[neo]

With Windows Vista far from being the last mammoth release of the Windows operating system as we know it, Microsoft is increasingly focusing on Windows 7.

Stripped down of its Vienna codename, following the development strategy implemented by Steven Sinofsky, Senior Vice President, Windows and Windows Live Engineering Group, debuted with the introduction of product numbers, Windows 7 is currently set for 2010, in both 32-bit and 64-bit flavors. At the same time, there are generally only scarce details related to Windows 7 available, most of which do not benefit from any official confirmation from Microsoft.

But one aspect of the operating system, that the Redmond company will evolve, concerns the ecosystem of programs and applications built on top of the platform. In this context, Windows 7 could be synonymous with an overhaul of how the Windows client handles the deployment, configuration and management of third-party software products integrated into its fabric in an effort to improve installation, stability, performance etc.

Well, according to the Windows Survey on Deploying and Configuring Applications, Microsoft is quite interested in the impact of the User Account Control on the development, installation and configuring of applications. While it is highly unlikely that the company is considering dropping UAC, the security mitigation could be tweaked as a consequence of the feedback received. But at the same time, Microsoft is pointing to a simpler installation experience that does not by any means require elevation of privileges.

Microsoft is also questioning developers in relation to the diagnostics and troubleshooting process of application failures, as well as extensive repair options, complete uninstall and a separation of the program from Windows in order to avoid conflicts and errors impacting the operating system. Still, by the repetition of the topic involving the lack of administrative privileges for future applications for Windows 7 it appears that the UAC is here to stay.

Source: Softpedia

[ripken204]

ya too bad they got rid of the vienna name, i absoultly love that as a final name.
this if funny b/c i was just reading up on it last night.

they should just get rid of 32bit. this will cause driver developers and program developers to only code 64bit apps.
most cpus now are 64bit and by 2010 they all will be, so why not take advanatage of it.

a while ago i read about them designing a new user interface, a completely different way for us to interact with our files.
it would be cool if they could pull something out but i higlhly doubt that they will. even if they do it will probably suck.

[neo]

64 bit computing has been started since Windows XP x64 Edition or earlier Windows 2000 64bit edition, that was not released commercially. But at present........the War between core architecture of applications and hardwares going on....see an example Nero is still in 32 bit...... Motorola SM56 modem doesn't have digitally signed drivers for 64bit OS.

Thats Why Microsoft looks for legency of applications & hardwares

[ripken204]

ya currently that is true. but by the time the next windows comes out, prolly 2012.. there should definatly be some changes in hardware by then.

[ben100014]

Maybe it will bring not as many buggy things, like Vista before its first Service Pack. I tried installing Vista on my "older" computer, It didn't even install a quater of the way. I hope Bill Gates has a good idea of Windows 7 as his last OS as lead Designer. It better be good, that is all I can say.

[ripken204]

well old computer... vista is not meant for those.

[Zxian]

ben100014, on Nov 24 2007, 03:15 PM, said:

Maybe it will bring not as many buggy things, like Vista before its first Service Pack. I tried installing Vista on my "older" computer, It didn't even install a quater of the way. I hope Bill Gates has a good idea of Windows 7 as his last OS as lead Designer. It better be good, that is all I can say.

Every piece of software is in a perpetual state of beta.

Seriously though - can you name one operating system that hasn't been plagued by bugs in it's initial release? Have you seen the number of bug reports surrounding Leopard as of late? How about this one, which seems to affect most releases of OSX?

As for Vista running on older hardware - there were numerous reports of people running Vista on systems as low-powered as a PIII with 384MB of RAM.

[Win2k3EE]

I really hope they will improve the file system and the registry and a better memory management in order to be able to disable at all th use of virtual memory or a pagefile on systems with much RAM (e.g. 4GB). That's all I want from the next generation of Windows, but I don't think I'll see a version of Windows like that soon enough.

[ripken204]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinFS

[cluberti]

Win2k3EE, on Nov 25 2007, 01:46 PM, said:

I really hope they will improve the file system and the registry and a better memory management in order to be able to disable at all th use of virtual memory or a pagefile on systems with much RAM (e.g. 4GB). That's all I want from the next generation of Windows, but I don't think I'll see a version of Windows like that soon enough.

64bit has no such problems. The reason you see these issues on 32bit is because you're reaching the limitations of the architecture, not the software, when you put a lot of RAM in a box (2 to the 32nd power is 4096, or 4GB - the maximum a 32bit OS can use without PAE). Don't blame Windows (or any other 32bit OS, for that matter) for having trouble with 4GB of RAM or poor memory management at that boundary under load - it's not the software's fault. Blame your hardware and software vendors for keeping the x86 architecture alive and kicking so long (32bit processors have been around since the mid 1970's!!!) - 64bit OSes were available in the Unix world from most vendors about 11 years ago, and about 8 years ago became more mainstream (although DEC had a version since 1992 for Alpha, which became Compaq Tru64).

The sooner we get hardware and software vendors to realize that movement to 64bit is a good idea, the fewer issues you'll see on the memory management and memory barrier front.

[arctirus]

neo, on Nov 24 2007, 11:57 AM, said:

64 bit computing has been started since Windows XP x64 Edition or earlier Windows 2000 64bit edition, that was not released commercially. But at present........the War between core architecture of applications and hardwares going on....see an example Nero is still in 32 bit...... Motorola SM56 modem doesn't have digitally signed drivers for 64bit OS.

Thats Why Microsoft looks for legency of applications & hardwares

I don't quite see why you mention nero. 32 bit applications run just peachy on a 64 bit windows os. Really the ONLY thing stopping a 64 bit os is driver support and even now there are very few modern devices that don't have 64 bit drivers.

I think microsoft is doing the world a big disservice in even producing a 32 bit version of windows 7. On a positive note they have made exchange 2007 64 bit only, let's hope this trend continues.

[ripken204]

well it's not microsofts fault for the driver support, it's mainly because some companies are too lazy or just refuse to make 64bit drivers. which is really stupid in my opinion. 64bit driver support has gone a long way since i started using xp x64, i had to struggle to find drivers for this. now it is pretty much the norm to have 64bit drivers except for a few companies.