Windows 7 beta washes up on Pirate Bay

Microsoft is set to release the first beta of its upcoming operating system Windows 7 at some point this month, but ahead of that release the trial version has already – unsurprisingly – landed on BitTorrent sites. Anyone who is actually eager to get their mitts on the beta, which has the build number of 7,000, can download it …

[Jamie Kephalas]

But I like

windows vista x64...

I also like...

[EdwardP]

Not surprising...

"But oddly, Microsoft, which grumbles loudly and often about the “illegal” distribution of its software, remained pretty quiet on the whole affair."

The more angry noise they make, the more people will begin ask themselves "What is this pirate bay thing and do I really not have to pay for Windows anymore?"

No, best to just shut up and push for the Death Penalty to be handed to those responsible.

[jhwker]

Free Beta Testers

Why would Microsoft care that Windows 7 has been leaked? It just means that there are that many more beta testers which in posting their pleas for help will, with any luck, help make for a better product. Smart move actually... .02

[Marc McAllister]

Old news..?

Apparently this has been on the torrents for a while, and many people are upgrading their Vista installs with no serious side effects. I have also "read" that it works well under Hyper-V if you don't want to trash an existing machine in order to try it ;)

[Kwac]

News?

Of the first Windows 7 virii seem overdue.

[Matthew Ames]

How strange...

I tried to install the Windows 7 beta, but for some reason I ended up with OS X.

[Lottie]

eh?

What would the risk to my environment be from downloading pirate software?

Apart from improving it that it. As we all know, the more pirates there are, the less Global Warming there is.

[David Hicks]

@EdwardP

Hey, if you're MS then you probably want as many people as possible to try the Beta version, which you've hopefully built a bunch of expiry mechanisms into (it's *just* a beta) and hope that they get excited about it and tell their friends to do it to.

If they can get computer literate geeks saying it's a good thing this far ahead of a GA date then they know everyone else will roll over. And we all know those guys that like to show off about getting hold of beta/pre-release software via some shady channel. They'll be promoting it just because noone else has it.

This is of course assuming it is any good. If it's not then it's bad for MS because they don't get to sell a whole load before folks realise it's another polished turd...

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-Genuine Sources

Torrent Sites: Genuine sources for genuine and non-genuine software

Therefore I am not using a non-genuine source, only non-genuine software :P

[Richard Porter]

Beached?

I like the marine analogies. Perhaps M$ should start naming Windows versions after large lumbering animals - whale, hippo, rhino, elephant, etc. It would be appropriate.

How do they get to #7 anyway? If W95 is 4 (because it followed 3.1.1) then 98 is 5, 2000 is 6, then ME, XP, Vista ... I've got to 9 already!

[Thomas]

The classic means for Windows beta distribution...

... is, of course, through new PCs sold in the first year or two of that version of Windows becoming available.

[Bo Pedersen]

come on , its deliberate isnt it?

anyone as MS prepapred to admit it? :)

just do the beta to anyone who wants it officially, with a "safe" download source and build up some trust in the marketplace, and maybe one or two extra people will forget about the credit crunch and buy it.

[amanfromMars]

PerlyGatesPython for Pretty Good Privacy too with Transparent Remote HyperVisor InterReaction

"Microsoft has not released Windows 7 code to the public and we caution consumers and businesses that downloading software (including workarounds) from a non genuine source can pose risks to their environment."

Kettle black the calling Pot?

What Microsoft really means to say is that it poses risks to their environment and SAP revenue streams, and this is the Big One which they are probably always plausibly going to deny, for is not Windows Sophisticated Stealthy Spyware on every aspect of one's Work, Rest and Play, as would be any OS connecting electronically through Network InterNetworking Communications Channels, a threat to terrorists who govern with the Classic Phorm Model and War of Terror Template?

And that is XXXXtraordinarily Rendered as a Question not because of any possible expression of Doubt, but rather more as an Invitation to consider Azure as a Virtual Pathfinder OS with ITs AIdDrivers declaring War on Errors with Words of Massive Description.

Although that does suggest that Proxy Virtual Drivers in the Environment of ITs Cloud, will be Leading with AI Following in Microsoft's Wake/Development Furrow. I wonder if an Alien could Interest them in a Free Beta Trial with them Trailing a Knight Champion Application of Special Access ProgramMIng feeding their Every Need and Desire? Or would that be considered a Spooky Competitor Trojan, and/or robbing Peter to pay Paul?

But Hell, what does it matter, for at least it would be something New and Different and even SurReal to Work on in REST and 42 Play in Virtually. The only Excuse and/or Reason for not Doing IT is Ignorance, which is easily taken care of and dismissed with Further Enlightening Edutainment.

Knock,Knock, Microsoft .... Is there anybody in there? Or has everything gone to Pot and Seed rather than Flower and Bloom. Where's Vital Viral Imagination and ITs CyberIntelAIgents hiding? ...... Your Country Needs You .... http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/display.cfm?PubID=890

[Anonymous Coward]

So?

There are many reasons that this is a non story.

Why would MS be concerned that it's leaked? It will be free to download on it's official release anyway, so what's a few days either way? It's only a beta.

Almost everything ends up on the bay anyway, it doesn't seem to stop people paying up. If MS somehow managed to stop people pirating Windows I doubt very many of the current pirates would actually pay up for a copy, they'd probably move to Linux.

However I wouldn't be surprised to hear that some partner has been on the receiving end of a good kicking from Redmond when they manage to trace the source of the leak.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re beached

Or, we have NT4 -> windows 2000 (NT5) -> windows XP(NT6) -> Windows Vista (NT7)

So unless XP was NT5.5 they really hve screwed there numbers. Christ alone knows where NT stated from, the first version i was aware of was NT3.5

Name software after the (intended) year of release is stupid, just give it a version number but dont make it part of the name.

[Chris]

Punctuation

Why "illegal" in inverted commas?

Yours "sincerely",

Chris

[Anonymous Coward]

What?

"Microsoft has not released Windows 7 code to the public and we caution consumers and businesses that downloading software (including workarounds) from a non genuine source can pose risks to their environment."

Installing Windows from a GENUINE source can pose risks to consumer and business environments!!!

Mine's the one with the FreeBSD disk in the pocket.

[Anonymous Coward]

But...

They had to pull large numbers of people off other projects to get the [cut-down] Vista release out [late]; customer pressure has forced them to extend the life of XP; Vista SP2 is due for release some time around April... so with MS about to lay-off up-to15,000, will they have the resource to complete W7 on time?

[Ryan]

@Richard Porter:

There have actually been 2 branches of Windows versions through the years:

#1: 'Home Use' - 9x kernel

95 = 4.0

98 = 4.5

me = 4.9

And there was never version 5 of this.

#2: 'Business Use' - NT kernel

NT4.0 = NT4.0

2000 = NT5.0

After this home & business OSs used the NT kernel

XP = NT5.1

Server 2003 = NT5.1

Vista = NT6.0

Server 2008 = NT6.0

7 = NT7.0

[Anonymous Coward]

RE: Beached?

I think they are numbered according to descendants of NT(4): 2000(5), XP(6).

[Jeremy]

@Richard Porter

'95: 4.0

'98: 4.1

Me: Who the hell cares?

2000: 5.0

XP: 5.1

Vista: 6.0

[Anonymous Coward]

@ Richard Porter

Basically, they dont count Windows95,98, or ME. :-)

More information about Windows versions can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Windows_versions#NT_Kernel-based

Running

C:\>ver

on my Vista machine brings back version 6.0.6001.

[Curtis]

@ Richard Porter RE:Windows 7

windows NT 3.1

windows NT 4

Windows 2000 (NT5)

windows XP (NT6)

the 9X systems don't figure into the current MS naming pattern because that kernal is no longer used.

[J]

@Richard Porter

"How do they get to #7 anyway? If W95 is 4 (because it followed 3.1.1) then 98 is 5, 2000 is 6, then ME, XP, Vista ... I've got to 9 already!"

Oh, noes... Not again!

[Steve Liddle]

Best way to get it tested :)

Would not surprise me if microsoft had a more direct hand in the leak, by getting it onto torrents, lots more people will install and test it for free than you would get from the fanboys :)

Got vista 64 bit after the first service pack was released, ie most of the major bugs had been fixed, now it works fine and seems more stable than XP

[Angus Ireland]

@Richard Porter

I think they've got a few OS's they would rather forget about :P

[Matthew Hussey]

Re: Beached

I could be wrong but I think you'll find that Windows 2000 uses version 5 windows kernel (build 5.0.3700.6690 for example), and XP is essentially a modified version of this kernel (build 5.1.2600.5512 for example). Vista is a newer version 6 kernel (build 6.0.6002.16497 for example) and obviously they are now moving onto version 7. Whether it has any relation to Vista, like XP does to 2000, is anybody's guess, but they won't want that association so will move to version 7 either way.

For reference, ME is version 4 for some reason.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ Richard Porter

"How do they get to #7 anyway? If W95 is 4 (because it followed 3.1.1) then 98 is 5, 2000 is 6, then ME, XP, Vista ... I've got to 9 already!"

This statement is exactly why you should not be using a computer, let alone leaving comments on a UK technology site.

[Charles-A Rovira]

With Widows GA DRM and the internet "calls home"

I can see why M$ is not overly concerned with piracy.

Any computer NOT on the 'net is useless. (Computers are far more valuable as communication tools. [That's why M$ is DESPERATE to find some way to stop the iPhone.])

With the computers 'phoning home' for driver and other software updates and M$ being able to withhold those updates from anyone NOT in their database of paid up customers, well ...

They got you by the "short 'n curlies" don't they.

[Rob Beard]

@ Richard Porter

Windows 95 is 4, as is NT 4 and Windows 98 and ME too as it was a rehash of Windows 98 with Windows 2000's pretty interface.

Windows 2000 is 5, XP is 5.1 and Vista is 6.0.

Hence Windows 7 is 7.0

Tells you all about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Timeline_of_releases

Personally I don't see why MS don't release ISOs officially as they did with Windows XP x64 and let everyone be clear that they're unsupported versions, if they screw your PC/blow up your house/set your cat on fire (delete as appropriate) then there's no come back on Microsoft (actually, thinking about it, don't they already do that with their released operating systems?).

Rob

[Kanhef]

@Richard Porter

Windows 95, 98, Me, and NT 4.0 (not NT 3.5) are all version 4. Windows 2000 and XP are version 5, and Vista and Server 2008 are version 6.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Timeline_of_releases

Oddly enough, the current version of Windows 7 identifies itself as being version 6.1 . Presumably that will be changed when it ships.

[kissingthecarpet]

Re:come on , its deliberate isnt it?

Yes, maybe I'm just a bit paranoid but if they leak it onto the torrent, maybe they're hoping to get a bit of bug feedback, & hear about any exploits, & perhaps have an "underground" hit with it, recovering (they may imagine) a bit of street cred as well(yeah, right :)). If there's a big moan about some new feature then they could switch horses before RTM.

PS What happened to WinFS? ha ha

[Aaron]

@Richard: NT versions

Well, Richard -- Windows NT 4.0 was NT 4.0. Windows 2000 was NT 5. Windows XP is NT 5.1. Vista, I'm given to understand, is NT 6. Windows 7, therefore, must be NT 7. Makes sense, eh?

(Except that Wikipedia's list of Windows versions calls Windows 7 NT 6.1.something. I don't know whether that's because it's currently in beta, or whether the GA version of Windows 7 will still claim to be NT version 6.1. So I have no real idea.)

[Anonymous Coward]

very Old NEWS!

Last Years actually ;p

its been out there for ages,

looks nice and runs much faster,

looking forward (dare i say it) to the real release of the (almost finished(yet again) product).

now.

just need a spare key ;D

(for the front door of course.... what did you think i meant)

[Anonymous Coward]

Working well so far....

Very fast, noticeably faster than Vista and have put it on a few laptops of varying ages, including a P3850 and running a charm. It will take a bit of getting used to but very pleased for a Beta.

By the way - do we REALLY NEED a list of every Windows version EVER made in the comments every time Windows 7 is mentioned? It's getting a little boring now.

[Anonymous Coward]

Version number

This is getting quite tiresome, people, GOOGLE before you type daft questions, believe it or not MS can count, they are not completely stupid and finally they can call THEIR OWN operating system what ever the hell they like, hopefully the EU monkeys won’t try and sue them for that just yet.

[N]

Almost makes me think

They did it deliberately, along with some form of key logging/tracking software pre-installed for spying on the users - one of the few things which Windows seems to be pretty good at.

[Anonymous Coward]

@AC with a penguin

I am guessing they will have the resources- if they pull people off jerkoff projects and refocus them on the OS, which may well be a bit of a make or break one for big M. They've lost a lot of face over Vista, and even the proles are wondering (well, the brighter ones, anyway) if there's another way besides Windows, and considering that their computing need not be a monoculture. ]

Losing mindshare is a scary thing, I suspect they'll shake a tailfeather for W7. Meantime, every single time they have to extent the life of XP, they are reminding people what a disaster Vista is. The sooner Redmond put that one behind them, the safer and happier they'll be. A hard balance, they don't want to rush it, and have it launch as broken as Vista, but they don't want to take too long and have to extend the XP deathwatch too much- glad it's not my job to call.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a product no one but a fool would want

At least Microsucks should not need to worry about piracy of Windows. It is an O/S that no one who could buy a clue with Bill Gates money, would touch.

[Erik Aamot]

wanna bet ?

Windows 7 is Vista/server2008 kernal and will be (NT) 6.x , not 7.0 (legitimately) ?

[Anonymous Coward]

@Richard Porter

Is this Richard Porter from Sniff Petrol / Top Gear books fame?

As already discussed it's from the NT kernel. 3.x, 4.x, 5.x was 2000, XP was basically 2000 with a fisher price colour scheme, Vista was 6.x, MSOSX is 7.x

If this was the car industry, it would be the equivalent of that unpopular Impreza with the googly headlights being replaced by the sober headlighted version, then the beaky grille version, then the Kia lookalike followed by pulling out of WRC, the sport that defined the Impreza's raison d'etre.

Perhaps this is the future after the unpopular Windows "googly headlights" Vista, the safe design Windows, followed by the beaky "corporate redesign" Windows, then a Windows that looks like a forthcoming Korean OS, followed by pulling out of the Desktop OS market (hopefully).

[Isaac]

Windows 7 Name

This explains how they came up with the name of Windows 7....

http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx

"The very first release of Windows was Windows 1.0, the second was Windows 2.0, the third Windows 3.0.

Here's where things get a little more complicated. Following Windows 3.0 was Windows NT which was code versioned as Windows 3.1. Then came Windows 95, which was code versioned as Windows 4.0. Then, Windows 98, 98 SE and Windows Millennium each shipped as 4.0.1998, 4.10.2222, and 4.90.3000, respectively. So we're counting all 9x versions as being 4.0.

Windows 2000 code was 5.0 and then we shipped Windows XP as 5.1, even though it was a major release we didn't' want to change code version numbers to maximize application compatibility.

That brings us to Windows Vista, which is 6.0. So we see Windows 7 as our next logical significant release and 7th in the family of Windows releases."

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows 7 is bloated

It is bloated like Vista. Don't even install. Just use Windows XP. Don't waste your hardware and money.

[Ross Fleming]

Numbers, numbers, numbers...

Not to mention that MS are branching the Vista code base to create "Windows 7" and are actually designating it 6.1 in the versioning, but officially calling it Windows 7.

Confused yet?

[robert]

New Marketing Ideas from MS HQ

What an awesome marketing ploy. If people are pirating software, make sure it's YOUR software. After all, when certain markets emerge later on and open up to the west, all of them will be MS compatible. Also, how many people have pirated software and then gone on to download the genuine article later on when they've 'tested' it thoroughly. Also, those pirated software users won't be eligible for updates. There is enough scare-mongering on the net to make getting the full legit version an attraction for the serious end user.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll take that bet...

...and you're gonna regret, because if you buy Windows 7, you are the Biggest Fool alive.

[Goat Jam]

Richard Porter

Thanks very much for that, there is nothing that can wreck a comments section faster than someone asking for an explanation of the Windows numbering system.

Cue the flood of (mostly wrong) attempts at compiling a version number list . . . go!

[marc]

Windows Versions

For the record:

Windows 1 - 3.11 were all DOS based before the days of NT.

Because of that, Windows NT 3.1 was started at version 3 for marketing purposes. ("it looks and acts the same as your home machine")

But wait we still had some DOS based systems being released:

Windows 95 = 4.00

Windows 98 = 4.10

Windows ME = 4.90

Then we have NT 4 (released just after Windows 95)

Microsoft then stopped naming the NT line releases after the kernel version.

Windows 2000 is NT 5 (released just before ME)

Windows XP is NT 5.1

Windows Server 2003 is NT 5.2

Windows Vista is NT 6.0

Windows Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 are NT Kernel 6.1

Windows 7 will likely be 6.1 still.

Please remember an operating system these days is more than just a kernel!

[Boris the Cockroach]

A question

Do I install windows 7 now or wait for the offical badly compiled buggy version to come out?

Lets face it... unless you run games or some seriously expensive windows software( £5000+ per seat), do you actually need a PC with windows on?

The last one is actually the m$ nightmare question, because as more and more people come to realise that there are alternatives to windows, m$'s market share will continue to plummet, thus exposing more people to alternatives and forcing the m$ market share even further down.

Now, while the demise of m$ would give us geeks a great deal of entertainment, maybe just maybe the fact of greater competition would give m$ a decent kick in the vitals and get them to produce good quality secure products instead of tying IE so closely into the OS that any exploit in IE can corrupt the system re. several updates issued in the past 3 months.

Pinguin.... because guess which OS I use

PS those arguing over windows versions......... Get a life!

[tuna]

I Can't Believe It's Not Mojave!

It's Vista SP2 with a name change to disassociate all the negativity of their blundered roll-out. "Leaked" to the masses early for marketing purposes only.

Mine's the thinly veiled cloak.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it me...

..or is there an echo in here??

[Michael Radenheimer]

Eh

I had just reconfigured my test bed from a hackintosh build back to a Vista desktop when the Windows 7 beta "leak" news broke (a few days ago) so I decided to give the torrent a try. After making the Complete System Backup i upgraded to the beta.

By that I mean IT WAS A REAL UPGRADE! Not the wipe and load type that Vista forced upon us, but a real honest to (insert your favorite deity here) UPGRADE. All my original programs were still present! AND FUNCTIONAL!! So far i like hte improvements..but.....

The only bad part about M$ trying to forget a mistake is that the consumer always takes it in the wallet. Having 4 computers in the house means that if i want to stay legal (which i do for my OPERATIONAL machines) then thats 4 copies of an OS that i have to shell out for. My laptop came with Vista pre-loaded and the wife won't let me switch hers to Vista... So i paid to move two desktops to Vista planning on at least a 5 year lifespan. (average of Windows 95 and Windows XP) I'm only mentioning this becuase the UPGRADE path of Vista was still a wipe and load when you had to rebuild a desktop from a total crash. It's nice to see Windows 7 as less destructive.

[tony trolle]

maybe 7 ....

as 7 is lucky number in western areas.

In Chinese culture its "togetherness" also its unlucky side means ghostly which if if you have seen any Chinese ghost story; the ghost sort of clunks about when walking.

Then again 8 in Chinese culture is "wealth" ; oh poor Microsoft.

[Will Tisdale]

Version Numbers

It appears that many people are confused with the NT versioning scheme.

Windows NT had 4 released versions, NT3.0, NT3.5, NT3.51 and NT4.0.

Then there was 2000 which is NT5.0

XP which is NT5.1

Server 2003 and XP x64 which is NT5.2

Then Vista and Server 2008 which is NT6.0

Windows 7 which is NT6.1.

I'm confused as to where the nonsense that Vista SP1 and 2008 are NT6.1, because they ain't. They are build 6.0.6001, as opposed to 6.0.6000 thats the only difference.

Also, Windows 7 is most certainly NT6.1, not NT7.0, as it is basically the same kernel as Vista.

As for Windows 7, it's looking good, and I'm looking forward to getting my hands on an official x64 copy of the Beta to have a play with it, however, Vista x64 works fine for me at the moment anyway.

[P. Lee]

re: a question

> Lets face it... unless you run games or some seriously expensive windows software( £5000+ per seat), do you actually need a PC with windows on?

If you want a high-end games system, windows is the way to go.

But in that case, you can run an unpatched xp system behind a firewall (someone-else's as well as MS's) - just don't use it for internet stuff and keep copies of your installation media.

[Kevin]

Version numbers for Windows

It's been stated and overstated what the reality is up to Vista. I'm actually surprised that nobody has brought it up yet. Windows 7 should actually probably be version 6.1 or 6.5.

2000:XP is like Vista:Windows7

It is prettied up and cleaned up. Nothing major changed with Windows 7, they just got around to finally cleaning up the mess that Vista is. A lot of people are calling Windows7 more like another Vista service pack. Don;t forget, even though Vista was over 2 years late, it was rushed out the door. The win7 kernel is basically the same as vista, this has been noted as a plus for driver support. M$ just finally got around to fixing Vista, and they'll sell it as a new OS to disassociate it with Vista completely. It shouldn't be a major version number, it should be 6.5 at best. Marketing made this one a major version, not the code.

And for the left out ME in this discussion, there was Windows98, then Windows98 SE. WindowsME was just another extension of that line and should really be considered Windows 98 3rd Edition. As has already been stated, that kernel line died (really, it was merged) and the NT line took over with Windows 2000, known internally prior to release as NT5.

Just to set it straight, I am no fan of Microsoft, see devil bill to the left.

[Anonymous Coward]

Flawed counting

In several points.

NT came in several versions, 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0. If you don't count dos/3.11/95/98, that 3.1 should have been 1.1 If you do it was 5.1. No-one can explain where that 3.1 came from as NT 1 or 2 are non-existent.

Another thing is that 2000 was NT with new GUI, active directory and USB added (which originally were in NT specs, but were left out, so it was 4.1, not 5, no matter MS says: NT kernel.

XP offered again a new GUI, so NT 4.2. Vista had same old kernel + DRM, that would be 5.0. "7" uses same kernel, so it's actually 5.1.

But somehow I find it funny that every f**n media thinks that "7" is a new OS. It has Vista's kernel, nothing new there, it has changed GUI again and what else? Nothing: Vista in different package and some BS dropped, but some not: Copying files will still last forever.

Most of the criticism for Vista applies to "7" too.

[Elmer Phud]

@various AC's --- why not?

We have the usual AC's just saying 'It's bloatware' and 'Don't buy it!' but (also as usual) nothing more than that.

If folks are gonna bring such erudite and well-considered arguments in to the discussion can they at least say why. If you are so well informed in to the internals of Win/NT 7 we'd all like to know.

Chances are you know no more than the rest of us and are either habitual penguin shaggers or those who didn't know that the 'X' in OS means ten.

As an XP user a wee bit of info would help - or do I have to wander off and download a torrent file?

[Anonymous Coward]

@Elmer Phud

Seconded.

Other ACs, please tell us why Win7 sucks. Apart from "Bill Gates wrote it, and he's not the Lord Torvalds (who wrote every linux distro using his own golden phallus), so it's ghey".

Windows has always been a useable OS. Until Vista, anyway. Maybe not as flexible or secure a Linux, but hey- I've never had to recompile the kernel just to update my graphics drivers under Windows. Things like that are scary to new users- or dangerous if they get complacent.

It's the closest to a "one size fits all" OS. You can run an office on it, play games on it, host web sites, browse the web, create CGI sequences for multimillion dollar movies or add an "ACs family holiday" label over a video of your dog falling over. It's not tied to any particular vendor's hardware and is recognisable worldwide.

Anyway, a lot of the things the TuxTards keep banging on about Linux being better for are available in Windows and either hidden away to stop people buggering their PCs up or just named slightly differently.

Lets just all hope that Windows Seven is a decent OS. That way it makes all our lives easier as we'll have less tech support calls from family members!

Request: Could El Reg start including a bootnote for anything including Windows 7 pointing towards the Wiki article on windows version naming conventions to keep the comment threads from being hijacked?

[Matt]

It's actually pretty good

For all the doubters, it's worth noting that everyone I know that's tried it so far speaks very highly of it. It uses XP amounts of resources rather than Vista, so certainly seems to be a step in the right direction. I'm not too sold on the taskbar yet though.

[jwhorfin]

One more time

Could someone give me those version #'s again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Beta into the wild

So.....here's what I think:

MS released the beta, or at least hoped/knew someone would

this gets them a lot of free hardware compatibility testing, smart move

they've pared it down and used what's stable from previous releases

but as stated earlier no updates for "illegal" copies

the word on the street becomes, "Hey this is a great OS"

people buy in

the updates, OS and driver, are where the call home stuff is then added

@ amanfromMars - sorry if that's repeat of your comment. I'm not sure it is but we may have hit on the same issues.

[Anonymous Coward]

@ AC Posted Mon 5th Jan 2009 13:06 GMT

Other ACs, please tell us why Win7 sucks. Apart from "Bill Gates wrote it, and he's not the Lord Torvalds (who wrote every linux distro using his own golden phallus), so it's ghey".

WOW, I didn't know he could do that. That's kinda cool, in a, somehow, disturbing way. His super powers greatly exceed my already high expectations of his Eminence Torvalds.

[Anonymous Coward]

title

Don't you just love how people constantly bash Bill Gates and anything he does these days. He's done more for computing than most of you seem to give him credit for.