Windows 7 (Build 6965): opened up to the world
by ZDNet Author | December 12, 2008 4:32pm PST | Image 1 of 22
Previous | Next
Windows 7 (Build 6965)
The first screen you will see after installing Windows, albeit with the DPI slightly higher than usual.To read the original post, click here.
Just In
substance folks...anyone can plop crap in a text box... 
see it's easy to do...It's the reaction response that does it...not the thought process.
see it's easy to do...It's the reaction response that does it...not the thought process. 
How does the look and feel differ from Vista? It looks very close to the same thing with added features.
I feel that beyond the technical issues with Vista,
there was problem with 10 different versions (figure of
speech more than an actual number) and you needed to
get the best version to get all the cool stuff. If they
use the same approach (which looks like they might do
based on the Windows 7 Ultimate I saw in one of the
screenshot), I think they are still going to
disenfranchise buyers.
However, this could be a good thing because that will
push at least the tech savvy crowd more towards
alternate OS (such as Linux and OSX for those who can
afford or need apple) and slowly the regular users
might port over to these OS as well as Microsoft
continues with its adamant attitude. They definitely
have the market share going in favor of them right not
but one must wonder with the rise of startups and web
applications being as powerful as they are, how long
can Microsoft continue to make these same mistakes.
The growth of Open Source alternatives to some of the
beloved windows applications and improvements to Linux
(especially with Ubuntu Distribution) along with
manufacturers such as Dell prepackaging linux on some
of their laptops, the days of Microsoft reign could be
limited if they don't get their act together. It will
get worse especially if Windows 7 just adds bells and
whistles and duct tapes security holes rather than
rethinking the architecture and coming up with elegant
solutions rather than just patching every issue once it
arises and effects computers worldwide.
there was problem with 10 different versions (figure of
speech more than an actual number) and you needed to
get the best version to get all the cool stuff. If they
use the same approach (which looks like they might do
based on the Windows 7 Ultimate I saw in one of the
screenshot), I think they are still going to
disenfranchise buyers.
However, this could be a good thing because that will
push at least the tech savvy crowd more towards
alternate OS (such as Linux and OSX for those who can
afford or need apple) and slowly the regular users
might port over to these OS as well as Microsoft
continues with its adamant attitude. They definitely
have the market share going in favor of them right not
but one must wonder with the rise of startups and web
applications being as powerful as they are, how long
can Microsoft continue to make these same mistakes.
The growth of Open Source alternatives to some of the
beloved windows applications and improvements to Linux
(especially with Ubuntu Distribution) along with
manufacturers such as Dell prepackaging linux on some
of their laptops, the days of Microsoft reign could be
limited if they don't get their act together. It will
get worse especially if Windows 7 just adds bells and
whistles and duct tapes security holes rather than
rethinking the architecture and coming up with elegant
solutions rather than just patching every issue once it
arises and effects computers worldwide.
I wish they would just rewrite the whole thing and base it on UNIX.
Why go for a 1970s insecure OS instead of keeping with a 1980s insecure OS? Too many lines of code cannot be made reliable easily.
Instead, go for a lean EAL7 compliant kernel upon which to ensure REAL and VERIFIABLE security. Throw in true OO enforcable rules and we would have a verifably secure, extensible OS.
EAL7 compliance ensures every machine instruction traces to lines in the source code. A process that can be automated.
This totally bypasses the FOSS FUD about 'many eyes'. Eyes are only good if they are willing to look, know what they are looking for and look at everything. OSS has no guarantee of any of these, it is just wishful thinking.
Any new totally new OS has to be intrinsically secure and be able to be verified secure using automated processes. A rewrite will just make a lot more new bugs to be propagated into the future, unless the kernal is really secure and verifiable.
Without the quantum leap, why change?
Instead, go for a lean EAL7 compliant kernel upon which to ensure REAL and VERIFIABLE security. Throw in true OO enforcable rules and we would have a verifably secure, extensible OS.
EAL7 compliance ensures every machine instruction traces to lines in the source code. A process that can be automated.
This totally bypasses the FOSS FUD about 'many eyes'. Eyes are only good if they are willing to look, know what they are looking for and look at everything. OSS has no guarantee of any of these, it is just wishful thinking.
Any new totally new OS has to be intrinsically secure and be able to be verified secure using automated processes. A rewrite will just make a lot more new bugs to be propagated into the future, unless the kernal is really secure and verifiable.
Without the quantum leap, why change?
They really are terrible, there OS has almost no customizability, you cant make it act /just/ how you want it, not to mention, without an open source operating system, the OS, will never truly be more secure. Defective by design (just like DRM).
They really do copy everything, KDE took the mac OS idea and pushed it further, having widgets effectively replace (with Plasma) the desktop, so no longer does it point to /home/user/desktop, and naturally, as everybody perfects their ideas, microsoft takes it and paints it a new color.
They really do copy everything, KDE took the mac OS idea and pushed it further, having widgets effectively replace (with Plasma) the desktop, so no longer does it point to /home/user/desktop, and naturally, as everybody perfects their ideas, microsoft takes it and paints it a new color.
One thing is for sure. What ever we end up on should be around for a while. The comfort level we achieve with a product over time is important to me. Usually after a few rounds of fixes of course. Also hardware and their drivers need to catch up to the OS. Then we can start focusing more time on the applications and less on the OS. In a perfect world we would take the OS for granted. Sad but true(MS gets no love). The early look has me feeling pretty good. Thanks for the quick walk through.
Functionality first and then cost. Microsoft has smart people employed. Let's hope this OS version can make it off the runway this time to fly.
Vista burned and crashed like a 747 airplane never making it off the runway.
Vista burned and crashed like a 747 airplane never making it off the runway.
Even if Windows 7 were released tomorrow, there would be many businesses that would probably go to Vista first because it will be more mature and have been able to go through more internal testing at the time than W7. Some businesses are just now upgrading to XP from W2K. W7 is a long way in the future for them!
I think Vista allowed MS to incorporate many under-the-hood technologies that W7 can now build upon.
I have upgraded a motherboard under Vista Ultimate 64 without uninstalling the old drivers and V64 just breezed through it. Not somthing that was trivial under XP, but something made the process work better under V.
There is lots of life still left in Vista. BTW, 747s have been around AND FLYING HIGH a very, very long time. Try a relevent analogy next time.
I think Vista allowed MS to incorporate many under-the-hood technologies that W7 can now build upon.
I have upgraded a motherboard under Vista Ultimate 64 without uninstalling the old drivers and V64 just breezed through it. Not somthing that was trivial under XP, but something made the process work better under V.
There is lots of life still left in Vista. BTW, 747s have been around AND FLYING HIGH a very, very long time. Try a relevent analogy next time.
Looks! who cares! is it functional, is it secure
Threat-hardened is NOT secure, per se.
To be really secure there must be:
- a means of easily verifying that the machine instructions are ONLY defined by the source code. Too complex a kernel can make this unlikey.
- a real-time means of prevently unwanted changes to the machine code at run time. The problem is who makes those decisions, in what areas and at what level.
When flash RAM, or whatever replaces it, makes large amounts of non-volatile RAM directly connected to the CPUs, programs will be permanently 'running' when they are installed. This will require a whole new way of constructing applications, if not a whole new infrastructure with which to really take advantage of such facilites. Then is the opportunity that OSs can be made SECURE.
To be really secure there must be:
- a means of easily verifying that the machine instructions are ONLY defined by the source code. Too complex a kernel can make this unlikey.
- a real-time means of prevently unwanted changes to the machine code at run time. The problem is who makes those decisions, in what areas and at what level.
When flash RAM, or whatever replaces it, makes large amounts of non-volatile RAM directly connected to the CPUs, programs will be permanently 'running' when they are installed. This will require a whole new way of constructing applications, if not a whole new infrastructure with which to really take advantage of such facilites. Then is the opportunity that OSs can be made SECURE.
The OS will be of lesser and lesser importance.
The browser will be the most important, in the future.
As a matter of fact, it already is!
The browser will be the most important, in the future.
As a matter of fact, it already is!
ALL current web browsers depend upon an OS. Without an OS, a web browser is useless, but you can use an OS without a web browser. Which one is CRITICAL is obvious.
MS has been imbedding web technology into its OSs for a while. I think it is one of the few that really took web technology to its heart. If fact with XP, IE patches included patches to a lot of core OS functions, mitigating many explicit XP patches. This may have given the impression that XP was more stable all along than it really was. IE is just a fancy container into which a HTML renderer is loaded by default. It can also hold any of the MS Office apps or whatever.
Of course, not all applications need a web browser. Web technologies may well interfere by putting in too many extra layers of processing.
MS has been imbedding web technology into its OSs for a while. I think it is one of the few that really took web technology to its heart. If fact with XP, IE patches included patches to a lot of core OS functions, mitigating many explicit XP patches. This may have given the impression that XP was more stable all along than it really was. IE is just a fancy container into which a HTML renderer is loaded by default. It can also hold any of the MS Office apps or whatever.
Of course, not all applications need a web browser. Web technologies may well interfere by putting in too many extra layers of processing.
looks like vista to me - anyone notice any difference?
Which means that it may well be a more efficient implmentation of Vista technologies.
That can be significant in itself.
That can be significant in itself.
got to give them credit for the equatio writer!
In Windows 7 , Microsoft should put integrated anti virus full version., and firewall also should be more powerful., and it should detect all the threats and delete them ., and all data should be safe., there should be a way to lock the system files so that they should not get deleted..,
I think that MS knows that it cannot be the end all [no one company can], and instead tries to provide basic functionality, allowing specialists to provide the value added.
Live OneCare is going to be free from mid-2009, so that should up the ante.
Live OneCare is going to be free from mid-2009, so that should up the ante.
In Windows 7 , Microsoft should put integrated anti virus full version., and firewall also should be more powerful., and it should detect all the threats and delete them ., and all data should be safe., there should be a way to lock the system files so that they should not get deleted..,
is MS paying you guys to keep hyping win7 ???
wheres the msdn offer to test it for bugs if its available?
just like the stupid mojave commercials its pure bull...
xp still has market share, so trying to push 7 is just rushing ms to force out another vista failure.
want to impress me?
try putting out a new o/s video showing an average computer booting up in less than 30 seconds & restart done in same time.
impress me with a ms office application loading immediately.
show me WoW loading in 5 seconds.
who the heck cares what the desktop looks like?
it dissapears as soon as u open an application anyways.
most desktops are a mess anyways.
why not suggest improvments???
how about icons that appaer larger for the most used applications making it easier to find them. if i dont need to organize my desktop, id save real time
wheres the msdn offer to test it for bugs if its available?
just like the stupid mojave commercials its pure bull...
xp still has market share, so trying to push 7 is just rushing ms to force out another vista failure.
want to impress me?
try putting out a new o/s video showing an average computer booting up in less than 30 seconds & restart done in same time.
impress me with a ms office application loading immediately.
show me WoW loading in 5 seconds.
who the heck cares what the desktop looks like?
it dissapears as soon as u open an application anyways.
most desktops are a mess anyways.
why not suggest improvments???
how about icons that appaer larger for the most used applications making it easier to find them. if i dont need to organize my desktop, id save real time
If Microsoft can go back to the 95/98 and ME days where you could take the hard drive out replace either the motherboard and the chip and then reconnect the hard drive and it work with out having to flatten it and reload the OS again... then i might consider coming back to Windows. Currently using Mac OS 10 and Linuxs
looks just as big a mess as vista, still no 'Up one directory button', still the stupid explorer path control which is fiddly and annoying, and a few useless trinkets. No right click taskbar? Mac influence? Its great that its now faster than vista and xp, but so was windows 2000. Its still got the horrid verical vista folder icons and auto horizontal scroll, and still apparently has the monumental waste of space 'burn' bar that cant be removed from the folder view.
I used to love windows just for the fact that once upon a time it meant a broad, consistent target OS to build software for. Sure it needed to be regularly rebooted, but it became a standard where none previously existed. Now its just a curse, and for my money I'll have an OS where I can choose the UI elements I want, total fancy 3d everything to minimalist functional. Its time to move on, linux perhaps?
I used to love windows just for the fact that once upon a time it meant a broad, consistent target OS to build software for. Sure it needed to be regularly rebooted, but it became a standard where none previously existed. Now its just a curse, and for my money I'll have an OS where I can choose the UI elements I want, total fancy 3d everything to minimalist functional. Its time to move on, linux perhaps?
As Kiaser Whilhem once remarked "The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs!" Similarly: "The more I get to know Microsoft the more I like my Ubuntu and Suse!!" An Arizona Lizird!
Join the conversation!
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Vendor Showcase
