Windows 7.

[Zosi]

I thought I jumped in to a time warp coming in to this thread. All of this info has been out for over a year.
Windows 7 was being worked on on the side of Vista, Vista was never meant to be be a true OS, 7 will be the one theyre going for to take over XP.

What the fuck? You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Win7 *IS* Vista. It's essentially the same kernel code under the hood plus some additions made since the Vista release. It wasn't worked on "on the side", it's very much a revision of the Vista base with a stronger emphasis on usability and performance. Vista served to introduce concepts that Win7 rely on, like UAC, the new Explorer design, desktop/sidebar gadgets and the "search instead of organize" paradigm. It also introduced the necessary incompatible changes to the driver model and APIs so that Win7 *wouldn't* have the kind of compatibility problems Vista did, since everyone has spent the last two years rewriting their apps to work in Vista. Whether they intended it to sell better than it did is debatable, but it's absolutely ridiculous to argue that Win7 was developed in parallel and Vista wasn't a "true OS".

The info, while not terribly exciting, also isn't a year old. MS has been releasing a lot of info over the past week or so about Win7, some confirmations of *rumors* that have been floating around for a while, but this is one of the first times they've actually talked about what will and won't be major features. If you'd like to prove me wrong, you're welcome to post some articles from 2007 talking about Win7's feature set.

[SephYuyX]

What the fuck? You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Win7 *IS* Vista. It's essentially the same kernel code under the hood plus some additions made since the Vista release. It wasn't worked on "on the side", it's very much a revision of the Vista base with a stronger emphasis on usability and performance. Vista served to introduce concepts that Win7 rely on, like UAC, the new Explorer design, desktop/sidebar gadgets and the "search instead of organize" paradigm. It also introduced the necessary incompatible changes to the driver model and APIs so that Win7 *wouldn't* have the kind of compatibility problems Vista did, since everyone has spent the last two years rewriting their apps to work in Vista. Whether they intended it to sell better than it did is debatable, but it's absolutely ridiculous to argue that Win7 was developed in parallel and Vista wasn't a "true OS".

Wow, im not even sure how you got this out of what I said, youre just taking things out of context. Im saying exactlly what youre syaing, but you took it a different way.

[GRT]

regarding the touch screen stuff, did anyone see the ad for the new HP computer? if that has touch screen, I wonder what OS it will be using

[Zosi]

Wow, im not even sure how you got this out of what I said, youre just taking things out of context. Im saying exactlly what youre syaing, but you took it a different way.

No, you specifically said several completely incorrect things, and I clarified and corrected them. I'll split it up for you if it's really that hard to understand.

I thought I jumped in to a time warp coming in to this thread. All of this info has been out for over a year.

Completely wrong. It's new info, you're welcome to cite some year-old articles talking about Win7's features (mentioning Win7, not just theoretical stuff) if you'd like to argue about that.

Windows 7 was being worked on on the side of Vista,

Completely wrong. It's a revision of Vista, it was not a parallel project, and never was. They may have worked on the concepts while Vista was in development, but that's pretty standard procedure for any major project. There was never two development teams working independently on Vista and Win7 simultaneously, because... well, Vista is the base for Win7. You seem to think that it's similar to ME/XP, but it really couldn't be more different.

Vista was never meant to be be a true OS, 7 will be the one theyre going for to take over XP.

Mostly wrong. I can only say mostly, because you use the weird "true OS" term, which you could define to explicitly avoid Vista. By all accounts, MS intended Vista to last just as long as most of their previous OSs before replacement, and they only moved up the release schedule for Win7 *after* the reception Vista got. They pushed it as hard as every other OS they've released, and have shown no lack of effort towards getting it accepted.

[SephYuyX]

Completely wrong. It's new info, you're welcome to cite some year-old articles talking about Win7's features (mentioning Win7, not just theoretical stuff) if you'd like to argue about that.

Read the wiki page and the cites posted last January.

Completely wrong. It's a revision of Vista, it was not a parallel project, and never was. They may have worked on the concepts while Vista was in development, but that's pretty standard procedure for any major project. There was never two development teams working independently on Vista and Win7 simultaneously, because... well, Vista is the base for Win7. You seem to think that it's similar to ME/XP, but it really couldn't be more different.

MSDN and TechNet disks my company were getting during Vista say they were working on a Vista like Server OS and then would later release it as a home OS.

Mostly wrong. I can only say mostly, because you use the weird "true OS" term, which you could define to explicitly avoid Vista. By all accounts, MS intended Vista to last just as long as most of their previous OSs before replacement, and they only moved up the release schedule for Win7 *after* the reception Vista got. They pushed it as hard as every other OS they've released, and have shown no lack of effort towards getting it accepted.

Vista was simply their public beta.

[Sonomaa]

I still use and love XP, Ill change when/if 7 proves to be something considerably better than vista

[Lordwafik]

I still use and love XP, Ill change when/if 7 proves to be something considerably better than vista

I'm with this stance, It'll take me a lot of convincing to get me to use Win7 after the Vista mess. However MS seems to realise that the whole world has this stance in their mind too

[Zosi]

Read the wiki page and the cites posted last January.

The only cites with concrete information are very recent. Everything before the past few weeks was vague and secretive, and the first milestone wasn't even released until 2008. There's precisely zero evidence of serious Win7 development prior to the release of Vista, only the usual concepts and predictions floating around. That happens with every OS, they have a roadmap that specifies roughly when new versions will come out and which major features they're planning to get in. They frequently miss those goals entirely, WinFS is one of the things that's been kicked around between future releases for almost a decade, only to find a partial pseudo-implementation in Win7.

MSDN and TechNet disks my company were getting during Vista say they were working on a new Vista-based Server OS and then would later release it as a home OS with very substantial changes not introduced in the server release.

Fixed that for you. It's called Windows Server 2008 R2, and it was officially announced a few days ago. Guess what? It's based on Windows Server 2008, which is based on Vista. It's been in development since Windows Server 2008 came out, and just like I've already spoken about regarding desktops, was not a parallel project. None of that refutes anything I've said.

Vista was simply their public beta.

In a sense, that's true, but it's also abusing hindsight. All indications are that they intended Vista to be a serious OS release, introducing the changes under the hood that they'd later base Win7's GUI redesign on. Unfortunately, due to the driver mishaps and bigger-than-anticipated problems with UAC, it turned into a "Hold on, we'll release a better OS soon, don't switch to Macs!" release, necessitating a speedup in Win7's release schedule to compensate.

If you'd really like to continue arguing, I don't really mind, but I think that we've both proven our points by now.

[Tirrock]

I'm glad that they're pushing a new OS. I've tried vista and didn't care for it. If windows 7 comes out by the time I'm ready to build a new PC, I'll be happy. (Unless it sucks. Please don't suck.)

[The_OG_Nelta]

Window's always, always has some problem in their new OS's. About almost after every Launch of a new OS, 2-3 months after they always release a service pack.

[SephYuyX]

If you'd really like to continue arguing, I don't really mind, but I think that we've both proven our points by now.

I wasnt arguing.

[Tythera]

As for my own wishes... please God, change Backspace back to "Up one folder" rather than "Back in history one folder". I don't use Explorer like a web browser (it's not one!), I frequently need to go up the folder hierarchy one level, and I don't like having to either reach over to use the mouse or reach for the somewhat unnatural arrow keys. Backspace worked fine, if you *really* want to let people use it like a browser, at least add an option for XP keybinds for those of us who aren't braindead.

I know it's kinda old now in the topic now but holy shit, I thought I was the only one that this bothered. This still to this day drives me up a wall. The other thing I hate (though it's been a problem for me in both Vista and XP) is when the OS decides to change the way I view folders. I always put it on details across all folders, then random folders will randomly pop up in icons, list, or thumbnails. It only happens maybe once a week or less, but it still makes me wonder what the hell is going on. Maybe it's something I'm doing but I don't recall messing with those settings at all. If it's not something I'm doing, and they fix both of these issues in Win7, I'm totally going to format into it early on.

[Zosi]

I know it's kinda old now in the topic now but holy shit, I thought I was the only one that this bothered. This still to this day drives me up a wall. The other thing I hate (though it's been a problem for me in both Vista and XP) is when the OS decides to change the way I view folders. I always put it on details across all folders, then random folders will randomly pop up in icons, list, or thumbnails. It only happens maybe once a week or less, but it still makes me wonder what the hell is going on. Maybe it's something I'm doing but I don't recall messing with those settings at all. If it's not something I'm doing, and they fix both of these issues in Win7, I'm totally going to format into it early on.

Same thing happens to me, but it works a lot better after following the instructions in this article:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2332394,00.asp