Introducing Windows 7

Hi there, Mike Nash here.
For me, one of the most exciting times in the release of a new product is right before we show it to the world for the first time. And that time is right now.

In a few weeks we are going to be talking about the details of this release at the PDC and at WinHEC. We will be sharing a pre-beta "developer only release" with attendees of both shows and giving them the first broad in-depth look at what we've been up to. I can't wait for them to see it.

And, as you probably know, since we began development of the next version of the Windows client operating system we have been referring to it by a codename, "Windows 7." But now is a good time to announce that we've decided to officially call the next version of Windows, "Windows 7."

While I know there have been a few cases at Microsoft when the codename of a product was used for the final release, I am pretty sure that this is a first for Windows. You might wonder about the decision.

The decision to use the name Windows 7 is about simplicity. Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows.

Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows, so therefore "Windows 7" just makes sense.
We are very excited about the opportunity to tell you more about Windows 7 in the coming weeks, and show you how we have continued to build on investments begun in Windows Vista to deliver on the next release of the Windows operating system.

I look forward to sharing more with you in the coming weeks and months.

--Mike

Source:- http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx


See also: Windows Vista Team Blog : Why 7?

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Why 7?

Could it be that the number 7 is considered "lucky" in many cultures?

Just my two cents.













Later Ted

 

[Day24]

the number 7 is also considered unlucky in some other cultures though......

 

[mike-cow]

It's probably just what they say... It's the seventh windows version... I kind of find it irrelevant anyway. They can call it "Grannys pink underwear" if they like, I don't really care. I'd make VERY sure to hack THAT name away asap after install though. :D

 

[gazz496]

i just hope it's not got the compatability issues that vista had early on and they iron out as many kinks as possible before release to help appeal to the wider market and like some are saying across the web will i be able to upgrade my current os to a 64 bit version of windows 7, i hope so as i won't upgrade unless it is to 64 bit i will not go back to the dark ages of 32bit os's and ATI and nvidia better get there drivers on at least version 2 before the release so they at least work with a apps and games.

does anyone know if the new os will take advantage of dx10.1? as well as dx10?

 

[Day24]

win 7 will probably have dx11, and will be completely backwards compatible with dx 10 and 9. But that's guesswork.

And again...as Vista was the major overhaul of the drivermodel, and MS has already stated that drivers for vista will work on win7, you have nothing to worry about concerning drivers. In fact, about 6 months ago, MS already started testing all the new drivers being released through their WHQL labs for win7 compatibility. So drivers should be good. If hardware vendors know how to make drivers for vista, they'll only need to make minor adjustments to be able to make drivers for win7..... unlike what happened with the shift to vista, where they needed to learn a new way of making drivers.

Mike....I don't think I'd mind having a windows called Windows GPU..... as long as there's no actual graphic representation of her actual pink underwear, obviously...

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

the number 7 is also considered unlucky in some other cultures though......

Hello.

You do have a very good point there!









Later Ted

 

[Adamd]

So who thinks Windows 7 will be that different from Vista?

Maybe they are doing the standard text book way of making a "new" product, but really only changing a few things and just try to get the new name in good terms with the public...

I really will be surprised if it will be way different than Vista other than security and other system changes, but overall I am not really expecting a ton from 7.

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

I hope its not Windows 6.5 like Windows Me was.

 

[Day24]

To be honest....what I'm expecting is Vista with a LOT of tweaks and optimizations.
I'm expecting win7 to have a smaller code-base. I expect win7 to be less bloated. I expect it to start up a bit faster and run a bit faster than vista (or at least feel like it does).
Other than that....I only expect there to be cosmetic changes to make it LOOK different from vista. As different as they can make it while retaiing the windows look and feel....

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

I want more hardware optimizations. WinFS to replace NTFS. Optimized file system to work better with my SAS RAID and SSD drives. We need more 64-bit applications to use the OS better. They did a great job on memory management in Vista x64 SP2. I don't like eyecandy. I would like to see it better optimization of the 8 Xeon cores and 16GB of RAM.

 

[elbeasto]

They said Vista was going to be the last 32bit windows, now windows 7 is going to be the last 32bit windows.

Just bury 32bit already!

I wonder if the "7" name has anything to do with Intel's up comming cpu's named "i7".

Either way I like it, it's simple and I'll be able to remember it. :D

 

[Adamd]

They said Vista was going to be the last 32bit windows, now windows 7 is going to be the last 32bit windows.

Just bury 32bit already!

I wonder if the "7" name has anything to do with Intel's up comming cpu's named "i7".

Either way I like it, it's simple and I'll be able to remember it. :D

Well I think Microsoft wants to be nice and allow people to be able to run 32 bit if they have slightly older pc's that can't do 64 bit, but that begs the question are there computers even good enough to bother running 7 if the CPU is not 64 bit able?

I hope that when it comes out that Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, Asus, Acer, Gateway, etc only ship 64 bit as a standard and would have to order 32 bit as an option.

 

[elbeasto]

They said Vista was going to be the last 32bit windows, now windows 7 is going to be the last 32bit windows.

Just bury 32bit already!

I wonder if the "7" name has anything to do with Intel's up comming cpu's named "i7".

Either way I like it, it's simple and I'll be able to remember it. :D

Well I think Microsoft wants to be nice and allow people to be able to run 32 bit if they have slightly older pc's that can't do 64 bit, but that begs the question are there computers even good enough to bother running 7 if the CPU is not 64 bit able?

I hope that when it comes out that Dell, HP, Sony, Toshiba, Asus, Acer, Gateway, etc only ship 64 bit as a standard and would have to order 32 bit as an option.

Older PC's should just keep running Xp or older.

 

[gazz496]

yeah i agree just bin 32bit 64bit can run those programmes anyway so why go back it just seems rediculous and yeah the suppliers and system builders should only ship with 64 to literaly force it onto the market.

 

[gazz496]

governments could run a pilot programme titled.... forcing those who don't want to change to change..... by spending billions upgradeing people's computers to modern standards,

how long will hardware manufacturers realisticly be able to support older equipment types when the new software and hardware combinations are making it increasingly difficult to use older hardware and software

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

99% of programs don't need 64-bit. They use under 200MB of RAM. 64-bit would add bloat. I never want to see Office 64-bit. Only A/V, CAD and other highend programs that do a lot of processing need it. Since most video cards are not graphic controllers doing the work for the games, do they need 64-bit unless they are using tremendous amounts of RAM and resources like the new games using blu-ray technology. The problem with 64-bit programs will be size and bloated features.

 

[Day24]

that's strange reasoning though.... cos to be honest.... an office program really doesn't even need 32 bits. What does typing a letter require 32 bits for? So with your reasoning they could have kept it at 16 bits.

And think about it, not everyone uses office the same as you do. I know people who use excel intensively. Those people would LOVE a 64 bit version if it meant a speed increase when they are trying to get excel to process complex sheets.

The problem of size and bloated features does not come from the underlying architecture (whether it is 64 bit or 32 bit), it comes from the coders and programmers.

I'm very sure that hardly any program NEEDS 64 bit, but I think that, once programmers learn how to use it well, a lot of programs could benifit from well written 64 bit code. They could be faster and more efficient without having to be resource hogs.

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

We use Excel in the office. We have workbooks with dozens of linked sheets on the network. Those users have multi-core CPUs, 2-3GB of RAM, and 1 Gbps NIC to the network. With the 3 GHz multi-core CPUs and increase network and ram speed, they don't wait more than a few seconds for anything. The problem with Excel is the feature set is filled with bloat and poor programming. The biggest complaint was saving to the network. With the 8 core 64-bit HP Proliants with 4 x 1 GB server to switch and 2 x 4 Gbps fiber from server to the SAN, this took care of the saving issues.

I have been programming since the 80s. I know 14+ programming langauges and 10 databases. Most programmers are code monkeys. They patch instead of fix things. They don't understand structure and algorithms. Most of the tools they use don't make things better. Only quicker to write. They add bloat and wasted lines of code.

Look at Farcry 64-bit. It is slower than 32-bit version. Most computers are 3+ years old. They barely handle XP. Gaming manufacturers are dabbling in 64-bit. Most games are written for the these older computers because of market conditions.

 

[Day24]

You're right, that's exactly what I'm saying.... the architecture isn't the problem...the written code and the programs are! And windows is one of them. Windows is as bloated as can be. That's why I said earlier that I would LOVE a less bloated and more optimized version with win7.

 

[SCSIraidGURU]

Vista x64 Ultimate and XP x64 SP2 are not that bad. You need decent hardware.