Windows 7 builds 7137 and 7201

At this point in the dev cycle - post RC - I'd expect to see very little change except for bug fixes and maybe some updated drivers. The bar for getting new code into the build this late is set very, very high and anything not meeting that bar will likely be postponed for a service pack or Microsoft Update patch rather than risk destablizing the build.

I recall sometime back on Windows Weekly, Paul mentioning that he thought Microsoft might change the UI, he's seems to have laid off of that for now. He also mention on Windows Weekly, that Microsoft would drastically change Windows 7, I don't see anything like that from Beta to RC. There seems to be some other things, such as the Min Win Kernel that haven't been addressed. And what about the big surprises in store for the final release?

I'm pretty happy with all the current features that are in the RC. I'll be very surprised if they actually add anything else into it from now until they ship. Any reason why I should or should not get the 64-bit version of 7 instead of 32-bit when it ships? I know some people say there's no point for getting 64 if you have >4GB of RAM, but would it be worth getting for future-proofing even if you have >4GB?

A new UI skin wouldn't much surprise me. I think it would help keep average consumers who may not understand the real differences between Vista and 7 from making superficial comparisons, as it wouldn't appear so similar to Vista if the skin was changed. And it obviously wouldn't be hard to do.

Also, Paul, I'm thoroughly enjoying the Windows Weekly podcast. ( I have been listening since October 2007 ). You're in the top 2 of 15 podcasts that I look forward to listen to. I don't care if that sounds like I'm sucking up.

@ kenmcnamee I actually hope that they keep working on it alittle longer. I have a few problems with some of my media cetner pcs. Two of them dells new boutgh with vista they wont find the IR Blaster so I can't use them to watch/record live tv. The other problems is with lenovo laptops they wont allways turn off compleatly. I have reported these problems since beta and so far no fix. So thats four computers that I wont be able to install windows 7 untill that is fixed.

I only have one simple request for Windows 7...I wish it would support the use of different wallpapers on multiple displays.

stimshady - Cheers! : ) The only bug I have is just sleep/hibernation on my desktop machine. However, it works fine on my laptop so I think the problem is hardware related. The only thing I would change, agreeing with what Paul T. has said in the past, is to change the default taskbar to 'Combine when full' instead of 'Always combine'. I just preferred it that way in my opinion. Also, more wallpaper choices. I love to have loads of choice for wallpapers.

I'm pretty happy with Win7. The more I use the taskbar and Start Menu the more I like it, and I always used to switch my interface to classic mode. I'd like to see an option or reghack to move the Aero Peek 'icon' from the bottom right to the bottom left, where the old 'show desktop' icon used to be.

@Lindy "Sorry its not a big deal. Free version of a 8 year old OS, running in VPC and only for certain versions of 7, and its totally targeted at business." I guess you've been under a rock. Windows XP is the most popular and used OS in the world. @grannyville "I know some people say there's no point for getting 64 if you have >4GB of RAM, but would it be worth getting for future-proofing even if you have >4GB?" On the contrary, if you have >4GB of RAM you have to have 64 to utilize the extra RAM. Even though I build my own computers, when I go to the local shops to dick around, I always find they are selling PC's with win64 on them. When win7 hits, I think I will go 64.

hamilton I think grannyville got the less than and greater than symbols reversed and that sentence was meant to be, "I know some people say there's no point for getting 64 if you have less than 4GB of RAM, but would it be worth getting for future-proofing even if you have less than 4GB?" (In which case, I'd agree that if your hardware is 64-bit, this seems to be the time to abandon the 32-bit only world. Even if you don't have 4GB+ of RAM, you likely will soon enough.)

@hamiltonstallings - Cheers : ) @mikegalos - What are your opinions on Windows 7? I'm sure you've mentioned it some time in a past blog post but I've only just joined and quite curious on your opinion, if you don't mind :)

I use the 64-bit version of 7 with 2 GB of RAM, and it works fine. I plan on upgrading my desktop to 4 GB, and keep my laptop at 2. In either case, I can't think of any reason not to go with 64-bit assuming you have some reasonable hardware. The only cases for 32-bit is when your hardware doesn't support it, maybe if you have less than 2 GB of RAM, and when you have an app that will just not work on 64-bit. But, then see XP Mode. And while I was also waiting for something breathtaking when Paul was holding out on the XP Mode feature, it does in fact remove any last reasons not to upgrade from XP. That and the better performance of 7 make it an easy jump for corporate customers as well as regular consumers.

I'm quite chuffed I joined up now. People have been really helpful. Clever these little blog things

Does Windows 7 allow hte /PAE switch in the boot config? I know Windows 2003 server does. Then you can run a 32-bit OS with more than 4 gigs.

"Any reason why I should or should not get the 64-bit version of 7 instead of 32-bit when it ships? I know some people say there's no point for getting 64 if you have >4GB of RAM, but would it be worth getting for future-proofing even if you have >4GB?" Really only two reasons: 1) If you only have 1GB of RAM (x64 requires 2GB, unlike Vista which will work on 1GB, although I don't recommend it) 2) If you're using an Atom netbook or other processor that doesn't support x64. Atom nettop processors (currently, the 230 and 330 - which don't have Z or N letters beforehand) both support x64, but make sure you follow the previous point and have at least 2GB installed. Remember that Atom systems with Intel chipsets (the 945GC or 945GSE, depending on whether it's netbook or nettop-based) only support a maximum of 2GB of DDR2-667 (I think) of RAM anyway, and only in single-channel. The NVIDIA Ion platform, such as what is used on the Zotac nettop IONITX motherboard, supports a maximum of 4GB DDR2-800 in dual-channel. The Ion platform itself can also support DDR3 RAM, but the only DIY part shipping with Ion right now is the Zotac board. Name-brand OEM's may be already supporting DDR3 in their customized hardware though. It's safe to say that if you are building a system, you should target it towards 64-bit. 32-bit is something that you'll only find with lower-end name-brand systems. If you want to know if XYZ hardware is compatible, just list it and we'll be happy to answer.

Grannyville, I'm sure this will get lots of posts (primarily from Microsoft bashers) who will tell you that I uniformly like anything made by Microsoft and hate anything by anyone else. It isn't true but they'll say it anyway. That said, I've been fairly happy with Windows 7. It's added some nice tweaks to Windows Vista without being a major change in the underlying OS itself. I think of it as part two of the transition from Windows XP. Vista had the architectural upgrades but held off on major changes to the UI (although a lot was there - much of which people didn't know about - intentionally). Windows 7 adds the UI changes that, if combined with Vista's major rewrites, would have pushed the transition beyond people's comfort level. Of course, it's more complex than that but that's a good quick summary. Feel free to contact me via email or Live Messenger (my address should be fairly obvious) And thanks for the nice comments.

@kenmcnamee: Your issues with the codecs are curious. I have no problem using 3rd party codecs in media center or media player in Vista (using Nvidia's Purevideo for the most part) but I haven't tried them in 7 yet. But, for what it's worth, my downloaded TV shows from the BBC or E4 play back fine under media center in 7. de Silentio, PAE allows the use of more than 4 gigs of RAM, but with a performance hit. However, the nature of the performance doesn't hit servers as noticeable as a desktop machine (so I've been told). PAE can also cause some weird compatability issues.

"Does Windows 7 allow hte /PAE switch in the boot config? I know Windows 2003 server does. Then you can run a 32-bit OS with more than 4 gigs." It's disabled by default because of stability issues caused by incompatibilities. Moreso than migrating to 64-bit. If you want to run with more than 4GB of RAM, use 64-bit instead. If you can't because of compatibility reasons, get on the horn with your software and hardware vendors to fully certify their stuff for Vista. If they do, it'll work on both. If they don't want to for whatever reason, then ask them why they're dragging you behind. "kinda rude aren't ya? do you speak like that to people's faces or is it just easier to 'big and cool' on the internet?" Not really. Paul is making a big assumption that the change is there for no reason and that users will find it hard to adapt. What it also assumes is that Microsoft themselves never do their own UX testing and user case studies. Instead, he mocks their value proposal by defining "users" in general as people that he knows that he personally thinks would have a hard time with the change. I'm sure that handful of people that he *thinks* would have issues would pale in comparison to the numerous people that Microsoft has had testing it both internally, externally, as well as TAP members, and the general public that they get to perform usage test cases on in their testing research labs. As Mike says, it's a very flexible system. If you don't like it, you can change it. But I would wager that the number of people that would recommend that you change it to the exact same alternate options over and over again are very small. They found the option that worked for the majority of users and developed it. They still left customization options in for those that are complacent with the old methodology too.

Grannyville, I ran into problems with sleep. Dell Studio shipped in April with Vista 64 bit. Win 7 was OK with sleep until one day it started waking itself shortly after either auto- or manual sleep. I started using shutdown instead, then noticed that the problem started after I accepted a Microsoft update driver for the NIC. A look at a suitable MS forum hinted at the solution: turn off the feature which allows wake from LAN. Since I don't need that active, I turned it off and sleep has been fine. It would almost certainly also have worked to roll back the driver update. That, I think, counts as a driver flaw not a Win 7 flaw (but either way it is broken). --John

Lindy, XP mode means that a licence for XP is INCLUDED in 7. It was not in Vista, which means that you would have had to have two OS licences for each machine. Also, the integration between the two was not available. XP-mode allows apps installed on the VM to appear alongside native win7 apps in the start menu, as if there was no VM there at all. It's not just for gamers who want to run games from 1998 (although should I point out that I recently played the original Quake 1 + 2 and the original HalfLife under Vista recently whilst reminiscing?) it's for the many people who have perfectly functioning ancilliary hardware, such as printers, scanners or in my sister's case, a computer controlled embroidery machine. Many of these devices are discontinued, and will never get drivers for vista or 7. With XP mode, these devices are no longer expensive pieces of junk, they are still usable, and do not have to be replaced. Honestly, your dissmisive attitude towards people who don;t live in your little world is getting as tiring as the many arguments on this site.

"why haven't corporations, with software agreements installed VPC7 with a XP VM in Vista" Simply because you can't run VPC7 on Vista. You CAN run Virtual PC 2007 SP1 on Vista though. "If you are doing things right then that XP VM is just another workstation that needs to be maintained., patching, anti-malware software, management software etc. Add to that it will eat up at least 512megs of RAM, so now your Vista/7 box needs more resources." If you've already set up centralized management of PC's, adding an additional simplified environment for legacy apps to the list doesn't take much. SMB's without large infrastructure investments can take advantage of MED-V. Large enterprise companies would likely use APP-V instead. APP-V is easier to manage because it's centrally deployed, but it requires a larger investment and the initial setup is more complicated. MED-V is easier to deploy because it's centrally managed, but it requires a smaller investment and the initial setup is less complicated. See how that works?

XP being included for any company with a MS service agreement means nothing. For example my company could technically upgrade XP machines to Vista, or only half or them, or 10% and I am pretty sure our agreement is up in late 2010 so that means to 7 as well. Free XP would be helpful for small companies wanting to go to 7 but run XP in a VM. Your point about old hardware is somewhat valid for the rare cases like your sisters with the sewing machine app. I am willing to bet that some competing vendor makes a product that will do the same thing on Vista. However they are willing to buy whole new computer with Windows 7 but not a new scanner, or printer? Both of which are now at least 4 years old, because it wont work with 7, which means it wont work with Vista, which means the scanner/printer was bought at least in 2006 or before. I can see XP mode for a small company, that bought a new PC because they had to (old one died or it was an impulse buy) and now they want to install something like Quicbooks 2003 because it works fine, and was working great under XP. Then again the same question comes out, you can buy a new PC buy your not willing to upgrade your 6 year old Quickbooks?

"Then again the same question comes out, you can buy a new PC buy your not willing to upgrade your 6 year old Quickbooks?" In many cases, upgrading is not as simple as inserting a CD and clicking the mouse 4 or 5 times. It takes a lot of money to hire consultants, train users, etc.

"Then again the same question comes out, you can buy a new PC buy your not willing to upgrade your 6 year old Quickbooks?" Yep! PC's are cheap!