Brandon LeBlanc has an excellent update at the Windows Team Blog, including this welcome news:

MSDN & TechNet Subscribers […] will be able to download the final version of Windows 7 a few weeks after we announce RTM.

[…]

MSDN and TechNet subscribers, as well as Volume License customers will have access to product keys (PIDs) when Windows 7 is made available to them. Product keys for Windows 7 RTM will be different than the product keys used for Windows 7 Beta and the release candidate. Windows 7 Beta or RC product keys *will not* work with Windows 7 RTM.

If your job involves Windows, you should have a TechNet subscription. If you’re a Windows developer, you should have an MSDN subscription.

Meanwhile, the transcript of Bill Veghte’s keynote from WPC yesterday gave me a brief start this morning. I practically did a spit take when I read the opening sentences and saw this: “This morning we will release Windows 7 to manufacturing.”

How could I have missed that? Answer: I didn’t. I watched the video replay of Veghte’s remarks and heard what he really said:

This month we will release Windows 7 to manufacturing.

“Oh,” as Emily Litella might have said. “That’s different.”

Moral of the story: Don’t believe everything you read.

For another example of why that advice is so important, check out my report at ZDNet on how our elite technical press totally botched a big story yesterday:

The echo chamber misreads another Windows 7 survey

Adding: In the comments, Krystalo notes that Emil Protalinski at Ars Technica flagged this late last night in an update to a post from earlier in the day. The Ars update gets it wrong, in my opinion, by concluding, “It looks like someone sent out an old draft copy of a transcript for the keynote…” The implication, of course, is that Veghte was supposed to make the announcement but it was delayed at the last minute and Microsoft forgot to make the necessary edit. If you follow the link I provide above, however, it’s pretty clear that this is in fact a transcript (you think all of the Q&A was that scripted?), prepared after the fact by a professional transcribing service that got one word wrong. Early in my professional career I edited transcripts of interviews for a university; I know how easy it is to get a word or two wrong.

Update 14-July 11AM Pacific: The transcript has now been corrected and this note added to the top: “Editor’s note – July 14, 2009 – Bill Veghte’s remarks have been updated to correct Windows 7 release to manufacturing timing information due to a transcription error.”

With the transition to digital broadcasts earlier this year, it’s even more important to have a great digital input source. So what do you do if your homeowners association says “no outdoor antennas”? You point them to the official Federal Communications Commission Fact Sheet on Placement of Antennas. It’s a summary of the Over-the-Air Reception Devices Rule, created by direction of Congress in the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Here are some relevant excerpts:

Q: What types of antennas are covered by the rule?

A: The rule applies to the following types of antennas:

(1) A "dish" antenna that is one meter (39.37") or less in diameter (or any size dish if located in Alaska) and is designed to receive direct broadcast satellite service, including direct-to-home satellite service, or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals via satellite.

(2) An antenna that is one meter or less in diameter or diagonal measurement and is designed to receive video programming services via broadband radio service (wireless cable) or to receive or transmit fixed wireless signals other than via satellite.

(3) An antenna that is designed to receive local television broadcast signals. Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements.

In addition, antennas covered by the rule may be mounted on "masts" to reach the height needed to receive or transmit an acceptable quality signal (e.g. maintain line-of-sight contact with the transmitter or view the satellite). Masts higher than 12 feet above the roofline may be subject to local permitting requirements for safety purposes. Further, masts that extend beyond an exclusive use area may not be covered by this rule.

[…]

Q: What types of restrictions are prohibited?

A: The rule prohibits restrictions that impair a person’s ability to install, maintain, or use an antenna covered by the rule. The rule applies to state or local laws or regulations, including zoning, land-use or building regulations, private covenants, homeowners’ association rules, condominium or cooperative association restrictions, lease restrictions, or similar restrictions on property within the exclusive use or control of the antenna user where the user has an ownership or leasehold interest in the property. A restriction impairs if it: (1) unreasonably delays or prevents use of; (2) unreasonably increases the cost of; or (3) precludes a person from receiving or transmitting an acceptable quality signal from an antenna covered under the rule. The rule does not prohibit legitimate safety restrictions or restrictions designed to preserve designated or eligible historic or prehistoric properties, provided the restriction is no more burdensome than necessary to accomplish the safety or preservation purpose.

[…]

Q: Whose antenna restrictions are prohibited?

A: The rule applies to restrictions imposed by local governments, including zoning, land-use or building regulations; by homeowner, townhome, condominium or cooperative association rules, including deed restrictions, covenants, by-laws and similar restrictions; and by manufactured housing (mobile home) park owners and landlords, including lease restrictions. The rule only applies to restrictions on property where the viewer has an ownership or leasehold interest and exclusive use or control.

Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule apply to me?

A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by the Commission’s rule. For example, the rule would not apply to restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation that requires such drilling.

If your HOA gives you a hard time over your antenna, print this out and send it to them.

[Updated to add more details about rights of condo/apartment dwellers.]

As evidence, he (and others) cite the presence on several underground file-sharing sites of Windows 7 build 7600.16384.090710-1945.

A little history might help put this build number (and the accompanying speculation) in perspective.

Start by reading this post from Microsoft’s James O’Neill, written in 2006, during a time of similarly feverish speculation about the ship date for a release candidate of Windows Vista:

Builds from here are suffixed .16384  (interesting number) and the build date, if a minor change is made the build becomes .16385, 16386 etc.

Now skip ahead a month or two in Vista’s release cycle for another numerology-influenced post from the same source, which explains the “interesting number” comment from earlier:

The minor build number … is 16384, which normally indicates a build we think we may release…

Last week, Larry Osterman, who has been at Microsoft for more than 20 years, wrote a fascinating post entitled “Thinking about Windows Build Numbers.” The whole thing is worth reading, but I was most interested in the ending:

For Windows 7, we’ve also seen a number of jumps in build numbers.  The PDC build was build 6801, the Beta build was 7000 and the RC build was 7100.  It’ll be interesting to see what the final build number will be (whenever that happens).  I honestly have no idea what the number’s going to be.

We now know the answer to that question. On July 10, a Windows 7 build number appears that has leaped to the nice round number 7600, followed by 16384. To repeat what I just quoted above, that “normally indicates a build we think we may release…”

But it doesn’t mean that build has passed its full round of tests. Nor does it forestall the possibility that additional builds might follow in the sequence. Impossible, you say? Let’s get in the wayback machine and go back to October 31, 2006. Neowin, take it away:

A source close to Microsoft has confirmed to me that Windows Vista will in fact carry the build number 6.0.6000. He found this out by receiving a mail with the build stamp "Microsoft Windows Mail 6.0.6000.16384" so that ends that speculation.

16384? That’s an interesting number, isn’t it? The Neowin post was updated shortly thereafter:

Several key Microsoft employees has [sic] firmly stated that Vista has not been released to manufacturing. The day might be soon, but is certainly not today, or tomorrow. There’s still a bit more work to do. Build 6000.16384 is real, but it also doesn’t mean RTM. These days, Microsoft doesn’t have to increase the major version number when building, so theoretically, any sub-set of build 6000 (6000.16385, 16386, etc…) can be RTM.

Indeed, the final build of Windows Vista was 6.0.6000.16386. It was date-stamped November 2, 2006 and wasn’t officially announced until November 8. You can still see traces of that build number today when you look at the details of some Windows Vista system files.

Anyway, back to Windows 7. My buddy Dwight Silverman heard the same rumor about Windows 7, asked for confirmation, and got a flat denial:

A Microsoft spokesman told me this afternoon that no, a final build has not been declared for Windows 7, and it has not been released to manufacturing.

In fact, the latest official word from Microsoft is buried in the text of last week’s press release announcing that Steven Sinofsky was being promoted to President of the Windows division and that Tami Reller is taking on Windows marketing responsibilities, replacing Bill Veghte:

The transition between Reller and Veghte is timed to take place in late July when Windows 7 reaches the release to manufacturing (RTM) milestone. [emphasis added]

There’s no doubt that the end game has begun for the Windows 7 release process. But the actual date is still up in the air.

Oh, and PS: A belated congratulations to Steven Sinofsky for a well-deserved promotion.

The book should be on store shelves before the end of September. You can pre-order your copy today at Amazon.com and be first to get a copy when it arrives.

Pre-order Windows 7 Inside Out

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I have some normal life (and some blogging) to catch up with.

Yesterday, Microsoft announced pricing information for Windows 7. (You can read all about it in my post at ZDNet: Microsoft unveils ’screaming deals’ for Windows 7.)

The big news for would-be upgraders in the United States is that you can pre-order Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 7 Professional at a significant discount right now, and have the product shipped to you on October 22, when it’s officially released.

The discount is 50% or more over the normal estimated retail price (ERP) of the two mainstream consumer editions. In the United States, you’ll be able to buy a Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade for $50 or get the Windows 7 Professional upgrade for $100.

At Microsoft’s website, you can find links to 12 online dealers that are participating in this promotion. If you want to buy from Amazon.com, you can use one of the links below and order directly (full disclosure: I make a commission on each sale through these links):

Windows 7 Store

Here are the links to the software:

Windows7 Home Premium Upgrade

Windows7 Professional Upgrade

You’re eligible for this special upgrade pricing on any PC that currently has a licensed copy of any edition of Windows XP or Windows Vista.

Questions? Ask away in the comments below.

I wrote about it last week at ZDNet and continue to be favorably impressed. It works on Windows XP (SP2 or later), Windows Vista, and Windows 7. You must be in the United States, Israel, or Brazil to sign up.

If you try it, leave a comment and let me know what you like/don’t like.

Update: Well, that was fast. Roughly 24 hours later, all 75,000 slots in the beta group are filled. Of course, if you can get your hands on a copy of the software you can still install and use it.

Wrong. I’m not the only Media Center user who suddenly lost several over-the-air HD channels last Friday. I’ve got details over at ZDNet. If you’re a Media Center user and you’ve been affected, please leave a comment there:

Microsoft fumbles the digital TV transition

I’ll be updating this list regularly and will probably have several notebooks and desktop PCs plus some miscellaneous peripherals available over the next few days or weeks.

Microsoft sent me eight packages containing official DVD copies of the Windows 7 Release Candidate. It appears to be 32-bit (x86) only.

I don’t need them, but I figured some of my readers might, so I’m offering them up here. If you’ve got a low-bandwidth connection and you don’t want to go through the hassle of downloading and burning a DVD, this could be useful.

Conditions:

1. U.S. addresses only. These are U.S. English copies and I don’t want to mess with foreign postage. Sorry.

2. You have to go online and get your own product key. Instructions are in the package.

3. No tech support is included.

To qualify, leave a comment below. Use your real e-mail address when you comment (otherwise how can I contact you to get shipping details?). In the comment, include the Windows 7 feature that you are most interested in learning more about.

That fits nicely with another piece of evidence: Microsoft has turned on the lights at its new Windows 7 online store, but hasn’t yet unlocked the door.

Following a link and excellent write-up by the ever-vigilant Long Zheng, I visited the Microsoft Store a few minutes ago and ran across this page:

[Update: Emil Protalinski points out that he flagged this page at Ars Technica several weeks ago. Indeed he did.]

The front-page copy hasn’t changed since it went live, as far as I can tell. No prices, no feature tables to differentiate the different versions, nothing more than this “Coming soon” teaser.

The selling copy underneath is well written but not detailed and certainly no different from the messaging Microsoft has been using lately.

If the leaked Best Buy memo is legit and accurate, it suggests that Microsoft will have to unveil its price list and detailed information about each edition before then.

In the past, Microsoft has charged full list price for direct sales to customers, with only a few exceptions. For the most part, anyone with even rudimentary search skills can find a better price from a reseller than they’ll get at the Microsoft Store. In its current incarnation, for example, customers shopping for Windows Vista get a big Add To Cart button to buy directly from Microsoft. The list of retail partners is in a tiny link at the bottom of the page.

I wonder when they’ll start taking preorders from the Microsoft Store?

In fact, that noise level has gotten the 360 banned from the living room and especially from the bedroom in the Bott household. Not to mention that my wife thinks the console is “butt ugly” and “looks like a mini-fridge.”

We’re reasonably happy with the Media Center Extender alternatives, but they’re rapidly disappearing from the market and offer only a fraction of what the Xbox 360 can do.

So imagine my cautious delight when I read about the HeatSync 360, a “heavy duty [replacement] chassis constructed from heat-treated aircraft quality aluminum.” It has natural convection cooling, HeatSync cooling for the CPU and GPU, and a “DVD Drive Isolation system to eliminate noise from vibration.”

And the best part of all: “Thermally controlled exhaust fan -normally OFF”

I want.

Photo courtesy A-Tech Fabrication

I asked Glenn Lirhus, owner of A-Tech Fabrication, for more details about this product. Here’s what I learned.

The company has been around since 1989, Lirhus tells me, and started selling computer cases in 2001. “We were the first to sell a home theater case, although the market is now flooded with cheap stuff from Taiwan.”

The idea behind the HeatSync Three-Sixty is grounded in that PC-based home theater sensibility, Lirhus told me:

It’s a chassis that is designed around Xbox electronics. The design is similar to products we already have for computer systems. We just wanted to build a silent version of the Xbox—or at least one that would be silent when using it as a video extender or playing DVD movies. We did what we could to lower noise on the DVD drive, which has some really soft isolation.

It’s also for people with high end systems that don’t want some cheap looking white plastic box in with their high-end rack mounted equipment.

A-Tech plans to offer DIY cases, with the caveat that this product is designed for a very new Xbox 360. (Lirhus couldn’t remember the name, but I’m pretty certain he meant the Jasper console, introduced in November 2008.) That means your older Xbox isn’t eligible for a transplant. It won’t fit, and it puts out too much heat, Lirhus says. “We only tested with the newest version.”

How difficult is the install? “It’s kind of complicated,” Lirhus tells me. “More complicated than building a computer system.” This picture of the guts suggests that getting everything together just right could be more than a casual tinkerer wants to tackle.

The company will also sell units with the Xbox components preinstalled. In that case, the cost would include the console, the case, and the cost of labor.

No word on price yet. A-Tech is still crunching numbers to see what the right price should be. But as soon as they have a price, they’ll start taking orders, Lirhus says. That will probably be next week.

There’s a fair amount of work in cranking up to build these units. Lirhus predicts it could take two weeks to do the machining, anodizing, and assembly for a system.

Of course, your Microsoft warranty is voided the instant you even start thinking about this sort of mod. Lirhus says they plan to offer a warranty but isn’t ready to provide details yet.

This isn’t the first Xbox 360 replacement case. I’ve seen the Lian Li XB01, for example, which is strictly a DIY project with some very daunting instructions. A detailed review at Bit-Tech concluded:

[W]ithout a game in the drive the Xbox is finally, truly silent. It’s incredible. Drop a DVD in and it’s also very quiet. As soon as you drop a game in the DVD drive though then it spins up and the whole thing deafens you again. Until Microsoft allow games to be played off the hard drive, there seems to be little cure for the inherent DVD issue.

So a quiet Xbox 360 is certainly possible, and maybe A-Tech can solve that pesky DVD problem. I’ll be in line early to order one of these and put it through its paces and will let you know when it arrives.

I’ve got details over at ZDNet:

Windows 7 to launch October 22; RTM next month

I’ve also posted the list of finalists in my Windows 7 release date prediction pool:

Who will win the Windows 7 release date prediction pool?

And when you read the inevitable analysis by some ill-informed pundit that Microsoft is “rushing Windows 7 out the door” to bury Vista, point them to this post I wrote in January 2008. This chart is the key:

There’s been nothing rushed about Windows 7. It’s taken about as long to produce this release as it did to produce its predecessors, on average. The major differences in Windows 7 are quality and design. By both of those metrics, Windows 7 will rate incredibly high, better than any Windows release in history, in my opinion.

What was really remarkable was how quickly each version installed when using a USB key. (If you need instructions on how to copy the Windows 7 setup files to a USB flash drive and make it bootable, see this blog post by Microsoft’s Jeff Alexander.)

The setup time seemed to be roughly the same for each edition. I timed one clean installation just to see how long it took. From startup (booting from the DVD) to first logon took 15:59. Windows Update pulled down two drivers for devices that did not have inbox drivers on this particular model (the UPEK fingerprint controller and for the ATK ACPI buttons). That took less than a minute. Windows Update installed another 10 updates, including updated video and network drivers and some Windows 7 test updates. That took an additional six minutes or so.

All in all, the clean installation was complete and fully updated in a grand total of 22:50. That’s a huge improvement over Windows Vista—and, for that matter, over Windows XP.

Ten years doesn’t seem all that long, but this list really brought home a few facts about how much the PC world has changed since then.

For starters, none of the companies that manufactured the seven computers I owned then is still in the PC business in the United States. I had a desktop PC and a notebook from Digital Equipment Corporation and a hideously ugly Compaq Presario desktop. DEC and Compaq were eaten by HP years ago (the Compaq brand name is still in use as HP’s budget line). NEC, which made my Versa SX notebook (shown at right), still sells computers in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, but not in the United States. The others were homemade or built by local shops that long ago ceased to be.

I didn’t note which processors were in use in any of the PCs, only clock speeds. Intel had just released the Pentium III a few months earlier, and I’m pretty certain that a 450MHz Pentium III was running the Compaq Presario. The rest were a mix of first-generation Pentiums and some Pentium IIs, at clock rates from 150 MHz to 300 MHz.

What was most startling to see on my list were the hard disk sizes. My big desktop machine had a whopping 13GB of storage, spread over three hard drives (6.4GB + 1.4GB + 4.2GB). The largest single hard drive in use was 8.6GB, and the rest all had either 2GB or 4GB drives. The total amount of storage in all seven systems was 47 GB on 12 physical drives.

Memory was expensive in those days. I probably paid an extra $300 for the 192MB of RAM in the NEC notebook. The machine I was using as a Windows domain controller had 64MB of RAM.

There were no price tags attached to the entries on my inventory list, but I recall being deliriously happy to get a Digital Hi-Note notebook (the forerunner of today’s small and light portables) for around $1500. Each desktop was over $1000, and those hard disks were several hundred dollars each as well. In total, there was easily more than 10 grand worth of hardware represented on that list.

Most of the machines had no USB controllers and could only be expanded with ISA add-in cards. With the exception of that small DEC notebook they were all ridiculously heavy. The Compaq came with a first-generation flat-panel display. My main display was a 21-inch CRT that weighed more than 50 pounds. Everything else was connected to small monitors with a lot of switch boxes in use.

When I look around my office right now, I see six desktop PCs, four notebooks, and three servers. The oldest machine dates back to around 2002. Collectively, they have around 15 TB of storage. With the exception of a single P4 desktop and an AMD Sempron in the HP MediaSmart server, the CPUs are all Core 2 Duo or quad-core systems. All of the desktop and notebook systems have at least 2GB of RAM each. There isn’t a CRT in sight. Ironically, the average price of each system is between $500 and $1000.

If that much technological evolution could have happened in only a decade, what sort of computing power will we have at our fingertips in 2019?