Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release

Excellent by Killjoy_NL · 2009-03-27 00:04 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'm looking forward to this, new stuff to play with and if it really is faster than Vista, yay for me :)

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)

Re:Excellent by mc1138 · 2009-03-27 00:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

So far the beta while not huge amounts different, is a very nice polished UI update to Vista. It helps to both correct some of the problems Vista had, plus adds some spiffy new features.

--
The musings of just another geek and his junk.
Re:Excellent by Richard_at_work · 2009-03-27 00:34 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm still getting drastic slowdowns while copying files across a network on Windows 7 - transferring a 1GB file over G Wifi from either a Windows 2008 fileserver or a Ubuntu Server Samba fileserver gives me a maximum of 1MB/sec, with a typical transfer rate of just 700K/sec. A Mac on the same wifi network can see upward of 3MB/sec for the same file. Not good, not good at all.

Other than that, I'm thoroughly enjoying Windows 7 as my main desktop.
Re:Excellent by AvitarX · 2009-03-27 01:50 · Score: 1

Wow,
and I was really pissy about the 2MB/sec I get from my Asus WL-500w.
6 days to copy the whole hard drive seamed a little extreme to me. Additionally the limiting factor appears to be the routers HD access limitation, not the network or Samba, being as dd if=/dev/zero of=/opt/shared_files/test for 100MB tests only hit 2.5 MB/s
I will do some tests when I get home, but even the 3 MB/s seams really slow.

--
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Re:Excellent by Jesse_vd · 2009-03-27 02:41 · Score: 1

i transfer at 3-4MB/s all the time. DIR-615 draft N
Re:Excellent by tony0675 · 2009-03-27 04:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait

you do realize you're comparing a BETA of Windows 7 to a fully functional NON-beta version of OSX, right? Its like comparing apples to oranges. If you were comparing the Release Candidate to OSX it would be a little more credible.
Re:Excellent by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 05:42 · Score: 0

looking forward to the worlds best operating system :) so far having a great time with the beta version.
Re:Excellent by Dextrously · 2009-03-27 07:06 · Score: 1

Yeah, who in there right mind would ever do that?

In my experience with Windows Vista, transfering many small files, be it from disk to disk or to network, results in transfer speeds of less than 100KiB/s. For instance, anytime I have to transfer a users Quark profile (full of thousands of small font stubs for files), I generally get less then 10KiB/s transfer speeds until it can get past the font stubs, at which point it shoots up to MiB/s speeds. Haven't tried this in Windows 7 Beta, but I probably will at some point. It would be nice to see that go away.
Re:Excellent by SirAdelaide · 2009-03-27 22:22 · Score: 1

so... why not get the alpha and play with it?

--
I'm a fruit pirate. I bought a watermelon once, and spat the seeds in the back yard. They grew into another watermelon,

The longer the better by linuxci · 2009-03-27 00:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

At least it looks like they're happy to delay the 'release candidate' presumably to allow some more time for bugfixes, etc. Although calling it a release candidate is really innacurate. A proper release candidate should be something that could be signed off as the official release if testing goes ok, however, it's widely known that there's going to be multiple release candidates.

Re:The longer the better by morgan_greywolf · 2009-03-27 00:27 · Score: 5, Informative

A proper release candidate should be something that could be signed off as the official release if testing goes ok, however, it's widely known that there's going to be multiple release candidates.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, exactly. Any open source project of reasonable complexity has at least 2-3 release candidates, usually more for really big releases like when they merge a development branch with the main trunk. The difference between a 'beta' and 'release candidate' seems to be that with a release candidate you are saying that the code is more or less frozen; you're not going to change much unless there are serious showstopper bugs. With a beta there's a little more flexibility.
I would expect that Microsoft's development methods internally aren't all that different.

--
My blog
Re:The longer the better by xenolion · 2009-03-27 00:29 · Score: 4, Interesting

I hope Microsoft does do more than one release candidate. I remember 2000 pro and server had two or three Release Candidates, and look how well that one went over. More time into a RC will help crush any other bugs and errors that are there. Vista seemed to be rushed now that we have sp1 for vista which made it usable but still needs a lot of work just dump vista along with its fellow friend ME.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 00:30 · Score: 0

A proper release candidate should be something that could be signed off as the official release if testing goes ok , however, it's widely known that there's going to be multiple release candidates.
Emphasis mine. Release candidates are the final stages in testing. All that means is if nothing further is found that needs to be fixed then it can go gold, however, it doesn't guarantee that it will. There is nothing wrong or inaccurate about having several RC versions before RTM. If the leaked information is correct, then there won't even be a RC until May, leaving at least 1 month for bug fixes.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 01:02 · Score: 1

Really? I get the distinct feeling it's being rushed (Think Xbox 360 to urgently replace the un-wanted Xbox 1)
The open beta 7000 came out in January and within only 4 weeks the RC was being discussed.
This version of Windows is without a doubt better than Vista, no hesitation in saying that but it's still got it's issues.
See here for example.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1173797&cid=27320451
Re:The longer the better by Ihmhi · 2009-03-27 01:15 · Score: 1

If 2000 could still be used with some of my more important programs (like Steam), I'd probably be using that instead of XP right now.
They were right on the money with Win2K. We'll probably have to wait another thousand years or so to see MS get it right again.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:The longer the better by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 01:18 · Score: 0, Flamebait

why would anyone prefer 2000 over xp? what can 2000 do and xp can't?

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:The longer the better by Richard_at_work · 2009-03-27 01:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with the 'issues' quoted in your linked comment is that they are actually personal opinions about changes, and not actual functional issues that need resolving. You are more than welcome to disagree with changes, and they may indeed alter your established personal routines for the worse rather than the better, but that doesn't make them issues that need 'correction'.

See my post earlier in this thread for an actual issue that requires correction: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1177883&cid=27355721
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 01:26 · Score: 5, Informative

See here for example.

Also, the breadcrumb bar, time and time again I've tried to hassle people for an OPTION to disable the ghastly thing, I don't mind if new users prefer it, good for you! I work on machines to get things done, I need it quick and efficient and the breacrumb bar frankly frustrates me. I don't know about you guys but I 'think in' paths, directories and drives, even if Microsoft doesn't want me to think that way anymore, it's likely how I will ALWAYS think of things on a machine, I translate things back in to paths when using the breadcrumb bar, so it's just slowing me down and... again I'm not 'getting the data' to my brain quick enough.
In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?

The control alt delete menu (the grey box under XP with 6 buttons) previously you could just hit space to lock the machine or t for the task manager - now you have to hold down alt. (I admit this is a small problem)
Win+L will also lock the screen. Much quicker.

He's absoloutely right, but the problem is WHY, WHY! and WHY did they introduce a 'requirement' to hold down alt before using the shortcut keys on the control alt delete menu? The problem isn't the issue itself the problem is WHY did they do this when it simply changes something which didn't needed to be changed and adds a layer of complexity.
Because that's how it's _supposed_ to work, as per the Windows UI guidelines (Alt+accelerator key to access UI elements). Quite arguably, they've fixed a long-running UI bug.
Ctrl+Shift+Esc for Task Manager is quicker and has been around a _lot_ longer (at least NT 4.0, most likely NT 3.1). It was derived from Ctrl+Esc to get the running task list in Windows 3.x and OS/2.
Re:The longer the better by Kaboom13 · 2009-03-27 01:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

Lower memory usage, in exchange for a worse ui (unless you like low res icons), no security features (say goodbye to NX bit and other hardening features) and generally at this point worse in every way. Now when XP first came out, it was reasonable to keep using 2k for quite awhile, but now that 4 gb of ram is like $50, saving the 128 mb of ram you get from running 2k over xp definitely isn't worth it. Considering with some tweaking you can make the xp ui look and act almost identical to the 2k ui, the only thing 2k has going for it is nostalgia. If you actually try to use it (I run into machines still running 2k every now and then in my work) you will realize it's a piece of crap.
Re:The longer the better by totally+bogus+dude · 2009-03-27 01:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any project of sufficient complexity will likely have multiple release candidates, just because once all the release critical bugs are found and fixed... more will be found.
That doesn't mean a release candidate isn't actually a candidate for release, or at least is supposed to be. An RC is supposed to be, "we think we're done, unless you can show us there's major bugs remaining this is exactly what we're going to release". The final release should be nothing more than the last release candidate with the version strings to say it's a final release rather than an RC.
Vista had one RC, and when it was made available Microsoft made it absolutely clear that the RC was not actually a candidate for release; it did not include a bunch of changes and fixes that were going to be in the actual release. They abuse the term: Microsoft's "release candidates" are actually more like "late betas".
The term "release candidate" is actually entirely self-explanatory and leaves less wiggle room for misrepresenting the status of a project than "alpha" or "beta". The final release should be identical to the last RC. In practice there's often some small changes made or diagnostic/debugging code removed; but any actual changes in functionality or any non-trivial fix should cause another RC to be made. It is a bit of a balancing act between cost/time and thoroughness though.
However, calling something a "release candidate" when you have absolutely no intention that it will actually be the released version is disingenuous. If is not a candidate for release, then it is not a release candidate.
Re:The longer the better by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 01:35 · Score: 1

For the breadcrumb part, I've used computers long enough that my brain more or less keeps a map of where I am and I want to go 'up' rather than click on the folder I'm looking for. I think in directory structures now and it's hard to change it.
I'd be fine with it if they brought back the up button and/or made the tree in the left panel a bit cleaner/easier. They've cluttered it up so much with the 'favorites' stuff that it interferes with my ability to use the directory structure that I've set up over the years.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 01:40 · Score: 1

I won't deny these are my opinion but you have to really question the design team on some of these changes.
I mean removing the free space from the status bar helps NO ONE, it's a pointless, backwards change.
I don't even think it's opinion, it's simply not arguable, it's like making the windows no longer function on a car, it's simply flawed
Now as stated, the problem is small, sure but what ELSE have they got wrong, due to a simple lack of applying logic to the problems?
I mean jesus, I'm an IT geek and a Windows one at that, I don't know how to design things but when I can confidently critique something as 'wrong' and be right, we've got problems.
As for your post, interesting, I might investigate this tonight.
On the note of Windows stupidity, I don't know if Windows 7 in 'full aero mode' is similar to Vista, but it GENIUNELY took me about 3 minutes to find my goddamned network adapter on someones Vista machine the other day, just so I could right click and manually set an ip.
The menus are that convoluted and 'dummied down' - it's truely an abortion.
Re:The longer the better by Richard_at_work · 2009-03-27 02:07 · Score: 1

I've been using Windows 7 since the beta was released to MSDN users, and I cannot honestly say that I've actually noticed the missing status bar - its simply been a non-issue for myself, the information is available in several separate locations that are just as accessible. If its not bothered me that much, can it really be the fundamental, serious show stopper that you are making it out to be?

Yes, the menus and configuration screens are very very similar to Vista, in that they have hidden a few things, but once you realise what they have done it does make sense. An interesting test would be to see how long it would take you to find the same information and configuration screens in another OS that you have never touched before...
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 02:22 · Score: 4, Informative

For the breadcrumb part, I've used computers long enough that my brain more or less keeps a map of where I am and I want to go 'up' rather than click on the folder I'm looking for. I think in directory structures now and it's hard to change it.
All you need to do is click the higher level directory you want in the breadcrumb trail.
Eg: if you are in "C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc", then the breadcrumb trail will look something like "Computer > Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc".
To get to, say, "C:\Windows\System32", all you need to do is click on the "System32" part and you're there, in one step. So, to simulate the effect of the "Up one directory button", you just need to click on the second last thing in the breadcrumb trail.
Bonus: If you wanted to move to, say, "C:\Windows\System32\GroupPolicy" (to just pick a directory at random), then you could click on the ">" next to System32 in the breadcrumb trail, get a list of System32 subdirectories, then click on one to move directly to it.
I'd be fine with it if they brought back the up button and/or made the tree in the left panel a bit cleaner/easier.
Another alternative is Alt+Up arrow, which will move you one step up the directory tree.
I used to miss the up arrow toolbar button as well, until I understood how the breadcrumb trail worked. The latter is a _far_ better UI construct.
Re:The longer the better by Thaelon · 2009-03-27 02:31 · Score: 1

Any open source project of reasonable complexity has at least 2-3 release candidates,
A release candidate is exactly that. A candidate for release. That is, to the best of your knowledge it's ready for release, the code is frozen and you're doing a final course of testing on it. If everybody did their job well prior to declaring a build a release candidate, there won't be a second candidate. The candidate becomes the actual release. If you're just making a build you think is ready, then dubbing it release candidate, you're doing it wrong. Habitually having multiple release candidates is a sign that you're not doing enough testing prior to declaring a build a release candidate.

--
Question everything
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 02:32 · Score: 1

Your opening paragraph is precisely the post I'm talking about in my linked larger post, you're claiming a negative change is fine 'just do X instead"
I don't know how many time I need to state this but I'll try again,...
The problem isn't the status bar in itself or the lack of the size being included on the status bar, the problem is they went and fiddled with shit that just ain't broke.
There's simply no reason in ANY WAY.
We now have an optional status bar (same as before) which now shows less information than it previously did, consuming the same amount of space on the screen and causing me to have to 'hunt' for the data elsewhere.
This isn't a major problem but it's indicitave of them not planning, not thinking and frankly just 'tinkering with stuff to see what people like'
See what this guy says about them 'tinkering' http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1173797&threshold=3&commentsort=3&mode=nested&cid=27314239
The status bar is the same as the omission of the up arrow.
These aren't major issues at all, these are not show stoppers but they are annoying and show an overall, .... well frankly stupidity within Microsoft when it comes to keeping things simple and easy for users.
Please don't retort with 'you have to learn the new way' as I have to answers to that.
1, it was easier before as I didn't have to do ANYTHING
2, I'm fine for change if it's positive but OPTIONALLY keep in the old stuff for others, everyone is happy then.
So my post isn't "hey screw the status bar" I guess it's more of a coming of age for my brain that 'holy shit, Microsoft really don't know what the hell they are doing, do they?'
I think the only genuinely "2.0" / modern / cool stuff they've ever done seems to be integration and logical stuff on the X360 to be honest.
Re:The longer the better by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 02:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

I understand it fine. That doesn't make it good.
Oh, you want to go up 8 levels? Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. So I should go to the tree? Wait, that doesn't fit in its box either? Wonderful... Now I have to click on a bunch of different folders in the breadcrumb thing to get there, or waste a bunch of time scrolling around in the tree (of which I can see very little). Alt-Up is fine and I like keyboard shortcuts, but that one is awkward to get to with my hand on my mouse and I don't see any strong reason why they can't have left the up button or given more space for the tree...
Their system is fine if you don't have a lot of files and you use the folder system they've set up for you, but I have hundreds of gigabytes of files broken up into very logical directories that are accessed from multiple computers. It is painful to get through them in the tiny open and save windows.
Again, don't get me wrong. There are things I like about Vista and you'll see me fighting for it more often than against it, but some things just seem to me like they needed more work.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:The longer the better by nschubach · 2009-03-27 02:41 · Score: 1

I just wish I could disable it and use the treeview like I do in Explorer currently. The new treeview has NO option to re-enable lines like it did in Vista. I never used forward/back/up in Explorer and I removed the buttons to conserve screen space. Now I can't disable those buttons, remove the path, or make the treeview usable.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:The longer the better by Endo13 · 2009-03-27 02:42 · Score: 1

Nah. Win2K still runs more smoothly and faster than XP... and if you use both a lot, it's noticeable. Yes, that's even with the max of ~3.23GB of RAM they can use, and even with as many things turned off in XP as possible. I do use XP over Win2K though, because it's got a few features that are too convenient for me to give up, such as Wireless Zero config. In fact, for me that's probably the only thing that's a deal-breaker that would keep me from going back to 2K. Extra driver support is basically a non-issue by now as well, because XP no longer has the drivers for recently-released hardware either, so for most things you have to download them whether it's XP or 2K. The question isn't so much "what can 2K do that XP can't", it's "what can XP do that 2K can't that more than makes up for the difference in stability, speed and smoothness between the two", just like it's always been. Unfortunately, that question seems to be coming up a lot lately when discussing about the value of upgrading to the latest version of windows. Shouldn't the newer version be *more* stable and smooth and faster? It appears Windows 7 will have exactly those kinds of improvements when compared to Vista, which is great.
However if you really do want some things 2K can do that XP can't, how about starting with being able to install and run without activation, with any legit copy.
But yes, I'm still excited about Windows 7 and will be trying it when it is released.

--
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 02:43 · Score: 1

"In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?"
I don't think in breadcrumbs, I think in paths, directories, drives, folders - whatever you like to call them.
As I tried to unsuccessfully state, give us the damned OPTION to keep the full path in there, how can options be bad for anyone? Both parties are happy then.
To drill down further, UI design is a fickle thing, Apple seem to understand it, Microsoft don't (I can't believe how much praise I heap on apple lately)
Microsoft have the close window button X at the top right, don't they?
It's also 100% top / right - not just on the button but as far out as you can push the mouse, that farthest pixel, this is no longer on the button but it is easier to click.
This is smart.
This is always in the same place, this is logical, ALWAYS easy to find, etc.
With the introduction of breadcrumbs, Microsoft (and MS supporters) claim the 'up arrow' button is no longer needed in explorer "just click the spot you'd like on the breadcrumbs"
Well the breadcrumbs aren't a consistent size, they aren't always at X position in my explorer window
If I want to go up 3 paths (and i know when I do, it's in my brain) I go to 'up' and I click it 'slam, bam, wham' - it takes me less than a second.
With the 'amazing' breadcrumb bar, I need to analyse the bar, find the position I want, move the cursor to it and click once.
Sorry but that is slower.
Not a system killer but simply dumb and un-intuitive.
OPTIONS for both would allow you to enjoy breadcrumbs and me to never see the goddamn things again.
Not keeping the geeky tech people happy in administration roles is folly, it cost them a hell of a lot of Vista sales, make the damn OS very, very quick and simple to navigate and get things done for people who need to work fast on dual screens, heavy keyboard users, high speed advanced users in general.
Sorry it took so long just for that one part of your post but the big picture here is Microsoft are not being flexible on silly little things, the same 'niggles' which eventually build up over time to a 'OH FUCK THIS' and people re-install XP (I've seen many, many go to Vista and love it week 1 and 2 and by week 8 or 9, it's removed , THIS is one of those niggles that cause that)

"Win+L will also lock the screen. Much quicker."

"Because that's how it's _supposed_ to work, as per the Windows UI guidelines (Alt+accelerator key to access UI elements). Quite arguably, they've fixed a long-running UI bug.
Ctrl+Shift+Esc for Task Manager is quicker and has been around a _lot_ longer (at least NT 4.0, most likely NT 3.1). It was derived from Ctrl+Esc to get the running task list in Windows 3.x and OS/2."

Agreed, Win + L is quicker.
Not the point though, I don't always hit Win + L, what's wrong with the old system?
What's WRONG with the CAD menu not requiring alt, it was easier, why change something that was easier?
See my above points, they are either being pedantic and following the UI guidelines as you state or they are simply omitting the simple, little things which bug people.
Either way, overall - using both Windows 7 and Windows Vista is a negative experience for compared to XP as someone who wants to simply get things done.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 02:49 · Score: 2, Insightful

I used to miss the up arrow toolbar button as well, until I understood how the breadcrumb trail worked. The latter is a _far_ better UI construct.
No it's not, it's slower to work with.
Look at Expose on the mac, blindly push your mouse in X direction.
It requires almost no thought at all.
This is the same as the inclusion of the up arrow.
"Oh man I'm in E:\Media\Porn\High definition\Asian girls\Mika Tan\Bondage sessions 5\ and I want to be in just E:\Media\Porn"
Now I can use my eyes to analyse the very clumsy looking breadcrumb bar, find the folder I want and click on it but this finding, selecting, confirming will take me maybe 1 or 2 seconds.
Or I can see the up arrow and i know I'm about 3 or 4 paths deep, I can just blindly hit that up arrow (as I know where it is, ALWAYS - especially as a maximised window user) and just go bam bam bam and I'm there.
To state again also, what's wrong with the option of BOTH - let us enable the up arrow if we want, 2 different ways of doing things won't kill people.
They are fiddling with the UI to try and create something 'clever and amazing' - they've seen too many movies of Mac OS or Ubuntu with the 3D stuff enabled and think they need to copy and they sure as hell aren't planning exactly what to do and how to do it.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:58 · Score: 0

Look at OpenVPN. It's in RC19 status now. The literal translation is a Candidate for Release. That just means the major bugs have been smashed and they are testing it to make sure there aren't anymore showstoppers. Usually, a beta means they KNOW it's not ready for production. A RC means they THINK it's ready for production but aren't SURE. Nothing wrong with that. I, for one, applaud them for FINALLY going this route.
Re:The longer the better by morgan_greywolf · 2009-03-27 03:11 · Score: 1

Any project of sufficient complexity will likely have multiple release candidates, just because once all the release critical bugs are found and fixed... more will be found. ...
The term "release candidate" is actually entirely self-explanatory and leaves less wiggle room for misrepresenting the status of a project than "alpha" or "beta". The final release should be identical to the last RC. In practice there's often some small changes made or diagnostic/debugging code removed; but any actual changes in functionality or any non-trivial fix should cause another RC to be made. It is a bit of a balancing act between cost/time and thoroughness though.
Agreed. I think we're saying the same thing just in different ways.
The thing I'm wondering about is your statement that Vista RC1 was not actually a candidate for release. When did Microsoft actually say this? Just because more fixes and changes were made after RC1 doesn't necessarily mean that it wasn't a release candidate. Maybe Microsoft had more internal release candidates that were never made public?

--
My blog
Re:The longer the better by Endo13 · 2009-03-27 03:16 · Score: 1

There's a lot I could reply with, but it would be mostly redundant.
So let me boil it down to this.
1. You're over-reacting. Even though I do mostly agree with you about the changes to Vista... they *are* better, just frustrating to get used to.
2. Your point about OPTIONS is dead on. That's been my biggest gripe about MS and Windows for a quite a while now, going back I don't know how far. It's fine if you want people to be able to do it that way, but FFS, put in OPTIONS to allow people to do and see it a different way if they choose. Why, for example, does the start menu have to have exactly 2 columns? Why shouldn't people be allowed to set as many columns as they want, and specify exactly what each one does? If someone wants the main part of their start menu to stretch the whole way across the screen, why should you care? LET THEM! Why isn't there some giant keybinds file somewhere that anyone can edit to their heart's content, and set their own damn key combinations? And there's many more things that could be added to this.

--
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:20 · Score: 0

You can also just press backspace to move up one level.
Or install QTTabBar.
Or buy Mavis Up Button for $5 (lame, I know).
Personally I say get QTTabBar, as is it free, adds an up button, gives you tabbed explorer windows and is skinnable to match whatever look you want. It works with XP also.
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 03:26 · Score: 1

I don't think in breadcrumbs, I think in paths, directories, drives, folders - whatever you like to call them.
It *is* a path:
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc Local Disk (C:) > Windows > System32 > drivers > etc
These are the same thing, they just have different delimiters.
As I tried to unsuccessfully state, give us the damned OPTION to keep the full path in there, how can options be bad for anyone?
Because then there are two operational modes that have to be debugged, QAed, supported and maintained, instead of just one.
To drill down further, UI design is a fickle thing, Apple seem to understand it, Microsoft don't (I can't believe how much praise I heap on apple lately)
I can't agree they do, at least since OS X was released. This is especially true in the context of file management - Finder is flat-out *awful* for working with any non-trivial directory. There are plenty of other examples of bad UI in OS X as well.
With the 'amazing' breadcrumb bar, I need to analyse the bar, find the position I want, move the cursor to it and click once.
The only difference between these two procedures is the former requiring additional mouse clicks and the latter having to "analyse" the bar. Which, given you obviously know the tree structure, and you know where you want to go to in it, should not add up to any difference in time.
I am not going to try and argue the bradcrumb bar is meaningfully faster, because it's not - neither method takes any significant amount of time. I am, however, going to argue that it's better UI - it encompasses existing functionality, provides better feedback and allows additional functionality (moving directly to a "far away" place in the directory tree).
What's WRONG with the CAD menu not requiring alt, it was easier, why change something that was easier?
It's not easier, it's familiar. Both Win+L and Ctrl+Shift+Esc are no harder than having to use Ctrl+Alt+Del, Alt+Letter. Further, by any objective measure, the direct shortcut keys are both easier and quicker to hit (although, again, the time difference is going to be insignificant).
I will also add that using the Task Manager is not a common activity, for most users.
Either way, overall - using both Windows 7 and Windows Vista is a negative experience for compared to XP as someone who wants to simply get things done.
If you learn, and use, the new UI constructs, you will be "getting things done" more efficiently.
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 03:27 · Score: 1

I just wish I could disable it and use the treeview like I do in Explorer currently. The new treeview has NO option to re-enable lines like it did in Vista. I never used forward/back/up in Explorer and I removed the buttons to conserve screen space. Now I can't disable those buttons, remove the path, or make the treeview usable.
I'm kind of confused. *My* treeview in Vista has lines, although it does have those little rotating arrows connecting them instead of the [+] or [-] box of earlier versions.
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 03:36 · Score: 1

Oh, you want to go up 8 levels? Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. So I should go to the tree? Wait, that doesn't fit in its box either? Wonderful... Now I have to click on a bunch of different folders in the breadcrumb thing to get there, or waste a bunch of time scrolling around in the tree (of which I can see very little).
Wow. Either your paths must be _huge_ or your screen must be tiny.
Their system is fine if you don't have a lot of files and you use the folder system they've set up for you, but I have hundreds of gigabytes of files broken up into very logical directories that are accessed from multiple computers. It is painful to get through them in the tiny open and save windows.
My home server has nearly 10TB of movies, TV shows, MP3s, porn, pictures, software, VMs, and various other bits and pieces. I'm sure you can understand that keeping it organised requires a somewhat complicated and "non standard" directory structure.
I don't have any trouble navigating around it in Vista's explorer (compared to using, say, Finder on my wife's Mac, it's almost incomprehensively better).
My only real gripe with Vista's Explorer is that the damn thing ALWAYS starts with the same small window and location, and it seems to be impossible to convince it to start any other way. That, I will agree, is very annoying.
Re:The longer the better by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 03:40 · Score: 1

My memory could be fuzzy, but backspace actually moves BACK, not up. If I didn't get to that point by clicking through the full directory structure, then no dice.
Why should I have to install or especially BUY something to get such basic functionality? I don't like having to make silly, unnecessary add-ons to my computer.
And before I get criticized for complaining about it on Slashdot, I only posted this originally because there was confusion about what actual problems people have with the breadcrumb system...

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 03:41 · Score: 1

Backspace does not go up, it goes back.
This is a common misconception.
ALT + UpArrow goes 'up' as does of course the up button, in XP.
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 03:46 · Score: 1

Now I can use my eyes to analyse the very clumsy looking breadcrumb bar, find the folder I want and click on it but this finding, selecting, confirming will take me maybe 1 or 2 seconds.
I somehow doubt it take syou 1-2 seconds to look at the left side of the path (this first part of which is always the same, move across two things (Media, Porn) and aim for it.
Or I can see the up arrow and i know I'm about 3 or 4 paths deep, I can just blindly hit that up arrow (as I know where it is, ALWAYS - especially as a maximised window user) and just go bam bam bam and I'm there.
Again, you still have to move the mouse, aim at the button and click (several times). This only difference is the extra "analysis" taken if you look at the directory tree first, which is already mostly done anyway when you decided what your target directory was.
In reality, most of the "processing" will take place in parallel with you reaching for the mouse and starting to move it. The only real difference comes with where you're aiming.
To state again also, what's wrong with the option of BOTH - let us enable the up arrow if we want, 2 different ways of doing things won't kill people.
Additional software development resources, for questionable benefit (the vast majority of people simply don't have complex directory structures to navigate - to say nothing of search features starting to make said directory structures less relevant).
They are fiddling with the UI to try and create something 'clever and amazing' - they've seen too many movies of Mac OS or Ubuntu with the 3D stuff enabled and think they need to copy and they sure as hell aren't planning exactly what to do and how to do it.
They're making small changes to the UI - well grounded in theory - to make it more efficient and intuitive. There's nothing "clever and amazing" about the breadcrumb trail. It's really just a slight (and obvious) modification of an existing UI element (the directory path bar), and it provides solid, well supported and measurable improvements.
Re:The longer the better by b4dc0d3r · 2009-03-27 04:04 · Score: 1

I'd like to mod you up, but instead I'll add support. the last time I posted my list of complaints about Windows I got 4 "tl;dr" replies. So good to see someone else seeing it my way.
There are a lot of little things that MS just does not do well, typically the little details. Like when you hit ^H to replace in Excel 2003. The dialog comes up with whatever you already filled in, which is good. Focus is on the SECOND box, the Replace With. If you just did a Replace All, what are the chances you want to replace the thing you just replaced? It no longer exists. Even if you didn't Replace All, what are the chances you're going to replace something with one thing, stop halfway, and start replacing with another thing? how many times do people do that?
Yes, this is a small complaint. But when my workflow require me to load a workbook, search and replace 4 different fields, and submit it for processing, this annoys the piss out of me.
^C ALT+TAB (or CTRL+TAB depending on the source) F2 ^H then every single time I have to use SHIFT+TAB to switch to the "Search for" field.
Why would you do such a thing? Repeat this for all of the interfaces in all of their OS tools, Office tools, web browsers... there are hundreds of little quirks that, when added together, result in CRAPWARE.
I will say, allowing Space Bar or letters to activate UI items is one of the things I actually want them to remove. Mostly because windows tend to pop up while typing. Hitting SPACE at the wrong time can result in agreeing to some very nasty things, without even being aware. It's a problem with their window management logic which needs to be fixed, and in many cases app writers also need to have "don't do anything" as the default button, but as long as they are taking steps to fix it, good. Of course in this case, it's not likely that the CAD menu will pop up unexpectedly (unless you have cats)... so another example of MS doing something that makes NO SENSE, "fixing" the things that aren't really problems.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:08 · Score: 0

Yeah, that no longer shows in the box. ...(of which I can see very little).
Maybe when upgrading from a 9 yr old OS version you should upgrade from your 9 yr old monitor? just a guess.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 04:11 · Score: 1

We're just going to have to disagree, I'm not 'most users' I'm 'advanced users'
There should be only 3 things that ever slow me down when using a computer.
Performance of the machine itself.
My brain
The speed my hands move.
Vista and Windows 7 add unwanted latency to my use of a Windows machine in the long run, you may find things better or smarter or whatever and that's great but I do not, in any way.
And no, I don't blindly hate Windows 7, they did add one or two minor things superior to Windows XP, I was shocked and impressed.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 04:20 · Score: 1

I can't believe I'm agreeing but you're right on that space thing, as much as I love my keyboard shortcuts ALL popups from a background task should most definitely have no key highlighted.
Literally just last night I clicked yes to something (no idea what it was) and never saw it again.
Also (to my knowledge) Windows logging of what's going on within the system is minimal so it's difficult to go back and check.
Also yes, far far too many 'tldr' people on forums, look at the fellow above disagreeing with me, he's arguing the semantics of the problem, instead of the fact that changes were made which simply didn't need to be.
I couldn't make a better OS, I can't code to save my life but damnit I could design several things significantly better, damn I wish linux would take off sometimes.
Re:The longer the better by nschubach · 2009-03-27 04:28 · Score: 1

In Windows 7, you cannot re-enable the lines. At least, I haven't found a way yet.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:30 · Score: 0

In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?
Hell, I ditched Windows long ago but I can tell you the number one problem with the stupid ass bread crumb thing. It moves shit around. One minute a directory is one inch from the left the next minute, the same directory is two. It slows me down. I shouldn't have to relearn my UI every time I use a program. The up arrow in a maximized explorer window doesn't move. Of course, I don't have that problem with Konqueror.
Re:The longer the better by b4dc0d3r · 2009-03-27 04:30 · Score: 1
Are you talking about how windows 7 works? I can't tell if you and the other reply are flat out wrong or just not clear about what you're saying. If they changed how this works for Vista/7 I just might have to rage.
I do not used the mouse in Explorer, only the keyboard. I refuse to use the mouse because it's very easy to accidentally drag when you meant to just select, leading to moving/copying files and folders which needs to be cleaned up. I've done this enough times that I refuse to use the mouse in Explorer.
This is what I'm used to, up through XP anyway. Did they change this in Vista just to piss off long time users?
- ALT-LEFT is the "Back" button just like in IE
- ALT-RIGHT is the "forward" (or "undo back button") again like IE
- ALT-UP doesn't do anything.
- BACKSPACE goes to the parent folder of where you currently are, regardless, and adds a new entry in the history so that ALT-LEFT brings you to the child folder you were just in.
I regularly have two different PARTITIONS in the explorer history, so that I can CTRL+X, ALT-RIGHT, CTRL-V and move files from the temp drive to where they should be on my permanent partition. No need to open two windows, since ALT-RIGHT is easier to use between CTRL-X and CTRL-V than SHIFT-TAB is. Reaching for the TAB button makes my fingers leave the X/V keys, where ALT-RIGHT/LEFT can be done with my left thumb crossing under, and my spare hand resting on arrow keys the whole time.
Likewise when I'm done, I'll go to the permanent drive and then go up to the parent folder with BACKSPACE, and choose a new folder for the destination. Get back to the temp folder with two ALT-LEFTs. Now I use CTRL+X, ALT-RIGHT, ALT-RIGHT, CTRL-V and files go to the new partition, different folder.
I realize that it probably seems I have mental problems given the amount of thought I gave to this. But this is just the habit I have developed using MS OS for 15 years.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:33 · Score: 0

An RC is supposed to be, "we think we're done, unless you can show us there's major bugs remaining this is exactly what we're going to release". The final release should be nothing more than the last release candidate with the version strings to say it's a final release rather than an RC.
Vista had one RC, and when it was made available Microsoft made it absolutely clear that the RC was not actually a candidate for release; it did not include a bunch of changes and fixes that were going to be in the actual release. They abuse the term: Microsoft's "release candidates" are actually more like "late betas".
So here's how I see it:
alpha: not everything is implemented, but it sort of works.
beta: all features are there, but some of them are probably buggy.
RC: we don't think there are any serious bugs in this, so if you don't find any, we're going to release this to the general public.
Since MS says not everything is there, MS RCs are more like alphas than RCs or betas.
Re:The longer the better by AbRASiON · 2009-03-27 04:35 · Score: 1

Exactly this, the lack of consistency in where to click the mouse is the problem.
Consistency is key with UI's and Vista / 7 fail that.
Re:The longer the better by TJamieson · 2009-03-27 05:06 · Score: 1

Parent to you is correct -- backspaces goes BACK ONE IN HISTORY. It just so happens that, when digging through levels, the previous spot in history is also the 'up one level' directory.

--
For the last time, PIN Number and ATM Machine are redundancies!
Re:The longer the better by im_thatoneguy · 2009-03-27 05:10 · Score: 1

Or they're just being realistic. "Look we know you'll find bugs so this won't be the final release."
For me RC means you have taken everything out of debug mode. You are using the real installer. You send out the ISO so that every aspect of installation and use is tested. It's testing the entire system not just features.
I would say with Windows 7 Beta 1 would be a passable RC. It seems to be feature complete. It has the full installer. It uses the licensing system and stresses the entire system as a whole. And it's feasibly releasable.
Re:The longer the better by FrankieBaby1986 · 2009-03-27 07:28 · Score: 1

Press Backspace to go back, which is usually up one level. This has the advantage of always being in the same place in real space, irregardless of where on the screen the window is positioned.

--
ERROR: SIG NOT FOUND (A)bort, (R)etry, (F)ail?:
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 07:38 · Score: 0

Here's what's wrong with the breadcrumb bar: You can't copy the path and paste it into a document or into a command shell. You know, like when you're programming.
If I wanted to frick'n retype all my paths, or going the other way, translate my path into a breadcrumbed location, I'd use a macintosh.
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 07:55 · Score: 0

um - you just click the folder on the left
http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/9966/bcbar.png
youve just spend more time on slashdot complaining about this, then it would have taken you to learn how to use it
Re:The longer the better by drsmithy · 2009-03-27 07:57 · Score: 1

Here's what's wrong with the breadcrumb bar: You can't copy the path and paste it into a document or into a command shell.
Yes, you can.
Re:The longer the better by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 08:04 · Score: 1

I've got two monitors side by side, both at 1280x1024. I wouldn't call that tiny and, while some of my paths ARE pretty big, most of them are not huge.
You hit it on the head at the bottom, actually. I can't be bothered to resize the window every time. It's no better than the other two options unless I know I have to muck around in there for a while.
They've left the 'up' functionality in with a keyboard shortcut, what's so hard about letting us have a button?

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:The longer the better by b4dc0d3r · 2009-03-27 11:17 · Score: 1

Again, what OS version are you talking about? I have XP, and this is what I'm used to in 32-bit Windows through XP. Backspace does not go back in history it goes to parent.
I don't have Vista, nor Windows 7, and would like to clarify what the hell people are talking about. Did they change this function or not?
Visit c:\
Type in D:\Qt in the "Address" bar of Explorer
Backspace key
Now I'm in D:\
ALT+left goes to D:\QT
ALT+left again goes to C:\
Re:The longer the better by DarkEmpath · 2009-03-27 15:13 · Score: 1

Dude, harsh.

XP had a far inferior UI than 2k and no security features (like the NX bit) when it came out. It was significantly slower, and even after 3 service packs never matched 2k in that area. After some tweaking you could make the interface look superficially like 2k, but it would still be less responsive and didn't quite work right (like when you'd minimise something, and alt-tab to go to something else that already maximised but XP would restore what you minimised instead!)

XP is crap, it was always crap, and it always will be. I was stoked a couple of years ago when I was finally able to leave XP and move to Vista.

My spare room (where I'm currently sitting) has three computers networked so my friends and I can play Starcraft. There is a Vista machine, an XP machine and a 2k machine, and even though the 2k machine is a Celeron 600 it still outperforms the 1Gig PIII running XP with the same amount of RAM.

2k was a work of art. XP is McDonalds (lowest common denominator rubbish).
Re:The longer the better by colinrichardday · 2009-03-27 15:19 · Score: 1

Now when XP first came out, it was reasonable to keep using 2k for quite awhile, but now that 4 gb of ram is like $50, saving the 128 mb of ram you get from running 2k over xp definitely isn't worth it.
Except that no everyone can just pop in large amounts of RAM.
Re:The longer the better by xlsior · 2009-03-27 21:38 · Score: 1

In all that, you don't actually manage to say _what_ is wrong with the breadcrumb bar. Ie: *why* is it not "quick and efficient" ? The "breadcrumb bar" offers a superset of the functionality in earlier Windows versions (as is typical with Windows UI changes). What's the problem ?

Three problems that I keep running into with the breadcrumbs:
- The location to click on to to up a level is variable, rather than a single button that's always in the same place regardless of the length of your folder names.
- In older windows versions, the 'up' button is visually much more distinct, which is a plus for people with poor eyesight - If you have a small window with a long folder name, there is no prior folder visible to click on. Instead you have to navigate to a pull-down menu and find it in there, rather than just a single click.

I understand some of the advantages, but I really, really wish that Microsoft had simply implemented both the breadcrumbs while leaving the up button in place as well, or at least gave you the option to add it back in.
There's a cheap 3rd party add-on called Mavis Upbutton that will restore the up button in windows explorer, but unfortunately I found it to be unstable. (when I was testing it it occasionally crashed my explorer window... too bad, really, because if it wasn't for those issues I'd been more than happy to pay a few bucks to restore that functionality again)
Re:The longer the better by x2A · 2009-03-27 21:51 · Score: 1

Yes but less people are willing to properly test something labeled 'beta' than 'RC'... is I believe the mentality behind the increased RC labeling of stuff these days (look at the linux kernel cycle).

--
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Re:The longer the better by x2A · 2009-03-27 22:00 · Score: 1

Have you tried 2003? I dropped XP and went back to 2000 and stuck with 2000 until I tried 2003 and have stuck with that. Disable the 'themes' service and the GUI runs much quicker 'n smoother, and there's much else which brings its performance back towards the 2000, whilst still gaining from additions post 2000, such as asynchronous service start/stopping which really does improve boot (and shutdown) time.

--
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Re:The longer the better by innocence18 · 2009-03-27 23:24 · Score: 1

Actually, there is a drop down arrow that is always next to the "Next" button at the top, to the left of the address/breadcrumb bar. It drops down and shows you every part of the current path as a selectable option. This IS consistently placed and (for me at least) is much more usable than the address bar itself.

--
Anonymity of the internet is responsible for the views expressed in my post.
Re:The longer the better by Niffux · 2009-03-28 01:19 · Score: 0

In Vista and Windows 7, Backspace now goes back in history - like Alt+Left in XP. You have to do Alt+Up to actually go up a level.
Re:The longer the better by jonaskoelker · 2009-03-28 02:38 · Score: 1

2 different ways of doing things won't kill people.
Well, not exactly kill. But who can honestly say they haven't been damaged in some way by learning perl?
;-) %$#--_printf("kthxeatveal")$@!!!|
Re:The longer the better by x2A · 2009-03-28 10:54 · Score: 1

Nah, other guy's definitely right for advanced users. My brain queues up actions that I'm going to perform next. I'm not thinking one thing at a time, and so a consistent interface really speeds things up, because I can move my hands to where they need to be whilst processing some other information on the screen for example. If I have to stop and process the 'breadcrum' bar to see where to click, I have to wait until I've finished processing whatever I am, before I can instruct my mouse pointer where exactly to move to. With a consistently positioned Up arrow, I don't need the 'text processing services' parts of my brain to be free to interface with it... it's more like muscle memory. It's like the difference between me being able to reach to my left of my bed in the dark and turn the lamp on, because I know exactly where the switch is, and me having to use another light to see where on the lamp a moving switch is and press that. The latter IS slower for and advanced user, there's no two ways about it.

--
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Re:The longer the better by x2A · 2009-03-28 11:06 · Score: 1

Focus stealing prevention all the way man! Should never have a button popup underneith your downward moving finger, the solid or flashing blue taskbar entry to signify "this app wants focus" works much better.

--
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
Re:The longer the better by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 14:02 · Score: 0

Over-rated.
Re:The longer the better by afidel · 2009-03-31 15:35 · Score: 1

You kind of sound like some of my users, they keep running into the 255 character path limitation somehow. Stop using paragraphs for folder names and you won't have these problems =)

--
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.

I for one am excited about this. by ringbarer · 2009-03-27 00:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

Windows 7 has proven to be the most stable Windows release for a good decade. By combining the visual enhancements of Vista with a focus on performance and stability worthy of hard-iron, this OS proves once more that Microsoft are on top of their game in the desktop environment.

Although the only realistic competitor, Mac OS X, comes close in the eye-candy department; Windows 7 will have the advantage of supporting countless items of consumer hardware, as well as the tremendous decades-long back-catalog of games and productivity software.

XP has ruled the desktop market for almost a decade now. Windows 7 shall rule the next.

--
"Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"

Re:I for one am excited about this. by AlterRNow · 2009-03-27 00:41 · Score: 5, Funny

[quote]Windows 7 will have the advantage of supporting countless items of consumer hardware, as well as the tremendous decades-long back-catalog of games and productivity software.[/quote]
Don't forget the countless items of hardware, games, and software that won't work :)

--
The disappearing pencil trick. Let me show you it.
Re:I for one am excited about this. by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 00:52 · Score: 1

XP has ruled the desktop market for almost a decade now. Windows 7 shall rule the next.
that's pretty strong!

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:I for one am excited about this. by Sporkinum · 2009-03-27 01:22 · Score: 2, Interesting

What is so earth-shatteringly better that it would be worth spending $100+ on and a chance of breaking a working system? My Vista system really is not that bad. Sure, 7 may be a bit faster and a bit more stable, but I doubt it is worth the money or the hassle.

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:I for one am excited about this. by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 01:28 · Score: 1

So you're saying that we should just stop making new software because what we have is good enough?
You don't have to upgrade, but in another 2 years, I think I'll want something other than Vista on my new computers...

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.
Re:I for one am excited about this. by Burnhard · 2009-03-27 01:40 · Score: 1

Most people will be looking to upgrade from XP to 7, not from Vista to 7. Some of us are lucky enough to have MSDN subscriptions, so we won't need to pay for it in any case (or rather, we already have!).
Re:I for one am excited about this. by Sporkinum · 2009-03-27 01:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

No, not at all. I just don't see it as being a practical upgrade for most people. I did not go out and purchase Vista to upgrade my XP box. I ended up getting it with a new computer. I think the same is the case with 7. Not worth the cost to upgrade.

--
"He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
Re:I for one am excited about this. by PONA-Boy · 2009-03-27 02:37 · Score: 1

I'll agree that these newer OS's from Microsoft have gotten prettier but they have they increased productivity?
For me, from a management perspective, all of this wonderful "upgrade" in eye candy for the end-user has only increased the amount of time it takes for me to troubleshoot a problem. Here I am attempting to remotely control someone's workstation half a world away and it looks like a slideshow because of all the wonderful gewgaws prettying up the screen.
Seriously, our end-users are here to perform a job. This job has a fairly limited scope of tasks within. No amount of beautification of the UI is going to help them accomplish these tasks. In my opinion, they only serve to confound, confuse, and constrict our ability to just "get the job done". Oh, I am well aware of how to turn off most of these "enhancements" but the underlying code that runs the desktop experience is still much slower to redraw my screen all the way back here to my desk.
I would have much preferred Microsoft add honest-to-goodness functionality to their new OS's rather than concentrating so much on their window dressing.

--
+that's funny...I don't FEEL tardy.+
Re:I for one am excited about this. by nschubach · 2009-03-27 02:51 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but that sounded like you cut and pasted it from Microsoft.com.
What if you don't like Vista's "visual enhancements"? There's so much cruft (visually) in Vista/7 that it manages to get in the way of me using my computer and I HATE it. Even if I try to make Win7 look and feel like classic Windows, the interface features they added in still intrude into my usability experience. For instance, I use my Windows box by launching Explorer. I navigate around, feel comfortable, and "use" my PC in this way. I disable back/forward/up and minimize the toolbar to one single row of buttons I use on a regular basis. I CANNOT do this in Win7. The back/forward/address bar seems to be a part of the window and I can't find a way to remove it. I also can't find a way to remove the "organize" bar. I don't want it. Period. The new tree view has no lines and no option to turn it on like Vista had. I can't revert it to use +/- instead of the stupid arrows, and I can't seem to disable and remove these "libraries" that are in 7. They permeate so far into the experience that they get in my way. I organize my PC and files so I know where everything is. I don't need search or help organizing it, and Microsoft doesn't understand that. They have no "power user" edition.
I think there are third party hacks to get rid of some of this, but why should I have to resort to third party apps to restore functionality a previous version had? The same applies to the new Ribbon that I hate using. There's a third party pay for application that is required if you want to get back the usable tool bars and menus.

--
Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
Re:I for one am excited about this. by david_thornley · 2009-03-27 03:22 · Score: 1

Windows 7 hasn't proved a darn thing, except that lots of people are gullible enough to fall for the hype. You may or may not like the beta, but the beta is not the finished product. Microsoft could certainly slow it down from the beta, or make it more annoying, or raise the hardware requirements, or make it unstable.
Once we have a released version, or at the very least an honest release candidate (as in "we're releasing the one for real if nobody finds any bad bugs"), it will be time to evaluate it for real, and after a while we can talk about it having proven to be something.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:I for one am excited about this. by ratboy666 · 2009-03-27 03:47 · Score: 1

"Windows 7 has proven to be the most stable Windows release for a good decade."
Really? Isn't Windows 7 only in Beta? So, it's not a release yet, is it?
Isn't your comment, taken as a whole, a rather strong indictment of Microsoft OSs? Why would you consider subjecting yourself to that again and again?
Just wondering.

--
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Re:I for one am excited about this. by gbarules2999 · 2009-03-27 04:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree. The issue I have with upgrading to Windows 7 is that I (and most people I know) simply don't care about any of the new features. Yeah, it looks nice. But other than that, that feature set on Wikipedia looks rather dull; certainly not worth paying money for. It's closer to an Ubuntu update than it is a full new operating system. I'll use it when I get it on a new computer, but no sooner.
Re:I for one am excited about this. by ausekilis · 2009-03-27 04:30 · Score: 1

Windows 7 has proven to be the most stable Windows release for a good decade.
XP has ruled the desktop market for almost a decade now. Windows 7 shall rule the next.
It's easy to say that "Windows 7 is the most stable release for a good decade." When you only release an OS every 3-5 years (or longer), and every other OS is a steaming pile that people accept anyway.
3.1 - at least it worked
95 - make it stop
98 - getting somewhere
2000 - with harsh resistance
XP - solid, stable, still in action
Vista - How would you like to brick today?
Win7 - Showing promise
VistaTheReturn - I'm expecting Suckfest 2012 (the end of the world!)
Don't get me wrong, I too think Win7 is looking to be a good OS. I wouldn't call it *great*, but I do like that MS is finally looking like they understand the customer can tell them what they want as opposed to the old business model of "we'll tell you what you want".
Re:I for one am excited about this. by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-03-27 08:29 · Score: 1

The reason why you want to have 7 over Vista is that the former is noticeably faster and less resource hungry.
Vs XP it is another matter entirely. I'm not even going to try to convince anyone that 7 is superior there. If you like XP, then you should really stick to XP, and not bother. But if you have Vista already and find it okay, then you will almost certainly find 7 superior.
Re:I for one am excited about this. by Cornflake917 · 2009-03-27 09:12 · Score: 1

Missing Option:
ME - the worst operating system ever created. Ever.

--
Abaddon: An Xbox 360 Indie game

Grey by grey-shado · 2009-03-27 00:20 · Score: 1, Insightful

I'm pretty exited for this, It will hopefully be so much better (cleaner and faster) than Vista. It seems Vista was a half made OS to compete with Apple's new OS.

Re:Grey by Lumpy · 2009-03-27 00:57 · Score: 1

you got it.
I run Wu7 and Vista side by side. and W7 is very tolerable. In fact 2 test employees here WE switched from XP to W7 and the training was negligible. Unlike the few we switched from XP to Vista.
Vista was like a rabid monkey bit all the developers and they were on morphine when they wrote the UI. Windows 7 is after they are all sobered up and looked at vista and said.. OMG! how drunk was I when I wrote this????

--
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.

RC could still be out in April by master811 · 2009-03-27 00:29 · Score: 1

The article is only DATED May 2009, and it does NOT explicitly say when the RC will be out.

Re:RC could still be out in April by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:47 · Score: 0

Parent is offtopic?
from the GP
The article is only DATED May 2009
I didn't realize that the economic situation was so bad that we had to sell the end of March and the whole month of April
Re:RC could still be out in April by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:04 · Score: 0

I'm not sure who, but somebody above me definitely needs a WHOOSH

32 bit AND 64 bit by furby076 · 2009-03-27 00:37 · Score: 1, Interesting

So I have 32 bit laptop (vista 32) and 64 bit desktop (vista 64). Do I have to buy two upgrades or will one work?
Also, why did the parent post get marked redundant when he is first post?

--

I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity

Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 00:43 · Score: 0

You need to buy two upgrade copies. Each upgrade copy comes with only one serial number.
If you're looking to pirate, you don't need any. Just hit a torrent and grab both ISOs.
What exactly were you trying to ask?
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Richard_at_work · 2009-03-27 00:45 · Score: 2, Informative

Since you have to buy two licenses, I'm guessing you are going to have to buy two upgrades...
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by will_die · 2009-03-27 00:45 · Score: 1

Since it is two different computers and instances that you are installing it on you will need two upgrade licenses.
However most MS licenses come with the right to install 32 OR 64 bit with the same license; in case you want to switch.
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 00:59 · Score: 0, Flamebait

So I have 32 bit laptop (vista 32) and 64 bit desktop (vista 64). Do I have to buy two upgrades or will one work?

All I can say is that if you're asking such a basic licensing question, I don't EVER want to see you chiming in on something more complicated like the GPL or BSD licenses.
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:11 · Score: 0

You don't need to buy any.
That's what torrents are for. Why would you want to give M$ money?
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Killjoy_NL · 2009-03-27 01:23 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think I got marked redundant because some people are so overzealous in their damnation of anything MS that somebody with a more open mind who gives them a fair chance is dangerous/annoying in their eyes.
I got the karma to spare though, don't really care about it.
Anyway, I have 2 licenses for Vista Ultimate. 32 and 64 bit for my 2 pc's. I did read a while back that people who had Vista Ultimate or Vista (Enterprise I think, I'm not sure) could upgrade to Win7 $Corresponding_edition for free.
I looked up the link, here's the skinny
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-vista-free-upgrade,7018.html
Too bad I won't be eligible then, but I get the license for next to nothing anyway, so it's all good :)
P.S. For the mods, if you disagree with me, don't mod me down, mod me sideways :P

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:44 · Score: 0

In case you live outside the USA, where EULAs are not enforceable you can get by, by only buying one upgrade copy. There will be no problems with the activation.
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:45 · Score: 0

In his case, he stated an obvious point that didn't need to be stated at all.
You're getting modded offtopic because your reply has nothing to do with the post you're replying to - a classic case of FP whoring.
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by furby076 · 2009-03-27 01:54 · Score: 0, Redundant

Good to know. I have vista 32 home and vista 64 premium. I am probably not eligible since I got it in september and october (respectively).
As for the mods - I got modded down also. Considering I make a ton of +5 posts I could care less - just silly people don't realize what mod points should be applied to.

Thanks for the link!

--

I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by marcello_dl · 2009-03-27 03:36 · Score: 1, Funny

> Some people are so overzealous in their damnation of anything MS...
Zeal = avoiding a convicted monopolist's product for fears that it will pull similar stunts at your expense in the future...

--
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Your.Master · 2009-03-27 04:04 · Score: 1

If you're avoiding the "convicted monopolist" (setting aside the meaninglessness of the term -- you can't be "convicted" of being a monopolist), that's all well and good. If you down-mod somebody else's opinion based on your fear of MS' potential future actions, then that's zeal.
Essentially, zeal = being offended at any quality or opinion that is opposite to your opinion, however innocuous.
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by ZarathustraDK · 2009-03-27 04:46 · Score: 1

I think I got marked redundant because some people are so overzealous in their damnation of anything MS that somebody with a more open mind who gives them a fair chance is dangerous/annoying in their eyes.
It's all ethics at this point. The quality of a given thing is irrelevant if purchasing it means contributing to an unwanted situation.

I can understand why some people (well alot actually) would say "screw that, I want my shiny thing", but in the meantime they're strengthening a monopoly, blue-stamping hideous business-practices, poking a stick in the wheel of rapid innovation and unconsciously supporting a plethora of other generally unwanted stuff.

You may not mean to, but the consequences are the same nonetheless. Shopping at Wal-mart may be cheap, but if everybody does it, then nobody will have money to shop at Wal-mart because of lost jobs.

Give Microsoft a fair chance at what? Satisfying their stockholders? Because it sure as hell is not benefitting humanity.

--
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
Re:32 bit AND 64 bit by Omestes · 2009-03-27 06:44 · Score: 1

Because it sure as hell is not benefitting humanity.
Huh, if that was my sole criteria for shopping, I probably wouldn't be able to buy anything. Hardly any for profit company exists to benefit humanity, they operate to make a quick buck. I'm sure most companies would LOVE to have the market share of Windows or Walmart, good and evil aside.
If Dell, for example, could find a way to remove all the competition legally, and be the only consumer PC manufacturer, they would jump on it. Who wouldn't?

--
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey

Leaked? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 00:50 · Score: 0

Is it me, or is it Microsoft always "accidentally" putting up these pages? Its been happening for so many... times now.

Re:Leaked? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:21 · Score: 2, Funny

they accidentally the whole beta!

Mod me down if you must but... by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 00:58 · Score: 1

There might be a couple of small exceptions, but everything that worked on Vista should work just fine on 7.

Either 7 is exactly like Vista and they're stealing peoples' money or they're changing/improving things and breaking compatibility. Pick one.

Yes, I know there will be a reply to this that says it's Microsoft and they can do both, but let's cut the crap. They're trying and they're doing better now than they have in quite a while. Give them a tiny bit of credit just once...

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.

Re:Mod me down if you must but... by Richy_T · 2009-03-27 02:51 · Score: 2, Funny

everything that worked on Vista should work just fine on 7.
Now, there's damning with faint praise if I've ever seen it.

My beta will expire before the retail license by bensafrickingenius · 2009-03-27 01:00 · Score: 1

is available. Does anyone know if I can "upgrade" to the RC, thus extending my beta period? If possible, I'd like to continue running 7 from here on out -- I'd hate to go back to XP for a month simply because of poor timing. FWIW -- I'm really happy with 7. Been running it for about 3 months now.

--
I am not left-handed, either!

Re:My beta will expire before the retail license by ThatGuyGreg · 2009-03-27 01:03 · Score: 1

I've been able to upgrade from the beta to straight-from-MSFT interim builds, so I expect the plan is for the beta -> RC -> RTM upgrade path to work.
Re:My beta will expire before the retail license by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:14 · Score: 0

I guess the key question is -- does going from beta to beta extend the time period? Or is he stuck with the expiration of the original beta?

Is windows 7 that good? by Clarious · 2009-03-27 01:08 · Score: 1

... over Vista?

First is speed, I have tried Windows 7 beta and I didn't see any speed improvement over Vista at all. (I have turned off unnecessary services and features that I don't use). Windows 7 is more secure than Vista? Vista can be pretty secure itself if the user doesn't do anything stupid + proper setting + updating regularly.

So the only thing that Win 7 seems to be better than Vista is eye candy, UI features like 'bat light' or thumbnail on the taskbar. But I think they are overated, I prefer using multi workspace as in Linux, so I can organize the windows myself, and don't have to worry about cluttering. I even removed the windows list widget on the panel and replaced it with icons box instead (only show the icon of the running programs). I'm even thinking about removing panel completely and switching to tiling WM like Xmonad so I can throw away my mouse, but until I got a 2nd monitor, that doesn't seem like a good idea.

(Yes, I have a fetish for keyboard, but hey, we have ten fingers, better use all of them)

Re:Is windows 7 that good? by Colonel+Korn · 2009-03-27 01:49 · Score: 4, Informative

... over Vista?
First is speed, I have tried Windows 7 beta and I didn't see any speed improvement over Vista at all. (I have turned off unnecessary services and features that I don't use). Windows 7 is more secure than Vista? Vista can be pretty secure itself if the user doesn't do anything stupid + proper setting + updating regularly.
So the only thing that Win 7 seems to be better than Vista is eye candy, UI features like 'bat light' or thumbnail on the taskbar. But I think they are overated, I prefer using multi workspace as in Linux, so I can organize the windows myself, and don't have to worry about cluttering. I even removed the windows list widget on the panel and replaced it with icons box instead (only show the icon of the running programs). I'm even thinking about removing panel completely and switching to tiling WM like Xmonad so I can throw away my mouse, but until I got a 2nd monitor, that doesn't seem like a good idea.
(Yes, I have a fetish for keyboard, but hey, we have ten fingers, better use all of them)
7 is drastically faster than Vista for general OS tasks on machines with 1 gig of RAM or less. On a machine with enough RAM, Vista's already plenty fast, certainly faster than XP for these things. Vista and 7 are both slower than XP for transferring large chunks of small files around, though part of the reason for this is that XP says the move is done when the data is read into RAM even though it's still waiting to write to disk, while Vista and 7 tell you the move is done when the data is written to the new location.
Vista is more secure than 7 if you use UAC, because 7's UAC has been sadly neutered. Sure, MS may claim that UAC isn't a security barrier, but every one of the non-techies who used to get their XP boxes pwned every 3 months have now had no malware issues since switching and using UAC. MS may not want us to look closely at UAC as a security barrier, but in practice it's the most effective one I've seen on any system.
The "bat light" was from a list of features that never made it into 7. The thumbnail on the taskbar isn't a big deal, but the "peek" functionality that gives you a full size view of a window of interest is actually very useful.

--
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Re:Is windows 7 that good? by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-03-27 08:34 · Score: 1

Vista is more secure than 7 if you use UAC, because 7's UAC has been sadly neutered.
It's only out of the box, though (and didn't they say they made some changes to improve it post-beta?). You can still go to Control Panel and pull that UAC slider all the way up, which will give you the same level of security (and the corresponding annoyance) as in Vista.

Vista is that bad for general and non gamer users? by Ilgaz · 2009-03-27 01:11 · Score: 4, Interesting

I recently "fixed" a Sony Vaio (from .kr) which has "designed for Windows Vista" mark and serial number of Vista at its bottom. What was its problem? Someone thinking he is making a favour downgraded it to XP guaranteeing endless problems.

The machine was clearly "designed for Vista" as even the Intel disk controller was nightmare to get supported on XP. Machine's owner is a girl who only cares about office, MSN, Skype and other general stuff, not games.

When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.

It seems her mistake was getting help from a Korean die hard gamer. As I had to browse Korean Sony site (don't ask how), I can understand the "XP Downgrade" is still a big deal for them so Sony was forced to pack XP "if it compiles, ship it" type drivers and offer them.

This is the second time I try to fix a virused XP (as Mac user) on a PC which was "Designed for Vista" and every problem goes away and machine runs really fast right after Vista is restored and updated. Stop this "XP downgrade" madness, at least on non gamer machines. You aren't doing a favour, you are putting the non technical types in huge risk along with the old OS you are installing. Another thing is, they paid for Vista, somehow.

How convenient by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:14 · Score: 0

Is there a cheaper way to get all the tech blogs to write about Windows 7? "Nothing to see here, please pay attention to us."

Port Filtering & HOSTS files 0 blocking IP add by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:15 · Score: 0

"More time into a RC will help crush any other bugs and errors that are there" - by xenolion (1371363) on Friday March 27, @08:29AM (#27355681)

You're not kidding, & there are 2 things I know of that need to be fixed in Windows VISTA/Server 2008, & Windows 7:

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter),

(& 1 has to deal with A GUI SECURITY FEATURE, especially for the concept of "Layered Security", THAT DIDN'T "MAKE IT" INTO WINDOWS 7)

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/02/25/feedback-and-engineering-windows-7.aspx?CommentPosted=true#commentmessage [msdn.com]

----

1.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties TCP/IP properties "ADVANCED" section!

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)...

I.E.-> Port Filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL layered security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #2 below)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

&

2.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with 650,000++ bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)...

(Senseless, & bloat creation is the result!)

----

WHY HAVE THESE 2 CRIPPLING REMOVALS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people!

APK

P.S.=> The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

I.E.-> Microsoft left IP Security Policies usage, Software Firewalling, & RRAS methods alone, & only pulled PORT FILTERING...

(The VISTA resource kit states because they each work @ diff. layers of the IP stack & don't immediately "sync" from a single point due to being powered by diff. drivers & working @ diff. levels of the IP stack, MS pulled the PORT FILTERING gui front controls from your local area connection object's advanced TCP/IP properties, & that one, ONLY (so, why leave the other 3 then? MS contradicts itself, right there, in doing so...))

No good reasons have been presented by MS to myself @ this point for EITHER 1 or 2 being done above, @ the URL where I stated it @ MSDN... @ least, none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)... apk

Wait... WHAT ? by psergiu · 2009-03-27 01:16 · Score: 0, Troll

> ... will be available in English, German, Japanese, French, and Spanish.

Wait... WHAT ?

Different install media for different languages ?

The '90s called and they want their MacOS 7 style installs back.
The Mac OS X installer is multi-language. All the linux distros have multi-language installers. I was expecting MUCH more from Windows 7.

--
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.

Re:Wait... WHAT ? by Valtor · 2009-03-27 01:39 · Score: 4, Informative

> ... will be available in English, German, Japanese, French, and Spanish...
Different install media for different languages ?...
They never said it was a different download per language. You chose the language at install time.

--
"Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org
Re:Wait... WHAT ? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:48 · Score: 0

It's an RC. Why sit around waiting with their thumbs in their asses waiting for the translators to complete work on the all of the languages when they can get a candidate build out to the primary markets immediately?
Re:Wait... WHAT ? by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 01:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

no, actually there are different dvd isos for each language, it is not an installation time option.
well it was that way during the 7000 build. maybe that's changed now but it's highly unlikely.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:Wait... WHAT ? by Valtor · 2009-03-27 02:26 · Score: 1

They probably did this to save a bit of download bandwidth then. They have no other reasons for doing this.

--
"Sockets are the standard networking API, also useful for stopping your eyes from falling onto your cheeks" zeromq.org

Re:Port Filtering & HOSTS files 0 blocking IP by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 01:26 · Score: 1

The reason for removing the PORT FILTERING gui, per the Microsoft VISTA resource kit is flimsy, & makes NO SENSE either!

either something makes sense or it does not. it can't be that the reason is flimsy and it makes no sense. because if the reason is flimsy, it has to make sense.
grow up. quit trolling.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Yes, "accidentially flipped the switch" by not+already+in+use · 2009-03-27 01:27 · Score: 3, Insightful

Kinda like they "accidentally" leaked the beta. Looks like Microsoft is finally catching onto this whole marketing thing.

--
Similes are like metaphors

Market segmentation by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 01:31 · Score: 0

That's what it's all about.

Why still 32bit? by jernejk · 2009-03-27 01:32 · Score: 2, Informative

Remember? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/1452228

Re:Why still 32bit? by Joe+U · 2009-03-27 01:43 · Score: 1

That was before Windows 7 became essentially a point release.
Re:Why still 32bit? by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 01:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

because at that time (may 07), ms thought vista was going to be as long term as xp. so by their reckoning they would have been releasing another verion in 10 years, when the transition from 32bit to 64bit would have been over and we would be talking about our new 128bit cpus. but it failed miserably, so they had to rebrand it in desperation, only that the transition to 64 is not complete yet. so they have to have a 32bit version too.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Re:Why still 32bit? by NigelT · 2009-03-27 02:43 · Score: 1

Remember? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/17/1452228

Given the way things are going with Intel and AMD, soon no one will be able to make x86 :P Thou it really seems like a lose lose for either party... http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2009/03/amd-intel-engaged-in-x86-licensing-staredown.ars

--
nigelt.wordpress.com
Re:Why still 32bit? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:45 · Score: 0

My computer is four years old. It has a 3GHz single core hyper-threaded Pentium 4, 1GB of RAM, a fast IO subsystem (it's still quicker than many new PCs on IO intensive tasks) but no 64-bit support.
It's well capable of running Windows 7, but only if Windows 7 has a 32-bit release. Microsoft would like me to give them more money. QED.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-03-27 01:45 · Score: 3, Insightful

When I gave up struggling to fix XP and got Vista DVD, guess what happened? It downloaded all the drivers, everything started to work fine and guess what? Damn fast. It is not a high end Vaio, it has only 1 Gig of RAM with low end hard disk (not 7200 or anything). It even has the scandal Intel i965 integrated gfx.

I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.

We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it. Now, people are quick to blame that on problems specific to the HP distro and claim that Dell's distros (particularly of the small business variety) are better, but as an end user none of that stuff matters to me. It's clear to me that Windows is not ready for the desktop.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by digitalhermit · 2009-03-27 01:48 · Score: 2, Interesting

Stop this "XP downgrade" madness, at least on non gamer machines. You aren't doing a favour, you are putting the non technical types in huge risk along with the old OS you are installing. Another thing is, they paid for Vista, somehow.

I downgraded my Dell XPS 1530 from Vista to XP a few months ago because of very, very bad problems with the network card disconnecting. Under XP it runs perfectly, but Vista is plagued with random disconnects that require shutting off then restarting the interface before it reconnects. Maybe it's better now, but it was the absolute best thing I did for my sanity when I replaced Vista (I did hedge my bets though and used a separate HD).

Re:Windows 2000 outperforms w/ SSD's... apk by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 02:03 · Score: 0, Flamebait

"why would anyone prefer 2000 over xp? what can 2000 do and xp can't?" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @09:18AM (#27356131)

Well, how about perform BETTER on, rather than "can't do"?

Windows 2000 Run SSD's faster than any other OS by Microsoft... as the "1 thing you asked for"...

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/270657/which_operating_system_best_ssds

----

PERTINENT EXCERPT/QUOTE:

"Of the recent operating systems that have been tested, would you believe the winner so far is ... Windows 2000?

That aging operating system, said Saeed Arash Far, engineering manager at SSD manufacturer Patriot Memory, is markedly faster than Windows XP, Vista, Mac OS X or Linux when using NAND flash memory. Far said his company's tests showed that Windows 2000 is 5 percent to 8 percent faster over its newer rivals because "Windows 2000 doesn't run any applications in the background.

"We're getting ridiculous numbers with Windows 2000," he said. "When it comes to Vista, it is faster than XP, but with XP, you have the luxury of turning off background applications. ... With Vista, you can't."

okay if i understand this correct, 2000 is faster with nand flash because it "does not run background applications". and then it is stated that in xp "you have the luxury of turning off background applications." so, you can achieve the same performance with xp as you got with 2000. so i'll ask again:
what exactly can 2000 do that xp can't?
by the way, this not running background apps seems to be a truckload of crap to me. i want winamp and search indexer to run in the background. if 2000 can't do that, its just one more thing that it can't do, which every other os does: multitasking. and i don't want to be caught dead with an os that can't multitask.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by je+ne+sais+quoi · 2009-03-27 02:17 · Score: 1

I've had similar problems with my mother's laptop -- it randomly decides if it wants to connect wirelessly to the router or not, it's just a pain in the neck. I tried doing a few tricks I found suggested on the web but nothing really helped. I had suggested to her to buy an Apple this time but she went for the cheaper option, now she's regretting it.

My own experience with Vista is that I finally have it running acceptably on my brand new, 3.24 GHz core duo with 2 GB of ram by turning off every feature I could get my hands on, e.g., Aero, indexing, the *&^%$$ Superfetch that was causing my hard drive to thrash continuously for hours on end, and most of the dicovery options for the internet. Now does it work "okay", but I still wouldn't call it fast.

--
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by DiegoBravo · 2009-03-27 02:20 · Score: 1

Yes. Even in the stores I never saw a "damn fast" vista laptop, compared to the XP ones. And no korean guy involved. The same for my brand new Vostro as just delivered from Dell (now reformated with Ubu... well, that's another story.)

The "downgrade to XP" motto doesn't come from ./ but from frustrated and standard users that feel a sluggish interactivity.

Re:Port Filtering & HOSTS files 0 blocking IP by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:21 · Score: 0

"either something makes sense or it does not. it can't be that the reason is flimsy and it makes no sense. because if the reason is flimsy, it has to make sense. grow up" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @09:26AM (#27356193)

Well, it is BOTH 'flimsy' and makes no sense:

Neither of the 3-4 possible layers of IP security 'automatically sync' w/ one another's restrictions, & they all work @ diff. layers of the IP stack (port filtering, software firewalls, & IP Security Policies)... which is a "layered security" advantage, since they work @ diff. levels via diff. drivers!

(I.E.-> Take 1 of them out, OR, 1 "goes down"? The others are STILL in the way).

Thus, if you follow MS' given reasoning from the VISTA resource kit, pulling 1 of them only doesn't make sense (because the remaining 2-3 are still the same, & do NOT "immediately automatically sync" w/ one another if changes are made to 1 of them only, but not the others, manually).

----

"quit trolling" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @09:26AM (#27356193)

CLUE - This is not the "english grammar checking section" here, on this website: It's the "TECHNOLOGY" section!

So, that all "said & aside"?

Take your own advice, & contribute something "on topic", OK?

(I was looking for GOOD solid technical reasons as to why PORT FILTERING's GUI controls have been pulled from VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, not a trolling b.s. "wannabe English Ph D grammar critique" from you that you gave us there!)

So - Care to TRY to stay "on-topic" here, please, instead of the "wannabe Ph D in English" critique you have spewed out onto the page here?

I.E.-> Offer some solid logical technical reasons for WHY Ms stopped VISTA/Server2k8/Windows 7 from being able to use the more efficient on disk 0 blocking IP address in a HOSTS file would have been nice, as well as solid, logical, & TECHNICAL reasons why the PORT FILTERING gui control was pulled, instead... ok??

Perhaps I am expecting too much from the likes of yourself (another /. "wannabe English Ph D", minus the Ph D in English of course, as per usual).

APK

P.S.=> As to your other question, of 'what can windows 2000 do that xp can't"? See here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1177883&cid=27356367 because Windows XP just does not do it as well, per a formal analysis no less from a respected source, in XP's outta-the-box/oem stock setup!

(See, unlike the "no Ph D in English grammar & spell check trolls" here on this website? I actually do stay 'on-topic')... apk

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 02:24 · Score: 1

Or maybe it's something specific to your computer? For day-to-day (ie. anything not gaming/graphics related) tasks, I've found my friends' laptop works quite well with only 1 gig of RAM...

I'm sure there are people who have problems, but that doesn't mean it necessarily affects everybody. Blanket statements are just silly.

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by GordonCopestake · 2009-03-27 02:25 · Score: 0

I had the exact same thing with a Dell XPS M1330. When I first got the laptop it was pre-installed with Vista. First thing I did was blow that away and put Ubuntu on it. Worked fairly well but for work there are too many programs I rely on that are not Linux friendly, like Outlook and Visio. So I decided to install XP as the best compromise. Hardly anything would work under XP, from the graphics card to the mouse. And no XP drivers on the Dell website. I went back to Vista and actually was pleasently suprised. It runs decently and once you configure it a bit gets out of the way and lets you run the programs you want. Which in my mind is exactly what an OS is sposed to do.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:30 · Score: 0

I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.

You obviously never used an XP downgraded drivers-don't-work computer.

Vista is damn fast by comparison.

It's clear to me that Windows is not ready for the desktop.

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice you're just trolling.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-03-27 02:33 · Score: 1

Or maybe it's something specific to your computer? For day-to-day (ie. anything not gaming/graphics related) tasks, I've found my friends' laptop works quite well with only 1 gig of RAM...

And it's running Vista? Again, I simply don't believe you. From personal experience "fixing" friends' machines by slapping in some Newegg memory and listening to many, many people gripe about their awful 1GB (or less!) systems, I think 2GB is the minimum. Even IBM recommended 4GB 2 years ago.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Bit-ness doesn't matter. by RulerOf · 2009-03-27 02:35 · Score: 1

Anyway, I have 2 licenses for Vista Ultimate. 32 and 64 bit for my 2 pc's

Your license is for the edition (Home Premium, Business, Ultimate, etc) and not for bit-ness of that copy.

Put simply, a Vista Ultimate license is a Vista Ultimate license. You can use the 32 bit ISO or the 64 bit ISO to perform your installation. Either one will take your license key. Windows 7 will ship the same way.

--
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.

Re:Bit-ness doesn't matter. by Killjoy_NL · 2009-03-27 03:08 · Score: 1

You're correct, that's the way I did it with my last PC, I had a 32 bit license, downloaded a Vista Ultimate 64 bit SP1 dvd and used that to install with the 32-bit serial :)

--
This is the sig that says NI (again)

Re: by NigelT · 2009-03-27 02:36 · Score: 1

I've been using Windows 7 since build 6956, Currently using 7057 now. [not as my primary, its on a spare box] And thou im still using XP as my primary, I never adopted Vista, but i like what i see with Windows 7, Especially considering ive got all this great DX10 hardware that is at best underused in XP, not that i like that my OS requires DX10 just to run the core elements. But given the computing power available today, it really isnt that much of a hindrance...

--
nigelt.wordpress.com

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 02:38 · Score: 0

I'm sorry but, as a Mac user, you might have gotten the downgrade wrong... who knows. Like the other replies here, I agree, there's NO WAY Vista runs faster than XP in any case, even with their "better" prefetch. For example, I have downgraded numerous VAIO, Toshiba, and HP laptops that were supposedly Vista-only because the websites just refuse to post XP drivers for them. This, of course, is B$ since the architecture is the same damn thing. Of course, hunting down these drivers for XP all over the 'Net is a pain, but if you know what you're doing it should be no problem at all. I even dared to downgrade my boss' hp laptop (2.66 GHz C2D /w 2 GB RAM which shoulda ran Vista perfectly but didnt) and he says it's the best damn thing that could've happened to him. Now I need to talk to him about a raise...

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-03-27 02:39 · Score: 1

You obviously never used an XP downgraded drivers-don't-work computer.

I upgraded that laptop to XP but gave up because the graphics drivers weren't well supported. So much for NVIDIA's "unified" driver.

Oh, sorry. I didn't notice you're just trolling.

I was dead serious. I find it interesting that Windows gets a pass on "runs like crap on a decent brand-new system" but Linux gets shredded for "doesn't support my parallel-port waffle maker from 1996".

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by socrplayr813 · 2009-03-27 02:39 · Score: 1

I agree that 2 gigs is better, but I've found Vista to be plenty usable with 1. Like I said, I don't extend that to gaming or graphics, but for standard email, word, etc...

I can't help that you don't believe me and, frankly, I don't care. Your experience isn't the only one in the world that matters...

--
The confidence of ignorance will always overcome the indecision of knowledge.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by digitalhermit · 2009-03-27 02:40 · Score: 1

Hehe.. I went throught *EXACTLY* those same problems. Either Superfetch or the virus scanner was causing the machine to become unusable for 20-30 minutes at a time. It was even easy to disable the virus scan at these times because the mouse would become so unresponsive that you had to *slowly* move the mouse, wait until the pointer moved on screen, then pray that it would recognize your clicks.

I'm lucky in that the laptop is fairly powerful, but Vista made it less responsive than a old Inspiron 600M.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Bohiti · 2009-03-27 03:00 · Score: 1

These HP, Dell, Lenovo systems all come pre-loaded with so much junk, it really does slow the system down a measurable amount. All these Security Suites with 30 running services, alternative media players, Vendor "Help Centers", "Imaging assistants" -- it's all junk.

Folks, the second you unbox that new system, run http://www.pcdecrapifier.com/, and let it clean this junk off. You'll have a much better experience, regardless of the base OS.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:03 · Score: 0

"doesn't support my parallel-port waffle maker from 1996".

They make these!!!????

Re:Port Filtering & HOSTS files 0 blocking IP by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 03:06 · Score: 1

if you had even read my comment, you would have realized that there was no grammatical error in your statement. there was a logical fallacy. so no, i'm not an english grammar phd wannabe. as you rightly point out, this is the tech section, not the trolling section. so once again:
quit trolling

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Just+Some+Guy · 2009-03-27 03:08 · Score: 1

Hear, hear. The system was flat-out painful at first, and I decrapified it to the point of mere sluggishness.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by koiransuklaa · 2009-03-27 03:09 · Score: 1

It seems her mistake was getting help from a Korean die hard gamer. As I had to browse Korean Sony site (don't ask how), I can understand the "XP Downgrade" is still a big deal for them so Sony was forced to pack XP "if it compiles, ship it" type drivers and offer them.

It's not just Korea. Vista has a very bad reputation with a lot of people -- maybe it is an unfounded reputation but it's there. My laptop support page is a rather good example. Lenovo has a short list of "Important info" items on the front support page including Downgrading from Windows Vista to Windows XP and Windows Vista Performance. Think about it: Two out of eight most important news are about Vista problems...

It's not like the Win95 UI is perfect by RulerOf · 2009-03-27 03:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

I cannot honestly say that I've actually noticed the missing status bar

You know, I prefer the look of windows without the status bar, but AFAIK it's the only UI item that keeps a running tally of how many items you have selected at a time...

With respect to the GP though, it takes an open mind to adjust from one interface to another, but I find a lot of his gripes about Vista/7 to be very backward. IMHO, my personal tell-tale of whether or not someone will be able to adapt to a new version of any software is to look at their start menu. If it resembles Windows 95 and doesn't have Computer, Documents, etc., in it, then they're going to have a problem.

Also, the breadcrumb bar... pure genius. I don't have to click "up one level" seven times to get to a specific folder, nor do I have to do so to get to any other subdirectory of a parent in my current path. Paths are also more visibly defined, as the hard arrows make better separators than "i\i" does, visually speaking.

Microsoft's UI element changes have, for the most part, been expressly for the better as far as Windows (and Office) are concerned. If you can't at the very least get used to them, then you may not have what it takes to move forward in the ever-evolving IT industry.

OTOH, I hear COBOL programmers still make boatloads of cash, so I could be wrong.

--
Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.

Re:Port Filtering & HOSTS files 0 blocking IP by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:27 · Score: 0

"if you had even read my comment, you would have realized that there was no grammatical error in your statement. there was a logical fallacy. so no, i'm not an english grammar phd wannabe. as you rightly point out, this is the tech section, not the trolling section. so once again: quit trolling" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @11:06AM (#27357573)

Take your OWN advice, perry, & stay on topic - because, after all, this isn't the "english grammar" or "logical fallacies" section...

Next, I suppose you'll try to tell others that use deadbolts, door handle locks, & chain locks on the doors of their homes it's not "layered security" & done w/ GOOD reason!

(For redundant protection, it makes sense to use multiple layers of protection AND, via a set of tools that operates @ diff. levels of the IP Stack (for "layered security" protection))

It's much the same as how combining software firewalls, IP Security policies, a NAT 'firewalling' router, & PORT FILTERING can be considered the same, layered security, & a set that operates @ diff. levels (in case 1 goes down or is taken down by say, a malware (which IS one of the things they do, take down software firewalls)? The others are STILL standing & "in the way").

APK

Re:Port Filtering & HOSTS files 0 blocking IP by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 03:54 · Score: 1

if you refuse to talk logically, then i will have nothing to do with you. i regret communicating with a person is is not ready to talk with his mind receptive to what others say.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

You avoid points I have made 2x now... apk by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 03:57 · Score: 0

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1177883&cid=27357911

Again, take a read there, and address the points I made then, rather than put out more "double-talk"...

APK

Re:2000 = no DEP & no TcpChimney IP parameters by perryizgr8 · 2009-03-27 04:04 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Where did you get the idea that Windows 2000 can't multitask?

It does, & quite well!

APK

from your reference, which says 2000 "does not run background apps".

P.S.=> Have YOU ever used Windows 2000? It doesn't seem like it, based on your statements... apk

of course i've not used 2000, that's why i was asking.
you persistently show your inability to follow a coherent sentence and derive meaning from it. i'm amazed a person like you can even exist.

--
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:12 · Score: 0

Get rid of AVG antivirus, they think it's very smart to scan the disks every time you start up the system. You can disable that "feature" but AVG sucks anyway. When I got a PC to repair and I see that it's running AVG I see myself cleaning 100+ instances of [insert random Trojan/malware here] and when you see it two or three times a week you know something it's wrong with that AV.

Posting Anon as I have moderated here.

Re:2000 = no DEP & no TcpChimney IP parameters by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 04:16 · Score: 0

"from your reference, which says 2000 "does not run background apps" - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @12:04PM (#27358537)

Perry, Windows 2000 DOES run backgrounded tasks (such as drivers, services, & even apps via the registry "run areas" & startup groups)... &, just like Windows XP, Server 2003, VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7 do (as did Windows 9x, NT 3.5x-4.0, etc.)... pre-emptively no less.

They most likely meant "not as many backgrounded apps" by default, such as services (because 2000 has a LOT less of those than XP does by default).

----

"of course i've not used 2000, that's why i was asking." - by perryizgr8 (1370173) on Friday March 27, @12:04PM (#27358537)

Fair enough then, now that I am aware of it... I gave you only SOME differences between Windows 2000 & its descendants in Windows XP/Server 2003/VISTA/Server 2008, & Windows 7 - &, there are others...

(Fact is, I gave you BOTH protective AND performance gaining ones & ones actually IN FAVOR of XP/Server2003/Server 2006/VISTA/Windows 7, in fact.)

Were I to choose "the best overall OS" that MS has, right now?

Windows Server 2003 SP#2 fully hotfix patched.

Secure & stable enough to keep NASDAQ running 24x7, to the fabled "5-9's" of 99.999% uptime because Windows Server 2003 + SQLServer 2005 does, and has done for YEARS now mind you, a great job of being the official disseminator of trade data @ NASDAQ, running into the "fabled 5-9's" of 99.999% uptime for years now, 24x7, via failover clustering... that was back in 2006 (possibly earlier, as that is only the date of the article):

----

NASDAQ Migrates to SQL Server 2005:

http://windowsfs.com/enews/nasdaq-migrates-to-sql-server-2005 [windowsfs.com]

----

As well as users (once they "security-harden" their Windows NT-based OS per this guide I wrote up in late 2007 (an extension of the older guide I wrote up for security & speedup of Windows NT-based OS' from NTCompatible.com circa 1998 &/or NeoWin forums guides, circa 2001, copied verbatim from my NTCompatible.com model no less & rated well) seeing NO malware infestations once they applied that guide of mine's points, for more than 1++ yrs. now of faster, stable, trouble-free operation:

----

HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 & even VISTA, + make it "fun-to-do", via CIS Tool Guidance (& beyond):

http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=9783f30ecf36d1be841544233b95fdf8&showtopic=2662&st=0&start=0 [tcmagazine.com]

----

USER FEEDBACK/TESTIMONIAL:

http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=c96cb88da236d4122a8aef2235caec6b&t=28430&page=3

(Using a verbatim quote/User Testimonial, of 1++ yr. virus/spyware/trojan/rootkit/worm/malware-in-general trouble-free stable, fast, & secure operation as the result while using Microsoft Windows once security-hardened)

----

"Its 2009 - still trouble free!

I was told last week by a co worker who does active directory administration, and he said I was doing overkill. I told him yes, but I just eliminated the half life in windows that you usually get. He said good point.

So from 2008 till 2009. No speed decreases, its been to a lan party, moved around in a move, and it still NEVER has had the OS reinstalled besides the fact I imaged the drive over in 2008.

Great stuff!

My client STILL Hasn't called me back in regards to that one machine to get it locked down for the kid. I am glad it worked and I am sure her wallet is appreciated too now

May 11 9 AM PST at TechEd in LA by hoyty · 2009-03-27 04:19 · Score: 1

My prediction is that the RC will be officially released at 9 AM PST on May 11 when it is announced during the first keynote at TechEd 09 in LA. It well leak earlier, but I think it will officially go live then.

--
Hoyty

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 05:14 · Score: 0

Off topic, but what do you recommend for users too cheap to buy anything? Avast?

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 06:16 · Score: 0

Get Kaspersky. Only trouble I've had with it is occasionally hangs at 100% during updates, in which case you just right-click the tray icon and turn it off, then back on.

Re:Who cares by lwriemen · 2009-03-27 06:44 · Score: 1

The truth is that Microsoft leveraged their monopoly in an abusive manner and took choice out of the equation, so your use of the term "preferred" is highly suspect.

Machine-locked user environments don't meet today's needs.

Re:thiS is goaTsex by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 06:51 · Score: 0

Oops! Forgot to include your link, dumbfuck!

Then what about beta stage? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 06:55 · Score: 0

Sure but the product we're talking about here didn't really even go through a Beta period.

Re:thiS is goaTsex by dorix · 2009-03-27 07:29 · Score: 1

We all know it anyways. Is it really that much work to type it out by hand? You could always just bookmark it and never have to worry about it again.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by shutdown+-p+now · 2009-03-27 08:31 · Score: 1

I don't believe you. There's no way Vista is "damn fast" on any machine with only 1GB of RAM.

We bought a brand-new (last year) HP laptop with a dual-core Sempron and 2GB of RAM, and Vista has run like frozen molasses since we unpacked it.

So, basically, you have a single anecdote to tell about the slowness of Vista, and from that you conclude that "there is no way" Vista can be fast?

I have surprising news for you. Vista can run great or it may suck outright depending on the specific hardware it's run on. I've seen it fly on 1Gb as well, and I've seen it lag on 3Gb. The fact that you see a lot of people crying wolf, but quite a few people also shrugging and asking "what's even wrong", should be all the clues you need to figure it out, really.

Um wut? by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 08:35 · Score: 0

The Internet Explorer 8 download page has been saying a RC May release date ever since MSIE became available to download as a non-beta. If you try to download MSIE8 on Windows 7 build 7000 it won't install, but you'll definitely see this page.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by magus_melchior · 2009-03-27 09:48 · Score: 1

"Damn fast" can mean anything. Faster than what? XP on the same machine without the appropriate drivers?
Faster than a Babbage machine trying to do SIMD?

I'll wager that with the proper drivers and BIOS settings*, XP on the same machine will still fly circles around Vista. And any free OS under the same conditions will leave either in the dust.

I'm also guessing the Vista setup was Home Basic or Premium without the Aero effects. Besides, they cleaned up the lion's share of performance problems in SP1, so I'm not surprised that it felt a lot more responsive than in XP.

* Because my company requires downgrades (Vista is unauthorized), I attempted to start an XP installation on a Toshiba Satellite. It blue-screened just before the first setup screen, and I figured out that the CPU auto-throttling was responsible.

--
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-27 09:55 · Score: 0

Hey 2007 called and they want their 1 and 2 GB memory sticks back.
Shit I just picked up 4 GB of memory at FRY's for 15$ after MIR.

The real question is, do the comments that are modded up around here reflect really where the market is?
Windows not ready for desktop? Here pull your head out of your ass and look around

The answer, no.
None the less Vista has been stabilized, drivers are stable and compatibility packs have been released.

Credibility factor is about to be at an all new low at Slashdot once Windows 7 is released, a lot of Slashdot comments that were +5 Truthful during the Vista era are about to get a big dose of reality.

Re:Who cares by CarpetShark · 2009-03-27 12:58 · Score: 1

Windows isn't technology

There, fixed that for you.

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Ilgaz · 2009-03-27 17:21 · Score: 1

I agree to you and I don't understand why people ignore my line. I clearly said she only cares about office, skype, IM and browsing. There was a hurry situation and it could even handle my 2-3 parallel installs of Open Office, MS Office Viewers and instant messengers.

I can assure anyone that Sony really means designed for Vista, it seems Vista is part of their strategy to race with Apple.

While replying to this message, I also run OS X Leopard on my G4 1.42 Ghz Mini with just 1 Gig (max for this mb) of RAM. When I say Leopard runs faster than Tiger on same machine, Mac users go mad at me too. I actually tested it with external firewire 800 drive boot of Tiger.

Another thing is, that non technical and non gamer actually paid for Vista, why bother and risk with pirated XP?

Re:Vista is that bad for general and non gamer use by Ilgaz · 2009-03-27 17:32 · Score: 1

I forgot to tell it as I am OS X user it seems.

What I installed was pure Vista, no Sony specific stuff as the machine restore function is in Korean too.

If I could really access that restore dvd function, it creates 2 DVDs. Vista Original DVD and... 2 Gigs of Sony BUNDLED stuff. I can't imagine what would happen if I actually installed 2 Gigs of Sony stuff.

Everything works (including EFI driver) except Webcam, I will have some Korean babelfish browsing to do for it and mail the driver.

2000 = nearly same security features 4 most things by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 01:23 · Score: 0

"no security features (say goodbye to NX bit and other hardening features)" - by Kaboom13 (235759) on Friday March 27, @09:33AM (#27356273)

There's no DEP (data execution prevention - or, what you're calling the NX/no-execute bit), but, it's not "exactly fair" to come down on Windows 2000 as hard as you have, & make it seem that you are saying it has no other 'security-hardening features' (which may not have been your intent, but it surely came off that way, imo @ least).

I say that, because I can show you an example of Windows 2000, after security-hardening, which scored a 99.6/100 on the industry "best practices" based CIS Tool, seen here -> http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=13014d1430ba8b705514e789dce012d7&t=28430&page=3

(Which happens to be the highest score I have seen to date, & I've been using this tool since late 2005 iirc... & a Windows 2000 Pro system scored that, on said respected & well-noted multi-platform benchmark of security program).

APK

P.S.=> 2000 also lacks certain "user entities", by default, that Windows XP/Windows Server 2003, VISTA/Server 2008, & Windows 7 doubtless have (which comes into play on things like File & Registry ACL permissions, as well as those used for securing services more), but - you can make "less priveleged users" of your own by assigning them lesser rights to 'emulate that' on Windows 2000, if needed... apk

Do we actually expect to see a 2010 Windows by Anonymous Coward · 2009-03-28 06:21 · Score: 0

My guess is we will not see a release until 2012 or 2015... Even if we do get one on the shelf which flavor do I buy again Home, Home Premium, Business, Professional, Ultimate, Swanky, or Bells-N-Whistles? I have found that if you go to the store and buy a laptop off the shelf one finds themselves buying another copy of windows just to get "Business features" like remote desktop in an age where computers should be talking to each other out of the box. Then I build computer with a *legal* copy off of newegg and have to call MS once I install the drivers for the machine because "my machine changed configuration". What is this? Windows "Dis"Advantage? Then try VM'n Windows in Linux (Same Machine) and I'm "Dis"Advantaged again.

- Lost in the ether

Slashdot Mirror

Windows 7 RC Download Page Points To May Release

183 comments