This could be the first video footage of Windows 7
By Evan Blass 
posted Jan 25th 2008 4:43PM
posted Jan 25th 2008 4:43PM
Obviously a lot of people cried fake when those screenshots purporting to show Windows 7 Ultimate popped up -- possibly because they looked a lot like rebadged Vista screens -- so the blogger who originally posted the images has followed up with a video for proof. And we do have to say, if this is fake, someone put a hell of a lot of work into pulling it off, from creating a new bootup screen to hacking the source code to adding fresh Media Center options. ThinkNext tells us that this release -- known as Milestone 1 -- expires in May of this year, although if Redmond and its team of crack Enemy of the State-types have anything to say about it, this particular blog will not be getting another preview copy next time around. Video after the break.[Via Softpedia, image courtesy of ThinkNext, thanks Joshua]
Still looks like Vista to me.
this wouldnt really surprise me if it was real, seeing as OSX 10.1 exactly looks like 10.2 looks like 10.3 looks like 10.4 looks like...
and people still bought it. PS
to the people who are mad that new PC's come with vista (seeing as they run vista perfectly)
what about all the Macs that come with OSX standard? ....
yea suck it.
This is why MS is making so much money, it makes so much sense! Cereal, hear me out.
They release Vista which arguably strains systems that XP flew on, spurring a lot of hardware upgrading (and QQ-ing). Now they are going to release a "revolutionary" and "new" OS (built off Vista, wink wink) and all this upgrading is going to make systems run it very, very well.
MS will be praised for how much better this OS runs than the previous OS and the less tech-savy media will talk about how this is leaps and bounds a better product than Vista, and everyone not in the know will run out and get a copy to get away from that "awful, awful Vista."
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like a smart plan to this guy *points both thumbs at self*
Early versions of Windows Vista aka Longhorn looked exactly like XP.
This looks more like Vista SP2 than anything.
Microsoft would NEVER release a terrible OS in order to later release something marginal so it looked good... no, no. Windows ME NEVER HAPPENED!
*waves his magic hands*
Go to channel9 - there's discussion of what's on tap for Windows 7. And guess what? It's not supposed to look like Vista.
This is an obvious fake - Microsoft doesn't all of a sudden have their shit together once Vista is out the door. But it speaks volumes about how many people are ready for the next Windows. I'm a PC guy, but let's be honest here; this is a case of OSX envy mixed with hope.
phenom, it's the same hypocrites like you who show up into threads bashing Macs and people who buy them and then later go around complaining about how MAc suers are elitists. This article had absolutely nothing to do with OS X or Apple in any way, so take your pointless trolling elsewhere.
Let me guess...instaed of stacks on OS 10 theyre calling it "piles" on windows 7... rip offffffffffffffffffffffff
Relax guys.
Remember a while back microsoft promised a big update to vista that would really improve it and windows media center? This is probably it. It might be why they kept delaying the service pack. Or it might be SP2. I'm not sure why they keep calling it 7 it just looked like a refined version of vista. Although, i could be wrong and it might just a very early build of whats to come. Maybe the main difference is under the hood and we can't tell ala a new filing system. Remember how microsoft had had plans to make vista off of some more robust filing system other than NTFS but backed out and instead inventing this tagging scheme? that could be a big leap that we can't see. I don't know guys. Just thinking. Any other ideas?
Dwells, Evan said that this supposed build of windows 7 looks like Vista,
so i compared it to how Apple's OSX has looked the same for nearly 10 years now, how that is being hypocritical or trolling is a new concept to me, mister.
question, why the hell would anyone upgrade from XP?
Well it's 6.1. Not quite up to 7.0 yet. Gotta start somewhere.
if it's so genuine why can't they focus the camera?
You can change the graphic files in Windows.
I still have a copy of "Longhorn" build number 1015. It looks so much like Windows XP.
I saw this video, and if anything looks like Windows 7, it has got to be this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78z_cAOKMng
Shows the "connectivity" and "integration" across other platforms. And the sort of look maybe for Win7.
I'm not saying it's real though. Just a thought.
Also same video-like thing for this other Win7 concept: http://www.istartedsomething.com/20070314/microsoft-2010-rtc/
Did anyone else notice that in the 'about' for Media Centre it actually says 'Windows Vista'?
Yes I did notice. At 2:47, you can clearly see that it says "Vista" right above "version 6.1.6519.1" It also says "copyright 1985-2006" but if it's been updated, would almost need to say 2007 at least. It's a weird coincidence that both the OS and media center have the same build number, seems how they are two separate products. One last thing, it's also atypical for Microsoft to use the same naming system in its products: Windows 7 "Ultimate," NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
Windows 7 should be an updated kernel underneath the GUI, so it really doesn't matter what GUI they put on top of it...it could look like Vista, XP, or 95, or even KDE if someone bothered to tweak a KDE GUI for the Windows kernel.
Worry not...they'll have a separate team of design guys somewhere working 24/7 dreaming up a marginally different design for the start button.
I would rather Microsoft take a "refinement" approach than a "revolutionary" approach with Windows. Microsoft used to do this... think about the best (IMO) versions of Windows at their time: Windows 3.1 (a refinement of 3.0), Windows 98 SE (a refinement of 98, and 95), Windows 2000 (a refinement of NT 4), and Windows XP SP2 (a refinement of XP). Mac OS has more recently gained popularity for this exact thing by making all the 10.X versions refinements over the previous version (of course, excluding 10.0, which I think most people didn't like).
That said... there has to be something good to refine. In the case of Mac OS, the Darwin switch was necessary before it could be well refined. The same thing applied for Windows... Vista had to come out before it could be refined. And, of course, all software is like this... the best versions are never the "revolutionary" versions, but rather the "evolutionary" ones.
I had no idea I had the first comment lol, I've got to uncheck that email when replies thing more often.
Seriously, that might be an early build of Windows 7, but they didn't change much except for the "about" section. Also, in the Media Center it says "Vista."
With Windowsblinds and all that stuff from XP, I can imagine that someone would be able to tweak a few of these things to make it look like "7" while it was still Vista.
Regardless, there really isn't anything to see just yet.
It's very clearly a windows 7 build. The is UI usually one of the last things finalized, and it is usually one of the last things to go into windows.
Agree with phenom. ^^
I saw what the media center about screen said..... "Windows Vista"!! Dude, it looks so much like Vista its not even funny. If this is real, then there's seriously nothing new from Vista yet. Oh ya the copyright for that media center was for 2006! Know how to spot fakes...know by knowing how easy it is to rebrand and hack windows.
Still fake! lol
Seems pretty real to me, but whatever. I guess this is what it feels like when Engadget bites its tongue.
Honestly though, for as cool as the substance of this video was, it was incredibly boring.
... by substance, I mean the fact that Microsoft is beginning work on the next OS and there must be some significant things that are already in. The video is just really slow and boring. It could REALLY use some music too.
To the guy who said this is why Vista is making so much money ;
No - the reason is that during the emergence of Personal Comuting as a global phenomenon Apple CEO John Sculley( hired by Steve Jobs himself) FIRED Steve Jobs from his own company in 1985 ( before the wave really got rolling!) and then signed away all the secrets to Microsoft who then proceeded to have ZERO competition for the next 15 years until Steve Jobs returned to Apple.
By then the 97% dominance was created and even to that day millions continue to mindlessly defend and rally around the weaker products of Microsoft because they are 'the market leader' - maybe in market share and copying but not in innovation or product excellence they're not...but the times they are a changing ( oh apart from the fact that Microsoft has roadblocked Linux 5 years from now and employ a vast army of PR people to spread anti-Apple FUD to try and retain 'mob style' their leadership...
but hey ho 'I'm just another Apple fanboi' right?'
I was just messing around. It could be real. It probably is real.
Chris, I'm a linux user, and what you just said quite literally made me laugh I loud.
You watch too many movies.
No sound?
So if it looks like Vista, acts like Vista, but says Windows 7, its a new OS?
What new features can I expect to get pushed to a later release of Window?
If it acts like Vista, looks like Vista, and says it's Vista, it's XP in a pretty frock.
Sorry, I had to. Please don't let any flame wars start on account of my inane comments...seriously.
Welcome to what Apple has been doing with OSX. I think Microsoft should give it a snappy name like Wolf or Dingo.... Chances are if this is what the end product will look like Microsoft would just make it a service pack, for a new OS release they always step it up (ME being the one exception...but that's like Rocky 5, it never really happened in my mind)
How have the last 5 updates to Mac OS X looked? The same.
Plus, look at old videos of Vista or XP development. The UI often doesn't change until very late in the revision cycle. I'm calling this plausible.
I wote for the name Dingo! "Dingo stole my baby!"
Todd: I suggest you compare Cheetah to Leopard. There have been significant cosmetic changes since OS X 10.0.0, and even more significant changes under the hood.
EA does it all the time. for example Fifa.
it looks like fifa, feels like fifa plays like shit? ok then its the new fifa2010...
People who say the appearance of Mac OS X has stayed the same are just flat out wrong, case in point:
10.1 : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Mac_OS_X_10.1_Puma_screenshot.png
10.5 :
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c0/Leopard_Desktop.png
Identical never looked so different.
@The Grand Master
Case in point. They look identical.
@Andrew Campbell
Comparing Cheetah to Leopard is not the same thing as comparing Vista to this "Windows 7". That would be closer to comparing XP to this version.
With each update Apple has made some small cosmetic changes in order to keep the users comfortable. Over time and with many updates, yes, it seems like a big change.
I agree with Todd, I think this is very plausible. Microsoft wanted to change to a nicer looking OS and they did that with Vista. By doing that, they pissed of a lot of users by changing the look of their OS. Now that a lot of people have already adapted to the new look why would they drastically change it again? I think that they will stick with a very similar look and just make many changes "under the hood". Hopefully many of those changes will cause it to be more efficient and thus not require more upgrading.
And a note on the upgrading.. people really need to stop complaining about it. It is bound to happen every once in a while. Also, don't try to compare it to Apple either, they strictly control the hardware on their system and are thus able to prepare their users for upgrades as they come - not to mention the fact that you are paying double or triple. So unless you want MS to go nazi on you and drastically narrow down your options in hardware, just deal with it.
P.S. I have a MBpro so don't try to write me off as some MS fanboy.
There is no way this is real. I did not see 1 thing(except the logos but those are easy to change) that said it was windows 7. Everything there I have now on vista. What is engadget calling new media center features?
Many may not agree but...
How do you improve perfection? ;-)
I have to say I don't agree.
/dont-agree
Vista works, but it aint "perfect"
Paul, retro77....
did you see the "winky" smiley? jeez.
compiz
of course it will look like vista in this stage. honestly, do you think adding eye candy and making new toolbars is the first thing that gets done in an OS? i'm sure when vista was first designed, the earlier builds were probably using an xp or 98 theme.
Thank you. It's good to see that they're not wasting their time on more eye candy. Hopefully, there will be a lot fixed behind the scenes.
Alternatively, why don't they admit their mistakes and release this as SP2 instead of making everyone pay for another OS altogether? It'd be a nice gesture after Vista.
This is the problem though, their development process is very iterative. I reckon MS would do well to carry on developing Windows as they have, as there is a market for something that is not that different. They could easily develop another product alongside with a new code base though, perhaps UNIX-like?
Please bare in mind... the GUI is one of the last things to be finalized and is of the least importance from a development and operability standpoint.
You can be sure the visuals will change a lot in the coming months. This is M1.
Any old testers out there from the early Vista days?
Vista's early builds looked just like 2003 without a theme. Almost 2000ish with the newer start area. XP Early betas WERE 2000. They don't "start" with a fresh gui then change other things, they leave the gui to almost last. The guts get changed 1st and then the giu gets changed to reflect those internal core changes. With Vista we didnt see many of the things until beta 2 and some things after. So this could very well be 7. Though i was hoping to see more about minwin if they are infact going with this on 7 at all. My guess is it will be windows 8 before we truely see minwin.
Me, but only from the Longhorn Beta 1, it looks nearly like Vista do today.
But I agree with you, and I think this will change in the coming months.
I would love if they only launch one version and call it 'Windows 7'
Maybe that's the problem. Maybe the UI shouldn't be among the last things developed. It's possible that the UI is actually important.
ZOMG! Windows 98 was really Windows 95 because they looked about the same!
You know, you'd be taken a lot more seriously if you didn't say things like "ZOMG!". Come on people, this has really got to stop.
Put ZOMG in the same garbage can as FTW.
Annoying acronyms FTW!
It wasn't meant to be taken seriously, that's the whole point.
this thing looks alot like vista, why don't they just release a service pack instead then???
Why isn't 98 just a service pack for 95? Why isn't every new version of OSX just a free update?
Since 7 is in early beta, and is based off of Vista, so this might be legit. It still looks and runs like Vista because they're just making incremental updates.
Haha.. Notice.. Copyright 2006.. Still a fake, Does this guy really think people believe this? So obvious.. Nothing special about it except different images attached.. What's so special? Nothing! Not even a nice try, sorry.
You do realize that they've been working on this for a couple years now right?
Yes.. But you'd think they'd at least update the date on it in the last year. Am I not wrong?
correct if i am wrong. but it says windows 6.1 when he was showing the software so how could that be windows 7
Same way XP identifies it's self as Windows 5.1 when 2000 was Windows 5.
oh please, this proves nothing.
the logging on/off screen could easily done by using LogonStudio Vista, in which you can change the default image to any image you want for your log on/off screen.
And everything else is just pure Vista, no windows 7.
Take a look at the link he gives in his video description on YouTube and then file to have your comment deleted.
Would it be possible to get a version of the video that is actually in focus? I felt like I was going blind.
Why does it say Vista in Media Center?
Probably for the same reason that Sticky Notes in Vista looks like Sticky Notes in XP Tablet - they haven't updated all the UI elements, labels, etc.
It's a fake. In the parts where he zooms in on the Media Center footage, it clearly shows that it is Windows Vista (Version 6.1.6519.1 ...) with Windows Media Center Technologies (c)1985-2006 Microsoft Corp.
FAKE !!
And the early builds of Vista Were known as "Longhorn" XP Professional and they look almost exactly like XP.
And Apple stocks rise
no, no they didn't.
If this is what microsoft is bringing they don't have a chance
Did you forget that Apple only enjoys about a 5% market share? Saying Microsoft has no chance is just a ridiculous statement.
Ahh... thanks for proving that market share is a (the only?) major factor keeping Microsoft alive. I knew someone had to understand this!
Anyone else notice how slow it booted... I think they were running bootcamp on a MBA, it's the only possible answer!
Or loading many hacked files to change the OS. I remember several program to change the Boot screen of Windows XP and Win2k, and it was basically installing some kind of driver. Maybe he has no life and did that.
Also notice that in Media center, it is copyrighted in 2006... Hmmm....
Alpha versions of Windows always look like the current version released. Major version number are not updated until the software hits beta, and other documentation is not updated until the beta. That includes, for the smart-ass above that seems to know everything above, copyright dates.
When Windows XP was in its alpha stage, it looked like Windows Me. Windows 98 looked like Windows 95, and the first versions of Vista (Longhorn) could barely be distinguished from Windows XP.
Windows 2000 looked like Windows NT 4 for years during its development.
Wow big freaking deal. How about showing us what's new in Windows 7 instead of wasting our time with the stupid media centre.
So if its Windows 7... and my copy of XP says Version 5.1 Build 2600.... and presumably Vista says Version 6.# Build ####... Why does that say Version 6.1 Build 6519? Wouldn't it say Version 7.# Build ####?
That's my point too ... why doesn't the version number say 7.0?
Why is the version number 6.1 and not 7.0?
As Mark points out, although Vista is NT6.0, WinXP was NT5.1 and Win2000 was NT5.0 and before that was NT4.0 and NT3.51 (don't any of you people who used Windows 3.1/WfW/95/98/98SE/ME mention version numbers, those were not Windows OSes, the OS was DOS and those were GUIs on top of DOS).
If this video truely is Windows 7 shouldn't all the version numbers be 7.0?
Probably because it's not a high priority to change the version number. As others have said, they don't screw around with the UI until all the internal work has been done. It's not logical to try to update internals and the UI at the same time because you will be constantly breaking things and when it breaks you won't know if it's the UI or the internals that are broken.
The version number, the UI, the help system, pretty much everything the user interacts with is going to stay the same (until the beta builds) except for new features. This video clearly depicts features that aren't present in Vista. You can debate the veracity of the features, whether they are hacked to look like new features or real but don't use the copyright date as the reason. It makes you look stupid. You also need to understand a couple facts that ARE known, the M1 version of windows 7 HAS been released to testers. That's a real fact, in addition we have a video demonstrating features that Vista currently doesn't have. Personally given the facts of the case I would suggest that it's highly probable the video is real. Screen shots are easy to fake, video's aren't easy.
The version number (major.minor.build) should be tied into the source tree, it's the first thing that would be changed.
If Microsoft had gone to the bother of changing it to 6.1 why not change it 7.0? Especially as NT7 uses a new Kernel.
What new feature is in the YouTube clip that is not in Vista Ultimate?
This video is an obvious fake.
Let us hope that it is better than Windows Vista!!!
It could well be Windows 7.
Given that the code for Windows 7 will start life as a branch of Vista. Over the development period new features and changes will be applied that transform it into something more advanced. And no Microsoft most certainly do not start from scratch with each major release.
Also, bare in mind that the GUI (what you see here) is just the tip of the iceberg. Loads of changes will be going on under the covers whilst the designers come up with the new GUI. I'd expect Windows 7 to look very similar to vista right up until early alphas are released.
Where's the proof of new features though? WTF does going into Media Centre prove? I wanna see file system changes. I wanna see the version of the kernel (from the file itself).
its a transformation pack
I'd bet money that this is a fake.
For a start, Windows 7 should be version 7.x, not 6.1. I don't recall the early versions of Windows 2000 stating that they are version 4.x.
Everything in that video points to Vista, there aren't any changes really.
It just looks like he's changed the images and strings in a few dll's and exe's and thought he'd pull it off.
Well done mate, you've managed to hack resources. Just do a better job next time and try and make the UI a little different.
Not to mention he zooms in on the media center, and it says "Windows Vista".
No but I recall that Windows XP says it is Windows 5.1 whilst 2000 is Windows 5. So yes this could easily be calling it's self 6.1.
@Carbonize,
It was the first version of Windows aimed at the general consumer that was based on the NT kernel (basically took Windows 2000 and built on it slightly, that's why are essentially the same operating system, just geared for different audiences).
If you look in the grand scale of things, Windows 2000 and XP fall under Windows 5, Vista falls under Windows 6 and Windows 7 does what it says on the tin. I can't really imagine that Windows 7 would be have a major version of 6.
1995 called. They want their monitor back.
That monitor is probably a "special" monitor to utilise the features of Windows 6.1 (*cough*, sorry 7).
Well the person could certainly improve their camera work. I could tell if I was watching Windows 7 or some leaked sex tape.
Apologies for not reading the thread through entirely. Please take my repeated comments as a +1 to all those who stated them before me!
Did anyone else notice that the Windows Media Center said it was Vista software?
WHAT REALLY? YOU NOTICED TOO!? I THOUGHT I WAS THE ONLY ONE!