Slashdot Log In
Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jan 31, 2009 11:58 AM
from the iteration-is-for-wimps dept.
from the iteration-is-for-wimps dept.
b8fait writes "The head of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows development confirmed that Windows 7 will take the unusual path of moving straight from a single beta, which was launched earlier this month, to a release candidate. Sinofsky fleshed out the plan today and hinted that just as there would be no Beta 2, the company would also not provide a RC2 build. In other words, there may be only one released build of Windows 7 before it ships, possibly much sooner than even some of the most aggressive rumors about Windows 7. How much different can Windows 7 really be with such a shortened beta cycle?"
Related Stories
[+]
More Indications Windows 7 Is Coming In 2009 369 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Following on the news that Microsoft was going straight to a RC for Windows 7, the One Microsoft Way blog has put together some dates on the upcoming roadmap for Vista's successor. Microsoft has always said 'three years after the general availability of Windows Vista,' which was released on January 30, 2007, and that the release date was also dependent on quality. Internally though, Microsoft is saying other things. It looks like we'll see the RC coming in April, and a final RTM version before October 3. Yes, that means Redmond is currently hoping to get Windows 7 out the door in 2009."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
For what is touted as a major OS release I really can't believe that a single beta can get the job done. Either they are rushing it, or it's really just a minor change to Vista.
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
How many betas does a service pack need?
"Regression testing"? What's that? If it compiles, it is good, if it boots up it is perfect." - Linus Torvalds
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a difference with the Linux kernel developers though. The kernel itself isn't released to "end users" in the same way Windows is released to their "end users."
Distributions take a specific kernel they want to release... test it, package it and release it to actual end users. If there's a problem with some functionality beyond the kernel level, its the job of THOSE developers to make sure its working with the new kernel and notify the kernel developers if work needs to be done.
This is what most people don't understand about linux. No one installs and uses "Linux," they install an operating system that happens to use the Linux kernel's functionality. "Using Linux" is a misnomer when its used in the same context as "uses Windows."
Parent
Congratulations - you win! (Score:5, Funny)
You have officially won the "semantics of the year" award!!
Parent
Re:Congratulations - you win! (Score:5, Funny)
You have officially won the "semantics of the year" award!!
Won? It's only January! This is a contender at best. At least wait till we get a few good car analogy threads before we start handing out awards.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, I'm pretty sure the post you're replying to was tongue-in-cheek.
Secondly, I'm guessing that the Windows 7 kernel has also been solidly finished for quite some time; few, if any, of the new features added to Windows 7 require kernel support.
Thirdly, Linux needs to get the goddamned semantics down already! Someone comes in, "I tried Linux and my printer didn't work" then the reply is, "Linux is a kernel!!! It doesn't do printers!" Well, ok, then CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. (Actually, I half-think the current confusing naming is on purpose, so there's always an 'out' to people who complain about Linux GUI problems.)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
...Thirdly, Linux needs to get the goddamned semantics down already! Someone comes in, "I tried Linux and my printer didn't work" then the reply is, "Linux is a kernel!!! It doesn't do printers!" Well, ok, then CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE. (Actually, I half-think the current confusing naming is on purpose, so there's always an 'out' to people who complain about Linux GUI problems.)
I think the semantic confusion is due entirely to a populace unwilling to reject mass media branding.
The media treats 'Linux' like a Windows alternative, and this is simply not the case. Linux is a kernel.
Notice that you end your post with a remark about 'Linux' gui problems. Even you still do not get the point.
Parent
Microsoft could fool such (Score:5, Interesting)
I took the plunge the day before yesterday and it is indeed different. I put it on two machines, one a low end 32bit and one a higher end 64bit machine. I've been using Vista for about a year and Server 2008 for about the same period of time.
Windows 7 looks and feels like Vista with a mildly snazzed up taskbar, but without most of the annoyances of Vista. Aside from the taskbar and a toned down UAC, it feels exactly like what I would expect a slimmed down version of 2008 to feel like. Everything I like about Windows 7 could have been done with Vista and the taskbar improvements.
Still, I do think they are at least as different as Windows 95 and Windows 98 were. I can't get the LAN to work on the 64bit install, though I can assign an IP to the adapter. I can't get our primary software package (and the reason I'm testing) to work on either one. The system locks occasionally on both, probably due to the same testing. IE8 is kludgy and, where I've been able to test it, doesn't perform as well as either IE7 or Firefox 3. My yardstick of major differences is based on how many things are broken, and if the beta is a fair representation, then I'd say it does indeed deserve to be classified as a new version of Windows.
I think most of the testers are using software and hardware recommended and better tested by Microsoft than our typical system, but I cannot believe how different my experience has been from the typical media publications. I believe it is precisely because most of the reviews are Microsoft friendly rather than workplace critical.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
"Which mindset is right? Mine, of course. People who disagree with me are by definition crazy. (Until I change my mind, when they can suddenly become upstanding citizens. I'm flexible, and not black-and-white.)" - Linus Torvalds
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
Did Linus just with an argument on Slashdot? With himself? The guy's a superhero in my book.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
You accidentally the verb.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
How many service packs will this beta need?
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem isn't that Windows 7 is based on Vista, of course it is. The point is that all Windows 7 seems to be is Vista 1.1. Coming up with an entirely new OS name is disingenuous. It would be the same if Apple came out with yet another X.something release and called it "OS XI". If they are not releasing a new OS then they shouldn't be pretending that they are.
Sure, this is just nit-picking. It's not as if MS product names have ever really said much about what the product actually is. It is still annoying though.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
NEW WINDOWS 7!!! Using the ALL-NEW, cutting edge NT kernel version 6.1!
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Usually if a company decides to rewrite a program from the ground up (see: Adobe from time to time), the rewritten version is less featureful, less stable, and takes much longer to come out than the previous version.
Please mention that to the folks who are dropping KDE 4.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
That screenshot comes from documentation, which is often one of the last things to be updated. I don't really think that's all that surprising.
In a related example, the "Create New Shortcut" (or something) screen in Windows 98 still showed a miniature screenshot of the Windows 95 Start menu (including the words "Windows 95") on the side. Does that mean Windows 98 was just Windows 95 rebranded? No, but it's hardly surprising that they are based on the same code.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, and a human is 97% genetically indistinguishable from a pig.
Viva la Difference!
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, and a human is 97% genetically indistinguishable from a pig.
Well, that explains the taste.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Funny)
You're an idiot.
No, I'm a jerk. Get it right. Idiots are stupid, I am simply mean.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess it depends on what constitutes a "release". They could spend another year and a couple hundred builds and still call it "Beta 1".
But yeah, I kind of get the feeling that they think the problem with Vista is just PR. They've managed to build some hype around Windows 7 and have gotten people to say some positive things, so they're going to kick it out the door and hope to get the sales that Vista has been missing.
I think they might be missing the point, though.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I think they might be missing the point, though.
In my opinion they are right.
The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.
The launch kinks have mostly been worked out.
The driver situation has significantly improved.
And the price of 'suitable hardware' has continued its downward trend.
The only major obstacle in the face of Microsoft really is public perception that "Vista sucks"; and most of the people who think it sucks haven't even tried it, and won't.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that beyond the PR problem of "Vista sucks," there's yet another problem of "why should I want Vista?"
Maybe that can be solved with PR too, but it's not entirely a PR problem.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
In my opinion they are right.
The problem with Vista -now- really is primarily PR.
The launch kinks have mostly been worked out.
I've heard that one before.
The driver situation has significantly improved.
Which is why, last time I did a Vista install, both the printer and network drivers mysteriously disappeared a week later, only to mysteriously reappear the next day. New equipment, with Vista certified drivers, btw.
And the price of 'suitable hardware' has continued its downward trend.
Okay, I'll give you that one.
The only major obstacle in the face of Microsoft really is public perception that "Vista sucks"
and this perception exists, perhaps, because Vista really DOES suck?
I keep hearing that the problems with Vista have been solved, but every time (yes, EVERY time) I have tried Vista, or set it up for someone, I have had problems. I simply no longer believe any claims that Vista has been fixed.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
Now think how much more useful that "suitable hardware" is with a real operating system that doesn't require 2GB of RAM to run Notepad without swapping.
Hell FreeBSD will run quite happily run on a 512MB machine with Compiz. W/o the snazzy OpenGL-accelerated wm (like using windowmaker instead), it'll run on an 64MB machine fairly well. It FLIES on a 2Ghz machine w/ 2GB of RAM and beats the disk much less than Vista will.
OS X Tiger ran great on a 450mhz G4 w/ 512MB RAM. It was even usable on a 500mhz G3 iBook w/ 384MB. OS X 10.4 has all the features Vista was touting and then some.
Just because Win7 "sucks less" doesn't mean MS deserves another chance.
And yes, I've used Vista. The 35 Vista machines we've been saddled with at work have been the biggest pains in our ass since they were purchased.
And anyone that willingly has DRM of that magnitude shoved down their throat on their own personal machine deserves what they get.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never had any problems with Vista's speed. I think the reporting on how slow it is is based on:
1) A couple bad benchmarks during its beta (the infamous "file copy" one, for example, which was quickly fixed in the release version)
2) Massive amounts of exaggeration from people who haven't even tried Vista.
There's also a possibility of:
3) Shitty driver support from OEMs.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
"Either they are rushing it, or it's really just a minor change to Vista."
Yes
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Interesting)
MSFT claims [windowsteamblog.com] that the reason it's 6.1 is because applications broke:
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
How many RC's do most projects plan for? I mean, if it goes to RC, it's a "release candidate" for god's sake! Unless you find a show-stopper bug during that time...
And that's the point. "Release Candidate" is supposed to mean, no known bugs remaining, abuse this until you find one.
So, you put the RC out for a month or so, or until someone finds a showstopper bug. When you find one, you put out another RC.
In other words, "as many as it takes." The fact that Microsoft is planning a specific number of them is kind of irresponsible -- if anyone was wondering that "Release Candidate" is Microsoft's slang for "Beta", this should seal it right here.
For what it's worth, Vista had enough showstopper bugs on release day, it's hard to believe it ran through any kind of release candidate process.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, "as many as it takes."...For what it's worth, Vista had enough showstopper bugs on release day, it's hard to believe it ran through any kind of release candidate process.
Though "beta" and "release candidate" are supposed to mean particular things, the truth is that what they mean depends on the developer using them. Microsoft in particular usually does plan on having a set number of betas and a set number of release candidates. For them, "beta" seems to mean, "stable enough to be used, but everything is still subject to change; feature incomplete." Release candidate seems to mean, "feature complete, time to squash bugs." Their release candidates are what lots of developers would call "beta", and usually they have at least 3 betas and 3 release candidates.
So as far as I can figure, that Microsoft is planning on only doing one of each probably means one of three things:
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't seem to know much about software development.
Alright, then. Despite working as a software developer for years, clearly I'm inferior to someone who doesn't even know how to use paragraphs.
There is no such thing as bug free software.
Wrong. It's just prohibitively expensive to produce it, in cases more complex than "Hello, World."
The question is whether or not those bugs are show stoppers...meaning they break something critical to the functionality of the product.
Also whether they are known.
I realize it's different in the commercial world, because with a few notable exceptions (Google), you can't sell beta or release candidate software -- you have to pretend it's a final release. However, in the open source world, aside from KDE, people have no problem leaving it pre-release -- by release candidate status, most software is easily desktop-ready, and once released, production server ready.
And you don't read very well. I did not say "no bugs remaining", I said "no known bugs remaining."
Is it the perfect product?... The myth of Linux being somehow above reproach is just that: a myth.
Strawmen. I never claim Linux was beyond reproach, or that I expect Windows to be perfect.
However, when there's a new Linux kernel released, it's pretty much ready to go into production. When there's a new Ubuntu released, people pretty much just push the Upgrade button. When there's a new Windows released, everyone waits for SP1 before even considering rolling it to production, or to corporate desktops.
What makes that really inexcusable is, Microsoft charges for that first release. With Ubuntu, if it doesn't work out, you've lost a ten cent blank CD.
Parent
Re:This seems abrupt (Score:5, Insightful)
>Win7 kernel feels like it's about 90% the same as Vista
How the heck do you know how a kernel feels? Is this slashdot or the Sylvia Brown psychic detective forums?
Parent
It's the same as vista (Score:5, Funny)
I like the way they think (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista was shoved out the door too early without enough time to season. So for their second whack at it, which they've conveniently renamed to disguise the fact that it's a second whack, they're shoving it out the door too early without enough time to season. Consistency is a good thing but not when you're doing it wrong.
Re:I like the way they think (Score:5, Insightful)
Bulk that up a bit and you could get work for the Register.
Parent
Marketing play (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 is mostly a marketing play. It should have been Vista SP2 with the usual bunch of very useful cleanups, accelerations and simplifications (i.e. what Vista should have been).
However, the name Vista is now such a disaster that they had to change the name.
Release Candidate? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very (Score:5, Insightful)
Not very different. Face it, Windows 7 is simply Windows Vista SP3. Microsoft just can't call it that because of the bad reputation Vista gained thanks to MS's mishandling and misapprehension of what users actually want. What we're seeing isn't a shortened beta cycle for Windows 7, it's a longer-than-usual testing/beta cycle for a service pack.
Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm using the Windows 7 Beta right now, and previously I've been using Windows Vista.
Is it really that much better? Here are the points I can think of it being better than Vista:
* Faster on Less Hardware - They did make it work better on older slower hardware with less memory.
* Less Annoying User Account Control - It doesn't freak out every time I want to run a program from the desktop. This should be included into Vista with a service pack, imho.
* New Starbar - I like it. Good Job Microsoft. But is it worth the upgrade?
Other than these things... why would anybody upgrade?
Oh... yeah, that's right... Everybody says it's "So much better." Right.
--Pathway
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm using the Windows 7 Beta right now, and previously I've been using Windows Vista.
Is it really that much better? Here are the points I can think of it being better than Vista:
* Faster on Less Hardware - They did make it work better on older slower hardware with less memory. * Less Annoying User Account Control - It doesn't freak out every time I want to run a program from the desktop. This should be included into Vista with a service pack, imho. * New Starbar - I like it. Good Job Microsoft. But is it worth the upgrade?
Other than these things... why would anybody upgrade?
Oh... yeah, that's right... Everybody says it's "So much better." Right.
--Pathway
What has every new edition of Windows been other than a slightly better UI coupled with more support for more hardware? I mean, 2 out of 3 of your points are about UI, and from what I've been able to tell (also currently running the beta) it makes a fairly large difference. Finding windows/using more windows at once isn't a problem with the new taskbar, and as you said, it is slightly leaner than Vista was.
So why would anybody upgrade? Because the only real reason people ever upgraded their (Windows) OS was security (adjustable UAC helps with that tremendously) and UI. So, yeah, it really is "So much better" to those who don't realize how minimal of a change this is. In fact, its still "So much better" for those who do know how minimal the change is. Hell, I was an XP holdout til the beta. I even have an XP partition on my drive, which I've used all of three times. The UI in 7 just keeps driving me back towards it, and I feel that's the same reason people will upgrade.
That's not to say that Vista couldn't be essentially 7 - in fact, with a simple service pack, it really would be just a slightly beefier version - but since that won't happen, expect people to flock to 7.
The UI is the frontend to the entire OS. Even minimal changes, especially good, solid minimal changes (e.g., the taskbar), make a huge difference in the overall "feel" of the OS. Furthermore, they help increase the usability of the OS - and coupled with running faster, these two seemingly small changes can really help increase productivity on the OS.
So, sure, aside from all these things... why would anybody upgrade? Because only an idiot would discount these things.
Parent
Re:Windows 7... Is it really that much better? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that XP does just about everything Vista does. Can you say the same for DOS?
Parent
Snow Leopard (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course they're trying to rush the release of Windows 7, Mac OS X "Snow Leopard" is right around the corner.
I guess that Apple ad about Microsoft putting all their money into marketing instead of R&D was closer to truth than some people would like to believe.
One thing I wish they'd fucking fix (Score:5, Informative)
I've been using Windows 7 on my Thinkpad for the last three weeks or so, and I've got a laundry list of bugs, issues and comments, and ironically one of the things that's broken in the beta release is the fucking "send feedback" feature.
I signed up for Microsoft Connect, and I still don't see any obvious way to submit bug reports. Maybe I have to be using IE or something.
And it's not like I haven't gotten Windows Updates in those three weeks. I think they don't really want any actual feedback. They're getting positive notes from the media, and Windows 7 will undoubtedly be far less reviled than Vista deservedly is, but the public beta has been out for a while; it's not like they could escape the fact that no one can send them bug reports.
I really think the fact that the "Send Feedback" button that's on every single open window in Windows 7 beta does not actually allow feedback to be sent is a deliberate move on the part of Microsoft.
It may be doomed regardless... (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the economy in most countries right now. Many people have either lost their jobs or are fearful for their security. Most firms need maximum productivity with minimum overheads to survive the storm.
Could there be a worse time to launch a new product? Especially when said product is a dubious, at best, improvement on XP. As a home user, and not a gamer, I see no reason whatsoever to switch from XP. For business users, I'm thinking it must be corporate suicide to introduce a new operating system that adds little extra features, and yet has such a different interface that it will require some extra training, and a noticeable decrease in productivity. Never mind the additional cost of licensing and installation.
I simply do not understand how they can possibly think Windows 7 will be successful.
7 to Vista is as SE to 98 (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is good at selling a repaired version of the original software at full price. I don't know any other business that can successfully release a broken product and then charge their customers full price for what essentially amounts to a product upgrade. Only lawyers get more money for less.