New screenshots of Windows 7 emerge

Right, so we have to pepper in some skepticism here just in case someone with way too much time on their hands has simply coated Vista in what they believe is Windows 7 garb, but ThinkNext purportedly has a whole host of screenshots from the forthcoming OS. The shots in the read link are supposedly from Windows 7 M3 Build 6780, and to be honest, it doesn't look a tremendous amount different than Vista. Oh, and keep the source linked bookmarked -- the author has promised videos shortly. Mmm, videos.

[Via GottaBeMobile]

Update: Videos now posted after the jump.

[Scout @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:42AM]

The video link:
http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2273

Glowing START button!!!

[justme @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:38AM]

And when I put my mouse over my XP button it 'glows' as well... your point?

(yes everyone go check..... move your mouse over your XP Start buttom and the green get brighter!)

[skoolfool @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:29AM]

Well who really cares if it looks like vista...lets just hope that it WORKS better than vista :)

[Andy TGD @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:43AM]

Umm - if a little old lady walking through an electronics store thinks it looks like Windows Vista - then to all intents an purposes it might as well be. We all understand what's going on under the hood - but will the average consumer?

[Blackstar @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:04AM]

Welcome to Windows 7 Ultimately Working Correctly.™ Someday.® We hope.© Maybe.™

[Mark Anderson @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:37AM]

So... go and tell me why Vista doesn't work now?

Six months ago I would have agreed with you but, hey, time moves on. Can you?

[L.Rawlins @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:40AM]

The look is the one thing I like most about Vista actually, and given that OSX has recycled the same interface for several generations why is it such a big deal when Microsoft does?

[Derek @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:53AM]

Microsoft does not know whats going on under the hood but you are correct, we do! Its all smoke and mirrors. We've been had.

[Daza @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:52AM]

I don't think Engadget or Andy TGD realise that this early on in the life of Windows 7, it should look identical to Vista. The UI will not be what Microsoft are overhauling in Windows 7, but it will be internals which are reworked. Windows Presentation Foundation and Aero will likely receive a touch up and the theme will be refreshed but I'm not expecting anything major.

Screenshots reveal very little about the features in the new OS unfortunately. I think we'll have to wait a little longer to find out what Windows 7 will really bring to us, probably in the next couple of months (WinHEC is in early November and promises to unveil Windows 7 - http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/winhec/).

[Moby Disk @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:45AM]

Mark, I actually used Vista for the first time just recently on a new computer with all the updates. There's no way in heck I'd use that thing. I really don't know what it was like before the Service Pack, but it crashed, Explorer's DVD burning didn't work, copying files took an eternity and the progress meters were totally wrong. It prompted 2 to 4 times for every change to the start menu that I made, event viewer took several minutes to load, canceling file copies took a long time... I can't fit all the nuisances in this reply. But basically, XP was a superior product as far as I can tell.

Maybe they've fixed a lot of things under the hood, but the UI experience on Vista is terrible. It's like, if I could get Window Explorer from XP to run on Vista it might be a good product.

[Alijah Green @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:01AM]

anyone still using xp because they heard through the grape vine about vista being bad, must believe the empire has clothes on. Vista is the best OS out their hands down.

[Andy TGD @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:09AM]

Actually Daza, I'm well aware that its early days yet in terms of the development of Windows 7. I'm also more than aware that the look of 7 will likely change as the project continues (anyone remember how Longhorn looked?). I know 7 probably won't look like Vista, but I was attempting to answer the question "well who really cares if it looks like vista". My comment was more about why (hypothetically) releasing Windows 7 as a visual clone of Vista would be advised against. Hope this clears things up. Good point btw. :-)

[Daza @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:45AM]

@Andy TGD

Thanks for the explanation. I see what you mean, and I do agree too - you don't really want Windows 7 looking like a clone of Vista. In a way though, because Windows 7 will be bundled with all new notebooks and desktops when it's released, it won't necessarily matter what it looks like, if it performs well, then it will sell well.

I remember playing with Longhorn back in 2003 and it looked like Windows XP with a sidebar. Windows 7 will probably have a much reworked version of Aero which is hopefully more useful than just being eye candy (perhaps with some Expose like features?).

[Evan @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:53AM]

Microsoft OS releases tend to alternate between real improvements, and visual facelifts.

Real upgrades:
3.1 to NT 3.51 - New kernel, no visual upgrade.
NT4 to 2000 - Improvement of kernel, no visual upgrade.
XP to Server 2003 - Improvement of kernel, no visual upgrade.

Facelifts:
98SE to ME - Mostly GUI changes (that broke the underlying 98 kernel).
2000 to XP - Mostly GUI changes.
Server 2003 to Vista - Mostly GUI changes (most of the significant kernel changes were canceled or delayed during development).

[jakem @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:17AM]

Vista is not just a facelift to Windows Server 2003 and since SP1 it has the same kernel as Server 2008.

[giuliop @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:08AM]

@Mark Anderson

I can. I moved on from an operating system that took 6 years of development and another 1 and a half to just "work". Which, by the way, doesn't satisfy the first poster's need for it to "work better".
It baffles me when people don't realise that while Vista may be "working" now, it does so very inefficiently: it's slower (in some cases much slower) than XP, the interface is a horrible mess, and the "enhancements" vary from being completely useless to the annoying, "how-do-I-turn-off?" stuff. I could go on forever but that alone makes you wonder why an operating system (or distro, to be precise) like Ubuntu, with its limited resources, is as intuitive as it gets and works flawlessly out of the box for most configurations.
Want to better your Vista experience? *upgrade* to XP: it's a much more stable and faster OS.

[jorvay @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:38AM]

@ Guiliop,
I almost completely agree with you. I love the 6 month development cycle for my OS (Fedora). The only catch for us linux users is the inevitable driver issue. Sure I have better driver support in Fedora than Vista did initially, but hardware makers released new drivers soon enough.
So I find more stuff works out of the box with a Linux-based OS than with Windows, but for those things that don't, it's easier to find drivers for the windows problem. That being said, it is getting better. More hardware makers are releasing linux drivers, or at least specs so others can make linux drivers, and you probably won't have a problem unless you have a creative x-fi sound card or a shitty broadcom wifi chip.

[Steve Childs @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:59AM]

The problem with downgrading from Vista to XP is that you're limited to 3GB of Ram. For me to see all 8GB (same in my old PC with 4GB), you have to have a 64bit OS installed. XP simply won't do.

Oh and all those of you screaming 'XP has a 64bit version'. Well, yes, technically it does. However, have you ever tried installing it?

I did and after multiple attempts, it left me screaming. Vista 64bit however installed straight away and works perfectly. OK, it may be slower than XP, but running what I do, XP would be slower in 3GB than Vista in 8 GB.

[generally @ Sep 22nd 2008 11:08AM]

@giuliop
"It baffles me when people don't realise that while Vista may be "working" now, it does so very inefficiently"
It's an operating system with better security, better graphics, and better features. Why would you expect this to run just as fast as XP? Are you dense?

"the interface is a horrible mess"
And you're going to tell me that XP's interface was all glory? Tell me, what kind of sense did the Control Panel layout make in XP or the previous versions?

Yes, one of the largest changes to Vista was the reorganizing of pretty much every setting. But this was a much needed change. It's not actually more confusing or less intuitive, you just think it is because you were so used to XP/200/98/95's layout. Which, by the way, was nearly the same for YEARS and still didn't make any sense.

Honestly, most people who see Vista are at odds with themselves. They think "I know XP, I should know Vista and be able to use every feature the same exact way!" Well I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Things have been changed, for the better. And since you were so XP-ified, you need to learn how things actually should have been laid out from the start.

[giuliop @ Sep 22nd 2008 12:18PM]

@generally
"It's an operating system with better security, better graphics, and better features. Why would you expect this to run just as fast as XP? Are you dense?"

So tell me, as operating systems progress, you expect them to run slower and slower? How smart.

I'll tell you what: I wouldn't expect it to run as fast as XP; I would expect it to run *faster*. Indeed, I would call "dense" a person that believes that these features are there just because he's read them on the OS package, and that finds it justifiable to spend 6 years in making an operating system that is slower because of those. Have you read Microsoft's article in which they say that in order to optimise Vista, they had to add things and so it's slower? I guess you'd find it thoroughly logical.

"And you're going to tell me that XP's interface was all glory? Tell me, what kind of sense did the Control Panel layout make in XP or the previous versions?"

XP's interface was a mess, and Vista is just worse. But the fact is that in those 6 years it took them to make it even worse, people got used to XP's mess and could find things easily, if only by having memorised where they were. With Vista, you just start all over again. Oh, but they added a textual search function: how clever. I guess the next step is typing textual commands: now *that* would be handy.

"Yes, one of the largest changes to Vista was the reorganizing of pretty much every setting. But this was a much needed change. It's not actually more confusing or less intuitive, you just think it is because you were so used to XP/200/98/95's layout. Which, by the way, was nearly the same for YEARS and still didn't make any sense."

It was much needed alright, but it has gone horribly wrong. You still have to know where things are to find them, because simple logic doesn't work; plus, the number of places in which you have to search has only grown. How is it that I can find anything instantaneously with Ubuntu, which has 3 (*three*) main menus in which everything is neatly organised?

"Honestly, most people who see Vista are at odds with themselves. They think "I know XP, I should know Vista and be able to use every feature the same exact way!" Well I'm sorry, but that's not the case. Things have been changed, for the better. And since you were so XP-ified, you need to learn how things actually should have been laid out from the start."

Can't say anything but "LOL".

[Mark Anderson @ Sep 22nd 2008 12:30PM]

@giuliop

The problem with your post is that I've already mentioned that six months ago the situation with Vista and its support was unacceptable. That's now changed and, quite frankly, I don't really give a toss what happened in the last seven or so years because it's all water under the bridge.

"It baffles me when people don't realise that while Vista may be "working" now, it does so very inefficiently: it's slower (in some cases much slower) than XP"

Well it was. Here's an article from ExtremeTech which shows that most of the issues around games, for example, came from shoddy drivers and are now no longer a problem. This is carried through to most of the problems that plagued Vista and therefore, as the article says, it's a choice of which OS is the more stable, robust and has the better features and that's quite clearly Vista.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302527,00.asp

"the interface is a horrible mess"

On what criteria? Need I also point out you can skin it back to Classic with two clicks of a mouse if you really want to?

"and the "enhancements" vary from being completely useless to the annoying, "how-do-I-turn-off?" stuff."

I'm sorry but you really are just talking nonsense now. Is a more secure system 'nonsense'? Is better use of memory and pre-caching 'nonsense'? As for UAC, again it used to be annoying but it's been largely fixed. Frankly anyone who turns it off is a moron.

"I could go on forever"

And you would only continue to regurgitate ancient history so please, please don't.

"but that alone makes you wonder why an operating system (or distro, to be precise) like Ubuntu, with its limited resources, is as intuitive as it gets and works flawlessly out of the box for most configurations."

As does Vista. I run Ubuntu on a back up machine and like it for what it is. However, I didn't like having to piss about with command lines to install ndiswrapper so I could actually use the Netgear card nor did I like having to reduce the graphics options so the Radeon 9800 wouldn't run things in flickervision. If you claim that Ubuntu is 'straight out of the box' then you're just plain delusional.

"Want to better your Vista experience? *upgrade* to XP: it's a much more stable and faster OS."

Except it isn't. It was, now it no longer is. How much clearer can I make this for you?

[jakem @ Sep 22nd 2008 1:16PM]

@Giuliop: I disagree with just about everything you've said.

For starters, every version of Windows has been slower than the previous one and required better specs. If performance is the only important factor you should install Windows 3.1. Having said that, you may be able to point out instances where Vista is slower than XP but I can point to plenty of things that Vista does faster - thanks to superfetch commonly used applications open much faster; thanks to Aero the interface is much more responsive; thanks to improved indexing searching is exponentially faster. I've personally never found Vista slower than XP (for normal OS tasks) even on a 5 year old Athlon XP with 1.5 Gb of RAM I have hanging around.

As for the GUI changes, some of them take a bit of getting used to but we are talking minutes here, not years. Control Panel still has Classic View if you want to use it and the built in search makes finding obscure settings much easier than in previous versions of Windows.

Finally, anyone who thinks it's easier to install Linux than Vista is clearly taking the piss. This isn't a criticism of Linux but it's much more difficult for the average noob to get a fully operational Linux distro up and running than Vista.

The reality is that unless you suffer from some severe learning disabilities Vista is an excellent OS and offers numerous improvements over XP. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that someone who is happy with XP upgrade to Vista but I certainly wouldn't recommend that someone with Vista downgrade to XP.

[EricC @ Sep 22nd 2008 5:19PM]

@ giuliop:

"It baffles me when people don't realise that while Vista may be "working" now, it does so very inefficiently: it's slower"

And it baffles ME when people don't realize that Vista is no different than every previous version of Windows EVER in this regard. Every Windows release has been "slower" than the previous version. It's this "slowness" (it's not slow; the hardware is underpowered) is what prompts hardware manufacturers to push more powerful hardware into the mainstream.

Since Vista's release, the standard RAM configuration has gone from an average of 1GB to 3GB. PC OEMs are now finally starting to support the 64-bit platform (it was all but ignored with XP x64 Edition), as are the hardware manufacturers with driver support, and the software companies as well. Hard drive sizes have nearly doubled (again; we're talking about pre-built PCs from Dell, HP, etc.). The average home user is starting to see relatively high-end video chipsets. There's a word for this: "progress."

Vista is necessary to push a relatively stagnant computer industry forward. There isn't much difference between the PC I use today, which I built about 4 years ago, and PCs available now. I haven't upgraded because there's been nothing worthwhile to upgrade TO. This is starting to change, and if you can't see that this is a good thing (regardless of your feelings towards Vista itself), then what are you doing reading a tech blog?

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 22nd 2008 5:37PM]

perhaps one business and one consumer version would be better than the mess of versions Vista has?

[giuliop @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:27PM]

Wow people, I wouldn't know where to start. Unfortunately I haven't got time to answer all this point by point, but do you (and the other guy above) really think that citing Microsoft's inability (or unwillingness) to make software that isn't bloated and doesn't clog every hardware you throw at it (no matter how fast it is), version by version, is a valid argument?
Try to use your brain: things *don't* have to be this way, just because "they have always been". If Microsoft optimised their code just a little, you wouldn't need any faster hardware at all.
Do you really think that you need faster hardware to run the OS at always the same speed or slower? That this is useful for us and it's progress?
Sorry, are you insane?
We do need faster hardware for audio, video, 3D, games, you name it. But *not* for a sluggish operating systems that can barely move a window if it isn't the only one on the screen and takes 30 seconds to read a directory. Do you know how many operations a computer can do in 30 seconds, and how many bytes it can read off the disk?

[Arran @ Sep 23rd 2008 7:53AM]

The ONLY reason i don't use vista is because i HATE having to confirm an action 3-4 times before it does it, total pain in the ass and a very rudimentary way to solve a problem, and unless i am mistaken there is no way to turn it off. Performance isn't much of an issue if you have a decent system.

[Kooty @ Sep 23rd 2008 5:31PM]

@ giuliop:

Vista isn't bloated. It has a lot of services running that make other things run faster (aka Superfetch, Networking services etc.). And when you don't have a computer that at least is made in the last two years, and isn't a piece of shit Gateway with 256MB of RAM, it seems slow. Software requirements for consumer software and operating systems get bigger and bigger, and don't stay the same. Do you see Photoshop users bitching that CS3 runs slower and is more bloated than PS5? No.That's because they upgrade their hardware to satisfy the needs of the new version. If you have a computer that takes 30 seconds to open a directory in Vista, I seriously think you should suspend your internet service for a bit, save that money, and go get a new computer.

And to counter a point you made about optimization. It doesn't work as good as you think when it comes to Operating Systems. Gentoo Linux is a prime example. It was only a very small amount faster than the Ubuntu server that I set up the other day. I still use Gentoo - but not for optimization, just for the flexibility.

Vista does not clog my hardware. I'm running a Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 3.6GHz, 4GB of RAM, and dual 9800GTX+s. Vista Ultimate x64 actually runs faster than XP - benchmarks prove it (google it). And it doesn't clog my other system either, a Core 2 Duo E6750 with 2GB of RAM and a old 1900XTX. Oh yeah by the way, I am running 4 copies of Windows 2008 Enterprise Server (along with a few Linux distros), with Exchange, Sharepoint, and MSSQL server on a single ESX server with dual Opteron 265s and 8GB of RAM at work, and users never complain of lagginess. Point in case.

@Arran
Control Panel -> User Accounts -> Enable or Disable User Account Control (UAC) -> Uncheck. Voila.

[giuliop @ Sep 23rd 2008 1:45PM]

@Kooty

Pardon me: are you saying that the operating system is slower because it has services to make it faster? Do you realise how twisted and wrong this is?

Anyway, Vista *is* bloated, as every Microsoft OS has been in the last 10 years. I am a developer, I've written and managed projects from tiny to very large, and some of them could be well part of an OS. Not *one* of my hundreds of projects has become slower when functionality is added. You just take for granted that when you add things the OS must become slower. Well, I have to break it to you, but it isn't so: the slowness of Microsoft OSs is the result of sloppiness in programming.

And you've got it all wrong. Applications (and OSs, of course) are bloated just because they can. Why should Adobe spend money and time optimising their applications when people don't complain and just get a faster PC, a bigger hard disk and more memory? Why should any developer? The technology advances, and software houses take advantage of it, simply because some people are like sheep and think that everything the developers do is flawless (see above); the rest of us has no other choice. Ever wondered why there are some Adobe Reader/Writer alternatives that take up a tenth of the space at most, and do everything Adobe does and more?

And LOL... of course Vista does not clog your 4GB or 2GB machine. I should think not; just wait for Windows 7 to do that.

"Control Panel -> User Accounts -> Enable or Disable User Account Control (UAC) -> Uncheck. Voila."

Great way to make Vista closer to XP.

[Kooty @ Sep 23rd 2008 6:51PM]

@giuliop

FYI: I am a developer myself, and have coded countless of little programs myself. I work with code written by other people on a daily basis as well.

IMHO I don't think that Vista is as bloated as people make it out to be. I believe that there is some truth to it, but for the most part I think people BLOAT it. For example when Mr. Technically Inept goes and looks for some random AVI to H264 converter, and downloads 4 shiftily coded applications and then goes to find a crappy .NET Application that strips album art, of course it is going to be slow. This was the case Windows XP as well. But people didn't notice it as much because the hardware requirements were lower (I had the vista syndrome running Windows XP on a P2-233 with 512MB of RAM too). But when hardware stays the same, and OS requirements increase you notice that extra bloat more. And iTunes using 400MB of RAM for a 6500 song library doesn't help either.

OS Requirements SHOULD increase with time. I mean, look at how much more is going on in Vista! File Indexing, Shadow Copy, Superfetch, Network Discovery, Offline Files.... how do you suppose Microsoft adds all those features with NO overhead. It's impossible no matter how many 'optimizations' you do.

And if you don't have 2GB of RAM in this day and age, I think it's time to go on newegg. RAMs cheap, and you won't believe how much quicker Vista is with adequate RAM. Vista was quick on even a Athlon 64 3200+ with 2GB of RAM.

I'm not saying I completely disagree with you. I just don't agree to extent you are over blowing the whole 'issue'.

[maniacprovost @ Oct 14th 2008 10:21AM]

Ubuntu is slower than Minix.

[BobTurbo @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:30AM]

Coming along terribly.

[Chris @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:42AM]

We know you are but at least your parents tried.

[bartoron @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:54AM]

And then a friendly group of hobbits took him under their wing and raised him, right?

[BobTurbo @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:00AM]

But only let him use Windows, which he grow emotionally attached to and subsequently gets offended when people insult his beloved operating system.

[BobTurbo @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:11AM]

But only let him use Windows, which he grow emotionally attached to and subsequently gets offended when people insult his beloved operating system.

[Mark Anderson @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:38AM]

An OS which means he doesn't double post like a retard.

[riggs @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:18AM]

wait wait wait, why the hell would his parents leave him on the HOSPITALS doorstep?

[BobTurbo @ Sep 22nd 2008 8:32AM]

The OS I am using is Windows, and the double-posting is due to a fault in the Engadget posting system. That makes you, and all the people that ranked you highly, retards.

[matt merritt @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:30AM]

Dude, just be quiet.


It's already damn hard to read your posts, they needn't be grayed out any more.

[Mark Anderson @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:31AM]

Well if we can't blame the OS and virtually everyone else seems to be OK with the comments system we must deduce that the problem lies with you being an utter fuckmuppet.

I'm glad that's been cleared up.

[Serial 8-Ball Mouse @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:39AM]

lol

BobTurbo, hardest to read commenter on Engadget. Besides Zak.

[Wwhat @ Sep 22nd 2008 7:08PM]

"and virtually everyone else seems to be OK with the comments system"
Are you on crack? I mean there's different views, there's different tastes, but having comments not appear for 10 minutes and comments disappear and re-appear is a bit of a failure and annoying. (reminds me of an OS I know)

[Mark Anderson @ Sep 23rd 2008 7:38AM]

No I meant it's only retards like you who don't know how the system works.

Now fuck off.

[Wwhat @ Sep 23rd 2008 12:34PM]

NAZI
(hehe, I closed the thread)

[skoolfool @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:31AM]

who really cares if it looks like vista...let's just hope it WORKS better than vista :)

[CosterMonger @ Sep 22nd 2008 10:33AM]

let's just hope it's optimized better?

[zfurie @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:31AM]

Presenting Windows Vista Se7en

Serial Killer OS

[Chris @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:40AM]

So you get a CD AND Gwyneth Paltrow's head in the box?

That's a pretty good deal.

[Mic2000 @ Sep 22nd 2008 6:38AM]

I found some videos here:

http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2273

[Jash Sayani @ Sep 22nd 2008 9:28AM]

Any way to get the torrent of the latest milestone release ?
Really want to try it out. Want to see what M$ has been doing all this time.....