Mystery of the Vista-alike Windows 7 build finally solved

It was inevitable we suppose, but somebody's finally spilled on the shenanigans behind that "Windows 7 Ultimate" leak from a couple weeks back. According to JayDog over at TG Daily, who apparently received a version of the infant OS, the Windows 7 "Milestone 1" build is all Vista on top, but with the beginnings of a theoretically lean and mean Windows 7 kernel underneath, manifested in some slight speed improvements. It's not much, but it's a start, now let's just hope the optimists are right about that 2009 release date.

[Brian @ Feb 6th 2008 6:35AM]

I can has Windows 7 alpha?

[Hung @ Feb 6th 2008 9:01PM]

Correction: I can haz* Windows 7 Alpha

[Brian @ Feb 6th 2008 10:47PM]

correction: I can has Windowz 7 Alpha?

(Derived from "I can has cheezeburger")

At least you get an "A" for effort.

[Jeffrey @ Feb 6th 2008 7:11AM]

Release date 2011/12.

Would anyone really want another Windows before then? Microsoft is going to face a huge problem with Windows 7. On one hand they realize that they have to essentially rewrite Windows from the Kernel out but this creates compatibility nightmares that far exceed Vista's issues. On many ways Windows 7 will be further from Vista than Linux will be from Vista.

By 2012 Linux will have really come into its own. People will face "upgrading" to Windows 7 or using a Linux distro which will be very stable. What about games for Windows? Who knows. We will definitely see games starting to appear on Linux in 2009 especially now that ATI has opened up their hardware to allow development of open source drivers.

At this stage it's 50/50 if I update to Vista even though I'm a gamer. Surprisingly, due to high hardware demands the visual experience at decent framerates on all existing DX10 games is best realized through DX9 on XP (that will change once code is optimized for newer games).

If I get Vista, I'll dual boot XP until I no longer still need XP. By 2009 I'll be dual-booting Linux and by 2012 Linux will most definitely be my main OS with Vista used for games. Ironically, when Windows 7 comes out Linux might be a better Windows than Windows.

The question of Windows 7 won't be "when" but rather "who cares?"

[David Clark @ Feb 6th 2008 7:20AM]

Well, you don't care, so that obviously means nobody cares.

Although you do care enough to write a ridiculously long comment, tear soaked and blood stained.

[Luigi193 @ Feb 6th 2008 7:20AM]

"""""The question of Windows 7 won't be "when" but rather "who cares?""""

Hey, I'm an apple guy myself, but can you really say "who cares" to the next major Windows release???
That would just be arrogance...

[Jeffrey @ Feb 6th 2008 8:05AM]

"Well, you don't care, so that obviously means nobody cares."

Please don't misinterpret. I do care. I see the potential in Vista that many do not. I don't mean to imply that nobody cares so maybe I could have worded this differently. This was meant to be a serious look at what Microsoft will be facing when Windows 7 launches and not a flip comment.

[nak @ Feb 6th 2008 8:06AM]

After that heart-felt diatribe I'm sure the Linux community can't wait to have you on-board in 2012 when Windows finally sucks bad enough that the world sees the light and moves to Linux.

I'm curious what brought you to your conclusion? Was it Linux's sudden surge over the past decade, or Microsoft's steady decline over the past quarter century?

And I'm so glad to know that people's choice for departing a dying Windows won't be Mac OS. Hopefully Apple be in as sorry shape in 2012 as Microsoft.

[Ian @ Feb 6th 2008 8:27AM]

blah blah blah blah Linux blah blah blah. People have been saying 'Linux will come into its own this year' every year for the past 10 years and guess what? It still hasn't, and it likely never will. You know why? TOO MUCH choice. People don't need 9 different text editors. They need ONE. THey don't need 5 different window managers, they need ONE. There needs to be a standard, and due to the spirit of linux, that will never happen.

[Jorvay @ Feb 6th 2008 9:49AM]

Ian is somewhat right, but with the rate at which Linux distros are improving it's hard to think that they won't gain in popularity. I don't think this will be the year for Linux, nor next, nor even after that. But when you see a nice, steady growth in its use, and a sudden surge in its use thanks to the influx of super-low-cost computers, it seems probable that Linux-based computers will become much more mainstream over the next few years. Maybe even catching up to Mac one day in the not too distant future.
If nothing else, at least Linux has added to the competition, which benefits all of us.

[Nathan @ Feb 6th 2008 1:43PM]

Until I can do any and all of my 3rd party software on Linux without having to type out commands in terminal, then it will fail as an everyman's OS.

As long as I have to manually configure resolutions that my computer can use (along with refresh rates) via a text editor or a 20 step configuration utility, it will fail.

It's the little things that make Windows so nice to use, double click installs, automatic driver configuration, hardware detection that actually means something.

I love the idea of Linux, and it's a fun toy but that's it, because when it comes to user friendliness there are just things that MS does better.

And for all the reasons mentioned above, this year will (like all years past) NOT be the year of Linux.

[Hung @ Feb 6th 2008 9:11PM]

@ nak

While the exercising of an extensive vocabulary does not go without appreciation, "diatribe" and "sucks bad enough" should never appear in the same sentence (that is, if the words are to be regarded seriously). Not to mention, a sentence comprising multiple clauses and yet containing no punctuation but a mere period.

lulz, u failz!!!1!!

[GradysGhost @ Feb 6th 2008 11:35PM]

Nathan,

I'm curious when Windows ever had "automatic driver configuration" as you put it, or even "hardware detection that actually means something."

Seems like every time I install WinXP on a completely generic computer, a handful of devices go completely unrecognized and get reported back to me in the form of "Simple PCI Communications Device" when what it really means is "Generic Dial-up Modem." My favorite happens when the Device Manager spits back at me with "Unknown Device." Yet if I boot to a Linux live CD, it will tell me an actual model number. (I guess it's taking it too far to mention that Linux even installs this driver without asking me, unlike Windows which tells me it doesn't even know what the hell my machine is made of.)

Sure, Windows is great for commercial gaming and some of the niceties come in the form of point-and-click actions, but that's where most of its flaws come in, too. When I want to figure out why my PC can't connect to the Internet, I'd like to visit one window with all my networking controls on it, not have to trudge through five or six different windows hoping I happen across the one with the settings I need on it. Far as I know, Windows doesn't have any GUI network diagnostic tools.

Seems your logic is flawed to me...

[Matt Kemp @ Feb 6th 2008 7:22AM]

Was this even a mystery? Every OS does this, you don't change the GUI layer until you have a rock solid foundation underneath first.

[Kane ` @ Feb 6th 2008 7:45AM]

Agreed, I'm pretty sure 80% of the comments on the previous post said the same thing aswell.

[Brian @ Feb 6th 2008 7:27AM]

I bought Vista about a year ago, and it's fantastic.

However, I'm still dual booting with XP due to Razer's piss poor drivers for it's AC1 soundcard in Vista. (Translation: The card doesn't do surround in Counter Strike, in Vista)

Both OS's have their perks, but if it weren't for this soundcard I would have kissed XP good bye long ago.

[paul34 @ Feb 6th 2008 10:28AM]

Well, that is because Vista does not allow true hardware audio support. No kidding.

Pissed off to hear that? So was I! How ridiculous is that? Anyway, I eventually went back to XP so now I'm enjoying the full capabilities of my Audigy 2 again. Not just for games (I don't play them that often), but mostly for just plain audio quality with stuff like music and video files/movies.

[jhaks @ Feb 8th 2008 2:30AM]

Actually you're totally wrong. Direct Sound does not have hardware audio support but it doesn't mean software still can't access audio hardware if it wants to. OpenAL is one of the platforms that provides access to audio acceleration.

[Ryan Trevisol @ Feb 6th 2008 7:47AM]

I just love how the new windows which won't be released until we have 16-core processors and as many gigs of ram has a FASTER, LEANER kernel. Which is funny, considering that MS's attitude with Vista is that it was built for tomorrow's computers, and if it runs like molasses on all but the hottest machines right now, that's YOUR problem. Gotta love when companies quietly learn from their mistakes.

[TheNomad @ Feb 6th 2008 8:59AM]

I wouldn't call an 18 month old CoreDuo (not Core2) notebook one of the 'hottest machines around', yet Vista runs anything but like molasses on it. In fact I cannot see any difference in speed over XP apart from Vista certainly launches applications faster thanks to SuperFetch. The wives ancient 3.4GHz Prescott based machine running 1.5GB of DDR400 runs Vista Ultimate perfectly fine as well.
I wonder how people set their machines up sometimes & that they also forget that when XP was launched way back in 2001, everyone was saying the exact same things; "not as fast as 98", "software doesn't work on it", "drivers aren't available for my hardware", etc, etc. The very same people also forget that it took 2 Service Packs for XP to get to the stage it is at now (almost 3), yet Vista is as stable prior to a service pack as XP is after 2.

[Blacksheep @ Feb 6th 2008 7:58AM]

I don't think Microsoft can afford to wait until 2011, they are going to cap out with Vista, and soon, as the masses of people continue to use XP, downgrade to XP or demand it from retailers. If sales stagnate, we'll see Windows 7 far sooner. I don't think there was 4-5 years between Me and XP, they couldn't let that cow flounder for to long.

I'm a PC and Windows user because I'm a gamer. As soon as Linux can handle games, I'm out of Windows for good.

[Ian @ Feb 6th 2008 8:31AM]

You'll be waiting a long time. Linux will never be mass market, sorry to tell you. Its simply not standard enough. MacOS is the closest thing you're ever gonna get to having a mass market *nix OS.

Also, MS doesn't need to do anything with Vista. People still use XP? So what. Do car companies go out of business because everyone doesn't scrap their 4 year old cars and buy a brand new one? Nope.

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 6th 2008 9:37AM]

"[Linux is] simply not standard enough"

Wow... Thanks, I needed that.

[Andrew @ Feb 6th 2008 1:11PM]

Linux is not UNIFORM (or consolidated) enough, is what you probably wanted to say. Because saying Linux is not "standard" is like saying Microsoft doesn't have money.

[Flashpoint @ Feb 6th 2008 8:03AM]

Even if Microsoft didn't put Windows 7 on shelves to be purchased, they are already pushing Windows Vista and Windows 7 on every single desktop/notebook sold with the exception of Macs and the handful of computers running Linux.

Windows Operating Systems are destined to succeed no matter how many slurs you throw at MS. Thing is, they shouldn't have pushed Vista unless they knew people had the hardware to use it- I woulda upped the minimum requirements. Also, the lack of functionality with older hardware hurts them too.

[Jamel Brown @ Feb 6th 2008 8:20AM]

With Mac and Linux doing so good and being so innovative the question of Windows 7 is already "WHO CARES?"!!

[Pouya @ Feb 6th 2008 9:16AM]

I care, because I prefer Windows over Mac OS or Linux. ~91.46% of the market cares as well.

[Andir3.0 @ Feb 6th 2008 9:39AM]

"~91.46% of the market cares as well"

I'm sorry, but market share does not mean they care. It just means that 91% of the world received Windows by default. I could argue that they DIDN'T care, and that's why 91% of the world is using it.

[Cal @ Feb 6th 2008 11:37AM]

Ok here's a second person who cares (or will care nearer release), since I can't stand Apple and, as has been said, Linux has too much choice and not enough compatibility at the moment. Vista works fine for me and I don't see any reason to switch any time soon.

[E. Douglas Jensen @ Feb 10th 2008 10:17AM]

I care, because upwards of maybe 90% of my ~800 apps have no Linux or Mac equivalent.

[Chebwa @ Feb 6th 2008 9:19AM]

" let's just hope the optimists are right"

2009? Are you ridiculous? Microsoft themselves said no earlier than 2011. Are you honestly even holding out the slightest shred of hope that it's going to be released TWO YEARS EARLY?

And why would you even WANT it that early? I'm not really one for using pre-alpha releases as my primary OS.

[Andrew @ Feb 6th 2008 9:21AM]

Holy crap Engadget! Do you guys just try to make the most ridiculously stupid posts these days? The "mystery" is solved? Someone "spilled the beans"?! I don't even know where to start. Basically all this post says is that... well, nothing at all. There wasn't a mystery, there weren't beans to spill. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what in the hell you were even trying say with this post? To me it looks like you said "Someone spilled the beans! New versions of Windows are built from previous versions, and since the M1 pictures were alpha versions of Windows 7, they were built from Vista!".

Between the Apple loving (and I'm a Macbook owner), the Windows hating, the scattered lolcats references, and the post that just make no sense at all, Engadget seems to be turning into a playground for 15 year olds to post about their cool new tech news. I know this isn't a professional news source, but come on, you guys are starting to give me a headache even reading the site.

[insertAlias @ Feb 6th 2008 9:50AM]

If you hate it so much, go away.

When the leaked screenshots came out, there was a LOT of speculation that they were faked, because it looked so much like vista. This is a clarification article, explaining why it looked that way, and that all isn't as it seems on the surface.

It wasn't derogatory, or anti-windows, and it wasn't confusing either.

[Andrew @ Feb 6th 2008 10:00AM]

Speculation to whether they were fake or not is one thing. This article just said that they look like Vista because they are built off Vista. If anyone needed that explained then they didn't need to be speculating whether it was fake or not.

And I didn't say that THIS post was anti windows, I'm talking about the site as a whole.

Oh, and thanks for the standard first reply of "If you don't like it don't read it". I knew that was coming. Don't worry about what I like and don't. I'm sharing my opinion, which I know I'm not alone in.

[hydrogen_wv @ Feb 6th 2008 1:50PM]

Erm... The mystery that was solved was whether the screen shots were real. Spilled the beans meaning we actually have a more reliable source of information. You are slow, I think.

A lot of people were saying the screenshots were fake, because it looked like Vista. As someone said earlier, they are going to develop the core components first, then worry about the eye-candy.

This is an excellent post, because I was unsure whether the screenies were real or fake, and this SOLVES THAT MYSTERY.

As far as your opinion goes, I'm sure engadget cares about it about as much as the pope cares about it... not at all. You are wasting your time.

[Andrew @ Feb 6th 2008 1:56PM]

It solves the mystery for you? You now know that they are real where before you thought they were fake? If someone didn't realize that they build each version off the previous and OBVIOUSLY they will look the same, then they are obviously clueless about the Windows development cycle among other things. But while many of us told everyone who claimed it fake due to it looking like Vista that before, you continued to shout non-sense without listening, however now when it's explained by one of the same sites that leaked it (and if it were fake, the most likely to try to defend it), suddenly it's mystery solved to you? Yeah, you're right, I'm the slow one.

And as far as my opinion goes, I could care less if you or Engadget care about it, but I'm going to voice it because I feel like it.

[Jeff ATC @ Feb 6th 2008 9:24AM]

I just hope that whatever the next version of Windows is, that they make it "lean and mean." It seems as if every new version of something is larger, and by larger I mean slower. Why not come out with a stable OS that is really quick and doesn't have a lot of extra crap that people don't need and don't use?

And apple fanboys, don't say there already is an OS like that and it's called Leopard, or Panther, or Puma, or Lynx, or whatever it's called these days.

[aaronbareford @ Feb 6th 2008 1:48PM]

Hey! There is a an just like that it's called Leop...

Oh right :D

[kballs @ Feb 9th 2008 10:24PM]

Waaaahh! Waaaaaah! The newest software and OS doesn't run on my PC that was run-of-the-mill when I bought it 5+ years ago! Micro$oft is evil and greedy! It's not fair that they want to stop selling the last version! I also hate Ford too because I liked the 2001 model F-150 better but they're not selling it anymore! The 2007 model has too many gadgets and safety features and weighs a lot more now so it takes a lot more horsepower to get it moving!

[Neal @ Feb 6th 2008 10:01AM]

Told ya.

[Stephen @ Feb 6th 2008 10:05AM]

I can't believe "JayDog" posted such a half-a**ed "product review" on the M1 build of Windows 7. I mean, come on. Someone else (such as me) needs to get their hands on that build and do an ACTUAL REVIEW. No, not necessarily pro-MS but something to showcase more of what is actually contained in the build both visually and under the hood. I couldn't help but rant about this on my blog. I hate to see that this guy's "review" is making the rounds. *sigh*

http://www.uxevangelist.net/2008/02/windows-7-m1-yet-to-fall-into-right.html

[Luigi193 @ Feb 6th 2008 10:05AM]

Hey, if this is true about it coming out in 09, I don't want to hear anymore complaining about Apple charging a $129 for a bi-yearly upgrade calling it a service pack, when Microsoft releases a new ~$400 (ultimate) system a 2 years later...

THAT BEING SAID, I will buy it and have it running next to OS X and Ubuntu... I get the best of all worlds right?

[JCastle482 @ Feb 6th 2008 10:48AM]

Well, duh!

[Arno @ Feb 6th 2008 11:02AM]

How does this surprise anyone? "Oh well it looks Vista so it *must* be a fake!" Get a clue.

Windows Me looked exactly like 98 in Milestone 1.
Windows XP (Whistler) looked exactly like Windows 2000 in Milestone 1.
Windows 7 now looks exactly like Windows XP in Milestone 1.



Big fucking surprise. Changes are done under the hood, appearance is not what makes an operating system.

[Arno @ Feb 6th 2008 11:03AM]

Agh, of course I meant to say Windows 7 looks like Windows Vista, not XP.

[LethalPhoenix @ Feb 6th 2008 11:03AM]

linux fanboy alert and i love that the fact, that people on youtube.com were getting all pist after watching the video of windows 7 leaked they were all like " OMG NO IT LOOKS LIKE VISTA! " untill I came in and said of course, it looks like it but the guts its all windows 7 but they said NO IT NOT! I love n00bs

[Chebwa @ Feb 6th 2008 11:53AM]

Oh. My. God.

[Chris @ Feb 6th 2008 12:55PM]

8 year old alert.

[OneLove @ Feb 6th 2008 11:09AM]

Windows 7 is vista

[dmccullum @ Feb 6th 2008 11:11AM]

I am always amazed at all the talk of people downgrading to Windows XP since I started working in the Computer Helpdesk at my college. Vista might be lousy sometimes, but I sure wish people would use it a lot more. It only takes a few times through the routine of trying to remove spyware, viruses, and bugs from XP computers belonging to people who can't tell a keyboard from a mouse to make you thankful for better user privilege control