Microsoft to hand out Windows 7 "pre-betas" at PDC, WinHEC

We've already seen a few apparent Windows 7 screenshots and videos turn up, and it looks like there could soon be plenty more where those came from, as Microsoft has now officially announced that it'll be handing out "pre-beta" builds of the OS at both the Professional Developer Conference (PDC) in late October and the Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC) in early November. As we had heard previously, you can also expect to hear plenty of technical details about the OS straight from Microsoft at PDC and, who knows, we may even get word of an actual release date.

[Aex Dorman @ Sep 25th 2008 5:01PM]

I still see UAC ):

[Leindurstit @ Sep 25th 2008 5:04PM]

I still see the option to CHANGE IT.

[Sachin @ Sep 25th 2008 5:24PM]

Sort of unrelated...but I sent this story to Engadget like the day before yesterday...yet I'm given no credit. Yes, it's possible they may have noticed this without my email, but this is the second time it's happened and I'm starting to suspect they don't want to give due credit...or is it just me?

[MioTheGreat @ Sep 25th 2008 7:56PM]

Are you one of those wackos who runs as root all the time?

[Blackstar @ Sep 25th 2008 8:25PM]

Don't they have a name for "Pre-Beta" already? It's called and "Alpha".

[OneLove @ Sep 26th 2008 3:34PM]

Post is on the Internets! (Windows 7 is Vista reloaded)

[Endejas @ Sep 25th 2008 5:03PM]

Will any of you be covering either of these conferences?

[RC @ Sep 25th 2008 5:44PM]

I'd like to see extensive coverage and liveblogging of these events too.

[Ike Turner @ Sep 25th 2008 6:07PM]

Dude, that's Microsoft and Engadget we are talking about!
It's like asking with appleinsder or Macrumors are going to cover PDC and WinHEC too.

[nerdtalker @ Sep 25th 2008 6:27PM]

They've got way better things to do, like, you know, release questionable blurry pictures of alleged MBP designs.

[Zak @ Sep 25th 2008 7:07PM]

You must mean like 2, or was it 3 straight days of G1 coverage? How many G1 stories are we up to now, 25 in the last couple days? It's funny, but I was pretty sure the G1 isn't an Apple product. Huh, that must mean Engadget does actually cover things that aren't made by Apple. Amazing what you can find if you pull your head out of your ass and pay attention, isn't it?

[spyyder @ Sep 25th 2008 10:46PM]

Why, Engadget covers innovative products and ideas, not tired rehashed software you desperately cling too. You might enjoy mediocrity, but the rest of us don't. What do you expect to see from Vista 2.0?? Seriously?

[Endejas @ Sep 25th 2008 8:32PM]

It was an honest question. Seems like something that would be right up Engadget's alley, unless you guys are still on that "software isn't our thing" bit.

[Steve A. @ Sep 25th 2008 8:54PM]

Zak - I think the main reason why Engadget has been giving the G1 so much coverage is because it's a first Google Android based phone. You know, *not* windows mobile.

I highly doubt they'll cover the PDC conference. I will be however, and have an invite with a handful of journalists to spend all day with win 7 before the conference starts. It'd be nice to have a few other bloggers there.

[Kiwi616 @ Sep 25th 2008 5:03PM]

Beta is always riddled with bugs....I could just imagine PRE-Beta!

A step forward no less

[shawnmos @ Sep 25th 2008 5:07PM]

You obviously wouldn't use this as your primary OS.

On the other hand however Vista RC1 was stable enough to use as a primary OS and I did.

[kherge @ Sep 25th 2008 5:21PM]

RC > Beta > Alpha (Pre Beta)

[UKNigel @ Sep 25th 2008 5:40PM]

What kherge said, alpha is the next step below beta, so I wonder why microsoft decided to call it "pre-beta". Perhaps since there is so much beta software on the interlink that people are familiar with pre-beta becomes the new beta.

[eggothewaffle @ Sep 25th 2008 5:05PM]

Let me clear up some things before the teeming millions descend upon this hapless news post:

1) XP 32 is an awesome Windows OS
2) Vista 64 is an even more awesome Windows OS if you enjoy using more than ~3 gigs of memory
3) The nature of the problems and criticisms associated with Vista from launch also plagued Windows XP from launch
4) Just as many of the problems and criticisms associated with Windows XP at launch have been addressed with XP SP1 and SP2, the same has happened with Vista SP1.
5) As an avid and loyal XP user since launch, I happen to love Vista 64 to death...And I don't even sacrifice goats to Satan.

And now, back to our regularly scheduled program.

[Charles @ Sep 25th 2008 5:23PM]

1) Agreed
2) XP 64bit also lets you use more than 3GB of memory
3) The key problem with Vista is that it has no compelling features that would make you want to spend a considerable amount of money on the software and the additional hardware to run it. The main feature Microsoft marketed Vista with was the interface (the "wow") and you know you've got problems when your big new feature is a few translucent borders and the worthless option to put windows on an angle. Personally I'd rather have the functionality of the Widows Classic interface than all that nonsense.
4) 2K was a business OS so XP was essentially the follow up to Windows 98SE/ME. It offered a vast improvement over these two in terms of stability and functionality and gave users a very compelling reason to upgrade. Sure, there may have been problems (I don't remember any) but it was worth putting up with a few issues for the many benefits XP offers. Vista on the other hand brings new problems but no new benefits which is why most people don't want it.
5) Stop sacrificing goats to Satan.

[Nihility @ Sep 25th 2008 5:27PM]

6. Windows 7 will have problems at launch as well, just like any new software GASP

[eggothewaffle @ Sep 25th 2008 5:31PM]

1. :-)
2. Ah, but XP 64 also has far worse hardware and software support compared to Vista 64. That's why Vista 64 is so awesome. I go through quite a bit of both esoteric and mainstream hardware and software in my travels and unlike XP 64, Vista 64 has never had a problem keeping up.
3. Far better 64-bit support is a very compelling feature for someone who burns through memory like goat flesh.
4. See #2 and #3. While I agree that the benefits explicitly advertised weren't very compelling, I think the implicit benefits far outweigh the "new" problems you may have experienced. Personally, the only problem I have experienced with Vista 64 is that X58 motherboards aren't out yet and 4 GB DDR3 modules will cost more than the developer class-action lawsuit on Apple's iPhone SDK so my dream of having 24 gigabytes of memory on a consumer desktop system cannot be fulfilled as of yet :[
5. REDRUM! REDRUM!

In short, if you don't want to visit howtogeek.com to disable the "bloat" in Vista and/or you have no use for more than ~3 gigs of RAM, use XP 32. If you want to use more than 3 gigs of RAM and have 30 seconds to turn off things you don't want (don't you love freedom of choice?), use Vista 64. Or do what I did and have a dual boot system. And then after 3 months, remove the XP32 partition because you never used it.

[Knives_Out @ Sep 25th 2008 5:37PM]

I'd rather have windows be fairly basic, snappy, fast (win2k) ... than be bogged down by bloatware and fancy effects(vista) that do nothing for my productivity. It seems like this is the track windows 7 is on .. hopefully.

[BigD145 @ Sep 25th 2008 6:11PM]

My system runs winxp, winxp64, and vista64. Why? Because there's way too much software that will run on 1 of those three and only 1.

[UnixSystemsEngineer @ Sep 25th 2008 6:44PM]

Please folks, rank me down instead. Lay off of Charles, what did the poor guy ever do to you?

[dave @ Sep 25th 2008 7:18PM]

If vista didn't break every cad program and many statistics programs... it would be liked alot more.. the whole handing off the problems to the software companies was poor.. I know my boss got a new computer which came preloaded with vista... Upon install, he discovered 3 of his important cad apps for ground water flow, acad, etc didn't install. It was either reinstall XP for free or buy over 4k in software upgrades. on xp I can install autocad 12 if I wanted to.. that's like 10 versions from current but vista supports now just acad2009. 08 and 07 have compatibility service packs but were crap quick and buggy fixes. not breaking every app that isn't current should be important for an OS. Until my company upgrades their software, no vista will come on any machine. if windows 7 does that all I can hope for is autodesk starts making mac stuff.

[MioTheGreat @ Sep 25th 2008 7:59PM]

dave,

None of that is Microsoft's fault. If Autodesk did it 'right', then it shouldn't have any issues. Also, we run '05 on a Vista machine at work without any problems.

[Steve A. @ Sep 25th 2008 9:01PM]

Dave -

I manage IT at a medium sized architectural business - we're about 60% Vista now, with no problems. Autodesk has been fully Vista compliant since AutoCAD 2008, however it is not difficult to make *any* previous version of CAD to work. I have 05, 03 and even R14 running on a Vista machine. Just right click the executable and select the properties, and change the 'compatibility' mode. You can easily run any windows 95+ program under Vista using this.

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 25th 2008 9:39PM]

Nope. Vista is hardly an upgrade to XP SP2, other than better x64 support.

[GenoMalice @ Sep 25th 2008 5:06PM]

hopefully they thought of getting rid of that dreadful UAC as well as making 64-bit the only version so that all these damn companies can start making 64-bit software and drivers!

[GenoMalice @ Sep 25th 2008 5:09PM]

shoot... lol it didnt post for a good 2 minutes of refreshing.. sorry for the double post!

[GenoMalice @ Sep 25th 2008 5:08PM]

hopefully its a 64-bit only releases... thus forcing basically ever software developer to make their software 64-bit compliant so that we can use more than 3-gigs on our machines... n we'll need it soon enough

[Drew Green @ Sep 25th 2008 5:21PM]

It's not 64 bit only. I doubt that Windows 8 will be either. Windows 9 may be, but how many years in the future is that?

[MioTheGreat @ Sep 25th 2008 7:58PM]

It seems that the x64 flavor will be the 'default' one, much as the 32-bit one is the 'default' one people get with Vista.

This will likely be Microsoft's last 32-bit client release.

[dcoaster @ Sep 25th 2008 5:12PM]

Already confirmed that Windows 7 will ship in BOTH 32bit and 64bit versions.

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2008 5:14PM]

This shoudn't be a whole new OS but a service pack. Or at the very least sold for $100 like the OSX upgrades.
(I'm not being an Apple fan by saying that)

[steve @ Sep 25th 2008 5:37PM]

What exactly are you basing this on; looks alone?

[jekoln @ Sep 25th 2008 5:21PM]

since vista seems to be getting worse for me as time goes on, i can't say that i'm excited if the new OS is keeping in the vista style and feel.

[Ruben @ Sep 25th 2008 6:34PM]

It must be because your becoming worse at using computers.

I'm still on my Feb 2007 install.

Not missing a beat. Its nice to see the UpTime clock show you 2 months. Lately, ive been restarting due to alot of Nvidia drivers being released, but there were some slow times.

[BOGRASH @ Sep 25th 2008 7:49PM]

i haven't rebooted since 1985

[L.Rawlins @ Sep 25th 2008 5:22PM]

I hope they don't change the look too much in the final product. I'm quite fond of Vista's vista, if nothing else.

[Karl Hackswell @ Sep 25th 2008 5:29PM]

A few details Missed out here, on Slashdot they reported that the OS was being handed out on 160GB External HDs. Talk about bloated,lol.

[nohone @ Sep 25th 2008 6:05PM]

I don't know if the 160GB HDD thing is true, but if it is, that is a good idea (and not a reactionary M$ is evil stand like you take). Microsoft is condemned for anything they do - they put out trials of Windows where the default file system was NTFS. People complained that when the trial was over and they tried to go back to an older version, they could not access their data unless they upgraded because older versions did not support NTFS. People have complained that when they install betas of Windows, that it changed the boot loader. People have complained that they have to give up their computer to beta test. People complain about

Now imagine the hard drives are bootable USB drives with Windows already installed. Plug in the USB drive, restart your computer, and Windows is running. All the data is stored on the HDD, you can easily revert to your older version of Windows - just unplug the HDD and restart the computer (people will probably complain that they need to restart to get back to their previous version). 160GB for a OS partition that stores the OS and all data (and probably include tools that they are announcing at PDC) makes Win7 bloated? Let's not look at the possibilities, let's just attack Microsoft.

[ImaPC @ Sep 25th 2008 7:49PM]

The 160GB hard drive is more like swag for the attendees. It'll contain Windows 7 as well as all the presentations and content. The OS does not take up the entire hard drive space.

[NewJohnny @ Sep 26th 2008 12:23AM]

I'd like to see it ship on a 185mb mini cd.

[Johan S @ Sep 25th 2008 5:34PM]

I'm sure Windows 7 will have at least 7 versions, all of which are crippled. And yes, that includes the "ultimate" version that has everything enabled.

[Decoy @ Sep 25th 2008 6:07PM]

Cite your source or all that is pure conjecture, make-believe, FUD, and utter BS.

[thiel @ Sep 25th 2008 6:21PM]

It sounds like they will actually have fewer versions - which is good.

[Tony @ Sep 25th 2008 11:45PM]

Maybe it was excessive, maybe not. But FFS there were only four versions; I'm sure you don't have the same problem keeping up with the four iPod models now do you?

[Toph @ Sep 25th 2008 5:36PM]

I've gotta say, my favorite new feature of Windows 7 Ultimate is Item 2, by far. Though Item 3 has been a long time coming.

But seriously, everyone knows Item 1 is a worthless resource hog.