Microsoft to hand out Windows 7 "pre-betas" at PDC, WinHEC
By Donald Melanson 
posted Sep 25th 2008 4:57PM
posted Sep 25th 2008 4:57PM
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.
Will any of you be covering either of these conferences?
I'd like to see extensive coverage and liveblogging of these events too.
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.
They've got way better things to do, like, you know, release questionable blurry pictures of alleged MBP designs.
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?
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?
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.
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.
I still see UAC ):
I still see the option to CHANGE IT.
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?
Are you one of those wackos who runs as root all the time?
Don't they have a name for "Pre-Beta" already? It's called and "Alpha".
Post is on the Internets! (Windows 7 is Vista reloaded)
Beta is always riddled with bugs....I could just imagine PRE-Beta!
A step forward no less
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.
RC > Beta > Alpha (Pre Beta)
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.
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.
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.
6. Windows 7 will have problems at launch as well, just like any new software GASP
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.
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.
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.
Please folks, rank me down instead. Lay off of Charles, what did the poor guy ever do to you?
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.
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.
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.
Nope. Vista is hardly an upgrade to XP SP2, other than better x64 support.
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!
shoot... lol it didnt post for a good 2 minutes of refreshing.. sorry for the double post!
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
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?
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.
Already confirmed that Windows 7 will ship in BOTH 32bit and 64bit versions.
This shoudn't be a whole new OS but a service pack. Or at the very least sold for $100 like the OSX upgrades.
(I'm not being an Apple fan by saying that)
What exactly are you basing this on; looks alone?
since vista seems to be getting worse for me as time goes on, i can't say that i'm excited if the new OS is keeping in the vista style and feel.
It must be because your becoming worse at using computers.
I'm still on my Feb 2007 install.
Not missing a beat. Its nice to see the UpTime clock show you 2 months. Lately, ive been restarting due to alot of Nvidia drivers being released, but there were some slow times.
i haven't rebooted since 1985
I hope they don't change the look too much in the final product. I'm quite fond of Vista's vista, if nothing else.
I actually leave UAC on full time, its not half as bad as people make out.
Nice going Engadget .. only 4 days late.
Next time leave the IT-Pro stuff to the IT-Pro guys...
Or not... As otherwise I probably would have never heard of this, 4 days late or not.
A few details Missed out here, on Slashdot they reported that the OS was being handed out on 160GB External HDs. Talk about bloated,lol.
I don't know if the 160GB HDD thing is true, but if it is, that is a good idea (and not a reactionary M$ 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.
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.
I'd like to see it ship on a 185mb mini cd.
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.
Cite your source or all that is pure conjecture, make-believe, FUD, and utter BS.
It sounds like they will actually have fewer versions - which is good.
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?
I agree with Chris, it just seems to soon to release a new windows release. They should either offer it at a for free or at least for a cheaper price for vista owners especially for the people that forked out the money for vista ultimate.
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.
What are these items? I'm sure Item 1 is DreamTheater...What's 2 and 3?
I WANT I WANT
I likey
Vista by any other name is still Vista.
"If" not "With"
Five years, millions and millions of dollars spent on R&D, supposedly. Thousands of engineers working feverishly, supposedly. Upon release... Vista is a dud. Thank goodness that monopoly guaranteed profits/sales from Windows PC manufacturers stuck loading Vista. Two years later, Windows 7 is introduced as new.
It's really more like a giant service pack for Vista but it will be sold as a full version with 50 versions coming out. W7 Ultimate, W7 Pro, W7 Basic, W7 32 Ultimate, W7 64 Ultimate, W7 Pro 32, W7 64 Pro, W7 Basic 32, W7 Home Edition 32 bit..... yada yada yada....
Or, you know, just the same 3 that were used for Vista- Basic, Premium, and Ultimate. Not hard- actually very simple. The 32 bit and 64 bit variations aren't their own special versions. They're the same as the others, just running optimally on different setups.
But hey- I can understand why you're mad- you probably bought Leopard... You know, the equivalent to a Window's Service Pack that we get for free. Just like the iPod, money hungry Apple just can't support their products properly. They give you a few nice features and then nickel and dime you to death as well as install crap you don't want with their "updates" (us, and the rest of the tech world, that you obviously aren't connected to, call it bloatware).
50 versions? Prove it.
Oh its ZG. Back to confuse himself again. Glad you figured out how to reply properly. LOL
"Just like the iPod.... few nice features..." uh huh. Well at least with the iPod, iPhone/Touch, we can enjoy, thanks to the new features..
8.5 million songs
125,000 podcasts
30,000 television episodes
2,600 movies
HD TV Mainstream Shows
Mobile Games....
On your Zune for Vista, you get.... Squirt.
What about the all important feature "price"? The full version of Vista should cost $129 or less.
Apple manages to price their OS (which has more features but sells less) ... at $129 .. so why the hell can't Microsoft?
Thats because Apple's OS is only worth $129.
Because Apple is selling you a service pack and MS gives those away for free.
So should Microsoft require proprietary over-priced hardware to run their OS as well?
Apple doesn't make their OS for $129 a copy. They take a loss (or possibly break even) and make up for the difference elsewhere.
Apple and Microsoft have different business models. Apple manages to generate the extra revenue via their hardware sales, which the OSX that you later purchase is bound to.
Apple sells their software for cheaper because Apple is a hardware company. That and they also nickle and dime you for every service pack they release. In the end, Apple costs their users more money.
Torrent sites to hand out Windows 7 "pre-betas" after PDC, WinHEC
I'm waiting for the first person to report it is slow on their computer and then some MS Fanboy to say - it runs fine on my tape dispenser because I have 2 GIGs of ram - it must be your computer or "that's why it is still beta"
it amuses me to see everyone treating this as big news when this is standard procedure for Microsoft for these two conferences
apples software only works on certian or apple computers, thats why they sell it at 129$
Interesting comment relating to the article
* Interesting comment relating to the article Item 1
* Interesting comment relating to the article Item 2
* Interesting comment relating to the article Item 3
Zeus: better than you'd think.
Article based on Mac placeholders
Article based on Mac placeholders
Article based on Mac placeholders
http://www.engadget.com/2008/09/25/new-mac-placeholders-appear-in-future-shop-stock-system/
I wouldn't be surprised if the press find out once the open up the packaging, the cd is just an OS X installation DVD.
Hey- I hear Jubei gives good head- is this true?
I heard they were giving out OSX dvd's, but they were only to rest the beer mugs that come in the package. Thats all they are good for anyways.
Microsoft better have a really good deal for upgrading to this version. Heck Vista isn't even 2 years old yet and Windows 7 is about to hit beta?!
@CaptCaveman: Yes, Microsoft is coming out with windows 7 a bit "soon" after Vista. Regardless of how "bad" vista was (please don't start another flaming contest...), look back at their history. How often were they releasing OS's? The most obvious ones: Windows '95 and Windows 98 (Not gonna mention ME...) as in 1995 and 1998. Not a MAJOR update, but a substantial one nonetheless. that's three years in between the two of them. As of now, Windows 7 is slated for end of '09 or Q1 of '10 (rumors as of right now, but possible, especially since they're already kickin' out the alpha). So that puts it at about 3 years, unless my math is incorrect.
Soon? Yep. But it's only because they stuck with XP for SO long, but that's another topic all together. XP was around for nearly 5 years before "Longhorn" came around.
Microsoft is getting back into their roots, getting back to the patterns that made them so successful in the first place. A step in the right direction.
Signed up with a code my manager gave me "PDC2008". Hope it owrks for you. Saved 200 bucks. Cheers.
Why would ANYONE demo a Microsoft Windows version X beta? Microsoft has historically made it difficult, if not impossible to remove a beta of Windows without a complete reformat and reinstall of whatever previous version of Windows one had originally installed.
If Microsoft wants beta testers, Microsoft should provide complete ability to install the beta of their newest and bestest version on a separate partition, and provide an uninstall utility to restore the original boot sector on the user's HD.
Perhaps I missed something when I jumped through hoops to install a late beta of Vista, and when I was fed up to my neck with Vista, had to reformat to reinstall my working XP. No, the boot sector utility DID NOT WORK, so get over that.
Q
Hey Bill, if you think I'm dumb enough to pay for Service Pack 2 just because you haven't made windfall profits from Vista you're Freaking nuts.. It is so obvious that this should be distributed for "Free", as it's nothing more than a ton of needed patches put together & referred to by another name...
What patches do you need? Tried Windows Update? Or are you making up a little story there? One where you're running Vista, need something unspecified patched, and will HAVE to go to Win7 against your will?
- Bill.
Nice. So, they will be on BitTorrent sites really soon.....