Talk:Windows 7/Archive 5

System requirements

Can someone please mention the system requirements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.30.61 (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

June 2009 as possibile release date...

Quote from Microsoft Announcement:

The company also delivered a pre-beta build of Windows 7 to PDC attendees and announced plans to release a full Windows 7 beta early next year.

So, beta1 should be out in Q1 2009. Assuming there will be at least a beta2 (can we assume this? I can't think of an O/S coming out with just one beta on its shoulders), the "June 3, 2009 prediction" is confirmed to be totally insane.
Can we remove it and let it fade in the oblivion of dreamy rumors?
The most likely release period is Q4 2009, at this point. Possibly later. --151.16.165.229 (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere today that there is only 1 beta and 1 release candidate planned before RTM, also the Microsoft website for WinHEC says that WinHEC 2008 is the last HEC planned before the RTM of windows 7, this means that the june date isn't as far fetched as it may seem Redekopmark (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this WSJ article dated October 29, Windows 7 will only be available by 2010: "Microsoft has said it expects to ship Windows 7 for consumers by January 2010" Universalcosmos (talk) 05:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The statement is inconclusive, "by January 2010" implies a date during or soon before January 2010, but doesn't technically exclude any pre-February 2010 date. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

No, but if you believe the WSJ article, it apparently makes the June 2009 release date (which is currently quoted on the wikipedia article as an unconfirmed rumour) sound very unlikely. At least I don't think Microsoft would confirm to the press an hypothetical deadline six months ahead of actual release Universalcosmos (talk) 10:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, ok. As long as there is no new info, I suppose we can keep note of the June 3 prediction, but it must be clear that it is just a rumor grounded on nothing. I'm changing a couple of words to reflect this. --151.65.47.81 (talk) 21:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't like having the article point out that we don't know what something means. We should just write about what the source does say. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and we're supposed to avoid the word "claim" per Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Claim. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

The CEO of Asus has announced that they have plans to sell laptops with 7 as the default OS in the second half of 2009 Redekopmark (talk) 00:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Support status?

Shouldn't the support status say "unsupported", "not yet supported", or something similar until anyone knows? Does Microsoft actually offer Pre-Beta support? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.209.37.152 (talk) 01:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Features

Ive moved the features of windows 7 to a new page. Seeing where microsoft is reveling features over the next week or so i though it would be a good idea. --Thunderpenguin (talk) 21:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Editions

I want to know what editions will be availible for sale, and what will they be called. So far the pre-release builds all have been labeled with "Ultimate." I am coming to believe they will be the same as Vista, but I am not sure.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! (and don't say "hey is for horses!")

Hey! Who removed the titles seperating the Builds section? This is just not acceptable.209.155.146.2 (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I did. The Builds subsection is too small to be divided into subsubsections. Those section headings were also problematic because there have been conflicting reports about which build is a certain milestone. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

These are three different versions of Windows 7. They should be discussed seperately. There is, in fact, no single version with each milestone. There is more than one, and each deserves to be discussed seperately as well. Why do you think that, Josh? That edit is garbage!Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I just edited the article to give each build its own paragraph. Is that separate enough? By the way, it just doesn't make sense to me to think that two different builds are the same milestone, and very little evidence says they are. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

By separately I mean that these should at least have their own sub-section like before. I will not have anything else accepted, unless all three are moved to their own pages.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

So the current version isn't close enough? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I don't need to say it again. And by the way, stop tweaking this article's formatting.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I am going to continue editing the article based on our policies and guidelines (particularly Wikipedia:Consensus) and what is best. - Josh (talk | contribs) 06:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are you, an Administrator? You know that by removing the breaks, youItalic text'are the one who is violating the guidelines. Please revert this article to what it was before.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As soon as show me the guideline you think I'm violating (if I am, in fact, violating it.) No, I'm not an administrator. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasper Deng you are a very rude individual. Maybe you should review Wikipedia's policy on treating others with civility. JQ (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Josh has become very stubborn. I am rude because Josh would not agree to revert his changes, which I feel are unacceptable. Don't call me an individiual or you are the very rude one. Now, (to Josh himself) I feel that this violates not neccesarily the general guidelines, but this edit makes the article harder to read, basically violating the neatness people want.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I feel my edit makes the article easier to read and less speculative, basically restoring the neatness and verifiability people want. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasper Deng: You really need to read WP:Civil and also WP:Consensus to find out how to work with other editors in creating an article. Writing things like "I will not have anything else accepted, unless all three are moved to their own pages." is not going to get your way here - you need to learn to discuss, negotitate and compromise to achieve consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 00:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

To - Ahunt (talk): Please use indentations. To Josh: To see who's right, let's hold a vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasper Deng, it is good to unindent when the indentation becomes excessive. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but we can ask for a third opinion. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Jasper - you really need to do a bit of reading about how to effectively participate in editing Wikipedia articles or you are going to get frustrated here. For information on why we don't keep indenting comments on talk pages until they reach a single character please see Wikipedia:Talk_page#Indentation. Page content in articles is not determined by voting, but by creating consensus instead. You can't come barreling in here and demand everybody do everything your way. You have to negotiate, discuss and find consensus. That is how this project works. - Ahunt (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll weigh in here as a neutral third-party; I think Josh's version of the page, with distinct paragraphs contained within the "Builds" section is entirely sufficient and they needn't be separated further. Although Jasper Deng seems to feel that this organization is unacceptable, I think using unique subsections for each version of each milestone is excessive and doesn't provide any additional levels of clarity for the article, especially without sources (in some cases) verifying the milestone labels themselves. Were there a much greater wealth of information regarding each individual build/milestone, perhaps they would warrant additional sectioning. Ooddiittyy (talk) 07:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

As another 3rd party, I agree that Windows 7 #Builds does not need subsection headers for the current amount of information that's there. I suggest further improving the article by using a bullet list, one bullet for each milestone or build, rather than the existing one-label-per-line. Something like this:

• Milestone 1. The first known build of Windows 7 was ...
• Milestone 2. According to the TG Daily article of 16 January 2008, ...
• Milestone 3. According to Paul Thurrott, ...

The last few bullets (which are short) might be combined. Eubulides (talk) 07:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Build 6967 screenshot

remove it, its very possibly fake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.224.150 (talk) 14:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to provide a reference for that statement, see WP:V - Ahunt (talk) 14:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we need confirmation that it isn't fake. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Either way! If someone posts it and someone else wants to delete it then they need to substantiate that, but then the original image should indicate where it came from as well. - Ahunt (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And does it do that? No. It's description was just copied from Image:Windows7Desktop.png, and therefore it says that its from Neowin. A search of Neowin reveals nothing about this build. - Josh (talk | contribs) 15:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

and I see the picture has been removed which is a much better solution than striking out a caption and labeling it a fake. - Ahunt (talk) 02:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

If you believe it is fake, Paul Thurott has posted this very image on his website (winsupersite.com).Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding it there. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Find it by clicking the "Windows 7" link, and then click Windows 7 M3 Screenshots. Anyway, where did this image come from if you can't find it at winsupersite.com?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not finding that build 6967 screenshot there. It was uploaded by User:Illegal Operation, who didn't say where it came from. - Josh (talk | contribs) 06:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Who is this user? And anyways, this one is very similar to the Build 6933 screenshots that I've looked at.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked and discovered that this screenshot is of 6933.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

One other thing. There is no such screenshot on this page of 6967.

I was requesting for deletion; we can always ask Paul Thurott to check theres Windows 7 build 6967 - im sure he will help. By the way, isnt strange that icons looks somehow different? http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=2788 Im pretty sure that MS wouldnt change icons from version to version; i mean, vista style icons will stay with us longer and that argues, a.n. screenshot was fake. Sorry for my english. 83.26.254.61 (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

This screenshot should be deleted, because Paul Thurott never talked about such a build, and this screenshot looks almost exactly like 6933. The poster of this screenshot probably confused the build numbers. Where is it now?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That line

What's up with that line that crosses the middle of the screenshot? Who put that in there? Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you specify which screenshot, and exactly where the line is? I'm not seeing it in any screenshots. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The one at the top. Anyways, why does it always have to be you causing pains on this page?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some lines in it, but nothing that looks out of place. How does asking for specific information cause pains? - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Now it has been removed.75.18.193.216 (talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the screenshot hasn't been changed since before this conversation started. - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Then it must have been fixed before.

Splitting "Builds" section

This is the discussion for splitting the "Builds" section. Should we do it? Is it too early? Should more than just builds be included? Discuss... --Mephiles602 (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is too early - the article isn't big enough to require it yet. - Ahunt (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the section ever grow at all?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:52, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

This topic is discussed in the previous section.

There is really not much difference between the builds. Why not create a Pre-beta and Beta section once Windows 7 beta has been released? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.121 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Superbar?

Isn't "superbar" just a made up name? - Josh (talk | contribs) 21:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The only reference cited in the article on this subject is Evolution of the taskbar in Windows 7 - “Superbar”. The article's reference to "superbar" is entirely: "Update: The new taskbar is superficially called the “Superbar”." It doesn't attribute where that update came from, however.

The article does say: "Now you would probably be wondering why I just spent so much effort writing about a taskbar, and the answer is because this is what Windows 7 is about. They’re going to take existing interface elements like the taskbar and give them a new coat of paint with some sparkles. Different enough so you notice them, like Walt Mossberg did. During the demonstration (5:25) Walt asks “I can’t help noticing that the taskbar doesn’t look like the taskbar?” Julie responds with, “It’s something we’re working on Windows 7 and I’m not suppose to talk about it now today.” Shutdown."

So the author of that article indicates that it is nothing radical or new - just a new coat of paint.

I would suggest that regardless of what Microsoft decides to call it, if Wikipedia says it is a Superbar than it will be called that. - Ahunt (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think taskbar was just a brand name, and superbar is also just a brand name, but taskbar is very old now, and Microsoft wants to make the users believe this is a hole new feature. Several sources also say the taskbar has gone/ been replaced. --Oli W 93 (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you - I think it is just "marketing", however there is no indication in any ref I have seen that it is Microsoft that is using the term "superbar". As mentioned above in the Evolution of the taskbar in Windows 7 - “Superbar” article, it doesn't say where that term came from. My point is that even if Microsoft has never heard of the term "Superbar" Wikipedia is so influential that if we keep reporting it here, then Microsoft will adopt the term from Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that MS called it the "Enhanced Taskbar" Redekopmark (talk) 15:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

If they did then that would actually be useful information as the article should avoid colloquial jargon - do you have a reference for that? - Ahunt (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Enhanced taskbar wouldn't be a good expression. It makes you think of the same think, just with some additional add-ins, but Microsoft wants the superbar to be something new. So I don't believe enhanced taskbar is the real title. But I think it was used as a working title and for early presentations like on the developer blog. --Oli (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well the question isn't really what sounds better, but what is the terminology that Microsoft is actually using - that is what should be in the article. Anything else would really be fancruft. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I did find something at Windows 7 User Interface – The Superbar - Enhanced Taskbar:

"The GUI evolution delivered by Windows 7 is designed to bring what Microsoft is internally referring to as the Superbar, or the enhanced Taskbar."

At least that says that Microsoft is using that term internally. - Ahunt (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a better ref and the one I put into the article, same article as cited above, but original source: Windows 7 User Interface – The Superbar (Enhanced Taskbar) - Ahunt (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

You made "Superbar" into a section. I reverted this for two reasons -- one, we don't need to create new sections for individual features (look at Windows Vista for an example), and two, the Superbar name is being spread through the echo chamber of Windows news reporting; it's not an official name, nor have we found anyone at Microsoft who has said that yes, it's called the Superbar. In fact, they've called it the "Taskbar" in every presentation they've given about this feature, so clearly Microsoft isn't intending on using the name Superbar. For the sake of accuracy, then, neither should we. Warren -talk- 17:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Well that is what I thought too until I read the ref cited above Windows 7 User Interface – The Superbar (Enhanced Taskbar) which clearly indicates that Microsoft is using the term internally. Nevertheless it is still all "just marketing", trying to make something "gosh-wow-amazing" and create "marketing buzz" like this discussion, out of nothing really substantial. - Ahunt (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you won't find a clear answer yet. It's neither superbar nor taskbar/enhanced taskbar. What we can say is that the "thing" is the taskbars successor. So using the termini taskbar seems to be wrong to me. And because Microsoft is talking about a superbar internally, also if this might only be a working title, I'd use this expression in the article. The best solution will be to put it in quotation marks - that shows it's a correct but not official expression. In that's in fact the case. --Oli (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you can find a clear answer, right on the official Windows blog. It's called the Windows Taskbar. It's still a bar that shows your running tasks, after all... if you go digging through PDC presentations on the matter, everyone at Microsoft calls it the taskbar. There's really no ambiguity about this when you go to the real source of information on Windows 7. Warren -talk- 19:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Paul criticized this new taskbar as too much like Apple's Dock. But superbar does not make sense, as "super" is an adjetive and "task" is an adverb. But maybe it may not be either of these at all.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm running Windows 7 with the new taskbar, and Mac OS X Leopard on the same machine; my opinion is that they aren't really all that similar, except for superficial visual stuff. There are a lot of differences; for example, if you click on an icon of a visible application on the Windows 7 taskbar, the application is hidden. On OS X, the same action does nothing. OS X uses a blue oval underneath an icon to denote that an application is running; Windows 7 draws a box around it, makes the background behind the icon darker, and uses a shadow on the box to give the impression that the box is sitting on top of the taskbar. Windows 7 has a start button, OS X doesn't. OS X minimizes windows to a separate section on the right-hand side of the dock; Windows doesn't. The taskbar extends all the way across the side of a screen; the OS X dock doesn't unless you tell it to. Right-clicking the dock icon of a running application in OS X gives you a menu of commands that you can send to the application; right-clicking the taskbar icon in Windows 7 gives you the same old "Maximize/Minimize/etc/Close" menu that has been on taskbar items since Windows 95. You have to left-click the area to the right of the icon to see these commands in Windows . The Windows 7 taskbar can be configured to show the window's title beside the icon, so that it look and works more like the taskbar in prior versions of Windows; OS X only shows the name of the application if you hover the mouse over an icon. Windows 7 lets you represent each distinct window with a separate icon; OS X doesn't. You can put the trash can on the OS X dock, but you can't put the recycling bin on the taskbar in Windows 7. The Windows 7 taskbar has icons for sound, network and security; OS X puts these sorts of things on the menu bar at the top of the screen. Same with the clock. Oh yeah, and the Windows 7 taskbar can be placed at the top of the screen, but the dock can't. You can resize the OS X dock to any arbitrary size; you can't in Windows 7. The dock in OS X is reflective, the taskbar in Windows 7 has partial transparency but only if you are using the Desktop Window Manager. The dock is centered; the taskbar is left-justified; neither of these are configurable.

I could go on, because there's quite a bit more, but I think I've made my point well enough -- they really aren't that similar. About the only similarities I can see between the OS X dock and the Windows 7 taskbar, is that you click on an icon to start an application, and that icon becomes the running representation of the application. Otherwise, Windows 7 works more or less along the principle of taking the Quick Launch and the taskbar (both of which first appeared in Windows), and mashed them together into one thing. Warren -talk- 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Windows Task Manager in Windows Seven

Redekopmark claims that he has a copy of build 6801. I want him to get screenshots of Task Manager and perhaps other features like the logon screen. On the "Features New to Windows 7" page he personally said that he would be willing to do such a thing. I want Josh to evaluate the possiblity of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Evaluate the possibility? Seems perfectly possible to me. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I have build 6801 as well; the Task Manager and Login screen look pretty much identical to Windows Vista. Warren -talk- 03:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"the seventh release of Windows"

I know we're not supposed to speculate, but I think the question of what the "7" in "Windows 7" actually refers to is kind of fundamental. We currently have someone quoted as saying "Simply put, this is the seventh release of Windows"; yet the sense in which this is true is so far from simple that any attempt to explain it is dismissed as "speculation" or "original research".

So, what should we say about the name? Perhaps simply that as the history of Microsoft Windows is quite complex, it is not entirely clear what is being counted as a "release" in this context; that there are several possible explanations, but MS has not confirmed their logic? Or has anyone managed to get an authoritative answer out of Microsoft?

Not even mentioning that we don't know feels like a glaring omission, because a reader might assume that there is a known rationale, but the article doesn't mention it. - IMSoP (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC) [PS: Please, nobody respond to this by posting theories/explanations, unless you have an official source.]

The "someone" who said that was Mike Nesh, Microsoft's vice-president of Windows product management, in other words he is responsible for Windows 7! That is what makes his comment on the naming of this version of Windows so interesting: it seems to be the only official Microsoft explanation for the name and his explanation is absolutely nebulous. Hopefully all will be revealed in time! - Ahunt (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I added this:

Many where confused about how Microsoft counted this to be the seventh version of Windows. [1] Mike Nash responded in the Windows Vista Team Blog that it is partially based on the Windows NT version number, but that Windows 7 would be have an internal version number of 6.1 for application compatibility. [2] --Pmsyyz (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Build 9648

On the Engineering Windows 7 blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/) they are showing on their 11/20/08 post a screenshot of what appears to be build 9648. I don't know anything else about the build except that it proves that the screenshot of 6967 is counterfeit. The posters, who are the developers of Windows 7, always use their latest build.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

No, actually, they don't. Here's a very simplistic explanation of what happens: Every feature team on Windows has their own repository that they do their work on; the main build number increases as new features are checked into the main code tree (a process called 'reverse integration'), but those changes have to be brought back to the feature team repositories (a process called 'forward integration'), and then the individual developers working on Windows 7 have to update their own workstations to those builds, if necessary. Warren -talk- 01:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way: The screenshot ([3]) doesn't show build 9648, but 6948. So it's even older. --Oli (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Build numbers alone don't denote an absolute line progression in features. It says build 6948, sure, but the build date says November 12, and the rest of the build string makes it clear that is the Windows Shell's team build, not the mainline build. Therefore it's build 6948, with whatever newer work the UI team has done since they forward-integrated from the main Windows code tree. Warren -talk- 13:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Name Doubt

I say, doesn't this version of Windows' logo name it as "Windows Se7en"? I know it's pronnounced the same, and is basically the same concept, but I just had this doubt. Thanks for taking your time. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.255.34.137 (talk)

No the "Windows Se7en" thing was something made up by some bloggers. Check the official Microsoft Windows 7 webpage and you will see that the company refers to it clearly and only as "Windows 7". - Ahunt (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

A fun statistic

This article is averaging over 24,000 hits per day. [4] That's a hit every few seconds, on average. Something to think about when you're editing the article. Warren -talk- 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting that link! - Ahunt (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

release on 2009?

This is going to be release on early 2010 (if not later) actually. Besides 2009 without specify what time of the year is not very seful it could be on a month or in twelve Darkboth 9969696699x9 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

I suggest adding a segment of "Criticism", because Windows 7 have already been several criticisms

• http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_simple.asp
• http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1747

Please take a look to this articles of Paul Thurrott and Mary Jo Foley. Thanks--Sotcr (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's too early to criticise Windows 7. From RC you can criticise features (because these won't change anymore) and from RTW you can criticise performance etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.203.168 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it could "Concerns" as expressed by reviewers of the early releases. I agree that it isn't fair to criticize it since it is still in the formative stages, but "concerns" would be fair. If they remain after release then the section could become "Criticism" - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a new section for this specific criticism. Thurrott's criticism lies almost exclusively with the user interface, so it should be integrated with the rest of the article; or in this case, it should be integrated into the user interface section of the Features new to Windows 7 article. We only make criticism sections because the content wouldn't easily fit anywhere else, or because the criticism applies to the operating system as a whole. Warren -talk- 13:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that this segment could help people and at the same Microsoft, to realize what is not very well and what does not work in the current release. They should have "Concern" about this ;) --Sotcr (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, the concerns are about a very specific aspect of the operating system, not the whole thing. Integration of criticism into the main body of the article is the preferred thing to do. Wikipedia:Criticism sections has two good quotes to mull over on the topic. Warren -talk- 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, ok :P, if some one can add some info about the criticism to the main body I'll thank u, becouse i'm not so good whit the english... Thanks. --Sotcr (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)**

I still think cricism should wait. Parts of the current build might not reflect the intention of Microsoft or make it to the final version at all. The criticism might already be wrong when a next build is released in a few days. There will be enough time to add criticism when Windows 7 is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.113 (talk) 11:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, would a Reception section serve better, since there are definite improvements since Vista (I'm running build 6956 right now), and, as mentioned before, criticisms? What would be good qualifications for criticisms towards Windows 7, since it's still in prebeta stage? NickVisel (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Updates by Paul Thurott(Refers to Winsupersite.com/win7)

Paul once again has spilled the beans on Windows 7: ->He expects, at this rate, Windows 7 to be released by April 2009. While this might be a little ambitious, it's easily believable, because he says Windows 7 is almost finished according the builds he recieved (3 Post-6933 builds) ->He posted maybe fifteen screenshots of Windows 7 on his website. This shows the features of Windows 7, like the Gadgets. ->Both of these points are put on the same site at [[5]] and [[6]]. (I'm not good with links; you may have to copy the URL's and paste them in the adress box of another browser window). But... ->The beta hasn't come out yet. So I want Josh, Ahunt and other Wikipedians to discuss this. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Preview Release

People need to understand the difference between a Public Release (6801 was freely given out by Microsoft to PDC 2008 attendees) and a build that is leaked (such as 6956, which was leaked via an unknown source at China's WinHEC). A leaked build, not being released officially by Microsoft, should not be used as a "Preview Release" build. --Resplendent (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

So... Why before october 28, there was posted others "Preview Version"? Before that date no build was released officialy, so, why now we can't have the article actualized in the same way we used to? Is this a new rule? Is better to have the people informed than be attached to this "rule". --Sotcr (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a "new rule"; the same logic was applied during Windows Vista's beta-test period in 2006.

The title of the section is "Preview release". Leaked builds are not "releases"; Microsoft does not intend for them to be available to the general public, and it is in fact illegal for such builds to be circulated. 6801 is considered a release because Microsoft distributed it at two separate conferences; there were no requirements for receiving it other than to have paid to attend the event, and show up. This counts as a preview release. Warren -talk- 11:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but nowhere says "Release", says "Preview Version"--Sotcr (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, I was looking at Template:Infobox OS's code on another screen at the time. But the principle of using released versions is still a good one; it's a lot easier to get reliable sources for this. Warren -talk- 23:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that Preview Version implies it is an officially released version by Microsoft. On other software pages I have seen, nowehere are leaked versions used in that field. However, this argument over semantics seems to be going nowhere. --Resplendent (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that Microsoft set it up for attendees to use, hence it was previewed. It has nothing to do with the leak. - Josh (talk | contribs) 22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct, Microsoft freely gave out build 6801 as a preview to all PDC attendees. Build 6956 was not freely given out at China's WinHEC or anywhere else by Microsoft, therefore as it was clearly never intended to be "released" it should not be counted as one in this context, regardless of the fact that it eventually became public. --Resplendent (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

why not include both? Preview version: 6801, Latest know build, 6956 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.183.130 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, i thought that, and i tried to do it, but anyway is not "accepted"--Sotcr (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The point is that Microsoft did preview build 6956, so it is a "preview version". - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Josh: As the person who first created the {{Infobox OS version}} template, I assure you that I envisioned it being used to describe actual intended releases, not "whatever someone noticed somewhere" or "whatever the most recent pirated version is". I changed the wording shortly afterwards to use the word "version" instead of "release", because the field contains a "version" number, not a "release" number.

Hell, we don't even know if this is a real release, or if it's just a case of some clever Chinese hackers whipping up a malware-infested build based on 6801. Worse, nobody has provided (nor can I find) any news stories that state that build 6956 was demo'd at WinHEC, without basing this detail on the existence of this leaked release. We avoid all this mess by sticking with reliable sources (and let's be clear about something: an unreliable source + an Internet-based echo chamber of bloggers trying to get a "scoop" doesn't equal a reliable source), and right now our most reliable sources say that the latest preview version is 6801.

This will all blow over within weeks, anyways, as the first actual beta version is said by Microsoft & others to be just around the corner. Warren -talk- 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that the lastest version, the last preview we see, that's what should be on that space--Sotcr (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is totally ridiculous, build 6801 was handed out at PDC 2008 to attendee and was leaked to peer-to-peer. It was never given to the public. Build 6956 was taken from WinHEC China and also leaked to peer-to-peer. It was also never given to the public. Beta 1 onward would be the only public releases. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC) I would also note that many of Vista during development, leak which were not handed from Microsoft were also counted. The only official public betas of Vista are Beta 2, RC1, and RC2. Illegal Operation (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a general policy of what criteria is needed for a build to be "counted" needs to be created then. --Resplendent (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Any chance we could do a vote? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illegal Operation (talk • contribs) 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. --Resplendent (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that what people want to know is the last known build, not that build ”microsoft released officialy to the attendee at the conference“. Anyway, as I said, before Oct. 28 had not been any official release, so, why was posted a build?--Sotcr (talk) 03:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why there needs to be a policy on this. Each editor may have their own idea on what "people want to know" and "how to do it". By taking a vote and coming to a consensus we can create a firm policy on which to use to guide us for this and future articles. --Resplendent (talk) 03:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

To please everyone could be like this

The "release_version" is the "version that has been released", and the "preview_version" the PREVIEW version--Sotcr (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then there would be no place for the current stable version. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When the stable version is published, this would replace the current, This is a way of knowing what build been published officialy and which not, this is for know what is in fact the LAST... the preview version --Sotcr (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do we have anyway of formal voting on wikipedia or do we do it like the one below? Illegal Operation (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by building consensus rather than a straight vote. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should choose one way or the other. Why not do the following:

• Let the info box reflect the official release information.
• Let the article as much as possible refer to the release version.
• A leaked build can have it's own subsection in the builds section.
• In the article, only refer to a leaked version if that is really necessary (to illustrate something new for example).

^^^^^^^^^^^^ AGREED. As a viewer of this topic not a editor, would be much more better than debating on crap like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.184.97 (talk) 10:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Voting latest Windows 7 build

Do you agree that Windows 7 build 6956 should be consider the the latest release?

I agree Illegal Operation (talk) 03:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think this is the correct "vote" we need to be taking. We should be determining what criteria a release needs to have in order to be considered the latest "Preview". --Resplendent (talk) 03:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.183.130 (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose but support using previewed builds as preview versions. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The last release no, the last preview ;) --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 05:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

   | X |Not Allowed!
   Wikipedia is not a democracy!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC) 

Oppose, because there is an inherent reliability and original-research problem in identifying preview versions. The documentation for Template:Infobox OS version has made this clear for quite a long time. It reads: "A version or "build" number for the most recent widely distributed preview version of the operating system. Generally speaking, private or "leaked" builds are not suitable for mentioning on Wikipedia, as this doesn't meet our Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:No original research policies" ... this policy served us well during Windows Vista's development timeframe, especially towards the end where everybody was throwing around build numbers based on things they saw on the Internet. Saying that a newer build was stolen from Microsoft and identifying that as the most recent preview without any qualifiers is at best a lie, and at worst an attempt to push illegal software on Wikipedia. It's fine to document the fact that newer builds are demonstrated, so long as reliable sources for such are provided, but the word "preview" on the template has always been intended to denote a "preview release", not "previewed at a conference", or "previewed privately to a few customers". You have to have standards about these things.

I'll give you another example: Mac OS X. We have never, -ever- used the preview_version template parameters to identify the version of OS X Leopard or OS X Snow Leopard that Steve Jobs has demonstrated publicly, or Apple has released privately to specific beta testers. Only wider beta releases (to all paid developers in the case of OS X, or non-contractual beta testers in the case of Vista) have ever been recorded.

Again, I remind people that this is an issue of not engaging in original research -- expressly disallowed by Wikipedia, and ensuring that the information we provide is verifiable by reliable third-parties -- expressly required by Wikipedia. We have to work within those rules. We aren't a news site -- we're an encyclopedia.

Finally, really should not be getting into the business of showing screenshots of software that has been obtained illegally. This is a very serious issue. If Wikipedia gets into the business of displaying screenshots of illegally obtained content, we expose ourselves to litigation. Surely there isn't a single person working on this article that willingly wants to run that risk. Warren -talk- 23:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as per Warren's well stated arguments. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

[X]Error Wikipedia is not a democracy. While this can be debated, it cannot be voted on like all of you are trying to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing democratic about this. It's a consensus check. - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Non default screenshots of Windows 7

Some screenshots on the Windows 7 page are shot with settings enabled like: Icons in the taskbar becoming tiles when a program is running. I think screenshots should reflect the default settings of a Windows 7 installation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.202.113 (talk) 11:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I've restored an earlier screenshot that reflects the default configuration. Warren -talk- 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are wrong. I think that we should use the latest known build. You (Italic textWarren) have reverted it back to an outdated screenshot. While that may not be default, the wish for the latest version overrides defaults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk • contribs)

I Agree... but as I see, we have to ask permission to warren before every step forward we want to do. Anyway, I got a "default" screenshot and u revert it ¿? ¿Contradiction or mistake? Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 01:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The last time I checked, Warren wasn't the only person opposed to that change. This edit war between people changing the "Preview" build around and the screenshot is silly, and needs to be resolved on the talk page rather than everyone just going ahead and doing what they themselves think is best. --Resplendent (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree to wait until we resolve the problem here in the talk page. And the problem with the screenshot was becouse this "does'nt show the default settings", OK, i fixed, but anyway Warren revert the picture... I dont know why ¿? Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Because we're dealing with illegally-obtained images, I'm not willing to wait. I really have no problem with going ahead and reporting your uploads to Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Remember, THE IMAGES WERE OBTAINED BY THEFT. If you are having some mental difficulty understanding this really fucking basic issue, please, PLEASE stop editing Wikipedia. This is a serious issue! Just because a whole bunch of web sites are copying the images around, doesn't mean we can do the same. We are an encyclopedia that happens to be a web site, not another variation on Neowin, Winbeta or Windows Supersite. Warren -talk- 06:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, all the screenshots are illegally-obtained, Microsoft has not release ANY build (Not even 6801), so, what picture is truly legal?? This? who attribute the source to NeoWin? or this one, where the source is yourself? Now u are a Microsoft employee? or Bill gives you the picture?? Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 08:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Thurott and other IT pros have posted screenshots of 6801 saying that it was from what Microsoft gave them. Microsoft also demonstrated 6933. I agree though that 6956 images are illegal until proven legit. You(Warren)are very wrong because Microsoft has given out copies of build 6801 at the PDC. But... Paul Thurott has posted what he called "Post-M3" screenshots, and he would be arrested today if it were illegal, which undermines both Soctr's and and Warren's comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.155.146.2 (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren, I've noticed that you've changed the screenshots without explaining the changes on this page first. I consider it vandalism, and the change has been reverted. Defaults are not important as the image caption can explain what is not default. And, anyways, I feel that the latest screenshots should be used. Although the screenshots may be illegal, so were the initial screenshots of Build M1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasper Deng (talk • contribs) 23:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I explained it right fucking here. Is basic reading comprehension too fucking difficult? It is a non-default configuration, as pointed out by the person who started this thread. It does not accurately represent Windows 7. We have a pattern that we use on every operating system version article on Wikipedia: Default user interface configuration and colours, no visible elements that are not part of the operating system itself, and usually with a couple of windows to demonstrate a couple of high-visibility user interface elements. Windows XP shows the Start menu, Control Panel and Windows Explorer. Windows Vista shows the Start menu and the Welcome Center (which is shown by default when you log in to an account for the first time). Mac OS X v10.4 shows exactly the screen you see when you log in to a retail Mac of the time period (which has iLife pre-installed) for the first time -- you get a Finder window and a set of icons on the dock. It's the same story with Windows 2000 (Start, Explorer, Getting Started), Windows Me (well, someone moved the desktop icons a little bit but otherwise completely default), Windows 98 (Channels, Getting Started, MSN icon on the desktop, etc.), Windows 95 (Start menu, Explorer), and so on and so forth. The only one that doesn't match this pattern, that I'm aware of (and having worked on these articles for three years, I'd say I'm more aware of it than most people), is Mac OS X v10.1.

And this is the problem when people like you and User:Sotcr come along with a razor-sharp focus on a single article (neither of you have much editing experience outside of the topic of Windows 7), and not take into proper account the entire range of articles we have on the encyclopedia, and what our standard practices are. This whole argument played out on Wikipedia a long time before either of you showed up, and the consensus is to use default screenshots. If you're saying that decision is bad, you're going to have to give a damned good explanation as to why.

And for anyone claiming that 6801 wasn't released; yes it was. It has been handed out at multiple Microsoft events... all you had to do was show up. This is a "release". It was intended by Microsoft. No, it's not a "retail release", or a "release to web", but it is the act of giving software to people. Warren -talk- 00:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

    | X |I am warning you, Warren. I have experience editing the Xianqqi article and other chess-based articles., as  
    well as the talk pages of various other articles. So does Soctr. Denouncing me and Soctr as inexperienced is mean!
    Do not do so as I can refer you to an administrator.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Now to turn to a more pleasant subject, a good solution to this situation is to show both screenshots. What isn't default in the screenshot of 6956?Jasper Deng (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The non-default screenshots topic was already dropped by me, I understand and now I agree. IN what I am not agree yet, is in why you revert this one, this screenshot is on default settings and as Jasper said, the initial screenshots of Build M1 were illegal too, and so too much others.--Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 03:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Thurrott already publish sceenshots of 6956, so, if they arrested him. Notify me.--Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 06:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren, if u delete a image o revert a imagen, please put the justification here, because I already justifies what I upload and you ignore it --Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 17:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

      | X |/ ! \ THIS IS YOUR SECOND WARNING, WARREN. PLEASE DO NOT REVERT PEOPLE'S CHANGES WITHOUT
      JUSTIFICATION, AS SOCTR SAID. I AM REVERTING YOUR CHANGE AND I AM DOING SO BECAUSE THE NEED FOR THE LATEST    
      BUILD IS VERY IMPORTANT IN WIKIPEDIA, AS SOCTR MENTIONED. IF YOU HAVE ONE MORE WARNING THAT WILL BE A REFERRAL
      TO AN ADMINISTRATOR! IF YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS PLEASE PUT IT HERE!Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
      
      | X |/ ! \(X) THIS IS YOUR FINAL WARNING, WARREN. I HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR MEANNESS. YOU WILL BE
      REFERRED TO AN ADMINISTRATOR AND LOSE YOUR EDITING PREVILEGES. CALLING ME OBTUSE AND DISRUPTIVE IS INSULTING!!
      THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THAT EDIT!!!!!!!!!!!! I'VE HAD ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Jasper Deng (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not enough -- when you stop pushing a non-default screenshot of illegally-obtained software on Wikipedia, this will end. No sooner. You aren't demonstrating any kind of care about the possibility that we may be exposing Wikimedia Foundation to legal trouble. I've been working on this stuff here for three years, and have been involved with issues around the use of non-free screenshots for pretty much the entire time; at some point you have to just trust that I do know what I'm doing with this.

If your only contribution to the encyclopedia is going to be arguing over this, please, find something more productive to do, whether it's on the encyclopedia or off. There's a lot of content to be written still, and these arguments only slow that down. Thanks. Warren -talk- 08:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Warren, if you just take a look to the picture, becouse I noted that you are still calling it "non-default", and the NEW version than i upload is with the default settings. And about legally issues, the build 6956 screenshots was already published by Paul Thurrott, and he is the same reference of the current screenshot (Actually is NeoWin, but Paul Thurrott was the first to publish the pics). Sotcr Excuse my English (talk me) 13:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

      | X | (X) /!\ WARREN, STOP SAYING THIS IS ILLEGAL. THIS IS A PENALTY NOTICE, WHICH WAS POSTED BY AN'
      ADMINISTRATOR. NON OF THE LEAKED SCREENSHOTS ARE ILLEGAL, SO STOP WHINING! I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT THIS AGAIN:
      THE NEED FOR THE LATEST BUILD OVERRIDES DEFAULTS! THE REASON WHY WE ARE USING THIS ONE IS BECAUSE IT INDICATES
      THAT MICROSOFT HAS STOPPED COPYING THE MAC OPERATING SYSTEM. SINCE YOU'VE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES, I
      WILL BE REFFERING YOU TO ANOTHER ADMINISTRATOR. YOUR CHANGE HAS BEEN UNDONE AND IT IS VANDALISM. YOU HAVE
      POSTED SOME MORE INSULTS. CALLING ME A SNOOB IS INAPPROPRIATE! DON'T DO THIS AGAIN. SOCTR AND I HAVE NOT BEEN
      HAPPY WITH YOUR VANDALISM. THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME I'VE POSTED A WARNING BOX!

New color depths/gamuts

The addition of new color depths/gamuts hasn't been seen with Windows for almost two decades and I would consider it important. After all you can add several of the features/functions being advertised with Windows 7 with other software (such as an improved calculator) but unless the OS supports it there is no way to display new color depths/gamuts. --GrandDrake (talk) 00:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You're right in that it's a significant feature, if you care about such things. I removed the text because, let's face it, this probably isn't that interesting of a topic for the vast majority of our readers. The topic is covered in Features new to Windows 7, so it's not like the information is lost. The "New features" part of the article is somewhat of a mess right now, but it'll get better than Beta 1 pops up in the coming weeks, and more details about the full feature set are documented.

As for comparisons with Calculator: Take a poll of your non-geek friends, and ask them what they'd be more interested in with the next version of Windows, an upgraded calculator, or the ability to display more than 8 pixels per channel. We aren't nerds writing for the nerd community here; we're writing for an entire planet of people. Warren -talk- 02:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You can create new graphics on your own PC for DirectX 11, but that is difficult. There is no other way I can think of.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)