Tonight at the popular "D" conference Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates are said to be showing off the next version of Windows. It is said to have an "all new user interface." Although previous builds look exactly like vista. http://d6.allthingsd.com/20080527/windows-7/
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Windows 7 to be demoed tonight
- Thread starter beppo
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They always do, this is nothing new. XP looked like Windows 2000 at first as well. Here's a pic of Windows XP beta 1 (aka Whistler):
Whatever they show, I don't trust it, the Longhorn demo was pretty awesome: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPEypljdPNQ
Seems like a huge chasm between what is planned and what is implemented.
At least with Vista.
I doubt Windows 7 will be any different.
Ah yes, the Longhorn preview.
That looked damned good, like really really awesome. Too bad they couldn't deliver.
Is it just me or does the turnaround from Vista to Windows 7 feel like about 5 minutes. I thought they were going to give Vista some time to mature after 5 whole years in development.
Then again if it's an awesome system it might give Apple the sort of competition in the innovation side of things for the operating system. If W7 is slick, fast and packed full of useful features it'll help us on the Apple side by putting a rocket up the arse of the R&D team working on 10.6
That looked damned good, like really really awesome. Too bad they couldn't deliver.
Is it just me or does the turnaround from Vista to Windows 7 feel like about 5 minutes. I thought they were going to give Vista some time to mature after 5 whole years in development.
Then again if it's an awesome system it might give Apple the sort of competition in the innovation side of things for the operating system. If W7 is slick, fast and packed full of useful features it'll help us on the Apple side by putting a rocket up the arse of the R&D team working on 10.6
lol that made me laugh, because it literally wont be anything different, theyve already stated it is based entirely on vista, so what m$? a shinier OS?
if they dont actually update things this time around i have a feeling Windows dominace will actually end in my lifetime
All I really have to say about this is, ALREADY?!
Seriously, XP was out long enough to make windows 2000 completely outdated. This time around, XP is still the preferred choice of many, if not most, consumers...
Maybe THIS time, it'll look anything like the Longhorn preview
Seriously, XP was out long enough to make windows 2000 completely outdated. This time around, XP is still the preferred choice of many, if not most, consumers...
Maybe THIS time, it'll look anything like the Longhorn preview
Depends on your age!
Windows dominance will not go away anytime soon because it's ingrained so deeply in everyone's mind -- especially within the IT community.
yea when i first saw the initial news and screenshots from longhorn i was actually a little bit excited. then i remembered who was making it...
If Microsoft actually delivered something like that, well, I'd have to seriously reconsider running OS X at all.
Windows 7 will probably look like Leopard...
Surprise...
(if not, then it will copy Linux with that fancy Beryl interface)
Surprise...
(if not, then it will copy Linux with that fancy Beryl interface)
I've seen all the Longhorn previews, but never understood why people are amazed. I figured, "Hey, they're used to XP, so that's why it looks good to them." Yet Mac OS X'ers are saying it's amazing...
I don't get it. I've seen them over and over, and I don't see anything very special. I see a little bit of flashiness, but it ultimately is just using up processor power for inefficient eye candy. I like eye candy, but it's gotta have a concrete functionality to it. Expose is functional eye candy; works great, and looks great. Having stuff seem to gravitate out of one window and get "sucked" into another is neat-looking, but ultimately of little value; in the end, it's a waste of processor power and time for the power user.
Also, I dislike eye candy that takes up time. If the eye candy is going to slow me down in order to show itself to me, I don't really want it. At least, not as an integral or basic part of my OS. Kind of like the bouncing icons in Ubuntu Beryl ... it looked cool, but ultimately useless and a waste of time. Now the rotating cube for viewing multiple desktops, that has some value (not sure how much it has if you can't fit all your multiple desktops onto the cube's surface).
It seems that Microsoft still isn't aiming to make their OS more beautiful, mainly they're trying to make it flashy. Vista is a step up from XP's drab and business-like look. But still, OS X is a dozen steps up from Vista. I am not a Mac fan boy by any means, and I regularly run Vista on my iMac (mainly for games, but also to try it out and see how it feels). However, OS X is just prettier and more functional.
Look at this way... an OS's exterior look is like a woman's beauty, and it's functionality is like a woman's personality. Beauty without a good personality is ultimately of no lasting value; it gets old, and you yearn for something significant and meaningful. A great personality without beauty is much better than beauty without personality, but more to be desired is to have BOTH the beauty and the personality. OS X has it. I'm in love Not really love, but you get the idea.
Vista was a huge step up in personality, but I still just don't feel as efficient using it. It could partially be my workflow style, but it doesn't seem as functional as OS X. Now granted, I have some qualms about Leopard too (pointlessly reflective Dock, translucency, etc).
I don't get it. I've seen them over and over, and I don't see anything very special. I see a little bit of flashiness, but it ultimately is just using up processor power for inefficient eye candy. I like eye candy, but it's gotta have a concrete functionality to it. Expose is functional eye candy; works great, and looks great. Having stuff seem to gravitate out of one window and get "sucked" into another is neat-looking, but ultimately of little value; in the end, it's a waste of processor power and time for the power user.
Also, I dislike eye candy that takes up time. If the eye candy is going to slow me down in order to show itself to me, I don't really want it. At least, not as an integral or basic part of my OS. Kind of like the bouncing icons in Ubuntu Beryl ... it looked cool, but ultimately useless and a waste of time. Now the rotating cube for viewing multiple desktops, that has some value (not sure how much it has if you can't fit all your multiple desktops onto the cube's surface).
It seems that Microsoft still isn't aiming to make their OS more beautiful, mainly they're trying to make it flashy. Vista is a step up from XP's drab and business-like look. But still, OS X is a dozen steps up from Vista. I am not a Mac fan boy by any means, and I regularly run Vista on my iMac (mainly for games, but also to try it out and see how it feels). However, OS X is just prettier and more functional.
Look at this way... an OS's exterior look is like a woman's beauty, and it's functionality is like a woman's personality. Beauty without a good personality is ultimately of no lasting value; it gets old, and you yearn for something significant and meaningful. A great personality without beauty is much better than beauty without personality, but more to be desired is to have BOTH the beauty and the personality. OS X has it. I'm in love
Not really love, but you get the idea. Vista was a huge step up in personality, but I still just don't feel as efficient using it. It could partially be my workflow style, but it doesn't seem as functional as OS X. Now granted, I have some qualms about Leopard too (pointlessly reflective Dock, translucency, etc).
I've seen all the Longhorn previews, but never understood why people are amazed. I figured, "Hey, they're used to XP, so that's why it looks good to them." Yet Mac OS X'ers are saying it's amazing...
I don't get it. I've seen them over and over, and I don't see anything very special. I see a little bit of flashiness, but it ultimately is just using up processor power for inefficient eye candy. I like eye candy, but it's gotta have a concrete functionality to it. Expose is functional eye candy; works great, and looks great. Having stuff seem to gravitate out of one window and get "sucked" into another is neat-looking, but ultimately of little value; in the end, it's a waste of processor power and time for the power user.
Also, I dislike eye candy that takes up time. If the eye candy is going to slow me down in order to show itself to me, I don't really want it. At least, not as an integral or basic part of my OS. Kind of like the bouncing icons in Ubuntu Beryl ... it looked cool, but ultimately useless and a waste of time. Now the rotating cube for viewing multiple desktops, that has some value (not sure how much it has if you can't fit all your multiple desktops onto the cube's surface).
It seems that Microsoft still isn't aiming to make their OS more beautiful, mainly they're trying to make it flashy. Vista is a step up from XP's drab and business-like look. But still, OS X is a dozen steps up from Vista. I am not a Mac fan boy by any means, and I regularly run Vista on my iMac (mainly for games, but also to try it out and see how it feels). However, OS X is just prettier and more functional.
Look at this way... an OS's exterior look is like a woman's beauty, and it's functionality is like a woman's personality. Beauty without functionality is ultimately of no lasting value; it gets old, and you yearn for something significant and meaningful. A great personality without beauty is much better than beauty without personality, but more to be desired is to have BOTH the beauty and the personality. OS X has it. I'm in love
Vista was a huge step up in personality, but I still just don't feel as efficient using it. It could partially be my workflow style, but it doesn't seem as functional as OS X. Now granted, I have some qualms about Leopard too (pointlessly reflective Dock, translucency, etc).
for me it was the promised Apple-esque gestures (watch the photos align themselves, looks awful familiar to the little things that happen in OSX that i love)
but i think its just no one expected windows to even consider something that might actually look differnet from windows
Touch screen.... The future, huh
We gotta get away from this silly obsession. I suppose it's normal, everyone obsessed over virtual reality back in the 90's. BTW, where is virtual reality technology now-a-days?
We gotta get away from this silly obsession. I suppose it's normal, everyone obsessed over virtual reality back in the 90's. BTW, where is virtual reality technology now-a-days?
Ditto.
I'd be amazed if the can pull this off. Yeah, they might get multi-touch implemented in their OS, but they're going to have to cajole their partners into producing hardware that takes advantage of it. MS have never had much success at doing this, the Zune was created partly because they couldn't get their partners to develop decent hardware.
Then, even if their partners do manage to build the hardware, there's absolutely no reason to believe that people are going to buy it and that the IHVs will make it easy and reliable enough to use.
I can see this having as much success as the Tablet PC.
It won't, simply because Office dominates the workplace, and no corporation uses the Mac version of Office.
I agree. MS does a lot of work for the enterprise market, and I think the features that they've provided for that market have actually added value (group policy etc..). Plus, they don't have that much competition. There's Linux, but the support, training and deployment costs are arguably higher.
That's MS's problem, they are trying to please the enterprise market, and their IHVs to whom they supply their OS whilst attempting (I would say unsuccessfully) to make an OS that end users want to use.
Windows isn't going anywhere, it will continue to be used in businesses for quite some time to come.
This isn't a killer feature. It isn't anywhere near a killer feature. Time Machine is a killer feature. Can you see grandma's using multi-touch? I can't.
Besides, MS needs to succeed in the following:
1. Ship the feature
2. Convince IHVs to create the hardware that users want to use
Their track record regarding shipping features is pretty poor, and as I've said elsewhere, I can't see HP, Dell or anyone else creating hardware that people want to use and pay extra for.
For me personally, even if it were a killer feature, unless MS suddenly decide to base their OS on UNIX, I'm not interested in anything that MS does.
Multitouch is pointless unless they're going to offer everyone who upgrades to Windows 7 a cheap solution to getting multitouch on their computer without having to upgrade to expensive new screens. Not going to happen.
If this were Apple, they'd probably have a solution to let every computer than can run the OS have multitouch if they wanted it.
And unlike Microsoft, Apple wouldn't solely focus on implementing Multi-touch. They would include dozens of things that would appeal to everyone.
This will never take off with Microsoft behind the helm. And they haven't even thought it through that well... No doubt they just announced it to piss of Apple who will announce multi-touch at WWDC (maybe). Just so that Microsoft can say "LOOK WHO'S INNOVATING!! WE ARE!!! SCREW YOU APPLE!! WHO CARES ABOUT THE iPHONE AND iPOD TOUCH!?!?!? THIS IS DESKTOP MULTITOUCH AND WE ANNOUNCED IT FIRST SO WE'RE INNOVATING, NOT YOU". What a pathetic bunch they are.
If this were Apple, they'd probably have a solution to let every computer than can run the OS have multitouch if they wanted it.
And unlike Microsoft, Apple wouldn't solely focus on implementing Multi-touch. They would include dozens of things that would appeal to everyone.
This will never take off with Microsoft behind the helm. And they haven't even thought it through that well... No doubt they just announced it to piss of Apple who will announce multi-touch at WWDC (maybe). Just so that Microsoft can say "LOOK WHO'S INNOVATING!! WE ARE!!! SCREW YOU APPLE!! WHO CARES ABOUT THE iPHONE AND iPOD TOUCH!?!?!? THIS IS DESKTOP MULTITOUCH AND WE ANNOUNCED IT FIRST SO WE'RE INNOVATING, NOT YOU". What a pathetic bunch they are.
I work with Point-Of-Sale systems and Touchscreens are cool. Of course, we love the iPod Touch and iPhone.
I see using the system for the "convertible Tablet PC" where you can use it as a surface device or switch to a conventional PC.
Of course, you won't get many of the multitouch features using a regular PC (just what you get with the multitouch pad).
I found to use Vista, you need at least a Dual Core CPU, DX10 capable graphics (128 Meg Discreet preferred), and 2 Gigs RAM Min (4 is better).
Well, if you double that for Windows 7: at least a Core 2 Duo, 256 Meg Discreet Graphics, and 4 Gigs RAM (8 is better).
Well, time to get a new PC (again) for Windows 7....
I see using the system for the "convertible Tablet PC" where you can use it as a surface device or switch to a conventional PC.
Of course, you won't get many of the multitouch features using a regular PC (just what you get with the multitouch pad).
I found to use Vista, you need at least a Dual Core CPU, DX10 capable graphics (128 Meg Discreet preferred), and 2 Gigs RAM Min (4 is better).
Well, if you double that for Windows 7: at least a Core 2 Duo, 256 Meg Discreet Graphics, and 4 Gigs RAM (8 is better).
Well, time to get a new PC (again) for Windows 7....