Talk:Windows 7/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Devlopment of Windows 7 page

I think that we should start a development of Windows 7 page which lists the various builds like the Development of Windows Vista page. Since there already two builds that have had screenshots, and one of them has leaked to the Internet. TheSpeedster (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It was already discussed and ruled out. --soum ^talk 05:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess we'll have to wait for a few more Milestones then (probably around Beta 1) before we bring this back up again :) TheSpeedster (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless the page gets large enough to present a problem for readers, you will likely continue to get shut down on the issue of a separate article. You don't need too many articles on the same subject. It is not that it is not possible, it is just not needed. Minimize clutter, and all that stuff.  :) Emry (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Name / Version number is wrong

"It is the first time since the 1996 release of Windows NT 4.0 that the version number is also used as its marketing name"

Wrong. Windows 7 is not actually windows NT 7. It will be windows NT 6.1 or 6.2.

Secondly, it isnt the 7th version of windows, let alone the 7th version of NT unless they are missing out some versions.

NT 3.x Nt 4 NT 5 (win2k) NT 5.1 (xp) NT 5.2 (server 2003) Nt 6.x (vista and server 2008)

Then maybe it would be windows 7...

either way its name is retarded and that comment needs to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk)

It's Microsoft who determines what the version number is as it's there product. If Vista is version 6 and Microsoft determines this next OS, Windows 7 is version 7 then it's version 7. The insults in your text also don't help your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.176.143 (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But they can't decide that it's both version 7 and version 6.1 at the same time. That makes no sense. -135.196.27.80 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Windows 7 will be called Windows 7 but the version number of the NT kernel will be 6.1 - @user who say is vista is and and ms determine this is 7 then it's 7 - that's just the consumer name of the OS, MS will be giving the kernel version no. 6.1. Hence a lot of confusion and a major or minor release debate (imho whoever decided that the windows built on nt 6.1 would be called 7 made a very bad decision) GoddersUK (talk) 01:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

is vs. was

I vote we change it to was. The act of scheduling is over, therefore it should be past tense. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 03:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not known whether M2 was indeed released, so the was coming due to the event having happened does not arise. Plus May 2008 is not yet history. --soum ^talk 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with soum. Uniquely Fabricated (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

external links

Warren seem to have remove many external links and claim they are WP:EL Illegal Operation (talk) 22:30, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "as of January 2008" belongs in the sentence? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hate "as of"s. The article is always kept up-to-date, we don't need any other temporal reference point. --soum ^talk 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

needs updating —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.94.249 (talk) 11:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

"Whistler"

it says that server 2003 was codenamed Whistler but, no, whistler was windows me...not sure whether or not to fix it myself so im putting it on here ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.163.155 (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Whistler was the codename for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. [1] Windows Me was codenamed Millennium. [2] - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Windows Server 2003 codename was Windows Server .Net 85.140.110.22 (talk) 09:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it was codenamed Whistler, then they decided to name it Windows .NET Server, then changed their minds and named it Windows Server 2003. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Picture"

Is it me or is the image EXACTLY the same as windows vista? --Ashleyfagan (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.179.50 (talk) 21:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Read the image caption. hat lists the differences. --soum ^talk 01:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Your are wrong, Soumyasch. The caption does not describe any differences between Longhorn(Codename for Vista) and Seven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

He wasn't wrong when he made that comment, five months ago - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you look? He is wrong because the new features are irrevelant to this image. Anyway, what are you two talking about?209.155.146.2 (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The image has been updated since then. See. They were talking about the difference between Windows 7 and Vista screenshots, but now we're debating the "wrong"-ness of this ancient conversation. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

This article needs Updating

Has the name changed from Windows 7 to Windows fiji? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltadom (talk • contribs) 11:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Fiji is a made-up version falsely rumored to come between Windows Vista and Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiji is the upcoming update to Media Center that replaces the remaining XP-style interface parts with the new Vista-style interfaces. As far as I know, we do not know when it is coming out, but it will at some point. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 19:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any references on this? Otherwise it is really just idle speculation and rumour. - Ahunt (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott has said this several times. His latest mention is here. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody at Microsoft has ever, -ever- used the name Fiji to describe an operating system release in a public sense. It's the result of unsubstantiated rumours + the Internet echo chamber. -/- Warren 20:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Fiji is just the next update for Media Center, which (except for last year) has had an update every year since its original release. The Windows Weekly podcast talks about Fiji some -- Episode 60 at 27:20. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 04:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I said name is blogger speculation. -/- Warren 23:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Screenshots

Someone just removed the screenshots from the article, claiming they're "not reliable" because they "are depicting a product still in dev." Well, that's exactly what Windows 7 is right now. Its a product still in development. Hence, the screenshots are appropriate for the time being. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Reverted. Althepal (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Sinofsky interview and MinWin

The Sinofsky interview does not confirm anything about MinWin, either way. MinWin never was a "new" kernel (it was bloggers who hyped it to be so); it was the plain old NTOS kernel (see the Russinovich interview) packaged in an extremely modular way. Compare that with what Sinofsky said: "Contrary to some speculation, Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7. Rather, we are refining the kernel architecture and componentization model introduced in Windows Vista". It seems both are stating pretty much the same thing. Interpreting Sinfosky's comments to mean that MinWin doesn't feature in Windows 7 is pretty much bloggers' and tech journalists' spin on it. We need better sources that that to authoritatively claim that there is no MinWin in Windows 7. At best we can say that due to MS not being "transparent" enough, there is still a lot of confusion whether MinWin is a part of Windows 7 or not. With that, we can also avaoid taking an authoritative stance on either side of the fence. --soum ^talk 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

About the only interesting detail from the Sinofsky interview was that they are planning on full compatibility with Vista drivers, and are targetting the same system requirements. The rest of it was... boring... -/- Warren 23:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This entire controversy stems from a misunderstanding of what exactly they were trying to prove with MinWin... that underneath all the Windows bloat there was actually a fairly lightweight core. It has nothing to do with compartmentalization or modularization in Windows 7. Therefore, according to the people who demoed it themselves, MinWin is a proof-of-concept that has nothing to actually do with real Windows development except to show what is underneath it all and has no plans for productization. In reality the Windows 7 kernel is going to be exactly what Steven was talking about, taking the Windows Server 2008 kernel (not the striped down MinWin microkernel) and compartmentalizing and streamlining it further but making few enough changes to preserve full backwards compatibility, or adding a revamped compatibility/emulation layer in the vein of an enhanced WinSxS that uses some form of emulation of older Operating systems through an integrated Hyper-V like system (which is a planned feature). A. S. Castanza 04:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thats totally the way you understand it. And you are not a reliable source, sorry.

• "That underneath all the Windows bloat there was actually a fairly lightweight core" - NTOS kernel has always has been pretty lightweight (its less than 5 megs). The MinWin effort is to manage and streamline code dependencies, not streamline functionality.
• "It has nothing to do with compartmentalization or modularization in Windows 7" - you are saying that despite Eric Traut's comment in the demo that what he was demoing is the heart of Windows 7 (or something like that, I do not remember the exact wording). Unless you have a reliable source claiming that MinWin has nothing to do with Windows 7 (with specific references to the term MinWin), Eric Traut will always trump you.
• "Therefore, according to the people who demoed it themselves ... has no plans for productization" - the article doesn't ever claim that MinWin was going to be a stand-alone product. And unless you can provide a very specific reference that it is not even going to be in Windows 7, it is just your interpretation and original and unverifiable research.
• "In reality the Windows 7 kernel is going to be exactly what Steven was talking about, taking the Windows Server 2008 kernel (not the striped down MinWin microkernel)" - Like I said, MinWin was never a new kernel, it was just an evolution of the NOTS kernel, the latest public version of which is in Windows Server 2008/Windows Vista SP1. And it has always been a microkernel (though later it gained parts of the graphics stack to become a hybrid kernel, but that technically was a separate driver that ran in kernel mode, and not something intrinsic to the NTOS kernel.
• "and compartmentalizing and streamlining it further" - isn't that what the MinWin effort is all about - streamlining dependencies to make it compartmentalized?
• "or adding a revamped compatibility/emulation layer in the vein of an enhanced WinSxS that uses some form of emulation of older Operating systems through an integrated Hyper-V like system (which is a planned feature)" - you have a source for anything you said here? Unless you do, its your original research, and OR/personal interpretation has no room in Wikipedia. --soum ^talk 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"This is the core of Windows 7.", about 3:31 into [3] - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason he said that is because they built MinWin OUT OF the core of Windows 7, which he clearly states in the video. The kernel section of this article infers that its the other way around, which is not true. Hence the change i want to make to clear that misconception up (See my above comment). A. S. Castanza 15:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved my comment (and your response to it) back where I left it, in order to show what I was responding to. Please don't move other people's comments with no explanation. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, so you are a what, mind reader, now? Just by seeing a demo you know the reason why the presenter said something? <end sarcasm> Coming back to the article, "The reason he said that is because they built MinWin OUT OF the core of Windows 7, which he clearly states in the video" - no it is NOT clearly stated in it. He says "This is the core of Windows 7" (this was the quote I was referring to earlier, thanks Josh for pointing it out). The "this" is ambiguous. "The kernel section of this article infers that its the other way around, which is not true" - may I point you to WP:TRUTH, which in a nutshell says that Wikipedia does not give a damn abouth truth. Only that what it says MUST be verifiable by means of citations to reliable sources. You have not provided a single reliable citation backing up your claims that "it is not true" and failing that it is just the way you interpret it and as such it is of no consequence to Wikipedia. On the other hand, it is verifiable by means of the citations provided that MinWin is the kernel in Windows 7. And that verifiability does (and will always) trump any of your own interpretations. Provide reliable sources that say unambiguously that MinWin isn't the Windows 7 kernel (and no, it must not put words to the sources' mouth, like what may analyses did with the Sinofsky interview: he never mentioned MinWin, but the reporters assumed it was). Nothing short of such a source will work. No amount of analyses, argumnets or whatever you provide will be regarded unless you provide a source. --soum ^talk 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are completely IGNORING a where he said VERY SPECIFICALLY that they took the part of the source code to build MinWin FROM Windows 7, what part of that do you not understand. You MUST stop taking his "This is the core of Windows" statement out of context (which you are). "MinWin" is an ARBIRARY NAME for a cleaned up packaged standalone version of the core of Windows, that does NOT mean it is directly the kernel being used in Windows 7, it is a Derivative of it. A. S. Castanza 19:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

MinWin/Win7 Secn break

What Eric said is that "[MinWin] is a set of components that they had taken out of Windows 7". All this is, the incorrect assumption of a few journalists that they were building Windows 7 off of this, in reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it. Thats all it is. A. S. Castanza 12:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So you don;t remember exactly what he said? Here are some direct quotes from the Eric Trout demo: "... Making sure we had a clear architectural layer there" read it again for emphasis, thats all they are doing with MinWin "And created what we call MinWin. This is internal only, we WONT be productizing this" Therefore it WILL NOT be productized as Windows 7. Quote from the very end "Thats kinda proof that there is a pretty nice little core inside Windows" ie: its a proof of concept. Hows that for proof. A. S. Castanza 13:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Also he said at the very end again "we don't have any productization plans for this, but we will be using this internally to build the other products biased off of windows... We build a lot of products biased off this kernel" So as you can clearly see, Windows 7 is not biased of of MinWin, it is in fact the other way around. A. S. Castanza 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If building Windows 7 on MinWin would be productizing MinWin, then so would building any other products on MinWin, and your above quote would be a clear self contradiction. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

maybe I should have made it more clear that Eric said that it would "Be along time before we see any development biased of this kernel" as for now they have no immediate productization plans, and considering they are developing Windows 7 right now, his quotes do not contradict themselves in reference to the immediate and current development on Windows 7. Also the only dispute i have with the kernel section of the Windows 7 article is this "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7." line should be changed to "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, was developed from the codebase of Windows 7 in order to demonstrate ongoing development efforts and to aid development on future projects." which is a perfectly reasonable change in line with all known facts and fully fits with Eric's presentation. A. S. Castanza 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How about "Microsoft developed a minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, from the codebase of Windows 7, in order to make sure it had a 'clean architectural layer.'", sticking with what they say it was made for? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be perfect, it doesn't specifically say that MinWin is the Windows 7 kernel but that it was developed from it, which is inline with Eric Trout's presentation and all the other reliable sources on the subject. If we can agree to replace: "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7." with your suggestion: "Microsoft developed a minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, from the codebase of Windows 7, in order to make sure it had a 'clean architectural layer." my objections would be completely satisfied. A. S. Castanza 16:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)@Castanza "In reality its the other way around, they took early work on Windows 7, pulled these components out of it and isolated it" - I am saying it again for the billionth time now - REALITY DOES NOT MATTER HERE, VERIFIABILITY DOES. A lot of citations have been provided to verify that Win 7 is based on MinWin. But that it is "the other way round" is based only on your interpretation. THAT IS NOT ENOUGH. All we are asking for is a reliable source that says the same. May be what is currently in the article isn't correct, or may be it is. But it is verifiable - the Paul Thurott article specifically links MinWin and Windows 7 - and that is what Wikipedia requires. Provide a better citation that refutes the same and it can be included.

@Josh, no it would create even more problems. Specifically, it would take out its relation with Windows 7 and make it lacking any context whatsoever. --soum ^talk 16:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Eric Trout SPECIFICALLY says MULTIPLE TIMES that MinWin was pulled OUT of Windows 7, Eric Trout trumps Paul Thurott. Also Josh's alternative sentence cements MinWins place in this article by clarifying that it is in fact a derivative of Windows 7. A. S. Castanza 16:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. S. Castanza (talk • contribs)

Besides, Josh's alternate fits with what you said at the very top of this discussion "At best we can say that due to MS not being "transparent" enough, there is still a lot of confusion whether MinWin is a part of Windows 7 or not. With that, we can also avoid taking an authoritative stance on either side of the fence." His sentence fits with that goal. ~removed part of my comment that was out of line~ A. S. Castanza 16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thats your point of argument. Sure go ahead. No one is objecting to that.

The objection here is stating that MinWin isn't the kernel of Windows 7. Just because the MinWin developers started off with the Windows 7 source (the way it existed at that time) does not mean the modifications were not made in the Windows tree itself or that the changes haven't been merged into the Windows 7 tree.

They probably did merge the changes back in, but there is no verifiable evidence of this. Though i agree that it most likely did happen. A. S. Castanza 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is my point of objection. MinWin may have been developed independently, based off the Windows 7 source. But saying that Windows 7 IS NOT BASED ON MinWin is controversial enough to require a pretty canonical source. I guess all your confusion stems from a misuderstanding of my use of the word "based on" (I wrote the section under discussion here). Based on wasn't used to convey that MinWin source was morphed into Windows 7 kernel, but that Windows 7 uses MinWin as the most important component that makes Windows 7 an OS. In other words, MinWin provides the "base" functionality on which Windows 7 builds the user space.

Yes, but MinWin is just the name for the Modified kernel that was cloned over from the Windows 7 Code base that was made to be standalone, While the Windows 7 kernel is basically the same code it is not MinWin becasue MinWin was an arbitrary name for that single standalone project. A. S. Castanza 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"Also Josh's alternative sentence cements MinWins place in this article by clarifying that it is in fact a derivative of Windows 7" - that makes it only tangentially related to Windows 7. An article talks about things that are (a part of) the subject (in this case, Windows 7). Things tangentially related belong in other articles - maybe their own. That was what I was referring to here. --soum ^talk 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

If what is said about "MinWin" also being the name for 2008 server core (below) then it is likely (but not provable yet) that this MinWin will have something to do with Server 7, in Which case it would belong in that article. A. S. Castanza 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"...and Eric trout clearly states that it was pulled FROM the Windows 7 code base" - I hope you are not interpreting "pulled from" to mean "removed from". It could very well mean "derived from". --soum ^talk 17:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What Eric trout says is that they took the core components from Windows 7 to build MinWin (I don't mean they removed them from windows 7, more along the lines of they cloned over the code, i thought i made that clear but i guess i was mistaken) And isolated them into MinWin. Sence they DID borrow the kernel from Windows 7 (as Eric Traut said) than Windows 7 could not possibly be biased off of it as they already had Windows 7 to pull from. So far there is Zero evidence that changes made to the kernel that was borrowed to make MinWin were ever grafted back into the Windows kernel build tree, though that is the likely course of action. A. S. Castanza 18:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

According to Microsoft Norway, MinWin and Windows 7 are two diffrent projects. See this page and search for MinWin: http://google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.digi.no%2Fphp%2Fart.php%3Fid%3D774246&hl=no&ie=UTF8&sl=no&tl=en. "Zakariassen believe in the first place is not that Windows 7 will be based on MinWin." The rest of the translation is worse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.3.236 (talk)

Minwin is in Server 2008

Well, now this is interesting. It's an interview with a PM on the Server Core team from a few months ago, who is very explicit in saying that Minwin is actually in Windows Server 2008. Go to about 2 minutes in to the video. -/- Warren 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Which MinWin is he talking about? The Server Core MinWin or the Eric Traut MinWin? Russinovich did say they are different. Or is there a third MinWin now? --soum ^talk 17:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He's pretty clear about MinWin being the kernel of Server Core. Between all the sources we have, it sounds to me like MinWin is name of the ongoing effort at Microsoft to separate out the dependencies in Windows, and that's it. We already know that some of this work is in Vista, and now we know that the name is being applied to work that was done for Server 2008. -/- Warren 17:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

@Castanza, this pretty much invalidates your claim ""A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, was developed from the codebase of Windows 7 in order to demonstrate ongoing development efforts and to aid development on future projects." --soum ^talk 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually i would say that it validates my claim (with a few minor changes) Its just that its not the first time a "MinWin" has been developed, This is a different MinWin. The MinWin we have now is a reused code name, At least thats what the general consensus is. If the Eric Traut MinWin did become server core, than none of what he said about MinWin's derivitory relationship to Windows 7 is true (which it is), therefore there must me more than one "MinWin" which would mean that MinWin is a standard internal name used to refer to MINimal installations of WINdows. Leading to the statement that what they are doing here is exactly the same as what they did with the 2008 server core except for Windows Server 7 if you remember the demonstration it was running a basic HTTP server.... A. S. Castanza 18:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Server Core uses exactly the same kernel as the standard Server 2008 install. The only difference is in the stuff that's layered on top. -/- Warren 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Than it is fairly obvious that these are two different MinWins. A. S. Castanza 21:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That there are two different MinWins and that MinWin is a reused codename was confirmed by Russinovich long back. One of them became server core, the other was what was demoed by Eric. But now the server core PM says server core is separate from MinWin. This is whats causing the confusion. Is this third MinWin (the one thats in Server Core, but not Server Core) same as the Server Core MinWin that Russinovich talked about? Or is it the Eric Traut MinWin? Or a third variant?

With so many MinWins coming to the forefront, I am inclined to believe that there is only one MinWin, and the different things we are seeing is the state of the deliverables at different stages in the development of MinWin. It started long before Windows 7 (if it has to be in Server 2008) and won't probably end with Windows 7 either.

Coming back to how to tackle the thing in the article. Since the goals of MinWin and those of the Windows 7 kernel are same (reduce dependencies), the description need not be altered. Just that we should not mention either MinWin as being the Windows 7 kernel or that MinWin was carved off from Windows 7 or Windows 7 was built off MinWin. We describe the goals of the kernel development and then throw in the MinWin bit as: "Another ongoing development project at Microsoft, known as MinWin, aims to componentize the Windows kernel and reduce the dependencies with a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory usage. However, it is not known whether the Windows 7 kernel is a derivative of the MinWin kernel or not". Or something similar. --soum ^talk 04:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be OK with this "Another ongoing development project at Microsoft, known as MinWin, aims to componentize the Windows kernel and reduce the dependencies with a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory usage. However, it is not known whether the Windows 7 kernel is a derivative of the MinWin kernel or not" Instead of "A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7." though i do think "Another ongoing development project at Microsoft, known as MinWin, aims to componentize the Windows kernel and reduce the dependencies with a view to carving out the minimal set of components required to build a self-contained kernel as well as reducing the disk footprint and memory usage. However, the exact relationship between the MinWin kernel and the Windows 7 kernel is not currently known" sounds better from a purely grammatical standpoint and does not change the meaning of the sentence in any way, though this rewording is not a requirement for me to back this change. If there are no further disagreements, I think we might just have a consensus, at least until further information develops. A. S. Castanza 05:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not just Andrew on that page is bringing this up, but also Eric Traut of MS here (please read that article carefully too, I think it's useful to tell what MinWin is and isn't -- it's especially not a product to at some date be integrated with Windows 7 or future versions of Windows). So since Windows Server 2008 uses a MinWin-esque kernel (presumably for the new Core functionality), I believe that's why Windows 7 will build on those ideas as well, perhaps with further improvements to it. I'm not sure we should treat "MinWin" as a "product" they're working on to at some date replace the typical NT kernel, but rather an ongoing effort that may have started with Windows Server 2008 and proceeded into the Windows 7 timeframe, and that's why it's coming up again here with Windows 7. And that's why Windows Server 2008 actually already parts of it, as verified by official Microsoft sources. — Northgrove 11:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have added quotes from Microsoft's June 2008 white paper and also from Kennedy that shows that MinWin is definitely not going to be part of Windows 7, if indeed that was ever the plan. I have left the early part of the Kernel section intact for now, but it really looks like too much text on MinWin, if it is not going to be part of Windows 7. I think it needs reducing to a minimum, if not removed entirely. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The document you provided as a reference doesn't state that Windows 7 won't use MinWin. You made that part up. MinWin is an ongoing project within the kernel team that is a a restructuring of the existing Windows kernel to reduce dependencies on higher-level components. Some of this work is already in Server 2008, and we have that on-record from a project manager at Microsoft; how could Windows 7 not include MinWin? They'd have to regress the kernel by about two years in order to remove it! -/- Warren 23:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

No I did not make that up. Please read WP:Civil before you assume bad faith on the part of other editors.

On the subject of the Vista kernel being part of Windows Seven, aside from the Microsoft white paper entitled The Business Value of Windows Vista which says:

It is a goal of the Windows 7 release to minimize application compatibility [issues] for customers who have deployed Windows Vista since there was considerable kernel and device level innovation in Windows Vista. The Windows 7 release is expected to have only minor changes in these areas.

I would suggest you read Randell C Kennedy of InfoWorld who, having read the paper and interviewed the Windows Seven team at Microsoft states:

Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed - at least on the enterprise desktop. What Microsoft's aging (in the U.S., NT is almost old enough to vote) OS needed was a heart transplant. What it got was a new name, a fresh change of clothes and an A.M.A. discharge from the ER.

You will probably also want to read Kennedy's The myth of "MinWin" and a thinner Windows 7 published on June 2, 2008 where he says:

Urban legends are strange creatures. Even when they're exposed for what they are - tall tales seemingly "legitimized" through frequent retelling -- people continue to believe the lie.

Case in point: "MinWin." For months, so-called industry "experts" were speculating that Microsoft would make a clean break with Windows 7 -- that core elements of the OS would be rewritten from the ground up and that backwards compatibility would be relegated to the domain of virtual machines and emulation.

Central to this theory was "MinWin." Citing the now infamous "Eric Traut demo," they claimed as fact that Microsoft was retooling the Windows kernel to make it lighter and less monolithic. Never mind that doing so would likely break the entire Windows hardware/software ecosystem. "MinWin" was the future. It was new. It was "cool." And as any industry media professional will tell you, it's the "cool" new technologies that drive page views.

Of course, now we know better. The whole "MinWin" bubble burst last week when, through various Microsoft web postings and interview comments, it was revealed that Windows 7 would in fact be more akin to "Windows Vista Second Edition": An evolutionary update that builds upon the existing NT 6.x kernel architecture as manifested in Windows Vista.

Undaunted, the "MinWin" true believers continue to cling to the legend. "If not Windows 7, then some future version," they say. "MinWin is coming." In fact, it could be here "today" if Microsoft would just "strip away all the user-mode bloat they've tacked onto Vista and its derivatives."

Kennedy's article contains more, is worth reading and is pivotal to the current accuracy and usefulness of this article.

Now the question is: are we going to be able to reflect this in the article, or are "the "MinWin" true believers going to continue to cling to the legend?" as Kennedy says?- Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this source is that its his *interpretation*, which does not make it a fact. Read the discussion above. Microsoft never said there won't be a MinWin in Win7. They only said there isn't going to be a new kernel. You can interpret it both ways - like Kennedy equated the new kernel with MinWin or one can say that MinWin was never going to be a new kernel (which btw, it wasn't; despite whatever Kennedy says, cleaning up the dependences does not break backward compatibility; keep the external API same, the new kernel will behave in the exact same way as the old one did). None of the interpretations become fact though. So despite what Kennedy wrote, we are still stuck at square one. We Don't Know. --soum ^talk 06:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if the answer is "abject confusion" then, because this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article and avoid speculation, perhaps the article needs to either say that there is "no information" and leave it at that or else indicate the different positions. The danger with the latter is making it not read like the National Enquirer. Whether you take Microsoft's paper as Kennedy has (he states in his article that he has confirmed with Microsoft that there is no MinWin in W7 have a look at more recent writing from him at Intervention: How to salvage Windows 7 and Windows 7: R.I.P.) or believe the earlier reports that there is, the article needs amending. As it stands it doesn't reflect what we know, even if that is to say that "we don't know". - Ahunt (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You're banking too much on this Kennedy fellow actually knowing what he talks about. He sounds like a self-aggrandising, loudmouthed blowhard to me. Given that he can't get the name of Windows 2000 Professional right, and he's linking to www.xpnet.com for benchmarks, whose benchmark methodologies have been thoroughly rejected by actual experts, and he's saying that Windows 2000 was the first version to support SMP, which isn't at all true.... and, more to the point here, he claims that MinWin is a research project, which we've already disproven with reliable sources (people on the Windows team) saying that MinWin is actually in Windows Server 2008, and that the work is ongoing.

You really have to take a step back from what the advertising-supported journalists are saying, and look at their sources. If a journalist claims an "anonymous source at Microsoft", ignore it. If they make a claim not fully backed up by their sources, ignore it. Most importantly, though: Don't assume that a journalist knows anything about software development. Microsoft has been pretty clear in stating that MinWin is the name of a project in the Windows team to reduce dependencies inside the Windows kernel. They've never described it as a "new kernel", therefore any claims that Windows 7 "won't have a new kernel after all" are all based on journalists' misunderstandings of how software development works. -/- Warren 17:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if you don't like what Kennedy has said than there are lots of other IT writers talking and writing about about what last week's white paper The Business Value of Windows Vista said. Many of them are calling up the key people at Microsoft and writing about what they have been told. A good example is Mary-Jo Foley of ZDNet, a pretty reliable source. On June 2nd, 2008 she wrote an article entitled MinWin: Is it or isn’t it part of Windows 7?. The whole item is fairly short and worth reading. Here are a few quotes:

Confusion over exactly what MinWin is — Is it a concept? a new operating system kernel? a floor wax? a dessert topping?) — and how/whether it will be part of Windows 7 is still rampant, a week after Microsoft “communicated” about Windows 7 via a Q&A with News.com.

The official word from Microsoft’s Windows Engineering Chief Steven Sinofsky seems to be that MinWin — the slimmed-down Windows core many expected to be at the heart of Windows 7 — is not going to be part of Windows 7.

Here’s what Sinofsky said (and didn’t say) about MinWin last week: Sinofsky: “We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you’ve been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.”

Again, it would be nice if Microsoft’s Windows client team would just come out with a clear statement as to what MinWin is and how it will figure with Windows 7. But it seems it’s not time to communicate that message yet… at least not according to the official (non)disclosure schedule.

What I am continuing to get from all the writers who are talking to Microsoft's dev team is somewhere between "MinWin is not going to be part of Windows 7" to "MinWin is the Vista kernel" to "abject confusion". This Wikipedia article still does not reflect the state of what we know for certain about Windows 7, there is still too much unsubstantiated rumour and wishful thinking for an encyclopedia article. If we don't know that the article should say that we don't know. - Ahunt (talk) 19:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The word from Sinofsky seems to be. Important qualification there, don't you think, Ahunt? Mary-Jo Foley is reporting on an interview conducted by Ina Fried, and is interpreting it, i.e. she is providing her own opinion. She, along with a number of other journalists, originally believed that Windows 7 would have a "new kernel", because they heard about MinWin and believed that it was something more than it actually is.

Foley has clearly missed the presentation I linked in my initial comment here from the Windows Server PM (Mason) who states, quite clearly, with a diagram and everything, that MinWin is in Server 2008. Ignore the part of Foley's statement where she wonders what it is -- we have come across a reliable source that she hasn't. Foley's word isn't gospel. Neither is Kennedy's or Thurrott's or Zheng's for that matter -- what matters is what Microsoft people say. If someone at Microsoft says "MinWin is in Server 2008" at the time of Server 2008's release, and someone else at Microsoft says "Windows 7 builds on the Server 2008 kernel" a few months after Server 2008's release, then it is a very safe assumption that the MinWIn work is in Windows 7. Nobody at Microsoft has said it isn't. If anyone has forgotten what MinWin is, go watch the interviews with Russinovich and Mason again. Warren -talk- 07:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this all continues to at best add up to "not enough reliable information for an encyclopedia article". I propose therefore that this section of the article therefore either quote a wide range of the conflicting information or else simply state that there is no reliable and verifiable information about the subject at present. As it stands the section of the article is not accurate - it lends great weight to some opinions that have been called into question.

For instance much of this section hangs on Eric Traut's comments who is quoted as saying:

“Now, this is an internal only - you won’t see us productizing this - but you could imagine this being used as the basis for products in the future. This is the Windows 7 source code base, and it’s about 25 megs on disk. Compare that to the four gigs on disk that the full Windows Vista takes up. We don’t have a graphics subsystem other than text in this particular build, so you can see that’s our Windows flag [referring to an ASCII art splash screen]."

“[I]t’ll be a while before you can build something directly on top of this really tiny core. … Like I said, we don’t have any productization plans for it. We’re definitely going to be using this internally to build all the products that are based on Windows."[4]

and ignores what Sinofsky said:

“We are going to build on the success and the strength of the Windows Server 2008 kernel, and that has all of this work that you’ve been talking about. The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well.”[5]

I am finding that this article is not well presenting the level of confusion and uncertainty about MinWin.

I realize it is an emotionally charged subject for some editors, because if Windows 7 does turn out to be just more Vista (only moreso) and not a new, faster, lightweight Windows, then as Kennedy well pointed out:

"Until now, I've been advising Vista fence-sitters to wait for Windows 7. However, last week's "big reveal," in which Microsoft finally confessed that Windows 7 will be nothing more than "Vista warmed over," has forced me to reconsider my position. I'm now more convinced than ever that Windows is doomed...".[6]

The point of the matter is that, while there are editors who would like to see Windows saved and might even shape this article to influence Microsoft's decision-making (yes Wikipedia is very influential, the media uses it as their first stop in many cases - Wikipedia articles have caused things to happen in the real world - see this article for an odd result of inaccurate information in Wikipedia) I believe that the article needs to reflect either the "diversity of opinion" on this matter or at least the "diversity of confusion" out there. It can't be as one-sided as it is at present. - Ahunt (talk) 11:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh blody hell. If you have to resort to accusing editors of editing with a pro-Microsoft bias, instead of addressing the point, then you may kindly shut your fucking mouth. What's with this "not enough information" bullshit? We have all the information we need.

You've completely failed to address the simple proposition I've laid out here. It's clear as a bell: MinWin is in Server 2008 (Mason); Windows 7 will have MinWin (Russinovich); Windows 7 is an evolution of Server 2008 (Sinofsky); and nobody at Microsoft has said Windows 7 doesn't contain the MinWin work. Therefore Windows 7 still contains MinWin. If you don't have any way of discrediting that, please, just lay off with the bullshit, and quit quoting people who don't even fucking know that the desktop version of Windows 2000 is called "Windows 2000 Professional", not "Windows 2000 Workstation". You should be extremely suspicious of your own stance if you have to go to people like that to inform you of anything. Don't trust them! Just don't!

If you really honestly believe that we need to write in an article about an operating system, about how some bloggers like Mary Jo Foley are boo-hoo-hoo confused about kernels, then you've lost the plot of what we're trying to accomplish on Wikipedia. Stay focused on describing the topic. Take an encyclopedic approach. Use reliable sources. Stick with verifiable claims. Warren -talk- 00:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Warren: Please read WP:Civil. This is no way to conduct yourself on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

He's right, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.97.76 (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not particularly, he is asserting that his OPINION is more right than anyone else's opinion, he is also defying and ignoring the majority stance on the subject, which is against the Wikipedia rules as well as verbally abusing editors (myself included on several occasions) for disagreeing with him and his opinions and assuming bad faith in their edits. If it were up to me, warren would be blocked from editing this article, unfortunately its not. The majority belief is that the MinWin piece should be modified and/or moved to its own stub should be carried out. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs a complete re-write anyway as it is just a complete jumble of data thrown together in an unorganized mess. I might have some time next week to get a mock up of a rewrite together (or if I'm lucky the complete rewrite). Oh and this talk section probably should get archived as well (considering it should be mutually agreeable that MinWin isn't in 7). TheSpeedster (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This book is out of date

According to source number 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pavel T (talk • contribs) 23:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Out of date

This article is out of date. It would be valid before the Release of Windows 7 M2, but now it is after the release and will need to be updated!Jasper Deng (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Jasper: Welcome to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia where you can add content to articles! A long as you have a reference that you can cite then please feel free to update the article. - Ahunt (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed External Links Section

I would like to propose an external links section to this article that contains the numberous sources disiminating Windows 7 information such as:

• allaboutmicrosoft.com
• istartedsomething.com
• shippingseven.blogspot.com
• windowsconnected.com
• winsupersite.com

while the information here is great, I think there is also value in people more readily finding these sources.

--Josh-H-Phillips (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is not to add lots of external links. See Wikipedia is not a repository of links and External links. Instead these sources should be used to find reliable information and then use them as references to write more text for the article. The key thing is the sources have to be reliable. Especially on a subject such as this, there is too much speculation and daydreaming in a lot of sources to make them reliable sources of information. - Ahunt (talk) 15:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be edited

With so many criticisms of this article and the fact that Windows 7 M2 hasn't been released in April or May 2008 this article needs a complete makeover. Those who watched the Windows 7 M2 video on Youtube haven't read that it is a fake. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The article is fine. Also, remember that Microsoft isn't "releasing" milestones of Windows 7; they're handing it out to individual partners (think ATI, Nvidia, Intel, etc.) so that they can try things out, sort out compatibility issues. M2 may very well be out there in the hands of testers, but talking about it would be a serious NDA breach, so we can't actually discuss M2 here. -/- Warren 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Minwin redirect

MinWin should not redirect to Windows 7 because Microsoft has confirmed it won't be included in the OS. --76.213.136.145 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

That is probably a good indication that the MinWin redirect page should changed into a separate article - Ahunt (talk)

No they haven't. Warren -talk- 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

i agree no redirect should be done. i looked up minwin and got windows 7 even though they are different.98.198.24.78 (talk) 16:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

New taskbar

The article says in the "Unveiling" section that "the build of Windows 7 which was on display had a new taskbar, which was double the normal size". Are you sure that this is new? The taskbar has been able to be expanded since at least Windows 98. In XP and Vista you have to unlock it first, but after that you can drag the top of the taskbar to make it larger. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a reference and changed it to what I believe is correct. Feel free to take a look. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 06:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Focus section

The Focus section contains too many unnecessarily detailed quotes on general improvement promises reflecting MS's vision. Since there aren't any details on actual shipping features, it should be written in reported speech and summarized. - xpclient ^Talk 08:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is any useful information in the focus section. Maybe it was required when nothing was known about windows 7 but it is not needed now. 87.112.72.59 (talk) 16:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows Kernel versus Windows Core Libraries

In the MinWin Section

I noticed someone changed kernel to "Components and Libraries" for the Windows API, and I'd say that this is partly correct, but the Win32 API doesn't run as the foundation for modern windows programs, the .NET Framework does(Currently in 3.5 Stable)

Not do mention that the Windows API is even older than the Win32 API. This article is becoming inconcise in the way it labels things.

The problem is that MinWin isn't in Windows 7. At all. It was just another Project that Microsoft put together like Singularity. Windows 7 Kernel is based on 2008's kernel (as was Vista's kernel based on 2003's, XP's based on an NT kernel etc). http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/05/27/communicating-windows-7.aspx That's straight from Microsoft. TheSpeedster (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're completely wrong. Read my earlier comments -- MinWin is already in shipping Windows releases. You will have a hell of a time finding anybody at Microsoft who has said "MinWin is not in Windows 7". Warren -talk- 04:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

*Sigh* please don't start this again, MinWin is (technically) in the Windows (Vista and 7) codebase But Windows (Vista and 7) is not built on MinWin. (At least I think thats what we finally got down to last time :S ). To eliminate this argument once and for all, I think we should move MinWin to its own separate stub, but leave a short blurb and a "See also: MinWin" (or whatever its supposed to be) under the MinWin heading. I think that this would be the best solution considering that both Server Core, and the MinWin that Eric Traut demoed were both called MinWin and have a (nearly) identical purpose. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 08:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. MinWin is not, in and of itself, the thing that Traut demonstrated. Don't get confused -- MinWin is not a variant of the Windows kernel with a command-prompt and a web server. It is a self-contained slice of the core of Windows that includes the HAL, networking, memory management, and other basic things. It doesn't include event logging or graphics or WMI or many other common Windows services. As Traut said, they aren't planning on shipping the MinWin work as its own product (like how the Linux or Mach kernels are available for download)... It's really just an engineering and code refactoring exercise to improve its internal modularity. This could allow them to phase out the Windows CE kernel, for example, and base all of their future operating systems on the same code base.

There are some interviews on Channel9 dating back to 2005 (like this one), and press interviews as far back as 2003 (like this one) where they talk about the necessity of this work being done. In the foyer of one of the buildings on the Microsoft campus, there was a very large display with boxes and lines detailing all the dependencies between the several thousand components of Windows. It looked like spaghetti. A lot of low-level components had dependencies on high-level components which made it impossible for Microsoft to build a small kernel.

According to Russinovich, the name "MinWin" was originally (ie. 2005, 2006) used to describe the layer that included all of Server Core. By the time Server Core was ready to ship, the thing called "MinWin" became a much smaller segment of the Windows kernel. That "smaller MinWin" work shipped with Server 2008 and Vista SP1, and a further progression of that was demonstrated in late 2007 by Traut. They are continuing to do dependency separation work, and Windows 7 (and perhaps future releases of Server 2008 and Vista?) will all be built on top of that work. This is why it's wrong to assert that MinWin isn't the basis for Windows 7. It must be -- they don't have any other choice! Warren -talk- 16:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this back up again, but MinWin isn't in 7. In the article I brought up, Flores says "Microsoft is not creating a new kernel for Windows 7." Sinofsky said "The key there is that the kernel in Windows Server 08 is an evolution of the kernel in Windows Vista, and then Windows 7 will be a further evolution of that kernel as well." Even Traut said "Windows 7 will not be the final name for any products based on this MinWin core." MinWin doesn't equal Windows 7's kernel, basically MinWin as we've seen it is bascially a completely stripped down kernel. Its a future project like Singularity. MinWin should have its own article explaining it. Also personally I would like to see a complete re-write of this 7 article, as well as the addition of a MinWin page. TheSpeedster (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Final name

When will the official final name of Windows 7 be confirmed?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

So far as we know, Windows 7 will be its final name. This however is subject to change. TheSpeedster (talk) 23:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Now, I'm not sure what the exact procedure is, but with the constant stream of vandalism that this article has been the subject of the past several weeks, I think it would be a very good idea to get this article partially protected, so that (at least some of) the vandalism stops. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Hard drive

Quote: "On May 21, 2008, Microsoft posted a job opening for Windows 7 regarding work to implement VHD support, i.e. support for single-file containers that represent an entire hard drive including partitions, and transparently performing I/O operations on this as a typical hard drive, including boot support. [32]"

Isn't that just like "mount -o loop" on linux which has been around since forever? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.141.241 (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep. More buzzwordy, though. BioTube (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is out of date

This article says nothing about M2 and M3. Most websites now say that the "screenshot" really is a modified version of Vista SP1Jasper Deng (talk) 04:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

All Windows 7 builds are going to be "modified versions of Vista SP1", just a bit more modified each time. Microsoft doesn't rewrite the OS from scratch each time. That said, if you have more up to date info than is currently in the article, go ahead and add it! -- simxp (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Release

there is no confirmation what so ever of any release date, the source cited gave an ambiguous statement of "Based on Vista, Windows 7 is expected to be released in January 2010"......this hardly seems to confirm anything, doesn't even sound like its what they are claimingRodrigue (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)....

Someone should update this

I found this news article last weekend. It talks about Windows 7 already at Milestone Build 3. Here is the news article: Windows 7 Looking Like a June 2009 Delivery —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.240.241.2 (talk) 17:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I updated the information, Although now I can't remove the citiation needed tag KB1KOI (talk)16:00 EDT 2008-09-15 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.136.176 (talk) 20:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should display the release date as June 3rd. In Windows 7 Looking Like a June 2009 Delivery they mention that Microsoft offically says they are still using the end of 2009 as a target. Bognan72 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft is going to hand out pre-beta builds at the Professional Developer Conference and the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference Windows Vista Team Blog

Thinknext.net notability

Is thinknext.net leaking screenshots really important enough to be mentioned in the article? - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Althepal (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, leaked screenshots and builds are how we learned most of what we did about Longhorn during its development... Warren -talk- 21:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, I don't think thinknext.net needs special mention. There were screenshots from many different places. Althepal (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that while the screens are useful, where they came from isn't very important, as long as they can be judged reliable. --Resplendent (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey now that we're using some new M3 screenshots, any chance we can talk about some changes he's observed? Like the lack of a dedicated sidebar? Also I think it'd be more important to show the start menu rather than Paint when we already have wordpad up there. (PS Judging from the screenshot is WordPad getting Office Word-like features or is it just me?) 76.248.11.149 (talk) 15:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The thinknext.net source needs to be changed anyway, as the blog post has been taken down. -mickiscoole ^Talk 01:25, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

contradictions

this article contradicts itself: "Release date: Expected June 3, 2009" vs. "Windows 7 is expected to be released in January 2010" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.58.64.83 (talk) 21:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The Jan 2010 figure was an older estimate. Althepal (talk) 23:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What is that blue thing on the right of the taskbar?

I saw the Windows 7 M3 screenshot, there is a blue thing on the right to the taskbar. What is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darremon (talk • contribs) 07:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you mean, but I can clearly see that the wallpaper is blue above the right of the taskbar. However I don't think there is anything special about it. It looks the same in Vista. Officec (talk) 12:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There's not a whole lot of public info about this build so I'm not sure if there's a source saying exactly what it is, but if I'd have to guess I'd say that it brings up the desktop gadgets. Althepal (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a button that is sort of like the current "Show Destktop" command, with one major difference. Hovering the mouse over it will make use of the new "Peek" aspect of Windows, making all currently open windows go transparent, allowing the user to see the desktop, and any gadgets displayed there. Clicking on the button will minimize all windows.

"Release date: Expected June 3, 2009"

Err... what?
Yes, I read the reference article. But come on, the tightest timeline I can think of is:
- Beta 1: now, mid October;
- Beta 2: mid January
- RC: April
- RTM: May
- public release: mid June
Being beta 1 "expected" at best for October 27, and the fact that MS declarations and "supported rumors" always oscillated between "early 2010"-"late 2009"-"3 years after Vista", there's no reason to really think this date is reliable.
Maybe their "internal roadmap" pointing to June 3 is the roadmap to RC, or who knows.
This looks to me like unsubstantiated rumors. Maybe it could be cited somewhere in the article, but not within the main info box.
--151.16.160.139 (talk) 09:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Build 6801 is out

Before anyone decides to edit the 6801 to 6780, here are images of build 6801. Also you will have notice that the build tag is not present.

http://winfuture.de/screenshots/Windows-7-Meilenstein-3-Build-6.1.6801-3540-1.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.129.53 (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rectangle

Does anyoune here no what the rectangle beside the taskbar is for? --Oli W 93 (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it's some kind of transparent rectangle which shows the wallpaper and functions as an easy way to show the desktop

I know this is very very premature, but...

...what will happen when the version numbers of Windows reach 95?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Since that will probably be sometime during the next 1-3 centuries, I wouldn't worry ;) --Resplendent (talk) 23:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Official Name

Apparently the final name for Windows 7 is Windows 7. http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/13/introducing-windows-7.aspx

--Resplendent (talk) 23:10, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Also here: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10064971-56.html. I've updated the article accordingly. You should also add your link ass a reference, since it's the official blog. Uturnaroun (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

What 7 windows?

How is this the 7th version of windows? There was 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 (3.1),95, 98, ME, 2000, XP, Vista... that would make w7 the 10th windows-11th if you inclued 3.1 . How is it the 7th?bob bobato (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

As stated at the top of the page, please put new text under old text. I moved this section to the bottom of the page.

There were two lines of Windows in the past: the old DOS/9x/ME line, and the new NT line. The versions were as follows:

• • DOS/9x/ME:
    • 1.0 = Windows 1.0
    • 2.0 = Windows 2.0
    • 3.x = Windows 3.x
    • 4.0 = Windows 95
    • 4.1 = Windows 98/98 SE
    • 4.9 = Windows ME
  • NT:
    • 3.x = Windows NT 3.x
    • 4.0 = Windows NT 4.0
    • 5.0 = Windows 2000
    • 5.1 = Windows XP
    • 5.2 = Windows Server 2003/XP x64
    • 6.0 = Windows Vista
    • 7.0 = Windows 7

Windows 7 is Windows NT 7.0, not necessarily the 7th version of Windows. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 16:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Not true. Windows 7 is technically Windows NT 6.1. The "7" is purely a marketing name and apparently has nothing to do with the actual version of Windows it is, as confusing as that may be. --Samvscat (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Its not even the 7th NT relese let alone NT 7. It will be 6.1 or 6.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.36.92.18 (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's rumored that its being numbered 6.1 to keep compatability, and that at the final release it will be changed to 7.0, but until then we can only speculate Redekopmark (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe that they'd publicly name it version 7 - despite there being no obvious continuity where it has 6 predecessors - and then not call it 7.0 internally. But who knows.

Actually, it now occurs to me that it could also be seen as the 7th release in the Windows NT line, as follows: NT 3, NT 4, 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, 7.

See User:IMSoP/Winver for a table of the various releases and version numbers. - IMSoP (talk) 00:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

BETA 1

The article says, the first beta will release in december, but on some sites (also on german wiki) i read it's already on october 28th (next week). Do you know wether this date might be correct? --Oli W 93 (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

October 28th is during the Professional Developers Conference. They plan to give a pre-beta build to PDC attendees. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I've just ridden a headline (winfuture.de) referring to this. The PDC-version will be a re-release of build 6801. The past release of the same was modified so that some new features were hidden. And these features will be activated then. --Oli W 93 (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit speculative, don't you think? The PDC is a week away, still... Warren -talk- 14:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Windows 7 initial summary needs a rewrite.

"Windows 7 (formerly codenamed Blackcomb and Vienna) is the next version of Microsoft Windows and the successor to Windows Vista.[3][4] Microsoft has stated that it is "scoping Windows 7 development to a three-year timeframe", and that "the specific release date will ultimately be determined by meeting the quality bar."[5]"

I am new to this discussion, but it seems to me - that the first few paragraphs describing this entry are not clear to most prospective audiences.

I did edit partially the introduction - through deletion - but I would encourage the regular editors of this entry to return to this entry's summary from a "first look" experience of someone coming in from a mainstream "tech section" newspaper audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chilicheez (talk • contribs) 05:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Windows 7 was also a code name

Why is Windows 7 not mentioned as a code name? The reason that the product was named as Windows 7 (same as the code name) doesn't mean that Windows 7 was never a code name.

Mugunth^{(ping me!!!,contribs)} 06:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It is: - Windows 7#History. Writing "Windows 7 (formerly codenamed Windows 7)" is silly, as it does not need to be clarified that Windows 7 is still sometimes referred to by its old codename "Windows 7". - Josh (talk | contribs) 12:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

External Link

“ PLEASE NOTE: Per Wikipedia's content policies, this article not a venue for advertising your web site or discussion forum about Windows 7. Any such links that are added to this page will be speedily removed. ”

I don't see why this should be the case; I propose "s e v e n u s e r.com" to be added to the external links as it provides and consolidates news from around the web and, in some cases removing jargon and making it easier for people to understand. The content is relevant to this article and would be purely in the interest of expanding the user's knowledge of this topic.

What do you think?

SomeCallMe 1 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that website does not qualify to be added to external links because it does not meet the Wikipedia External Link Guidelines detailed at WP:LINKSTOAVOID. Specifically it does not meet the following requirements, because it is:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. (it adds nothing of value to the article)

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming. (it is added to send traffic to the website)

5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. (The site has Google ads and I surmise that it needs traffic to justify the advertising.)

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists. (The site is a blog)

11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies). (ditto)

WP:LINKSPAM says: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."

This proposed website adds nothing to the article and the link is only useful to promote the website. There literally hundreds of similar websites that can lay equal claim to being on the article page, which is why the note was put there in the first place.

Question for User:SomeCallMe 1: since you added this website [7] and removed a competative one [8] are you in anyway affiliated with this website you are proposing here?- Ahunt (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am affiliated with the website, and yes I did remove another website from the links - only because that is the current rule, wouldn't you have done the same? To prove that I am not just promoting the site for advertising money I have removed the adverts. However, this site does contain more information that is on this article, I can see why you think that it would be deemed irrelevant as the information offered by the site could be contained in the article - but not videos or screenshots. Plus articles on the site can and have gone into more detail than would be necessary for a wiki article. As mentioned, this would be purely in the interest of expanding the readers knowledge of the topic, so therefore I think a link to even a page of screenshots would be justifiable, I will add the link in the meantime and monitor how the situation develops. Thank you for your understanding.

SomeCallMe 1 (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you are affiliated with the website, please read WP:COI and refrain from putting links to it into this article. As explained on that page you need to post your request here on the article talk page, which you have done, and then get consensus from the other editors on this page, which you don't have, and then they will put the link into the article if the consensus is that it is justified. - Ahunt (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, I will wait for consensus and opinions from fellow editors. Can I ask what your opinion on the situation is? SomeCallMe 1 (talk) 11:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I expressed my opinion above, I don't think it belongs here for the policy reasons cited. I also think if this link were included we would have hundreds of similar ones added very quickly. Let's see if anyone else thinks it should be included. - Ahunt (talk) 11:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Ahunt for all the listed reasons above. We don't need any external links to blogs. They don't add anything to the information that a official link, or even a featured community link would provide. TheSpeedster (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ballmer says it's better

A quote of Microsoft's CEO stating that the new product is better than the old one is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting opinion, although I disagree. Can you explain how is it not appropriate? - Ahunt (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It does nothing to help the reader understand Windows 7. It merely points out Ballmer's opinion, that the difference between Windows Vista and Windows 7 is that the latter is "a lot better". This isn't "confirm[ing] the relationship" between the two; it's confirming his opinion of it. Ballmer expressing disappointment in Windows might be notable, but liking your product is too usual to note. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason that I originally included this quote was not to point out that Ballmer likes Windows Seven or even that he says it will be better than Vista. I agree that isn't all that surprising that the CEO would say nice things about the company's product. The key thing about this quote, and this is the first time that it seems anyone in authority at Microsoft has clearly said this, is that he "confirmed the relationship between Vista and Windows 7", that Windows 7 is an improved version of Vista and not something all-new. I believe that is very important to this article, especially given the past history of "MinWin" and other beliefs that 7 would be something revolutionary, rather than evolutionary. The article doesn't seem to currently deal with the relationship between Vista and 7, although at one time in the past it did. I believe that this quote, very clear and from the very top, unambiguously clarifies that. - Ahunt (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to state that in the form of a quote? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No, probably not. How about something like "Ballmer confirmed the relationship between Vista and Windows 7, indicating that Windows 7 will be an improved version of Vista." ? - Ahunt (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just to move this along I have made that change - see what you think. - Ahunt (talk) 11:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Two builds

According to Paul Thurott, there are two new builds: the one distributed at PDC and one that was only demonstrated. Be sure not to get these confused when writing and adding references. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Two builds? Where on earth did all of these come from? 6.1.6926.winmain.081009-1855, 6.1.6932.winmain.081017-1835, 6.1.6933.winmain.081020-1842, 6.1.6935.winmain.081022-1857,

There are builds of Windows 7 compiled every day. The main builds that were demonstrated at PDC were 6801 (the released build) and 6933 (the demo build.) Same thing happened with the Longhorn/Vista branch at PDC and WinHEC TheSpeedster (talk) 02:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8