Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Hits Build 7600 (Possible RTM)
An anonymous reader writes "One Microsoft Way is reporting that Microsoft has significantly incremented the build number of both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2: 'Reports across the Web are pointing to a build 7600 for both Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2. This is significant because the bump in the build number would suggest that Microsoft has christened this build as the Release to Manufacturing (RTM) build. The RTM is expected to be given out to Microsoft partners sometime later this month and launched on October 22, 2009, the day of General Availability (GA). The build string is "7600.16384.090710-1945," which indicates that it was compiled just a few days ago: July 10, 2009, at 7:45pm. Microsoft only increments the build number when it reaches a significant goal, and the only one left is the RTM milestone. The last builds that were leaking were all 72xx builds, so such a large bump is suspicious but at the same time it is something Microsoft would do to signify that this is the final build.'"
Seriously? Windows 7? People are really going to play that game?
Yes - it seems there's genuine excitement about Windows 7. From what I can see, it does fix some of the glaring problems with Vista, and adds a few features:
* The backup utility actually lets you select what files to backup again, rather than just "Pictures" or "Documents".
* You can burn ISO files straight from Explorer.
* It's easier to enable BitKeeper. BitKeeper is pretty crap - it needs about 1.5GB unencrypted space to hold the 'system' files - but the installer now creates this space by default, so it's easier to actually turn encryption on.
But, as always, there are caveats:
* The backup utility actually stores backups as sets of 200MB zip archives. What. The. Fuck? Is something like Time Machine (which is like rdiff-backup) so complicated?
* You might be able to burn ISOs, but you still can't mount them. Loopback device anyone? Do I really need to pay $XX, or install some spyware-infested freeware crap, just to mount ISOs?
* BitKeeper is still only available in 'Ultimate' form.
Probably the most useful new feature is the Linux-like window manager shortcuts, so you can maximise, snap to left/right of the screen etc. I've been using these in KDE for donkey's years.
This is quite astute.
I'd also like to point out another story detailing a strong statistical anomaly in the speed at which anti-microsoft and pro-linux stories get "buried" on social news sites.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Performance numbers so far show the games to run at the same speed _or_slower_ under Win7.
Google begs to differ: http://www.engadget.com/2009/03/25/windows-7-edges-out-vista-for-gaming-in-thorough-benchmark-tests/
However, common sense does tell you not to benchmark a beta OS.
* You might be able to burn ISOs, but you still can't mount them. Loopback device anyone? Do I really need to pay $XX, or install some spyware-infested freeware crap, just to mount ISOs?
As far as I know Daemon Tools is not spyware-infested.
huh?
Karma is for whores
Microsoft's (technically unsupported) ISO mounting tool: VirtualCD
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/620/xp_small_free_way_to_use_and_mount_images_iso_files_without_burning_them/
In all fairness, dd is a bit-for-bit image. That works fine except that it creates files that are just as large as the disk. Backing up a 40GB partition with 1GB worth of data on it creates a file 40GB in size. Not so great if you want to store multiple sets of images. Programs like Ghost and other more elaborate imaging tools know the format of the filesystem and copy only the actual data of the partition, making the file only as large as it needs to be, and making it possible to restore it back to a partition of an arbitrary size rather than only the exact size that the image came off of.
There are some tricks you can do to reduce the size of a dd generated image - namely defragging and zeroing out all unused space before imaging so that compressing the image eliminates much of the space, but that's a hassle and still carries the limitation of only restoring back to a partition of equal size.
Like most pro-Unix arguments that basically equate to "*nix has had xyz for ages.", saying dd is "about the same thing" is a gross oversimplification of the issue. dd has it's uses, but for most hard drive imaging tasks there are better ways to do things. I love Linux. I've used it for years, but the automatic tendency to assume that any and everything that ever occurs on any other platform has already been done better on Linux is just offputting, and usually not accurate.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
The only things that run better (like video) are due to MS spending all of their time streamlining the DRM code that will prevent you from using *your* legally purchased files wherever you want.
The DRM systems are only active when DRM-encumbered media is being played. Further, the apply no more restrictions than any other DRM-enabled player capable of playing such media.
Your announcing on a technology site that you just pre-ordered TWO copies of an OS that's in a free public beta? See if you can cancel the order, create a (free) technet account and download then burn your disks. You can use this version until March 1, 2010 and then decide if it's worth your money.
Quack, quack.
The "spyware" is something you can opt for (not sure if it's opt-in or op-tout) during the installation. It's not like they're not being upfront about what it is and what it does.
Been using daemon tools for ages, never seen anything unexpected from the app or the stuff it installs.
Matter of fact, considering how long I've been using it I should probably pay for it anyway :/
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
"Spyware-infested" if you say yes to the clear and unambiguous "Install Daemon Tools browser toolbar" option in the installer.
So I've never heard of you before, but you seem to like throwing your initials round APK, or Alexander Peter Kowalski.
Your initial comments seemed idiotic, you were complaining about your 15mb+ hosts file being slow to load. Sorry, but what the fuck? You have a 15mb+ hosts file? are you really that clueless about IT?
But you try and justify it all by talking about security so I figured hey, I'll see what this guys credentials are. Well, a quick search turned this up:
http://www.ca.com/us/securityadvisor/pest/pest.aspx?id=51276
A piece of software that can arbitrarily run applications invisibly? Sorry what, did you really try and throw such a security threat onto consumer's PCs??
But wait, it appears you didn't stop there, I also found this:
http://www.thorschrock.com/2008/05/19/how-to-respond-when-people-threaten-to-sue-you-on-the-web/
So not only do you produce an app. that is a massive security risk, not only do you fail to see why it has been validly categorised as such, but you throw a hissy fit and threaten to sue? Not only that, but continue to spam the comments section of that site for over a month continuing to whine?
People make mistakes though so fair enough, I figured I'm sure there's more to this guy. I found this:
http://www.thenewtech.com/forums/chit-chat/today-4378/index32.html
Er, a program built entirely around breaking the hosts file using it for purposes it is simply not intended? Again, do you have any idea about the subject you preach? Do you realise that your very own programs pose a security risk? Do you realise how trivial it would be for Malware to hide malicious redirects in hosts files of the size you are talking meaning yet another one of your programs is a vessel for anti-security?
And there's more:
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/51009562/m/3680937305
Threatening to sue again on online forums because people didn't like the fact you were using them to advertise your dodgy Delphi programs?
Other than that, all I could find was a couple of dead web pages of yours and mention of a couple of long obsolete Delphi programs.
Your complaint is about the performance of using the hosts file for something it's never meant to be used for and the resultant performance drops of reading such a large file.
The fact that using the hosts file so incorrectly inherently severely decreases performance of DNS lookups anyway seems lost on you.
You talk of security yet you produce applications that are security threats.
You threaten to sue anyone who points out that your applications are security threats, you threaten to sue people who do not like you using technical forums to advertise your programs.
You complain here about how people obviously aren't programmers because they disagree with you yet your language of choice is object pascal via Delphi, hardly the language of choice for an expert programmer and second only to pre-.NET Visual Basic for the horifically bad bloatware it results in.
Do us all a favour, quit posting anything to the internet, spend a few years updating your knowledge to learn a worthwhile language like C++, Java or one of the .NET languages. Get a clue about security and understand why your applications are a far bigger security risk than anything you talk of and finally, stop threatening to sue anyone you disagree with.