Watch it, share it, do what you like. And if you just want the short and sweet, here again are our five featured bits (shot and edited by Mike Short):

Steve Ballmer Exclusive Interview Series:
Part 1: Ballmer Talks Natal, Says Blu-ray Add-On for Xbox Coming
Part 2: Ballmer on the Smartphone Race: "It Doesn't Matter What the Critics Say"
Part 3: Ballmer on Zune: Sometimes You Get It Right The Third Time?
Part 4: Ballmer on Those Crazy Ballmer YouTube Videos
Part 5: Ballmer Optimistic About Win 7, But Says Vista Is "Very Popular"

"'The test feedback (on Windows 7) has been good, but the test feedback on Vista was good,' Ballmer, 53, said in an interview last week. ‘I am optimistic, but the proof will be in the pudding.'"

To recap, that's Steve "I'm going to fucking kill Google" Ballmer, the CEO of Microsoft. Admitting Windows 7 could blow up in their faces as badly as Vista.

To be fair, the chances of that happening are very slim. Windows 7 isn't the giant leap that Vista was from XP, so most stuff works about the same. It actually runs better than Vista on most machines. Everybody involved seems to have their shit together. PC makers are actually ready. There are no dumb, misleading stickers. Drivers, a huge problem last time, look mostly solid, with graphics dudes Nvidia (who was responsible for 30 percent of Vista crashes in 2007) and ATI getting drivers for Windows 7 out months ago. And, Windows 7 is just really good. (Plus, going to his point this is how most people approach betas nowadays.)

Now I'm just waiting for Steve Jobs to talk about how much he loves the Zune. [Bloomberg via ZDNet]

Windows 7 is not quite a "Vista service pack." It does share a lot of the core tech, and was clearly designed to fix nearly every bad thing anyone said about Vista. Which ironically puts the demon that it was trying to exorcise at its heart. What that means is that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been in the public eye—a solid OS with plenty of modern eye candy that mostly succeeds in taking Windows usability into the 21st century—but it doesn't daringly innovate or push boundaries or smash down walls or whatever verb meets solid object metaphor you want to use, because it had a specific set of obligations to meet, courtesy of its forebear.

That said, if you're coming from Windows XP, Windows 7 will totally feel like a revelation from the glossy future. If you're coming from Vista, you'll definitely go "Hey, this is much better!" the first time you touch Aero Peek. If you're coming from a Mac, you'll—-hahahahaha. But seriously, even the Mactards will have to tone down their nasal David Spadian snide, at least a little bit.

The Long Shadow of Windows Vista
The public opinion of Windows Vista—however flawed it might have been—clearly left a deep impact on Microsoft. While we've got final Windows 7 code, it's hard to look 2 1/2 months into the future to predict what the Windows 7 launch will be like. However, based on this code, and the biggest OS beta testing process in history, it sure won't look like the beleaguered Vista launch at all.

If you installed Vista on your PC within the first month of its release, there was a solid chance your computer ran like crap, or your gadgets didn't work, since drivers weren't available yet. That's not how it shakes down with Windows 7. The hardware requirements for Windows 7 are basically the same as they are for Vista, the first time ever a release of Windows hasn't required significantly more horsepower than the previous one. And it runs better on that hardware, or at least feels like it does.

We ran real-world benchmarking on two test machines, a nearly two-year-old Dell XPS M1330 with 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo, 2GB RAM, an Nvidia 8400M GS and a 64GB SSD, and an 18-month-old desktop with 3GHz Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM, an Nvidia 8800GT and a 10,000rpm drive. Results suggest there's little actual difference between Vista and Windows 7 performance-wise on the same hardware, as you can see:

Ambiguous benchmarking aside, our experience during the beta period was that Windows 7 actually ran beautifully, even on netbooks that made Vista cry like a spoiled child who'd had its solid gold spoon shoved up its butt sideways, so the difference isn't based entirely on "feelings." Even Microsoft never attempted to market a Vista for netbooks, but is gladly offering Windows 7 to that category.

Installing XP, Vista and Windows 7 on the same hardware over the space of a week also proved that point: Hardware just worked when I booted up Windows 7 for the first time, while my machines were practically catatonic with XP until I dug up the drivers, and gimped with Vista until I dutifully updated. Hitting Windows Update in Windows 7, I was offered a couple of drivers that were actually current, like ones for my graphics cards. Centralizing the delivery of drivers is huge in making the whole drivers thing less over whelming. (It helps that manufacturers are actively putting out drivers for their gear this go-around, rather than waiting until the last minute, as they tended to with Vista.)

Microsoft has even corrected the pricing spike that Vista introduced, even if they didn't fully streamline that confusing, pulsating orgy of versions. A full version of Windows 7 Home Premium is $200, down from $260, and if you were lucky, you could've pre-ordered an upgrade version for $50. (Microsoft says that deal has sold out, but we wouldn't be shocked to find it re-upped in the near future, possibly even as we head toward the October 22 launch.) So yes, most of the early Vista problems—performance, compatibility and price, to an extent—will likely not be early Windows 7 problems.

What's Good
Windows 7 is the biggest step forward in usability since Windows 95. In fact, over half of what makes it better than Vista boils down to user interface improvements and enhancements, not so much actual new features.

Its fancy new user interface—the heart of which is Aero Peek, making every open window transparent except the one you're focusing on at the moment so you can find what you're looking for—actually changes the way you use Windows. It breaks the instinct to maximize windows as you're using them; instead, you simply let windows hang out, since it's much easier to juggle them. In other words, it radically reorients the UI around multitasking. After six months of using Aero Peek and the new launcher taskbar, going back to Vista's taskbar, digging through collapsed app bars, or even its Peek-less Alt+Tab feels barbaric and primitive. I wouldn't mind an Mac OS Exposé ripoff to complete the multitasking triumph, though.

Windows 7 brings back a sense of a tightness and control that was sometimes missing in Vista—there's a techincal reason for this relating in part to the way graphics are handled—moments where I've felt like I wasn't in control of my PC have been few and far between, even during the beta and release candidate periods. The more chaste User Account Control goes to that—the frequency with which it interrupts you was grating in Vista, like standing under a dripping faucet. But it actually works as Microsoft intended now, with more security, since you're less likely to repeatedly hammer "OK" to anything that pops up, just so it leaves you the hell alone.

Other super welcome improvements are faster, more logical search—in the Music folder for instance, you can narrow by artist, genre or album—and more excellent file previews, though they're not quite as awesome as what OS X offers up. (And why aren't they on by default?) There are lots of little things that make you say, "finally" or "that's great," like legit codec support baked in to Windows Media Player, Device Stage when you plug in your gadgets, or the retardiculously awesome background images.

In short, Windows 7 is what Windows should feel like in 2009.

What's Not So Good
There are a few spots Microsoft rubbed polish on that still don't quite shine. Networking is much, much better than Vista—the wireless networking interface isn't completely stupid anymore—but the Network and Sharing Center still doesn't quite nail it in terms of making networking or sharing easy for people who don't really know what they're doing. I wouldn't turn my mom loose inside of it, anyway. The HomeGroup concept for making it easy to share files sounds good in theory, but in practice, it's no slam dunk. I imagine regular people asking, "What's up with crazy complicated password I have to write down? Can I share files with PCs not in my HomeGroup? What's all this other stuff in my Network that's not in my HomeGroup?"

Not all parts of the user experience are sweeter now. Microsoft, just fix the unwieldy Control Panel interface, please. (Hint: Steal OS X's. Everything's visible and categorized.) And Windows Media Player's UI while you're at it. If it makes iTunes look simple, it's got problems. I'd really like to be able to pin folders directly to the Taskbar as well, not simply to the Windows Explorer icon in the Taskbar. It's kind of confusing behavior, actually—why can you pin some icons (apps or files) and not others (folders)?

Internet Explorer 8 ain't so great, either. It's better than IE7, sure, and actually sorta supports modern web standards. But you'll be downloading Firefox, Opera, or Chrome as soon as you get Win 7 up and running, since IE's not better than any of them. And while you could argue you wouldn't be so inclined to use Microsoft's own mail application either, you might, but you'll have to download it first. Instead of being app-packed, Windows 7 gives you an optional update for Live Essentials, with apps like Mail, Photo Gallery and MovieMaker. Some people might like the cleaner install, but this is a fairly senseless de-coupling—not including a mail app with your own OS? I know those European regulators are ridiculous, but come on.

I suppose the biggest thing missing from Windows 7 is any sense of daring (psychedelic wallpapers aside). It's a very safe release: Take what was good about Vista, fix what people bitched about, and voila. We get it, people want a safe operating system, not an experiment in behavioral science. But even as Windows 7 restores some of the joy in using Windows, you get the sense that it could've been more, if it hadn't been saddled with the tainted legacy of Vista. I wonder what Windows 7 would have been without Vista.

The Verdict
Windows XP was a great OS in its day. Windows Vista, once it found its feet several months in, was a good OS. With Windows 7, the OS is great again. It's what people said they wanted out of Windows: Solid, more nimble and the easiest, prettiest Windows yet. There's always a chance this won't be a huge hit come October, given the economy and the state of the PC industry, but it's exactly what Microsoft needs right now. Something people can grab without fear.

Read Part 2
For a more in-depth feature breakdown and what we thought, check out our Windows 7 Best Features and Tips guide.

In Brief:
The redesigned Aero Interface is super slick with lots of transparencies and smooth animations and it actually makes Windows easier to use

It performs great on the same hardware as Vista, even playing nice on netbooks Vista wouldn't

Device Stage makes you want to plug gadgets into your PC

It fixes almost everything you hated about Vista (don't look at me, I didn't think Vista was bad)

Media Player still sucks to use, though "Play To" and internet streaming features are nifty

It'd be nice if the $50 upgrade deal kept running

IE8, while better, still isn't as good as Firefox, Chrome or Safari

The mess that is Control Panel—after all that UI work, what the eff, guys?

Too many versions still

[Back to our Complete Guide to Windows 7]

[Microsoft Windows 7]

The User Interface
Here's everything that's improved in the Windows 7 UI. Win 7 kept the glassy Aero desktop from Vista, but added many more usability improvements on top of it. Basically, they extended the efforts of Vista to get the eye candy bar up higher while continuing to get the functionality up to match. There's the new taskbar, jump lists, Aero Peek, pinning, Aero Shake, Left/Right alignment, full-desktop gadgets, themes and new shortcuts in Windows Explorer. Again, see the big list here to get you started on what changed, UI-wise, from Vista to 7.

Drivers
In addition to surface and usability improvements, Microsoft addressed one of the big complaints about Vista—drivers—with Device Stage. Device Stage gives you a way to organize the pre-installed drivers (with, hopefully, much less driver compatibility issues now) along with stuff you can do with these third-party hardware add-ons. There are services, taskbar and other popup menu integration with these devices, which you should check out here.

Media
Of course there's Windows Media Player 12 and its ability to stream music to devices on the network. You select "Play to..." and up pops a menu showing what's on the network that you can pump your music or video out of. For more details on that click here, but keep in mind compatibility is constantly being upgraded, and the list of compatible devices and content formats will grow once people are using the OS en masse.

And Media Center! One of our favorite features on Windows improves on the Vista experience with usability fixes and a handful of new features like more transparency so you can keep an eye on what you're watching while navigating menus. There's quite a lot of new stuff here, so if you're a Media Center user you should familiarize yourself. As a whole, we still have the belief that Media Center is the best TV-DVR platform out there, beating TiVo for the fact that it's connected to a computer, and can be easily (and cheaply) expandable via Xbox 360s. If you can set up a CableCard PC running Windows 7, you'll be set for a while. Also, the 360 gets the new Windows 7 UI as well in Extender mode, as long as its host computer is running Windows 7.

Security
It wouldn't be a stretch to say that Windows 7 is finally where Microsoft got their security implementation right. After blundering their User Account Control—a smart idea that works to make sure users don't allow programs to access sensitive parts of the system— in Vista by making it too annoying, they found a good balance in Win 7. You also have Action Center, which lets you access everything from just your taskbar, and built-in support for biometric devices.

Networking
Another major complaint in Vista was networking; specifically, wireless networking and how lousy it was to use. Windows 7's implementation is much improved, and changes basic network implementation for the better as well. There's also a new concept called HomeGroup, which basically gets your multiple PCs on the network sharing files and resources with each other by joining a "group". It's supposed to be easier than the old method of joining workgroups and making sure each PC has the correct name and setup, and for the most part it is, even given the limitations mentioned in Matt's review. Check out HomeGroup in detail here.

Alternative Input
For the more esoteric input devices, there's the multitouch, pen controls and writing recognition. It's basically taking Microsoft Surface and porting it to computer that you can actually use. Although no machines are on the market right now that really take advantage of the features in such a way that it really makes a difference, you can bet your ass that if the Apple Tablet pushes the tablet form factor forward, tons of manufacturers are going to follow up with machines that make use of Windows 7's multitouch inputs. And if you want to know what using 7's multitouch is like, look here for the basics, and here for the optional Windows 7 Touch Pack.

Late Breaking Features
Microsoft even added new features up until the release candidate, surprising us with lots of cool tricks. There's streaming your music library over the internet with Windows Media Player and Windows XP mode, which gives you a full-fledged Windows XP virtual environment (a desktop within a desktop). Both of which are the kind of extras you wouldn't expect to be integrated inside an OS—there are third-party utilities made just to do these kinds of functions—but Microsoft wanted to give a little more to its users.

Here's one thing you should definitely read before you install Windows 7. Why you should go 64-bit. The one big reason is that 32-bit Windows only have access to 4GB of RAM, max. You may think that 4GB is enough now, but think about those big-ass apps that you'll be using in a couple years. Future-proof yourself now and go 64-bit. There won't be a whole lot of downside to making the jump.

More Bits
Then there are the miscellaneous small features that are cool to have that you may not know you need until you stumble upon them a few months after you install:
• Native ISO burning
• Native Docx file handling
• An expanded send-to menu
• Virtual Wi-Fi, a way to share one Wi-Fi adapter into many for sharing a hotspot with your friends (or other devices)
• GPGPU, a computing paradigm that allows your graphics card to help shoulder the burden of all those calculations. You won't see this every day, but just know that it's making your experience faster, on the whole
• The calculator now has a mortgage payment calculator
• Oh man, look how useful the Windows key is now
• Windows 7 also ramps up the Performance Meter to 7.9
• Libraries are the new way Win 7 organizes your music and videos. It's basically a smart folder that aggregates multiple regular folders together
• The Problem Steps Recorder, a way for you to automatically generate a document that goes step-by-step through whatever it is at your computer, is still there. We thought this would be taken out after the beta/RC stage, but you can still use this to generate problem reports and remotely figure out why your parents are crashing their computer whenever they "click an icon"

Win 7 vs. Snow Leopard
And as a bonus, we compare Windows 7 to Snow Leopard. The Snow Leopard vs. Windows 7 feature comparison is pretty much final, but it's not a review, because Snow Leopard isn't out yet. Once Snow Leopard is released, we'll revisit the subject, in case Apple decides to sneak in something crazy at the last minute.

Extras
• How to install it on any netbook
• Those rumors about Windows 7 blocking third-party codecs were false. We installed a popular codec pack and it works on Windows 7 just fine.
• Here are some Windows 7 concepts that didn't make it to the final release.
• You can turn off pretty much every major feature in Windows 7
• Changes between beta and RC
• Here's now to get Windows 7's quick launch bar back, in case you like that over how Windows 7 does things. We actually do like it, and like it a lot

[Back to our Complete Guide to Windows 7]

Apparently, a Microsoft spokesperson has confirmed that "you will not need to reinstall an older version of Windows before using an Windows 7 upgrade disk." Awesome right? No, not really. The problem is that you will not be able keep your current programs and data using this method. Instead, you are performing a "custom installation" that will herd all of your personal files into a folder labled "WINDOWS.OLD." The items in that folder are dead to the world, so you will have to reinstall—essentially making it more like a fresh install than an upgrade. However, since you don't have a full copy you would have to install XP or Vista first then upgrade to Win 7 should you ever have to reinstall down the line.

Yeah, it's kind of a hassle, but it is a little better than how the Vista RC upgrade was handled at least. Back then, you had to install a fresh copy of XP then upgrade to Vista. [TechBlog / Image via Aeroxp]

As we reported earlier, retail pricing puts the Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade at $50 with the Windows 7 Professional upgrade costing $100. Costco will give you $5 savings on each, putting Home Premium at $45 and Pro at $95. That's a 10% savings on Home Premium and a 5% savings on Pro...or about enough to take a healthy bite out of sales tax. [Costco Thanks Brian!]

UPDATE: They pulled the page we linked and jacked up the price. Lame.

I mean, such labeling would play right into detractor's hands.

Regardless, Hodgman has been dispatched. New Apple I'm a Mac ad is imminent. [Amazon Windows 7 Resource Center - Thanks, Matthew]

Odds are, you won't pay the official prices, so I'm telling you the launch specials first. If you play your cards right, you'll either get it as a free upgrade for buying a PC, or you'll pay $50 for Win 7 Home Premium and $100 for Win 7 Professional. It's not the $30 Mac users will pay for the Snow Leopard upgrade, but it's a move in the right direction.

Free Upgrades
If you buy a PC starting Friday, June 26th, it should be covered under a free upgrade plan. (I say "should" because it depends on the manufacturer, but most of them are jumping on this with both feet.) Say you buy a computer with Vista Home Premium this weekend; you get a Windows 7 Home Premium upgrade on October 22, free. If you buy Vista Business, you'll get Win 7 Professional, and if you buy Vista Ultimate, you'll get Win 7 Ultimate. There's no upgrade path for Home Basic (the reason is below) but as I understand it, the number of systems sold at retail with Home Basic on them are in the low single digits.

That should take care of most PC buyers.

The Half-Price Pre-Order Deal
People in the US, Canada or Japan who already own a PC running XP or Vista will be able to pre-order the upgrade disc at around half the price that they'll eventually sell for. The pre-order deal also starts Friday, June 26th, and will run for a limited time.

As I said, Windows 7 Home Premium, usually $120, will cost $50, and Windows 7 Professional, usually $200, will cost $100. Windows 7 Ultimate is not part of this discount plan, but it might get its own incentive plan later on. (You could technically buy Home Premium upgrade, then pay to convert it to Ultimate, saving at least a little cash.) The pre-order deal will be visible at store.microsoft.com and at "most major retailers."

What's this about a limited time? Mike Ybarra, general manager of Windows Product Management, told me that the pre-order deal will go away when a certain undisclosed number of licenses is sold. "We have enough quantity," he said, adding that the magic number was "equivalent to a year of Vista sales volume at retail." (Ironically, those of you who want this upgrade offer to last have to hope that the Mojave Experiment worked, at least a little.) Some Microsoft materials suggest that July 11th might be the cutoff for the deal, but from what I understand, that's an estimate—this is based on supply. Regardless, if you want Windows 7, pre-order the damn thing come Friday.

European Hijinks
Europe is getting kinda screwed in this deal, because of the European Commission's banning of IE8 from any Windows installer media. Basically, starting July 15th in France, Germany and the UK, Microsoft will be selling full versions of Windows 7 Home Premium and Professional at the discounted upgrade prices, but that means there's no way to upgrade directly from Vista.

Euros who buy Win 7 will be forced to perform a clean install, and migrate their data and apps over any way they know how. The logic is that, while the Windows team can do a clean install without IE8, there's not enough quality assurance on what an upgrade install would be like without IE8, with assorted HTML rendering apps co-existing in the OS already. Could be messy, says Ybarra. "We don't want to break anyone else's software, we don't want to break our own software, and we don't want the customer on the phone with support." That funky deal is supposed to run through December.

The Official Prices
So, now that we got the immediate realities out of the way, here are the "estimated retail prices" that we'll eventually see in stores, for the people who aren't yet moving on the upgrade offers:

Windows 7 Home Premium: $120 for upgrade; $200 for full version
Windows 7 Professional: $200 for upgrade; $300 for full version
Windows 7 Ultimate: $220 for upgrade; $320 for full version

To be clear, the term "upgrade" just means you already own and run a version of Windows on the PC you're upgrading. It's still a complete set of bits that you can clean install and even set up for dual booting. The "full" version is mostly for people who are building their own systems.

You may remember that there are other Win 7 SKUs such as Home Basic and Starter. Windows 7 Home Basic is not available in the United States or most of Europe though, along with residents of Burkina Faso and Vanuatu, Montenegrans will be able to buy it.

Windows 7 Starter will be offered to Dell, HP, Asus and other manufacturers to stick on netbooks. Just in case you were concerned, Windows XP will also be available, distributed and supported for 12 months after Windows 7 launches though limited to these same "small notebook PCs." I think Microsoft—and quite a few non-vested-interests—are expecting netbooks to ditch XP for Win 7 pretty fast.

When You Actually Get It
As we've previously reported, October 22 is the day when almost everybody gets Windows 7. Anyone, anywhere in the world, in 35 different languages, will be able to buy a Windows 7 PC on October 22. The actual box of software will be available in most countries, covering 14 languages, on the 22nd, with the other 21 languages getting their retail boxes by October 31. It's a damn fast rollout, especially given all of the terrain it's going to cover.

Stay tuned, because we're going to post more details on this pre-order business soon. In the meantime, talk amongst yourselves. Is this a good deal? Is it crap? And most importantly, are you going to pony up cash on Friday? [Windows Blog]

And don't forget to check out our Complete Guide to Windows 7, covering all the new features, plus our experiences with the Beta and RC1 releases.

In short, if you buy a PC at Best Buy starting on June 26th, you're guaranteed a free copy of Windows 7 when it comes out on October 22nd. Not a bad deal! Unless you're Best Buy and are hoping to sell some computers in the next three weeks, which no well-informed customers will do now.

As for the trash talking, you've gotta love the first graf:

"Microsoft is launching Windows 7 in mid-October 2009. This new operating system isn't just a "Vista that works" program - it's a new operating system with improved productivity, functionality and creativity that uses less computer resources."

Nice work, Best Buy. In any case, if you're in the market for a new PC, it probably pays to wait until after the 26th if you don't want to pay for Windows 7 in October. [Engadget]

First, let's focus on what the X340 gets right. It's a 13-inch (16x9, 1366x768) laptop that weighs just 2.86 pounds with its 4-cell battery. It measures .78 inches at its thickest point and .24 inches at its thinnest. (The MacBook Air measures but .76 inches at its thickest point and .16 at its thinnest.) In real life application, the X340 seems a tad bulkier than specs might reveal because the tapering isn't as dramatic as the Air's. But it's still thin.

The 1.4GHz Core2 Solo processor is quite a bit faster than your average Atom, and its HDMI I/O port and draft n Wi-Fi are a welcome addition to such a tiny machine.

OK, now for the bad stuff.

The keyboard feels dreadful. Not only are the keys...mushy...the center of the keyboard literally bends while you type. It's frightening to watch and extremely disconcerting as you wonder if they next keypress will greet your fingertips with a charged circuit board.

As for the remainder of the machine, it doesn't feel much better. The only way to describe the plastic body is "cheap." Not only does the glossy black finish reveal a strange, flecked iridescence under light, tap on the palm wrests with your knuckle and something about the hollowness of the pitch assures you that it could easily crack under a moderate amount of pressure.
Molding the trackpad into the case...that was a bad idea. The surface simply doesn't feel lacquered as a working trackpad. Literally, it feels unfinished, like someone on the assembly line went on break instead of gluing on the proper touch sensitive rectangle.

When you hold the Air, it's an incredible sensation not just because of its size but because of how sturdy it feels at its size. The X340 misses the pleasure of this dichotomy and gives us what I'm willing to wager is the most fragile laptop I've ever put my hands on.

Performance
Believe it or not, while the X340 is burdened by Vista's heavy footprint, it's quite usable. General navigation seems infinitely faster than running Vista on a true netbook, like the Dell Mini 12. The benchmarks support the fairly fluid experience of the OS.
The X340 is clearly closer to a netbook than the MBA in performance, but that performance gap between netbook and X340 is definitely noticeable in your general day to day experience of loading apps.

The X340's graphics chip is the Intel GMA X4500MDH. All you really need to know is that this architecture is nowhere near as good as NVIDIA's 9 series stuff, like the 9400M. And it's not powerful enough for heavy gaming (the 9400M is already scraping the barrel pretty hard). You can see the two platforms side by side here:

Still, MSI claims that the system can handle smooth 1080P playback. Can it? In a word, no. Neither HD web content (like Vimeo) nor 1080P MPEG4 played back smoothly on the system. The Blu-ray quality MPEG4 probably never broke 15fps.

In reality, the X340 performs up to most of my expectations (since I never believed it could handle 1080P clips anyway). Just don't expect it to be some sort of dream multimedia machine. In that regard, the X340 is like a netbook on steroids—fine for general use, just not juiced up enough to handle the next tier of graphics-intensive operations.

The battery lasted 1 hour, 43 minutes - ouch*
You could probably stretch the life beyond two hours with a few tweaks, like gimping the processor or squinting at the screen, but if you're planning on watching a movie during your next flight, it'd better be from the 90-minute Pauly Shore Archives.
*MPEG 4 playback, Wi-Fi on, screen at full brightness, "balanced" performance. You can purchase an 8-cell battery that should hit 3 hours for a bit more weight

The Sad Conclusion
I should be thrilled with the X340. It's lighter than many netbooks that have smaller screens. While not as tailored as the MacBook Air, hey, it's damn close. It also runs Vista at a reasonable speed.

The problem is, I just can't look at this machine, as thin and light as it may be, and feel good about dropping nearly $1000 to make one mine. If the X340 were much cheaper (unlikely) or sturdier (quite feasible), there's a good chance I'd be thrilled in this review. I just can't imagine showing this machine off to a friend, or getting extreme satisfaction when pulling it out of a bag. And if I've lost those attributes, I might as well settle for a somewhat thin full-blown laptop for less money, or a very light netbook for even less money.

But if you're looking purely for the lightest way to fit a 13-inch screen into your bag that's waaayyyy cheaper than the Air, and you only want to use a computer for 1 hour and 34 minutes at a time, then I'm not stopping you.

Extremely light and thin form

Runs Vista adequately

Short battery life

Weak for multimedia applications

Unreasonably poor build quality

[Additional research from Geekbench]

Their conclusion:

Platter based hard drives and high-end solid state drives, all run faster on Windows 7. Solid state drives see the largest performance boost, which showed up to a 35% improvement in read performance and up to a 23% boost in write performance.

They also found serious jumps in burst read performance, which explains why, given a general speed difference of about a third, Windows 7 feels so much quicker than Vista or XP. Obviously, they weren't testing the netbook edition, but I doubt this particular metric will differ between versions. Convinced yet? [HotHardware via Slashdot]

A mid-June pricing announcement wouldn't be out of order in light of Microsoft's recent confirmation that Windows 7 would be released in time for the holidays. Up until now very little has been said—even in speculation—about how much the OS will actually cost.

CNET has a Dell Marketing exec on record saying:

The ASPs (average selling price) of the operating systems are higher than they were for Vista and XP

Meaning that, version for version, Windows 7 is apparently more expensive than any version before it. Prohibitively expensive, even.

String these two rumors together, and some day in mid-June, let's just call it the 15th—could be the day Microsoft squanders a solid year of positive hype in a single press conference. Some advice to Microsoft: this would be a bad thing. [CNET, TechARP via The Register]

• 1 GHz processor (32- or 64-bit)
• 1 GB of RAM (32-bit); 2 GB of RAM (64-bit)
• 16 GB of available disk space (32-bit); 20 GB of available disk space (64-bit)
• DirectX 9 graphics device with WDDM 1.0 or higher driver

They're a little bit different from the minimum specs put out for the January beta, in that it slightly pumps up the requirements for the 64-bit version of the OS (but you want at least 4GB of RAM to really take advantage of 64-bit anyway). You'll notice they're practically the same as the requirements for Vista, but unlike Vista don't vary from version to version—these are the specs for every version of Windows 7. You can see how each OS fares on the same hardware right here, for something more concrete.

And, while these specs might have seemed steep when Vista arrived, if your computer doesn't meet them at this point, it's time to buy a new one (with Windows 7 installed, natch). [ZDNet]

A good deal of their article is aimed at overclockers—which isn't so surprising given the audience. But there are some notable gems inside. For instance, does anyone know what "PFN_LIST_CORRUPT" might mean? The explanation is ironically shorter than that handy error code. Faulty RAM.

If you're a Windows user, the link offers good read, and probably a decent bookmark, too. And if you feel like seeing one of the biggest BSODs of all time, you can check that out here. [MaximumPC and image]

We used 32-bit versions of both Vista and Windows 7 on the same machine for testing: 2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB RAM (but really 3GB available cause of the 32-bit issue), 256MB Nvidia GeForce 9600M GT. We tested 32-bit because that's the official RC1 disc we were sent. We'll be doing a follow up with 64-bit, don't worry.
The first series of tests are the "everyday" ones—stuff you'd run into sorta daily, where taking less time is more better. Vista punked 7 out twice here, shutting down a bit faster applying a filter to a 16.6MB (9764x3720 pixel) photo in Adobe Photoshop CS4 with more haste. When we played Left 4 Dead using the recommend settings, Vista also seemed to deliver ever-so-slightly better performance, more consistently keeping the frame rate near 30 frames per second, though you'd have to be watching the FPS numbers rise and fall to really tell the difference between the two in gameplay. But you should keep in mind Nvidia's Windows 7 drivers are still in beta, and haven't been updated since March, while fresh Vista drivers came out a couple weeks ago, and drivers make huge differences with gaming performance.

This second series is pulled from PCMark Vantage and 3DMark Vantage—more traditional benchmarks, designed for Windows Vista. Here, Windows 7 came out ahead, only losing to Vista on a single test in 3DMark.

The overall takeaway sounds like a mixed message: Windows 7 RC1 consistently beat Vista in raw benchmarks by a small margin, and lagged slightly behind Vista in some very real world measures. What's really interesting is that in regular usage, Windows 7 still feels faster and more responsive than Vista, even though the objective numbers say otherwise. It's more than just a simple "hey it's not Vista" placebo effect: It points to a slicker, refined user experience that makes you feel like the OS responds more hastily or smoothly to your whims. And that's what really matters, more than the numbers.