AfterDawn: Tech news

Microsoft site reveals Windows 7 RC date

Written by James Delahunty (Google+) @ 19 Apr 2009 19:10 User comments (24)

Microsoft site reveals Windows 7 RC date Microsoft's partner program site temporarily revealed an expected date for the first Windows 7 release candidate to be made available. "Partners: If you have a subscription to MSDN or TechNet, you can download Windows 7 RC now," the page read Saturday afternoon. "Otherwise, you can download Windows 7 RC starting May 5, 2009." The link however led the user to a TechNet download page that didn't have any Windows 7 RC in sight.
This is the second such incident in about three weeks to do with the release candidate details. In late March, a page was added to a Microsoft site indicating that the RC will be available sometime in May, but when it started to get attention, Microsoft quickly removed it.

The latest information leak did not mention a public roll-out date, but generally speaking Microsoft makes previews available to MSDN and TechNet several days before the public. For example, in January MSDN subscribers could download a Windows 7 beta on January 7, while the public started to download on January 9.

Previous Next  

24 user comments

119.4.2009 19:54

I know vista is bad but it appears to me as if they are rushing things, which dosen't bode well

219.4.2009 20:20

Its MSDN time we all know what that means. i have a box full of hungry Pirates waiting to tear it apart.

319.4.2009 21:51

I stuck with XP after hearing all the horror stories about Vista's sound problems. Is Windows 7 just a face-lift of Vista? I primarily use my pc for high end games, but also like the legacy stuff that DosBox offers. I am wondering if Microshaft is ditching DOS completely for W7 and what that means for dosbox.

Cant enjoy my pc without playing the classics once in a while (Leisure Suit Larry, Ultima & Tex Murphy!

419.4.2009 21:58

Originally posted by windsong:
I stuck with XP after hearing all the horror stories about Vista's sound problems. Is Windows 7 just a face-lift of Vista? I primarily use my pc for high end games, but also like the legacy stuff that DosBox offers. I am wondering if Microshaft is ditching DOS completely for W7 and what that means for dosbox.

Cant enjoy my pc without playing the classics once in a while (Leisure Suit Larry, Ultima & Tex Murphy!
I have Vista and XP on one hard drive and a store all my programs on a separate drive.

Vista's DX10 API and 64-bit environments are the only reason i have it installed. its an otherwise bulky unresourceful OS
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Apr 2009 @ 22:03

Powered By

519.4.2009 23:18

good to see they are heading to RC already ive got win 7 beta on 1 of my machines and it runs a dream the best looking fastest OS windows has created and ive only managed to make it crash once for a beta that's extremely good...ill be buying windows 7 if it keeps up its current track :)

619.4.2009 23:37

Originally posted by fordsrule:
good to see they are heading to RC already ive got win 7 beta on 1 of my machines and it runs a dream the best looking fastest OS windows has created and ive only managed to make it crash once for a beta that's extremely good...ill be buying windows 7 if it keeps up its current track :)
I love Windows 7 as well, but had to revert on my one box because any video played in the system would lock up the machine. Hopefully they fix this video/graphics driver issue with the RC, but it's also likely that the Vista drivers (which mostly work in 7) may not be working properly for video playback.

720.4.2009 0:28

Originally posted by beanos66:
I know vista is bad but it appears to me as if they are rushing things, which dosen't bode well
How do you know? Vista is not bad. Been using it for over 2 years and runs well on 100's of computers in the network I maintain.

Originally posted by windsong:
I stuck with XP after hearing all the horror stories about Vista's sound problems. Is Windows 7 just a face-lift of Vista? I primarily use my pc for high end games, but also like the legacy stuff that DosBox offers. I am wondering if Microshaft is ditching DOS completely for W7 and what that means for dosbox.

Cant enjoy my pc without playing the classics once in a while (Leisure Suit Larry, Ultima & Tex Murphy!
You believe everything you hear. Vista had a rough start but much of that was to third party issues out of Microsofts control. Also DOS has been dead since windows 2000. Command prompt has been there and will still be there and will look like Dos but Dos under Windows as in the Windows9x era died with Windows ME. Windows Vista runs fine and the only thing I will admit that it was a bit of resource hog which is easily resolved with the addition of some inexpensive Ram. When you can get a couple of gigs for $20 that is not so bad. Of course if you tried to install it on an old computer which many people did and said that Vista was to blame then that is their fault isn't it.

820.4.2009 2:09

Originally posted by windsong:
I stuck with XP after hearing all the horror stories about Vista's sound problems. Is Windows 7 just a face-lift of Vista? I primarily use my pc for high end games, but also like the legacy stuff that DosBox offers. I am wondering if Microshaft is ditching DOS completely for W7 and what that means for dosbox.

Cant enjoy my pc without playing the classics once in a while (Leisure Suit Larry, Ultima & Tex Murphy!
windsong, bobiroc is harsh, but he has his head screwed on straight. I also have no major issues with Vista, it's all just history repeating itself. But to answer your question, yes, Windows 7 is pretty much a face-lift of Vista. Fortunately, as I'm sure bobiroc knows, it is supposedly better on system resources. (And that's from actual testing reports, not just marketing crap. How many times have we heard the new OS runs faster and uses less overhead?) I'm beginning to believe what some have said may come true: that Vista is to Windows 7 what WinME was to XP. Could it be true? Could Vista be the next Mistake Edition? Miss'ta?

920.4.2009 5:39

Originally posted by beanos66:
I know vista is bad but it appears to me as if they are rushing things, which dosen't bode well
Well, if you think about it, Windows 7 is just Vista plus the stuff they didn't have time to put in Vista. It's not a whole new OS...just Vista finally being completed. I still don't like it, but it IS a bit better than Vista.

1020.4.2009 9:05

Quote:
Originally posted by windsong:
I stuck with XP after hearing all the horror stories about Vista's sound problems. Is Windows 7 just a face-lift of Vista? I primarily use my pc for high end games, but also like the legacy stuff that DosBox offers. I am wondering if Microshaft is ditching DOS completely for W7 and what that means for dosbox.

Cant enjoy my pc without playing the classics once in a while (Leisure Suit Larry, Ultima & Tex Murphy!
windsong, bobiroc is harsh, but he has his head screwed on straight. I also have no major issues with Vista, it's all just history repeating itself. But to answer your question, yes, Windows 7 is pretty much a face-lift of Vista. Fortunately, as I'm sure bobiroc knows, it is supposedly better on system resources. (And that's from actual testing reports, not just marketing crap. How many times have we heard the new OS runs faster and uses less overhead?) I'm beginning to believe what some have said may come true: that Vista is to Windows 7 what WinME was to XP. Could it be true? Could Vista be the next Mistake Edition? Miss'ta?
I can come off a bit harsh but working as a Network Admin for a long time now I have heard it all. I get my hands on software in its beta stages and I like to spend time using it. When Vista first came out it had some issues as any new OS does when it is first released to the general public. SP1 fixed most of those issues that MS could fix. I have heard the same "horror stories" about slowness, drivers unavailable, incompatibility and so on. I found that every (and I mean every) computer that came with Vista that the users said were slow was solved by getting rid of the "Crapplications" that the OEM computer maker put on there. Other slowness issues I found were from people that installed Vista on a computer that was 3+ years old at the time of Vista's release and many of those worked better with a Ram upgrade. Others were just underpowered because they were a $399 special when brand new. Complaints about drivers from like printers and such I blame on the manufacturers of that product. It is not Microsofts responsibility to provide driver support for every item designed for Windows and they provide quite a bit already. So if the Manufacturers do not want to make updated drivers for a new OS yell at them. There were some software compatibility issues due to Vista's new security items but from what I read microsoft gave the software vendors plenty of time to address that and some chose not to. One vendor that comes to mind is intuit who makes Quickbooks. Quickbooks 2007 and earlier did not play so well with Vista and it was intuit that did not address their software to meet the new security before they released it. But with any new OS there are bound to be some software issues with older software. No OS is exempt from this that I have seen. So I am sorry for being harsh but in this day when anybody can blog or post information people tend to believe opinions from clueless people and ignore the facts.

1120.4.2009 9:57

Quote:
Originally posted by beanos66:
I know vista is bad but it appears to me as if they are rushing things, which dosen't bode well
Well, if you think about it, Windows 7 is just Vista plus the stuff they didn't have time to put in Vista. It's not a whole new OS...just Vista finally being completed. I still don't like it, but it IS a bit better than Vista.
It looks like Vista because it's using the Aero, but this is a NEW OS. The similarities stop there. I've been involved with a thread in the forums here where we have been installing 7 on some VERY old systems and it still not only runs, but does pretty well.

It's not just hype, MS fixed the resource hogging problems of Vista and Windows 7 will be a worthy upgrade from XP... aside from me dealing with DRM crap!

1220.4.2009 11:50

windows 7 has a New Core, a redesigned interface, and comes with the self repairing NTFS version that was in Windows Server 2008.

the reason why they cant fix Vista unresourcefulness, is its a product of the core. one could always Stuff a Cotton ball in the hole, doesn't mean it wont bleed out.

1320.4.2009 13:40

To me, W7 is simply Windows Vista regurgitated.

It's still a resource hog albeit a little less of one and the dummies even removed the quick launch toolbar.

1420.4.2009 14:34

Originally posted by ivymike:
To me, W7 is simply Windows Vista regurgitated.

It's still a resource hog albeit a little less of one and the dummies even removed the quick launch toolbar.
Actually I have seen performance comparision charts from independent sources that show that Win7 performs better and uses less resources than WinXP SP2/3. Also I am pretty sure you can get that quick launch bar back as I did it in an old beta build. I am going to download RC1 from my technet and play with it some more.

Here are some comparisons on performance. I don't think 7048 is one of the latest build but you should get the idea.





This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 20 Apr 2009 @ 17:44

1520.4.2009 19:54

Quote:
Originally posted by ivymike:
To me, W7 is simply Windows Vista regurgitated.

It's still a resource hog albeit a little less of one and the dummies even removed the quick launch toolbar.
Actually I have seen performance comparision charts from independent sources that show that Win7 performs better and uses less resources than WinXP SP2/3. Also I am pretty sure you can get that quick launch bar back as I did it in an old beta build. I am going to download RC1 from my technet and play with it some more.

Here are some comparisons on performance. I don't think 7048 is one of the latest build but you should get the idea.



And what do all those vague numbers represent? Someone's IMPRESSION of performance?

1620.4.2009 20:06

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by ivymike:
To me, W7 is simply Windows Vista regurgitated.

It's still a resource hog albeit a little less of one and the dummies even removed the quick launch toolbar.
Actually I have seen performance comparision charts from independent sources that show that Win7 performs better and uses less resources than WinXP SP2/3. Also I am pretty sure you can get that quick launch bar back as I did it in an old beta build. I am going to download RC1 from my technet and play with it some more.

Here are some comparisons on performance. I don't think 7048 is one of the latest build but you should get the idea.



And what do all those vague numbers represent? Someone's IMPRESSION of performance?
No, just a quick little summary with a score based on real world application testing and not some benchmark program. Shows a basic system with a gig of Ram and high powered Quad Core system with 4GB of ram. Yes the numbers are a little general but the perceived slowness of Vista is based on people's impressions based on Crap they read on the internet. In my environment Vista SP1 runs better than XP SP3 on the same computer/hardware configuration.

1720.4.2009 21:45

What the charts fail to show is stability under those loads.

Vista does quite well in performance especially when all the eye candy is off but whats the point if it cant run like that during intensive loads.

1822.4.2009 22:48

cart0181 is baffled by this comment:
Originally posted by bobiroc:

Quote:
In my environment Vista SP1 runs better than XP SP3 on the same computer/hardware configuration.

1922.4.2009 23:01

Quote:
cart0181 is baffled by this comment:
Originally posted by bobiroc:
Quote:
In my environment Vista SP1 runs better than XP SP3 on the same computer/hardware configuration.

Whats there to be baffled about. On a modern dual core system with 2GB of Ram Vista business runs fast, stable, and the students and teachers love it. I have actually been told they prefer to use the Labs with Vista vs the older labs running XP. We have the same systems bought at the same time on secretaries desks running XP and they run well too.

2024.4.2009 18:25
bassnut
Inactive

I have been using Vista Ultimate now since it was first released. Have to say I love it. When I first loaded it had some issues with an OLDER PC like allot of people had. Went back to XP till I could build a system that was menat for Vista and have had no complaints since.

Quote:
Vista does quite well in performance especially when all the eye candy is off but whats the point if it cant run like that during intensive loads.
What do you concider a heavy load?

I have recently started working with DB Rebuilder my old system.....
Asus M2N E, AM2 5200+, Paliut NVidea 8600 Sonic 512 Meg with 2 gig of DDR2 5400 ram.

A complete rebuild of a full back up of a 46 GIG BLU-RAY would take 24 - 26 hours with resourses pegged at 100% for the full time. This with Vista Ultimate 64 and not a hickup. The system ran steady for a week while I got used to BD Rebuilder. Maybe this is not as heavy a load as some games out there but then I am not into gaming at all. Just my 2 cents.

2124.4.2009 22:32

I am going college and started my first quarter in CIS Computer Information Systems. Our College refuses to use Vista. XP Pro is all we use. All the teacher said was Vista doesn't make the grade. The class has to do research on different software and record their findings. We have to post our results.


Just thought I would add a comment.

2225.4.2009 1:03

I can see that on a "2&2" system as I call it (2cpus/2GBram), both OS's would run well. What baffles me is that you can claim any circumstance where VISTA actually performs better given equal hardware. Keep in mind, I'm not disagreeing with you in this discussion (as my previous comments dictate). I like Vista!

2325.4.2009 1:28

Quote:
I have been using Vista Ultimate now since it was first released. Have to say I love it. When I first loaded it had some issues with an OLDER PC like allot of people had. Went back to XP till I could build a system that was menat for Vista and have had no complaints since.

Quote:
Vista does quite well in performance especially when all the eye candy is off but whats the point if it cant run like that during intensive loads.
What do you concider a heavy load?

I have recently started working with DB Rebuilder my old system.....
Asus M2N E, AM2 5200+, Paliut NVidea 8600 Sonic 512 Meg with 2 gig of DDR2 5400 ram.

A complete rebuild of a full back up of a 46 GIG BLU-RAY would take 24 - 26 hours with resourses pegged at 100% for the full time. This with Vista Ultimate 64 and not a hickup. The system ran steady for a week while I got used to BD Rebuilder. Maybe this is not as heavy a load as some games out there but then I am not into gaming at all. Just my 2 cents.
i have a Duel core AMD 7750BE 4GB(@1066) of RAM 2x3870's in crossfire a 300GB drive for files And a 100GB for WinXP(50GB) And Vista Business ED all running on a ASrock MB with the AMD790FX-NB\AMD750-SB Chipset.

VISTA premium is $300 reports say it the most stable, why else would you need 6 different Version of the Same OS the more you cut out the worse it gets Home Basic Being the worst.

Ive also Appropriated(wink) a copy of the MSDN Vista install Disk and find the premium version to be the most Stable on my System.

Vista is great when you shell out 300 dollars for it other wise i wouldn't bother.

A heavy load(for me) is opening multiple Programs running @Max throughput, windows vista becomes unresponsive unstable and eventually crashes at least my business Edition does.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 25 Apr 2009 @ 1:35

Powered By

2429.4.2009 9:29

Well after reading and seeing all these fancy charts I figured I put my 2 cents in, which given the state of the economy is not much if anything. The only reason anyone will really have to upgrade from the most stable and for all practical purposes lightweight XP Home is purely because they'll have to. Once applications/software that's vitally needed to stay sane and not cause anyone to pull a family/suicide gets totally upgraded to 64 bit, we all will have to get w/e it is we want. I learned one thing in life and that's to learn from others' mistakes, especially in this world of computers. It was no lie or illusion that Vista was a headache and to some extent still is, and that it was the beta to Windows 7.

That said, I'm not talking out my rear end or out of bias because I work in the field or own a business, but rather through the experience of hanging w/some of the Big Boys that'll take any software/hardware, and tear it apart and rebuild it w/a blindfold. Saying that 7 is a upgrade from Vista isn't saying much my friends. I will be installing 7 most likely once M$ at least to some extent uses the least vaseline to give it to us, but only because of future proofing against anything I may use that will require it. I guarantee you this. I will not be paying $300 for it. Yes my friends, it's always about the money. Don't ever think it's not.

I will give Billy Boy his props for Windows period because when you think about it Windows is a really great breakthrough, or for lack of a better word right now, invention, inception or w/e.

For Pete's sake though, we're 1/2 way towards 2010 and they still can't get IE right? I wish to hell they did as it being part of the OS always loads faster. So high-end, low-end, middle-ground, w/e, it is what it is. I've been looking for that grey area many talk about for years, and the bottom line is that there is none. When something's bad it's bad. When something's good it's good. All we can do is ride the wave till it hits the beach. Hopefully it'll never reach the shore, or at least take its time. Let it rip fellas.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive