Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Windows 7- August deadline

Tags:
Last response: in Windows 7
Share
a b $ Windows 7
January 27, 2009 10:20:12 PM

Hello,
I have heard here that the windows 7 beta will only be available until August (31st maybe?).

I happen to love it so far and so does my wife. Will there be a beta 2 released? And when do we expect to have it released for general public sales?
Thanks
a b $ Windows 7
January 28, 2009 11:55:21 AM

I don't know about a Beta 2, as there has been no announcement or press release to that effect.

The rumor mill seems to believe there won't be a Beta 2. Instead, the talk/blogs are more centered around an RC (Release Candidate) version sometime in the summer, followed by 7 going RTM (Release to manufacturers) 4th quarter~ish. It's just rumors, but clearly Microsoft are trying to get it out as fast as they can.
January 28, 2009 12:14:40 PM

I have win 7 beta and have been on the windows tech net beta forums some. The beta key expires august 1st. Most rumors and forum threads are talking like the retail release will be moved up, maybe as soon as april. I doubt that, but the rumors are about the release being moved up because Microsoft is very disapointed with Vista and big OEMs (Dell, HP, etc) hate vista.
Related resources
January 28, 2009 1:02:32 PM

Which is even more amusing because Windows 7 is really just a derivative product of Windows Vista.
a b $ Windows 7
January 28, 2009 1:42:29 PM

I don't believe that April is a realistic target for release. *Maybe*... Just Maybe... If the stars align properly, we may see a Release Candidate in that kind of time frame. But again, I doubt it and feel it'd be more likely to see (contrary to rumors) a Beta 2 in that short a timeframe, followed by the RC in Summer.

Just my $0.02.


The deal with the OEM's - Dell doesn't like Vista, since the changes made from XP to Vista interfered with the proprietary garbage they like to shovel out the door and down people's throats. Keep in Mind that Dell was one of the primary companies pressuring MSFT to cave on their requirements, and therefore contributed to causing the "Vista Capable" debacle.


HP, on the other hand, are/were really *REALLY* pissed at Microsoft for caving in. HP had made significant investments in tooling and software to ensure they were ready for Vista's release, only to have MSFT turn around and make the entire effort, and the millions of dollars spent, a big waste.
January 28, 2009 2:09:40 PM

I would prefer MS follow what some of the gaming companies do.....take extra time to work out as many bugs as possible before releasing the product. Vista, while I had pretty good luck with it, was pushed out too fast and we weren't ready for it. It would have been one thing if Vista had been an improved form of XP (look basically the same with some fixes), but it wasn't. It was totally new all the way around.

Windows 7 is loosely based off of Vista so they need to take the extra time to work out the kinks before releasing it.
January 28, 2009 2:13:06 PM

bhowell said:
[...] what some of the gaming companies do.....take extra time to work out as many bugs as possible before releasing the product.


You're kidding, yes?
January 28, 2009 2:29:19 PM

Kidding...no. Sarcastic.....yes. Hopefull....aren't we all?
January 28, 2009 2:36:54 PM

I've still got a bad taste in my mouth from games like Star Wars Galaxies is all...

I'm not saying that every game released on a PC is sold in a completely broken state, but they generally have more issues than many other types of software.
January 28, 2009 2:46:39 PM

I did say some as well. Look at Blizzard for example. They have pushed back several games to try and get it the best it can be. It will be impossible to get rid of all bugs or imcompatabilities, but they at least do as many as they can. I can't think of any of their games that I have had major issues with. There are some others that I have had good luck with, but would have to look at my collection at home to remember what they were.
January 28, 2009 2:50:21 PM

squatchman said:
Which is even more amusing because Windows 7 is really just a derivative product of Windows Vista.


Statements like these make me cry. You obviously know nothing about Operating Systems. With your logic, you are stating something such as, 'Windows XP is just a derivative product of Windows 98.'
January 28, 2009 2:56:49 PM

I thought Windows 7 was based on the same core as Server 2008, but I could be mistaken... it's a Vista derivative, for sure and is supposed to even use the same driver model for the most part.

To use a sometimes-used Microsoft nomenclature: Windows 7 = pretty much Vista R2 (not SP2)
January 28, 2009 3:01:00 PM

and ethernex... win 7 has the same core architecture as vista fyi, so yes, it is sort of a derivative...win 98 and win xp were completely different, so no need to get anal with your 'logic'

win me was a derivative of win 98, but it was worse
January 28, 2009 4:02:26 PM

In any case, the fact that it's a derivative doesn't mean it won't end up a good OS. Only time will tell but so far I have hear quite a few good comments specially concerning that fact that it's seem a lot less resources hungry.
a b $ Windows 7
January 28, 2009 4:09:45 PM

bhowell said:
I would prefer MS follow what some of the gaming companies do.....take extra time to work out as many bugs as possible before releasing the product.


You're kidding, right?? ;)  :na: 

Where do you define the line? For example - Outside manufacturers had code samples and documentation about the changes in Vista well over a year in advance of GA. Jack@sses like Creative took a year *after* GA to release "functional" drivers (ignoring that certain functionality is still broken), and then only for their newest cards, forcing the public to trash their old stuff. And yet, every other moron in the world blames audio troubles on Microsoft. TWO YEARS, and people are still blaming Microsoft for the screwing they're getting from Creative.

While I fully understand that QA is key and that Vista needed more work. But IMHO, an awful lot of the blame lies with 3rd party vendors who either ignored the changes, or used it as an opportunity to force people into buying replacement items by end of lifing them for the new platform. You can't expect the OS maker to provide drivers for the thousands and thousands of devices out there that they don't make. Fully agreed that Microsoft should be held to task for what Microsoft screwed up. But blaming them for other's failures isn't right, productive, or fair. If you drive a Chevrolet, buy a new Radio and you make it 10 miles down the road before the Radio explodes... You don't scream at your Chevy dealer, do you?? Yet this is apparently the exact standard MSFT is being held to. And it is, and has been a steaming pile.



Quote:
Vista, while I had pretty good luck with it, was pushed out too fast and we weren't ready for it. It would have been one thing if Vista had been an improved form of XP (look basically the same with some fixes), but it wasn't. It was totally new all the way around.


If you change it, everyone cries because it's different... But if you don't change it, then everyone cries 'cos you "...haven't done anything..." I agree that some of the things don't make sense from a user perspective, and others - like the much reviled UAC - are just annoying. But once you understand that the Search Box is now your Friend and you don't need to remember paths any more, then it makes a LOT more sense and really is faster and easier. Type it, and it's there.

I agree there are a number of things that should have been done better, and had Microsoft released Vista this year looking like 7 does now, the outcome may have been different. But <shrug >




January 28, 2009 4:45:50 PM

I am not saying blame MS for what the peripheral manufactures should have done themselves. That would be wrong, unproductive, and unfair as you said. They still have their own share of things they could have done. I was not aware of how long the manufacture had to get their stuff together, but I did know it should have been ample time. I didn't have a lot of the problems that others had with hardware that didn't work with Vista as most machines I have had were basic machines with integrated sound/video. This last machine I built was the first....in a very long time, that had individual components. I can't comment much on slacking manufacturers.

I am in full agreement about the two sides of change in an O/S. Those that scream about change and those that scream about not enough change. I, for one, welcome new O/S's. I love playing with them, figuring them out, and generally seeing how well they do. I can also understand those users out there in the world that aren't "computer literate". For them change is difficult and when you have something like the UAC popping up on nearly every action they do, that can be downright scary. That is something that MS should have thought about more before releasing. Windows 7 did the UAC much better. It gave you more options that simply on and off. It gave that much needed 3rd option of "stay quiet unless user wants to do something potentially damaging".

As far as the search...I don't use it personally. I uncheck and disable all search/indexing related menus and services. With my computer being for games mostly, I don't need that feature. If I am needing to do something to a file, I simply use "windows-E" and just go to the folder. I have been trying to figure out how to remove that search bar from my start menu for some time now. I am almost to the point where I don't even seen it.

I think if they had released Vista and Windows 7 as one package at the time they plan on releasing Win7, I think that would have been plenty of time to work out some kinks....barring any manufactures dragging their feet.
January 28, 2009 4:48:37 PM

Scotteq said:
You're kidding, right?? ;)  :na: 

Where do you define the line? For example - Outside manufacturers had code samples and documentation about the changes in Vista well over a year in advance of GA. Jack@sses like Creative took a year *after* GA to release "functional" drivers (ignoring that certain functionality is still broken), and then only for their newest cards, forcing the public to trash their old stuff. And yet, every other moron in the world blames audio troubles on Microsoft. TWO YEARS, and people are still blaming Microsoft for the screwing they're getting from Creative.

While I fully understand that QA is key and that Vista needed more work. But IMHO, an awful lot of the blame lies with 3rd party vendors who either ignored the changes, or used it as an opportunity to force people into buying replacement items by end of lifing them for the new platform. You can't expect the OS maker to provide drivers for the thousands and thousands of devices out there that they don't make. Fully agreed that Microsoft should be held to task for what Microsoft screwed up. But blaming them for other's failures isn't right, productive, or fair. If you drive a Chevrolet, buy a new Radio and you make it 10 miles down the road before the Radio explodes... You don't scream at your Chevy dealer, do you?? Yet this is apparently the exact standard MSFT is being held to. And it is, and has been a steaming pile.



Quote:
Vista, while I had pretty good luck with it, was pushed out too fast and we weren't ready for it. It would have been one thing if Vista had been an improved form of XP (look basically the same with some fixes), but it wasn't. It was totally new all the way around.


If you change it, everyone cries because it's different... But if you don't change it, then everyone cries 'cos you "...haven't done anything..." I agree that some of the things don't make sense from a user perspective, and others - like the much reviled UAC - are just annoying. But once you understand that the Search Box is now your Friend and you don't need to remember paths any more, then it makes a LOT more sense and really is faster and easier. Type it, and it's there.

I agree there are a number of things that should have been done better, and had Microsoft released Vista this year looking like 7 does now, the outcome may have been different. But <shrug >


I could not agree more. Although MS is not innocent and do strongarm, they catch more crap than is needed. I rember people making same gripe about XP when it came out and now here we are again with XP/Vista. They get slammed for changing things and then slammed for not. Best they can do is try to change things that the greater number of people seem to be looking for.
January 28, 2009 8:39:47 PM

I have to say there is far more the same about windows 7 than different with Vista. The performance is about the same, it's mainly a UI tweak. Reminds me a lot of the 2000/XP change. Everyone suddenly loved XP, more or less it was 2000 with a face lift. Sure time had allowed for better driver support but the same is true for Windows 7.

Microsoft typically will allow you to beta until the RTM and sometime until the general release. Frequently I use my MSDN access so I don't follow their public beta stuff to closely so that may not hold true.
January 29, 2009 12:51:40 AM

bydesign said:
I have to say there is far more the same about windows 7 than different with Vista. The performance is about the same, it's mainly a UI tweak. Reminds me a lot of the 2000/XP change.

Agreed. It's not a bad thing, it's just not really a good thing either. It's only bad if you intend to pay for the OS I guess, rather than aquring it through other (legal) means :bounce: 
a b $ Windows 7
January 29, 2009 2:18:43 AM

Well, I don't know relatedness to vista but I had vista on my laptop and I like 7 much better.
Also I have found that it appears to be more compatible, at this point anyway. Sometimes it will take a vista driver and I've also seen it take XP drivers.
Anyway, is the release candidate something that MS will offer for download? If they do it?
Thanks
Scott
January 29, 2009 2:59:58 AM

It should take Vista drivers, M$ said everything that works on Vista should work on Win 7.
January 29, 2009 1:34:48 PM

randomizer said:
It should take Vista drivers, M$ said everything that works on Vista should work on Win 7.


I had a few problems with my Vista drivers telling me they were not compatible for this version of windows. It was a problem with the installer though, not the drivers themselves. Installing them in "Vista" compatibility mode allowed the programs to install the drivers successfully.
January 29, 2009 9:25:46 PM

Well, it is a beta. Nothing really needs to work at all until RTM ;) 
January 30, 2009 3:49:33 PM

every vista 64bit driver i tried worked, except the realtek lan driver. But the generic windows 7 lan driver worked flawlessly. The vista drivers work a heck of a lot better than the win7beta drivers.

I never had vista, but coming from xp, i really like win7. Which may be more of a function of going from 32bit to 64bit. Regardelss, i like win7-64 over winxp32.

I would really like to see a mature ATI driver on win7, like CCC 9.1. ATI is the only issue i have. The ATI win7 beta drivers sucks out loud. The ati 8.12 & 8.11 vista 64 drivers work, but lose some performance on my setup.
a b $ Windows 7
January 30, 2009 7:16:42 PM

50 - I installed the 64 bit 9.1 driver on my 7 partition last night. So far it appears to work, though I only played Bioshock briefly.
January 30, 2009 10:24:54 PM

Cat 9.1 isn't that great. They even removed multicore optimisations from it, which will be back in 9.2.
January 31, 2009 12:46:02 PM

I installed CCC9.1. It does run better than 8.12, 8.11 and ATI win7 beta drivers. But it really did not help overall performance. Overall 9.1 is better regarding compatibility, equal to 8.12 in performance.

i am a little disapointed.

Oh yeah, i used CCC 9.1 Vista 64 drivers.
!