Windows 7 = Windows Vista ?

[Pika]

Is Windows it's different "7" really was derived from Vista?

I've head that the development of what has become Windows 7 began during the final stages of Windows XP's development. Initially, Windows 7 was known as Blackcomb (and Vista was known as Longhorn). Blackcomb's origins can be traced back as early as 2000 - Longhorn [Vista] didn't begin development until 2003, and was planned to be an "intermediate" release, to keep the public's interest in Windows alive while Blackcomb was still being worked on. However, many of Blackcomb's features were eventually built into Longhorn (and then other features were again removed), and the result was the [subjective] failure known as Windows Vista.

So basically, Windows 7 is 3 years 'older' then Windows Vista, but therefore has had 9, yes 9 years of development in comparison to the 3.5/4 years spent on Vista ?

 

[Pika]

Wikipedia says it's NT 6.1

 

[edesignuk]

Windows 2000 = NT 5.0
Windows XP = NT 5.1
Windows Vista = NT 6.0
Windows 7 = NT 6.1

Windows 7 is built on Vista technologies, and then improved upon. Vista drivers and applications will work under 7 because of this.

 

[dsnort]

So basically, Windows 7 is 3 years 'older' then Windows Vista, but therefore has had 9, yes 9 years of development in comparison to the 3.5/4 years spent on Vista ?

What difference does it make? Almost all OS's derive from their predecessor. Seldom do they make a clean break from what has gone before, and when they do, it's usually a bit of a train wreck, (XP-Vista, Mac OS 9- Mac OS 10.0). Would be more surprising if Win 7 didn't build on Vista.

Wikipedia says it's NT 6.1

I don't think the numbering scheme is all that important, or proves anything.

 

[MisterMe]

... it's usually a bit of a train wreck, (... Mac OS 9- Mac OS 10.0). ...

In what way was the MacOS 9 to MacOS X 10.0 transition a trainwreck?

 

[blackhand1001]

In what way was the MacOS 9 to MacOS X 10.0 transition a trainwreck?

Many people didn't adopt it until later versions because it ran slow on the hardware out then and many apps didn't run natively on it or still ran in carbon (Photoshop is still using carbon actually).

Wikipedia says it's NT 6.1

This was done for compatability reasons. So any app that required Vista would see 6.x and run without seeing 7 as an unrecognized operating system since they are similar in many ways.

 

[blackhand1001]

Double, Delete.

 

[Pika]

Is Windows 7 based on Vista, or were they based on the same initial code base and are instead different branches?

 

[edesignuk]

Is Windows 7 based on Vista, or were they based on the same initial code base and are instead different branches?

Windows 7 is built on Vista technologies, and then improved upon. Vista drivers and applications will work under 7 because of this.

Details I don't know, but Win 7 is an evolution of Vista.

 

[Pnut13]

What difference does it make? Almost all OS's derive from their predecessor. Seldom do they make a clean break from what has gone before, and when they do, it's usually a bit of a train wreck, (XP-Vista, Mac OS 9- Mac OS 10.0). Would be more surprising if Win 7 didn't build on Vista.

thing is that MS originally said that it was a totally different operating system, then they said it is a built and improved off of Vista.

I don't think the numbering scheme is all that important, or proves anything.

It means everything!
going from Windows 6.0 to 7.0 would have been a big enough change in the old days meaning that there was enough changes to say it was a new version.
Going from 6.0 to 6.1 says that it is a minor change or minor changes that werent big enough to warrant a totally new number. That there was probably only a few codes changed/repaired/fixed says everything to me. It says Microsoft itself is saying it is just another version of Windows Vista. Like I said in another thread this is just Vista Service Pack 3 (or 4 i honestly don't know)

Is Windows 7 based on Vista, or were they based on the same initial code base and are instead different branches?

Based on Vista closely, rather than being based on same initial code and being different branches (good analogy actually if they windows 7 was actually Windows 7.0 and not 6.1)

 

[windywoo]

It may be based on Vista but in no way could it be considered a Service Pack. For a start the UI has been given a facelift, that tends not to happen in a Service Pack. There are new features such as the ability to make documents "stick" when you move them to the side of the desktop so if you want two documents open side by side this resizes them nicely for you. Right clicking a running program on the taskbar brings up a menu of functions for that program beyond the usual minimize, close etc. Quickstart is gone, you pin apps to the taskbar now and it shows a little stacking effect if you have more than one window of that app running.

http://tech.uk.msn.com/microsoft/features/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=16965968

that gives a good overview.

 

[Pnut13]

It may be based on Vista but in no way could it be considered a Service Pack. For a start the UI has been given a facelift, that tends not to happen in a Service Pack. There are new features such as the ability to make documents "stick" when you move them to the side of the desktop so if you want two documents open side by side this resizes them nicely for you. Right clicking a running program on the taskbar brings up a menu of functions for that program beyond the usual minimize, close etc. Quickstart is gone, you pin apps to the taskbar now and it shows a little stacking effect if you have more than one window of that app running.

http://tech.uk.msn.com/microsoft/features/gallery.aspx?cp-documentid=16965968

that gives a good overview.

wow "stacking", wonder where they got that name from???lol
you missed the point
it was not a major change from Windows Vista (6.0 to 6.1) The code didn't change enough that it is a different and new OS, it is more like a few changes were made. which are improvements but the majority of the code, the system of "Vista" remains unchanged. And I remember that going form Windows Service pack 1 (and 1a) to XP service pack 2 was an great improvement in reliability, some things added on, but still not a major overhaul in the code

So maybe my service pack analogy wasn't the best idea, oh well

 

[Ivan P]

I've head that the development of what has become Windows 7 began during the final stages of Windows XP's development. Initially, Windows 7 was known as Blackcomb (and Vista was known as Longhorn). Blackcomb's origins can be traced back as early as 2000 - Longhorn [Vista] didn't begin development until 2003, and was planned to be an "intermediate" release, to keep the public's interest in Windows alive while Blackcomb was still being worked on. However, many of Blackcomb's features were eventually built into Longhorn (and then other features were again removed), and the result was the [subjective] failure known as Windows Vista.

You know, it'd be nice if you mentioned that this entire part of your post is directly copied and pasted from one of mine:

https://forums.macrumors.com/posts/7613263/

 

[windywoo]

How ridiculous. Your definition of a new OS is how much the code has changed? Remember it is still called "Windows" By the way stacking was my choice of words not Microsoft's, does Apple own the word stack now too?

 

[Pika]

On the topic of Windows 7, I remain unimpressed. Outside of fixing what Vista ****ed over, and making it look prettier I really don't see what in the world is so great about it. Not going to get me to leave Mac OS X Leopard/Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope any time soon.

 

[edesignuk]

On the topic of Windows 7, I remain unimpressed. Outside of fixing what Vista ****ed over, and making it look prettier I really don't see what in the world is so great about it. Not going to get me to leave Mac OS X Leopard/Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope any time soon.

Windows 7 is a big improvement over Vista, and has a lot of stuff that XP can only dream of.

You like OS X, good for you, enjoy it.

Windows 7 provides a good Windows release for those that want to use it.

 

[dsnort]

....does Apple own the word stack now too?

Yes, you now owe Steve Jobs $3.27

On the topic of Windows 7, I remain unimpressed. Outside of fixing what Vista ****ed over, and making it look prettier I really don't see what in the world is so great about it. Not going to get me to leave Mac OS X Leopard/Ubuntu Jaunty Jackalope any time soon.

You forget, MS's entire business was built on being almost as good as other choices, but available on cheaper hardware. They don't need for Win 7 to be better than Mac, almost as good will do. And it's pretty darned good.

 

[SactoGuy18]

Windows 7 is heavily based on Windows Vista, but Microsoft did a LOT of code optimization to increase performance and stability and cleaned up the interface in a number of areas.

 

[Pika]

You forget, MS's entire business was built on being almost as good as other choices, but available on cheaper hardware. They don't need for Win 7 to be better than Mac, almost as good will do. And it's pretty darned good.

It does not matter how nice windows 7 is, for me the issue of cost of ownership as an individual is more important. I'm sure W7 is not going to be cheaper than Vista and Vista is extremely expensive in this country. When the operating system alone cost the same as a desktop, that says it all.

The other issue is that with windows you need a powerful system just to be able to enjoy the experience. Well look at my system specs and the fact that I enjoy desktop effects and running really fast at nearly no cost. Why would I decide to pay more when I am then going to have to pay for ms office as well which cost more than a quad core system in this country. For the price of owning windows I can buy a Core i7 with great graphics which would be a once off price compared to continously paying for virus checkers and all other software that I happen to need/want.

The other thing is is that I like to tinker around on my desktop and the idea of getting verified everytime I reinstall my system is not a good sounding one. In this country we have just come out of polical and social oppression, it does not sit well with me to be under any technology related oppression, if I can help it and this one I can.

People compare windows to linux - what? The two are not comparable, you can compare windows to OS X. Both microsoft and mac control the hardware sphere and therefore have an unfare advantage over linux. the hardware is built for them and linux programmers always have to play catchup. I'd rather wait for them to catch up than be current and oppressed again.

Off course linux is far superior techwise to windows, the only problem of few years back was the un-ease of use. Saying things work out of the box is linux thing as with windows things come with drivers.

 

[edesignuk]

The other issue is that with windows you need a powerful system just to be able to enjoy the experience. Well look at my system specs and the fact that I enjoy desktop effects and running really fast at nearly no cost.

You have the following according to your sig:

Mac Pro 8-Core 2.93GHz (Nehalem)
MacBook Pro 15" 2-Core 2.93GHz (Unibody)​

Of course you "enjoy desktop effects and running really fast". You definitely don't do it "at nearly no cost." though

Windows 7 runs very well on older hardware actually. Even the cheapest of PC's you buy these days are mostly dual core with a 2GB RAM, they will run it just fine. What are you on about?

Have you even used Win 7, or are you just repeating typical Mac user nonsense?

As for Linux, it's still a long long way from being remotely useful for the vast majority of computer users.

 

[Hellhammer]

Windows 7 runs very well on older hardware actually. Even the cheapest of PC's you buy these days are mostly dual core with a 2GB RAM, they will run it just fine. What are you on about?

At least here in Finland, 50% of "cheap" PCs which costs less than 500-600€ still has single core processor, usually some crappy AMD.

 

[edesignuk]

At least here in Finland, 50% of "cheap" PCs which costs less than 500-600€ still has single core processor, usually some crappy AMD.

Even so, Win 7 will still be OK.

If you buy the cheapest of the cheapest, you can't possibly expect best performance. Apple don't even make a computer that cheap.

 

[windywoo]

The other thing is is that I like to tinker around on my desktop and the idea of getting verified everytime I reinstall my system is not a good sounding one. In this country we have just come out of polical and social oppression, it does not sit well with me to be under any technology related oppression, if I can help it and this one I can.

You don't like the idea of technological repression and yet you like Apple? Even onboard graphics will handle Aero these days, you don't have to buy expensive hardware at all.

 

[splidge]

Have you even used Win 7, or are you just repeating typical Mac user nonsense?

As for Linux, it's still a long long way from being remotely useful for the vast majority of computer users.

Have you even used a recent Linux (I guess I mean Ubuntu really), or are you just repeating typical Windows user nonsense?

 

[edesignuk]

Have you even used a recent Linux (I guess I mean Ubuntu really), or are you just repeating typical Windows user nonsense?

I must admit it's been 1-2 years. Maybe things have changed beyond recognition in that time, I doubt it though, since Linux is still in the realm of the nerds and pretty much no one else. They thought they were on to something with the popularity of cheap netbooks....but wait, fail. Windows trounced it because people got their cheap Linux netbooks home and didn't know how the hell to use them.