Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Leaked

Slatterz writes "Screenshots of what is said to be the next version of Microsoft's Windows operating system have been leaked onto the internet. The ThinkNext.net blog posted a range of screenshots over the weekend which it said represents Windows 7. Overall, the screenshots show a distinctly Vista-like interface, but there is still plenty of time for tweaks and changes to take place."

Comments

*Yawn*, I think I'll stick with Ubuntu.

[apathy maybe]

As far as I can tell, there is nothing that looks really really special that would prompt me to shift off what I'm running now. The fact that they still require malware protection (evidenced by the "we can't detect any anti-virus software, panic" screen), tempts me to question why they haven't focused more energy on securing the system.

The only really interesting thing I saw was the sharing option, "homegroup"? Could be interesting. But overall, nothing revolutionary.

Come to think about it, I remember reading before MS Windows XP came out about all the wonderful things that were going to be in it. Yet, when it did come out, it wasn't a revolution, just more gradual changes.

This promises more of the same.

So, as I said, I'll stay with Ubuntu, because if nothing else, at least it runs on my machine with only 512 MB of ram. (I'm poor, and it works, why would I upgrade?)

This is a good thing.

[onion2k]

With a product that's been stable for a long time (stable in the development sense, not in the 'not crashing' sense) you shouldn't expect any large changes between major versions, and no changes at all between minors. You don't just throw away decades of work to make it different for the sake of it. If there are any differences they're probably only there because the marketing department demanded something obviously different so people would upgrade for the new eye candy. Or, at a push, because some HCI guru has had a brainwave about how to make things radically easier to work with. That's very rare though.

Frankly, the fact it looks very similar is a good thing. It might mean MSFT aren't just doing some window dressing.

Re:This is a good thing.

[MikeUW]

In general, I agree with you here. But really, how much can really be that different? Desktop environments (whether we're talking Windows, Linux, or whatever) have generally looked/worked the same since I can remember. Yes, each new version has added flasher/fancier/more efficient bits and pieces, but in general, it's all the same.

It's what the software does, not what it looks like that really makes the difference. Even then, the differences are pretty nominal, as the OS/Desktop is mostly just a platform for running the applications you actually *use*. The desktop just UI/Eye-candy for the most part...so leaked screenshots really mean little, IMHO.

Why would I update?

[aussie_a]

Unfortunately for Microsoft Windows XP is the first OS to "work well enough" which makes me ask, why would I update? IE 8 certainly looks nice along with the enhanced GUI features, but they aren't so large an improvement that I'm going going to spend $120 to upgrade.

As long as OOo, Firefox, Thunderbird and Gimp work on my computer, I don't see any pressing need to upgrade. They're going to have to pull out something much better for Windows 7 to get my hard-earned cash.

Even getting it "free" when I upgrade my computer isn't enough of an incentive because my computer's speed seems good enough at 2.67 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I've also only used 32 GB out of 201 GB (I actually have more then that but they're on a separate partition for Linux which I need to develop in sometimes for university).

Re:Pointless

[cbhacking]

Just a note: XP Professional and Vista Enterprise or Ultimate can run a NT subsystem for POSIX, including a fairly complete Unix-like OS called Interix. On XP, look for the "Services For Unix" (SFU) downloads, on Vista it's called "Subsystem for Unix Applications" (SUA).

Although bash isn't included in Interix by default, it's downloadable for free, either manually or via command-line package manager, from http://www.suacommunity.com/ (along with many other tools, including perl, ssh/sshd, svn, and the full GNU build toolchain, to name the ones I use most often). You can run Win32 programs from within an Interix shell as well, so I actually use bash as my primary Windows CLI shell these days.

increasingly irrelevent

[lophophore]

Who cares?

Apple (who is even more proprietary than Microsoft) has seen amazingly significant growth in their user base.

Desktop Linux (this is the year! again.) is growing.

People don't want to pay $200 for their operating system and another $400 (or more) for application software, just to write a few letters, surf the web, balance their checkbook and (maybe) run spreadsheets or create presentations. That's just not worth $600.

Ubuntu, Fedora, or what have you, and you get all this for free.

Vista (the OS that nobody wants) is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Windows 7 will suffer the same fate.

Re:Sure those are pics?

[penguin_dance]

Someone in Redmond must have gotten up early for a cofee and to read Slashdot. The pictures on the blog are gone now--he was made to take them down.

Re:Sure those are pics?

[truthsearch]

I only need to use Vista for a little testing every few weeks. I can't use it for 5 minutes without wanting to throw the computer out of my 7th floor window. The interface is very inconsistent. It's also constantly popping up message windows (not just the security Allow/Deny). The mouse pointer doesn't always indicate the system is busy when it's doing something, so I often think it's not responding to my clicks, but I can never tell. Although it's purely a matter of taste, I hate the translucent windows. They're very distracting.

I would never touch Vista if I didn't have to use it occasionally for testing.

Re:Sure those are pics?

[david_thornley]

What's wrong with the Vista interface?

The impression I get (not having actually compared Vista and XP side by side) is that Vista makes less efficient use of my screen space, preferring to make aesthetically better use of whitespace and prettier icons.

The real thing I've noticed is that Windows Explorer no longer accepts custom columns, which is a major pain for a shop that uses TortoiseSVN. That is an interface issue that I resent. That and the much more subtle (than in XP) difference between active and inactive title bars.

Aside from that, Vista SP1 runs close to acceptably fast on a 2.83 GHz quad core with 4G of memory. It does compile fast, but the OS itself is sluggish at times, compared to, say, XP SP2 on my 1.66 GHz (or so) dual core Mac Mini at home. (Yes, I did turn off something compositing and Aero Glass, like the Windows Vista Annoyances book suggested.)

Having looked through lists of Vista advantages, it appears to me that the only real advantage is that we will be able to continue to buy it, unlike XP, which is becoming less available. I'm very definitely not a Microsoft fan, but XP SP2 was an OS that basically worked, and didn't get in my way very much. Vista SP1 is not there yet, and may never be.

To wistfully try to counter some of the follow-on comments: These are my experiences. They are real experiences, not made up. They can be ignored, but not wished away. Your experience with Vista may differ; frankly, I hope it's better for you.