Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release

An anonymous reader writes "Someone over at Redmond flipped the wrong switch, it would seem. Ars Technica spotted that the Windows 7 download page on TechNet had switched to say Release Candidate instead of Beta. It's now back to Beta, but not before Ars got all the details off the page: 'The public RC will apparently be coming in May 2009, and not in April as previously rumored. The RC testing program will be available at least through June 2009, and the actual build will expire June 1, 2010. Both 32-bit and 64-bit versions will be available in English, German, Japanese, French, and Spanish.' A screenshot and all the text on the RC download page, which was set to be published 'May 2009' is saved over at Ars."

Comments

The longer the better

[linuxci]

At least it looks like they're happy to delay the 'release candidate' presumably to allow some more time for bugfixes, etc. Although calling it a release candidate is really innacurate. A proper release candidate should be something that could be signed off as the official release if testing goes ok, however, it's widely known that there's going to be multiple release candidates.

Re:The longer the better

[Kaboom13]

Lower memory usage, in exchange for a worse ui (unless you like low res icons), no security features (say goodbye to NX bit and other hardening features) and generally at this point worse in every way. Now when XP first came out, it was reasonable to keep using 2k for quite awhile, but now that 4 gb of ram is like $50, saving the 128 mb of ram you get from running 2k over xp definitely isn't worth it. Considering with some tweaking you can make the xp ui look and act almost identical to the 2k ui, the only thing 2k has going for it is nostalgia. If you actually try to use it (I run into machines still running 2k every now and then in my work) you will realize it's a piece of crap.

Re:The longer the better

[totally bogus dude]

Any project of sufficient complexity will likely have multiple release candidates, just because once all the release critical bugs are found and fixed... more will be found.

That doesn't mean a release candidate isn't actually a candidate for release, or at least is supposed to be. An RC is supposed to be, "we think we're done, unless you can show us there's major bugs remaining this is exactly what we're going to release". The final release should be nothing more than the last release candidate with the version strings to say it's a final release rather than an RC.

Vista had one RC, and when it was made available Microsoft made it absolutely clear that the RC was not actually a candidate for release; it did not include a bunch of changes and fixes that were going to be in the actual release. They abuse the term: Microsoft's "release candidates" are actually more like "late betas".

The term "release candidate" is actually entirely self-explanatory and leaves less wiggle room for misrepresenting the status of a project than "alpha" or "beta". The final release should be identical to the last RC. In practice there's often some small changes made or diagnostic/debugging code removed; but any actual changes in functionality or any non-trivial fix should cause another RC to be made. It is a bit of a balancing act between cost/time and thoroughness though.

However, calling something a "release candidate" when you have absolutely no intention that it will actually be the released version is disingenuous. If is not a candidate for release, then it is not a release candidate.

Re:32 bit AND 64 bit

[Killjoy_NL]

I think I got marked redundant because some people are so overzealous in their damnation of anything MS that somebody with a more open mind who gives them a fair chance is dangerous/annoying in their eyes.

I got the karma to spare though, don't really care about it.

Anyway, I have 2 licenses for Vista Ultimate. 32 and 64 bit for my 2 pc's. I did read a while back that people who had Vista Ultimate or Vista (Enterprise I think, I'm not sure) could upgrade to Win7 $Corresponding_edition for free.

I looked up the link, here's the skinny
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-vista-free-upgrade,7018.html

Too bad I won't be eligible then, but I get the license for next to nothing anyway, so it's all good :)

P.S. For the mods, if you disagree with me, don't mod me down, mod me sideways :P

Yes, "accidentially flipped the switch"

[not already in use]

Kinda like they "accidentally" leaked the beta. Looks like Microsoft is finally catching onto this whole marketing thing.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use

[Just Some Guy]

When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.

I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.

We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it. Now, people are quick to blame that on problems specific to the HP distro and claim that Dell's distros (particularly of the small business variety) are better, but as an end user none of that stuff matters to me. It's clear to me that Windows is not ready for the desktop.

Re:I for one am excited about this.

[Sporkinum]

No, not at all. I just don't see it as being a practical upgrade for most people. I did not go out and purchase Vista to upgrade my XP box. I ended up getting it with a new computer. I think the same is the case with 7. Not worth the cost to upgrade.