Windows 7
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/

Windows 7 public beta to be available Friday
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=software_development&articleId=9125298&taxonomyId=63&intsrc=kc_top

http://www.google.com/search?q=windows+7+public+beta&rls=com.microsoft:en-au&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

I read somewhere that the beta will be available as an upgrade from Vista only.  Does anyone know the specifics on this?  Would an XP user be unable to test out Windows 7?  Will it install on a clean partition?

>Does anyone know the specifics on this?

Why, yes!  Yes, they do!  Anyone who read the article cited above.

I went ahead and got it off of our MSDN account shortly after they posted it last night.  I set it up as a virtual machine to test it out.  I am enjoying it thus far.

Joey
CCNA, MCSA 2003, MCP, A+, Network+, Wireless#

Thanks for the useless reply, although the article doesn't specifically mention it.  It does however link to another FAQ article stating what I had said I read.

That being said, let me rephrase my question:  Does anyone know if CW's FAQ is accurate wherein it states you must upgrade from a current installation of Vista?  Perhaps an MSDN subscriber who has already attempted to install this on a clean drive?

BTW, the above post was a response to harebrain's reply, not Joey's.

The upgrade path is if you want to keep all of your existing files and programs and upgrade to Windows 7 beta.  As the article states the beta only supports and upgrade path from Vista SP1.  XP is not a supported upgrade path for the beta.  You do not have to have Vista SP1 to install Windows 7 beta though.  You can do a clean install of Windows 7 beta all you want.

Joey
CCNA, MCSA 2003, MCP, A+, Network+, Wireless#

Perfect, thanks!

Back up first, you'll need a clean partition and remember that if you install the Beta and like it, you MAY need to wipe it to get the full copy on there as there may not be an upgrade path from the Beta to the full version.

This has been the case with some previous Windows versions.

Has anyone tried the copying over from a network share to see if that still causes any issues?

Most people spend their time on the "urgent" rather than on the "important."
 

>Thanks for the useless reply

I hardly think the reply was useless, when what it did was prompt you to think about your question and state it more clearly.  Following that, there was a short, accurate answer.

Not splitting hairs here but if you read the short, accurate answer, it pretty much reads in response to RiverGuy's first question. While also citing that the information was stated in the article, it was actually helpful as well.

HarleyQuinn
---------------------------------
The most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is that if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a little. - Joe Martin

Get the most out of Tek-Tips, read FAQ222-2244: How to get the best answers before posting.

Why W7?

not being sarcastic, but it seems that Vista was supposed to improve upon XP and W7 is supposed to be better than either - but what is the advantage in the real world of computing and/or communicating information using programs or the internet.

the only thing I am seeing is the need for more horsepower and resources which translate into more expensive layouts.

besides that, every time one of my PCs goes haywire I end up using an open source (non-MS) resource to fix it.

 

Quote:

Why W7?

From my understanding, it is what Vista was supposed to be!
having seen lots of early stuff from Vista (videos and articles I read before it hit the shelf) and it not being there in the RTM, leads me to think so...

 

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

>it is what Vista was supposed to be!

So the Vista-bashers would have you believe. A better description would be that this is a minor kernel revision (from 6.0 to 6.1), whose prime benefit is an increase in performance. Oh, and reduction in UAC interference in what yiu are trying to do ...

It certainly doesn't appear to include the features that were dropped from Longhorn in order to actually get Vista out of the door, such as WinFS

Why not call it Vista SE or Vista 2, then? Notwithstanding Microsoft's marketing department claiming that calling it Windows 7 removes confusion I'd argue that it is because of the negative perception of Vista  

Windows 7 is to Vista much as XP SP2 was to XP.

The anti-Vista whining has gotten very old.  Vista (and UAC) are here to stay for a while.  Cope or fail.

it just seems to me that they (MS) would do better in staying with an OS and making it more bullet proof (internet-wise) than offering another OS.

let's face it all systems are now being geared toward the internet not stand alone PCs.

some would say that newer OSs are being built for the gaming user more than anything else.

i am not anti-Vista or W7, just seems like a never ending cycle reminding me of Groundhog Day!

New M$ OS, well I suppose its for the same reason that car manufacturers bring out new models every few years.
i.e marketing.
People (in general) always like to think they have something new.
or
So Microsoft can make more money?
 

Steve: N.M.N.F.
If something is popular, it must be wrong: Mark Twain

Quote:

So the Vista-bashers would have you believe.

I disagree...
Longhorn concept,a video of an early longhorn concept from 2003....
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y

Quote:

A better description would be that this is a minor kernel revision (from 6.0 to 6.1)

doesn't make sense with the naming scheme of Windows7... but I'll wait til I have it in my hands and installed to verify this...
 

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

Please read what I said very carefully. I specifically pointed out that features were indeed removed from Longhorn before Vista's release in order to actually get it released. Windows 7 is not reintroducing those features that were removed from Longhorn. Thus Windows 7 is not "what Vista was supposed to be"

>I'll wait til I have it in my hands and installed to verify this

Fair enough. But I'm not guessing here, you know.

>the only thing I am seeing is the need for more horsepower

Most tests so far, even given that this is beta code, seem to indicate that W7 is faster than Vista (and we're talking faster than Vista SP1, which is around about as fast as XP on appropriate hardware, which is most systems sold in the last couple of years or so)

>offering another OS

Frankly, it's the same OS. Just a few different bells and whistles.

Faster, smoother, some bits are irritating but generally looking shiny and feeling good.

Quote:

Quote:

    A better description would be that this is a minor kernel revision (from 6.0 to 6.1)

doesn't make sense with the naming scheme of Windows7... but I'll wait til I have it in my hands and installed to verify this...

and I was correct, it seems that 7even will get a NEW kernel...

Windows Driver Kit: Device Installation
Sample INF Models Sections for Only One Target Operating System
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd419804.aspx
 

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.

I'd have a look at the parent page of the link you provided, if I were you: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd419805.aspx

And here's a screenshot from the Release Candidate:

XP will be available in virtual mode.

wonder how many will use it or go all the way for W7?

Only in Pro and Ultimate (oh, and Enterprise)

"XP Mode" isn't meant for home users anyway.  Gamers will probably be particularly disappointed because of the way virtualization uses video hardware.

This seems to be meant to help businesses transition from XP.  More like a big appcompat shim.

Quote:

Windows XP Mode is specifically designed to help small businesses move to Windows 7. Windows XP Mode provides you with the flexibility to run many older productivity applications on a Windows 7 based PC.

source: http://bink.nu/

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.

Home users, of course, don't use their computers for anything apart from games ...

What they really mean is that their biggest market is business, and that market turned its nose up at Vista, so now MS need to offer every incentive possible to get business to adopt W7

 

I think they may have misjudged the reasons for Vista's slow adoption in business then.  Many established organizations are very slow to move at all.

We just moved from Win2K to XP a few months after Vista was publicly released.  I suspect that people who manage large desktop sites get heavily invested in 3rd party tools that have inertia of their own as well.  All of the costs and the learning curve involved add up to some pretty extreme conservatism.  They have us stuck back on Office 2002 (XP) for the same reasons.

Quote:

We just moved from Win2K to XP a few months after Vista was publicly released.

wow that is early! one of the companies that I work with, or service, have just adopted XP x86 as their main OS 6 months ago... and Vista & XP 64, are not even allowed on company computers, at all...

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.

And Admin account is disabled as in Vista?
I still cannot for the life of me why this is. Seems a small thing to pick on, I just cant get my head around the idea...

The security best practice advice for years has been to disable the administrator account. The fact that Vista (and now Windows 7) have this as the default is not really a surprise.

How many XP computers are out there where you can just walk up reboot (into safe mode if needed) and log on to Admistrator with a blank password and do anything at all?  In my opinion, this is one of the greatest security problems out there.  With that said, I'm not sure that disabling it is the best solution, but it's certainly better.  Personally, I would prefer a required, strong password on the Adminsitrator account.  When setting up a new machine, I always reenable the local Administrator account, give it a good password and then hide it from the welcome screen.