Windows 7

By leoracar ·
Does XP programs works on Windows 7? or it's the same as Vista

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Answers

Collapse -

RE: Does XP programs works on Windows 7? or it's the same as Vista

by OH Smeg Moderator In reply to Windows 7

It's the same as Vista. The current Development version of Windows in the Beta Stage known as 7 is nothing but a development of Vista to make it far more usable. When it gets released it may be known a Windows Vista Mark 2 or something else if the Marketing people at M$ think that Vista is now so poisoned with the public as to be a waste of time trying to continue to sell.

You need to remember that before Vista was released it was known as Longhorn and the 7 Designation is just that a development name to identify the product under development.


Collapse -

Windows 7

by thomasw In reply to RE: [i]Does XP programs w ...


You are right on some parts but not all although windows 7 was the codename for the next versions of M$ popular OS it is also the final name for it as its been well received by the public and goes back to the old numbering scheme of 3.1 (yea back to basics)

With regards to programs working on it there have been a lot of improvements to make the old software work although depending on the program it can vary, I have had some that work fine and others that do have problems the best way is to test.

Collapse -

Ideally that is what M$ said would happen this week

by OH Smeg Moderator In reply to Windows 7

But it may not be the finial result when 7 finally hits the shelves.

I remember the People at M$ talking about 7 before Vista was released and what it was supposed to be a Modular Business System that could be used as required. Since that time it's changed quite a bit and Vista seems to have been universally Bagged so I very much doubt that M$ would want to continue with the Vista name as it seems to be about as popular as ME to the general public.

However the Official Time line for Vista Developments at the time of it's release and for the next 10 years was at the 2 Year Mark a Service Pack similar to XP SP2 at the 4 Year Mark a New Version of Vista which may or may not have that name and it was to be a development of Vista. Then at the 6 Year Mark another Service Pack and then at the 8 Year Mark another Release of the Developed last OS what ever it was called and finally at the 10 year Mark another Service Pack.

Allowing for delays that could stretch over quite a few more years than the 10 Stated but even then M$ has completely failed to stick to their Proposed Releases by releasing SP1 for Vista though I have been repeatedly told that it wasn't a Major Service Pack like SP2 was for XP it was more of a Release to say we have released one so people would buy the Product Vista. So if I was to completely believe M$ the Marketing People have the clout to push out a SP. Granted it wasn't much of a SP but none the less it contained just about everything required to be accepted as a Major Improvement by the Masses of the Buying Public.

But as things stand right now many things that work happily on Vista can not be installed on the 64 Bit Version of 7 Adobe Reader 9 is a good example of this and on one system that I'm dual Booting with the 32 & 64 Bit Versions the Video Capture Card doesn't work under the 64 Bit Version but works perfectly under the 32 Bit Version.

The entire thing is screwy in it's requirements to say the least but it's defiantly a better OS out of the Box than what Vista was and probably XP as well in the early stages of it's development.

As M$ doesn't really appear to know what is going to happen with 7 and they keep changing their minds about this I tend to ere on the Cautious Side of things as what is said today will most likely change before 7 goes RTM. With things the way that they are at the moment M$ is more than capable of doing anything to make their Bottom Line look better than it currently does. But maybe I'm just jaded because I've been told so many conflicting stories at different M$ Partner Meetings. :)

Though I fail to see how 7 can be considered as the seventh version of Windows Development even taking into account the various derivatives like 3, 3.1 and 3.11 as being the same OS build 7 can not be called the Seventh Generation of Windows if NT is taken into account and as both W2K and XP are developed NT Products I just can't see how it can be called the seventh Generation of Windows. The M$ People at a recent Partners Meeting couldn't explain that one either they just seemed to want to forget about NT as well as ME.

As 7 is slated for release in First Quarter 2010 maybe I'm having problems working out exactly what M$ is attempting to do at the moment.


Collapse -

Windows Iterations

by willcomp In reply to Ideally that is what M$ s ...

How to get to 7.0

You can look at build numbers for the Windows family and they go like this:

Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 3.x including NT 3.5
Windows 9.x and NT 4.0
Windows 2000 and XP
Windows 7

Why wouldn't a M$ rep know that simple fact?

Note that W2K and XP are both build 5 series sharing the same kernel. W2K is Build 5.00.2195 and XP is Build 5.1.2600

Collapse -

RE; Why wouldn't a M$ rep know that simple fact?

by OH Smeg Moderator In reply to Windows Iterations

Because it doesn't hold water.
While M$ may like to call it this way it's just wrong as 3 and all of it's versions are a different Kernel to NT.

So if you use the Argument that XP and W2K are the same build because they have the same Kernel then 1,2, & 3 have the same Kernel so that removes another 2 from the Mix and NT which what W2k and latter developments are based upon have to be added in.

But if you refer to each version as a different Build the number is greater than 7.

That was where the problem arose when I asked.


Collapse -

Build not Kernel

by willcomp In reply to RE; [i]Why wouldn't a M$ ...

Note I said Build (or Version) Series not Kernel. XP and W2K share the same kernel but others may not. I only included the comment because most are not aware that XP and W2K are such close kin.

Collapse -

Or they can call it...

by Snuffy09 In reply to RE: [i]Does XP programs w ...

Windows vista SP2

Collapse -

Vista Reloaded

by TheChas In reply to Windows 7

Windows 7 is still based on the Vista core. It is not a new OS in the sense of having a new core. Windows 7 is more of a refinement of Vista. Much like Windows 98 refined and improved upon Windows 95.

As to your core question, generally speaking any software that does not run on Vista will not run on Windows 7.

Same for hardware. If there is not a Vista driver for your hardware, there will not be a driver so that it will work with Windows 7.

Further, it has been posted that there will not be a direct "easy" upgrade from XP to Windows 7. If you wish to replace Windows XP on a system with Windows 7, you will need to perform a clean install. It has been implied that you will need to format the hard drive to replace XP with Windows 7. I'm not sure that is true. But, you will need to reinstall any application software after performing a XP to Windows 7 upgrade.


Collapse -

If it is like Vista

by jdclyde In reply to Vista Reloaded

Most of your XP systems won't be able to HANDLE running 7 in the first place, making it a replace, not an upgrade.

Collapse -

New Desktops

by TheChas In reply to If it is like Vista

I would say that the majority of user systems where I work are fully Vista capable. At least from the hardware standpoint. At least 80% are less than 3 years old.

Now, application software, that is another story. Our CAD and other high end software packages usually lag behind in allowing upgrades to newer versions of Windows. Most of the time, it is not an upgrade but a new version that is required to work with a new version of Windows.

I believe it was 2004 before we started wide deployment of XP. As far as I know, we are not even testing Vista.

In my area, we still have systems that predate DOS. Just last week we went to the mines and dug up a 386 system to keep an old station running.

We have a lot of custom applications that just do not run on any hardware or OS other than what they were created on. Even if the application ports well to a newer computer, the required verification testings can be very expensive.


Related Discussions

Related Forums