http://www.tweakguides.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...tr y589151359

http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2124

And your question is?

Windows 7 is now the code name for what used to be called Windows Code Name
Vienna. It is the next version of Windows. The "7" probably means it will
be Windows NT7. Windows 2000 is NT5.0, XP x86 is NT5.1, XP x64 is NT5.2,
and Vista is NT6. Work has been under way for a while on Windows 7.
Windows is a continuum of development stretching a good ten years into the
future. This is normal.

"Avatar" <avatar@uinverse.brane> wrote in message
news:erTxIt4XIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> http://www.tweakguides.com/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
>
> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...tr y589151359
>
> http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2124
>
>
>
>

"Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
news:86A4B837-2426-4136-BAC9-76D1F2D839E7@microsoft.com...
> And your question is?


My guess is that he wants to further complain about Vista. He had a
bad experience with Vista and bitching about him wasn't getting him
any sympathy nor was it affecting sales of Vista. So his crusade was
failing. Now he thinks that mentioning the next version of Windows
that is some 4 years away is going to affect sales of Vista and maybe
he can hurt Microsoft that way for his inadequacy in choosing an OS in
the first place.

Oh I know. This is the beginning of the same sort of thing that went on
about how bad XP was and what a failure it was back when Longhorn was first
being mentioned in the press. Windows 7 is supposed to mean that MS is
giving up on Vista even though they are right on schedule with Windows Next
up to this point. I asked what his question was because I hate posts that
just contain links.

"VanguardLH" <VanguardLH@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:IOOdnQmK8rpp2AfanZ2dnUVZ_tajnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> "Colin Barnhorst" wrote in message
> news:86A4B837-2426-4136-BAC9-76D1F2D839E7@microsoft.com...
>> And your question is?
>
>
> My guess is that he wants to further complain about Vista. He had a bad
> experience with Vista and bitching about him wasn't getting him any
> sympathy nor was it affecting sales of Vista. So his crusade was failing.
> Now he thinks that mentioning the next version of Windows that is some 4
> years away is going to affect sales of Vista and maybe he can hurt
> Microsoft that way for his inadequacy in choosing an OS in the first
> place.

Quite an interesting set of responses to my post! Actually the unspecified
question was - when is this version coming out?

Incidentally, I use Windows 2k Pro, Windows XP Pro as well as Windows Vista
concurrently on the machines in the household and have no complaints against
any one! I do say that Vista is top heavy with eye-candy, though.

Regards.

Avatar
-------


"Avatar" <avatar@uinverse.brane> wrote in message
news:erTxIt4XIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> http://www.tweakguides.com/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
>
> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...tr y589151359
>
> http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2124
>
>
>
>

"Avatar" <avatar@uinverse.brane> wrote:

>Quite an interesting set of responses to my post! Actually the unspecified
>question was - when is this version coming out?

DAMN! Bad timing, m'friend.

You ask this JUST when my crystal ball is out for cleaning and
polishing!!

>Oh I know. This is the beginning of the same sort of thing that went on
>about how bad XP was and what a failure it was back when Longhorn was first
>being mentioned in the press. Windows 7 is supposed to mean that MS is
>giving up on Vista even though they are right on schedule with Windows Next
>up to this point. I asked what his question was because I hate posts that
>just contain links.

Dunno why they're calling it Windows 7. All I've read is under the
hood is it will actually be Windows 6.2.

- Thee Chicago Wolf

2H 2009 to 1H 2010 according a road map I have seen but that is just a
working target and not a commitment. At some point MS will commit due to
Software Assurance contracts current at that time.

"Avatar" <avatar@uinverse.brane> wrote in message
news:eWot5k5XIHA.5816@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Quite an interesting set of responses to my post! Actually the unspecified
> question was - when is this version coming out?
>
> Incidentally, I use Windows 2k Pro, Windows XP Pro as well as Windows
> Vista
> concurrently on the machines in the household and have no complaints
> against
> any one! I do say that Vista is top heavy with eye-candy, though.
>
> Regards.
>
> Avatar
> -------
>
>
> "Avatar" <avatar@uinverse.brane> wrote in message
> news:erTxIt4XIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> http://www.tweakguides.com/
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
>>
>> http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.ph...tr y589151359
>>
>> http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2124
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in
news:84B9E15D-E5B4-49D4-831E-2CBD4FEF9482@microsoft.com:

> Oh I know. This is the beginning of the same sort of thing that went
> on about how bad XP was and what a failure it was back when Longhorn
> was first being mentioned in the press.

Hmmm. Why do people keep saying that....that when XP was first released is
was really bad.

Maybe to help Vista not turn out like Windows Me ? (I am *not* saying Vista
is the new WinME. Only time will tell.)

Because XP wasn't bad at all at it's initial release. I don't think anyone
I know, when upgraded to XP, didn't want to keep it.

Yes, there was some issues with drivers, but not to the extent seen with
the release of Vista. If a device had an NT driver, chances were better
than not, that the NT driver would work satisfactorily in XP.

Win 3.11
Windows95...step forward.
Windows98...small step forward.
WindowsME...well...at least one step backward in terms of stability &
compat.
WindowsXP...good step forward from 98...several forward from ME.
Windows Vista...a lateral step from XP...at best...for many, seen as just a
new theme.

Next, Windows 7..hmmm. I can't even begin to imagine. I mean, how much more
eye candy can you add, how many more popular 3rd party apps will be stolen
and added as 'part of the OS' ? What else can you add ?

How about going the other way....how much can we remove in an *attempt* to
make a lean, stable, secure OS ? (I'm sure it could be severly
'muntzed'...if any of you are old enough to remember that term....if not
see: http://www.smecc.org/mad_man_muntz!.htm)

OR, like 98Lite/vLite/micro98, maybe MS could create an installer that
let's you easily choose ONLY what parts of the OS you want installed ? Why
install stuff that's never going to be used and just complicates the
configuration ?

I don't know why folks said XP was really bad. I just know that there is a
cadre of MS haters who do that with every new Windows release. They always
hate the new one and love the old one (the same one they used to claim to
hate) just to dramatize their point.

"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
news:Xns9A30D0987A21Athisnthatadelphianet@207.46.2 48.16...
> "Colin Barnhorst" <c.barnhorst@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:84B9E15D-E5B4-49D4-831E-2CBD4FEF9482@microsoft.com:
>
>> Oh I know. This is the beginning of the same sort of thing that went
>> on about how bad XP was and what a failure it was back when Longhorn
>> was first being mentioned in the press.
>
> Hmmm. Why do people keep saying that....that when XP was first released is
> was really bad.
>
> Maybe to help Vista not turn out like Windows Me ? (I am *not* saying
> Vista
> is the new WinME. Only time will tell.)
>
> Because XP wasn't bad at all at it's initial release. I don't think anyone
> I know, when upgraded to XP, didn't want to keep it.
>
> Yes, there was some issues with drivers, but not to the extent seen with
> the release of Vista. If a device had an NT driver, chances were better
> than not, that the NT driver would work satisfactorily in XP.
>
> Win 3.11
> Windows95...step forward.
> Windows98...small step forward.
> WindowsME...well...at least one step backward in terms of stability &
> compat.
> WindowsXP...good step forward from 98...several forward from ME.
> Windows Vista...a lateral step from XP...at best...for many, seen as just
> a
> new theme.
>
> Next, Windows 7..hmmm. I can't even begin to imagine. I mean, how much
> more
> eye candy can you add, how many more popular 3rd party apps will be stolen
> and added as 'part of the OS' ? What else can you add ?
>
> How about going the other way....how much can we remove in an *attempt* to
> make a lean, stable, secure OS ? (I'm sure it could be severly
> 'muntzed'...if any of you are old enough to remember that term....if not
> see: http://www.smecc.org/mad_man_muntz!.htm)
>
> OR, like 98Lite/vLite/micro98, maybe MS could create an installer that
> let's you easily choose ONLY what parts of the OS you want installed ? Why
> install stuff that's never going to be used and just complicates the
> configuration ?