Public release of Windows 7 Release Candidate set for May 5

OMG.. as hackneyed as it may sound, I'm excited!

Not up on MSDN either.. I'm excited!!

They have an interesting write-up on the OEM System Builder site about SKU differentiation: "We are pleased to announce the final Windows 7 SKU plan. Our SKU line-up is based on listening carefully to feedback from you—our partners and your customers. These are the main points you made, along with the ways we are addressing your feedback in Windows 7: 1. Customers wanted clarity on which version of Windows is the right version for them. For clarity, Windows 7 will be offered primarily in 2 editions: Windows 7 Home Premium and Windows 7 Professional. 2. Customers wanted upgrading to a different SKU to be easier. For easy upgrading, in Windows 7 we are using a single image for all SKUs. This means the bits for all the editions are already on your computer if you are running Windows 7. With Windows Anytime Upgrade, users can unlock and upgrade to a different SKU much easier than before. Customers did not like losing features when upgrading to a different SKU. 3. In Windows 7, each SKU is a superset of the previous SKU. No features are lost on upgrade. 4. One size does not fit all—particularly with a billion users and thousands of partners around the world. We are addressing the specialized needs for customers in specific markets with Windows 7 Starter, Windows 7 Home Basic, and Windows 7 Ultimate. " All of this has been said before, but they clarify it for partner system builders. This is pretty straight-forward here, and they should use a lot of the same wording for the more public-facing pages (such as the public FAQ page on Windows.com).

WTF?!? Why is there a "Windows 3.2" listed on the TechNet+ download page?

Oh, and I soooo hate them for making Ultimate "above" Enterprise (in a way..): "Note: Windows 7 Ultimate includes all Windows 7 Enterprise features, plus multiple-language packs" Even though we generaly use english-only software, but it's just a matter of principle..

Oh, and no, I never noticed the "Windows 3.2" before, but I don't have a TechNet+ subscription either so I've never been to this site. I don't need TechNet+ because I have an Action Pack subscription, which is a better deal.

@Wae - well, my company got into partner program, and i can tell you - this is better deal than any other :D I throughly recommend it if you make & sell software, or something similar.. Yearly costs are about less than just OVS for 15 Win+Office licences :) Anyway, I'm looking at both MSDN and TechNet+ every 30 minutes or so, and still nothing :( I guess better luck in the morning.. At least they haven't pulled down the page that Paul cited, so it's not an "early slip" - I hope :)

Yo Wae, can we use IE 8 with GE Centricity as the browser for viewing PACS outside the hospital? Also, my extreme geek partner claims that IE 7 with Vista 64 bit would not work. Is he FOS? Thanks, Doc

DRWAM, IE7 has two versions in vista 64-bit. There is a 32-bit executable c:\program files(x86)\Internet explorer\iexplore.exe AND a 64-bit executable c:\program files\internet explorer\iexplore.exe Now, they both work fine, however, some add-ons are only available in 32-bit still, so if you're haivng trouble with the 64-bit IE, you CAN still run the 32-bit version even in the 64-bit Vista. the 32-bit version of IE7 is exactly the same as the one in Vista 32-bit, so I can't imagine how there could be compatability issues.

@wae do you need a towel, maybe a cigaret?

Yep Slim, it would cost us between 1 and 2 MIL to upgrade the most needed software to Vista, and more for the extra apps. I'm actually just talkin' about the transcription software. The trouble with GE is that they are way behind. IE 7 has been out for XP for a long time and it was awhile before the PACS browser ActiveX control was compatible. Still, I decided to run Vista 32 on my Mac Pro Tower to use it. Everything else works with Leopard [we use PPTP VPN which is now built into Leopard].

BTW, Mum, keeping old e-mails that are relevant to your job or for other purposes that you may need to revisit is certainly not crazy. Keeping e-mails and bothering searching through said archive with a tech journalist? Maybe a little crazy, I was just asking a rhetorical question.

@gorath: By default, the 32-bit version of IE7 is the primary version. The 64-bit version isn't set as the default browser on standard installs of Windows Vista, and I believe I read somewhere that OEM's are required to leave the 32-bit version as the default too. They can only change IE to a completely different browser. So Doc, if it works in 32-bit versions of Windows Vista, it should also work just fine in 64-bit versions, but you *might* have to use the 32-bit version of IE, unless the ActiveX control is poorly written and contains 16-bit VB code (that would be completely retarded for the developer to do).

"Corporations will do what fits their business best. Some companies ARE looking at Vista, because it's stable and mature now with SP1. Windows 7 is just a pipe-dream now for most companies. Companies that are hesitant about Vista won't just shift to 7 on a whim because it's not quantifiable at this point in time." I beg to differ. Vista and 7 are 90% the same, maybe more. Even Paul posted comment from Microsoft, as in if it did not run under Vista it wont run under 7. My point being from a overall compatibility and deployment point of view they are the same, Vista and 7. I think 7 will run better on slightly less hardware but a dual core with 2gigs of RAM will be the sweet spot for 7. You will deploy 7 using WDS for the most part which is no different than Vista. They use the same drivers from what I read, so there wont be the, wait for vendors to get drivers out for 98% of the stuff out there, unlike when Vista first came out. I just cant imagine any company that is on XP today choosing Vista over 7 (after 7 is out) when they finally decide to migrate off of XP. I know that my company finally stopped talking about "When to go to Vista" when solid news of 7 came out. It was like everyone involved came to the same conclusion, lets wait. "Companies that think that jumping from XP to 7 while skipping Vista will be easy need a reality check" I see no difference from jumping from XP to Vista vs XP to 7. The same amount of testing of applications will need to take place. Same amount of training of users. Anyone that has a clue wont upgrade over the top to Vista or 7, it will be clean installs. In the corporate world, they will test against the apps the company runs. Once certified they will create their builds. There will be a new "hardware min", training for support staff and users.....and then they will at some point flat out stop XP deployments. All new PC's will get 7 or any XP machine needing a rebuild that meets the hardware requirements will get 7. So over a period of a 3 years they will roll it out. They may be circumstances where whole departments go at one time. I see it like this. XP is good enough, but its now in extended support so the vast majority of corporations that have not moved are now making plans for 7. When Vista first came out it needed much more hardware than XP, which stopped many companies right there. Well that was 2+ years ago and I am sure with normal hardware rotation that the standard desktop that was a single core with 512megs of RAM is now a dual core with 2gigs of RAM and probably 50% of any corporations machines are sitting on that hardware now. Finally 7 has gone out of its way to improve the performance where ever possible, so for a user going to a new PC with 7 in 2010, it wont be like the performance hit Vista was in 2007. I am hoping that 7 will run good enough on 1gig for VDI reasons. Its all about the timing. XP is dying, Vista is fixed now (7), powerful hardware is in place or much cheaper to get.

A uttered by @waethorn "If you don't believe that, then the terrorists win!" Dumbest thing said on this blog all year. Congratulations @waethorn.

@master3: "And what's with Apple fans coming here to tell Windows users how much they think the products they use suck?" Yet this blog has a large portion of anti-Apple content (at least 30%) and you want people to not comment on that? Please. The biggest joke is the name of the blog. Superwite for anti-Apple, more like it. Someone needs to point this and so many other erroneous FUD you guys spew and eat up.

"Keeping e-mails and bothering searching through said archive with a tech journalist? Maybe a little crazy, I was just asking a rhetorical question." Keeping an email by a known tech writer and quoting it when it's relevant to the discussion, well, no it's not. God knows the said writer won't hesitate to go decades back to dig up a piece of trivia to make people look crazy (which you think is crazy in itself), or to quote himself when he was the first to say something. Whatever, a completely valid point by jp was lost when you started the name calling.

@Waethorn - good morning :) Yes, I do recommned Action Pack (among others), but if you are into software developing & sales, check out prerequisites for becoming Microsoft Certified Partner. It is an even better deal! This is what my company got (on my incentive, should I say), and we're very glad we did so. MSDN and TechNet subscriptions are included in the deal, as well as a LOT of Microsoft software licences (both client and server side). Cheers! P.S. RC is still not on MSDN or TechNet.. Paul? Do you have any further news? Never mind, they HAVE pulled the earlier page as it seems :(

New Imac owners see Radeon 4850-related lock up issues. http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=97451 Uh oh! looks like macs suck! But in reality, can you get anything better than a 4850? That is a low end card. There goes your 2000 dollars.

Darn, I forgot to mention that the CPU was that overclocked 2.93 GHz Core 2 Duo, which I am wondering was the problem. He even replaced the 4 GB RAM. He should have bought a Mac Pro Tower like me and dual boot Vista. My 3GHz quad will be 3 yrs old in October and hasn't had a single problem.

"Whatever, a completely valid point by jp was lost when you started the name calling." Or rather, a completely valid point was lost in all the name calling by jp. Paul is probably right when he says that the number of Windows zealots is statistically zero. jp probably doesn't know enough statistics to figure out that Paul didn't say there weren't any Windows zealots. I'm sure not all Mac users are fanatical, but my guess is: a statistically significant minority of Mac users(maybe even majority) is fanatical. The average Mac user, in my opinion, is more emotionally attached to one's computer than an average PC user. I think customer satisfaction surveys involving PCs and Macs are bogus because there is a huge bias among Mac users that's not taken into account. This also explains the reaction among the Mac community to Microsoft's ads. And no, I don't believe there's a conspiracy going on here, as lotsa suggests.

Most of the Mac users that I know don't seem to give a crap about their computers, but probably bought because of the halo effect as they own iPods, and/or have kids that DL malware from P-2P networks. But this is anecdotal and most use both Win and Mac, so we may not really qualify as a true Mac user. I almost do, but like using Windows also. My first computer was a Mac and I'm used to the OS, but as Ken and others have been psoting, the line of distinction for the two OS'es is blurring. especially for the average user. Win 7 should be a big hit if stable and secure, and less switchers may result. I'm just really glad I read here as I may have never install Vista or setup Exchange [I could have just use the browser]. You guys were right, the software does some 'good stuff'.

@REAL - "In the corporate world, they will test against the apps the company runs. Once certified they will create their builds. There will be a new "hardware min", training for support staff and users.....and then they will at some point flat out stop XP deployments. All new PC's will get 7 or any XP machine needing a rebuild that meets the hardware requirements will get 7. So over a period of a 3 years they will roll it out. They may be circumstances where whole departments go at one time." EXACTLY...mikegalos and Waethorn, if consistent, will disagree with you on this point. --tayme

@DRWAM - People like you and I are the minority...we see the value in both Windows and OS X. Paul's sites have become the haven to the zealots on both sides of the perceived "OS war". I think that Paul likes it that way...it gets him lots of clicks. Meanwhile, those of us that do see value in multiple OSes continue to be much more productive in both our professional and personal lives. BTW, Doc...I am down 15 lbs and up to running a 10 minute mile. Going out for a bike ride soon!!! Cheers!!! --tayme

Slim, One of Steven Sinofsky's personal testing units for Windows 7 is EeePC running an Atom processor at 1.6 Ghz and 1 GB of memory. Ed Bott tested Windows 7 in a virutal machine with only 512 MB of memory with the x64 version. You can read the results for yourself down here. http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=672 My brother who works for a vendor doing tech work for the City of Dallas is currently testing Windows 7 Beta on an XP era Dell Optiplex mid tower around 2003-2004. Pentium 4 processor with 1 GB of memory. In our tests, Windows 7 ran just fine with 1 GB of ram on 5 to 6 year old hardware. I don't think anyone with 1 GB of ram will have issues with Windows 7 either corporately or in the consumer arena. I do agree with you that the 2 GB is the sweet spot for 7.