entirely clear what is being counted as a "release" in this context; that there are several possible explanations, but MS has not confirmed their logic? Or has anyone managed to get an authoritative answer out of Microsoft?
Not even mentioning that we don't know feels like a glaring omission, because a reader might assume that there is a known rationale, but the article doesn't mention it. - IMSoP ( talk) 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) [PS: Please, nobody respond to this by posting theories/explanations, unless you have an official source.]
I added this:
Many where confused about how Microsoft counted this to be the seventh version of Windows. [1] Mike Nash responded in the Windows Vista Team Blog that it is partially based on the Windows NT version number, but that Windows 7 would be have an internal version number of 6.1 for application compatibility. [2] -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What's with the name? After Windows 2000, this seems like a not-so-smart name. Why did they stop going by names in the first place? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
On the Engineering Windows 7 blog ( http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/) they are showing on their 11/20/08 post a screenshot of what appears to be build 9648. I don't know anything else about the build except that it proves that the screenshot of 6967 is counterfeit. The posters, who are the developers of Windows 7, always use their latest build. Jasper Deng ( talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I say, doesn't this version of Windows' logo name it as "Windows Se7en"? I know it's pronnounced the same, and is basically the same concept, but I just had this doubt. Thanks for taking your time. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.34.137 ( talk)
This article is averaging over 24,000 hits per day. [4] That's a hit every few seconds, on average. Something to think about when you're editing the article. Warren -talk- 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is going to be release on early 2010 (if not later) actually. Besides 2009 without specify what time of the year is not very seful it could be on a month or in twelve Darkboth 9969696699x9 ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding a segment of "Criticism", because Windows 7 have already been several criticisms
Please take a look to this articles of Paul Thurrott and Mary Jo Foley. Thanks-- Sotcr ( talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul once again has spilled the beans on Windows 7: ->He expects, at this rate, Windows 7 to be released by April 2009. While this might be a little ambitious, it's easily believable, because he says Windows 7 is almost finished according the builds he recieved (3 Post-6933 builds) ->He posted maybe fifteen screenshots of Windows 7 on his website. This shows the features of Windows 7, like the Gadgets. ->Both of these points are put on the same site at [ [5]] and [ [6]]. (I'm not good with links; you may have to copy the URL's and paste them in the adress box of another browser window). But... ->The beta hasn't come out yet. So I want Josh, Ahunt and other Wikipedians to discuss this. Jasper Deng ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
People need to understand the difference between a Public Release (6801 was freely given out by Microsoft to PDC 2008 attendees) and a build that is leaked (such as 6956, which was leaked via an unknown source at China's WinHEC). A leaked build, not being released officially by Microsoft, should not be used as a "Preview Release" build. -- Resplendent ( talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that Preview Version implies it is an officially released version by Microsoft. On other software pages I have seen, nowehere are leaked versions used in that field. However, this argument over semantics seems to be going nowhere. -- Resplendent ( talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is totally ridiculous, build 6801 was handed out at PDC 2008 to attendee and was leaked to peer-to-peer. It was never given to the public. Build 6956 was taken from WinHEC China and also leaked to peer-to-peer. It was also never given to the public. Beta 1 onward would be the only public releases. Illegal Operation ( talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC) I would also note that many of Vista during development, leak which were not handed from Microsoft were also counted. The only official public betas of Vista are Beta 2, RC1, and RC2. Illegal Operation ( talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. -- Resplendent ( talk) 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly why there needs to be a policy on this. Each editor may have their own idea on what "people want to know" and "how to do it". By taking a vote and coming to a consensus we can create a firm policy on which to use to guide us for this and future articles. -- Resplendent ( talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we have anyway of formal voting on wikipedia or do we do it like the one below? Illegal Operation ( talk) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should choose one way or the other. Why not do the following:
^^^^^^^^^^^^ AGREED. As a viewer of this topic not a editor, would be much more better than debating on crap like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.184.97 ( talk) 10:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that Windows 7 build 6956 should be consider the the latest release?
I agree Illegal Operation ( talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think this is the correct "vote" we need to be taking. We should be determining what criteria a release needs to have in order to be considered the latest "Preview". -- Resplendent ( talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.183.130 ( talk) 03:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose but support using previewed builds as preview versions. -
Josh (
talk |
contribs)
04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The last release no, the last preview ;) --Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |Not Allowed!
Wikipedia is not a democracy! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.155.146.2 (
talk)
23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, because there is an inherent reliability and original-research problem in identifying preview versions. The documentation for Template:Infobox OS version has made this clear for quite a long time. It reads: "A version or "build" number for the most recent widely distributed preview version of the operating system. Generally speaking, private or "leaked" builds are not suitable for mentioning on Wikipedia, as this doesn't meet our Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research policies" ... this policy served us well during Windows Vista's development timeframe, especially towards the end where everybody was throwing around build numbers based on things they saw on the Internet. Saying that a newer build was stolen from Microsoft and identifying that as the most recent preview without any qualifiers is at best a lie, and at worst an attempt to push illegal software on Wikipedia. It's fine to document the fact that newer builds are demonstrated, so long as reliable sources for such are provided, but the word "preview" on the template has always been intended to denote a "preview release", not "previewed at a conference", or "previewed privately to a few customers". You have to have standards about these things.
I'll give you another example: Mac OS X. We have never, -ever- used the preview_version template parameters to identify the version of OS X Leopard or OS X Snow Leopard that Steve Jobs has demonstrated publicly, or Apple has released privately to specific beta testers. Only wider beta releases (to all paid developers in the case of OS X, or non-contractual beta testers in the case of Vista) have ever been recorded.
Again, I remind people that this is an issue of not engaging in original research -- expressly disallowed by Wikipedia, and ensuring that the information we provide is verifiable by reliable third-parties -- expressly required by Wikipedia. We have to work within those rules. We aren't a news site -- we're an encyclopedia.
Finally, really should not be getting into the business of showing screenshots of software that has been obtained illegally. This is a very serious issue. If Wikipedia gets into the business of displaying screenshots of illegally obtained content, we expose ourselves to litigation. Surely there isn't a single person working on this article that willingly wants to run that risk. Warren -talk- 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per Warren's well stated arguments. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |Error
Wikipedia is not a democracy. While this can be debated, it cannot be voted on like all of you are trying to do.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.155.146.2 (
talk •
contribs) 18:31, 10 December 2008
I am starting this conversation up again. Turns out Microsoft is putting a higher build number, as Paul and another IT professional have posted here, at Paul Thurott's Supersite Blog, December 20th posting and Tom Warren's post on Neowin.net. The build number appears to be 7004. Warren (on Wikipedia), you stay out of this. I do not want another edit war with you. Jasper Deng ( talk) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Some screenshots on the Windows 7 page are shot with settings enabled like: Icons in the taskbar becoming tiles when a program is running. I think screenshots should reflect the default settings of a Windows 7 installation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.113 ( talk) 11:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The last time I checked, Warren wasn't the only person opposed to that change. This edit war between people changing the "Preview" build around and the screenshot is silly, and needs to be resolved on the talk page rather than everyone just going ahead and doing what they themselves think is best. -- Resplendent ( talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |I am warning you, Warren. I have experience editing the Xianqqi article and other chess-based articles., as well as the talk pages of various other articles. So does Soctr. Denouncing me and Soctr as inexperienced is mean! Do not do so as I can refer you to an administrator. Jasper Deng ( talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Thurrott already publish sceenshots of 6956, so, if they arrested him. Notify me.--Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Warren, if u delete a image o revert a imagen, please put the justification here, because I already justifies what I upload and you ignore it --Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |_/|\_ THIS IS YOUR SECOND WARNING, WARREN. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT PEOPLE'S CHANGES WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, AS SOCTR SAID. I AM REVERTING YOUR CHANGE AND I AM DOING SO BECAUSE THE NEED FOR THE LATEST BUILD IS VERY IMPORTANT IN WIKIPEDIA, AS SOCTR MENTIONED. IF YOU HAVE ONE MORE WARNING THAT WILL BE A REFERRAL TO AN ADMINISTRATOR! IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS PLEASE PUT IT HERE! Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | X |_/|\_(X) THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING, WARREN. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR MEANNESS. YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AND LOSE YOUR EDITING PREVILEGES. CALLING ME OBTUSE AND DISRUPTIVE IS INSULTING!! THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!! I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The addition of new color depths/gamuts hasn't been seen with Windows for almost two decades and I would consider it important. After all you can add several of the features/functions being advertised with Windows 7 with other software (such as an improved calculator) but unless the OS supports it there is no way to display new color depths/gamuts. -- GrandDrake ( talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please mention the system requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.30.61 ( talk) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this edit war has been going on for long enough, don't you all think? This means that EVERYBODY needs to give in a little to reach a compromise. Below is the compromise I propose that TAKES THE MIDDLE GROUND:
So in short: Refer to the 'official' released build as much as possible, only deviate if it is necessary to show something new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.203.246 ( talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
hey... somebody has mixed up fedora and win7... please fix that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.35.8 ( talk) 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Who deleted the Builds section? Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dont you think than is better to have a high-quality screenshot whit several features than one customized by the user, with poor-quality, with personal folders, showing only gadgets and besides a non-default configuration ¿? --Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 03:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The "New Features" section is to list the new features in Windows 7, not to write what people think about them, anyway. -- Unpopular Opinion ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Yet another case of complaining about the work of others while doing no work yourself, Jasper Deng? Anyways, I didn't support the deletion of the "Win7 build6956" image; that's a matter of public record. I only protested its use as the "default" screenshot used in the infobox at the top of the article, because the expanded taskbar is certainly not the standard user experience. Warren -talk- 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |_/|\_ Warren, you could have mentioned that earlier. You at least could have told why it wasn't default; this all put you on Wikiquette Alerts. Paul Thurott, by the way, is bugging Microsoft to make it's taskbar like the classic Vista taskbar the default. See Here for the image, you may have to scroll down a bit. And by the way, that is not the way to outdent or indent. Jasper Deng ( talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of a screenshot that isn't advertising a website? :3 82.16.83.23 ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Accelerators in Windows 7 are the Accelerators of IE8 or other for the OS? -- Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in the article that Windows 7 was illegally released to the public recently? [9]
Deathbyhornet ( talk) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that the leak was illegal. If one were to think about it you could arrive at the assumption that microsoft released it themselves. Nina 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently wrote a small review with approximately 30 imges from Build 7000 to exibit the interface changes, mostly with the new taskbar (or is it the 'Superbar' now?). I also pointed out some of the differences between the new and old included programs, such as paint and notepad. You can check it out here here [10]
I could take a few others if needed. Tindytim ( talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Will it be available for free to people who have Vista? 72.45.121.108 ( talk) 15:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
While a screenshot or two cannot be replaced by text, the bottom portion of this article is littered with non-free images which (in most cases) do not even get mentioned in the text of the article. As such, I tagged the article for review by another administrator with the {{ non-free}} template, and my tagging has been reverted twice. Would anyone care to explain this removal and explain why these images are all necessary? ( ESkog)( Talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Quote from Microsoft Announcement:
The company also delivered a pre-beta build of Windows 7 to PDC attendees and announced plans to release a full Windows 7 beta early next year.
So, beta1 should be out in Q1 2009. Assuming there will be at least a beta2 (can we assume this? I can't think of an O/S coming out with just one beta on its shoulders), the "June 3, 2009 prediction" is confirmed to be totally insane.
Can we remove it and let it fade in the oblivion of dreamy rumors?
The most likely release period is Q4 2009, at this point. Possibly later. --
151.16.165.229 (
talk)
20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, ok. As long as there is no new info, I suppose we can keep note of the June 3 prediction, but it must be clear that it is just a rumor grounded on nothing. I'm changing a couple of words to reflect this. -- 151.65.47.81 ( talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Microsoft has already confirmed that Windows 7 will be undergoing the following development phases: M3 - Build 6801, the one in PDC Beta - Build 7000, the one already out Release Candidate Release-to-manufacturing
Check Softpedia Microsoft News section for more details... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.158.179 ( talk) 09:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the support status say "unsupported", "not yet supported", or something similar until anyone knows? Does Microsoft actually offer Pre-Beta support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.37.152 ( talk) 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Ive moved the features of windows 7 to a new page. Seeing where microsoft is reveling features over the next week or so i though it would be a good idea. -- Thunderpenguin ( talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey! Who removed the titles seperating the Builds section? This is just not acceptable. 209.155.146.2 ( talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Jasper Deng: You really need to read WP:Civil and also WP:Consensus to find out how to work with other editors in creating an article. Writing things like "I will not have anything else accepted, unless all three are moved to their own pages." is not going to get your way here - you need to learn to discuss, negotitate and compromise to achieve consensus. - Ahunt ( talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Jasper Deng, it is good to unindent when the indentation becomes excessive. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but we can ask for a third opinion. - Josh ( talk | contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
remove it, its very possibly fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.224.150 ( talk) 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
What's up with that line that crosses the middle of the screenshot? Who put that in there? Jasper Deng ( talk) 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
This is the discussion for splitting the "Builds" section. Should we do it? Is it too early? Should more than just builds be included? Discuss... -- Mephiles602 ( talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
There is really not much difference between the builds. Why not create a Pre-beta and Beta section once Windows 7 beta has been released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.121 ( talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't "superbar" just a made up name? - Josh ( talk | contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Well the question isn't really what sounds better, but what is the terminology that Microsoft is actually using - that is what should be in the article. Anything else would really be fancruft. - Ahunt ( talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
"The GUI evolution delivered by Windows 7 is designed to bring what Microsoft is internally referring to as the Superbar, or the enhanced Taskbar."
I think you won't find a clear answer yet. It's neither superbar nor taskbar/enhanced taskbar. What we can say is that the "thing" is the taskbars successor. So using the termini taskbar seems to be wrong to me. And because Microsoft is talking about a superbar internally, also if this might only be a working title, I'd use this expression in the article. The best solution will be to put it in quotation marks - that shows it's a correct but not official expression. In that's in fact the case. -- Oli ( talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to know what editions will be availible for sale, and what will they be called. So far the pre-release builds all have been labeled with "Ultimate." I am coming to believe they will be the same as Vista, but I am not sure. Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Redekopmark claims that he has a copy of build 6801. I want him to get screenshots of Task Manager and perhaps other features like the logon screen. On the "Features New to Windows 7" page he personally said that he would be willing to do such a thing. I want Josh to evaluate the possiblity of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 ( talk) 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Seems like ya'll are doing original research. Gerardw ( talk) 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I know we're not supposed to speculate, but I think the question of what the "7" in "Windows 7" actually refers to is kind of fundamental. We currently have someone quoted as saying "Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows"; yet the sense in which this is true is so far from simple that any attempt to explain it is dismissed as "speculation" or "original research".
So, what should we say about the name? Perhaps simply that as the history of Microsoft Windows is quite complex, it is not entirely clear what is being counted as a "release" in this context; that there are several possible explanations, but MS has not confirmed their logic? Or has anyone managed to get an authoritative answer out of Microsoft?
Not even mentioning that we don't know feels like a glaring omission, because a reader might assume that there is a known rationale, but the article doesn't mention it. - IMSoP ( talk) 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) [PS: Please, nobody respond to this by posting theories/explanations, unless you have an official source.]
I added this:
Many where confused about how Microsoft counted this to be the seventh version of Windows. [1] Mike Nash responded in the Windows Vista Team Blog that it is partially based on the Windows NT version number, but that Windows 7 would be have an internal version number of 6.1 for application compatibility. [2] -- Pmsyyz ( talk) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
What's with the name? After Windows 2000, this seems like a not-so-smart name. Why did they stop going by names in the first place? 75.118.170.35 ( talk) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
On the Engineering Windows 7 blog ( http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/) they are showing on their 11/20/08 post a screenshot of what appears to be build 9648. I don't know anything else about the build except that it proves that the screenshot of 6967 is counterfeit. The posters, who are the developers of Windows 7, always use their latest build. Jasper Deng ( talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
I say, doesn't this version of Windows' logo name it as "Windows Se7en"? I know it's pronnounced the same, and is basically the same concept, but I just had this doubt. Thanks for taking your time. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.34.137 ( talk)
This article is averaging over 24,000 hits per day. [4] That's a hit every few seconds, on average. Something to think about when you're editing the article. Warren -talk- 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is going to be release on early 2010 (if not later) actually. Besides 2009 without specify what time of the year is not very seful it could be on a month or in twelve Darkboth 9969696699x9 ( talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I suggest adding a segment of "Criticism", because Windows 7 have already been several criticisms
Please take a look to this articles of Paul Thurrott and Mary Jo Foley. Thanks-- Sotcr ( talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul once again has spilled the beans on Windows 7: ->He expects, at this rate, Windows 7 to be released by April 2009. While this might be a little ambitious, it's easily believable, because he says Windows 7 is almost finished according the builds he recieved (3 Post-6933 builds) ->He posted maybe fifteen screenshots of Windows 7 on his website. This shows the features of Windows 7, like the Gadgets. ->Both of these points are put on the same site at [ [5]] and [ [6]]. (I'm not good with links; you may have to copy the URL's and paste them in the adress box of another browser window). But... ->The beta hasn't come out yet. So I want Josh, Ahunt and other Wikipedians to discuss this. Jasper Deng ( talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
People need to understand the difference between a Public Release (6801 was freely given out by Microsoft to PDC 2008 attendees) and a build that is leaked (such as 6956, which was leaked via an unknown source at China's WinHEC). A leaked build, not being released officially by Microsoft, should not be used as a "Preview Release" build. -- Resplendent ( talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that Preview Version implies it is an officially released version by Microsoft. On other software pages I have seen, nowehere are leaked versions used in that field. However, this argument over semantics seems to be going nowhere. -- Resplendent ( talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This is totally ridiculous, build 6801 was handed out at PDC 2008 to attendee and was leaked to peer-to-peer. It was never given to the public. Build 6956 was taken from WinHEC China and also leaked to peer-to-peer. It was also never given to the public. Beta 1 onward would be the only public releases. Illegal Operation ( talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC) I would also note that many of Vista during development, leak which were not handed from Microsoft were also counted. The only official public betas of Vista are Beta 2, RC1, and RC2. Illegal Operation ( talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. -- Resplendent ( talk) 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly why there needs to be a policy on this. Each editor may have their own idea on what "people want to know" and "how to do it". By taking a vote and coming to a consensus we can create a firm policy on which to use to guide us for this and future articles. -- Resplendent ( talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we have anyway of formal voting on wikipedia or do we do it like the one below? Illegal Operation ( talk) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we should choose one way or the other. Why not do the following:
^^^^^^^^^^^^ AGREED. As a viewer of this topic not a editor, would be much more better than debating on crap like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.184.97 ( talk) 10:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you agree that Windows 7 build 6956 should be consider the the latest release?
I agree Illegal Operation ( talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I don't think this is the correct "vote" we need to be taking. We should be determining what criteria a release needs to have in order to be considered the latest "Preview". -- Resplendent ( talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.183.130 ( talk) 03:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose but support using previewed builds as preview versions. -
Josh (
talk |
contribs)
04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree. The last release no, the last preview ;) --Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |Not Allowed!
Wikipedia is not a democracy! —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.155.146.2 (
talk)
23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, because there is an inherent reliability and original-research problem in identifying preview versions. The documentation for Template:Infobox OS version has made this clear for quite a long time. It reads: "A version or "build" number for the most recent widely distributed preview version of the operating system. Generally speaking, private or "leaked" builds are not suitable for mentioning on Wikipedia, as this doesn't meet our Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research policies" ... this policy served us well during Windows Vista's development timeframe, especially towards the end where everybody was throwing around build numbers based on things they saw on the Internet. Saying that a newer build was stolen from Microsoft and identifying that as the most recent preview without any qualifiers is at best a lie, and at worst an attempt to push illegal software on Wikipedia. It's fine to document the fact that newer builds are demonstrated, so long as reliable sources for such are provided, but the word "preview" on the template has always been intended to denote a "preview release", not "previewed at a conference", or "previewed privately to a few customers". You have to have standards about these things.
I'll give you another example: Mac OS X. We have never, -ever- used the preview_version template parameters to identify the version of OS X Leopard or OS X Snow Leopard that Steve Jobs has demonstrated publicly, or Apple has released privately to specific beta testers. Only wider beta releases (to all paid developers in the case of OS X, or non-contractual beta testers in the case of Vista) have ever been recorded.
Again, I remind people that this is an issue of not engaging in original research -- expressly disallowed by Wikipedia, and ensuring that the information we provide is verifiable by reliable third-parties -- expressly required by Wikipedia. We have to work within those rules. We aren't a news site -- we're an encyclopedia.
Finally, really should not be getting into the business of showing screenshots of software that has been obtained illegally. This is a very serious issue. If Wikipedia gets into the business of displaying screenshots of illegally obtained content, we expose ourselves to litigation. Surely there isn't a single person working on this article that willingly wants to run that risk. Warren -talk- 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per Warren's well stated arguments. -- AussieLegend ( talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |Error
Wikipedia is not a democracy. While this can be debated, it cannot be voted on like all of you are trying to do.
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
209.155.146.2 (
talk •
contribs) 18:31, 10 December 2008
I am starting this conversation up again. Turns out Microsoft is putting a higher build number, as Paul and another IT professional have posted here, at Paul Thurott's Supersite Blog, December 20th posting and Tom Warren's post on Neowin.net. The build number appears to be 7004. Warren (on Wikipedia), you stay out of this. I do not want another edit war with you. Jasper Deng ( talk) 02:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Some screenshots on the Windows 7 page are shot with settings enabled like: Icons in the taskbar becoming tiles when a program is running. I think screenshots should reflect the default settings of a Windows 7 installation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.113 ( talk) 11:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The last time I checked, Warren wasn't the only person opposed to that change. This edit war between people changing the "Preview" build around and the screenshot is silly, and needs to be resolved on the talk page rather than everyone just going ahead and doing what they themselves think is best. -- Resplendent ( talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |I am warning you, Warren. I have experience editing the Xianqqi article and other chess-based articles., as well as the talk pages of various other articles. So does Soctr. Denouncing me and Soctr as inexperienced is mean! Do not do so as I can refer you to an administrator. Jasper Deng ( talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Paul Thurrott already publish sceenshots of 6956, so, if they arrested him. Notify me.--Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Warren, if u delete a image o revert a imagen, please put the justification here, because I already justifies what I upload and you ignore it --Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |_/|\_ THIS IS YOUR SECOND WARNING, WARREN. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT PEOPLE'S CHANGES WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, AS SOCTR SAID. I AM REVERTING YOUR CHANGE AND I AM DOING SO BECAUSE THE NEED FOR THE LATEST BUILD IS VERY IMPORTANT IN WIKIPEDIA, AS SOCTR MENTIONED. IF YOU HAVE ONE MORE WARNING THAT WILL BE A REFERRAL TO AN ADMINISTRATOR! IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS PLEASE PUT IT HERE! Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | X |_/|\_(X) THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING, WARREN. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR MEANNESS. YOU WILL BE REFERRED TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AND LOSE YOUR EDITING PREVILEGES. CALLING ME OBTUSE AND DISRUPTIVE IS INSULTING!! THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!! I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Jasper Deng ( talk) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The addition of new color depths/gamuts hasn't been seen with Windows for almost two decades and I would consider it important. After all you can add several of the features/functions being advertised with Windows 7 with other software (such as an improved calculator) but unless the OS supports it there is no way to display new color depths/gamuts. -- GrandDrake ( talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Can someone please mention the system requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.30.61 ( talk) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I think this edit war has been going on for long enough, don't you all think? This means that EVERYBODY needs to give in a little to reach a compromise. Below is the compromise I propose that TAKES THE MIDDLE GROUND:
So in short: Refer to the 'official' released build as much as possible, only deviate if it is necessary to show something new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.203.246 ( talk) 15:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
hey... somebody has mixed up fedora and win7... please fix that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.35.8 ( talk) 11:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Who deleted the Builds section? Jasper Deng ( talk) 22:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Dont you think than is better to have a high-quality screenshot whit several features than one customized by the user, with poor-quality, with personal folders, showing only gadgets and besides a non-default configuration ¿? --Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 03:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) The "New Features" section is to list the new features in Windows 7, not to write what people think about them, anyway. -- Unpopular Opinion ( talk) 19:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Yet another case of complaining about the work of others while doing no work yourself, Jasper Deng? Anyways, I didn't support the deletion of the "Win7 build6956" image; that's a matter of public record. I only protested its use as the "default" screenshot used in the infobox at the top of the article, because the expanded taskbar is certainly not the standard user experience. Warren -talk- 14:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
| X |_/|\_ Warren, you could have mentioned that earlier. You at least could have told why it wasn't default; this all put you on Wikiquette Alerts. Paul Thurott, by the way, is bugging Microsoft to make it's taskbar like the classic Vista taskbar the default. See Here for the image, you may have to scroll down a bit. And by the way, that is not the way to outdent or indent. Jasper Deng ( talk) 19:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Any chance of a screenshot that isn't advertising a website? :3 82.16.83.23 ( talk) 04:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
The Accelerators in Windows 7 are the Accelerators of IE8 or other for the OS? -- Sotcr Excuse my English ( talk me) 22:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Should it be mentioned in the article that Windows 7 was illegally released to the public recently? [9]
Deathbyhornet ( talk) 16:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Nowhere in the article does it say that the leak was illegal. If one were to think about it you could arrive at the assumption that microsoft released it themselves. Nina 137.111.47.29 ( talk) 00:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I recently wrote a small review with approximately 30 imges from Build 7000 to exibit the interface changes, mostly with the new taskbar (or is it the 'Superbar' now?). I also pointed out some of the differences between the new and old included programs, such as paint and notepad. You can check it out here here [10]
I could take a few others if needed. Tindytim ( talk) 20:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Will it be available for free to people who have Vista? 72.45.121.108 ( talk) 15:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
While a screenshot or two cannot be replaced by text, the bottom portion of this article is littered with non-free images which (in most cases) do not even get mentioned in the text of the article. As such, I tagged the article for review by another administrator with the {{ non-free}} template, and my tagging has been reverted twice. Would anyone care to explain this removal and explain why these images are all necessary? ( ESkog)( Talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |