Talk:Windows 7/Archive 7

It has been replaced by the Ubuntu Article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)

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) 

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)

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)

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)

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)

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"?

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)

"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)