Windows 7 7004; compatibility worries; performance beats Vista

[Barman58]

Windows 7 7004; compatibility worries; performance beats Vista

Windows 7 has surpassed the 7000 build mark as it has been spotted at build 7004. This has concerned a few people in regards to build numbers, but all shall become clear. Don’t worry; your applications are safe and non-hardware specific applications should still work on this and future builds of Windows 7.
Compatibility
Myself and Mary-Jo were discussing compatibility issues around the Windows 7 kernel. The kernel being the basic (I say basic, it’s one of the most advanced teams at Microsoft) brain of the operating system, needs to be at version “6.1″, as opposed to “6.0″ for Vista. The reason is, the “6″ is picked up by applications and is recognised as “Windows Vista” and work well. If it detects “7.0″, hence the name, then these applications simply will not recognise the operating system they’re installing onto, and fail. Simple, but crucial.
To beat this, Windows 7 will be 6.1.****, where the asterisks are the build number. At the moment, we’re looking at build 7004, demonstrated over on Scott Wylie’s blog, showing off a Twitter gadget running on the desktop.

Trust me, it says “Build 7004″; uploaded in case original image gets pulled.

Performance
Although I don’t have the latest copy of Windows 7 (7004), I’ve been playing with build 6956 which I mentioned a week or so ago. I know performance isn’t stable yet, and things can change a hell of a lot in the course of 50 builds, but performance has already significantly improved.​

I installed outside a virtual machine, on a dual boot laptop two fresh copies of Windows Vista (SP1) and Windows 7 (6956). As soon as it booted up, I opened the Task Manager and took a screenshot when the up-time hit 4 minutes. The results are fairly interesting:​

​

Although I would not go as far to say that Vista is bloated or uses up far too many system resources… it does a little bit, but what really shows is how much Windows 7 has slimmed down. Let’s face it, Windows 7 is basically Windows Vista with some new features, some necessaries taken out and generally stabilised quite a bit.​

Windows 7, from my probably fairly inconclusive analysis, uses less physical memory, halves the amount of kernel memory being used, has a relatively stable and similar ratio between threads and handles (processor stuff), uses less processes on initial post-install, and CPU usage doesn’t seem as erratic even though there are a fair number of peaks.​

Bring on the beta build; torrents primed people!​

 

[Abhimanyu]

I had heard that microsoft would use a new kernel for their next OS and dump the heavy kernel for Vista. What Happened to that?
Considering Windows 7 to be faster on a Machine than Windows Vista. Should they have got out the new kernel with windows 7? That would have been amazing,but that would have killed the hardware companies. I wouldnt have felt a need for a quad core or i7 then.
Btw i dont feel it now either.

Also would they keep it in the 6.x.xxxx when the final version of 7 releases. Or are they planning to use it for the time being. Also I have still noticed many vista supported softwares not working on 7 as they didnt support the OS and i had to use the "Troubleshoot Compatibility" option,which worked fine to my amazement.

 

[Barman58]

Hi Abhimanyu,

Windows 7 does include a lot of revisiona to the kernel, wheather this classifies as the fabled "minwin" is open for debate

If you have an hour to spare you can here the facts from Microsoft themselves in this video ...

Mark Russinovich: Inside Windows 7 | Going Deep | Channel 9

As far as I know, to increase backwards compatibility, Windows 7 will have a version number of 6.1.xxxx where xxxx is the build number.

 

[mansrm81]

Thanks for the info Nigel

 

[DiamondNRG]

As far as I know, to increase backwards compatibility, Windows 7 will have a version number of 6.1.xxxx where xxxx is the build number.

I think a lot of people will actually think less of Windows 7 because of this, like it is a service pack.

Why is it necessary to keep the version number to a 6 when you can install a program in Vista compatibility mode?

 

[Barman58]

Hi DiamondNRG,

I think the retention of the 6.1.xxxx will certainly cause some more advanced users to consider Windows 7 as an update, It already has in fact with some of the less well informed bloggers out there.

The thing is that it's not the more advanced users, (like the vast number of our members here), that Microsoft have to convince to go out and install Windows 7, but the IT managers and "normal" home users, The these groups the OOB (out of box) experience is extremely important. The more applications that Windows runs without having to use any compatibility tool the better the "just works" impression is - and that sells!

A lot of the blame for the need for this stratagy would have to be leveled at the programmers of 3rd part applications who specify an actual revision number when they check for compatibility, (if they check for greater than 6, then it will work as M$ intended - if it works on Vista It'll work on Windows 7 )

Whether the fixing of the acceptable version number is done for the sake of upgrade sales, (New OS - New Application?), or or just by less than elegent programming, I don't know, but it is of course Microsoft which takes the blame.

Microsoft publishes guidlines for this type of thing unfortunanely some 3rd parties choose to ignore this advice, even to the level that even a service pack will "break" things"

Hope this helps to explain things as I see them

 

[DiamondNRG]

Yeah that makes sense. I just wish Microsoft would for once say, if your software does not work on our OS because they did not follow our guidelines then you should use a different product and it is not your OS' fault!

 

[Barman58]

Hello, DiamondNRG,

the same sort of thing is responsible for a lot of the flak that the UAC got in Vista, Microsoft specified in NT3.5 that applications should be written to work with a standard user account. How many programmers decided not to follow that one because it was a more difficult option It also didn't help the security of the system to have so much running with admin privilege

I had a user with a problem the other day and it turns out that their desktop publisher has to be run as admin

 

[DiamondNRG]

Yikes, yeah that is bad.

 

[Dzomlija]

Yeah that makes sense. I just wish Microsoft would for once say, if your software does not work on our OS because they did not follow our guidelines then you should use a different product and it is not your OS' fault!

Actually, I believe Microsoft does say something similar to that. The trouble is, too many people turn around and lay the blame on Microsoft, saying that the OS is bad because their applications don't work properly.

While I may not be a professional programmer, I have been using Delphi long enough to know that a great many bugs in any given project are primarily caused by my code not following the rules, or because I took shortcuts.

But it's never the developers fault! People have been blaming Microsoft for so long, they forgotten how to take responsibility for their own shortcomings.

 

[darkassain]

completely agree with Nigel and Dzomlija

to me most programmers are getting lazier and lazier...

MS codes their OS with certain features enabled if your (DEP for one....)
and that makes some programs not work....
in the ideal world DEP would be running for every app...
that would almost thwart every malware (almost i say about 95% the rest would be web based/social engineered...)

this leads me to believe the that this is the only reason why we havent run our apps and most installations ala linux style (you know what i mean...lol)

i would think that if MS enforced this earlier the would have avoided the backlash that happened with vista...

me thinks that this backlash would have been better off early since mac's were insanely uneconomical even at those standards ( it was cheaper to build a comparable pc [well then again you cant compare since there different archictures but its still valid you can do much more with a comparibly priced pc] and it was compatible with 80% of most programs out there...)

but then again its not only the programmers fault...
its also MS's fault for not strictly enforcing these guidlines
also its the users fault for buying software that forces you to be admin (or make the program run with admin status) for some reason or another


just my 2 cents (now i have 8 cents...)

 

[NormCameron]

"

​

The only clue that Windows 7 beta 1 build 7000 is indeed a beta comes from About dialog of Windows Media Center, where the Windows 7 has the version build 6.1.7000.0 (winmain.win7beta.081212-1400). The build will expire on 02.07.2009.

​

Windows 7 beta 1 Build 7000 About Windows Media Player

http://www.blogsdna.com/1763/window...00081212-1400-dvd-iso-details-screenshots.htm

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

"The only clue that Windows 7 beta 1 build 7000 is indeed a beta comes from About dialog of Windows Media Center, where the Windows 7 has the version build 6.1.7000.0 (winmain.win7beta.081212-1400). The build will expire on 02.07.2009.

Hello all.

I wonder if there's a small clue of the release date in this. If it's released on 7 January as some have said; that would put the expiration/re-arm date at (or before) 7 February.







Later Ted

 

[DiamondNRG]

Hello all.

I wonder if there's a small clue of the release date in this. If it's released on 7 January as some have said; that would put the expiration/re-arm date at (or before) 7 February.

Later Ted

But you are reading a post with a different date format. It is July 2nd, not February 7th... Dates sure are a pain internationally!

PS: Ted, why are there so many blank spaces in all your posts before the "later ted" part ... I always get screwed up and type my reply in the middle of the quote to you!!!

 

[darkassain]

correct it is july not feb.


@diamond i always try to delete the spaces before finishing posts that quote BFK

 

[johngalt]

A fast way to not have to worry about it is to hit [CTRL] + [END] to get to the absolute end of the quotation - then you can start replying.

It's what I have to do when quoting BFK as well, along with a couple of others at other forums - it's not a big deal.

 

[garysgold]

Seems to me that these dates are designed to be well past the release of the public beta and nothing else.

Gary

 

[Bare Foot Kid]

Yes, you're right. I can't keep the Int. date difference straight; even though I know better.

As far as the bottom "Later Ted" goes; I started doing it because that's how much space the post will take up anyway and now I'm too old to change.......Sorry for any inconvenience.















Later Ted

 

[darkassain]

might as well make use of the extra space huh Barefoot??

as for the use of the builds and build dates...
i think this is a branch of the beta as the the build # has not changed that much..