|This 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.|
Does Windows 7 include .NET Framework 3.5?
It's not included in the article this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes i think so. Server 2008 did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- The .NET Framework article specifically says Windows Server 2008 doesn't include .NET 3.5. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been replaced by the Ubuntu Article
Resolved:This was vandalism and has been reverted.
When you open it up it shows the ubuntu article not the windows 7 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- Open what up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2009
- A vandal replaced this article's content with the Ubuntu article's content. I think "open it up" means viewing this article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The Windows Energy, Windows Logo, and Aurora screensavers were NOT removed from Windows 7
The Beta has it and so does most of the other builds. That bullet had no references anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2009
- Are they back in builds newer than 7057? A reference had been added saying they were removed in build 7057, but you removed the text again. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Who says that the builds after that were not having these screen savers? The builds typically have some things missing. The Beta was missing my favorite cursor (3dgarro).
- Jasper Dang implied it, by removing them from the list of removed features. They were removed from Windows 7, just like every other feature on the list. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Taskbar Buttons Grouping
Buttons on the taskbar can be ungrouped by choosing never combine. Jeketem (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- That just uncombines them. The buttons are still next to each other. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- Buttons where always next to each other in all editions of windows featuring a taskbar. HuGo_87 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- ...and Windows 7 forces buttons for the same application to be next to each other specifically. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, I didn't get the point the first time. This may be worthy of note, but it's really a minor tweak, so I don't know how much worth mentioning it is. HuGo_87 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Is there a place in this artical for downgrade rights to XP and 2000 Bihco (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Downgrade rights aren't new to Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Yes there is downgrade rights, microsoft released a statement (no idea where i put the link) saying that they're giving consumers the ability to downgrade even to windows 2000, which is a big suprise considering the supports finished, with the extended support on the way too.JRGregory (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- You received the same downgrade rights on prior versions of Windows, that's nothing new. Volume-license customers can always downgrade to any previous version of Windows. The same was true on on prior versions as well. The thing that I belive is new this time is that some OEMs are offering to help facilitate this by shipping systems already downgraded to XP rather than just to the immediate predecesor (I hadn't seen any offering 2000 yet, but then I'm not looking). --- Barek(talk • contribs) - 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
>"they're giving consumers the ability to downgrade even to windows 2000, which is a big suprise considering the supports >finished, with the extended support on the way too"
- Thats nothing new. When XP pro came out you could downgrade to NT4 vai some OEMs.
Add section on Windows 7 beta
There are issues in dealing with the Windows 7 beta that people should know about. The first is that booting the system (not just Windows 7) requires that the Windows 7 install DVD be in the drive upon startup. Without the DVD in the drive, one gets an error message saying (paraphrasing) "missing system kernel file."
I installed Windows 7 to the first partition, followed by xUbuntu on the third. Windows 7 does something quite unusual (and undesirable) from what normal installations do in that it tweaks with the actual MBR of the system, preempting even bootloaders like GRUB, which I installed afterwards with xUbuntu. The bootloader works, but the system only gets to it if the Windows 7 DVD is in the drive. I understand there are security issues, but these should not preempt an owner's basic control of their system startup into other operating systems. -Vastling (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is original research. My Vista/7 dual-boot system doesn't need the DVD. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have never needed any dvd in my drive after installing the beta (and now RC). This may be an issue only affecting a few. HuGo_87 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
The classic theme (which the article claims has been removed, is still in Windows 7 as of build 7068. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
No, it says the classic start menu is removed (which it is). It says nothing about the classic theme, which is still there. Austin512 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I R using windowes Rc which I downloaded yesterday and does not require dvd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Um, yes it does... It wont fit on one cd... its a couple of gigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the classic Start menu? - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Resolved:The page has been converted to a article.
I am suggesting that the removed features section separated to a new article named Features removed from Windows 7 (currently redirect) Junk Police (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's better to make an article but leave this article as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- What would be the point of the new article, if this article still contained all of its content? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree the removed features section is too long and should be split in to a seperate article. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
the criticism already is that besides performance enhancement not allot has really changed from the previous release Windows Vista. it has the same kernel, it has more or less the same driver model and dll's are still not a thing of the past and a big one is that there is still no new Filesystem! Markthemac (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- and windows 7 isn't shipped by default as an hybrid 32/64bit OS, there is still a 32bit dvd edition and Microsoft hasn't shown commitment to change that, even though over 80% of pc's sold today are 64bit. Markthemac (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
"there is still a 32bit dvd edition and Microsoft hasn't shown commitment to change that".
Yes, they HAVE. Windows Server 2008 R2 is 64 bit only. All future server software will be 64 bit only. It follows therefore that the next windows (windows 8?) will be 64 bt.
It makes sense to have windows 7 in both because many dont have 64 bit CPUs. E.G some Pentium Ms and even the original Core(1)Duo do not have the EMT64 extensions. As a consumer i would be pissed off if my alptop with the latter CPU (which is less than 4 years old) wouldnt run windows 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Precisely. My laptop is less than three years old with a 32 bit 2ghz core duo, and there are other computers out there even newer with 32 bit chips. Software to take advantage of 64 bit architecture is just beginning to emerge, it would be stupid not to support legacy 32 bit systems when as of right now the performance penalty for choosing 32 over 64 marginal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
The current screenshot says it's from April 16 with a build number of 7106. But that's impossible because build 7100 (RC) was just released today: http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/24/windows-7-rc-7100-making-its-way-to-oems-a-torrent-tracker-near/Althepal (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Build 7106 is from the RTM branch, which starts before the RC is completed. Build 7100 is the final build of the RC branch. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- Ok in any event I updated it. Althepal (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think than we most let an screenshot of Build 7100 as default for sometime, cuz every second some "chinese" leak a build and somebody upload the screen and it is the same thing with an other watermark... and anyway, sometimes, there's some builds than are fake and we are expoused to that if we accept screen of every build. But with an official release of Microsoft like is ment to be the RC we will have the ensurense than is original and in some way "legal"
- So, I hope than a screenshot of the build 7100 (RC) will be the default for sometime, until the RTM or until some real UI change --SotcrExcuse my English (talk me) 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Should we update the "Latest Preview Version" to be build 7100, the release candidate? --Cumbiagermen (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Nope, cuz the release of this will be until april 30 (technet...) and 5th May (us)
- Is better to wait the release --SotcrExcuse my English (talk me) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- Than why is there a screenshot of the release candidate on the page already? Seems rather inconsistent. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- It's an up-to-date depiction of what Windows 7 is to look like, but its not the preview version yet. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- It should be stated that this is NOT the official RC. (even though it says it's build 7100.)Permission to edit the screenshot description?afraca (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- This is ridiculous. Today it's being released to TechNet/MSDN, so I'm changing the build info. Anyone wanna challenge me, go ahead. I dare you. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, sure, I'll challenge you, because you made a mistake -- you didn't provide a reliable source stating that it's actually been released? You can't take a week-old source saying "we will release it" and turn that into "we have released it". Warren-talk- 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade to the Windows line"
C'mon, Windows XP was 5.1 and no body tought than was a minor release, and it was not. Anyway, I think than Win7 is not a minor upgrade, cuz they improve every way of the OS: memory and CPU usage, boot time, UI, power usage, "NEW" UAC, etc.
And maybe u should read this http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx --SotcrExcuse my English (talk me) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- The Windows XP article doesn't claim that it was intended to be an incremental upgrade (despite it absolutely being an incremental upgrade from its immediate predecessor, Windows 2000), so your analogy doesn't work here. Yes, Windows 7 has had a lot of work done on it in a lot of areas, but it doesn't represent a radical departure from Windows Vista in how it fundamentally operates. Windows Vista was a major game-changer, with a number of completely re-written subsystems, a new philosophical approach to how the platform is architected, tested, and released. That's Warren-talk- 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- They're all upgrades, since they all keep modifying the same code (never re start from scratch) HuGo_87 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
"C'mon, Windows XP was 5.1 and no body tought than was a minor release, and it was not".
Um, yes it was. XP is virtually identical to windows 2000. They were released only 9 months apart.# Nt4 -> Windows 2000 . Thas a big jump. XP -> Vista. Big jump.
windows 2000 -> Xp -> 2003 is incremental. So is Vista -> Windows 7.
22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Rumors of Free Upgrades
I have been hearing mixed rumors that Microsoft may offer Vista users a free or discounted upgrade to Windows 7. Can this be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- If it could be confirmed, it wouldn't be a rumour... :-) Warren-talk- 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
- I've also heard this before, it seems to be true, though i haven't found the "Program Eligibility Period " . http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=609&pgno=0HuGo_87 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- For ages, Microsoft has sold upgrade versions for 30-50% less than a full copy. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Near as I can tell Windows 7 build 7000 is no longer available via Microsoft Connect. Can anyone verify this? It's sort of moot as the newer beta (build 7100) will be available on Microsoft's site in 5 days. Stilroc (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Windows 7 Release Date
Official talk from Microsoft is that Windows 7 could be released in September, however I have reason to believe (inside information) that there will only be one RC release and assuming that no major bugs are found, Windows 7 would be RTM in Late May to June.
I'm not suggesting we add this as its unofficial, but for those interested...
PookeyMaster (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
There is no citation for this section. I will remove it unless I hear of a source. Oppdis (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- If you search for "XP Mode in Windows 7" on Google you'll find plenty of sources. I also remember reading it of some part of microsoft's website but i can't find it at the moment... PookeyMaster (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Start here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC#Windows_XP_Mode I dont know if wikipedia can source other wikipedia articles but that one is sourced so we can just take them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Go to the microsoft virtual PC website and it talks about it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
XP Mode is not a feature
As pointed out here, Windows XP Mode is an add-on, not a feature. We do not normally include add-ons in feature sections. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- *cough*Windows Ultimate Extras*coughcough* Warren-talk- 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Windows Vista Ultimate includes the functionality for downloading Windows Ultimate Extras. That's a feature. If Windows 7 includes similar functionality for Windows XP Mode, that functionality is a Windows 7 feature.
- If Microsoft doesn't offer XP Mode for Windows 8, are you going to include it in Features removed from Windows 8? Are you going to add the Windows Live applications to Features new to Windows XP? (They're likewise free downloads, and XP is the first version to support them.) - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: I would agree it is an add-on, not a feature. Like any other piece of non-feature software, it just has certain system requirements, one of which using (specific editions of) Windows 7 is. However, as it seems to have been specifically developed for Windows 7, it should be mentioned in the article at least, especially considering its main purpose is to wean XP users off XP and finally move to a new Microsoft OS. --Resplendent (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- XP Mode is being advertised by Microsft as "a feature of Windows 7" -- their words. Our opinions on the matter, therefore, are irrelevant -- WP:NPOV and WP:V are more important. It gets mentioned as a new feature of Windows 7. Warren-talk- 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Windows seven is advertised as a "fun way to do your work and a new way of lifestyle" and a lot of other similar stuff. Our opinion does matter, since we're the ones who make this neutral, we don't just repeat what the author said. If they said MS Office 2007 was a feature, it still wouldn't be. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Who ever said an add-on can't be a feature? Althepal (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- How bout' "extension"? TechOutsider (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Making up language not used by the vendor would be WP:OR.-Localzuk(talk) 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- No that would be a kenning. TechOutsider (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Why do we keep changing the system requirements section to match what Mary Jo Foley says Microsoft told MSDN and TechNet subscribers on April 30, rather than what Microsoft's TechNet page currently says? - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
- There are more detailed specs from Microsoft, specifying different requirements for x64 and x32 systems at this link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx I feel the article should be updated to reflect the additional information MS has provided.
- 220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Microsoft site (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/faq.aspx) clearly states "WDDM 1.0 or higher driver" as a system requirement for graphics. WDDM is listed in the Windows Vista system requirements box so I can't see any reason why it should not feature in the Windows 7 system specs box especially given it is on an official Microsoft site. It was removed from the system requirements and I am re adding it. Also, the Citation 61 appears to be irrelevant ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2643) since it appears the appopriate reference for system specs is Microsoft rather than zdnet so I think this should be removed too. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- One would think this is self-explanatory, but I guess not -- Drivers aren't hardware. This is about recommended hardware requirements, not recommended software. Warren-talk- 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I did read the reference and zdnet does not seem to be the best reference available when the Microsoft Technet and RC site has listed the specs. I appreciate that the article says hardware requirements but perhaps it would be more appropriate to follow what has been previously done in the articles on Vista and XP where System Requirements were listed. I also note that DirectX is a set of APIs which is code not hardware as such. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
A DVD-R/W is not required to install 7. Not counting ISO mounting, as long as you have a DVD-ROM drive, you can install it. It seems misleading to group in the "burning" of the ISO in with the installing. --Resplendent (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
- I get what you're saying, but you do need a DVD burner to burn the disc you just downloaded from Microsoft. These are the requirements for the Release Candidate after all..... Warren-talk- 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but it's not a requirement on the PC you will install/run seven, you can do it somewhere else. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, you know what, it looks like the article we're using as a reference has changed to no longer include DVD R/W as a requirement, so if someone removes that line from the hardware requirements section, I don't see how it could be argued that it should still be there. On the other hand, the page does seem to intermingle "reuquirements" with "recommendations", which isn't helpful at all... Warren-talk- 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Windows "Seven" vs. "7" vs. "Se7en"
Wondering why this article is named Windows 7 rather than Windows Seven. TechOutsider (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Because it is about something that is named Windows 7 rather than Windows Seven. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Here is something I want to make clear to avoid the unnecessary edit wars. Microsoft did spell it as "Windows Se7en", and here is the proof http://blogwindows.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/win7.JPG?w=499&h=372 But look at the date, it was in 2007. The name was changed to "Seven", or simply "7" in 2008. So it all fits together. Shadiac (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- That image is from a non-Microsoft blog site. People forged fake and concept Windows 7 logos and screenshots all the time in 2007. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I think that Se7en and Seven were also codenames for the product, but it is actually called "7" 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if those were really codenames, I wonder why the article hasn't been moved to reflect such changes. It started out as "7" in 2005.
- I wonder why, or more precisely, how did the spelling "Se7en" came in, if MS never agreed to name it this way? While it's hard to find proof that Windows 7 was actually called "Se7en" by MS before (just saying I saw it does not suffice, does it?), I may be challenged to say that it may not have been referred to as such by the development team, but may have been by the marketing team. Therefore it might be that "Windows Se7en" has nothing to do with the Final built of Windows 7, as they both refer to different products developped, but not yet released by MS. Shadiac (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- The idea of a word "se7en" is much older than Microsoft Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- Microsoft's original codename for Windows 7 was just that – Windows 7. It was later revealed to be the final product name. Microsoft has never officially referred to Windows 7 as "Windows Seven" or "Windows Se7en." --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
- That's the whole point. They didn't, but they did refer to another product as "Se7en" before, and I wonder which. Shadiac (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe its called windows 7 rather than windows se7en or windows seven because windows 7 is quicker to type?...and calling it windows se7en would make ms employees look like they have a brain age of .....7
"in time for the holiday season"
While most of us can probably guess that this means "in the autumn", could somebody confirm this and make it more explicit for us poor non-Americans to whom this phrase is unfamiliar? Thanks. AJKGORDON«» 09:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. Also remmeber that holiday seasons are not during the same period worldwide. Neither is autum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo 87 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Good point about autumn. AJKGORDON«» 11:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- It's an ambiguous phrase, and it's what Microsoft says, so we're stuck with it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
- Maybe, but it still means something in a US context but is largely meaningless elsewhere. If someone could just explain what the American "holiday season" means, even if it is intended by Microsoft to be fairly vague, that would be helpful. I mean, something like "Q4 2009" or "before the end of 2009" or whatever. AJKGORDON«» 11:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
I think holiday = christmas.
No one says holiday outside of the USA in that sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Well it doesn't matter now as a date has been announced. AJKGORDON«» 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm an American. The Holiday Season largely means between Thanksgiving (Fourth Thursday in November) and Christmas, because Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanza, and several other holidays occur in that same month. It's basically a politically correct way of saying Christmas. --Scouto2 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
One expects to find something in the article about up-to-date Unicode versions, what is lacking. Could you guys who have been testing the Seven please include a section about it? My main question is whether Unicode 5.1 works there. Per instance, does a Seven user see infamous mojibake when visiting pages like Phoenician alphabet, Cuneiform script or Coptic alphabet? Even with sp-1, Vista does not support Unicode 5 (it does not render even the Coptic alphabet, which was included in the Unicode 4.1, in March 2005), although the os has Unicode by default. Thank you very much. --Algorithme (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
This page shall protected.
I see many reverts in this article. Shall this page protected? The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Useless, imo. This is a software product in full development. Any new facts are welcome. Protecting this page would harm only the up-to-date ratio, as vandals still insert nonsense after creating unchecked accounts. Shadiac (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Win XP feature shots on msn.co.uk
In case this is of help/interest to this articles editors i just found this, and looking at the slide 3 and using IEs zoom function you can make out a higher build number than 7100 and it clearly shows the XP mode running- although it is just basically an XP image through MSofts VIrtual PC. Still a sign of things to come for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Unlike its predecessor, Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade to the Windows line
so what windows vista was never intended to be an incremental upgrade to the windows line?
quoting warren "NT 6.0 was a major version, not an incremental upgrade"
Just two things
1º this is for people with no technical knowledge 2ºa major version is not an incremetal upgrade to the windows line? i believeyou are messing around with words...
Lion golden mayer (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- and even assuming that windows vista could not be considered as an upgrade to the windows line and windows 7 does, you are claiming technical reasons, something not very suitable for the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion golden mayer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
- The phrasing reflects the fact that Windows Vista was a major new version of Microsoft Windows -- Wikipedia has half a dozen lengthy articles on its new features. It was generally seen by the press and users alike as a major change from Windows XP, both in terms of pure visuals, as well as how it functioned (both in the UI and in the underlying technology). Windows 7, comparatively, retains almost all of the visual style, user interface and underlying tech introduced with Windows Vista (with the exception of the taskbar), and is being treated by Microsoft as a less fundamental shift. There are a variety of articles published by people at Microsoft that say things like, "building on the work introduced in Vista."
- I get what you're saying about "but it was just the prior version", but not all upgrades are of the same scope and intent. Windows Vista was a much larger release than Windows 7 will be; this isn't really up for discussion because it's the plain truth. This fact should be communicated in the lead. I'll find another wording for it.
- In the meantime, I hope you'll consider making more productive edits to the article and make it more informative and interesting, than arguing over three words. Thanks.... Warren-talk- 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Windows 7 in Europe to ship WITHOUT Internet Explorer
BBC news reported it this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8096701.stm220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting, how will inexperienced users download a web browser without one installed already? :) Arfed (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
- I thought the same thing - I assume that MS would make it easy to download IE 8 via Windows Update, the net result being that IE is still the first browser that most users will have. Less chance of users choosing another browser, compared to shipping with other browsers preinstalled.
- 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- OEMs could still install any browser they want, and if you are buying a retail boxed version of Windows 7, you probably know how you can get a browser. :)
- But I don't think this will be the final solution. The EU didn't even make their final ruling on the case, so this is basically MS saying :"There, no IE. Lets just forget about the whole thing." (Of course the EU will probably reply with: "Hahahahaha... no." :D They want to ensure consumer choice, not making it hard for buyers to get on the Internet.)
- CyberDragon777 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- I think Paul Thurrott on the Windows Weekly podcast said that a browser (or a few) may be bundled on the CD or available during setup, such as a screen that says: "Please select your browser preference." But yeah, MS Update or OEMs could. I believe Paul Thurrott also said that Microsoft wouldn't actually need to create the "E" version, just offer it to the EU for those 6 or 7 people who don't want IE bundled. Why isn't the EU going after Apple??? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why the EU doesn't go after Apple is that Apple's Safari browser is almost irrelevant in the browser market and so is their OS. The EU may prohibit the sell of the full versions of Windows 7. The EU actually has been acting against Microsoft for no reason at all, The whole thing was started by the pathetic browser Opera. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- The reason why the European Commission (not the EU, there's a difference, Norway is not even part of the EU) is acting against Microsoft is because they've already been found to abusing their monopoly position in both the EU, the US, South Korea and Japan. It is Microsoft's fault for continually breaking the law of the countries they are operating in. If you genuinely believe it is not Microsoft's fault, then it is the EC's fault. Opera made a complaint, supported by Google and Mozilla (2 American entitites) but it was simply a complaint, and I've seen no evidence they've been misleading in their complaint. It was the job of the EC to investigate and act, and if they get that wrong, it's their fault not the fault of the person making the complaint. The same way if you and I see someone committing what I think is a crime and report it to the police, provided I am honest, you can't say it's my fault or your fault if some person is arrested or prosecuted for the crime for me/you making an honest report. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Criticism article merged
I have mergedthecriticism article into this article as that article is just size of a section. In my opinion, this article should be used to present all of the criticism. After we have enough criticism information in this article, then I'll endorse a split. All discussion is welcome. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Windows 7 screenshot
I know that user:warren said that the screenshot should stick with "released" builds (I assume that means Microsoft released builds, but since Build 7232 has the new wallpaper, should we switch the screenshot from the "beta fish" to that one instead? Here's a link to the new build's desktop screenshot.
http://www.winsupersite.com/images/win7/win7_7232_02.jpg—Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- It would make a good addition to Development of Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs)
Has the capitalization of HomeGroup been unified across Windows 7 now? I believe it was capitalized three different ways, as reported in mid-March. Not sure if it has been fixed since.TechOutsider (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Lack of Images
I realize there are strict copyright rules when it comes to images of proprietary software, but this article has a grand total of ...2 images right now. Isn't that a little bit spartan? I know there used to be more but they seem to have been removed for various reasons. --Resplendent (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Is there anything in particular of which a screenshot would be useful? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I'd think at least the new Taskbar would be appropriate to feature somehow, since that's arguably the biggest change in Explorer since Windows 95. --Resplendent (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
- I've copied the taskbar image from Features new to Windows 7. We might want to take more screenshots from there. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
The Release Date
According to Microsoft, http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/home?os=nonwin7
It's going to be release in october 22nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
Why is it named v7?
Win3.x, 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, XP, Vista.... Even countin the 3 9x systems as 1 and discounting NT completely, the latest v num would be 8? So how did MS come up with 7! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- You're mixing two branches. 3.x is the 16-bit branch. So are 95, 98, and Me. 95 was originally supposed to be 94 but they were a year late in releasing it. The other branch is the NT branch: versions 3.1 (yes the first) along with 3.5 (Daytona) and 3.51, then 4.0, then 2K, then XP and so forth. Also, it is not strange to see the kernel called 6.1 if you know the product history. Try to learn more about the technology first before asking distracting questions. This talk page is supposed to be for improving the article, not financing your tutoring fees.
Don't ask, you can count Windows versions in many ways, you'll never hit 7 because you'll always leave out some or have too many. The kernel is v6.1 (strangely).
Windows 95, 98, 2000 ME XP Vista 7 - that looks like 7 versions of Windows, but what about these: Win 1, 2, 3, Server 2003/2008 etc. If you count the 32/64-bit editions, you have more. If you count every edition (home, pro, etc.)
Maybe it was made in 2007? Partly, development of Windows 7 started when Vista was released.
No one really knows why it's actually called 7.
- Not true.
http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=2161—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What happened is XP is really just version 5.1, not 6, leaving Vista to be version 6 and Windows 7 to be version 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
How about this: Start counting from NT4. (Don't worry about how you get there). XP was built off NT, making it Windows 5. Then we had Vista (Windows 6), and now, Windows 7. It doesn't have to make sense - after all, what does 'Vista' have to do with OS technology? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- No. You skipped 2K. 2K is NT 5.0.
- Please read the timeline of Windows releases. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
RE: "Due to the removal of Internet Explorer, European customers will not be able to upgrade their Vista installations and will have to perform clean installations of Windows 7." This can't be right, I've just bought a new laptop, and I have it in writing if I go to a certain Microsoft website, I can upgrade at a reduced cost. Surely "upgrade at a reduced cost" means I don't have to do a fresh install? The sentence isn't cited, so I think it's just not true and speculation.
- Thinking isn't good enough. You have to have references. You shouldn't have purchased it anyway. Obviously you do know too little - work from that end to begin with. Best of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- The article contains an unsourced statement, and we need a reference to say its untrue speculation? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
- I've seen it stated online somewhere that the upgrade version of Windows 7 E will be released later (they need to test this slightly different upgrade process more), and that full versions of Windows 7 E will be provided for the upgrade price. Presumably, the discounted upgrade that comes with new computers is the full version in Europe. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Aero more optimized in this version of Windows
I have used Vista and 7 on a 1GB system with GEFORCE 6100 and AMD 3800+ Dual Core Processor and Windows 7 with Aero enabled works faster than on Vista. Like Windows XP similar performance plus when Aero is disabled it exceeds Xp's performance in multi-tasking
Only the GPU memory is used for GDI in 7, in Vista both the system and GPU memory was used, so yes there have been changes. --AJenbo (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- We do not know if it is indeed Aero that has been optimised to make it run faster. If we knew that, then so would Apple and they would implement it on Mac OS X. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
- Don't be ridiculous. Aero is based on Apple's Aqua and Aqua is far superior. It's less demanding of hardware, a lot faster, and just technically better written. Its history dates back to the 1980s. Get a clue.
- Erm Captain 'Dont be Ridiculous' who wishes us to get a clue, I suggest you follow your own advice as you obviously have know knowledge of the Lineage of OS X, do you even know what the copland projact was and the history of system 7 etc? Aqua arrived to the mac with OS X, a millennial product not from the 1980's (interesting titbit; the Original MAC GUI Os was not capable of multitasking forcing some to write custom event handlers with the screen blanking processor time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes Aero is far more optimised in 7 than in vista, this is due to the DWM model in Vista drawing and holding in RAM one complete desktop for each window that was open opposed to 7 where there is only one master memory image of the desktop and a 'cropped' images in RAM per each window, this was a memory consuming quirk of the original sloppily/quickly engineered and implemented compositing in Vista. This was mentioned on Ars Technica and the Paul Thurrott/Leo Laporte Powered Windows Weekley Podcast.
I just noticed today that the classic interface has been restored to the Windows 7 Release Candidate, so I noted this in the "Removed Features" section.--Dominar_Rygel_XVI (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- What classic interface? The classic Start menu, which is still gone? The classic visual style, which was never gone? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
the $49 upgrade for win7 is no longer available on microsoft's site; please edit article to show this --220.127.116.11 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
- The pricing information really didn't belong in the first place. I've removed it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Reference 7 is not responding
Maybe it would be useful to replace reference 7 with "E-mail, photo programs stripped from Windows 7" at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10048142-56.html, please?--18.104.22.168 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Any information about build 7600? It looks like it might be the RTM version (lots of speculation on the web about this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Microsoft have stated that build 7600 is not the RTM. The RTM build will be released in the last 2 weeks of July and speculation is that the build number will likely be 7700 or 7777. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Where? - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
The requirements tables on Windows articles should really be standardized. Which format seems to look best?
Also, this sentence: Requirements for the 32-bit version...but they are considerably higher for the 64-bit version.
Considerably higher than what? The 32-bit version of 7, the 64-bit version of Vista? What makes them considerably higher? As far as I can tell the hard drive space is actually lower for 7 vs Vista, and the 32 vs 64-bit version of 7 only needs 4GB more space and 1 GB more memory, hardly a huge difference at this point in time. --Resplendent (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Both. As stated in the part you omitted, the 32-bit 7 recommendations are pretty much the same as Vista Premium's recommendations. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
It says the first beta build to be leaked was on December 27, 2008, however the first true leak was build 6801 on 2008-10-29 at 20:29:15. Cerberus136 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Cerberus
- First, I don't see where it says it was the first anything. Second, build 7000 is the only build named Beta. Build 6801 was a pre-beta build. Third, build 6519 leaked back around June 2008. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)