×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Windows 7 Hits RTM At Build 7600.16385

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the finally-we-can-sleep-nights dept.

Operating Systems 341

An anonymous reader links to Ars Technica's report that (quoting) "Microsoft today announced that Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 have hit the Release to Manufacturing (RTM) milestone. The software giant still has a lot of work to do, but the bigger responsibility now falls to OEMs that must get PCs ready, Independent Software Vendors (ISVs) that are testing their new apps, and Independent Hardware Vendors (IHVs) that are preparing their new hardware. The RTM build is 7600, but it is not the same one that leaked less than two weeks ago (7600.16384). We speculated that Microsoft may end up recompiling build 7600 until it is satisfied, but it only took the company one more shot to get it right: 7600.16385 is the final build number. Microsoft refused to share the full build string, but if you trust leaks from a few days ago, it's '6.1.7600.16385.090713-1255,' which indicates that the final build was compiled over a week ago: July 13, 2009, at 12:45pm. This would be in line with the rumored RTM date but it is also the day Microsoft stated that Windows 7 had not yet hit RTM. Although the final build had been compiled, Microsoft still had to put it through testing before christening it as RTM."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

341 comments

Cool1 (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788381)

Cool1

Great news! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788385)

Only 2 more service packs until it's stable.

Re:Great news! (5, Funny)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788427)

This *is* a service pack, it's a Theme + Vista SP3.

But that's not all... you get to pay for it!

Oh modern living, what won't you provide for me?

Re:Great news! (5, Funny)

RLiegh (247921) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788787)

This *is* a service pack ..
But that's not all... you get to pay for it!

That's MS for you ...always ripping off Apple.

Re:Great news! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789423)

hahahahahaha "pay for it" hahahahahah

Re:Great news! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788733)

I take it those modding em down intend to install Windows 7 on their production systems as soon as it's available.

It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6.1? (5, Insightful)

darpo (5213) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788401)

I suppose it's true to the idea that 7 is "just a Vista service pack," but still seems odd.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (4, Informative)

jerep (794296) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788425)

Just like XP was a service pack for 2000 (XP is 5.1), nothing new here, same old Microsoft.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (2, Informative)

chammy (1096007) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788721)

Why is this marked troll? Vista vs Win7 is pretty close to how 2000 and XP can be compared (most changes in the UI, not the core).

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788821)

Because it is a troll; there are changes in the core, many, now there are not as many dependencies and it features a modular design (check the add and remove windows features dialog, you can get rid of everything there and leave only the core os); also UAC was changed, the ribbon is included in the core as an API, performance was enhanced so much that it can run on old Pentium CPUs and netbooks, etc. etc. In fact the thing that less changed was the UI (Still using the same glass Windows).

Do you even know what changed?

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788893)

So lets see here. UAC was changed, thats no different than changing SELinux or Apparmor on Ubuntu, not a major change. Modular design, again, not a huge change just severed a few ties between IE and core system libraries. Ok, so there are a few new APIs, still, not a huge change. As for performance? That should be natural progress of development.

Regardless, it isn't a radical change. Just a code cleanup.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789057)

There is more, what about live streaming your home videos to your work PC? What about connecting your phone to the computer, drag and drop any video file, and getting it transcoded to the best format for your device? Be it MOV, MPEG4, WMV, AVI, etc. you name it. These are huge changes that benefit the user; but you are just not going to change your mind, is Microsoft so it must suck.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (5, Informative)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789061)

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-graphics-desktop-multicore-cpu,7643.html [tomshardware.com] In Windows Vista, a single application could hold a system-wide lock on the GDI, basically creating a bottleneck, especially if there are other applications waiting in line to access the graphics stack. While such a design decision may have been okay in the past, it's been re-engineered for Windows 7. "This work also resulted in better rendering performance of concurrent GDI applications on multi-core CPUs. Multi-core Windows PCs benefit from these changes as more than one application can now be rendering at the same time," Chitre said, adding that the improvements worked to reduce response time issues. "Without the Windows 7 GDI concurrency, the rendering throughput of these applications is effectively limited to the performance of a single CPU core. Since only a single application can acquire the global exclusive lock while the others are waiting, this scenario doesn't benefit from multiple CPU cores. This demonstrates that GDI applications in Windows 7 are now much less dependent on one another."

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1, Troll)

chammy (1096007) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789139)

Fixing a design flaw in GDI isn't a new feature, it's a bugfix.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (4, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789193)

Wrong. Changing the specification (the "design flaw") is a change in version.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789205)

Is not a design flaw when you don't multicore cpu's; and that's when GDI was designed. You can think of it as an update to GDI to make it current again, which is a good thing and a new feature, not a correction of a flaw.

I hope you are designing your software with the year 2019 in mind.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789289)

Wrong, it was not a design flaw since there were no multicore CPUs when GDI was designed.

I hope you are designing your software for 2019 year computers.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1)

Tycho (11893) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789539)

Yes, but in some cases there were still multiple CPU sockets available on one board, which logically is what a multicore CPU is. So it follows that the reasons to make GDI multi-threaded have been present since NT 3.5. On the other hand, if XP had a multi-threaded GDI implementation, Vista may have dropped that feature. Vista endured a total redesign of the graphics stack in order to simplify the graphics stack and make the stack more "stable".

Offloaded GDI (5, Informative)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789619)

IIRC, they also offloaded most of the GDI rendering to the GPU. In Windows XP and previous, all drawing and compositing was done on the CPU. Vista added GPU compositing, but which is what Vista uses to implement the frosted-glass effect. The problem is that, since drawing was still done by the CPU and the system does compositing on the GPU, it keeps two complete GDI buffers for each window. On laptops where most integrated cards use system memory this was doubling the amount of system memory required for the GDI. Windows 7 changes this so that both compositing and drawing are done on the GPU, eliminating the need for a CPU window buffer. One of the things this does is cut total memory consumption in half, and eliminates CPU memory consumption by the GDI subsystem entirely. The other advantage is power- Vista's use of the GPU for compositing means more recent graphics chips are much better behaved when it comes to power consumption than they used to be. By doing the drawing and compositing on the GPU, Win7 doesn't draw as much power on modern laptops since the GPU can do that for less power than the CPU.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1)

religious freak (1005821) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789573)

I'd say it's probably closer to WinME and Win2k. Win2k was a decent OS, WinME was a disaster (perhaps even worse than Vista).

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788447)

A fair few really stupid installers actually did this:

if (MajorVersion>5) and (MinorVersion>1) then { // compatible with Windows XP or later
}

Which is fine for 5.1 and 6.1, but crapped out in Vista (6.0), and would crap out if Windows 7 was 7.0 - so, 6.1. That's actually why.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (3, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789129)

if (MajorVersion>5) and (MinorVersion>1) then { // compatible with Windows XP or later }

Which is fine for 5.1 and 6.1...

Don't you mean (MajorVersion >= 5) ?

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789361)

should have overloaded comparison operators on version data type.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788451)

It was a compatibility decision; since Windows 7 is close to 100% compatible with Vista they don't want to break dumb apps that would fail if the version number is != 6

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788819)

...and Vista is close to 4% compatible with XP!

XP was NT 5.... (1)

CHRONOSS2008 (1226498) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788459)

so vista being not made directly as much form NT had a no number LOL
basically your getitng NT6.1 beta
kinda liek the XP pro that was NT5 beta2
and when was beta ones release? 1998

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1)

Fyzzle (1603701) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788491)

Well service packs generally add functionality. They fixed Vista by removing "features" they put in to be more like Mac and are now trying to be more like Linux.

Personally I love Win7. Things just work on it. The last thing I want to do when I get home is trick my own damn computer into working.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789065)

The last thing I want to do when I get home is trick my own damn computer into working.

But spending hours hand editing .conf files and unnecessarily recompiling packages means that your an uber 1337 open sores fag!

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (4, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788655)

I suppose it's true to the idea that 7 is "just a Vista service pack," but still seems odd.

Not at all. Vista has taken the punches, got a fat lip and two black eyes - so Microsoft rebrands it and it loses the bad name of Vista. I just installed Windows 7 RC - and it's nicer. There is new programming under the hood, particularly the UI and feels speedier - although I have to question whether that speed was all a result of improved programming or attribute some to the fact that it was a clean install of Windows erasing a cluttered and used OEM Vista install.

But given the driver model is the same, the lack of noticeable bumps on the alpha, beta, and RC compared to Vista woes - I can only assume it's really a service pack with an UI overhaul. Which is okay; Ubuntu and OS X both operate on the idea of short upgrade cycles that allows them to focus on goals and be a lot more evolutionary in a short time instead of trying to be revolutionary (longhorn) and failing miserably.

I just don't like paying full price as if this were brand new windows. Ubuntu is free and OS X license is relatively cheap, especially family packs. I'll pay $50 for Windows 7 as a 2-3 year upgrade to Vista, but don't forsee $100 as being inherently fair at all.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1)

Chaos Incarnate (772793) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789113)

It's not fair to those of you who were stuck with Vista; I think it's there to prevent those of us who skipped it from getting a free ride.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (2, Informative)

sick_em (1603731) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789439)

I read that the speed of Windows 7 is a result of some under the hood programming. They implemented concurrency in the drawing component of GDI, which in theory allows for smoother graphics when multiple GDI apps are running. The old way of doing things was a single lock, and the time it took to lock/unlock is what seems to have caused past responsiveness issues.

Re:It's Windows 7, and yet, the build number is 6. (1, Interesting)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789475)

...the time it took to lock/unlock is what seems to have caused past responsiveness issues.

Acquiring a lock or releasing a lock is a single, atomic operation that runs very fast (otherwise there would be ... so... many problems). The problem is that another process has the lock, and then you can't get it until that process is scheduled again, renders, and then releases the lock.

I realize you probably know this, but it's getting late in the day and I'm feeling pedantic.

Technet on August 6th (4, Informative)

Aggrajag (716041) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788419)

English version will be available from Technet on August 6th.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/07/21/when-will-you-get-windows-7-rtm.aspx [windowsteamblog.com]

Re:Technet on August 6th (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788539)

I was just about to take a dump, when suddenly a Microsoft fanboy bust in and sucked the shit right out of my ass.

And MSDN Too (2, Informative)

noc007 (633443) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788605)

For those that don't know and didn't want to RTFL, it will be available to MSDN subscribers on August 6th as well. If your company didn't pony up for one of the subscriptions, but does have Volume Licenses for Windows with a current Software Assurance, it will be available on August 7th.

Really? (2, Funny)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788421)

but it only took the company one more shot to get it right

Really?

Can I have a rain check on that?

Re:Really? (1, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788497)

but it only took the company one more shot to get it good enough to ship to their customers whom they've trained to pay good money for crap

Only one week of testing? (1)

The Yuckinator (898499) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788471)

Although the final build had been compiled, Microsoft still had to put it through testing before christening it as RTM.

Not being a software developer, maybe I'm not understanding this properly. Does this mean that it really only needed a week of testing before it was ready to go out the door? I realize that there must have been a lot more testing on previous builds, etc but still - only one week?

Re:Only one week of testing? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788507)

yep. the real testing happens before SP1.
by users. like you.

Re:Only one week of testing? (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789207)

yep. the real testing happens before SP1.

'Before RTM' is also before SP1, so you're not wrong. ;-)

Re:Only one week of testing? (0, Troll)

kaini (1435765) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788521)

well, their philosophy of letting their customers be their testers has never let them down before. oh, wait...

Re:Only one week of testing? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788551)

I seriously doubt that they did a full regression test that quickly. More likely, they tested the areas which had recently failed tests, and were recently fixed.

That's how we do it at my work. Our product has around 90,000 test points that are tested in each 3 month release cycle. A full regression test takes approx 2 months. As bugs are found, they are fixed, and the fix is tested while the full regression test continues. The last month only fixes are tested.

Re:Only one week of testing? (5, Informative)

Gouru (1568313) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788853)

Microsoft has greatly approved their testing process, with automated regression testing on literally thousands of machines. Full regression tests that used to take 3 weeks now take 4 days, with three of those days being failure investigation. You can read the Windows 7 team blogs for information on the process, but one key component is that daily builds off the main branch should be of very high quality, as close to release quality as feasable. This, along with the improved testing, allows regression tests to be run on virtually all desired interim builds and integrations, so that by the time RTM testing is hit, there are very few surprises.

Re:Only one week of testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789527)

Has the great approval of their testing process led to great improvements in it?

Re:Only one week of testing? (1, Funny)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788601)

The testing has been around since Windows 7 Alpha, people payed to be on the bug testing team by buying this thing called Vista.

Re:Only one week of testing? (1)

pete.com (741064) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788929)

No worries......It only took a week of testing to verify Vista was ready for prime time.

Re:Only one week of testing? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788989)

MS have heavily automated stress and regression testing that allows there employees to participate in the testing by installing and running the stress and regression tests on all there spare machines which automatically report their results. a week of testing involves running every test they have on thousands of machines, You would be looking at litterally hundreds of thousands if not millions of test passes being run in that single week and remember the last few months of builds have only been VERY minor tweaks and changes.

Re:Only one week of testing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789001)

The key you're missing is that the last few builds had almost no changes between them, as it should be with any product. Things were locked down pretty tight for quite some time.

it's the future (5, Funny)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788569)

"'6.1.7600.16385.090713-1255,' which indicates that the final build was compiled over a week ago: July 13, 2009, at 12:45pm."

Does this mean that they run the clock 10 minutes fast on the build machine to make them feel like they are ahead of the game ?

Re:it's the future (2, Interesting)

Noren (605012) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788659)

Nah, it just took them 10 minutes to compile.

Re:it's the future (2, Funny)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789231)

Only 10 minutes? Gentoo beats them, hands down.

Re:it's the future (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789279)

The only thing that could make Gentoo compile in only 10 minutes is a Beowulf cluster of Cray computers.

Run (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788579)

Flee for your lives...

*yawn* (-1, Flamebait)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788595)

More dull commercial bloat. Why do i care? Sure, eventually we might migrate to it ( we didn't to vista ), but that is at least a year out.

Meh (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788629)

Mod me as a troll, i don't care, but seriously, who cares?

C'mon ZWT... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788677)

C'mon ZWT...

In all seriousness, I plan on buying two copies of this OS. One for a home theatre PC and one for my laptop. I normally "find" copies of Windows, but I believe Microsoft has done really well this time around and I want to pay them for all the effort that went in to engineering W7.

Re:C'mon ZWT... (1)

tdelaney (458893) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789541)

The 3-machine family pack looks like it will be a better deal, even for 2 computers. Of course, in my case I have 4 ...

awesome (0, Flamebait)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788679)

I'm glad slashdot is keeping us up to date on milestones like this. I look forward to the slashdot article about build 7600.16387 as well!

Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (5, Interesting)

SixDimensionalArray (604334) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788717)

IANAMFB (I am not a Microsoft fan-boy), but I have to admit that so far, it looks like it is at least a bit exciting (especially from the rock-solid RC). Pretty much what Vista should have been.

As a true technologist, I try to stay technology-agnostic because good things often come out of the strangest places. Truthfully, many flavors of Linux are great, Mac OS is great, and Windows 7 looks like it should be great. Considering all these various flavors of greatness, I'd say it's still as good a time as any to be a techie! Maybe I'm just tired of all the negative slant the world puts on everything and am being overly optimistic.

Let's enjoy this new tech, welcome it, evaluate it and let it find its place in our toolbox, like every other tool before.

Discuss freely.

6d

Re:Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (5, Interesting)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788873)

What "new tech"? So far I haven't seen anything in Vista or 7 that would make me say, "I gotta have that tech!"

To be fair, I haven't seen much in linux lately that would make me say that, either.

let's be honest: OS "tech" has hit maturity for most users. There really isn't anything truly exciting coming out - because there really isn't anything exciting left to be done unless the whole OS/UI undergoes a severe paradigm shift.

Unfortunately that's not going to happen because there's too much invested in the current tech.

I'm going to see how the adoption rates are for 7. I see a rocky road for MS; people are happy with XP, it's stable, and for most of us it's a f*cking desk. No amount of hype is going to convince me that I have to get a shinier pressboard and formica office desk; the one I have works just fine.

Re:Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789107)

What "new tech"? So far I haven't seen anything in Vista or 7 that would make me say, "I gotta have that tech!"

You haven't looked.

Re:Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (3, Interesting)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789283)

Hahaha. OS tech has hit maturity?? Far from it!

It has hit a state of complete lack of new ideas, because of laziness.

Windows imitates Macs, Linux imitates Windows (I love my Linux systems, but unfortunately this is the truth), and Apple no reason to innovate MacOS X, because they are already better. At least this is what they think. ^^

In reality though, Linux (or the Linux desktop environments) could shine more than anything else. Because its openness allows for things that just arent possible with commercial applications.
What I mean is how Linux works on the shell: You can combine and recombine all your small tools, using the file system, and small scripts, piping data, etc.
Now imagine this for the desktop. Imagine that all the functions you can reach trough all the apps of your GUI desktop, were not one application, but small, fast, little widgets and tools. Then add a set of view and control apps to it. In a way it would be like the extensions of firefox combined with a photohshop without the main window.
You could endlessly recombine the tools from one package with that from another one, and use a document viewer/controller from a third package. (Where "package" would be, what we call apps today.)

Imagine taking the brush from photoshop, and the formula renderer from your calculator, and paint the formula into an arbitrary document. Things like that.
Interoperability would work trough standardized data structures (think xml or ebml chunks/streams with mime type headers).

And this is only one idea.
You see, GUIs still have a long way to go, to get even close to optimal efficiency (where "efficiency" is power multiplied with simplicity). :)

And as you also see, shiny but pointless 3D desktops are more likely the opposite of this efficiency.

Re:Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (4, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789537)

Meh, there's a few things in Win 7 that IS actually pretty cool and not just eye candy. The home group thing looked interesting, for example. I find some of the UI differences very intuitive and a lot easier to work with than (dare I say it) my Ubuntu 9.04 install on my laptop.

I'm not one of the MS Windows 7 software engineers so I don't know what, if anything, really changed under the hood, but it's the above-the-surface stuff that typically will make applications work well (or just *feel* like they work well) or not. Example that's very ready on my mind: GnuCash. I'm looking for a home finance program (just to keep track of budget vs. expenses, pretty much). GnuCash does everything but has, IMO, an awful and very user-unfriendly UI. It'd be a great program if the UI was less confusing and less cluttered.

If nothing else, Win 7 has done a good job with that part of user-friendliness, which isn't just for John Doe at home. Even a programmer/software tester/whatever like me enjoys using an easy-to-use OS when I don't need a unix style shell but just need a text editor, a word processor, or want to play a game.

Re:Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (3, Interesting)

lwsimon (724555) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788941)

I'd agree with this. I'm somewhat of a Linux fanboy myself, as I use Arch almost exclusively - but I wiped my Vista partition a couple of days ago and put Win7RC on there (build 7100).

I'm impressed. It boots fast, it runs fast, the new taskbar is clean and useful - it seems to be an all around good product. I don't see it pulling me away from Arch - I'm running ScrotWM these for coding, and nothing Windows does let it compete with a tiling WM from a productivity standpoint - but I see myself booting to Windows 7 more often when I just want to surf the web or check email. I never did that with Vista.

Re:Ok, I'm just going to come out and say it... (1)

blind biker (1066130) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789603)

IANAMFB (I am not a Microsoft fan-boy), but I have to admit that so far, it looks like it is at least a bit exciting (especially from the rock-solid RC)
Sure it's "exciting", given that Slashdot is hyping Windows 7 with some "News" every two weeks. Or every single week, more like it.

Why is this news again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28788779)

Why is every Windows release candidate a Slashdot news?

Re:Why is this news again? (3, Insightful)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788885)

I'm guessing the same reason every new kernel release is slashdot news...

Nerds/geeks/whatever can use Windows, too.

Which makes an RC for what is looking like a pretty popular OS a pretty good candidate for slashdot news. More-so than, say, a statistic that says game sales for an extremely specific and narrow genre are declining. ;)

Re:Why is this news again? (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789117)

The difference being that the discussion on linux releases is more in depth. This discussion has been one big sales pitch. Nothing interesting about win 7 at all has come up apart from people saying if they're going to buy it.

Re:Why is this news again? (1)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789555)

I dunno. I'm interested when Microsoft itself (and not just "hey, maybe this is it" ... those ones, I agree, are not very news-worthy and are just rumors) says it's the RTM build

Re:Why is this news again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789341)

Because it's a Windows Release Candidate.

Maybe it really did reach that stage of production this time?

Vista (1)

Pro923 (1447307) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788901)

I built a machine around the time Vista came out and have been running Ultimate on it ever since. Initially I built it with 1GB of DDR3 and it's true that Vista was terrible. Soon after I bumped it up to 3GB, and I have to say that for all the bad press Vista gets, all you have to do is feed it like a pig and it performs. I can say that it's been nothing short of superb on this machine and I don't know if I'll be able to justify upgrading to Win7 to myself.

Re:Vista (1, Informative)

oneirophrenos (1500619) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788997)

I have to agree. I installed Vista after purchasing a new rig with 6 GB of RAM, and installed 64-bit Vista to see it perform more than adequately. I am currently running Windows 7 RC1, and have not seen the performance increase compared to Vista that many people are proclaming; W7 is running just as smoothly as Vista was.

Re:Vista (2, Interesting)

CannonballHead (842625) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789177)

I had Vista x64 for a while and now the RC1, too. Quad core, 8gb ram... I did notice a performance increase between Vista x64 and 7x64. Not a whole lot, but boot times and program startup times definitely improved, if nothing else.

Re:Vista (1)

bertoelcon (1557907) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789275)

I think most of the bad Vista rap was due to its minimal specs was what it was put on initially, it made it seem horrible. I personally got a copy of Vista pre-sp1 to test and it wasn't that bad on my gaming rig.

2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (2, Interesting)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 4 years ago | (#28788975)

No more freakin VPN's, bitches!

Check it out: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/dd420463.aspx [microsoft.com]

Re:2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789225)

Interesting, unless it is a windows only thing. If so, I don't care one bit since I don't use windows.

Re:2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789281)

Wow, MS managed to reinvent the SSH tunnel. Truly a revolution in computing!

Re:2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (1)

SilverEyes (822768) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789339)

Wow, MS managed to reinvent the SSH tunnel. Truly a revolution in computing!

I don't believe SSH supports having more than just a client-server connection.

Re:2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789329)

VPN his what?

But if I decode what you tried to say, then this is just a VPN with on-the-fly connecting and disconnecting functionality.
I don't see what the point of this would be.

But then how can it connect even before the user logs is? With a... let me guess... VPN with a machine account??

Sorry, but this all looks just like a typical Microsoft re-labeling: Put another name on it, describe it differently, and sell it as if you had invented something.

Or am I completely wrong here? I don't think so, because then why is that difference that I am missing not stated right an the beginning of the page?

Re:2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (1)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789343)

Cool, hope it works as advertised. I just spent 4 hours updating my VPN client (old version refused to uninstall), I'd love to never have to go through that again.

Re:2008 R2 + Windows 7 = Direct Access (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789413)

No more freakin VPN's, bitches!

Check it out: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/network/dd420463.aspx [microsoft.com]

So it's a Network, that's Private to the company, but since it runs over another network, it's Virtual? Interesting... tell me more about this... NPV....

Some reasons that Win7 will succeed (2, Insightful)

caywen (942955) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789047)

- Win7 is marginally faster than Vista, and it will run on far faster, more capacious hardware (on average).
- The beta/RC was a huge try-before-you-buy program, which lends itself to a more positive view of the product.
- It finally fits on a netbook, and those will be the rage once they start becoming really sexy.
- $99 just isn't what it used to be.

Where does Ars find these people? (0, Redundant)

Radical Moderate (563286) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789359)

From the summary: "but it only took the company one more shot to get it right". I'm sorry, but has Microsoft ever "got it right"? I'm no MS hater, but for heavens sake, this is the company that invented Patch Tuesday!

I've been using 7RC and while I like it, it has some serious bugs to work out. I wouldn't bet the farm that they've all been caught...or that they ever will be.

Re:Where does Ars find these people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789427)

Ubuntu must be an even bigger failure since I get patches and updates multiple times a week!

Wait, they didn't even mention (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789449)

It's the most secure Windows ever!

Seriously, how many Linux distros can make THAT claim?

16385 - Suspicious number (5, Funny)

caveman (7893) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789473)

Anyone worth half a karma point here will recognise 16384 as a power of two.

In my years of software development, numbers like this jump out at you, usually while debugging something that has crashed due to overwriting something, and suspicious powers of two just scream 'BUG' at me.

Perhaps this move to manufacturing has simply been caused by microsoft not allocating enough bits in the build number, and one more recompile has tripped the manufacturing release...

struct BuildNumber
{
    int IncrementalVersion : 14;
    int ReleaseToManufacturing : 1;
    int FinallyBugFree : 1;
}

(and if this really is the source code, we'll have to wait until release 32768 for a bug free version, assuming we don't hit -32768 first)

Windows 7 is a pretty damned good Windows (3, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 4 years ago | (#28789531)

I've been using the public beta since it came out, and the RC1 since the public beta expired, and all in all, it's pretty good. Takes forever for me to figure out how to do anything anymore, since I'm so used to XP (stripped down to non-flashy mode; more like W2K in use), but that's no biggie.

The big question in my life as a web developer is: When is IE gonna be a good browser? How many versions is it gonna TAKE?

I take solace in the fact that anyone upgrading to Wndows 7 is going to be forced to go with IE8 or some non-MS browser. No more IE 6 or 7. *whew* Hopefully the critical update and the enterprise migration tool thingy for IE8 coming soon will get rid of a large percentage of the remaining IE 6 users that aren't on something older than Windows XP. Win2K/ME/98/95 users, well, tough luck. Time to for you or your administrator to either upgrade to a netbook or install Firefox/Opera/whatever. Way PAST time, really. But if someone in your company was stupid enough to develop something requiring ActiveX, I guess IE8 is it for you. If you want the Gecko renderer from Firefox, but your system can't handle the overhead of a XUL browser, try K-Meleon.

Even real life highways have minimum speeds, you know. Get your Model T off the information superhighway, you're dangerous.

Great but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#28789591)

Where is the torrent?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...