Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Leaked 587
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."
Re:From what I hear... (Score:2, Informative)
Fixed.
Re:I'm surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Even if you polish a turd... (Score:3, Informative)
Try Ubuntu 8.04 with an ATI/Nvidia/Intel graphics card, and install "ccsm", and play with all the options. I have actually grown to like the "wobbly windows" that act a little like sheets of paper.
Re:Why do we say 'Leaked'? (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone knows 'Leak' is Public-Relations-Speak for 'Released'. Now if someone uploaded Windows 7, *THAT* would be a leak. But for anything else than that, why can't we call it what it is?
No one said "leaked" in the original blog where the screenshots are. This came from reposts on other blogs and from the Slashdot summary. So if it's "PR" speak, I guess Slashdot's doing the PR work for Microsoft here.
If you want a piece of real news for Windows 7, let me "leak" two your way:
1) Windows 7 will unbundle many bundled apps it used to come with, such as Windows Mail, Photo Gallery, Movie Maker. They will be now offered separately as free downloads on live.com. This means if you use Thunderbird, you never have to install Windows Mail (former Outlook Express) anymore.
2) Windows 2008 and Vista SP1 were based on the same exact source code, packaged with different modules and configuration. Windows 7 will continue this approach, as it will share the exact same source with Windows 2008 R2.
Re:Sure those are pics? (Score:5, Informative)
I think the parent was trying to make a joke. The joke was that they were videos but the operating system was going so slow that they only seemed like screenshots.
Re:In case it gets slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
I realise you're taking the piss, but...
Not new to Windows. I'm pretty sure you've been able to do this since Windows 98.
Re:I'm surprised (Score:3, Informative)
Ah, nope.
Slashdot is CmdrTaco's blog [slashdot.org].
Re:*Yawn*, I think I'll stick with Ubuntu. (Score:5, Informative)
Have you considered that 512Meg is sufficient for his needs? I also have 512Meg systems running Ubuntu and they're snappy and work well. Heck, my wifes computer (WinXP) has 2Gig and it rarely uses more than 620Meg or so.... That's with both of us logged in.
512Meg for a normal desktop doing a bit surfing email, word processing, spreadsheet and similar "light" task is sufficient. (Clue in the 640k is enough for anyone commenters)
For him, the choice might be between "spending money on something he doesn't really need" and "not spending money at all".
Re:Pointless (Score:2, Informative)
I do if I really have to work ;) Running XP I fire up Cygwin though.
Re:In case it gets slashdotted (Score:5, Informative)
I know that it's possible in XP because I checked before posting. Unlock the taskbar, and drag the toolbars around the screen. It's not quite as flexible as in Ubuntu, as the start button, clock, notification area and application 'tabs' all have to be on the same bar. But stuff like quick launch, search field... basically anything in the 'Toolbars' menu can be dragged to different parts of the screen.
I think you've been able to do that since 98, as that was when the quick launch bar was introduced. If I'm wrong, then I stand corrected :)
Re:The screenshots page has a tojan (Score:3, Informative)
Er... you might want to check your machine.
Admittedly, I'm running Opera but I didn't see anything of the sort in the page code. Maybe you hit a bad advert or maybe you've got something your end that's doing that?
Re:I can see they fixed the big problem with Vista (Score:5, Informative)
Having worked on the Win7 team, I'd say Vista to Win7 felt more like the difference between 2000 and XP. There are a couple new big features (Win7 has multitouch support, BitLocker has been dramatically improved, etc.), a variety of UI tweaks and tricks (the new theme picker, the modified system tray, and more of that sort), and some mostly-behind-the-scenes changes (faster bootup and hibernation on multicore machines, UAC by default now elevates without prompting for Microsoft-signed executables, and a few others).
It *is* an improvement, but could arguably be described as a refined and matured version of Vista, with a couple new features. It's a bigger change, especially from the user perspective, than XP RTM to XP SP2, but much smaller than XP SP2 to Vista.
Re:Vista is Windows 7. (Score:1, Informative)
3. Windows 3/3.11/NT 3.5
4. Windows 95/ NT 4.0
5. Windows ME/ Windows NT 2000
5.1 Windows XP/ Windows Server 2003
6. Windows Vista/Windows Server 2008.
Re:Vista is Windows 7. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3 / 3.10 / 3.11
4. Windows 95
4.1 Windows 98
4.9 Windows ME
Windows NT (Started at 3 to be on parity with regular windows at the time)
3. NT 3.1 / 3.5 /3.51
4. NT 4
5. Windows 2000
5.1 Windows XP
5.2 Windows XP 64 / Server Edition
6. Windows Vista
Re:*Yawn*, I think I'll stick with Ubuntu. (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, most of the Cairo concepts is now in Windows Vista--the only significant thing missing is the object-based Windows File System (WinFS) that Microsoft has been working on for many years.
Re:So, it's basically Windows Vista again then? (Score:3, Informative)
Usually, very early beta releases tend to use the interface from previous versions, so in terms of "look and feel" there won't be significant changes. Microsoft usually does the interface changes starting with the second beta releases, if the experience from the Windows XP and Vista beta testing is anything to go by.
(If I remember correctly, Windows 95 was probably the only Microsoft OS that had the new interface right from the first beta test versions, mostly because it was such a radical change in the interface compared to the MS-DOS 5.0/6.0 and Windows 3.1x combination.)
Re:The screenshots page has a tojan (Score:2, Informative)
Re:increasingly irrelevent (Score:3, Informative)
Apple (who is even more proprietary than Microsoft)
Oh, cool, you mean we can download the NT kernel source now?
Re:Pointless (Score:5, Informative)
Yes. For example, when MS bought Hotmail and changed the servers from FreeBSD to Windows, they used SFU (including ssh and rsync) to do the remote administration. There was a leaked MS memo discussing this, it was on Slashdot back in the day. Here [slashdot.org], in fact.
Re:From what I hear... (Score:3, Informative)
While I agree that the Unix security model is very far from ideal, and sudo'ing constantly sucks, there are some differences:
Re:increasingly irrelevent (Score:2, Informative)
Screenshots Are Removed (Score:2, Informative)
Looks like the screenshots have been removed. If you follow the link from the PC Authority article you get a 404, and they are nowhere to be found from the direct link.
Re:Pointless (Score:3, Informative)
And, not to mention, there is still software which doesn't work on 64-bit Windows, XP or Vista. (Flash Player on Win x64, anyone? ;)
Re:I can see they fixed the big problem with Vista (Score:5, Informative)
You mean that if somebody can figure out how to forge a microsoft signature or infect a signed file they can get carte blance access to your machine.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no concept on how certificates and signing works.
Read up on certificates and signing code, then come back and say you're sorry.
*Yawn*, I think I'll stick withTinyXP. (Score:3, Informative)
"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?)"
TinyXP is nice for those who don't need all the extras. There's also a Vista version.
Re:Pointless (Score:2, Informative)
Last I check, SFU is way outdated. The file case insensitive tweak will create more troubles for Windows than it worth, and the file system path is just plain incompatible, why can't they create a system that map say C:\ABC\DEF to the unix standard /mnt/c/abc/def?
In the other word, if you expect to install Postfix etc... on Windows just because it has SFU, you will be very disappointed.
Re:Pointless (Score:4, Informative)
Click on it again while it animates it's departure, and it just plain goes away.
Re:Sure those are pics? (Score:5, Informative)
I hate the new control panel. Silly small little inconsistencies add up:
Before, to change your window theme you could either access it by right clicking on your desktop and going to preferences. Or you could go into your display properties in the control panel. This was a little easier to do for me, because I can reach it with keyboard commands.
I went to turn off Aero in Vista (and thus, free up 500mb of memory). I couldn't find it. I looked all over in control panel. It wasn't there. They removed a lot of the 'basic' desktop preferences away completely from the control panel. Um, hello?
Little inconsistencies like this - where you can access PARTS of your display properties from one thing, and other parts from elsewhere - but not both from the same place. It's pure lunacy. And it's rife throughout the OS.
Re:Sure those are pics? (Score:3, Informative)
Aero doesn't use anything like 500mb of RAM.
Even more interestingly, people don't seem to complain about MacOS's use of pretty RAM-eating graphics, which back when it launched on relatively low end Apple hardware was an even bigger deal.
I guess people like the MacOS interface but not Aero. Transparent windows containing stuff you are trying to look at (hi Media Player) is probably a bad idea.
Re:Sure those are pics? (Score:2, Informative)
Have you used IE7 in XP? Works exactly the same way.
Turn off the Allow/Deny by going to Control Panel, User Accounts, then Turn User Account Control On or Off.
IE7 options can be set by going to Tools, Internet Options, Security, Custom Level, and on the Advanced Tab.
Make sure you have java installed, www.java.com
As for the translucent windows, if it really bugs you, Right Click on Desktop, goto Personalize, Window Color and Appearence, Open Classic Appearance, and under Color Schemes, choose Windows Classic.
Also, you may have some spyware. Goto Spybot.info [spybot.info] and download, install, and run Spybot. Make sure to turn off the Tea Timer.
Also, make sure you have your Windows Updates installed.
Anything else I can help you with?
Re:I can see they fixed the big problem with Vista (Score:3, Informative)
Well, since code signing is part of Trusted Computing, I can assure you that part is still present. As for *media* DRM, I can't say - but I've used Vista for years, as a gamer and as somebody who likes music and movies, and I've had no DRM-releated issues in the least.
Peter Gutmann's article, which I'm guessing you've read and based the above opinion on, was full of crock. It was blatantly obvious when he wrote it that he had never even tried to do his research properly - some of the stuff he described as outright impossible due to DRM worked just fine (unified video drivers for different GPU models, for example), and other things he claimed would happen never did (all audio and video getting downgraded just because you're playing a .mp3 through a non-protected path). He's revised it a few times, removing some of the more patently false BS, but it still reads like BS anyhow.
To reiterate my above point: I've had NO issues stemming from DRM on my system. I don't have Blu-Ray or anything REALLY badly DRMed, but XP won't play those anyhow. The key issue is that everything I tried to do in XP also works in Vista.
Re:I can see they fixed the big problem with Vista (Score:2, Informative)
64-bit doesn't support a lot of drivers as of yet, so no point migrating till I can run my hardware. As for DRM, if you lack a rights-signed driver, in the 64-bit version of Vista you cannot install the driver. And the cost for a signature is not within the reach of the hobbyist.
I run into it precisely because I build hardware for a hobby.