Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
GUI Operating Systems Windows

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 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • by religious freak ( 1005821 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:05AM (#25116995)
    Funny thing is they're not actually screen shots, they're running videos... guess they haven't fixed the memory management or paging issues in v7 either.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:12AM (#25117025)
      Erm... Did you try scrolling down? You know, to the screen shots?
      • by rishistar ( 662278 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @05:04AM (#25117311) Homepage

        Yeah, but I don't think its that much like their currently pushed Microsoft OS. I mean, the screen shot offering a Russian Mail Order bride isn't something I've seen in Vista.

      • by something_wicked_thi ( 918168 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @05:08AM (#25117333)

        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: (Score:3, Funny)

          by Anonymous Coward

          This is the voice of the automated DMCA-takedown pulice speaking. /. is now considered far too serious a site to contain jokes. Please desist or face execution.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by telchine ( 719345 )


      • by gravis777 ( 123605 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @10:43AM (#25120405)

        Yeah, but I cannot read Chinese, so I really did not know what I was looking at.

        Truthfully, what is wrong with the Vista interface? I thought the main thing people were complaining about was bad software compatability (which is a crock), poor drivers (the hardware developers have largely resolved this), the UAE (which can be turned off),and high resource hog (sadly, I have no comeback for this). Out of all the people that we have given Vista to in our company, not a single person has complained about the interface. In fact, the only two complaints we got was of a software bug (it exists in XP as well in this program package, but people natually blaimed Vista, even though they had it for years), and that their 15 year old printer suddenly does not work.

        • by truthsearch ( 249536 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:20AM (#25120979) Homepage Journal

          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.

        • by david_thornley ( 598059 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @12:03PM (#25121819)

          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.

        • by bishiraver ( 707931 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @01:18PM (#25123347) Homepage

          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: (Score:3, Informative)

            by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

            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.

    • by NotBornYesterday ( 1093817 ) * on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @08:39AM (#25118687) Journal
      This must be that new Mojave I've heard so much about ...
    • by penguin_dance ( 536599 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @09:52AM (#25119567)

      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.

  • Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by abigsmurf ( 919188 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:11AM (#25117023)
    The GUI is one of the later things to be implemented in a windows development cycle, of course it's going to look like Vista.

    That said, given that aero was one of the nicer things about Vista, I imagine they'll base the GUI on it but make it look different enough to elminite comparissons between vista.

    Ideally they'll strike a balance between the prettyness of vista and the functionality and performance of XP.

  • by Big Nothing ( 229456 ) <> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:12AM (#25117031)

    For those of you who cannot read the article due to slashdotting, here are some highlights:

    * It's main color is no longer blue, it's brown
    * The default desktop image features a graphical heron
    * The start button is now a circular orange button
    * Task bars or "Panels" can now be found both at the top of the screen AND at the bottom.
    * The new graphical bells and whistles previously referred to as Vista Aero is now called "Beryl".
    * Beryl is cooler and runs much smoother than Aero. It requires much less hardware power than Aero.
    * The new version of Windows is said to be much more stable and secure than any previous version.

  • by PinkyDead ( 862370 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:13AM (#25117035) Journal

    Look and Feel isn't the problem with Vista.

    A todo list would be a far more valuable leak at this point if MS want to change their fortune.

  • by apathy maybe ( 922212 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:16AM (#25117053) Homepage Journal

    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?)

  • by Chrisq ( 894406 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:17AM (#25117065)
    They missed this one [] from their screen-shots.
  • by CuteSteveJobs ( 1343851 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:27AM (#25117123)

    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?

    "Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Released"

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:38AM (#25117177)

      As Groucho would have said: "Windows leaks, but I repeat myself."

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 4D6963 ( 933028 )
      Caused, released is boring, makes it sound like anyone else before you has seen them. Leaked makes it sound like someone just dropped a brown envelope on your desk.
    • by Stan Vassilev ( 939229 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @05:02AM (#25117301)

      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 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.

  • by onion2k ( 203094 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:28AM (#25117137) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MikeUW ( 999162 )

      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 platfor

  • It looks just fine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eebra82 ( 907996 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:38AM (#25117175) Homepage
    From what I understand, and from personal experience, the way Vista looks is not the problem. It wouldn't make sense for them to invest so much money in a new look and then dump it. After all, if we take a look at previous Windows versions, this doesn't happen very often. Additionally, you can customize Vista in a million ways with the plethora of skins out there.

    Windows 7 will be a hit if they focus on what people have been complaining about, which is largely the sluggish performance - and this is what we should devote our attention to.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MtViewGuy ( 197597 )

      Windows 7 will be a hit if they focus on what people have been complaining about, which is largely the sluggish performance - and this is what we should devote our attention to.

      I would not be surprised Microsoft does the following:

      1) They aggressively optimize the code base for x86-based CPU's, which means overall faster performance.

      2) They decide (despite what has been said publicly to this day by Microsoft managers) to drop any pretenses of Windows 98 and earlier compatibility and require at least WIN32 A

  • by subreality ( 157447 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:40AM (#25117183)

    The name. They couldn't figure out how to salvage Vista trademark, so they're just making some relatively minor changes, and releasing it with a new name.

    • 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: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by steelfood ( 895457 )

        But does it still support DRM (Trusted Computing or whatever)? Because so long as it does, I'm never going to switch, nor recommend anyone I know to switch from XP.

  • by caluml ( 551744 ) <slashdot@spamgoe ... minus poet> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @04:50AM (#25117243) Homepage
    Why does the phrase "Even if you polish a turd, it's still a turd" come into my mind?
    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.
  • by Bozovision ( 107228 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @05:10AM (#25117347) Homepage

    If you are in marketing, and have a dog of a product to sell, a good tactic is to focus attention on the jam that you'll be selling tomorrow. Of course you don't actually have the jam yet, and you're still selling borg-daschund, so you can't just come out and say 'hey we have this radical NEW NEW softwares so much much better than the old tired limp one you are using to wash your spreadsheets'. So you behave like a hose. A drip here. A leak there. And before you know it all the people are clustered around the tiny tiny pastures of green in a desert of grey, saying 'wowser, check that colour scheme out'. Such a pity that they can't click to discover that the buttons don't do anything, but that's someone elses job and Bob is on an extended five year coffee break.

    Don't get too excited people. Remember that Microsoft is incapable of shifting an OS in the timescales that we've seen casually prognosticated. By the beginning of 2010 Vista will have hit its sweet spot in terms of hardware, and the drivers will be mature. That would be the worst time of all to introduce Vista2. Look to about 2012 for the next version, once Vista has peaked.

    Microsoft are in a monopolists market, there's no need for them to improve Vista in the short term despite the screams of pain from users. And anyway, the way to maintain dominance when you are the market leader is to force changes, so that your competition looks like followers; there's no way back for them.

    Executive summary: don't wait, at best this is a distraction. Go make some software. You be the leaders now.

    • by ozphx ( 1061292 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @05:55AM (#25117573) Homepage

      By the beginning of 2010 Vista will have hit its sweet spot in terms of hardware

      The wha?

      Tip: With ram at around $20 a gig, the people running around screaming that Vista won't run on ten bucks (512meg) of RAM should probably not be considering a $200 OS. It doesnt run on the free toy you get with a happy meal either.


      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Tip: With ram at around $20 a gig, the people running around screaming that Vista won't run on ten bucks (512meg) of RAM should probably not be considering a $200 OS. It doesnt run on the free toy you get with a happy meal either.

        The problem with that logic is that there are competing operating systems which will happily run on "ten bucks of RAM" and do everything Vista will do. Its not that RAM is expensive, its that Vista wastes the RAM it has on stuff that users don't want. I don't want a bunch of trusted computing threads watching to make sure I don't dare watch a movie I paid for on a monitor I paid for. I don't want threads making sure the audio I listen to is being played on Microsoft Approved High Security DRM+ Speakers. I w

  • Screenshots (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ledow ( 319597 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @05:55AM (#25117569) Homepage

    To be honest, I don't care what it looks like. So long as there's a "classic" option, that'll do, but I have much bigger problems that are not addressed by releasing videos/screenshots.

    I don't care what it looks like SO LONG as it has something I need. It doesn't look like it. In fact, it looks like they jiggered the Vista menus and toolbars a bit, renamed a few items, etc. These are changes I expect to see between SVN versions 7348738 and 7348740 of a window manager, not a "show-off" of the next version of Windows.

    The main problem I have with Windows is the laughable security - just look at that warning next to "no anti-virus software found"... those sorts of messages make me crease up.

    Antivirus software is like employing a $30/year, 500lb security guard to sit on the front step of your house and "confront" burglars, but who can't actually do anything to them because he can't stand up (and even if he could, why would he bother at $30/year?), while leaving all your doors and windows open and a ladder up to your bedroom out the back with a large sign that says "Free stuff inside" attached to it. Security Centre and UAC are like a nosey neighbour who you can't get rid of (without a lot of hassle) that likes to tell you that your security guard didn't come into work today or that some people walked out with tons of your gear but he didn't bother to call the police or anything.

    Also, I hate the pathetic attempts to set standards for everyone, rather than letting the users adjust Windows to their liking. Even Vista's "classic" mode isn't like it should be, it's impossible to get things exactly how they were in XP. And somehow the OS thinks it "knows better" than you. I daresay it does most of the time but the point is that sometimes IT DOESN'T and I need to override it, whether that's simple and personal (I don't WANT to know that I don't have antivirus, I don't WANT a new start menu) or complicated and technical (e.g. if I'm setting modelines in X). Don't like the new ribbon? Well.. tough really. We've splatted it over everything from Paint to Wordpad.

    I don't know if the release of Windows 7 is trying to cover for Vista's "mistake" (which, of course, MS has done quite well out of anyway because of the usual reasons) or whether they really think that people will want to upgrade to Vista and then to Windows 7 within the space of three or four years. Tell me that WinFS is in it, tell me it doesn't NEED antivirus or a third-party firewall any more (you could still install it, obviously, but if it didn't need it, who would?), tell me you've condensed all the versions into one quite-cheap version with no artificial limitations, tell me it's got some radical new ideas that nobody's seen before, tell me anything... but don't show me screenshots that I could mock up in seconds using Vista's menu and a quick Photoshop. Don't show me "features" that would take about 20 minutes each to write once the windowing/toolbar code was properly seperated out into new libraries. Don't show me even more of the same rubbish that I can't stand Vista for.

    In the meantime, I've got to print off that antivirus screenshot and pin it on my wall to laugh at occasionally.

  • Why would I update? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @06:07AM (#25117645) Journal

    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).

  • by Helldesk Hound ( 981604 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @06:47AM (#25117855) Homepage

    This is Microsoft we're talking about.

    This is a deliberate and orchestrated part of Microsoft's marketing campaign that will gradually intensify up until the time when it is foisted onto the general public as the next "most secure version ever" release (together with several increasingly crippled "home" or "business" versions) of the next iteration of WindowsNT (WinNT7).

    Do not be fooled by this "leaked" bullshit.

  • Ribbon revolution (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PietjeJantje ( 917584 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @06:51AM (#25117875)
    The problem of these screenshots is that they show us nothing that wasn't there in Windows 95. Of course, I'm talking functionality, not looks. The Windows 95 dull beveled style interface is more usable too, I'm afraid. Beveled is the most usable interface style in history, ironically because it is boring, and outrageously because it offers more depth than UIs developed for higher resolutions, with their flat buttons and all.

    The problem of MS is that the desktop metaphor works. You have a desktop, you have icons on it, you click an icon to launch a program. From an UI point of view, there's not much too it. So how do you sell a new cycle of your product when you're unable to offer true new stuff like a history machine or database file system?

    These screenshots show nothing but that same ability to launch the same old programs in windows. With one exception: the ribbon (or tabbed toolbars or whatever you want to call it). There even seem to be mini ribbons on things like IE8. This, I think, is an interesting development, as MS seems be be targeting differentiation from Linux and Mac style UIs. I for one think both the old menu style is kind of broken (but easily fixed if the standard lineup is updated to our times) while the new ribbon style also has many problems. Problems are: abandonment of all the sweet we got from IBM Common User Access standards (less consistency throughout applications-but better, optimized usability for single programs you mastered), less screen estate for the content, too many options in view for basic users (by adding lots of icons/functionality to the normal view, it weirdly seems for power users - yet then they remove the menus from standard view to reduce complexity). One of its strongest points is context-changes. The weakest that one app will have ribbon, the next traditional menus, and it's a mess now with two systems. Overall, it has some advantages and disadvantages, and it will be interesting to see MS pursue this idea and use it on their user base, and see what happens. Me, as a View->Toolbars option I'd never object to it, but I'm not sure about defaulting it because I rather dislike CUA being lost. I don't like the mess with the hiding of tradional menus/alt key, perhaps they should go for a single topbar on the desktop, Mac OS style.

    Overal, I'm not entirely convinced yet this is a real improvement, or just another alteration to defeat the problem of the 2nd paragraph, which reminds me too much of football teams slightly changing their kits every season, to sell "new" kits to their fan base. But I applaud MS for at least trying to combine it. I guess this is one of the good side-effects of MS becoming less relevant. They will have to innovate.
  • Who really cares? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AccUser ( 191555 ) < minus painter> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @06:53AM (#25117883) Homepage

    I know everyone likes eye candy these days, but really, does the look of the Windows UI really make much difference? One of the biggest things I think Microsoft got wrong was to assume that people only cared about what Windows looked like, and really didn't care about how it worked. Now, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people don't care about how it works, as long as it does.

  • by distantbody ( 852269 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @07:04AM (#25117947) Journal
    Visual updates and changes to inconsequential applications does not a solid basis for a new OS make.

    I would like to see at least one --just ONE-- new piece of technology. WinFS much Microsoft!!!

    I'm reminded of this comment from somewhere: 'Google isn't interested in Microsoft's 90s era technologies'.
  • by lophophore ( 4087 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @07:47AM (#25118197) Homepage

    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: (Score:3, Informative)

      by argent ( 18001 )

      Apple (who is even more proprietary than Microsoft)

      Oh, cool, you mean we can download the NT kernel source now?

      • by lophophore ( 4087 ) on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @09:23AM (#25119157) Homepage

        That's a specious argument. Just because you can download some of the source of OS X, doesn't make Apple an "open" company. Their behavior demonstrates otherwise.

        I dislike Apple less than I dislike Microsoft. However, if I want to run their OS, which is clearly superior to Windows, there is a > 25% premium on the hardware. Why can't I run OS X on a Dell, or Lenovo laptop? Why am I locked into Apple's hardware? Because Apple is a proprietary company.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DaveWick79 ( 939388 )

      1. If MS went the route of Apple and started selling their OS on tightly controlled hardware with a limited set of rock solid drivers, we wouldn't be talking about BSOD's, hard freezes, etc. - at least no more than it happens on OSX (oh yes, it does!).

      2. Desktop Linux will not continue to grow until somebody gets the UI out of diapers. It will not go past the range of the geek and the hobbyist. The cost of maintaining a system in which most administrative functions end up having to be done in a terminal

  • by hyades1 ( 1149581 ) <> on Tuesday September 23, 2008 @11:25AM (#25121079)

    I doubt whether it was originally intended as such, but I'm betting that the utter failure of Vista is going to mean Windows 7 will be rushed into production long before it's ready, and in a completely different form that what was originally conceived.

    In short, I suspect Windows 7 will wind up being The Pig That Is Vista with lipstick...probably eye-liner and blush, too.

Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration. -- Thomas Alva Edison