How Microsoft Counts-1,3.11,95,2000,XP,Vista,Windows 7
I know several people (including me) have wondered how exactly Windows 7 got its "7" designation. My count was:
1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3
4. Windows 95
5. Windows NT
6. Windows 98
7. Windows Me
8. Windows 2000
9. Windows XP
10. Windows Vista
I was also tempted to throw in Windows for Workgroups 3.11 and Windows 98 Second Edition which I consider significant releases. So, how did Microsoft figure out the current release is "7"? This item from their Higher Innovation blog might explain it...
Microsoft does not "count" Windows 2, 3 (they skip to 3.11), and 98. Windows NT is mentioned but apparently not included in the family line. So, there you have it. This is how Microsoft counts Windows versions:
1. Windows 1
2. Windows 3.11
3. Windows 95
4. Windows 2000
5. Windows XP
6. Windows Vista
7. Windows 7
The mystery is officially solved.
Quick Test of Windows Vista Touch Interface (video)
Noticed a Dell all-in-one PC with a touchscreen running Windows 7 Vista in a local Costco yesterday. Recorded a bit of me playing with the touch UI. I was very impressed by its responsiveness and ease of use. Was tempted to buy the Dell desktop PC. But, I don't really want an all-in-one desktop PC at the moment. I would like to get a touchscreen LCD display that can be used with existing desktops running Windows 7 though.
Windows 7 Compatible Multitouch Devices List
Microsoft On10.net has a list of all current multitouch devices compatible with Windows 7...
Where the Multitouch Devices Are
Most are tablet, netbook, notebook, and all-in-one desktop computers. However, there are also touch capable monitors including a 42-inch behemoth from HP.
The list includes the Asus Eee PC T91. However, my understanding is that this model is a single touch device. The T91A (not released yet) is the multi-touch model. I tried to post a comment on the On10 blog. However, it requires a sign-in and did not have a way to create an account. Why doesn't this Microsoft site use Passport?
Microsoft KB974332: Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Application Compatibility Update
Booted my Windows 7 64-bit Edition PC for the first time in a week and noticed a single update available titled:
Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Application Compatibility Update
You can find its description in: KB974332
This compatibility update says it fixes issues for Alcohol 52%, Altiris and Symantec Virtual Software up to version 6.1.499, ZoomText version 9.18, Dell Printer Driver (Models-V105, V305 and V505), Trend Micro Internet Security 2007/2008/2009, Trend Micro VirusBuster 2008 , YiDongFeiXin version 2.2.x and version 3.5.x, PGP Desktop up to version 9.x and Microsoft's own Windows Live Photo Gallery.
Upgraded Desktop from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Ultimate: Much Happier Now!
I finally got around to upgrading my desktop (quad-core, 4GB RAM) from Vista Home Premium to Windows 7 Ultimate Edition (RTM) - both 32-bit Editions. Wow! What a difference. Under Vista, the PC's drives constantly thrashed for reasons I never understood (4GB RAM not enough)? The PC's hard drive is now virtually silent. No thrashing. It runs and feels like a completely different (better so far) PC.
The only thing I've noticed lost so far is support for the Bluetooth USB I have on a hub. I rarel use it. And, it was always flaky under Vista anyway. I should probably invest in another USB Bluetooth stick.
AMD Dual Core Better Deal Than Intel for Windows Virtual PC Testing
The still-in-beta Windows XP Mode and Windows Virtual PC for Windows 7 needs hardware virtualization assist. However, many (most) Intel's low-end processors (even quad core models) do not support Intel VT-x. I recall spending a lot of time checking various comparison tables before buying my Dell quad-core PC last year to make sure its CPU supported VT-x.
When I thought my old PC running Windows XP died (or so I thought - see previous blog for its revival) a few weeks ago, I went to Costco and bought the cheapest PC they had - an eMachines (yes, I know I swore off them a while back, but $340 is a good price) PC with an Athlon X2 4050e processor. Generally speaking, none of the sub-$400 PCs with Intel Core Duo or Core 2 Duo processors I looked at a year ago supported Intel VT-x. So, I didn't expect this ultra-cheap AMD based one to provide AMD-V hardware virtualization. But, a quick check of its BIOS configuration shows that it does have that feature and that it is turned on by default.
I still haven't gotten around to installing Microsoft's in-beta virtualization products under Windows 7 RC yet. But, it is nice to know that I can since I didn't expect to do be able to test it for a long while.
Windows 7 RC Pushing Us to Go Green?
I mentioned a few days ago that migrating an old desktop PC from Windows 7 Beta to Windows 7 Release Candidate seemed to result in a noticeably slower system. I think I know why now.
Taking a look at Win7RC's power options on the desktop showed just the "Power Saving" and "Balanced" settings visible. I had to dig into the Advanced Options to find the "High Performance" power setting. Selecting this seemed to restore the desktop's performance to what it "felt like" with Win7Beta (I haven't performed any actual performance tests).
I wonder if Microsoft is trying to force users to go green (or buy faster PCs) by thinking that Balanced is the faster processor performance option available after a quick glance?
If your PC seems slower after migrating from Win7Beta to Win7RC, check your power options and hunt for the High Performance power setting.
Windows 7 RC Installations: 1 Fast, 1 Slow – No Idea Why
I installed Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC) on two computers so far.
The first was an Asus Eee PC 1000HA netbook that had Windows 7 Beta installed on it. I performed a clean non-formatting installation where the Win7Beta and associated directories were moved to another folder that RC does not look at. This installation took, perhaps 30 minutes including moving the old Beta related files to an archive folder.
The second was an old desktop PC with an AMD Athlon processor. It too had Win7Beta installed. The Beta installation took about 30 minutes. The move to RC, however, took hours. It took so long that after about 90 minutes I had to leave to run some errands and simply left the PC on to continue the installation process. The update had finally completed while I was out running my errands.
Here's another oddity. Win7RC seems to be running as fast as Win7Beta on my netbook (Eee PC 1000HA with an Intel Atom N270 processor). However, Win7RC seems much slower on the AMD Athlon based desktop PC. I haven't run any benchmarks to compare the two yet. However, tasks like starting the Firefox browser seems much slower on the desktop running Win7RC compared to the same PC when it ran Win7Beta.
Will There be a Windows 7 Release Candidate 2?
I recall reading statements from Microsoft that there would be one Windows 7 Beta and one Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC). So, why does this Microsoft On10.net blog item...
Top 7 Things to Check Out in Windows 7 RC1
...mention "RC1". Is it a simple typo? Or will there be an RC2 that pushes Windows 7's release date a bit further out. I sure hope not. I ran Windows 7 Beta from January through the end of April. And, I downloaded and installed Windows 7 RC last week Friday (May 1). These installs were on the netbook I take nearly everywhere with me including two trips to Seattle and New York in March. It is a "production" machine and, quite frankly, has been running a lot better than the "production" version of Windows Vista on my quad-core desktop.
Windows 7 Release Candidate Clean Install Does NOT Involve Reformatting
I'm a bit behind in listening to the Windows Weekly podcast by Paul Thurrott and Leo LaPorte. So, I just listened to WW #104 a few hours ago. During the course of the podcast, Paul and Leo discuss Windows 7 Release Candidate and commented that the best way to install the RC is a clean install because it does not support upgrading from XP or 7 Beta (all true).
However, they then mention that a clean install involves reformatting the drive. This is not true for the RC or the previous 7 Beta release. Here's what happens.
If you are performing a clean install for the first time on an existing Windows XP installation, the XP folder is moved to Windows.old. If you, like me, are performing a clean install on a PC that had XP on it first and currently has 7 Beta, the old XP files remain in the folder Windows.old while the 7 Beta files are placed in Windows.old.000.
However, the former version of Windows is not the only thing placed in those .old folders. You can see that the Program Files, Perflogs and Users folders along with autoexec.bat and config.sys files are also placed there. The new Windows 7 RC files completely replace those folders and the files in them to create a clean install. So, you won't see your old software or configuration. But, they are all there in the old folders until you delete them.
I actually looked for an option to either low-level format the partition or simply format the existing NFTS partition but did not see it during the Windows 7 RC installation process.