Talk:Windows 7/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Does Windows 7 include .NET Framework 3.5?

It's not included in the article this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.190.95 (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes i think so. Server 2008 did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The .NET Framework article specifically says Windows Server 2008 doesn't include .NET 3.5. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

It has been replaced by the Ubuntu Article

Resolved

 – This was vandalism and has been reverted.

When you open it up it shows the ubuntu article not the windows 7 article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.109.91 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Open what up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2009

A vandal replaced this article's content with the Ubuntu article's content. I think "open it up" means viewing this article. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Windows Energy, Windows Logo, and Aurora screensavers were NOT removed from Windows 7

The Beta has it and so does most of the other builds. That bullet had no references anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:12, 8 April 2009

Are they back in builds newer than 7057? A reference had been added saying they were removed in build 7057, but you removed the text again. - Josh (talk | contribs) 18:53, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Who says that the builds after that were not having these screen savers? The builds typically have some things missing. The Beta was missing my favorite cursor (3dgarro).

Jasper Dang implied it, by removing them from the list of removed features. They were removed from Windows 7, just like every other feature on the list. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Taskbar Buttons Grouping

Buttons on the taskbar can be ungrouped by choosing never combine. Jeketem (talk) 13:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

That just uncombines them. The buttons are still next to each other. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:02, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Buttons where always next to each other in all editions of windows featuring a taskbar. HuGo_87 (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

...and Windows 7 forces buttons for the same application to be next to each other specifically. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't get the point the first time. This may be worthy of note, but it's really a minor tweak, so I don't know how much worth mentioning it is. HuGo_87 (talk) 03:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Downgrade Rights

Is there a place in this artical for downgrade rights to XP and 2000 Bihco (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Downgrade rights aren't new to Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is downgrade rights, microsoft released a statement (no idea where i put the link) saying that they're giving consumers the ability to downgrade even to windows 2000, which is a big suprise considering the supports finished, with the extended support on the way too.JRGregory (talk) 23:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You received the same downgrade rights on prior versions of Windows, that's nothing new. Volume-license customers can always downgrade to any previous version of Windows. The same was true on on prior versions as well. The thing that I belive is new this time is that some OEMs are offering to help facilitate this by shipping systems already downgraded to XP rather than just to the immediate predecesor (I hadn't seen any offering 2000 yet, but then I'm not looking). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

>"they're giving consumers the ability to downgrade even to windows 2000, which is a big suprise considering the supports >finished, with the extended support on the way too"

- Thats nothing new. When XP pro came out you could downgrade to NT4 vai some OEMs.

Add section on Windows 7 beta

There are issues in dealing with the Windows 7 beta that people should know about. The first is that booting the system (not just Windows 7) requires that the Windows 7 install DVD be in the drive upon startup. Without the DVD in the drive, one gets an error message saying (paraphrasing) "missing system kernel file."

I installed Windows 7 to the first partition, followed by xUbuntu on the third. Windows 7 does something quite unusual (and undesirable) from what normal installations do in that it tweaks with the actual MBR of the system, preempting even bootloaders like GRUB, which I installed afterwards with xUbuntu. The bootloader works, but the system only gets to it if the Windows 7 DVD is in the drive. I understand there are security issues, but these should not preempt an owner's basic control of their system startup into other operating systems. -Vastling (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

This is original research. My Vista/7 dual-boot system doesn't need the DVD. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never needed any dvd in my drive after installing the beta (and now RC). This may be an issue only affecting a few. HuGo_87 (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Classic Theme

The classic theme (which the article claims has been removed, is still in Windows 7 as of build 7068. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.15.87.56 (talk) 19:54, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it says the classic start menu is removed (which it is). It says nothing about the classic theme, which is still there. Austin512 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I R using windowes Rc which I downloaded yesterday and does not require dvd  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.213.166 (talk) 10:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC) 

Um, yes it does... It wont fit on one cd... its a couple of gigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about, and what does it have to do with the classic Start menu? - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Split section

Resolved

 – The page has been converted to a article.

I am suggesting that the removed features section separated to a new article named Features removed from Windows 7 (currently redirect) Junk Police (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It's better to make an article but leave this article as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What would be the point of the new article, if this article still contained all of its content? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree the removed features section is too long and should be split in to a seperate article. 80.229.156.78 (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

criticism

the criticism already is that besides performance enhancement not allot has really changed from the previous release Windows Vista. it has the same kernel, it has more or less the same driver model and dll's are still not a thing of the past and a big one is that there is still no new Filesystem! Markthemac (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

and windows 7 isn't shipped by default as an hybrid 32/64bit OS, there is still a 32bit dvd edition and Microsoft hasn't shown commitment to change that, even though over 80% of pc's sold today are 64bit. Markthemac (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"there is still a 32bit dvd edition and Microsoft hasn't shown commitment to change that".

Yes, they HAVE. Windows Server 2008 R2 is 64 bit only. All future server software will be 64 bit only. It follows therefore that the next windows (windows 8?) will be 64 bt.

It makes sense to have windows 7 in both because many dont have 64 bit CPUs. E.G some Pentium Ms and even the original Core(1)Duo do not have the EMT64 extensions. As a consumer i would be pissed off if my alptop with the latter CPU (which is less than 4 years old) wouldnt run windows 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. My laptop is less than three years old with a 32 bit 2ghz core duo, and there are other computers out there even newer with 32 bit chips. Software to take advantage of 64 bit architecture is just beginning to emerge, it would be stupid not to support legacy 32 bit systems when as of right now the performance penalty for choosing 32 over 64 marginal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.149.72.163 (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fake screenshot?

The current screenshot says it's from April 16 with a build number of 7106. But that's impossible because build 7100 (RC) was just released today: http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/24/windows-7-rc-7100-making-its-way-to-oems-a-torrent-tracker-near/ Althepal (talk) 19:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Build 7106 is from the RTM branch, which starts before the RC is completed. Build 7100 is the final build of the RC branch. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok in any event I updated it. Althepal (talk) 19:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think than we most let an screenshot of Build 7100 as default for sometime, cuz every second some "chinese" leak a build and somebody upload the screen and it is the same thing with an other watermark... and anyway, sometimes, there's some builds than are fake and we are expoused to that if we accept screen of every build. But with an official release of Microsoft like is ment to be the RC we will have the ensurense than is original and in some way "legal"

So, I hope than a screenshot of the build 7100 (RC) will be the default for sometime, until the RTM or until some real UI change --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 05:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Build 7100

Should we update the "Latest Preview Version" to be build 7100, the release candidate? --Cumbiagermen (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Nope, cuz the release of this will be until april 30 (technet...) and 5th May (us)

Is better to wait the release --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 05:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Than why is there a screenshot of the release candidate on the page already? Seems rather inconsistent. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's an up-to-date depiction of what Windows 7 is to look like, but its not the preview version yet. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It should be stated that this is NOT the official RC. (even though it says it's build 7100.)Permission to edit the screenshot description?afraca (talk) 09:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Today it's being released to TechNet/MSDN, so I'm changing the build info. Anyone wanna challenge me, go ahead. I dare you. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sure, I'll challenge you, because you made a mistake -- you didn't provide a reliable source stating that it's actually been released? You can't take a week-old source saying "we will release it" and turn that into "we have released it". Warren -talk- 15:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Upgrade?

"Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade to the Windows line"

C'mon, Windows XP was 5.1 and no body tought than was a minor release, and it was not. Anyway, I think than Win7 is not a minor upgrade, cuz they improve every way of the OS: memory and CPU usage, boot time, UI, power usage, "NEW" UAC, etc.

And maybe u should read this http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 17:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The Windows XP article doesn't claim that it was intended to be an incremental upgrade (despite it absolutely being an incremental upgrade from its immediate predecessor, Windows 2000), so your analogy doesn't work here. Yes, Windows 7 has had a lot of work done on it in a lot of areas, but it doesn't represent a radical departure from Windows Vista in how it fundamentally operates. Windows Vista was a major game-changer, with a number of completely re-written subsystems, a new philosophical approach to how the platform is architected, tested, and released. That's Warren -talk- 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

They're all upgrades, since they all keep modifying the same code (never re start from scratch) HuGo_87 (talk) 01:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

"C'mon, Windows XP was 5.1 and no body tought than was a minor release, and it was not".

Um, yes it was. XP is virtually identical to windows 2000. They were released only 9 months apart.# Nt4 -> Windows 2000 . Thas a big jump. XP -> Vista. Big jump.

windows 2000 -> Xp -> 2003 is incremental. So is Vista -> Windows 7.

86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Rumors of Free Upgrades

I have been hearing mixed rumors that Microsoft may offer Vista users a free or discounted upgrade to Windows 7. Can this be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.36.75.241 (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If it could be confirmed, it wouldn't be a rumour... :-) Warren -talk- 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've also heard this before, it seems to be true, though i haven't found the "Program Eligibility Period " . http://www.techarp.com/showarticle.aspx?artno=609&pgno=0 HuGo_87 (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

For ages, Microsoft has sold upgrade versions for 30-50% less than a full copy. - Josh (talk | contribs) 14:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Connect

Near as I can tell Windows 7 build 7000 is no longer available via Microsoft Connect. Can anyone verify this? It's sort of moot as the newer beta (build 7100) will be available on Microsoft's site in 5 days. Stilroc (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Release Date

Official talk from Microsoft is that Windows 7 could be released in September, however I have reason to believe (inside information) that there will only be one RC release and assuming that no major bugs are found, Windows 7 would be RTM in Late May to June.

I'm not suggesting we add this as its unofficial, but for those interested...

PookeyMaster (talk) 02:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

XP Mode

There is no citation for this section. I will remove it unless I hear of a source. Oppdis (talk) 03:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

If you search for "XP Mode in Windows 7" on Google you'll find plenty of sources. I also remember reading it of some part of microsoft's website but i can't find it at the moment... PookeyMaster (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Start here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Virtual_PC#Windows_XP_Mode I dont know if wikipedia can source other wikipedia articles but that one is sourced so we can just take them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.105.132.158 (talk) 15:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Go to the microsoft virtual PC website and it talks about it. 86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

XP Mode is not a feature

As pointed out here, Windows XP Mode is an add-on, not a feature. We do not normally include add-ons in feature sections. - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

*cough*Windows Ultimate Extras*coughcough* Warren -talk- 22:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows Vista Ultimate includes the functionality for downloading Windows Ultimate Extras. That's a feature. If Windows 7 includes similar functionality for Windows XP Mode, that functionality is a Windows 7 feature.

If Microsoft doesn't offer XP Mode for Windows 8, are you going to include it in Features removed from Windows 8? Are you going to add the Windows Live applications to Features new to Windows XP? (They're likewise free downloads, and XP is the first version to support them.) - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I would agree it is an add-on, not a feature. Like any other piece of non-feature software, it just has certain system requirements, one of which using (specific editions of) Windows 7 is. However, as it seems to have been specifically developed for Windows 7, it should be mentioned in the article at least, especially considering its main purpose is to wean XP users off XP and finally move to a new Microsoft OS. --Resplendent (talk) 22:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

XP Mode is being advertised by Microsft as "a feature of Windows 7" -- their words. Our opinions on the matter, therefore, are irrelevant -- WP:NPOV and WP:V are more important. It gets mentioned as a new feature of Windows 7. Warren -talk- 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows seven is advertised as a "fun way to do your work and a new way of lifestyle" and a lot of other similar stuff. Our opinion does matter, since we're the ones who make this neutral, we don't just repeat what the author said. If they said MS Office 2007 was a feature, it still wouldn't be. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Who ever said an add-on can't be a feature? Althepal (talk) 23:03, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

How bout' "extension"? TechOutsider (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Making up language not used by the vendor would be WP:OR.-Localzuk^(talk) 22:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

No that would be a kenning. TechOutsider (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

System requirements

Why do we keep changing the system requirements section to match what Mary Jo Foley says Microsoft told MSDN and TechNet subscribers on April 30, rather than what Microsoft's TechNet page currently says? - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

There are more detailed specs from Microsoft, specifying different requirements for x64 and x32 systems at this link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/download.aspx I feel the article should be updated to reflect the additional information MS has provided.

194.80.32.9 (talk) 17:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Microsoft site (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/faq.aspx) clearly states "WDDM 1.0 or higher driver" as a system requirement for graphics. WDDM is listed in the Windows Vista system requirements box so I can't see any reason why it should not feature in the Windows 7 system specs box especially given it is on an official Microsoft site. It was removed from the system requirements and I am re adding it. Also, the Citation 61 appears to be irrelevant ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2643) since it appears the appopriate reference for system specs is Microsoft rather than zdnet so I think this should be removed too. 194.80.32.9 (talk) 22:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

One would think this is self-explanatory, but I guess not -- Drivers aren't hardware. This is about recommended hardware requirements, not recommended software. Warren -talk- 03:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I did read the reference and zdnet does not seem to be the best reference available when the Microsoft Technet and RC site has listed the specs. I appreciate that the article says hardware requirements but perhaps it would be more appropriate to follow what has been previously done in the articles on Vista and XP where System Requirements were listed. I also note that DirectX is a set of APIs which is code not hardware as such. 194.80.32.9 (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A DVD-R/W is not required to install 7. Not counting ISO mounting, as long as you have a DVD-ROM drive, you can install it. It seems misleading to group in the "burning" of the ISO in with the installing. --Resplendent (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I get what you're saying, but you do need a DVD burner to burn the disc you just downloaded from Microsoft. These are the requirements for the Release Candidate after all..... Warren -talk- 02:00, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a requirement on the PC you will install/run seven, you can do it somewhere else. HuGo_87 (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you know what, it looks like the article we're using as a reference has changed to no longer include DVD R/W as a requirement, so if someone removes that line from the hardware requirements section, I don't see how it could be argued that it should still be there. On the other hand, the page does seem to intermingle "reuquirements" with "recommendations", which isn't helpful at all... Warren -talk- 14:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Windows "Seven" vs. "7" vs. "Se7en"

Wondering why this article is named Windows 7 rather than Windows Seven. TechOutsider (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Because it is about something that is named Windows 7 rather than Windows Seven. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is something I want to make clear to avoid the unnecessary edit wars. Microsoft did spell it as "Windows Se7en", and here is the proof http://blogwindows.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/win7.JPG?w=499&h=372 But look at the date, it was in 2007. The name was changed to "Seven", or simply "7" in 2008. So it all fits together. Shadiac (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That image is from a non-Microsoft blog site. People forged fake and concept Windows 7 logos and screenshots all the time in 2007. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that Se7en and Seven were also codenames for the product, but it is actually called "7" 65.95.155.43 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if those were really codenames, I wonder why the article hasn't been moved to reflect such changes. It started out as "7" in 2005.

I wonder why, or more precisely, how did the spelling "Se7en" came in, if MS never agreed to name it this way? While it's hard to find proof that Windows 7 was actually called "Se7en" by MS before (just saying I saw it does not suffice, does it?), I may be challenged to say that it may not have been referred to as such by the development team, but may have been by the marketing team. Therefore it might be that "Windows Se7en" has nothing to do with the Final built of Windows 7, as they both refer to different products developped, but not yet released by MS. Shadiac (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The idea of a word "se7en" is much older than Microsoft Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs) 07:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft's original codename for Windows 7 was just that – Windows 7. It was later revealed to be the final product name. Microsoft has never officially referred to Windows 7 as "Windows Seven" or "Windows Se7en." --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 08:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point. They didn't, but they did refer to another product as "Se7en" before, and I wonder which. Shadiac (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe its called windows 7 rather than windows se7en or windows seven because windows 7 is quicker to type?...and calling it windows se7en would make ms employees look like they have a brain age of .....7

"in time for the holiday season"

While most of us can probably guess that this means "in the autumn", could somebody confirm this and make it more explicit for us poor non-Americans to whom this phrase is unfamiliar? Thanks. AJKGORDON«» 09:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Also remmeber that holiday seasons are not during the same period worldwide. Neither is autum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo 87 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point about autumn. AJKGORDON«» 11:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an ambiguous phrase, and it's what Microsoft says, so we're stuck with it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but it still means something in a US context but is largely meaningless elsewhere. If someone could just explain what the American "holiday season" means, even if it is intended by Microsoft to be fairly vague, that would be helpful. I mean, something like "Q4 2009" or "before the end of 2009" or whatever. AJKGORDON«» 11:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think holiday = christmas.

No one says holiday outside of the USA in that sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it doesn't matter now as a date has been announced. AJKGORDON«» 11:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm an American. The Holiday Season largely means between Thanksgiving (Fourth Thursday in November) and Christmas, because Hanukkah, Christmas, Kwanza, and several other holidays occur in that same month. It's basically a politically correct way of saying Christmas. --Scouto2 (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unicode support

One expects to find something in the article about up-to-date Unicode versions, what is lacking. Could you guys who have been testing the Seven please include a section about it? My main question is whether Unicode 5.1 works there. Per instance, does a Seven user see infamous mojibake when visiting pages like Phoenician alphabet, Cuneiform script or Coptic alphabet? Even with sp-1, Vista does not support Unicode 5 (it does not render even the Coptic alphabet, which was included in the Unicode 4.1, in March 2005), although the os has Unicode by default. Thank you very much. --Algorithme (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This page shall protected.

I see many reverts in this article. Shall this page protected? The Junk Police (reports|works) 01:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Useless, imo. This is a software product in full development. Any new facts are welcome. Protecting this page would harm only the up-to-date ratio, as vandals still insert nonsense after creating unchecked accounts. Shadiac (talk) 06:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Win XP feature shots on msn.co.uk

In case this is of help/interest to this articles editors i just found this, and looking at the slide 3 and using IEs zoom function you can make out a higher build number than 7100 and it clearly shows the XP mode running- although it is just basically an XP image through MSofts VIrtual PC. Still a sign of things to come for sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.217.42 (talk) 09:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Unlike its predecessor, Windows 7 is intended to be an incremental upgrade to the Windows line

so what windows vista was never intended to be an incremental upgrade to the windows line?

quoting warren "NT 6.0 was a major version, not an incremental upgrade"

Just two things

1º this is for people with no technical knowledge 2ºa major version is not an incremetal upgrade to the windows line? i believeyou are messing around with words...

Lion golden mayer (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

and even assuming that windows vista could not be considered as an upgrade to the windows line and windows 7 does, you are claiming technical reasons, something not very suitable for the intro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lion golden mayer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The phrasing reflects the fact that Windows Vista was a major new version of Microsoft Windows -- Wikipedia has half a dozen lengthy articles on its new features. It was generally seen by the press and users alike as a major change from Windows XP, both in terms of pure visuals, as well as how it functioned (both in the UI and in the underlying technology). Windows 7, comparatively, retains almost all of the visual style, user interface and underlying tech introduced with Windows Vista (with the exception of the taskbar), and is being treated by Microsoft as a less fundamental shift. There are a variety of articles published by people at Microsoft that say things like, "building on the work introduced in Vista."

I get what you're saying about "but it was just the prior version", but not all upgrades are of the same scope and intent. Windows Vista was a much larger release than Windows 7 will be; this isn't really up for discussion because it's the plain truth. This fact should be communicated in the lead. I'll find another wording for it.

In the meantime, I hope you'll consider making more productive edits to the article and make it more informative and interesting, than arguing over three words. Thanks.... Warren -talk- 00:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 in Europe to ship WITHOUT Internet Explorer

BBC news reported it this morning: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8096701.stm 86.20.198.199 (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, how will inexperienced users download a web browser without one installed already? :) Arfed (talk) 18:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought the same thing - I assume that MS would make it easy to download IE 8 via Windows Update, the net result being that IE is still the first browser that most users will have. Less chance of users choosing another browser, compared to shipping with other browsers preinstalled.

86.20.198.199 (talk) 08:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OEMs could still install any browser they want, and if you are buying a retail boxed version of Windows 7, you probably know how you can get a browser. :)

But I don't think this will be the final solution. The EU didn't even make their final ruling on the case, so this is basically MS saying :"There, no IE. Lets just forget about the whole thing." (Of course the EU will probably reply with: "Hahahahaha... no." :D They want to ensure consumer choice, not making it hard for buyers to get on the Internet.)

CyberDragon777 (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Paul Thurrott on the Windows Weekly podcast said that a browser (or a few) may be bundled on the CD or available during setup, such as a screen that says: "Please select your browser preference." But yeah, MS Update or OEMs could. I believe Paul Thurrott also said that Microsoft wouldn't actually need to create the "E" version, just offer it to the EU for those 6 or 7 people who don't want IE bundled. Why isn't the EU going after Apple??? 65.95.155.43 (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the EU doesn't go after Apple is that Apple's Safari browser is almost irrelevant in the browser market and so is their OS. The EU may prohibit the sell of the full versions of Windows 7. The EU actually has been acting against Microsoft for no reason at all, The whole thing was started by the pathetic browser Opera. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the European Commission (not the EU, there's a difference, Norway is not even part of the EU) is acting against Microsoft is because they've already been found to abusing their monopoly position in both the EU, the US, South Korea and Japan. It is Microsoft's fault for continually breaking the law of the countries they are operating in. If you genuinely believe it is not Microsoft's fault, then it is the EC's fault. Opera made a complaint, supported by Google and Mozilla (2 American entitites) but it was simply a complaint, and I've seen no evidence they've been misleading in their complaint. It was the job of the EC to investigate and act, and if they get that wrong, it's their fault not the fault of the person making the complaint. The same way if you and I see someone committing what I think is a crime and report it to the police, provided I am honest, you can't say it's my fault or your fault if some person is arrested or prosecuted for the crime for me/you making an honest report. Nil Einne (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism article merged

I have merged the criticism article into this article as that article is just size of a section. In my opinion, this article should be used to present all of the criticism. After we have enough criticism information in this article, then I'll endorse a split. All discussion is welcome. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 screenshot

Hey guys,

I know that user:warren said that the screenshot should stick with "released" builds (I assume that means Microsoft released builds, but since Build 7232 has the new wallpaper, should we switch the screenshot from the "beta fish" to that one instead? Here's a link to the new build's desktop screenshot.

Current screenshot:

New screenshot:

http://www.winsupersite.com/images/win7/win7_7232_02.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.155.43 (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It would make a good addition to Development of Windows 7. - Josh (talk | contribs)

HomeGroup

Has the capitalization of HomeGroup been unified across Windows 7 now? I believe it was capitalized three different ways, as reported in mid-March. Not sure if it has been fixed since.TechOutsider (talk) 00:28, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Lack of Images

I realize there are strict copyright rules when it comes to images of proprietary software, but this article has a grand total of ...2 images right now. Isn't that a little bit spartan? I know there used to be more but they seem to have been removed for various reasons. --Resplendent (talk) 23:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there anything in particular of which a screenshot would be useful? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd think at least the new Taskbar would be appropriate to feature somehow, since that's arguably the biggest change in Explorer since Windows 95. --Resplendent (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've copied the taskbar image from Features new to Windows 7. We might want to take more screenshots from there. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The Release Date

According to Microsoft, http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/home?os=nonwin7

It's going to be release in october 22nd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.189.104.149 (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it named v7?

Win3.x, 95, 98, Me, NT, 2000, XP, Vista.... Even countin the 3 9x systems as 1 and discounting NT completely, the latest v num would be 8? So how did MS come up with 7! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.139.163.153 (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You're mixing two branches. 3.x is the 16-bit branch. So are 95, 98, and Me. 95 was originally supposed to be 94 but they were a year late in releasing it. The other branch is the NT branch: versions 3.1 (yes the first) along with 3.5 (Daytona) and 3.51, then 4.0, then 2K, then XP and so forth. Also, it is not strange to see the kernel called 6.1 if you know the product history. Try to learn more about the technology first before asking distracting questions. This talk page is supposed to be for improving the article, not financing your tutoring fees.

---

Don't ask, you can count Windows versions in many ways, you'll never hit 7 because you'll always leave out some or have too many. The kernel is v6.1 (strangely).

Example:

Windows 95, 98, 2000 ME XP Vista 7 - that looks like 7 versions of Windows, but what about these: Win 1, 2, 3, Server 2003/2008 etc. If you count the 32/64-bit editions, you have more. If you count every edition (home, pro, etc.)

Maybe it was made in 2007? Partly, development of Windows 7 started when Vista was released.

No one really knows why it's actually called 7.

Not true.

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/?p=2161 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.12.97 (talk) 10:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

70.54.26.16 (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

---

What happened is XP is really just version 5.1, not 6, leaving Vista to be version 6 and Windows 7 to be version 7. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.91.63.116 (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

---

How about this: Start counting from NT4. (Don't worry about how you get there). XP was built off NT, making it Windows 5. Then we had Vista (Windows 6), and now, Windows 7. It doesn't have to make sense - after all, what does 'Vista' have to do with OS technology? 194.150.177.249 (talk) 10:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

No. You skipped 2K. 2K is NT 5.0.

Please read the timeline of Windows releases. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Citations

RE: "Due to the removal of Internet Explorer, European customers will not be able to upgrade their Vista installations and will have to perform clean installations of Windows 7." This can't be right, I've just bought a new laptop, and I have it in writing if I go to a certain Microsoft website, I can upgrade at a reduced cost. Surely "upgrade at a reduced cost" means I don't have to do a fresh install? The sentence isn't cited, so I think it's just not true and speculation.

Thinking isn't good enough. You have to have references. You shouldn't have purchased it anyway. Obviously you do know too little - work from that end to begin with. Best of luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.5.128.188 (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

The article contains an unsourced statement, and we need a reference to say its untrue speculation? - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've seen it stated online somewhere that the upgrade version of Windows 7 E will be released later (they need to test this slightly different upgrade process more), and that full versions of Windows 7 E will be provided for the upgrade price. Presumably, the discounted upgrade that comes with new computers is the full version in Europe. - Josh (talk | contribs) 03:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Isn't Aero more optimized in this version of Windows

I have used Vista and 7 on a 1GB system with GEFORCE 6100 and AMD 3800+ Dual Core Processor and Windows 7 with Aero enabled works faster than on Vista. Like Windows XP similar performance plus when Aero is disabled it exceeds Xp's performance in multi-tasking

Only the GPU memory is used for GDI in 7, in Vista both the system and GPU memory was used, so yes there have been changes. --AJenbo (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

We do not know if it is indeed Aero that has been optimised to make it run faster. If we knew that, then so would Apple and they would implement it on Mac OS X. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. Aero is based on Apple's Aqua and Aqua is far superior. It's less demanding of hardware, a lot faster, and just technically better written. Its history dates back to the 1980s. Get a clue.

Erm Captain 'Dont be Ridiculous' who wishes us to get a clue, I suggest you follow your own advice as you obviously have know knowledge of the Lineage of OS X, do you even know what the copland projact was and the history of system 7 etc? Aqua arrived to the mac with OS X, a millennial product not from the 1980's (interesting titbit; the Original MAC GUI Os was not capable of multitasking forcing some to write custom event handlers with the screen blanking processor time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.49 (talk) 11:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes Aero is far more optimised in 7 than in vista, this is due to the DWM model in Vista drawing and holding in RAM one complete desktop for each window that was open opposed to 7 where there is only one master memory image of the desktop and a 'cropped' images in RAM per each window, this was a memory consuming quirk of the original sloppily/quickly engineered and implemented compositing in Vista. This was mentioned on Ars Technica and the Paul Thurrott/Leo Laporte Powered Windows Weekley Podcast.

Classic interface

I just noticed today that the classic interface has been restored to the Windows 7 Release Candidate, so I noted this in the "Removed Features" section.--Dominar_Rygel_XVI (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

What classic interface? The classic Start menu, which is still gone? The classic visual style, which was never gone? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Price offer?

the $49 upgrade for win7 is no longer available on microsoft's site; please edit article to show this --165.124.204.154 (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The pricing information really didn't belong in the first place. I've removed it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Reference 7 is not responding

Maybe it would be useful to replace reference 7 with "E-mail, photo programs stripped from Windows 7" at http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10048142-56.html, please?--70.107.179.34 (talk) 18:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Build 7600

Any information about build 7600? It looks like it might be the RTM version (lots of speculation on the web about this). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.108.13.253 (talk) 14:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft have stated that build 7600 is not the RTM. The RTM build will be released in the last 2 weeks of July and speculation is that the build number will likely be 7700 or 7777. PookeyMaster (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Where? - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Requirements Sections

The requirements tables on Windows articles should really be standardized. Which format seems to look best?

Also, this sentence: Requirements for the 32-bit version...but they are considerably higher for the 64-bit version.

Considerably higher than what? The 32-bit version of 7, the 64-bit version of Vista? What makes them considerably higher? As far as I can tell the hard drive space is actually lower for 7 vs Vista, and the 32 vs 64-bit version of 7 only needs 4GB more space and 1 GB more memory, hardly a huge difference at this point in time. --Resplendent (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Both. As stated in the part you omitted, the 32-bit 7 recommendations are pretty much the same as Vista Premium's recommendations. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Development Section

It says the first beta build to be leaked was on December 27, 2008, however the first true leak was build 6801 on 2008-10-29 at 20:29:15. Cerberus136 (talk) 20:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Cerberus

First, I don't see where it says it was the first anything. Second, build 7000 is the only build named Beta. Build 6801 was a pre-beta build. Third, build 6519 leaked back around June 2008. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I concede to your second and third points, I wasn't aware of that. But for the first thing "On December 27, 2008, Windows 7 Beta was leaked onto the Internet via BitTorrent." I guess since the build 6801 was pre-beta that makes this build irrelevant to the above quote. Cerberus136 (talk) 21:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Cerberus

Windows 7 E

This edition is not a result of the complain sent from EU, it is the derict opposite of what the companies that filed the complain wanted (OPera, Mozilla, Google). This stund from MS will be just as effectfull as the version without WMP, it will mainly just effect the boxed verion sales at stores anyway. It seems like EU and Opera has gotten a lot of hatred against them for this, although they have said that they are not pleased with MS removing IE. What they wanted was to let people choose from different browsers at first boot, including IE as an option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.213.41.134 (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Paul Thurott said "Microsoft now removed IE, and (name forgotten) and her European Union look silly now because they get a less-featured version of Windows."Jasper Deng (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

N editions

In accordance to the previous EU regulations Microsoft also offers N versions of the operating system, which has Windows Media Player removed. The N version also lacks Internet Explorer.

Official Release Dates

The official release dates have been announced for a while now. I think they should be listed here, but the question is, should we list only the public release dates or all of them?

http://www.examiner.com/x-6207-Using-Computers-Examiner~y2009m7d27-Windows-7-release-dates

Alshain01 (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, they are in the article, just not sure if they should be in the infobox or not. Alshain01 (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Beta Software tag

Should this be removed from Windows 7-related articles now that it has RTM'd? What's the criteria for having it? --Resplendent (talk) 22:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The criteria is that the software has to have been released, not just finalised. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 10:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The tag specifically says the software is in development, so it would inappropriate to use it when it's not. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 11:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

It's no longer development software, but it is still future software. The future software tag doesn't mention development. Alshain01 (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The future software tag is for software that doesn't exist yet. Windows 7 exists; I'm running the RC right now, and the final version has been sent to OEMs. - Josh (talk | contribs) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

upgrade offer for new vista purchase

microsoft is offering an upgrade to windows 7 to purchasers of windows vista between June 26, 2009 to january 31, 2010. It's about the same as the buy xp now get vista later. The offer is listed on large web retailers websites on vista product pages. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/buy/offers/upgrade-option.aspx 4.240.78.158 (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7e Editions no longer exist

The section on Windows 7e editions needs to be removed and replaced with Microsoft's proposed Ballot Screen.

http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/08/01/microsoft-kills-windows-7-e-editions.aspx

http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/07/31/microsoft-s-proposed-browser-ballot-screen.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.5.121 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

No need for criticism

I'm admiring the fact that Microsoft was finally able to make an OS that's good enough to not need a criticism section on Wikipedia. (Really, the only thing that could be said that's negative is that it's taking some OS X interface elements into the Taskbar.) First time since Windows 2000. :) Althepal (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't speak too soon... it has yet to be out to the general population, who, no matter what, will hate it.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

People will argue that the feel is too similar to Vista which was apparently too hard to use. Simple changes like "My Computer" to "Computer" frustrated heaps of users. Ffgamera - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 07:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well-written articles don't have criticism sections. I think that speaks more to the quality of our articles on Microsoft's operating systems than it does to the operating systems themselves. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What? If not a criticism section, then articles have a "reception" section. The "reception" section establishes notability. For example, articles about books must have a "critics" section where editors summarize the critical reviews. Many other technology/software/computing articles have "reception" sections; see Firefox, Norton Internet Security, Microsoft Security Essentials, etc. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)}

It's basically what Vista should've been, so no surprise that people prefer it. Once people get over their relief, the irritations will become more prominent. (No classic start menu? Unremovable font smoothing? Gack!) 85.5.106.209 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC).

Request of Correction Antialiased text can still be disabled in the visual and performance options menu as a check mark for smooth fonts on screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhand1001 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ship party

A ship party was held on 8/7/2009 for the Microsoft employee's on the Redmond, WA (98052) Microsoft campus out on the soccer field. The Presidents of the United States of America (band) played all day and featured many songs that were modified to include Microsoft and Bill Gates. Microsoft is famous for its employee parties during and after release cycles.

Ship party videos

(Presidents) Bill Gates Showdown

(Presidents) Radio Start - Microsoft Version

Barnacules (talk) 23:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

RTM 7600.16385.090713-1255 release date

The release of Windows 7 (RTM) is not as stated 7/22/2009 it is 7/13/2009 as seen in RTM version: 7600.16385.090713-1255 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.10.157 (talk) 18:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The version number shows the build date (date compiled), not the release date (RTM) - there's usually a delay of one to two weeks before a build is released. See Development of Windows Vista for many examples. Richardguk (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Richard, you are correct. However when talking about RTM the date of compilation is more important than the date of physical shipping to hardware assemblers, (some AS USUALLY get it of course before that date). Therefore to avoid such confussion, as the date of shipping versus the date of compilation, is not relevant or important, I would propose to use the date of compilation (built date), as an official date of RTM. The period of 2 weeks is the time required for "voting" after each compilation on the acceptance as the final compilation. I have for example compilation 7600.16384.090710 which is the previous compilation prior to final RTM 7600.16385.090713-1255.

By providing the RTM the date of shipping instead of the date of complation there is confussion in respect to the date of released code on DVDs. I would suggest to make a vote which date is really relevant, the date of compilation, or a date of shipping.

False info about anti-aliased text

Remove this one from article: Additionally, it is no longer possible to eliminate anti-aliased text from the user interface. That is false because you can remove anti aliasing: run systempropertiesperformance.exe and disable smooth edges of screen fonts. --83.150.113.211 (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

That fails WP:OR. Do not conduct your own research and present your findings in a Wikipedia article, unless you are an established expert in the field of your research. You need a reliable source. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

So a 100% fact can't be put in because it's by a Wikipedian who doesn't actively devote his whole life to studying computers? What is Wikipedia coming to these days?--WaltCip (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually you'll find its only stuff to be put in that needs to pass 'OR', you can't need to research something you're taking out. There are a lot of hacks to all versions of Windows that'll never be verifiable from reliable sources. The user is merely explaining why he's removed it - this info is not included in the article. Their edit is good. chocobogamer mine 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not going to change its rules for you unless you have a reason and supporters, User:WaltCip. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is "verifiability, not truth", see WP:V. If you disagree, you can visit WP:OR/N and add an inquiry to see if the tidbit of information should be added to the article. Leaving the article as is is also fine. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

theres nothing about adding to the article in question here, its about removing something. you cannot exactly include a source for removing something in the article chocobogamer mine 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, chocobogamer pretty much summed up my point. This statement - Additionally, it is no longer possible to eliminate anti-aliased text from the user interface. - no longer applies in the article since there is an exception.--WaltCip (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also believe that many articles is, or might be wrong, as they are written by some "false" exoerts making their living by a speedy preparation of the article to be released as the first, for well understood reasons. However If one verified that the Additionally, it is no longer possible to eliminate anti-aliased text from the user interface. - is no longer applcable since it can be removed and can be verified by any one at an instance, as the viable exception, that should be clearly reported and stated in Wikipedia, to assure that there is no confussion. Failing to do so degrades not only this article, but undermines the credibility of the entire Wikipedia as a reliable source of information. And that should be considered first, rather than "psychosematic" discussions about such issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.10.157 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 comes on CDs?

Under Windows 7#Hardware requirements, it lists that a DVD drive is required for installation. However, in brackets it says "DVD drive (only to install from DVD/CD Media)". Does Windows 7 come on CDs? I would imagine it is too big for a CD. TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

the rc ultimate is bout 3gb for x64 and 2 for x86 so DVD certainly. starter may be on multiple cds though as its for lowend comps chocobogamer mine 17:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• TechOutsider: That does not means it comes on CD (I doubt MS will make a CD version), it means you can use a Live USB to install Win7 (but not to run the system itself), therefore, you don't need a CD/DVD drive at all to install it. SF007 (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just concerned about the factual accuracy of the statement implying Windows 7 comes on CDs. Does it, or does it not? TechOutsider ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know: No. And I think it is safe to assume it does not comes on CDs until we have some info from MS about that. SF007 (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I would assume this will be the same as Vista. http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/order-cds.aspx

Dvferret (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wall of text

This article is a huge wall of text. It needs to be broken down into more paragraphs. Adding more pictures could also help. The list of features list for Windows Vista looks like a good model for the features list on this article. Mason092 (talk) 03:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

anti-aliased?

what is "anti-aliased text" exactly? is this text that has been anti-aliased berfore display on the screen or what?192.102.214.6 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It means instead of jagged edges for black text on white background, shades of gray are used to make it appear as if the lines are smooth. Same when applied graphics. More info: Anti-aliasing Althepal (talk) 01:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Bitlocker info incorrect

{{editsemiprotected}} The article states that bitlocker needs a TPM, however this is incorrect. Bitlocker can be enabled on the non-system disk without a TPM. Bitlocker can be enabled on the system disk by using a system with no TPM with USB Startup Key. This option must be enabled by Group Policy.

Refer to http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc725719(WS.10).aspx "By default, BitLocker is configured to look for and use a TPM. You can use Group Policy to allow BitLocker to work without a TPM, and store keys on an external USB flash drive; however, BitLocker cannot then verify the early startup components."

The source you provided is for Windows Server 2008 & Vista, not Windows 7. Nonetheless,  Done per this. Tim Song (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Picture Caption

Why did someone edit the caption of the Windows 7 screenshot in the infobox? Windows 7 Ultimate edition has a different desktop wallpaper than Starter edition. The caption should clarify the fact the screenshot is of Windows 7 Ultimate editon. See here. It has a picture of the Starter wallpaper, clearly different from the other editions, and the caption states "The Windows 7 Starter desktop, with final wallpaper that is unique to this version." This is from Paul Thurrot's "WinSuperSite", which is a source used multiple times in the article. It is a reliable source. Please clarify in the caption. Thanks in advance. This is TechOutsider. 70.153.241.200 (talk) 02:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the issue has been fixed. Thanks to the editor who fixed it. 68.218.245.134 (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot Aspect Ratio

I think this article should use a screenshot with a widescreen aspect ratio (either 16:10 or 16:9). It just makes more sense to me, seeing as how those are the standard ratios used these days. The nearly square screenshot which is being used now looks awkward (it's not even 4:3, it's worse). It just looks so...retro. King nothing 2 (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Screenshot format doesn't matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 03:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

And why is that? An unpleasing image format can be detrimental to the article, just as any other aspect of the article can be. Non-widescreen aspect ratios are outdated, and has no place being used in a screenshot of a NEW operating system. King nothing 2 (talk) 07:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-wide screenshots look fine and are somewhat common actually in infoboxes. But I agree, I think this screenshot should be taken in a low resolution at a standard ratio. Althepal (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Activation

Is activation present in Windows 7? 79.191.103.201 (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and there doesn't need to be further discussion, per WP:NOTAFORUM. 『 ɠu¹ɖяy 』 ^{¤ • ¢} 17:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Windows 8

I know it seems early, Windows 7 won't be out for another month, but if Microsoft is getting back to their schedule of a new Windows version every two to three years, then Windows 8 must be in Alpha stage by now, if not early beta. Does anyone know? Is there a list of features yet for Windows 8? Will Windows 8 be a major release or another minor like from Vista to Windows 7? 74.100.48.167 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC).

That, my friend, will be purely WP:CRYSTAL. I has no crystal ball, so I don't know.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail} 00:56, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression Microsoft had a road map. At the very least, I was hoping someone who was a regular beta tester for Microsoft would be able to answer this question. I guess I was hoping for too much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 01:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No way. Microsoft only releases sudden OSes when the previous one was unsuccessful (eg. gap between Windows 98 and 2000= 2 years and gap between Vista and 7= 2 years). I have a high confidence that this will be very successful, like XP (ie. gap betweem XP and Vista= 6 years). Catch my drift? ✰Ffgamera✰ - My page! | Talk to me! | Contribs 09:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Vista had many delays. I heard it should have been released in 2004 (after three years), but had many problems... Besides, isn't Microsoft supposed to be working on a .net version of Windows to replace Win32 and Win64? A version of Windows written in C# and optimized for running .net framework applications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.100.48.167 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

XP Mode Requirements

In the article, it says the following: "Windows XP Mode requires an additional 1 GB of RAM, an additional 15 GB of available hard disk space, and a processor capable of hardware virtualization with Intel VT or AMD-V enabled."

I find it requiring 15GB of HD space to be a bit unbelievable, and the 1GB of RAM seems a bit exaggerated to me. I noticed that there is no reference, so could someone please verify this? K3fka (talk) 02:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This should be added for the reference: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/support/requirements.aspx -- so yes the article is correct, but it should be noted that if you're using the 64 bit version of 7 which requires 2 GB ram already, extra is not mentioned as being required by Microsoft. What's hard to believe about the specs? I'm guessing you have never used a virtual machine or you don't realize that recommended specs are always padded a little. Althepal (talk) 03:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for clearing that up for me. I haven't used a virtual machine and I guess that MS just recommends that in case users are trying to run resource-intensive apps using XP mode. Regardless, it did need a reference anyway, no? K3fka (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, someone should take that link and make it into a reference. References are always good. I just don't feel like taking the small amount of time and effort to do it. :)

One thing I want to point out, virtual machines are entire virtualized operating systems, so they need the extra resources. IMO, 512MB extra ram should be enough to satisfy XP and most basic programs running in XP mode. For hard drive space, I've had virtual machines get to be well over 15 GB in size. It depends on how you use it. Currently, I only need a virtual machine of XP for a couple programs, so it's only taking up about 5 GB on my hard drive. Althepal (talk) 04:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

USB 3.0

Windows 7 is slow on updating support on USB 3.0. I was gonna add it, but the article is locked. 83.108.202.186 (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source for the edit, just put a {{editsemiprotected}} template on the talk page, along with the source and an explanation, and someone will do the edit for you. Thanks for helping. Tim Song (talk) 06:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}

--> Heres a source: [1]. -- 83.108.202.186 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done. It is already in Features new to Windows 7, but if Internet Spades of all things has a mention in the main article, why shouldn't USB 3.0 have a sentence? Tim Song (talk) 13:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Development section

Why is development the first section of the article? Things like the Windows 7 software development life cycle and the day when the beta was first leaked onto BitTorrent are only relevant to software developers and computer geeks. Most consumers are more interested in things like new features and availablity. I recommend moving this section to the end of the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

While there is certainly a whole lot to say about Windows 7's reception (generally as a massive improvement), the current Reception section needs to be redone. Aside from the need to actually build the section, the only statement there (about it flying off the virtual shelf) isn't actually so telling about its consumer reception and should be removed. You see, there's something called the law of demand. Since the initial pre-sale price was such a small fragment of the retail price, demand was unusually high for that reason (similar to how Snow Leopard's sale figures were very high, due to its lower price). Consumer expectation of the price to go back up also pushed for people to make their purchases early. It probably was also influenced by the fact that people in general said that Vista sucked and 7 doesn't suck, but I think that statement needs to be scrapped and replaced by some real wiki editing. Althepal (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Marketing

Why isn't there a section on the marketing of Windows 7? The video generated much interest and there is a wikipedia page on this. Surely this should be linked to, given all the news media interest [2]--Sarahannedavid (talk) 23:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you really think that some marketing video-gone-viral has anything to do with the operating system? Althepal (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

+1, agree. This is making a storm out of a glass of water. I think it should be removed until someone can find an appropriate spot for it. --Cumbiagermen (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove codenames from introduction

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove "(formerly codenamed Blackcomb and Vienna)" from the introduction. Both names are mentioned in the section on development as they should be, but don't belong in the introduction of a released product. As noted (and explained further) in MOS:INTRO, "specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided in an introduction."

Thanks. 68.167.191.198 (talk) 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Doing...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article not semi-protected against vandalism?

It is a very popular subject, and if you look at the history page, it is very easy to see there are multiple vandalism attempts. I am not sure what the procedure to propose semi-protection is, so perhaps someone can help me out here, but it seems very logical. Leo Natan 03:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnatan25 (talk • contribs)

It has been temporarily semi-protected for vandalism, but pages are not protected as a preventative measure, and there's not enough vandalism to justify permanant semi-protection.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what I meant, while not massively, there has been consistently vandalism. It is, of course, to be expected from such a high-profile topic, thus I proposed it. Leo Natan 06:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnatan25 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but not enough for permanant protection.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reorder?

Now that Windows 7 has launched, would it make sense to bump that section down a little further, since it's probably not most user's primary concern anymore? Maybe switch it and features? AdjectiveAnimal (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I am assuming that you are talking about the development section being moved further down. I for one would argue against this. I don't know the relevant MOS section for this (I looked, and couldn't find one), but it seems to me that the 'de facto' standard is to put them in chronological order. The development goes first, and then new features. After this, typically the reception or versions. At the end will be information like hardware requirements. As I said, this is not—as far as I'm aware—a rule, but a convention. I propose that it be left where it is, and no changes to the layout be made. --Sauronjim (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

New operating system features?

Shouldn't the section New and changed features concentrate on operating system features? As of now, only the initial sentence is about the operating system, and only 50%, namely:

support for virtual hard disks, improved performance on multi-core processors, improved boot performance, DirectAccess, and kernel improvements.

The rest of the section is about administrative programs, a few GUI features, and a little this and that nitpicking about bundled applications of limited importance. I say this because Windows and Linux (which I'm running), each have some fundamental flaws, Windows the extremely tedious startup, and Linux a disk swapping process that interfers with application temporary file swapping; so the fundamental operating system layout is important for the prestanda of the operating system, while the features of the calculator tool is not. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 08:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, man; do you figure the average user reading this encyclopedia page cares about that? I actually came here to see if anyone knew of any easter eggs (so sick of dying in minesweeper I could choke) like in XP and other previous Windows versions.

Just saying, we should stick to the useful stuff. ;) J.M. Archer (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I think he makes a good point, and here's a perfect non-technical reason why.

"Windows 7 includes a number of new features, such as advances in touch and handwriting recognition, ..., improved performance on multi-core processors,[33][34][35][36] improved boot performance, ..., and kernel improvements."

Those aren't features, they are improvements/advances - or outright fixes in code (such as the initial performance issues/regressions noted with Vista of which not all were fixed with Service Packs).

By listing them as what they are, "Improvements" - it will help any non computer savvy visitor in finding what is "New" and what is "Improved" - and of course, it will make the article accurate. Currently, glomming this stuff all into the "New" section makes it seem like a Microsoft Press Release or product placement/ad. At least that is my opinion.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 14:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Remove current event tag?

Since it has been released, I propose removing the {{current|date=October 2009}} tag, since (as far as I am aware) it is no longer relevant. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Sauronjim (talk) 13:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

seems logical - 24.36.115.4 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. It was released a couple of days ago, and it doesn't look like there is much new on Windows 7 (other than it was released recently).--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 21:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional hardware requirements

Ok, seriously: is it necessary or even genuinely honest to point out that you have to have a USB drive in order to encrypt files on a USB drive? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It does seem rather odd. I think we should go with what other websites say. If they mention that it's needed, then leave it as is. If not, then it should be removed. --Sauronjim (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

A USB drive is needed if your computer doesn't have a TPM (Trusted Platform Module) and you want to encrypt the hard disk. Superbeanflicker (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Linus Torvalds and Japan Windows 7 Launch?

Don't know if this is worthy, but this photo is going viral around the Internet today. 199.67.140.243 (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Tense

This article has a lot of future tense... This needs to be changed to make it present tense.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Requirements

Can't you guys see what I'm trying to say? 32-bit Windows 7 works with 512MB RAM and 64-bit works with 1.5GB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.161.174 (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If Microsoft published a set of minimum requirements, that's what is reported. 74.178.200.239 (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

As with anything in the world of specs and OS performance, this is a gradient. The developer of the OS chooses a somewhat arbitrary point at which performance should be decent and states that as the system requirements. So we are forced to report what they say, not what we find that works (no original research allowed on Wikipedia), since Wikipedia editors don't have the authority of the OS manufacturer. Althepal (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a question, and not trying to start a debate, but what if what they say is inaccurate?

Second point: "since Wikipedia editors don't have the authority of the OS manufacturer" - I would assume that the OS manufacturer should have absolutely no authority in this matter other than as defined in the COI.

Point about both of those points: Yes, I think the page should indicate Microsoft's official requirements, but I also see no reason why verifiable claims of different requirements should not be posted (such as multiple findings from Tom's Hardware or AnandTech or the likes) to ensure accuracy in all regards to Windows 7's system requirements. And if that route is chosen, then both categories need to be clearly marked. Regardless, Microsoft's official requirements should be clearly marked; especially as in previous releases (Windows 95 first drop of a few million), they were severely understated (4MB RAM, instead of the later revised packaging stating 8MB - this by the way was intentional).

Robert Mauro

(at the time, CompUSA A+ Certified Tech/Microsoft's Win95 Representative for CompUSA)

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 03:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If Windows 7 users have found that the OS has worked with hardware that technically does not meet the official specifications, that can certainly be included. However, it should be cited with a source that can be considered reputable. That is, you can't have someone saying, "Great, it works on my 512MB RAM computer, so I can mention that on Wikipedia," because that would be original research. WHSL ^(Talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WHSL, In FULL agreement, hence my suggestion of some reputable places "verifiable claims of different requirements should not be posted (such as multiple findings from Tom's Hardware or AnandTech or the likes)"

I'd truly expect no one to just randomly insert claims based off their experiences. Though as an example (and I dont know if it is noted on the Vista page), Vista, even though MS certified for certain Intel chipsets, did not perform as promised and should never have been certified for such chipsets (per Microsoft Internal documents). Such things *perhaps* should be listed as caveats where provable or verified by reputable companies/testing firms. It just simply raises the accuracy of the article by correcting a Microsoft inaccuracy while still maintaining their official information on the topic.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 is not 7

Windows 7 is not 7 but 6.1 in fact.--Dojarca (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is indeed 6.1, as can be seen by checking winver in the OS itself. Colds7ream (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Partly right, to clear this up its windows7 but windows v6.1. this was explained way back when, that by keeping the 6.x product numbering makes better compatibility with hardware and software optimised for 6.0 (vista) chocobogamer mine 17:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is a non issue, and also the same way other products have been numbered and named before. Thus, the appropriate name is exactly what it is, Windows 7; regardless of the version number.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Student Download Issues

{{editsemiprotected}}

I'd edit it myself but I can't because its protected, but I'd like to add in something on the recent issues with the student upgrade edition that was released at a cheaper price. Tens of thousands of users have paid for a product that doesn't work. Verifiable here:

http://www.techspot.com/news/36698-microsoft-acknowledges-problem-with-windows-7-student-upgrades.html

and here:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139832/Microsoft_confirms_Windows_7_upgrade_install_snafu?taxonomyId=64

220.253.10.144 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Not done As this article focuses mainly on the operating system and not the release/installation of Windows 7, I am afraid I am going to have say no. Also, these two sites don't say that Windows 7 doesn't work, just that it is giving people problems.  Btilm  02:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I actually think that's important to mention. I'm a student myself who hasn't gotten around to purchase it yet. I had no idea there were any problems! Maybe there should be a new "Release" section, that has info about Windows 7's release. For instance, student download issues, Harry Potter book comparisons, people being mad about upgrade paths, selling out in Japan, etc. These things don't really belong in Development or Reception, since they don't have anything to do with the Microsoft programmers, nor do they necessarily demonstrate how people ultimately liked it after actually buying it. --Evil Eccentric (talk) 14:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough I guess. I might just go add it to the "criticism of Microsoft" page instead! I suppose the most relevance this has to windows seven in particular, rather than it just being a poor effort by Microsoft, is that Microsoft's reputation is seen by many to be hinging on windows seven, I suppose to redeem themselves after vista. Such a royal screwup and the absolute lack of any attempt to fix it (or even release a statement!) is really raising the eyebrows of some of my friends to whom I'd been telling "Windows seven is different, Microsoft have changed!" ...Yeah I'm grumpy. I'm a paying customer and the workaround was more difficult than just pirating the damn thing. </rant>. 220.253.10.144 (talk) 02:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Well at the moment "criticism of windows 7" redirects here, I guess not enough of it to have its own page, so criticism I suppose should have its own section in this article until its big enough to split off (I hope seven is good enough not to have that much criticism though!). 220.253.10.144 (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there may be student download issues. Yes, if the problem becomes big enough (it might be already), it should be mentioned at some point in the article. But no, it doesn't belong in a "Criticism" section. Such sections are discouraged because of neutrality issues per WP:STRUCTURE. I think a "Release" section detailing information such as sales and issues, like Evil Eccentric said, would be the best solution at this stage. WHSL ^(Talk) 03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, you've convinced me. Fair enough. A 'release' section would be my vote then, or mention of the muckup could be put in the 'editions' section where the student download is already mentioned. 118.138.128.164 (talk) 03:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, they fixed it! Two days ago and I didn't notice: http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=95B963B2-1A64-67EA-E4452EA05630A761 118.138.128.164 (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Screenshots out of date

As we all know, Windows 7 was released on Oct. 22 and so real screenshots of the system are now available. I have recently upgraded my system (W7 Ultimate) and have noticed that the screenshots on this page are out of date. Please upload new screenshots of the system so that the article may be accurate. I'd d it myself but I don't know how to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolsafe (talk • contribs) 19:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, apparently, that screenshot is of the build actually used for RTM, which is the same as the final version of Windows 7 released early to manufacturers, so I'm not sure it's out of date. Instructions: Set screen to lowest resolution, press print-screen keyboard button, open Paint, paste it in, save as PNG, and go to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&wpDestFile=Windows_7.png&wpForReUpload=1 . BTW, you should make new sections at the bottom of talk pages. Althepal (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I have modified several images of Windows 7 and features related to reflect the final version of 7. I use WindowClippings, which provides a better image than regular print screen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnatan25 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Criticism and DRM

Shouldn't the support of DRM be mentioned? 1 2 3 4 5 Roxanne Edits (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, if there is a "Criticism" section that is appropriate. Or if someone wants to use/dig up Microsoft's marketing text about the "benefits" of DRM and include it in the "Features" section. Though I cannot recall whether Microsoft actually released a similar statement in conjunction with Windows 7, and using a statement for an older version may or may not be appropriate.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 21:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, I don't think a criticism section should be included at all. Wikipedia policy prefers any critical response to be placed in the appropriate section. I realise that a lot of articles (especially Microsoft-related ones) don't do this, but I think we should at least try to stick to policy. However, I don't see anything wrong with including a section related to DRM, if it is properly sourced. --Sauronjim (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Though DRM probably should be mentioned, the sources you have aren't really up to the task: 3 and 5 are just reporting no. 4 (the slashdot anecdote), and 2, if you read it, is actually debunking 4 (though actually, the slashdot comment thread itself does a fairly good debunking job). That just leaves 1, which is the FSF's usual anti-Windows page, and mostly seems to be a copy of their one for Vista (badvista.org). -- simxp (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be good to start a criticism section on Windows 7 about 1 week after it was released, so there are more sources. --186.136.57.229 (talk) 03:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

A criticism section, no. Criticism included in the appropriate sections, yes. But lumping it all together into one section is not good for NPOV.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I talked about this earlier but an anonymous user seemed to dislike it and removed it. But yes, I repeat again: no criticism sections are appropriate as per WP:STRUCTURE. WHSL ^(Talk) 14:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup notice removal

I have cleaned up all tense and grammatical issues found in the Windows 7 article, nad have removed the clean up flag. Leo Natan 05:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnatan25 (talk • contribs)

You missed a section, but, I'm going to go ahead and fix it.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Windows 7 Launch Party video

Is this really so important it has to have an own section? If we wanted to have a section on marketing, that would be ok in my opinion, but one campaign among dozens? Should be deleted or massively expanded. --84.178.92.185 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe put as a level 3 heading under a marketing header? I'm going to go ahead and do that.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 13:49, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

64bit edition of Home Basic

I know for a fact that there is a 64-bit version of the Home Basic edition because it comes on the disk. The options is there. So this, I assume is considered original research, despite the fact that it's ON THE DISK. So I am wondering, what would be considered not an original research? What "proof" do I need to bring in the form of an article to prove this. Microsoft website, if says that there is no 64bit edition of Home Basic, is blatantly lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnatan25 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Err, nevermind, I guess. My edit still stands. I am not sure about packaging of Home Basic, so can't comment/edit on the inclusion of a 64bit disk in packaging. I _think_ this is incorrect, but can't comment. --Leo Natan 23:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lnatan25 (talk • contribs)

Service Pack 1

I just thought I'd want to give a suggestion regarding the addition of a new section in the main article. This article in Tom's Hardware website at [3]states that a Russian site claims Service Pack 1 to Windows 7 will be released as a beta around January 2010; with the public release around the summer or fall of 2010.

How would that Russian website meet WP's reliable source criteria?

Text missing or out of place

Under Features, it says:

Windows Security Center has been renamed to Windows Action Center (Windows Health Center and Windows Solution Center in earlier builds), which encompasses both security and maintenance of the computer. [42] Microsoft's Windows kernel engineer Mark Russinovich acknowledged the problem, but noted that there are other vulnerabilities that do not rely on the new setting.[43]

What problem? The second sentence has no context. Kevin (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I tagged as needing clarification.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 22:37, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The statement explaining the problem was removed by an anon with no explanation. I restored it. - Josh (talk | contribs) 23:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also state you can't upgrade from XP straight to Windows 7?

Unless, you upgraded to Vista first and then upgrade again to Windows 7? That's a key fact considering soo many people tried to avoid Vista and they'll be in this trap now. CaribDigita (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would that be a "trap"? Win7 installs alongside the old OS, and picks selected settings out the old installation. I'd have a clean, stable install before an upgrade of a dodgy system any day, and you can easily roll back too if required. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Because many regular end users lose or misplace their software disks or keys, meaning they'd have to reinstall stuff from disks they can no longer find (or ones they no longer have the keys for). There is nothing so drastically different in Windows 7 to have prevented Microsoft from allowing a direct, non-destructive upgrade path from XP to Windows 7.

For the more technologically savvy user, this is not a problem. Most computer users do not fit in that criteria.

RobertMfromLI | RobertMfromLI 20:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)