Smells like Vista...

Reeks of Vista I meant.

its an early build what do you think the GUI was the first thing shoved in? look at how vista looked in early builds prior to the Aero view.

regardless thats only looks anyway, not the whole package, so don't base an OS off of the GUI of an early build alone.

also writer: good job on posting the blurred mini image in the piece and the UNEDITED BUILD READABLE VERSION AS THE ENLARGED ONE! everyone check out the last pics lower right hand corner to see the blurred out portion from earlier images!

So what exactly is the difference between Vista and Win7? I'm sure it will look different by the time they are finished with it, but what features are they going to add/take away? Any further functionality? And why would they release this so soon after Vista's launch? I was thinking about building a new system this summer, but now I think I may end up waiting again. oi at least with XP we could wait 2 years for them to get the bugs out before building a tower for it.

Sweet.. A reskinned windows XP.

These match the ones found on http://www.thinknext.net/ .
Seems the new features (as of this first alpha) are better gadgets integration, things to pin and un-pin items in the start menu and recycle bin, and some other things. Check out http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2150 http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2133 http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2124

the reason that bitlocker can't be turned off, is because i'm sure they're going to implement the hardware version, where you need a physical chip on your motherboard to make it work.

and if you remove that, then it won't boot, far superior to the current method, but still not unbeatable.

Caeden Windows 7 is suppost to have a smaller kernal and is supost to be faster on boot up and shut down's.

So far all I can see is Windows 7 is going to be what Vista should had been. If Microsoft can get all the bloat out of there OS and make it so you don't have to have a monster PC just to get it to run like XP did would be great. I said it before and I will say it again Microsoft hasn't released a OS for a long time. What Microsoft has forgotten is that Windows what ever flavor it maybe is just a ends to a means. Most people that have Vista don't use the Aero Glass they turn it off even if there system can handle it. Microsoft sees OS X with all its wizbang stuff and say me too. Well what Microsoft forgets is that Apple has to put allot of that stuff in. Simply because there are not as many developers making software for OS X. You will see more now that Apple moved to the Intel platform. But still instead of Microsoft trying to put everthing they can in to Windows get it back to what it was suppost to be a OS not a APPLICATION. Much of the stuff that Microsoft includes in Windows could be left out. 80% of Windows is useless crap and could just be left out.

Well thats my 4 cents lol

I want a download of this build, when can you leak it, I am look forward to it. Thanks!

Few news have been revealed so far. Wikipedia is keeping up to date in summarizing news as they are confirmed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

And yes, so far it's looking almost exactly like Vista, but the UI changes usually come quite late in the process. Vista looked much like XP in its early builds too. ;-) And remember XP? It looked like Windows 98 early on.

Sounds like a plan

Good point, Kyle...

I don't see anything interesting in these images though. One integrated product and a changed version label. Maybe there is more that can be found!?

I wonder what happened to Win FS... is it postponed for Vista R2 or Windows 7 ?

If it is just more of the same (Vista), why bother? I am glad there are alternatives out there. One is ReactOS. http://www.reactos.org

For OS/2 Warp users, the alternative is eComStation. http://www.ecomstation.com With OSFree http://www.osfree.org and Voyager http://voyager.netlabs.org as the open source future of OS/2 Warp.

hmmm...referencing some of the earlier screenshots we seen on the web, they were very early builds and this looks like a near completed product...

and why is the windows version blurred out in the bottom right?

fake screenshots... shame on you tg

I hate to think that the next Windows version is coming. So are we saying here that Windows Vista is indeed a failure?

from the blurred part which shows winmain.071220-1525 ... seems to be a build from dec 20, 2007. why would they blur that out?

I spent money on a software liscense for Vista...i'm still using XP b/c it runs everything better overall and I've been waiting for SP1 forever to fix networking. Now a replacement OS is already being groomed for release. Oh well MS no wonder people pirate your software. Count me out next time.

Ok, I'll admit I'm probably a Microsoft fan boy(maybe even a Vista fan boy), but last I checked just Microsoft did used to work on building their next OS shortly after releasing an OS. If you go back and look at how they use to release. The only reason that there was such a gap between XP and then Vista release is that Vista was continually delayed. Even before Vista was deemed a failure by many Microsoft OS release cycle was somewhere around 2 to 3 years anyhow. This being true since the release of Windows 1.0. Vista just so happened to be an anomaly. So this really can't be seen as Microsoft seeing Vista as a failure just that the Redmond camp is getting back into gear and trying to release like they always have. This was just a few words by a Vista fanboy, but the proof is there.

The reason the build number was blurred out is probably so that Microsoft can't find out which ones were leaked. Current builds are only released to high-level exclusive partners, which are currently bound to an NDA (non-disclosure agreement). Microsoft is releasing some builds to certain partners so if they found out who was leaking pics, they'd be in their right to sue them since the partner-in-question would've broken their contract agreement.

If you really think that Windows 7 is going to be as radically different from Vista as Vista was from XP, think again. When Windows Vista was released, many from Microsoft had already stated that Microsoft would go back to releasing alternating major and minor product releases. So that means, don't expect major UI changes, don't expect major hardware compatibility issues (because driver authoring isn't changing much, except to support newer types of hardware and PC architectures), and don't expect all of your programs to suddenly "just work" (which leads me to my next point...). Likewise, don't expect Vista SP1 to just magically fix compatibility issues. If you've already got the compatibility and performance updates for Windows Vista, SP1 won't change a lot.

For anybody still bitching about hardware and software problems, complain to the people that made the hardware or software. Windows Vista was delayed 3 years and the betas were publicly available for many months, so if certain hardware or software that's fairly recent doesn't work properly, the manufacturer is to blame for not fully testing it. Any company not testing recent products with Windows Vista is going to lose customers looking for new computers since most new systems ship with Windows Vista. The best piece of advice I can give to anybody shopping for hardware or software is to look at www.windowsmarketplace.com or www.microsoft.com/hcl . All of the hardware and software on there is certified, which also means it works equally well on both x86 (32-bit), and x64 (64-bit) versions of Windows Vista. It's not hard to find a 64-bit computer that works great with Windows Vista, but 3rd-party software is still going to be the weak link in the chain. That said, I use a 64-bit copy of Windows Vista with a new notebook system: Santa Rosa C2D 2.4GHz w/ 4GB RAM (hey, what can I say, except that RAM is really cheap right now, and I work with several virtual machines for my testing and demonstrations for my business). I also play games on this system, and WoW, BF2, BF2142, Uru, and several other games I play, all play great on this computer.

Anybody saying that Vista is slow, think about it: if you're still using a single-core processor with less than 2GB of RAM, you're almost 3 years behind in technology - the *average* lifespan of computers is about 3 years....Pentium D's were released in April of 2005. 2GB of DDR2-667 RAM now costs about $30 too.

DUH!! of course it's going to look like vista, it's still in the first milestone.. Look at longhorn's first milestone it looks SO much like XP.. but had some different features added/changed/removed... The same with this.. GUI and all that fancy stuff comes in LATER BUILDS!! And for whoever says it's fake.. well it's not.. it's 100% legit.. and also there's a video of it in youtube and other sites.

The screenshots that looked like a near completed product ARE the fake ones.. becuase as I said.. GUI stuff comes in later Milestones.. This is 100% legit.. and Ty TG not shame on them, for bringing us more screenshots.. And windows version is blurred probably so Microsoft won't go after them!? dunno.. but again it's legit..

I too like Vista, but then again I like a few things about ME too. Both OSes seem to fall in a Microsoft pattern though. New features that are too new, and a bad release. MS seems to do one good, then one bad. So, if they keep to norms, Windows 7 will rock.

on first screenshot: Core 2 Duo E6700, 1GB RAM!

I'd like to think that Windows 7 will run well with that amount of memory.

As my home PC is mainly a gaming machine, I'm hoping this version of windows is nice and lean with most of the xtra poo dropped.

... and that is scary

New MS OSes in their early versions always look like the previous versions first. Vista looked like XP in a lot of early test builds. It wasn't until the Areo interface was closer to usable before it gained it's real look. This will be the same. The final will probably look at least a little different, if not a LOT different. The UI usually is the last touch anyway.

Wow,

I guess only the file system will only make the major change of vista and also the kernel being shrunk!!! I hope that they will also work on the startup to make sure that it does not take at least 45 seconds to load. It is amazing that our engineers of Microsoft cannot think something far more advance for the year 2010! I thought we would be at cell processors by now!!!

Thanx, I'll stick to Win2K!~

As I've stated in many other posting...

Vista owners are open beta tester for the newer platform. It was never worth it. This was your minor update

Waethorn - "If you really think that Windows 7 is going to be as radically different from Vista as Vista was from XP, think again"

It will be very different and a lot better. If you knew what vista was then you wouldn't have been suckered into it.

Waethorn - "When Windows Vista was released, many from Microsoft had already stated that Microsoft would go back to releasing alternating major and minor product releases."

If you don't read between the lines and look at the actions then you'll be a fan boy with blinders on. Microfluff can't fully be trusted and need their feet held to the fire.

Waethorn - "Windows Vista was delayed 3 years and the betas were publicly available for many months"
Lilhurt - "The only reason that there was such a gap between XP and then Vista release is that Vista was continually delayed."

Vista was NEVER continuously delayed. It was created based on a stripped down version of longhorn.

And you suckers remain open beta Vista testers. This is why none of you can name 10 new features of the OS to die for.

It made no since to purchase an OS with what I told you was 2 year shelf life TOPS! before immanent death. Windows 7 will be release early to mid 2009.

This isn't a minor update and I wish you guys would stop stating or purporting it's a minor update to vista. That's why you don't see a new OS on the roadmap for years after Vienna.

Please investigate what longhorn was supposed to be. Investigate WINFS, virtualization (which will render vista extinct), virtual processors, Hyper calls, virtualization stack, Hypervisor (type 1 and 2), Hyper-V, Minwin, legacy emulation, Changes to memory and power management etc. NO WAY IS IT MINOR.

You can't re-write the kernal, change storage system etc and call it a MINOR.

"Anybody saying that Vista is slow, think about it: if you're still using a single-core processor with less than 2GB of RAM, you're almost 3 years behind in technology - the *average* lifespan of computers is about 3 years..."

I always get a good chuckle when someone makes pronouncements about the lifespan of a computer. Really? Funny, I passed 3 years with my 2.4GHz P4. Guess what? The sides didn't fall of the case, the hard drive didn't leap out and catch on fire, all the software didn't uninstall itself, and the memory didn't melt into a pile of goo. And it still runs Adobe CS3, Office 2007, and Cinema 4D just fine, thanks so much. Granted, it isn't going to win any races, but hey, I can get a cup of coffee and chat a few minutes with my wife while I'm waiting for that render to finish. It's worth holding on to my $2000 for another year.

What Microsoft and computer manufacturers fail to account for -- probably because it means dollars out of their pockets if we don't all drink the Kool Aid like you have -- are the 95% of people who prefer to hold onto their computers as long as they can.

Vista is slow because it is the axe-handle with which Microsoft is desperately trying to bludgeon the general population into upgrading their hardware every 3 years. A new computer always costs $1000 - $2000, regardless of what RAM happens to cost today, or what it will cost tomorrow. (If that made a bit of difference, computers would be getting cheaper.) If you want to *have* to spend that kind of money every 3 years, congratulations and God bless. To most of America, XP is still the state of the art sweet spot when it comes to the hardware they're running.

Vista is the equivalent of gas stations telling us that they're now only going to sell hydrogen fuel. Cool! All you have to do is put out a little extra cash to get the right hardware to run it ...

This era will cut the cord to 32 bit coding. You will either have a 64 bit processor or taking the performance hit to emulate 64 bit code.

Please become educated consumers and READ BETWEEN THE LINES when the lines have been laid out. If you only follow "Microsoft had already stated that Microsoft" then you'll miss it.

When they stated "We are not giving official guidance to the public yet about the next version of Windows, other than that we’re working on it."
www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2007/feb07/02-13NextVerson.mspx

That statement wreaked of stench for sucker vista purchasers. Especially the special suckers that purchased the 599 Billy Boy Hancock Edition WOW !!!

Had anyone took a look and saw:

1) Vista being a VERY WEAK strip down version of longhorn.
2) Performing WORSE than its predecessor for NO GOOD REASON. Especially CPU extensive apps that areo glass has no impact on because it's all CPU processing.
3) The FACT that the new OS was lacking 10 new features to justify the purchase.
4) "The Big Reason" The company said and put into print that the next OS is WAY ahead of 2010 schedule

The message was clear that vista was a fraud and not worth the 199 up to 599 that suckers was paying for it.

See once a company shows a dishonest side you must be on-guard on their information. As an example:

Please read 'Gaming enthusiasts' section of
www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/benefit.mspx
a total rewrite while stripping down to vista.

"video game developers are at work right now building exciting 64-bit native games to help push these limits even further. Since data in memory is accessed about 10,000 times faster than it is on a disk drive, 64-bit native games hold the potential for significantly faster graphics rendering, producing photo-realistic immersion and rapid-fire play without annoying delays".

Find out who are these developers? Where are those 64 bit games that MS claims would be rocking our worlds? Why is Halo 2 & 3 only on vista if they are so enthused about the future of the XP64 gaming environment/horizon (reminder XP64 was re-written during the creation of vista which is a weak stip down version of longhorn).

Photo-realistic will be in XP64 according to them, how much better can you get than photo-realistic? I only see photo realistic now only touted in DX10 games, why the switch?

Why were developers duped with DX10 kits and explained how DX10 would revolutionize gaming on XP and vista. Only to have the old 'bait and switch' occur with DX10 on Vista only FOR NO REASON BUT TO PROMOTE VISTA SALES TO GAMERS?

I'm very happy to read that many of you are now getting it special mention of ThomFrost. That microfluff needs to stop fluffing up the OS with required purchased applications and instead create a great OS. Put your crappy applications on store shelves and compete in the market.

Lastly, where is the Jerk Genius NormaVistaUser?

Who VERY stupidly stated Vienna "It will not hit retail shelves in 2009, I would bet your life,and your moms on that."
www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35109/140

OMG, you guys and the comments on what it looks like.
Real intelligent judging an incredibly early version of an OS based on that it looks like the current gen OS.

So, you've used it then? You know its just like Vista?
Or are you basing that solely on the fact that it shares the same GUI?

I've had vista since it first came out, i've also had xp and windows 2000 on a few other comps i own... i really don'thave any problems with vista at all other than the learning curve of figuring out where everything was located... All of my games work fine with vista, and all of the programs that i use on a regular basis do to...
I don't use my comp for anything really crazy, just normal home pc computing, and i find vista to be perfectly acceptable and plenty fast...

Damn I'm so glad I got a Vista PC, because compatibility, longevity and speed are just awesome (anyone using a sarcasm meter should get an off-the-chart reading)

Buy Vista now! We gots ta keep up with the Jones's. Vista requires twice as much power to run half as fast. I disagree with Waethorn, I think 5 years is the average lifespan for a PC. That is referring to how long it will be able to use modern programs effectively. I sold my comp with an AthlonXP 2000 and 1GB of RAM a few years ago but it's 5 years old and still works perfectly. I even tested Vista on it a few weeks ago when I was removing viruses for a freind. Wasn't worth running Vista on it of course, I just wanted to make sure it could.

Look at the 4th screenshot... on the left you can see where the black background has been pasted over!!!!!!!!

Chris: "i really don'thave any problems with vista at all other than the learning curve of figuring out where everything was located"
A learning curve? Shouldn't software get more intuitive with time? Oh, wait, I'm thinking about OS X.

Chris: "I don't use my comp for anything really crazy, just normal home pc computing, and i find vista to be perfectly acceptable and plenty fast"
LOL, they why not stick with XP? You really got lucky if you don't have problems, and XP is way better than Vista at being "perfectly acceptable and plenty fast".

Idiot: "Damn I'm so glad I got a Vista PC, because compatibility, longevity and speed are just awesome (anyone using a sarcasm meter should get an off-the-chart reading)"
LOL yeah the things you need in a computer just suck in Vista. lol

Windows 7 was anounced 64bit only... The screenshots show 32bit version...

It;s VISTA! How can u be so stupid to believe this is Windows 7. On windows Edition it says "Windows 7 Ultimate" :)) Come on, man...this is the best U can?

This isnt vista, Win 7 just looks like vista

So it's Vista then. I'm sure Windows 7 will look nothing like this on its release late 2009. Let's hope the improvements/changes are a little more obvious than these 'Windows 7' screenshots.

if this is windows 7 id rather stay with vista, waste 300 $ on an OS i have already,thats insane. besides, if it has vista's same features, why replace it?

You dorks who keep saying things like "it looks like Vista" and "if this is windows 7 id rather stay with vista" - PLEASE SHUT UP! You're making yourselves look really, REALLY dumb.

They just started working on the existing project (longhorn) and renamed to (blackcomb). First time Microsoft feeling the open source community as its competitor and trying to keep the domination by approving its standards from all the regulatory authorities and respective standard organization bodies from various countries. Open source movement is slowly swallowing the OS market. I cannot understand why the Vista is so blown (disk space) OS today on earth.

Kinda seems to be circular logic. My question is, according to the Wikipedia info, they are in Release candidates as of April. Normally, partners have copies of OS that are on the release table....yet, my Partner Program info and packets do not include Windows 7. What DID get released in this year in RC and final product was Windows Server 2008...
Since I can't seem to find info on this anywhere but here with EDITED screenshots.....that's right folks....edited.
It makes me wonder just where this info is coming from.
Can the authors provide further clarification?

are this OS are light from vista ultimate?

Sucks LIke Vista

For me this windows 7, is just like a service pack for windows vista! It has the same face.. They are doing it to fix all bugs that vista have.

this screen-shot from vista look copyright 2007 ;) for credible sources about seven and news http://windows7news.com/

win7 sucks = vista - so try opensuse - rocks - esp - 1 click app installs