Slashdot Mirror
In-Depth With the Windows 7 Public Beta
Dozer writes "With the Windows 7 public beta out, Ars Technica has an in-depth look at the release. There's praise for Windows 7's UI changes and polish as well much-needed changes to UAC, but also a warning that those who have problems with Vista won't like Windows 7 much better. 'If you couldn't stand Vista's UI (whether it's because you didn't like Explorer, Aero, Control Panel, UAC, or anything else), Windows 7 is unlikely to do much to help, as it builds on the same UI. If Vista's hardware demands were too steep, Windows 7 will likely cause you the same grief, as its hardware demands match. And if Vista didn't work with a program or device you need to use, Windows 7 will offer no salvation, as its compatibility is virtually identical.'"
unleash the nerds!!
OK, so wasn't Windows 7 supposed to be usable on netbooks? If it's got the same requirements as Vista, then how the hell is that going to work exactly?
Sounds like I'll not be changing my habits much: Windows for Games, Linux for everything else.
5468652047616D65
I wonder what Win7 is supposed to fix. I'm probably in the minority, but I actually like the Vista GUI. It's cleaner, a little "Tonka Toy" in areas, but seems more polished than XP. What I don't like about Vista are the problems with wireless, power, CPU utilization, random disk storms, and some strange memory issues when running large JVMs. If Win7 fixes the non-gui related issues then I won't mind using it.
Strangely enough, on my Linux desktops I prefer a very minimal GUI such as fluxbox or xfce4. I turn off almost everything except for a gkrellm monitor. I did play with compiz and beryl for a while, and it was interesting at first, but quickly became annoying.
I (foolishly, naively, but showing mostly uncrushable optimism) downloaded the beta and installed it only to be confronted what looked like Server 2008 minus the "classic" theme, perhaps "diet Vista".
Am I the only one that's more turned off by the Vista UI than the shitload of crap under the hood? I find tasks I can do simply and quickly, and with a fair amount of transparency with the "classic" UI, to be made highly opaque by the Vista (for lack of a better word) UI and involving much more effort, often MORE clicking, MORE bullshitting around. I did a Server 2008 server setup the other day (could have done 2003, but it was a small client doing filesharing only, so it was a good way to get my feet wet) and I was astonished that they had managed to make NTFS permissions editing and sharing setup involve more work with less control of the outcome than Server 2003.
Maybe I'm just getting Old And In The Way, but I'm missing the reason why they have to change the way some tasks are performed and the structure of the GUI. It seems like they're just making it different to be different and dumbing it down even dumber than it already was. Is there some sensible reason why the GUI needs to be so substantially changed?
So... the summary is basically saying that the problems everyone complained about with Vista, seem to be basically still there with Windows 7?
Er... this may seem like a stupid question, but what did they actually improve -- if not the things people were complaining about? Windows 7 beta seems to have had favorable reviews, so I wonder what people are basing that on, after reading this summary. (though, I note that Vista had favorable reviews on its launch too. It was just when reality bit that the knives came out. Shillery will only get you so far).
Not that I really care, since I've never used Vista and I won't be using Windows 7. XP still works fine for the one Windows box I have, and after any SP3 a Microsoft product is as good as it gets.
xkcd 528:
"What are you doing?"
"Trying the Windows 7 Beta"
"Why is it showing a picture of Hitler?"
"I don't know. I can't get it to do anything else."
"There's no UI?"
"No, just Hitler."
"Did you try Control-Alt-Delete?"
"It just makes Hitler's eyes flash."
"Huh... well, it's better than Vista."
"True."
I didn't have any luck with daemon tools under Windows 7 (32bit), but SlySoft Virtual Clonedrive (free, http://www.slysoft.com/en/virtual-clonedrive.html ) works fine for me. On a more general note, Windows 7 is making it not a chore to leave my usual Linux/XFCE environment, so they must have done something right.
So in a nutshell, Windows7 is rebranded Vista SP2. That in itself is fine with me, since SP2 is about when Microsoft O/Ses get stable enough for production use. And the taskbar and other UI changes generally look to be an improvement.
However, the big concern many, including myself, have with Windows7, is DRM ... is it overloaded with DRM that limits software usefulness / degrades performance?
Ron
For goodness sake, the majority of comments I read about Win 7 are almost overwhelmingly positive. Why must Slashdot continue to moan when Microsoft appear to have learnt from their mistakes with Vista? It's fucking annoying.
After reading the article, it seems like Windows 7 has changed some things which really did not need changing, not fixed some of the more irritating problems from Vista, like UAC, and has little to offer in the way of performance benefits. According to the article, it's about a 10% increase in performance, which is really negligible at this point.
/rant>
What Microsoft needs to do is reconsider every part of their operating system to see its actual value in the operating system. Keep the things that don't need changing, and don't just change them to have shiny new stuff to demo. The task bar was fine as it is. Get back to the basics and focus on the core of the operating system. Reduce its weight, reduce the fluff. I like the approach Apple is taking with Snow Leopard. Too often do operating system vendors think what users really want are shiny new dongles and gadgets. I, for one, want a usable, stable, and fast Operating System.
This is not just a Microsoft flame, either. I also think this Compiz Fusion business on Linux is quite silly. Adding cheap flashy effects, which offer very little in usability, but add expensive speed requirements should not be the aim of any operating system creator.
Web Hosting: Unlimited storage and bandwidth: $5/month
Shutdown button... has the word "shutdown" on it. This is the biggest improvement over vista.
As usual and excellent analysis by Ars. Here's my takeway
The taskbar? That's it? That's why I should go to Vista/Windows 7? Ooof! All these wasted years with my inferior taskbar.
It's like lasy year when the new BMW's came out and they had an improved cup-holder. Man I traded in my old one that day!
You keep harping on about going back to XP, when you people had the exact same ditribe about XP when it first came out. why don't we see this kind of thing when an open source package breaks backward compatability or copies features?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
I have not actually tried the beta yet. I hear it's quite pleasant and hardly Hitler-y at all.
(For those that don't read it regularly, you should really read the alt text as well.)
I also like how he says home users hate change, then a few sentances later says everyone will switch to linux.
Yeah..linux is so much more similar to XP than Win7.
P.S. I'm not a vista/Win7 supporter by any means. I'm still running XP, and don't see any reason to switch. When games start using 4GB+ of memory I may have to though.
Um... have you even looked at Win7 (not the videos, an actual system running it)? It's dead easy to tell if a program is running. Your comment reminds me of some blogger who was whining that Aero made it hard to tell which application was running, ignoring the giant red button in the corner that is transparent on non-active windows.
For that matter, I'm not sure where you get the idea that folks hate Aero. I've heard of some people disabling it for performance reasons (valid if you don't have a discrete video card, although if you do it actually performs better) but only one person I know actually preferred the classic theme over Aero. I'm sure he's not alone, but I can't say I've been hearing complaints about Vista's look.
Also, same crap compared to what? Almost nobody complains about Vista's security (quite the opposite, actually), which definitely can't be said for XP, even with SP3. That's worth the sacrafice of some compatibility, in my mind - although I've found very, very few drivers or programs (out of the ones I use, which is a large but not quite common set) that wouldn't run in Vista or even that ran slower - a couple needed patching after install, but most needed only to be installed using Compatibility Mode and they worked fine.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Sorry to have to break it to you. But much of the flash in Vista and Windows 7 is borrowed from Mac OS X, which is currently eating away at Windows market share.
Customers seem to like bling. So of course MS is going to offer it.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
You know after trying "linux" i thought is was somewhat okay, until i got to the BOOTLOADER!!!!!!!!!!1
F**K the new bootloader, it is made in Stallman's usual contempt for other operating systems like Windows, and even sh*ts on OSX/Windows for loading. I HATE IT I HATE IT I HATE THE NEW BOOTLOADER!!!!!!!!!
grrrrrrrrrrr
*more unintelligible sounds*
(also my worst post)
Editorial note: Setting up GRUB is typically a hit and miss process that involves multiple attempts, although this is largely a solved problem with the popular distros, I find it incredibly irritating that the default for nearly every distro is to overwrite the existing bootloader rather than attempt to use a more sane solution: add their OS to the existing bootloader when installing on a separate partition. I boot into Linux using the Windows bootloader (chain boots into GRUB.) Why can't this be a default option so that I don't have to worry about the fact that deleting my new, temporary Linux install will leave my machine unbootable?
I know I'm going to be down-modded for this, but it must be said.
Let me start off by saying that Windows Vista is no longer the piece of shit that it once was. Ever since SP1, the many problems that Vista used to have have been gone. I was using Vista Ultimate since July and had absolutely no issues with anything, and it actually runs faster (gasp!) than XP on my machine. (Let me point out that my machine has a Q6600, 4GB of RAM, and an 8800GT)
Now that that's out of the way, allow me to tell about how much better Windows 7 is. I've been using 7even for three weeks. I installed the leaked build 6959, and besides a few major problems with Firefox's rendering, I had no issues with it. I then installed 7000 a couple days before its official release because I couldn't stand how horrible Firefox was acting up. And finally, I downloaded and installed Windows 7 x64 from the public beta site and got a legitimate key. With each new installation brought new improvements to speed and functionality.
7even is not Vista with an updated UI. Besides the obvious UI improvements (which took some time to get used to, but I find them more useful than before), just using 7even, you will notice that Microsoft must have put a lot of time and money into rewriting and optimizing code. An argument could be made to call 7even "Vista SP2", but I am convinced that there are enough updates and improvements that separate 7even from Vista that it deserves its own name. Microsoft removed so much bloat, improved UAC, added a couple necessary features, and added much-needed improvement to features present in Vista (for example, an AWESOME improvement to the defragmenter that makes me actually want to use it rather than a third-party program). And the taskbar, while some accuse it of copying the Mac, is actually an improvement of Mac's dock... You can't switch between individual windows in Mac, which is something that pisses me off being an employee of a TV station who uses Macs with Final Cut Studio.
Yes, if you ran Vista, you wouldn't have had any problems swapping the motherboard. MS overhauled the NT HAL so it wasn't locked to a particular chipset.
They also completely restructured the audio system so it can provide theatre quality audio, and use stereo microphone input to improve background noise elimination. They replaced the old graphics engine to implement window compositing and offload window drawing to the GPU and allow virtualization of GPU resources. The filesystem was upgraded to include file versioning so you can go back and undo changes to files. They added priviledge seperation (like sudo), a process sandboxing mechanism, address space layout randomization and NX support for security. They added a prefetching engine which intelligently knows what disk pages to cache. They added IPv6 and bluetooth support. They added an imaging based installer system which makes it infinitely easier to create and deploy system images.
And according to Slashdot, Vista adds nothing of value to XP. So is it any wonder Windows 7 is mostly focused on polish and user interface?
With Vista I found UAC VERY annoying. Sometimes I'd get one warning from UAC, click OK, then get another one for the same program. This seems to have been ironed out in Windows 7. It's still there, but it's less annoying.
What WAS annoying is that the box I'm testing Windows 7 on has an old Dell CRT attached to it. Windows 7 got the screen refresh rate wrong (75 when it should have been 60) and screwed up the display from 3/4 into the install process till I was able to get into settings and change it. To be fair, Ubuntu on NVidia restricted drivers does the same damned thing.
Second annoyance was sleep mode. With my aging monitor (or maybe its the video card) coming back from sleep mode corrupts the display, and cannot be fixed short of a restart. In the default configuration, the computer goes into sleep mode after 30 minutes. Easily enough fixed, but still I didn't like it.
Another problem I found, was I found it hard to locate some things in the control panel. It's different than XP.
The last issue was a driver problem, that computer's onboard sound didn't even have a Vista driver. Fortunately I was able to get the XP driver to work.
I have yet to find any other real problems with it at this point. All in all MS seems to have learned from a lot of Vista's mistakes and made improvements. I'm not sure I'll buy a copy at this point, but I'm not ruling it out either.
It does if you aren't using an administrator account. If you are using an administrator account, why does Vista need your password a second time? You've already entered your password, and the UAC dialog is isolated to prevent other programs hijacking the allow button.
I actually installed it on an old P4 machine with a built in graphics card and 512MB of ram. Most of the components of the computer rate about a 3 on the performance scale with the video card and 3D bits coming in at a one. So here's what I found.
1. I was able to work with Excel without a problem. It opened up and ran as fast as a dual core machine running XP. So that's fine.
2. Installation speeds were completely in line with what I'm used to. I installed Firefox, Flash, Adobe Reader and Office 2007. I didn't run into any problems.
3. The OS' installation was seemless. I didn't try to upgrade and just let it go from scratch. Once I finished the basic setup I just let it sit for about an hour and it did it itself. Once it finally booted up I didn't need to install new drivers. I really liked this to be honest given how painful driver installations and downloads can be.
4. The interface is almost the exact same as Vista. Now I have no trouble finding what I need when doing vista tech support. Going to the start menu and typing "event" then hitting enter takes less time for me than going: control panel -> admin tools -> event viewer. It's also easier to describe to new users. Ditto for hitting a command prompt since I get to skip the extra set of going to run. That said, I am in the minority here.
6. I ran the chess game, and that ran really slowly. This looks like it was due to the graphics card issue so it's understandable. I think I may try putting in a better card and giving it another try.
So yeah, that's been my Windows 7 experience so far. It basically feels like an improved slimmed down version of Vista because I know there is no way Vista could run that well at 512MB of RAM.
TFA has six pages, almost all of which were praise for Windows 7, and yet the "summary" picks out three choice sentences that were negative.
Nevermind the new features (both under the hood and with the UI), nevermind all the annoyances of Vista that this undoes, nevermind the ZDNet tests that show 7 to be faster than XP and Vista.
No, let's scan the entire article and post the most damning phrases we can find and call that a summary.
And no I'm not new here.
-David
Good response. To elaborate on that a little, Windows stores informationa bout your login credentials in memory while running (these are used for things like transparent decryption of NTFS-encrypted files and folders). For people concerned about somebody sitting down at their system and messing with stuff, that's what WinKey-L (Lock Computer) is for.
However, if you want sudo-style "enter your password to do this" security prompts, you can enable them in Local Security Policy, found under Administrative Tasks in the Start menu. (There's also a registry key for this setting, but I don't remember which one.) Given how much complaining UAC already causes, I think MS was smart to avoid this setting being the default. On the other hand, it might have helped users understand the reason for UAC... I don't know.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
This is Windows XP to Vista's Windows 2000, end of story.
Windows 2000 was more secure, more reliable, and was architecturally a major milestone for Windows. But it had some really troubled beta releases, and suffered many delays and resets (it had been codenamed Cairo and was supposed to include the Object Oriented File System, but most of that plan was scrapped about halfway through). It also broke a lot of compatibility, had heftier machine requirements, had major issues with games, had major issues with drivers thanks to the whole new driver model. Many of these cleared up over time (by service packs, maturing of the ecosystem, etc), but tons of people said they'd never upgrade from Windows 98, which was lighter and faster and better for games. But when XP came along, they upgraded.
Windows Vista was more secure, more reliable, and was architecturally a major milestone for Windows. But it had some really troubled beta releases, and suffered many delays and resets (it had been codenamed Longhorn and was supposed to include WinFS (Windows Future Storage), but most of that plan was scrapped about halfway through). It also broke a lot of compatibility, had heftier machine requirements, had major issues with games, had major issues with drivers thanks to the whole new driver model. Many of these cleared up over time (by service packs, maturing of the ecosystem, etc), but tons of people said they'd never upgrade from Windows 98, which was lighter and faster and better for games. But when Windows 7 comes along, they'll upgrade.