Slashdot Mirror

At least Windows 7 Pro has an XP virtual machine, but we don't know how compatible it is yet.

Why not? It's been available since the RC. You do need hardware virtualization support, but that's easy to check (I dislike GRC because of his irrational fearmongering of UPnP, but this tool is the quickest way to check if you have virtualization available on your CPU). It's based on the mature VirtualPC product and running full XP, so if an app worked in XP it should work fine in virtualization.

Windows 7 is a Service Pack to Windows Vista practically, and it is like when Windows XP came out as a Service Pack to Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was version 5.0 and Windows XP was version 5.1, Windows Vista is version 6.0 and Windows 7 is version 6.1.

First, read about why Windows 7 is 6.1. Cliff notes: app compatibility, because too many apps are stupid and don't handle major version bumps properly (witness all of the apps from Windows XP that wouldn't install on Vista simply because it was 5.1 to 6.0 and the installer assumed major version would always be 5 and so just checked minor version, resulting in 0 less than 1 == not supported). Win7 is certainly an enhancement on top of Vista, but then Vista was an enhancement on top of XP (really on top of the Server 2003 codebase, but that came from XP), and XP was an advancement on top of 2000, and so on. Some things haven't changed, like the new WDDM driver model that Vista introduced (though Win7 did bump to WDDM 1.1, which allows for easier/better drivers, especially in the realm of gpus). Other things have changed dramatically, though you wont really notice such as the DWM now being much more efficient, especially if coupled with a WDDM 1.1 driver (nVidia, ATI, and Intel already have such drivers available). In Vista, DWM memory usage would grow linearly with the number of windows open. In Windows 7 with a WDDM 1.1 driver, memory usage is now constant regardless of the number of windows (and with a 1.0 driver, it's still ~50% more efficient than Vista). Another example, Win7 is much nicer to SSD storage. But you should look at the list of new features yourself.

Sadly a lot of XP machines will need RAM upgrades if not video and hard drive upgrades to run Windows 7 as I heard even 1G of RAM is not enough and that Windows 7 is a bit of a hard drive and resource hog like Vista is, because XP runs faster because it has less features and fewer services that start up upon bootup.

1GB is fine. I've used Win7 on netbooks with that little RAM and they were just as snappy (if not snappier) than when running XP. Of course I also like to upgrade netbooks to 2GB, and when you can do so for $20 why wouldn't you? You don't need a new video card, especially if you already have a DX9-capable card (DX9+ required for Aero, will be snappier with a 10.1 card but Aero will still work well). Win7 fits quite well into 16GB on netbooks with plenty of room to spare for your own content, and you can even hack it (though it's not recommended or supported) to get down into 8GB. Win7/Vista definitely have more startup services, but that's also a bit of a red herring as there are new things like the Aero Destop Window Manager and the new Audio server that show up as services now.

Most Windows XP installs don't make use of dual core or higher systems as one has to by the non uniprocessor version of XP to use more than one core or processor.

XP Pro supported 2 processors, so for most people that would be fine (assuming most people have single or dual-core CPUs, not quad-core). What's more important than that is 64-bit really shines in Win7 (it worked well in Vista as well, but it's even better in 7; for XP

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

Actually, Microsoft has said it's only for application compatibility. Apparently a bunch of applications broke when going from 5.1, 5.2 (XP) to 6.0 (Vista). Why should Microsoft "lie to applications" and complicate things when they can just do what they did when going from 2000 to XP and change the minor number, as 91degrees said, version numbers are arbitrary. For what it's worth, I'm running the Release Candidate and it is a major improvement over the pre-SP2 Vista I ran for several weeks before reverting to XP.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

It's legit: quote is from this MS blog, the pre-order page is here.

Or perhaps ANNOUCE THE FREAKIN' FREE UPGRADE DATE more than a day before it starts. That'd help.

It'd have helped alot actually.

No! No, no, no. Please refer to this post:

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1243331&cid=28071669

Windows 7 Starter will not be available to you or I.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/02/04/a-closer-look-at-the-windows-7-skus.aspx

Look! The United States based Windows Blog, with posts by Microsoft employees states:

1. Customers wanted clarity on which version of Windows is the right version for them. So... Windows 7 will be offered primarily in 2 editions: Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Professional.

Later, when the question asks, well what about the rest of the world?

4. One size does not fit all--particularly with a billion users and thousands of partners around the world. So... We are addressing the specialized needs for customers in specific markets with Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic, and Windows 7 Enterprise.

Anyway, the numbering we used is quite simple. The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.

Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.

That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases.

We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.

So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

geting faster from beta to release and/or not having any significant increase from vista to 7 = 2 things. 1: why would anyone from vista give a crap to switch, and 2: that it's basically vista. They're just trying to sell vista twice since it already failed once.

All of this is basically not compelling for the average user, meaning people won't have interest to buy this. It has been admitted in the past that 7 is built off of vista in the first place instead of starting from scratch and fixing stuff as they should have done.

Yes.

"We will be soon releasing the beta of Windows XP Mode and Windows Virtual PC for Windows 7 Professional and Windows 7 Ultimate."
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/business/archive/2009/04/24/coming-soon-windows-xp-mode-and-windows-virtual-pc.aspx

"As part of the upcoming Windows 7 Release Candidate milestone, Microsoft will release a beta version of Windows XP Mode"
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Apr09/04-28Win7QA.mspx

So, there's actually no full-on windows XP installation. It's application level support that wraps XP applications so that they work with Win7.

Actually, yes, it is a full-on WinXP installation, and a full virtualization solution, and not just "application level support". That's why it needs CPUs with virtualization support! Ignore TFA, and read the primary source.

However...

Patching, antivirus, etc can all be handled by Windows 7.

That is true nonetheless. Antivirus running on host Win7 will obviously have access to the filesystem, so it can do its job just fine. Patching is trickier, but I don't see why it couldn't be integrated into host's Windows Update, either.

"Do I see any serious problems with this story? Uh, yeah, maybe one or two..."

How about the fact tha Vista SP2 is not "in the marketplace" at all.

It hasn't been released yet and is still an RC candidate in beta testing!

If Microsoft wants to compare imaginary not yet released software to actual software, I set let them and Google play games with beta releases. The rest of us have actual work to do.

Charlie Miller Interview

You mean the one that starts with, "I'll leave Linux out of the equation..."? His point is that OS X would be more vulnerable to malware, if it existed? You do realize that both this year's and last year's exploits were flaws in the Safari browser, right? I don't think he means what you think he means when he says a Mac is easy to break. Oh by the way, this is someone who is promoting his expertise in compromising platforms, so he does have an incentive to overstate the need for his services.

I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy.

You're really going out on a limb there. Nevermind that that isn't my point. Architecturally Linux and OS X are less susceptible to viruses. So, if you want to explain away the last ten years of internet facing Windows systems getting exploited even when they're not browsing or running any web services that's your business.

Sadly, that simply isn't true. The script-kiddies...

Let's end it here then. Script-kiddies are not the problem. I think the best thing about having switched to Linux is not needing to buy an anti-virus solution, which then needs to be maintained and which bogs down performance even when it's running properly. If Windows 7 doesn't need that, then great - it's about time.

And there's also not needing to manually remove a virus when it gets you before the update is disseminated (again, conficker). Real story, real hours of lost productivity, real money being spent on an A/V licenses. This only happens on Windows, so bring on the excuses - that's all they are.

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/10/windows-vista-defense-in-depth.aspx

Although i'm sure that might be good for him, Windows 7 is still only beta and the beta expires in August.

I know I shouldn't feed the troll, but this is one falsehood that I am really tired of hearing. Sorry to burst your bubble, but MS is *not* going to "push Win7 starter for the netbook market." Unlike you I actually have a source for my claim, http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/02/04/a-closer-look-at-the-windows-7-skus.aspx .

The salient paragraph is toward the bottom, wherein he states, "Many of you have been asking about how to think about SKUs and very low-end notebook PCs or "Netbooks." All SKUs of Windows 7 will work on many of these devices, with Windows 7 Home Premium as the recommend SKU on small notebook PCs with sufficient hardware."

I have you friended, so you must have said something I thought was clever before...

The trolltastic headline this morning about "only 3 apps" is highly misleading, and it's caused by speculation and rumors. The starter version of Windows is not something that is either available to the general public (in developed countries) or will be widely deployed on netbooks. It specifically exists to target the very low end computers in third world countries, not to be what's shipped on a netbook.

Yes, features are stripped from the version of windows being sold to OEMs for third-world deployment. If they were the same, there would be a huge rise in black market sales of the "starter" OS - it would give people a "legal" CD-key for the full OS at 1/20th the price. This does not mean we are paring away basic functionality and forcing you to buy it back. In fact, care was taken to make sure Win7 didn't fall into the Vista trap with overlapping feature sets. Each version has a superset of features from the lower one.

First world markets only need worry about Home Premium or Professional, and Ultimate(/Enterprise) if Bitlocker and Direct Access are desired.

For more information, and not something that's based on /. "logic" see here. It's an official source, and not speculation.

Do my jedi powers sense overconfidence?
No, you do not recall correctly. The have had HUGE fsck-ups like this which they have acknowledged themselves If you bought vista early with the hope that the eventual service pack would fix things, then it would be possible that you might be screwed even worse and be stuck in a cycle of endless reboots.

MSFT claims that the reason it's 6.1 is because applications broke:

We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.

Which is entirely the point of version numbers.

In a major re-architecture like Vista was it would be better to rev the major number so that apps have to explicitly choose to run under it. (Or app developers can simply choose to punt and not bother checking them at all.)

W7 is supposed to be (?) only a minor tweaking, so a change in the minor number may be all that is appropriate.

MSFT claims that the reason it's 6.1 is because applications broke:

We learned a lot about using 5.1 for XP and how that helped developers with version checking for API compatibility. We also had the lesson reinforced when we applied the version number in the Windows Vista code as Windows 6.0-- that changing basic version numbers can cause application compatibility issues.

You have denied my claim. In response, I present my facts.

1. Windows 7 and Vista SP2 have concurrent release schedules. Source
2. Windows has remained silent about windows 7 features. This is in stark contrast to its usual hype machine.
3. Last time MS had a turn around this fast for an OS was 98 SE.
4. A microsoft employee states it in his blog. He states "so we decided to ship windows 7 code as 6.1" source.

At least you can see where I am coming from...

Exactly, Windows 7 == Vista SP3

Chris Flores from the Windows Vista Team Blog said,
"One of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7."

So how exactly will Win7 fit on your Dell Mini 9? It won't, Microsoft just figures if they lie often enough there will be enough suckers who believe it.

If you don't believe me, read the oft-cited Peter Gutmann article

You mean the thoroughly debunked Peter Gutmann article. It's full of so many inaccuracies, fantasies, and wild ass guesses as to be almost complete fabrication.

Here's some light reading for you:

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=673
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=284
http://www.dasmirnov.net/blog/2006/12/31/windows_vista_drm_nonsense
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/01/20/windows-vista-content-protection-twenty-questions-and-answers.aspx

Also, check out some of the obvious errors in Gutmann's claims.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=723

Please stop citing his paper, as it's pure speculation based on a misunderstanding of a pre-release whitepaper.

They've dropped the 2.5m limit, anybody can download for the next two weeks. See: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/01/10/here-s-where-we-stand.aspx

"The Windows 7 beta is actually an upgrade, not a full new install. You need to have a machine running Windows Vista Service Pack 1 (SP1) to install the beta."

I am of the firm belief that this is infact incorrect and simply a misread piece of information. Possibly the journo had one too many coffees or was a little sleep deprived after the excitement of CES...

Have a gander at http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/01/07/information-on-downloading-and-installing-windows-7-beta.aspx it states:

The Windows 7 Beta only supports Windows Vista SP1 to Windows 7 upgrades. So if you intend to do an upgrade - be sure it is on a PC running Windows Vista with Service Pack 1.

I read this as: "if you WANT to upgrade, you must have Microsoft Windows Vista with SP1 installed" and not that it is an explicit requirement.

Feel free to prove me wrong, of course.

A couple of links.

Audio Innovations in Vista

Wikipedia's comments (which btw indicate that it is possible for an app to disable the new signal processing features and have its audio data delivered directly to the hardware.)

There you go (Mike Nash is the corporate vice president of Microsoft).

"So we decided to ship the Windows 7 code as Windows 6.1 - which is what you will see in the actual version of the product in cmd.exe or computer properties."

Maybe the fact that the most recent Windows 7 preview (the one from PDC2008) is build 6.1.6936 can also give a clue :)