@KareemAG:
SSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHH...That's SUPER SECRET!!!

We're pretty sure that build wont even be available at WinHEC. There's a hand full of features that wont even be seen until the actual Beta.

Good stuff is a coming!

JEmlay

@pdok:
Consumer software is 99.99% 32bit. Why the hell would you want 64bit only?

We're not there yet.

JEmlay

@pdok: I completely agree, and I wish MS would take that route.

However, with such an incredibly large market to cater to, if MS were to remove 32-bit code/compatibility all together and just force everyone into the 64-bit future, the bitching would be heard from every mountain top.

I actually have to sympathize wish MS in this regard, in that no matter what they do, there are going to be millions and millions of people who complain, because their 10-year old Pentium 3 cannot keep up, or because their grandmother doesn't understand the new-fangled "ribbon" GUI.

regnez

@Tweak:
MS releases releases OSs every 2.5 to 3 years. So you wont have to wait too long.

JEmlay

"set the stage for Windows 8 to have a solid parallel processing foundation."

So we have to upgrade again to get proper parallel processing support. Wow way to milk a feature Microsoft.

IRONF1ST

@pdok: What the heck are you talking about?

ripfire

btw.... i've seen windows 7... it doesnt look like these pictures.... cause Microsoft has put a certain encryption on the BETA's... it is much more GLASS LIKE..... with something called a super bar at the bottom.... made of clear glass and the tabs are only logos... when u drag the cursor over the logo it will show all open windows for this application then drag the cursor over one of he windows and the whole desktop will show you this window.... kinda cool.... just thought i'd let you guys knw....

KareemAG

If i am right we reach then NT 7.0 (windows 7)

i have no idea how parallel processing windows is going to work but if it works good or perfect then we will see a performance boost
do more in the same time as we are using now

TBM-Fan

@Tweak: "I was hoping for more parallel processing "

Gee. You can't get anymore vaguer(sp?) than that.

ripfire

@DarkHavoc99: Kinda like how WinXP is like a service pack of Win2k?

ripfire

@DarkHavoc99: Retarded that it's still based off NT or retarded that their numbering scheme is in sequential order? I would think it would make sense to call the seventh iteration of NT version 7.

Rabid Penguin

@DarkHavoc99:
Ahh forget what I said I cant spell.

DarkHavoc99

I think they just started counting back from the version that people actually gave a crap about to this one (ie, Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista and now Windows 7). Technically, there is also Windows 3.1, but it was more supplemental than a necessity, and they're not throwing in NT, Server and all the other business-oriented versions to alleviate confusion. Still, why couldn't they make something that looked a bit more different? It looks like Vista Part II to me.

chuchi78

@Tweak: No i understand why its just dumb. Its more like a service pack for vista.

DarkHavoc99

@The Amazing Ant: @daftrok:
Yes 7th NT bases windows. But still. Retarted.

DarkHavoc99

Please, dear God, can we leave 16 bit behind forever, and make 32 bit obsolete this time? Never mind, I know the answer already.

pdok

Yeah good but i'm probably never going back to Windows, i'll stick with linux and mac for now.

Felix26591

Bummer, I was hoping for more parallel processing in Windows 7, guess I'll have to wait another 4 years.

Tweak

@DarkHavoc99: 7th version since 95, when Windows switched over to that look.

Tweak

@daftrok: The 7 is based off the old NT version somehow. XP was 5, Vista is 6, and 7... well, it's 7...

The Amazing Ant

Wait... you've got a 9000 core processor, and you've only got a 300GB hard drive? And no BluRay burner? Wow, I'm saddened...

The Amazing Ant

Why are they calling this Windows 7? Isn't this like the 9th iteration of Windows?

daftrok

I still see no difference. And no. This isnt really the 7th version of windows technically.

DarkHavoc99

so a friend of mine that works at Microsoft says that win 7 is much lighter than vista, as well as looking completely different. Microsoft is allowing employees to install on their personal machines for dogfooding. he says it's pretty tight

dantaylor08

Half bake "parallel processing support" introduce more problem than it worth.

Aleung

@The Amazing Ant: actually it's OVER 9000!!!!!!

lpranal

Any word on when they are launching this beast?

Mr.SithNinja

@IRONF1ST:
Well, DUH! You would be upgrading at least every other OS if not every 3 years. Which is the same as OSX, which is the same as linux.

So what exactly is your alternative?

JEmlay

We don't really need the OS to too optimized, we need the actual programs to be, that will make the difference.

HexiumVII

I think they're counting families not actual versions..

3.x
9x
NT
XP
Server
Vista
and finally 7

urban_ninjya

@The Amazing Ant: Hey now, that's a 320gb hdd. Get it straight. lol. I'm installing my 7000 core processor next week, i couldn't afford the 9000. It cost fifteen dollars more. Damn economy.

link12245

Sad.

Neone

know, even.

matt buchanan

@collusioned: Because people wanna knowing what the next OS will look like?

matt buchanan

Why the hell is Giz fixated on the fact that Windows 7 looks like Vista? We get it already! And Vista looks GOOD.

collusioned

@DarkHavoc99: They don't apply the updated themes until closer to beta's and the actual release.

jrlcopy

@dantaylor08: it's not open to everyone in the company yet. the internal dogfooding is only available to people in the windows division. there will be a public release (alpha/beta/?) at pdc this october. i would assume they will open the build to the rest of the company around then.

natenovs

@collusioned: Vista looks ... good? Really? I will forever associate crappy performance with the poor interface. Just like I hate XP because windows 95, 98 and ME ruined it for me. But I still love nt4 ..

Rodime

@urban_ninjya:

No, they're counting iterations of the NT kernel.

Kyang

"though we probably won't know everything until October"

Really ? Like the fact that this whole article is complete speculation.
Snow Leopard may be being built to support huge ram and multi-core but it will be intel only. I'm guessing win7 will still run on my old P4 with no worries like Vista does.
And shock of shocks Win7 alphas look like Vista !
You mean just like Longhorn alphas looked like XP WOW what really amazing tech news !

As for it being 7 it has nothing to do with NT
As Win 7 will be NT 6.1
It goes like this
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0,
95 is v4 98 is v4.5 ME is v4.9 (all have the same 9x/DOS underpinning)
2000 is v5 XP is v5.5 (both based on NT)
Vista is 6
Windows 7 is 7 (obviously)
How easy was that !
And you call this place a tech site

Fourthletter

@Rabid Penguin: Agree, but. for many users actually don't know anything about NT.
witch make me agree more if they wold call it the eleventh iteration of WINDOWS. (have no idea if eleven is correct, just picked a high number that could be true)

(Hm... Windows 1-3, 95, 98, NT 1-4, 2000, ME, XP, Vista... If I didn't forget something that existed before I got into computers this would then be Windows 14)

Thizizmyname

Multi-core scheduler!? Colour me bedazzled.

End sarcasm... couldn't they think of something else to tout? Is that really the most exciting extent of their parallel computing implementation in Win7>

jbang

@jrlcopy: Yeah... there is some semblance of secrecy and surprise at Redmond still. Hopefully it'll be a sweet surprise, not a groan inducing regurgitation of OS X or the Vista transparency debacle.

Not wanting to be a cynical Jobs fanboi, but at least with Snow Leopard not deviating from what it is already (visually) there is a chance for Microsoft to do some GUI innovation without the immediate opportunity for folks like me to scream "copy Apple more!", "OS X RIPOFF!!!11!1!!!11" and whatnot. I'm genuinely looking forward to the unveiling.

jbang

@JEmlay: We could have been there already, but for the fact that MS coddles the very people (category of people) that held them back the last time they tried 64 bit.

It's just a dream, I know.

pdok

@pdok:
Yeah but, do you care to explain why? What the hell are you doing as a single person that REQUIRES all your software to be 64bit?

JEmlay

@ripfire: Just wishing for the next step to occur and eliminate the seemingly inevitable split between a true 64 bit OS, and the rest of the 32 bit world.

pdok

"Win32 was never designed for highly concurrent, asynchronous processing" and "parallelism requires adjustments at every level of the stack."

Can I get a translation of that?

Wolfess

@DarkHavoc99:

Windows 6.9 :P

Kakkoister

yes, absolutely. This is exactly what windows needs, another after thought code implementation. OK, but seriously, I think this is good

jkr's bold comment

Is this the Windows Vista disguised as something else like that one commercial? Umm... what is it?

Just watch it'll be just a brushed up version of Vista.

If it is, I'll be downgrading back to XP.

Glare

yawn....

cdaiger

@Rodime:
"I will forever associate crappy performance with the poor interface."

Tell that to my Aspire One which runs BETTER with vista than with XP.

This horseshit lie about bad performance with Vista is really starting to get irritating.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

They need to not use numbers to name these Windows iterations... I don't like it.

Stang70Fastback

@jbang: Anything that makes the OS use the computer hardware more effectively is freakin awesome.

Kyang

Yeah Windows Millennium didn't do so hot now did it. I'm sure they are scared of names that are bigger then 5 letters.

addiktion

@Stang70Fastback:
What.. you don't like using Office 2003 in 2008?

soopafly

@collusioned:

Looks good? I like how there's seven different kinds of arrows on the screen shot. Really consistent.

soopafly

It's an internal version thing.

Windows NT 4.0
Windows NT 5.0 (Windows 2000)
Windows NT 5.1 (Windows XP)
Windows NT 5.2 (Windows Server 2003)
Windows 6.0 (Windows Vista / Server 2008)

Windows Vista shares very little heritage with Windows 98, 95, or 3.11.

bsoft

Hopefully, this feature won't be cut in 2009 and will be released in SP1 later with windows 7 ultimate extras...

VakeroRokero

@Rabid Penguin:
Retarted that it does not really SEEM like a new OS at all. But yet again i have not messed with it so i could be wrong.

DarkHavoc99

OK, looking better Microsoft, now just dump all the bloated code and deliver a lean modular OS. Oh and dump the DRM.

You still owe me major discounts though since you raped me on Vista Ultimate and left me high and dry on "Ultimate Extra's". So you still have that mess to pay up for.

axiomatic

@dantaylor08: Little does your friend know that that isn't windows 7. It's Ubuntu and he's part of the Linux Mojave experiment...

phor11

The best part of the equation is that I will run Windows 7 on whatever hardware I decide to use, not overpriced, glossy white of aluminum grey.... nope sirey bob, it'll smoke.
Of course, they will be naysayers stating they will not try it until SP1 comes out and that OS Kitty is better and Ubunstastic is free.
But who cares... They are the same ones that will be complaining without actually using it, so they will never have a clue.
:)

aec007

@Fourthletter: actually it's based on the iteration of the NT kernel which all current Windows run on.

ryusen

@DarkHavoc99:

technically it's the 7th iteration of the NT core based Windows. NT 4.0 was the last oen to be offiically given that type of designation. Windows2000 was NT 5.0, XP was NT 5.1, Vista was NT 6.0, thus this is Windows 7.

ryusen

@drakino: Gah. Got it wrong.

Windows Vista and 2008 (NT 6)
Windows Codename 7 (NT 6.1)

Forgot Vista SP1 bumped the build number and kernel, but not the NT version.

drakino

So, this sounds more like the work Apple did in Leopard. Tiger and previous versions of OS X supported multi core/SMP fine, but Leopard really tuned it at every level in the OS and APIs to ensure equal balance between processors.

Snow Leopard is going further by exposing APIs like Grand Central to make it easier to make programs spread across many cores. Not just 4, or 8 or whatever, but many.

drakino

@pdok: It's reasonable to release a 64 bit only version of 7, as long as they keep 32 bit program compatibility mode. Vista could have also gone 64 bit only if Intel hadn't made the Core Duo 32 bit only.

drakino

@Thizizmyname: There never was an NT 1, 2 or 3. NT started at 3.1 to match Windows 3.1.

Windows versions:

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1
Windows 2.11
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 3.2 (Chineese only)
Windows 95 (4.0)
Windows 98 (4.1)
Windows ME (4.9)

Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 3.5
Windows NT 3.51
Windows NT 4
Windows 2000 (NT 5)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows 2003 and XP64 (NT 5.2)
Windows Vista (NT 6)
Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 (NT 6.1)
Windows Codename 7 (NT 7)

Microsoft and IBM were working together on OS/2 for a while and that did have a version 1 and 2. Version 3 on the MS side became NT, and IBM added Warp to the name of their release.

drakino

KareemAG - can you tell me where you got a Beta, oh wait YOU CAN'T! pdok - have you heard of 64bit? Felix26591 - bye!

TemplaEuryclea

"it'll definitely be able to use a SWAT team of cores better than your Vista box will, and set the stage for Windows 8 to have a solid parallel processing foundation." Why the crap are they *already* planning to make a 'lesser than' product and then improve it later? How about implement solid parallel processing THIS round, then maybe do something truly innovate in Win 8? Anyone? No? So basically this is going to be the Vista that Vista was supposed to be, i.e. re-adding all of the features they stripped out during development?

SaudaminiTydeus

@dantaylor08: i wonder if that means it'll be able to run on machines that weren't Vista-capable.

Zlevee

@axiomatic: What bloated code? What DRM? What the hell are you talking about?

This is the same old bullshit ive been hearing about Vista since release, and after using it since release, i have seen none of these things. Ive used it form 1GB netbooks (recently) to 4 core desktops, and there isnt a thing that indicates to me that it is bloated. In either instance, Vista runs just as well as XP, in many occasions better.

And the reason one gets Ultimate is because there were Business Features and Home Premium features you wanted in your OS, not soley due to Ultimate Extras. Only fools bought it because of that.

diabolusunknownTheSecond

@diabolusunknownTheSecond: The DRM is in the HDDVD and Blu-Ray support, also present in Windows Media Center.

The bloated code is all over the place. Do you realize that redundant DLL library support is still unchecked my MS? You can find different versions of the exact same DLL all throughout the System32 folder.

I guess you don't program.....

axiomatic

@pdok:
Having 32bit compatibility is not the same as 64bit ONLY.

JEmlay