Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Denies Windows 7 "Showstopper Bug"
Barence writes "Windows chief Steven Sinofsky has taken the unusual step of responding in the comments of a blog posting that claimed Windows 7 was suffering from a potential 'showstopper bug'. Stories had been sweeping the Internet that using the chkdsk.exe utility on a second hard disk would lead to a massive memory leak bringing the operating system to its knees in seconds. Responding to a blog post titled 'Critical Bug in Windows 7 RTM,' Sinofsky wrote: 'While we appreciate the drama of "critical bug" and then the pickup of "showstopper" that I've seen, we might take a step back and realize that this might not have that defcon level.' He signs off with the words: 'deep breath.'"
...was that show where the rabid MS haters stopped sounding crazy.
Also, I doubt there is a show stopping bug, being as Windows 7 is just a service pack for Vista in reality.
Not to bash M$ or anything, but isn't
Microsoft - truth an oxymoron?
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Panties Stink!
They really, really stink!
Sometimes they're red, sometimes they're green,
Sometimes they're white or black or pink
Sometimes they're satin, sometimes they're lace
Sometimes they're cotton and soak up stains
But at the end of the day, it really makes you think
Wooooooo-wheeeee! Panties stink!
Sometimes they're on the bathroom floor
Your girlfriend- what a whore!
Sometimes they're warm and wet and raw
From beneath the skirt of your mother-in-law
Brownish stains from daily wear
A gusset full of pubic hair
Just make sure your nose is ready
For the tang of a sweat-soaked wedgie
In your hand a pair of drawers
With a funky feminine discharge
Give your nose a rest, fix yourself a drink
cause wooooooo-wheeeeeee! panties stink!
Exactly. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
and DON'T exhale.
Yours In Health,
Kilgore T.
... does Microsoft consider something that can freeze their O/S to be a show stopper?
Particularly if its something the user has to initiate (with a particular command option, for example). Just blame it on the user.
Have gnu, will travel.
You use the phrase "non-issue" twice in your post as well as pulling a "90%" figure completely out of thin air, which leads me to believe you're shilling for Microsoft here. It's not a non-issue, and the crash isn't just caused by chkdsk.exe but by the Windows disk check utility.
"Sufferin' succotash."
No, your point seems to be that the way your want it is somehow the way a user wants it. A normal user definitely doesn't worry about it. So that point is moot.
Apparently you fail to see why this partition is there in the first place, but it is for the very common scenario of using bitlocker on a laptop. By doing it this way it enables a "not knowing user as yourself" to enable bitlocker without repartitioning the drive in the future.
Design is choosing, what is right for one person is wrong for the other. This choice was apparently wrong for you, but I am pretty sure it is right for a lot of people.
I leave it up to you to explain why this is necessary on a bit locker system.
And apparently in your setup your MBR/active partition was on another drive. If you wanted them to be separate than you tell windows installer to do so. I believe most users just wants it to work and plug into the current boot menu they have.
Anyway, windows normally creates the system partition on the same drive if there are no other bootable drives. If you have more than one boot loader on your system you apparently an advanced user and know how to handle this, if you are not your likely glad to get it booting. Note that Windows only supports dual booting other windowses, this is what the installation process is geared towards.
I believe you are missing the point.
Windows will install the boot loader on the drive that the BIOS will boot first, which is fairly obvious, unless you have a boot loader on another drive then it will plug into that one, which is also fairly expected behavior. You don't have to rip your drives out you change the order in the BIOS.
If you are dual booting you should know how those things work before embarking on that journey or let someone that does know help you.
If you know the complexities of booting a system the choices made in the installer makes sense and takes no user discovery.
The real world reality I have experienced with Win 7 is not the glamor everyone hypes. This thing is simply another Microsoft Product with all that implies. Yes it's junk. I tried it on one box running nothing more than Warhammer Online (which works well in XP) and after 3 days of no issues it began to crash. At first every couple hours then every hour then every 10 minutes untill after a week of this, I could not start the game at all. I also have it on a virtual machine. Almost the same problem except that is my day to day general use VM. I started seeing things like Firefox suddenly won't start or Photoshop would hang. Enough of this crap. When I have to, I'll use XP, otherwise, I'll just be on my Fedora Box or my Macbook Pro when traveling. I'll pass on giving Msoft any more of my hard earned money.
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"