Submitted by Supposedly, we are looking at screenshots of Windows 7 here. Anyone who has ever looked at Vista will realise these are exactly the same – and that actually makes a lot of sense, so early in a development cycle. In any case, the version number in the winver screenshot actually corresponds to the version number supposedly assigned to the supposedly released M1 build of Windows 7 – but hey, that’s just a Photoshop away. Do with this as you please.
This is the most realistic scenario, that the M1 build is only different under the hood and with some minor versioning and features in dialog boxes. I think it’s probably legit, if unexciting.
Seems way too easily faked. I’m not convinced.
as one would probably first work on the framework that supports the gui, rather then do a rework of the gui.
a bucket of paint does not a new wall make…
It says windows 6.1 not 7.0
So, its fake
“Windows 7” is a codename not a version.
Kinda like KDE4
And those screenshots aren’t “exactly” like Vista.
actually windows 7 IS a new version and not a codename. windows 6 is vista, windows 5 is windows2000. within each major windows version microsoft releases a few revisions, such as me or xp.
— edit
people seem to confuse the next version of windows, which will likely be called 6.1 as vista is 6.0, with the next major version which will be window 7.
/stone
Edited 2008-01-25 08:59 UTC
http://www.thinknext.net/content/2008/01/display.jpg
This one is interesting. I believe it’s claiming that resolution independence is a feature.
Maybe it’s finally possible to set font size and DPI everywhere? I haven’t used Vista much but I couldn’t find such settings. Either Windows is too hard to use (because I couldn’t find it) or it’s not very accessible to people with weak eyesight.
It can be set from the “Personalization” Control Panel (right click on desktop and choose Personalize). It’s in the left column as “Adjust Font Size (DPI)”.
Vista already attempts to pave the way for resolution independence. But it’s a bit hard because the standard model for Windows drawing has long been pixel-based. When you bump up the resolution, VIsta lies to applications that don’t claim to be resolution aware and tries to convince them that they are running at 96 dpi. It’s a hard sell in some cases, though, so some apps aren’t convinced. If you’re running WPF apps you get this automatically. And I think Office might already be resolution aware.
Maybe this operating system won’t suck, come on Microsoft, i like XP, make a much more secure XP, and i’m sold.
Edited 2008-01-24 22:35 UTC
There already is a much more secure XP. It’s called Windows 2003 and it’s the best Windows release ever.
Very recommendable.
Edited 2008-01-24 22:46 UTC
People think $299 for a desktop OS is expensive. You’d want to go with a $500 OS (SMB) or $900 (Standard)?
That being said, you’re right; it is a great OS.
Edited 2008-01-24 23:12 UTC
A score of 2 for that unreadable stuff?
Windows Vista is built on the Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 codebase.
Windows Vista SP1 will inerith the Windows 2008 Server’s kernel
Edited 2008-01-25 10:44 UTC
The key phrase is “built on.” I think Microsoft tried too hard to roll everything but the kitchen sink into Vista as it tried to make it the end-all be-all. What Microsoft should have done is the opposite and stripped away anything superfluous in order to create a lean, mean stable operating system. Unfortunately, Microsoft got burned with Vista because their over-reaching ambition created too many empty promises as their programmers were insufficient to meet the task. To compound the problem, Microsoft’s marketing people decided to go hog wild in their attempt to maximize the gouging…er profits and that’s how we arrived at Microsof’s “Baskin Robbins” esque 31 flavors of Windows Vista. I think most users would agree that Vista contains too much. A cleaner, leaner OS is what’s in order and let people pick and choose the extraneous features they need ala carte. In truth, this is how Microsoft will maximize it’s profits AND keep customers happy.
Windows Server 2008 and Vista SP1 will be the same codebase.
So no, not based on…same code base
your post is misleading. while vista is built upon the window2003 codebase, it isnt the same as windows2003 improved. its still a new product.
also, while sp1 will include the slightly updated nt6.0 kernel, it already uses the nt6.0 kernel. windows2003 used the nt5.2 kernel.
/stone
Edited 2008-01-25 12:32 UTC
Definitely!
There’s a guide to tweak Win2K3 to desktop usage, and some years ago OSNews had an article on it (I think it was by Eugenia, but I’m not sure).
If you want to go with Windows, I can safely recommend Win2K3, and you can buy a single user license for as little as DKK 240,00 == US$ 47,36.
That ain’t bad for such an OS.
Can’t argue much about Windows XP Professional x64 Edition either…as close to perfection as a Microsoft consumer OS gets.
Here: http://www.windows7screenshots.com
FAKE FAKE FAKE.
“Internet Exploder?”
“VistaXP”
FAKE!
VistaXP’s Internet Exploder is actually based off the original Windows 3.1/11 File Mangler code.
I’m not sure if XP retains this, but certainly W2K held onto the old Program Manager (Start*Run*”progman.exe”). Always found that neat.
My understanding is that Microsoft will work on changing the nuts and bolts but not the look and feel till late in the day – m3 or something. Until then they’ll use the Vista skin. So I’d say come back in 9-12 months. In any case, Windows 7 is, surely, going to amount to a bit more than Vista with another skin … er, isn’t it? The interesting bit is what they’re doing under the hood and how far they’ll adopt the more incremental approach to development used by the MSOffice lot. That’s a couple of areas that get major reworkings per release and lots of smaller changes and fixes – which over time and several releases amounts to major change, instead of the all-at-once big bang approach used for Vista.
If Microsoft is serious about remedying the disaster that is Windows Vista, it will base its next version of Windows on an entirely new platform, or go back to Windows XP’s (or better yet, Windows Server 2003) platform and build Windows 7 from there. Also, it needs to cut the myriad of confusing versions and create just one (or maybe just two at most: Personal and Professional) Bundle the various multimedia and visual theming features into various PLUS! packs. Finally, cut the cost down to something reasonable like $150.00 for Professional and $75.00 for Personal (or $100.00 for a single product.) Otherwise, we can expect to see Windows continue its downward spiral and users leaving in droves for Macs and Linux.
Smells like phoney baloney
Fake screenshots,
Fake all news about Win7.
It’s just another FUD against Vista!
Edited 2008-01-25 10:38 UTC