Windows 7 release candidate by the end of February?

By on February 19, 2009, 8:18 AM
The next iteration of Windows is evolving at fast pace. With less than two months since the first and only beta was made public, it appears that a release candidate build has already been branched off of the main code tree and is being prepared for release as early as the end of this month to select testers.

Specifically, WinFuture.de claims that an RC1 build (presumably 7048) will be released privately sometime around February 27 to MSDN and TechNet subscribers as well as beta testers signed up on Microsoft Connect and participants of the Technology Adopters Program. There is no mention of a public release though some speculate it could arrive sometime in April.

It is clear that the software giant is at least aiming to get Windows 7 ready for prime time by the holiday season, perhaps even earlier, but they have yet to confirm any specific dates. Meanwhile, some are worried that Microsoft may be rushing the development of Windows 7, claiming that the company isn't taking their feedback seriously, even when filed through their private beta tester feedback channels.




User Comments: 15

Got something to say? Post a comment
maestromasada said:
wow! just when I was about to upgrade to Vista... I better hold it
windmill007 said:
Vista was the beta and Windows 7 is the real deal.Like Windows ME was the beta and XP was the real deal.I guess history does repeat itself.
TD_Baker said:
well until SP1 comes out for Win7, i'm not planning to upgrade anytime soon
computorial said:
I agree with TD_Baker. I learn from Microsoft to be VERY cautious about their products. I still remember their notorious campaign about promoting Vista and how good it was back than....After that it turned out it Vista was not that great. So let's be cautious about W7 now. At the end it is all about the money and not quality up there in Redmond. At least most of the time.
DarkCobra said:
Well let make cast my vote also for CAUTION. All primary indications are that Windows 7 is finally "Vista Done Right" and all I can say is about time! I realize that anything new is bound to have some bumps but frankly I'm tiring of being Steve Ballmers Beta *****. I finally have gotten Vista to play nice in the sandbox with all my stuff (no thanks to MS either). I've had to twist, pull and registry hack the hell out of Vista to finally get it running smoothly. I'm not about to leap into something new until a good passage of time goes by first.
DarkCobra said:
Check this out:[url]http://weblog.infoworld.com/enterprisedesktop/archi
es/2009/02/windows_7_cutti.html[/url]
tengeta said:
ME was the beta and XP was the real deal... LOLXP was the end product of the scrapped Windows Neptune, and is based more off Windows NT4 than Windows ME.ME was a crapheap, Vista was fine, it became the victim of the modern media war. Anyone who actually deals with Vista knows what it really does. 7 is just an even flashier interface with actual bugs which probably won't even get fixed before it comes out because they know all the Vista haters that have no clue will drop money on it without even thinking. That makes sooner better for them, but makes Windows 7 a junkpile that only ME will have topped in the history books.
windmill007 said:
[b]Originally posted by tengeta:[/b][quote]Vista was fine.......Anyone who actually deals with Vista knows what it really does. ..but makes Windows 7 a junkpile that only ME will have topped in the history books.[/quote]Are you in the same world? Vista was not fine. It had problems...compatability...slowness....etc... These are real world test. I use computers all the time and vista was a dung heap. It is bearable now but nothing anyone with a choice would want to use. I been using Windows 7 and it actually works well. A great first impression which unfortunately vista did not have at all.
windmill007 said:
[b]Originally posted by windmill007:[/b][quote][b]Originally posted by tengeta:[/b][quote]Vista was fine.......Anyone who actually deals with Vista knows what it really does. ..but makes Windows 7 a junkpile that only ME will have topped in the history books.[/quote]Did you see the flash in ME and also see it also in XP? That's what I was talking about...I know XP was a different kernel but ME brought it... its looks. Are you in the same world? Vista was not fine. It had problems...compatibility...slowness....etc... These are real world test. I use computers all the time and vista was a dung heap. It is bearable now but nothing anyone with a choice would want to use. I been using Windows 7 and it actually works well. A great first impression which unfortunately vista did not have at all. [/quote]
lordbf1 said:
[b]Originally posted by windmill007:[/b][quote]Vista was the beta and Windows 7 is the real deal.Like Windows ME was the beta and XP was the real deal.I guess history does repeat itself.[/quote]i think you missed windows 2000. more like me was the beta for win2k.
abstrait said:
[b]Originally posted by windmill007:[/b][quote]Are you in the same world? Vista was not fine. It had problems...compatability(sic) ...slowness....etc... These are real world test. I use computers all the time and vista was a dung heap. It is bearable now but nothing anyone with a choice would want to use.[/quote]This "I hate Vista thing" which is based on the countless minions saying the same thing, is painful to hear at this stage. In reality, Vista is a resource hog, but when given a powerful system, loaded with RAM, Vista 64 performs EXTREMELY well, and is a huge aesthetic and functional leap over XP Pro, an operating system I used daily as I was one of the "I hate Vista" gnomes myself. I'm with the others what wont move to Windows 7 till SP1, just about the most prudent advice relating to all the major Windows releases that were worth moving to. I'm on Vista 64 now and will NEVER move back to XP Pro (certain laptops notwithstanding).
DarkCobra said:
Well I've got Vista Home Premium running on a 64bit platform with 8GB of RAM on one of my systems and I too have to admit that I "FINALLY" got it running very well. However, there was INDEED a good deal of pushing, pulling and some registry hacking that I had to do to get it this way! The 64bit platform is in the end definitely superior, but not fresh out of the box. You've really got to do some very serious tweaking to it get it this way . . . more so than I had to do with XP. However, if you're a serious "Gamer" you will still prefer XP for the higher frame rates. So there are those who have a very good reason for still wanting XP.Windmill007 and others above have it right. Vista indeed was very problematic at its launch and after a lot of tweaking from MS and some of us as end-users it is finally a so-so decent system. Windows 7 really is "Vista Done Right" and this is why MS is rushing so hard to replace Vista because even they know it was NOT their best effort in the least. However, at the end of the day MS needs a total restructuring of its entire platform . . . and they know it.
abstrait said:
I don't play games so take that into account. Can you name a Windows release that didn't have some problems at launch? Admittedly, Vista had an ill-timed layout with poor hardware/driver quagmire; and SP1 was a critical step. It also suffered from people needing drivers to run older peripherals and the 3.5GB RAM performance block. Bottom line is it needs upwards of 4GB of RAM to run sufficiently, with 6GB and up really helping if you do any heavy duty work on the beast. Trying to run Vista on a mediocre machine with sub-par resources only brings headache. That beings said, it's old hat to still beat the "Vista Sucks" drum since it's almost a given that the best results seem to come with any SP1 release and now that the hardware has finally gibed with the software, Vista runs EXTREMELY well, offering an aesthetic and FUNCTIONAL improvement over XP Pro. This last point is really key to me as it's increased my productivity with better file management, search features, and content preview, so far exceeding what XP offered, it's a moot point to even consider moving back. What bothers me is people repeating judgments that just do not hold try at this stage, now that hardware has passed being any sort of bottleneck. Also, said judgments are given with zero qualifiers, a sign of lack of critical thinking. So if Johnny Sleestack is running his system only to fire his latest, greatest fireball launcher, this should be said so the "Vista is garbage" comment can be taken in context. Ditto if it's 3GB of RAM or some other hardware bottleneck holding it back. I'm running an i7 920, 6GB DDR3 in Tri-Channel, 1.28TB via 2x640GB RAID 0, ATI 4850 setup. Bottom line? Vista 64 SCREAMS through applications with nary a hitch. The only issue I had was getting used to the differences and honing in on how best to use the Vista platform to increase productivity, which has ended up producing quantifiable results. At any given moment, I can be running multiple browsers with over 100 tabs (Chrome is the resource hog but oh so clean), Dreamweaver, Photoshop, PSP 7, Illustrator 10, file management, FTP, media players and Oddcast (I run an indie radio station from my place as well). I've not had to delve deep into the registry with any real tricks besides some power management/sleep mode tweaks. It will be interesting to see how Windows 7 does initially. I think MS is really eager to get rid if the "Vista" name as much as move it forward, as it's too big a negative word of mouth campaign, plus a hard initial roll out impression to overcome. Sadly, I think it's matured into a strong platform with the right stuff behind it. Looking forward to any improvements in 7 but willing to admit that Vista 64 is no longer the dog everyone says it is.
DarkCobra said:
Well we have to make sure we're comparing apples to apples here. As I stated in my post, Vista 64 screams and you acknowledge the same. However, Vista 32 was plagued with issues (some of which you also acknowledge) and that is the system that is in most homes. Finally, It's really NOT Vista bashing at all. Even MS realized fairly early on that Vista as it was first released did not pan out as they hoped or wanted in the LEAST! This is precisely why they quickly moved to Windows 7. We've got to be able to say when an OS is really bad as opposed to any OS that is bound to have "some" issues (as you also acknowledge). Vista indeed (aside from Vista 64) has largely been a dog and the folks at MS know it. So when those of us who call it what it is . . . it is not bashing . . . it's honesty. If you check out some of the MS developer forums you'll see that even they acknowledge it. Truth is truth.
RonS WIN TEAM said:
Hi guys,Iím Ron, and I work with the Windows Outreach Team. I noticed that there is a ton of speculation out there about RC releases and final releases, so I thought Iíd drop in and try to clear some things up.First, while the Beta does seem to be going well, Microsoft hasnítí released many dates beyond what we already know. However, there is a great blog from the Microsoft engineers that basically lays out the process they go through when bringing the next OS to market. Check it out here: [url]http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/30/our-next-en
ineering-milestone.aspx[/url] .I know itís not concrete dates, but for guys really interested in the process, itís a pretty good read.Hope this helps.Cheers,RonWindows Outreach Team
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.