Windows 7 FAQ and Questions - Page 2

Ste · 04-07-2008, 01:40 PM

Will there be a new file System? NTFS5? Or called something else? What are the major rumors about advancements over vista? How many different versions can we expect? Vista had, what Like three? How will it compare to server 2008?

Mak213 · 04-07-2008, 01:54 PM

Ste as far as we know right now it should use the covented WinFS file system. The one that was supposed to be in Vista but was dropped. It will be a file system that can be index easily by Windows and used to search instantly.

The rumors right now are few. There are only a couple about increased security, closed kernel where as there will be no root access to the kernel like OS X has at this time.

As for inmprovements over Vista who knows at this time. As it isnt not even in Beta stages.

Same goes for the versions. It could be 5 like Vista or less like XP with Home or Pro. Vista had 5. Basic, Home Premium, Business, Ultimate and Enterprise.

How it compares to Server 08 again is unknown at this time. Will have to wait till the further stages to get more info.

krazyq · 04-08-2008, 11:17 AM

i just read somewhere that windows 7 wont be backwords compatibale with any other windows.

Mak213 · 04-08-2008, 11:23 AM

Please read thru the first post. I gave all the known correct info on Windows 7. That is just junk you read. It will be compatible. As of right now that is. Who knows what the future holds for Windows 7 but as of right now they are making it backward compatible.

krazyq · 04-08-2008, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Makaveli213

Please read thru the first post. I gave all the known correct info on Windows 7. That is just junk you read. It will be compatible. As of right now that is. Who knows what the future holds for Windows 7 but as of right now they are making it backward compatible.

heres the source
Windows 7 not compatible with older versions of Windows?

i know theres still 2 years and anything can happen...but i just read that and was jw.

CntdwnToExtn · 04-09-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eyeCpc

Crap! These people throw anything in without MS confirmation of facts just to see something fill a page. First of all Microsoft has always incorporated into each new version some type of backwards capability even if limited to some extent.

The accurate information once in Release Candidate stages will be published by Microsoft on their own pages. That blog there is just like that youtube video on Win 7 I showed Makaveli before just someones conjured up nonsense.

i would think they would HAVE to have backwards compatability in order to work with server 08/03 and possibly 2k (though i doubt that one since only security updates now).

Mak213 · 04-09-2008, 08:15 AM

That would just be the networking and internet protocols they would have to keep the same so that it would connect to those servers along with the Linux and OS X servers.

What i think he meant is the main desktop would not be backward compatible like XP was when first released. It did not use apps from the 9X platform or the NT platform. Everything had to be rewritten but it could still get online.

CntdwnToExtn · 04-09-2008, 10:39 AM

ah, okay. that sounds a lot better

eyeCpc · 04-09-2008, 06:28 PM

You have to look at what direction Microsoft is going to see 64bit replacing 32bit in the long run. The methods for networking and simply connecting online for the next version of IE if not IE 8 now out in beta form would have to remain the same while the platform would be restructured like mentioned before.

Going from 98 to XP was like going from 98 to Linux in some sense simply the vast difference as far as support not limiting backward compatibility however. You could read Fat as well as install XP on a Fat primary. Don't be surprised if Win 7 doesn't simply throw out the rule book in that sense.

beedubaya · 04-15-2008, 09:38 PM

Microsoft would be making a major mistake cutting backwards compatibility from Windows 7. One of the #1 complaints about Vista is its not backwards compatible enough. I think MS should keep some of the things they did right in Vista, like the Aero interface. They should make it more memory efficient, fix the slow IO problems (its better in SP1 but still not perfect), and overall more budget PC friendly. Most people buy cheap $299 desktop bundles or $399 laptops, and Windows needs to scale down to run acceptable on that type of hardware. I think a large reason Vista is bashed so much is because people expect it to run faster than XP on their cheap laptop with 512MB of RAM, but that just isn't the case.

Member Login