First shots of Windows 7 leaked? And by 7, we mean Vista.

There's no telling how legitimate these shots might be, and it's quite clear that these screens won't be giving us any juicy details about Windows 7 anytime soon, but we couldn't pass on images that purport to be the first from a super-secret test build of Windows 7 seeded to "key partners." So, anything to see here? Not that we can tell, from the looks of things we're looking at a copy of Vista with the name "Windows 7 Ultimate" tacked on, but there's no telling what's happening under the hood. We know we can't wait to pay another few hundred dollars for a barely noticeable upgrade to Vista that will re-break all driver support, how about you?

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

[Organic_Shadow @ Jan 24th 2008 3:39PM]

Well gosh golly I guess I can just buy another copy of XP now and then wait a few years...

[aguiluz @ Jan 24th 2008 4:01PM]

Yah. I moved to Vista and it is a total pain. My external USB drives don't work unless I coax them to work which means install driver, install from windows updates and all that slow, laggy crap.

My dad's XP laptop? Well, plug it in. It works. End of story.

[SirPasta117 @ Jan 24th 2008 4:30PM]

Neat i hope i can get into the public betas this time around :)
and btw im surprised that engadget won't buy a service pack (which this isn't) for windows but they will for that over priced macintrash. and also this is legit trust me....in programming you take one piece of coding that was already written and you work on improving that, and creating new ideas until your ready to build the final program using ideas and working coding from the previous project.

[christapher @ Jan 24th 2008 4:46PM]

"in programming you take one piece of coding that was already written and you work on improving that, and creating new ideas until your ready to build the final program using ideas and working coding from the previous project."

wtf? what does that even mean?

[lo-kii @ Jan 24th 2008 5:00PM]

well its clearly fake...
if you look at any version of the windows
winver.exe screen

it says the build is 6.1xxx [which is vista] & XP is build 5.1xx
so why would "Windows 7" be labled as build 6.1xx that doesnt make any sense...

[Kevin Gass @ Jan 24th 2008 5:20PM]

@ chrisapher
When i code a program i start by trying to work new ideas into an existing program i've already written. then whenever I'm ready to write the final program I have ideas and examples on how to make it work. Microsoft is doing the same thing, taking Vista, and recreating it with new ideas, and once they are ready to build the RTM of Windows 7, they have a better idea on how to fix problems they encounter. They did the same thing with Vista. They built early versions of Longhorn inside of XP, until they were ready to build Vista.

[Kris @ Jan 24th 2008 7:25PM]

Grass, that doesn't make any sense. According to Microsoft's development patterns and practicies, they create a new branch for the new version when they start to work on it. I can't see them not doing that here (or with Vista).

[phrozunsun @ Jan 24th 2008 10:21PM]

clearly a hoax. I saw a video of them demoing the kernel (a completely brand new one). I think they're going to completely tie off any connections to old arhetecture and rebuild from the ground up. they said they goal was to be as lean as possible this time around.

I think the video may have even been up here.

but yeah, clearly a fake. even the version number is wrong. it's called photoshop people...

[Tiptup300 @ Jan 24th 2008 11:57PM]

Ok, let me start by saying that if Windows 7 is currently being worked on with the old shell, then this would make sense. Since M$ pays thousands of dollars to make an interface this is kinda a step that gets fully implemented last. I'm sure they will recode a new shell and that they are testing using the Vista,XP, or classic scheme and not just a magical wizardry of hours of photoshop FOR TESTING. I wouldnt see why they would be concentrated on the visuals at all right now, thats being worked on def., but not by the dev team. The dev team is working on the engine, the other people are in some other area working on the outer frame.

BTW, they look very fake.

[Dave @ Jan 25th 2008 10:42PM]

Looks like Windows98 going to WindowsME all over again...

[Garst @ Jan 26th 2008 3:54AM]

Now if only all the cons would have gotten their stories straight, someone might have believed them. There are way too many differences in all the screen shots (ok i've only seen two, but that's enough to know that they both are fake, because no company would send out two different copies of the same build), to think that it could be real.

[JAmerican @ Jan 24th 2008 3:40PM]

That's either a hoax or another overhyped OS by M$.

[Mills @ Jan 25th 2008 12:46AM]

well of course its a hoax..... a system above vista running on only a gig of ram? come on. This is going to require at least 128gb of ram and nothing less.

roflcopter!

[Fred @ Jan 24th 2008 3:41PM]

"We know we can't wait to pay another few hundred dollars for a barely noticeable upgrade to Vista that will re-break all driver support, how about you?"

Wow, there's a lot of bitterness on Engadget lately. What's the matter, bummed out that the Macbook Air actually turned out to be next to useless?

[Kyrra @ Jan 24th 2008 3:43PM]

It's just popular to hate Vista it seems.

[Neal @ Jan 24th 2008 3:58PM]

Not to mention that Win7 will use the exact same driver model from Vista, so Vista drivers ARE Windows 7 drivers *rollseyes*

[DaMan09 @ Jan 24th 2008 4:22PM]

Why is Windows 7 in version 6.1?

[nohbudy @ Jan 24th 2008 4:51PM]

As many people have said before, this is their blog and they can write what they want - and it is true. But I also am not forced to click the ads displayed on their site. The last line of this post is simply uncalled for and shows the childish nature of many who make posts here. In the past I would click on an ad every time I would visit here to support them, but no more, and I encourage everybody to join me.

[V3LOCIP3D3 @ Jan 24th 2008 5:42PM]

@Ty

That was well summed up, couldn't have said it better.

[Seoultrain @ Jan 24th 2008 6:21PM]

surprised that Ty's comment hasn't been deleted yet. I know I've had far less "controversial" comments axed.

[Ellianth @ Jan 24th 2008 6:52PM]

I had one deleted once for getting first post and pointing out how the poster pulled numbers out of his ass. It happens.

[phrozunsun @ Jan 24th 2008 10:47PM]

@ ty

lol. this site has ads? I have flashblock installed, some ad blocking extension, and my hosts file all loaded up. I haven't seen ads in like 3 years, probably more...

[Beef Supreme @ Jan 24th 2008 3:40PM]

Move along nothing to see here.

[computer.dude.28 @ Jan 24th 2008 5:10PM]

No kidding. I like how their "Windows 7" test or w/e it's supposed to be is 32-bit. "Windows Server 2008 is the last 32-bit operating system that we'll produce,"

http://news.softpedia.com/news/The-Last-32-bit-Operating-System-from-Microsoft-54974.shtml

[Neal @ Jan 24th 2008 5:33PM]

@ Computer.dude

You are wrong

http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2007/05/18/on-64-bit-and-windows-client.aspx

[computer.dude.28 @ Jan 24th 2008 6:16PM]

Ah. Didn't find that. Thanks, Neal

[Mark @ Jan 24th 2008 3:42PM]

It's a hoax, it clearly says version 6.1 under the photoshopped title....cmon guys!

[Chris @ Jan 24th 2008 3:54PM]

because Vista was always 6.0...guess again

[OK @ Jan 24th 2008 3:55PM]

Amazing how many people comment without clicking on the Read link.

[Stephen Armbruster @ Jan 24th 2008 3:45PM]

holy shit what news...

[Chris.L @ Jan 25th 2008 3:16AM]

lmao...if those screenshots are real, then thats just like Microsoft telling the world "oh well, Vista failed and has made a horrible name for itself. So why not just release a new OS".

[redrumz @ Jan 24th 2008 3:46PM]

this is clearly a hoax...it looks like a vista page shopped.
besides, as mark pointed out, it has a vista version number -vista uses 6xxx version numbers (launch being version 6000).

[Carbonize @ Jan 24th 2008 4:13PM]

And XP is shown as Windows 5.1 using the same numbering system as 2000 which is Windows 5. So your point is?

[Nick @ Jan 24th 2008 3:48PM]

This is pretty much fake. The most obvious thing that stands out is the version number. "Version 6.1" - oh is that windows 7? NO. The second problem is the copyright date. 2007, not 2008. Obviously vista.

Whoever sent this in has no life obviously.

[EMoShunz @ Jan 24th 2008 3:51PM]

i was thinking the same thing, but didn't post because i couldn't verify. my xp says version 2002.

[Andrew @ Jan 24th 2008 4:08PM]

And yet Vista's copyright is 2006. If you paid enough attention, you'd see that this build was built in December which... surprise surprise, is 2007!

And yes, the shots are real.

[Jakob @ Jan 24th 2008 4:21PM]

Actually this build is from December 2007.

Why do you call this a fake/hoax, it's just a very early pre-release alpha version of Windows 7, and in matters of fact it shows some very minor changes. It could be fake, but I think it looks pretty legit.

Please look at the first Whistler (XP) and Longhorn (Vista) screenshot. Thank you ;)

[TomTom2007 @ Jan 24th 2008 3:47PM]

If you say this is Windows 7, then I might have believed you... sigh...

http://www.cnbeta.com/upimg/070802/Aoouch_141310.jpg

[SniperJJS13 @ Jan 31st 2008 2:05AM]

Looks more like a moded linux distribution to me, which there are a few out there that are made to look like a windows system already.

[Michael @ Jan 24th 2008 3:48PM]

It seems odd that they'd skin it in Aero Glass, since the first major announcement regarding Windows 7 was that their first priority was trying to make the OS smaller and more efficient, compared to the current bloated state in which Windows has found itself.

Unless they're already so far into the game that they've made a smaller, more efficient way of displaying Aero Glass-like effects.

[reticulate @ Jan 24th 2008 11:00PM]

Uh, Aero is probably the most efficient bit of the OS. All the GUI processing is offloaded onto the video card.

OSX does the same thing.

[Joseph @ Jan 24th 2008 3:49PM]

From what I've read from testers of previous Windows versions, the version stuff gets fixed at the end since it changes with every build and takes time to input and fix.

[Periodical @ Jan 24th 2008 3:48PM]

Anti-news has been discovered here today. Always remember, 1-24-08!

[Balam Herrera @ Jan 24th 2008 3:50PM]

Maybe they will make a good copy of MacOsX this time....

[Carbonize @ Jan 24th 2008 4:15PM]

What complete with 100 bugs that they will tell you've they've fixed but not release the patch for?

[Rususeruru @ Jan 24th 2008 3:49PM]

Considering Vista is Windows v6.0 it would seem that 'Win7' is really just a service pack on that little screen cap.

[Carbonize @ Jan 24th 2008 4:14PM]

XP is identified as Windows 5.1 while 2000 is Windows 5 so you are saying XP is just a service pack for 2000?

[kjb434 @ Jan 24th 2008 5:23PM]

XP is definitely a service pack to Windows 2000. Windows 2000 road tested many features the XP uses. Microsoft halted on the home consumer release until the GUI was adjusted and a lot of bugs of Windows 2000 was worked out.

Window 2000 blew the pants off of 98 and 95 and was the best option to avoid ME while waiting for XP.

[farfisa @ Jan 24th 2008 3:51PM]

Well, on the one hand that is a 7...
Nice work!

[richbum @ Jan 24th 2008 4:02PM]

Forget Windows 7. Windows 8 is leaked aswell! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v674/richbum/windows-8-ultimate-leak-1.jpg