Windows 7 release date confirmed for Q4 2009. Recommended specs included

29 May 2008

Posted by:Ferry

Microsoft higher-ups have officially confirmed their Windows 7 operating system (OS). It could be set for a release as early as Q4 2009. Ignoring the disappointing uptake of Windows Vista (I’m still on XP SP2 myself, how about you?) Microsoft claims the reason for this fast release of their next OS is because Windows 7 won’t be started from scratch. Instead, it will build on the foundations laid by Windows Vista, Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008. Microsoft will not be creating a new kernel for the OS.

Chris Flores, from the official Windows Vista Team Blog claims this is a normal step in the Windows OS development cycle. To quote: “…we started working on Windows Vista even before we released Windows XP. So naturally, we’ve been thinking about the investments we made in Windows Vista and how we can build on these for the next version of Windows.” Apparently they don’t want another five year wait as was the case between Windows XP and Vista.

What recommended specs should you be expecting for Windows 7? To quote: “One of our design goals for Windows 7 is that it will run on the recommended hardware we specified for Windows Vista and that the applications and devices that work with Windows Vista will be compatible with Windows 7. — For Windows Vista Home Basic that’s a 1GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, 512MB of system memory and 20GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space. For Home Premium 1GHz 32-bit (x86) or 64-bit (x64) processor, 1GB of system memory and 40GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space.” — Via N4G

Categories: News, PC News

http://danielprimed.com Daniel Primed

I’m on Windows XP SP2 as well. I will probably switched over to a Mac when my laptop can’t keep up to snuff. I don’t use it for anything technical except for a few design programs so it should still last me a good while.
Mike

What a bunch of retards, these system requirements are one of the 2 major reasons why vista is failing. what happened to the earlier statement that win 7 would be “less” of a resource hog than vista??
gil

since vista is a disaster Microsoft will try to push the release date earlier, somebody remember windows ME ?
But you are looking at the wrong battle:
IPHONE,windows moblie,ANDROID,Symbian

thats the fight to win.
Archy

Mike, if it performs better on the same Specs, you can assume it’s less of a resource hog than Vista, anyway, can’t you?

Besides, by late next year, Those Minimum Specs will be considered ancient, anyway. They’re hardly demanding…
http://xcc.rpgee.com Xy

Oh, goody. Another waste of good coding prowess and a year of the “development” team’s time.

This whole “build[ing] on the foundations laid by Windows Vista, Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008″ is nonsense. They made this kernel for NT and they were slated for not building a new one for XP, much less Vista. Seems to me like M$ are just getting rich, fat and lazy…

How much “progress” are we actually making? There is no *need* for any OS to take up that much system resources, regardless of how they may compare to the most powerful systems around at the moment. Our hard drives are now full of slow and bloated VC++ code, hideously inefficiently coded and the admittedly pretty Vista doesn’t justify the need for 512 MB RAM and a 1Ghz proc just to build the OS itself.

Alright, I’m ranting. Live with it, I’m done now. Final point : I tried Vista, and I’ll probably try 7. I was a begrudging XP convert a long while ago and SP2 is working fine for me. Why change it to make my system run slower, and do millions of little visual effects I don’t need?

Curse you, M$, for holding the market so tightly.
Scott

As Windows 7 beta testing is under way, so is the software smoothing for the up and coming commercially available version.

I must say that video playback has improved on Windows 7 beta from both vista and remarkably XP. For instance, HD playback on youtube was beyond choppy when tried under the 2 latter OSs. But when tried under Windows 7 beta, the playback was flawless and smooth both windowed and full screen. I must say that Windows 7 beta is showing to have better resource management for multimedia based uses; which for all is a plus; a bonus in fact!

Afterall, most consumers want a faster operating system without having to buy a faster computer. And for those who want to buy faster, can; either way, both markets are covered.
Ronald

XP with 512MB does the same job, on the same hardware, 54% faster than Vista. Even with 4Gb of RAM, Vista is upto 36% slower than XP with 512MB. Vista is thus a serious productivity downgrade. If Windows 7 is based on the Vista platform, the global economic crisis is going to get worse. Question is Vista’s shockingly pathetic productivity the underlying cause of the 2008 economic meltdown? I suspect that Vista’s real problem, as the not so great-grandchild of ME, is that it may be about to sire another Super ME lemon called Windows 7.

Finally, check out RealOS, a freeware XP Pro clone that just may pull the rug from under both Microsoft and Linux distros. Why buy Windows 7 if a free XP clone that IS being updated, is out in the wild?
Ro4cH

I have a 1.6 GHz processor (single core) with 1.5 Gig of ram and im using Windows XP. Ive been using XP since i can remember and never ad anny problems. I use my comp more to view videos, movies and listen to music. Althought it dosen’t take a big operating system to view movies and video, that is enough for my pass-times.

I tried Vista but didn’t realy like it thought, not on this computer but a friend of mine as vista and he says that some features in vista are of no use to the OS. If Windows 7 is based on the OS of vista, how can u expect it to be much more powerfull than vista?

And the reason why videos on youtube runs better than XP or Vista is that Windows 7 as probably better connectivity over the internet and makes video runs smoother.
Michael

all i can say is that i am currently running a genuine version of windows 7 beta 6956 and have had no trouble running it on a computer half the minimum requirments for vista basic. the downside to that is poor video and gaming performance but it is more powerful than vista and worth upgrading to from XP. when the full version comes out buy it or download the beta and enjoy the 30 day trial. you can find many places to fully activate it without windows certification. hope this changes your minds.
Snake

I personnaly think Windows 7 will perform a lot more than vista, i tried both platform, the annoying search indexer.exe that keep scratching the hard drive is no longer an issue on windows 7. i seriously cannot understand how they Fu** it up so bad with vista, fake features, bad performance, and with out any doubt the bad-ass *NOT-RESPONDING* words that leave you so unpowerfull and useless in front of a PC that you bought for an outragous price.

as a mather of fact, i am running the latest 64 bits windows 7 beta release. i am very pleased that it got so much faster than vista (more efficient and reliable). i think microsoft shall give a free upgrade to Vista owner, specialy branded pc’s like hp, acer etc that cannot overide vista with xp.

it still lack few things like remote management (using log me in or other.) but it IS a beta release. i encountered few graphical glitches swaping from window to another but nothing major.

ooh yeah most important thing, they puted back some function from control panel back to the place they used to belong!

here would be my personnal score for today’s OS:

1- Windows XP
2- MAC OS X
3- Ubuntu

if windows 7 keep up i might consider put it #3.
..
..
..
vista would be a story all IT shall remember, i only installed win ME once, and i still can remember how bad it was, i got the same feelings on vista.