Published: Monday 23rd February, 2009 | Author: Parm Mann
Products: Windows 7
Companies: Microsoft (All Microsoft content)
External reviews: Microsoft Windows 7
printer friendly layout 
discuss in the forums 
email to a friendDespite Microsoft's reluctance to expand on its Windows 7 release time frame of roughly three years after Vista, many in the industry believe its flagship operating system could be readily available in time for the 2009 holiday season.
Adding to the Windows 7 rumour mill, the folks at Neowin claim a source within Microsoft has confirmed that a release candidate will be launched on April 10th. The significance is that Microsoft is expected to follow the current beta release with only one release candidate, followed finally by the completed retail release.
Although further details are non-existent and Microsoft has thus far opted not to comment, an April 10 launch of the Windows 7 RC could hint at a retail launch before the end of the year. Looking back, Microsoft's current flagship operating system - Windows Vista - reached retail just three months after the launch of its final release candidate. Should a similar time frame be applicable to Windows 7, it could, in theory, be in stores as early as July.
It is, of course, strictly speculation, but we're sticking with our early prediction; Windows 7 could be just months away.
Copyright © 1998 - 2010, HEXUS.net. All rights reserved. Terms, conditions and privacy information.
HEXUS® is a registered trademark of HEXUS Limited.
2010, the year of...
IE7 Search
Firefox 2 Search
HEXUS.community :: your right2reply
To pick up a few comments:
JackUK: At certain pricepoints an extra £10 on RAM could make a big difference to marketability, and "just buy two sticks" isn't an option on some platforms (e.g. mini-ITX, netbook, all-in-one).
Ok, if its not possible to add two sticks of 1GB in, put one stick of 2GB instead (if running a budget processor this usually means lower FSB which means slower ram speed which = cheaper). My point is that ram is now at a good enough price so that if you want to upgrade to the latest OS and want more kick then it is possible. If someones budget isnt enough for a ram upgrade then it isnt a big problem, Vista runs fine with 1GB IMO.
Ideally, an OS should auto-detect the hardware it's running on and tune itself for performance, disabling unnecessary services. But how often does that happen in the real world?! Microsoft want the WOW! factor of all their new fancy features, so there's no way they're going to automatically disable them!
I completely agree with you, although I wasnt saying automatically disable them, users should have an option as to how theyre operating system runs by being allowed easier access (point and click) to disable any feature that they do not require (with prompts and messages explaing why they might want to keep features enabled).Quote
Ok, if its not possible to add two sticks of 1GB in, put one stick of 2GB instead (if running a budget processor this usually means lower FSB which means slower ram speed which = cheaper). My point is that ram is now at a good enough price so that if you want to upgrade to the latest OS and want more kick then it is possible. If someones budget isnt enough for a ram upgrade then it isnt a big problem, Vista runs fine with 1GB IMO.
I completely agree with you, although I wasnt saying automatically disable them, users should have an option as to how theyre operating system runs by being allowed easier access (point and click) to disable any feature that they do not require (with prompts and messages explaing why they might want to keep features enabled).
Sure thing...which is why windows let's you one click adjust for best performance, best looking etc.
It might not be comprehensive, but it's there...and has been for years. Same with your Linux distros, usually buried but it's there...and with Linux now, updates, package problems, adding removing stuff is miles easier than ever before.
I have 2 other pc users in my household, and they didn't like Ubuntu. I haven't enough cash to run a seperate server for web dev, so it went from Ubuntu to XP and is now W7. I really liked Ubuntu, but W7 gives me the best of both worlds, I run a XAMPP install for server needs, and it's stable enough to be left on 24/7.Quote
Sure thing...which is why windows let's you one click adjust for best performance, best looking etc.
It might not be comprehensive, but it's there...and has been for years
And has it helped improved overall performance on low spec machines? Does it include disabling things like indexing and prefetching like I mentioned earlier? There are more things than visual effects that can be disabled to improve performance on low spec machines which should be easier and more accessable to users.Quote
:-)Quote
Have you run XP on your 6GB i7? And done any meaningful benchmarks?
No, I haven't done any benchmarking at all. But I do notice difference in starting up, closing, crash handling of games and software.
Being able to run smoothly on bleeding edge hardware isn't the job of an operating system. It should run smoothly on the lowest spec hardware..
Well, what I meant was that it takes better hardware to really see what Vista is about and that at this level Vista really shines. I remember XP not running very well when it was released either due both to the fine tuning it needed but also due to the hardware requirements even though the leap wasn't as big. But you're right about the lowest spec. The Vista we have today isn't what it originally was supposed to be.
Windows 7 aren't just about stability and performance, it's also a much better OS to use than Vista.
I haven't read in detail about the changes in Win7 but summarized articles suggest mostly fine tuning in general where the performance tuning has been more (but not entirely) about conceived performance than actual performance. The other part is the UI which will come across as the biggest change for most users. The UI changes are in many cases directly related to the conceived performance of 7, according to articles.
Windows 7 is only as much Vista as XP was 2000. Technologically it's not that much different, but the vast majority of users don't care about that. And I can guarantee it'll be a much greater commercial success than Vista, because people will enjoy using it. And that's the ultimate yardstick...
Can't disagree there. After the down hill from XP to Vista regarding public opinion I suppose going back up the hill would be natural. But then again, nothing about MS is natural.
Even though I haven't used Win7 all the press coverage, UI changes and new functions does make me more excited about 7 than I was about Vista. And I was skeptical about Vista until I changed to it when I assembled a new computer (P4 820D [2.8Ghz, 1GB 667Mhz] to 6GB i7) only recently.Quote
Reply