Slashdot Mirror
XP Users Are Willing To Give Windows 7 a Chance
Harry writes "PC World and Technologizer conducted a survey of 5,000 people who use Windows XP as their primary operating system. Many have no plans to leave it, and 80% will be unhappy when Microsoft completely discontinues it. And attitudes towards Vista remain extremely negative. But a majority of those who know something about Windows 7 have a positive reaction. More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch."
I would, but with some of the problems I had with Vistax64 (could have been hardware issues), I might wait until SP1 at least. Hell, it took me that long to migrate from Windows 2000. I waited until frakking SP1 was out!
The real test of Windows 7 won't be users, it would be enterprise customers. There are still a lot of large Windows setups which have not upgraded from XP (Investment Banks and their "excel sheet departments" for ex.). The decision to switch would in that case be taken by Sysadmins and the like.
http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
People still using XP are the hardcore, the nerds, and the fearful. 70% of them like Win7 because they know Vista sucks donkey balls, and they know XP is hitting the toilet RSN. Its more resignation than excitement.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I still wonder why Microsoft chose the name "Windows 7". Any ideas? For all other OS names, there appeared to be a meaning behind those choices, but for Windows 7, I labor to find a reason.
Does Windows 7 have more DRM or less than Windows XP? I think my decision to switch will be primarily biased along that criteria.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Why? Because XP came pre-installed on my last computer, and Windows 7 will come pre-installed on my next one.
and now that the various device drivers for vista works people like it... Is it a feat of engineering or marketing?
I acutally like Windows 7, it crusies on my low-end, Sam's Club Dell Inspiron 1525 Celeron with 2GB of RAM. I still have plenty of memory for doing other things. Gnome and KDE have some catching up to do again. Looks like Microsoft took a page from the open source play book of only accepting quality code. That said, I am still pro open source but, at my job, we are going to Windows 7 so I'd better learn it, kicking and screaming.
If it were 32 bit only I wouldn't touch it, but the 64 bit (and thus the ability to have more than 4 gigs of ram) is quite appealing. However when testing the RC I found my Hauppage stuff didn't work, nor will it since they would rather I buy a new USB device then have them write drivers for it (understandable from a business point of view, but annoying). Also quite a few ActiveX controls don't work which depending on what sites (or SSL VPN's) you use may cause issues. I am also not quite sure as to where all the "better" stuff is, to me the interface is pretty much the same, local file search still sucks (where's my WinFS huh?) and I need to install a lot of third party and open source software to make the system usable and safe (like backups, AV, etc.) which I get built in with my Linux distros. It looks like enough stuff might be broken/painful that switching to a Linux desktop is a possibility for me.
name 1 really new thing. and no DirectX11 isn't one of them as that's also going to ship to vista... so there is truly nothing new, and it's also slower with games even vs vista if you have vista simply don't upgrade "it's a waste of your well earned cash"...
I have Macs on my desktops, and I run Linux for my number crunching machines. So, I'm no Microsoft fanboy. However, it seems to me that Microsoft actually tried to do the right thing with Vista... namely they built a reasonably secure operating system from the ground up and decided to actually enforce the programming paradigms. The problem isn't with Vista, it's with the antiquated applications that still need tons of shims to work. For example, I recently installed Quicken on my father in law's XP machine and discovered that it wouldn't work unless running as an admin account, which is simply absurd! So, I worry that Windows 7 is just a light weight version of Vista with most of the security rolled back so that insecure applications will be able to continue running and users won't complain about their favorite applications breaking.
And this time, unlike Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, Windows 7 really will be secure. Really!
There isn't much choice on this issue. MS Windows XP is 10 years old. It has been stable for six years or so, but is now showing sign of age. On my older XP machines I am going to have to do a clean install to get them running, and the machines are older anyway, so they are not working really well. The Vista machines I have seen do not seem to work real well, have trouble doing simple things, so I don't think Vista is the way to go. But if MS Windows 7 does work, and if the major apps work, I certainly would want to try it. I suspect it will be at least a year before it is stable enough.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The thing with the businesses is CHANGE. See they have this software they know works with XP, Sysadmins who know XP front and back, users who are used to XP, zero in the buy-new-machines fund, and are looking to save money anywhere they can. To justify buying a new version of Windows might be hard since, despite its age, XP works.
Our university department is cash strapped right now and despite heavy discounts we will NOT be moving to 7 unless it comes installed on a computer. We might if we are lucky get it in the 2011 FY budget. Unlikely though. Our users are so used to the look and feel that they likely would balk at the 7 upgraded look, and ask us to put back in the "classic" look. Yes the Windows 2000 look. Not that new XP Luna stuff. 2000. Thats why we are not switching to 7 anytime soon. The users could care less and our administrators wont give us the money.
Plus, were a little lazy and dont want to reinstall all of those comptuers.
Procrastinating life a way at a rapid rate of speed.
just download the windows 7 wallpapers and stick them on your XP machine.
since Microsoft will soon stop XP support and updates, and refuse to patch any more security exploits. We might as well run Windows 95, 98, ME, 2000 because Microsoft don't update those systems anymore either.
At least Windows 7 Pro has an XP virtual machine, but we don't know how compatible it is yet.
Windows 7 is a Service Pack to Windows Vista practically, and it is like when Windows XP came out as a Service Pack to Windows 2000. Windows 2000 was version 5.0 and Windows XP was version 5.1, Windows Vista is version 6.0 and Windows 7 is version 6.1.
Since Windows XP was better than Windows 2000, we figure that Windows 7 will be better than Windows Vista.
Sadly a lot of XP machines will need RAM upgrades if not video and hard drive upgrades to run Windows 7 as I heard even 1G of RAM is not enough and that Windows 7 is a bit of a hard drive and resource hog like Vista is, because XP runs faster because it has less features and fewer services that start up upon bootup. Windows 7 tries to make it for it by having faster graphics effects, and making use of dual core or multi core technology. Most Windows XP installs don't make use of dual core or higher systems as one has to by the non uniprocessor version of XP to use more than one core or processor.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Remember the Mohave ads? Microsoft showed people a "new" OS and supposedly they liked it (although they could only really see it under very controlled conditions that would not show the faults, like driver incompatability). And then it was revealed that the OS was really Vista, which no one liked.
Now jump forward to the present. MS finally has a service pack that will fix many of the problems in Vista (although not all, and it still has very Vista characteristic performance benchmarks). Someone at M$ wants to release the service pack, but someone higher up who understands the M$ way of doing things better says "If we give people this service pack, even though it fixes many things, it will still have the stink of the Vista name on it. Lets do this: change the GUI around just enough that we can claim it's a new OS. Then rather than give people a new service pack for Vista, we can charge them for a whole new Operating System. Call it something other than Mohave and no one will get wise."
An so, with much hype, they release Windows 7. Everyone who bought Vista and was entitled to a workable OS gets screwed. M$ charges anyone who wants their Vista fixed for a supposedly different OS, even though Vista was so broken that even M$ executives called it a disaster. Profit.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
.. that what started out as one of Microsoft's worst releases is now a favorite. The eight year old XP is somewhat solid these days, but it is time for an upgrade. Place Vista on the racks next to Microsoft Bob, and let us move on.
This constant upgrade crap has to end. Christ! Imagine having to change the compressor on your fridge every 5 five years or less, then finding out the new compressor won't fit in the old refrigerator. This whole thing is planned obsolescence at its very worse. "polishedturd" was the best tag so far. Who's gonna put up "lipstickonapig"?
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
I've been a 99% Linux user since 2000, including 3 years of law school where I really only used Windows during exams because of Exam4 requirements. However, I'm starting a job at a (small) law firm and my laptop has Win 7 all loaded up and running. My prognosis so far: I can live with 7, especially because it runs Firefox and Cygwin runs Bash and basic UNIX utilities OK as well. I can even use VIM.
Is it particularly fast? No, but it is not insanely slow. My laptop is recent but not super-high end, 2.2Ghz Core2 with 4GB of RAM is the good part, the Intel graphics are the bad part. Frankly, the Aero effects on Windows 7 work just as well as the compositing effects from KDE 4.3, meaning that they do work, but not blazingly fast like on my desktop with the Nvidia card. As for memory usage... despite claims to the contrary, Linux using a modern, fully featured desktop uses a little bit less RAM, but not significantly less. I'm not even close to filling up my 4GB even with office, firefox, and miscellaneous junk running, so no biggies there.
I'm not a fan of Windows, I think that Windows 7 is somewhat boring for a "huge" release, but it does get the job done. My new job is concerned with me being able to write office documents and access Exchange + a small windows network, which Win7 makes stupidly simple. Do I miss virtual desktops? Sure. Am I annoyed that Windows still doesn't have very good window management and that I can't get rid of the annoying borders on my windows that the Bespin KDE theme lets me annihilate? You bet. At the same time, Windows does make certain configuration tasks easier (especially graphics & wireless even though I can and do use graphical utilities under Linux).
I'm not saying that I couldn't do this just as well in Linux, but I am saying that I don't have the time to get my system tweaked to the rest of the office... at least immediately. This is a small law firm with technically proficient lawyers, and being the most junior associate I won't be shocked if I get some IT related tasks from time to time, but my day job is to be able to use nice boring office software, which Windows 7 allows for in a reasonably secure way.
As for the XP part of this... I had an old XP license that I did purchase fair & square (for $10 from my University back in the day). It could have gotten the job done for a while, but Win7 really does have better security and like it or not it is the path forward. One major feature that Win7 has over XP is the find option in the start menu. Since MS keeps screwing with the Control Panel and everything else, I almost never bother to hunt through menus. Instead I just type in what I want to do in the search bar and it does a very good job of finding what I want. In fact, it's likely faster that me clicking menus even if I did know where stuff was. I'm not sure if XP even had this feature but Win7 makes it very easy to use by default and I've saved quite a bit of time with it... so there ya go, one actual reason to upgrade!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Sucks for those who bought Vista - service pack used to be free before.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
Anyone notice the trendier the name is for the new operating system, the more it sucks? Windows ME (Millennium Edition) and Vista are the two most trendy names followed in a semi-distant third with XP. That said, I guarantee Windows 7 is going to be the best Windows yet.
Microsoft is like seawater. Everywhere, but poisonous.
Actually, what I want is REAL choice = REAL freedom.
Microsoft wants to dictate Vista or DEATH! Wait, we didn't mean it. Now you can choose Windows 7 with only 35% of the awful and unneeded features of Vista!
Microsoft has become way to big to fail, which means too big to exist. Sooner or later they are going to fail. Who am I kidding? Microsoft is constantly failing. What I mean is sooner or later they are going to fail so big and so hard that the economic consequences will be astronomical. This is TOO big.
In addition, Microsoft has actually become a brake on progress. Why innovate when you're already getting the lion's share? New versions? That's a decision for marketing to decide! What year will be convenient for our next marketing campaign? That's the WRONG basis for improvements.
Suggestion: Cut Microsoft into 5 companies. Call them Microsoft A to E with a time limit before they need to pick new names. Give each of them a copy of the source code and 1/5 of the people and facilities and assets. Require them to compete. Windows can remain the standard OS, but they have to compete in conforming to the standard, and all changes and improvements to the standard must be discussed in public and agreed to, or the changes will be proprietary to that branch of the company.
Result? Real choice = freedom.
Side effect? As the code bases evolve over time, the single points of failure will be eliminated. Instead of 80% of the world's computers being at risk from one programming mistake, the risk will be greatly reduced.
Don't think of it as a penalty for success. It's an inducement to reproduce your company when you are successful enough. A new form of corporate evolution that increases our freedom while also creating more pressure for creative innovations and progress. (If you succeed again up to about 40% of the market, then your company should reproduce again, just to note the obvious.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
Honetly vista is the biggest POS MS has made since windows ME(which i used for a long time and would rather use over vista)
The fact that using the new windows will pretty much double the requirements of any games one plays pretty much deems the new windows unuseable for me unless i go out and buy twice as much hardware power then i need just to run the crappy OS. Do i feel like doing that just so i can enjoy games i play on my XP rig, um no. MS cant even make a good light weight browser anymore let alone a fast OS. Its just plain silly to require 2gigs of ram just to run a game with 1gig min requirements and an OS. And dont get me started on DirectX10...
MS even admitted all windows 7 is vista repacked and slightly better, IE something that could have been done with a good service pack rather then trying to get people who wasted money on vista to pretty much buy the same crap a second time cept more functional...
My main OS is currently debian(trying different distros) and I use windows only for gaming nothing else(I don't even let that bugger leave my lan.). I guess I have to change to windows 7 when some game doesn't work on XP, but before that I am sticking with XP.
Been running the RTM for about a week now. And I like it a lot. Sure, I wish Vista users would get this for cheap, but despite that, it really is nice. The new taskbar takes some getting used to, but it has some great features (Having shortcut controls in the preview has a ton of potential). It feels more responsive and polished, even on a netbook that Vista would choke on.
Much fewer hiccups compared to Vista (I can switch around between Visual Studio, Office, Eclipse, etc with no delays). There are lots of surprises. Try the math panel (best with a tablet, but mouse is okay), you can burn ISO images, it has basic color calibration and finally, the taskbar icons have been tamed. Aero Peek is nice and Aero overall takes less resources. It works fine even with Intel integrated graphics.
All in all, it really sets Windows back on good ground. It's the first version of Windows in quite some time that I really like running. Vista wasn't as bad as everybody said, and I'm sure Windows 7 won't be as good as some will hope, but for now, I am happy to run it.
...time and time again.
linux? osx? debian? solaris? gentoo? GLaDOS?
If you're an XP user, Windows 7 appears to be a worthy upgrade. If you're a Vista user, I would be pissed about the upgrade price and wait to see the next version of Windows.
I am a Vista user.
We get the same story every time. People don't want to upgrade from [2 versions ago] to [next version] and [last version] sucked.. but it always happens.
A lot of people wanted to stick with 98, thought Me sucked, and didn't want to upgrade to XP until they absolutely needed to. Same shit, different decade.
The first few interations of a new naming scheme suck compared to the refined later versions.
Bad: 3.0, 95, ME, Vista
Medium: 3.1, 98, XP, Seven
Best: 3.11, 98 OSR2, XP SP2/3, Seven's update
The main reason the first iterations suck is that's when they introduce entire new API's, driver models, memory models... and it takes a while for developers, both inside and outside of MS to develop the tools and skills for that API version. Seven, desipte it's name, is basically version 6.1 of the Windows API. That is the versions named after years (95,98) were 4.X, The two letter names (ME, XP) were 5.X, and the ones with single word names (Vista, Seven) are 6.X
Basically, Seven will be better than Vista in the same way that XP is better than ME. I knew before Vista was even released that the new API would take a while to adapt to and that it would be this generations ME.
People are going to want an operating system that can address lots of cheap, necessary RAM.
Further, processor power is cheaper than water at this point.
People are going to adopt Windows 7 for its adaptation to RAM above 4gb and optimized parallel use of multiple cores.
Then again, I don't think Vista was bad. The UAC is what drives most people nuts, unless they had driver issues. It's a nice operating system although a bit big.
I think what most people want is what XP seems to represent: a simple, pared-down, flexible operating system.
Unfortunately, many are not willing to learn as much about their computers as their cars, so they fall prey to all sorts of scams, trojans, etc. and get the Vista UAC as a consequence.
Futurist Traditionalism
Of course the people who've "tried" Windows 7 are gonna like it. They more than likely have used it on some special demo machine with the specs and thorough setup to make it usable. Just like Mojave, when users try it in a custom environment designed to make them like it, they'll like it. But that's not what they're getting on their Compaq POS-9000. They'll eventually realize they're unsatisfied with 7 and look forward to the new version of windows without realizing they're going to be duped again just like before.
In my country, Argentina, if it is easy to crack, the average joe 6 pack will use it. If not, no one here will pay for it. Here a computer costs a median of USD400. And is a lot of money here. Almost everyone that pays that for a computer, uses counterfeit software. Only enterprises use legal software.
If I wanted to use it in my office I would want the features in the full version. With the proposed price for that it's even beginning to look as if OS X on Mac hardware instead of what superficially looks like an OS X ripoff would be better value. However, the important thing is the applications so you buy the platform that will run them.
It's a pity that the 5 digits per seat software my users run starts and stop services just to put stuff on the screen so every user would need Admin access and UAC turned off. It's really not Microsofts fault that people are still writing applications with an MSDOS mindset even when they are paid a fortune to drag it screaming into the new century, but as I said, you get the platform that runs the applications.
This current release is even shittier than Windows XP. Go get a real OS that not only runs on more hardware these days but totally beats the feature set of Windows 7, has high quality applications (AmaroK, Kdenlive, K3B, Vlc and countless others), more eyecandy, better stability and security and even ease of use -> Kubuntu. The latest Adobe Photoshop works completely fine and out-of-the-box with Wine, just like WoW, Steam and Source games. It has a better group chat app than Ventrilo (better sound quality, more features, more speed, less lag and bandwith use) and OpenOffice.org completely support all Microsoft Office files, except for OOXML, but it appears that format got beaten by ODF according to Google's indexing. That's right.
You don't need the commandline anymore. You don't need to compile shit anymore. Adobe flash player 10 64bit works more stable than on Windows and can be installed from the GUI just like any graphics driver.
Everything that makes people go "Wow" at Windows 7 is what made Kubuntu "Wow" from day one. So it's old news. Given the fact that Windows 7 has the same base as Vista and Remond started their photocopiers to copy Mac OS X for Vista, they have done the same copying with Windows 7 but then with Kununtu and if you think I am talking jibberish then try so for yourself and see why. And just like with Vista "The haven't done it quite right."
Here be signatures
If you don't like Vista, use Mac, XP, 98se, Linux, BSD, or roll your own. MS is not making you change OSs anymore than Nike makes you buy new shoes.
Five competing flavors of Windows is dumb and defeats the purpose of Windows. You don't remember the days before DirectX do you?
If you want 5 different flavors, your choice is Linux. Only it's more like 500 different flavors. Enjoy.
After using Windows 7 on numerous machines our company is committing itself to running most software online through the Linux server and relinquishing desktop power houses in favour of basic machines that can run online.
For 1 PC capable of running Windows 7 / Vista adequately we can by 2 to 3 basic machines that run linux or even XP.
Windows 7 IS better than Vista, but not to the tune of new hardware, $200+ dollar per seat licencing, and very little to benefit that small to medium enterprise.
Our laptops when replaced will probably come with Windows 7 but besides that it doesn't really matter to most machines what OS they run. As long as we can go online, or via wireless to the main server then why spend the dollars for no real benefit.
I run ubuntu, windows xp, vista, windows 7, fedora and in reality beside a bit of cosmetics they all do the same thing. Login via a browser, do some email, and word processing.
We're actually really looking forward to the Google OS or something similar, something lightweight, fast and reliable, without needing 4 gig plus, 3D graphic accelerators, Quad core CPUs etc for a basic terminal!
I believe a lot enterprises will be reluctant in these tight times to outlay for an OS that is not really necessary and in the short term, expensive to initiate compared to current alternatives.
XP still works! (So does linux....)
I haven't tried windows 7 yet. Before I even consider buying it (just to get away from Vista) can anyone tell me if Microsoft have continued the ongoing trend of assuming the users IQ and knowledge of computers is seriously diminishing with every new windows version?
Vista hides much useful information that XP shows, and has introduced even more pointless, time wasting and just annoying "are you sure" dialog boxes even with UAC turned off. Can anyone confirm if the following stupidities have been fixed in Windows 7 or is the trend still downward?:
XP's copy progrss dialog clearly states the filename and full path. Vista's doesn't even mention the name of the file you're copying any more and it only tells you a small part of the path of the source. It leaves you guessing which copy operation it relates to which is mindnumbingly clueless whenever you're doing multiple concurrent file copies.
If you move a folder containing files to a different place that already has a folder with the same name, XP merges them fairly quietly and properly. Even with UAC turned off, Vista introduces extra supremely annoying and unavoidable dialogs to confirm each file in turn (yeah I know theres a "do this for all" checkbox but its still annoying). This extra dialog is not disableable and is really a pointless intrusion if you have any knowledge of what a move operation should do. Worse, even after a successful move, the source folder is left behind. I'd love to meet the marketing moron who thought of these new semantics just so I can kick him in the nuts.
If there's even one file in a folder that Vista thinks might be a media file, Vista forces a media-style display on the contents of the whole folder. This results in all the useful info you need (such as file attributes and modified dates) getting hidden and replaced by a retarded popularity rating you will probably never use. It does this every time you create a new folder and you can't turn off this unwanted 'helpful' (snort) functionality.
Vista's DRM means it can't play MY media to ME. XP can play it without problem.
Vista still frequently forgets the last view settings you set ("sort by" choice etc) even if you set "remember each windows settings" and even do "apply to all folders". This is a problem Windows has had even way back to Windows 95 as I recall.
Feedback about how Windows 7 works in these respects would be much appreciated. I'm not giving Microsoft even more of my money just to find out its no better (or even worse) than Vista for the stuff I do most.
I tried Windows 7 x64, just to see what it's like. Sound card driver whinges (good old creative). Video capture card doesn't work at all. Who cares about all the screen candy with the DRM that lives behind it. Seriously thinking of going back to Windows XP Pro 32 bit, not that I use Windows for anything other than playing games anyway...
...Lyall
OK, I admit it, I like Windows 7. I've been running Enterprise x64 at work since it was released on Technet and it's really good - driver support was almost flawless out of the box (Although when I tried to install the latest Catalyst drivers they consistant BSOD it, but that's really an ATI issue) and it runs much better than Vista on the same machine. The only things I've had problems with so far are old or stupid apps with hardcoded OS detection limits or 32-bit only libraries and so far all of them have worked via the XP Mode VM (Although there are some quirks with multiple monitors). My current plan is to upgrade my home PC from XP Pro to Windows 7 Ultimate x64 (Technet again) in the coming weeks. One completely awesome feature that they should have added years ago is the ability to right-click on a DHCP lease and convert it into a reservation, which saves me a hell of a lot of time.
There are still negatives - there are some real issues with pinning certain apps to the taskbar, especially if they're located on a network drive (though there are workarounds), I'm not a fan of the way that they've over-simplified some of the menus making it difficult to find the advanced settings you want and the libraries are annoying, though I suspect they'll grow on me; also, Sharepoint still behaves inconsistently when trying to save documents directly to the site via Office 2007 as it did in Vista, especially with Visio for some reason. Oh, and even the new and improved UAC still annoyed me, so I had to turn it off completely - though I'd imagine non-power users probably wouldn't have as many issues with it.
All in all, I think we all know that Windows 7 is the OS Vista should have been - and probably would have been if Microsoft hadn't decided on an arbitrary release date for it whether it was done or not (ignoring the business implications of letting Vista development continue for another 2 years) and I for one am very impressed with it so far.
There's an old expression:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
Did you know that the ONLY reason why Windows 7 was 'trimmed down' (ram, cpu and resource hog that Vista was)... was simply BECAUSE of Linux running on NetBooks?
It is well known fact, that internal to MS, and to the top executives there, that they did not think Vista had ANY issues at all. Why do you think they spend all those MILLIONs of dollars on Mojave and the silly SienField commercials? They actually THOUGHT it was PUBLIC perception problem, not a technical one.
It was not until the massive influx of the Netbooks, running Linux, that MS went 'Oh SH*T' we better do something. So, they HAD to make Win7 run on a Netbook.
THIS and mostly only this, (seriously) was the reason for the 'trimming of the fat' and the rest was MASSIVE investment into WHY people hated vista. Hense, why the security popups are now GONE.
Just remember, MS does not innovate... they simply copy others or react to negative things. If it were not for LINUX...MS would STILL be pushing out retarded Mojave ADs and others...
Kinda ironic isn't it?
So they're willing to give it a chance... But how much are they willing to pay for that chance? Let's get some pricing details, MS. Still, an audiophile friend of mine resolutely refuses to use Vista/7 on his main machine because he claims he had problems doing 192 kHz audio playback in Vista with his E-MU sound card.
The fact remains that most businesses won't change from XP, which runs on primitive machines, to Win7 (alias VistaLite) which still, for the most part, requires hardware upgrades. You could run a serious office with AppleWorks on a 2E, for shitsakes, and that (mercifully) went to its reward 20 years ago. Primitive spread sheet, word processor and data base...and Mail Merge. For the most part, subsequent improvements have been more devoted to eye candy (sorry...I know I'm oversimplifying a bit). The computing power of an average desk-top computer today is more than sufficient to run just about every small company in the world. Why would a guy running a body shop with a P2 give a crap about upgrading? The machine does everything he wants, and rudimentary security will stop all the nasty things from reaching his rarely-online machine.
And if you honestly believe that The Boss gives a flying fuck about whether his staff have pretty transparent windows to look at while they're figuring out how much to charge for the bumper repair, you're smoking something I'd kill to get hold of.
The average home computer has been kicking the ass of the average work computer for at least 10 years, and that situation isn't going to change any time soon. Win7 may be better than Vista. It's still going to be irrelevant until they start giving it away along with a free multi-threading P4 (which these days is worth just about as much as a bag of chips).
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I have more interest in the rumors about the next version of Windows going to a microkernel sort of design, making use of what has been achieved so far with Singularity. So far from what I see, Windows 7 is pretty much Windows Vista with XP resource managment (which isn't great, just an improvment over Vista). Still the same NT6.1 kernel as Server 2008.
Rumors are the next Windows Mobile may use the Singularity microkernel, if thats true that could be a good sign of things to come. The options of moving pretty much anything Microsoft wants from userspace to kernel space and vice versa to suit various needs (like SQL Server in kernel space while leaving everything else back in userspace for a database server).
Make SELinux enforcing again!
Of course we're willing to try windows 7. This is because we have no idea as a group that windows 7 is descended directly from windows vista...
Non sequitur: Your facts are uncoordinated.
The parent post needs some love.
THIS IS WHY [insert consumer-level os choice issue here].
It's a hassle for regular users to switch or upgrade their OS. For a large portion of users, the upgrade might involve passing one's perfectly functional computer to some jerk in a computer store who might choose to hoover up all their banking info/business data/porn and who WILL charge a nice extra fee for installing the upgrade. It means that there's a moderate chance that the user's old software won't work, that their old methods of using that software won't apply, or that the previously-responsive computer will slow to a crawl under the new system's increased requirements. It WILL mean adapting to a newly-reskinned interface in many applications, and it means having to go through the organic process of re-discovering all the freshly-buried functions they relied upon. It means an extra investment into an existing (read:aging) computer, as well, and for minuscule apparent advantages (most users don't understand anything about the dangers of privilege escalation -- and frankly, they bloody well shouldn't have to; thank you SO much for that, Microsoft). Now, as it happens, I'm likely to purchase Windows 7. That's because I build my own systems to last 3-5 years in various capacities anyway, giving me half a chance to get some use out of the license, and because I think there's a moderate chance that Windows 7 is A) a reasonable upgrade, and B) stable enough to live with. That's not true for everyone.
In short, the cost of a Windows upgrade is a nice down payment on a fresh computer for the average user. The old computer can be given to a friend or a family member as-is (or thrown out for $100 on Craigslist), and the new computer just frickin' works (and can play HD video without stuttering).
I rarely respond to ACs but this is too good to ignore. You're absolutely correct, plans for anything really new are set years in advance. Yet in May of 2007 Slashdot reported that Microsoft announced that Vista was to be it's last 32 bit OS and that the sucessor to Vista would be 64 bit only. See here: http://slashdot.org/articles/07/05/17/1452228.shtml
Now only two years later we are being told that Win 7 is the next great thing, and that it will be available in 32 bit and 64 bit versions (Just like Vista). If 7 really was the next new OS then you would be absolutely correct, it would have been years in development and Microsoft would not have stated two years ago that it was going to be 64 bit only if indeed it was designed to have 32 bit and 64 bit versions. The only way that this "mistake" could reasonably be made is if the real next OS was intended to be 64 its all along (as it should be), but then M$ decided to claim this repair job on Vista was a "new" OS at the last minute and surprise everyone with this OS that supposedly came out of nowhere. It's just a Vista fix with an alternate GUI and a new name (and a new price tag), to wash off the stink of Vista and to double bill all those who paid for Vista but want a working OS.
And to respond to another issue raised by another cowardly AC, it is completely believable that M$ could still release service packs for Vista, but fail to correct as much as they did in the version of Vista that they now want to call Win 7. Future service packs for the old Vista in no way disprove that they are just re-skinning Vista and getting people who should not have to pay for the fixes to buy it again.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
. . . my employer supplies me with a SchtinkPad with whatever version of Windows they decide to support. Corporate spy stuff installs updates automatically, checks if my passwords are "conform", etc., and automatically sends a email to my manager informing him that one of his "manageable entities" does not "conform to the norm." I have not used Vista, because my employer has not decided to roll it out. If they decide to roll out Windows 7, I guess I'll be on board.
But your "committed" statement reminds me of the old eggs and bacon breakfast joke: "The hen participated, the pig was committed."
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Am I really the frist psot who couldn't resist this oldie: >"light-at-the-end-of-the-long-tunnel-that-is-vista dept." And its the Seattle-Austin express.
70% of the people who used it are considering it. Since, only 22.5% (Somewhere between 20-25% in the graph) of the people actually used it, a mere 15.75% of the people interviewed have used it and are positive. So those '70%' are actually 788 people out of the 5000 people interviewed.... Not really something you can base a forecast on..... In their vista-review, 70% have used vista and of these people, and about 20% are (moderately) positive .... this means 14% used vista and were 'happy' , which is 700 out of the 5000 people.
700 comes awfully near the 788 ....
Based on this research I predict that Windows 7 will be just a big a failure as vista is.
There are Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics.
The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
It is good to hear that Windows 7 is decent business software. Microsoft might still be sweating bullets, though. Though it seems that Windows 7 will be a reasonably valuable, reliable operating system, will businesses have the money to upgrade in the middle of this massive economic downturn?
The virtual XP mode is a nod towards compatibility, but what sort of nod is MS going to have to give towards mass conversion pricing, especially if it is accompanied by hardware upgrades?
The OS might be great, but the marketing fundamentals are unsound. This could be bad timing indeed. Though there may be a will, the real question is: is there a way?
As in, what sort of upgrade path do we have?
--
Toro
I have to say "REAL alternatives" every time? How about if you consider what I actually said rather than trivia it suits you to address.
For the record, I primarily use Ubuntu WHEN I actually do have a choice. At home that means about 95% of the time, though it's a little hard to estimate. Two machines are multi-boots that normally run Ubuntu, and one of those machines has my attention most of the time. One ancient clunker is pure Windows, but only gets used about 10 minutes a day, and the 'muscle machine' runs Windows because of licensing restrictions, but has virtual machines for Ubuntu, a RedHat variant (with a special corporate configuration), Solaris, and so-help-me DOS.
At work I have much less choice. Though I've configured a number of machines as multi-boots, I'm basically constrained to run Windows almost all of the time. I had a scratch monkey that was usually in Ubuntu, but it died a while back and I'm not sure if I can replace it...
Apple? When I was teaching at the university I actually was in a Mac environment. The more I learned about Macs the less I liked teaching on them. At this point, my basic feeling is that Apple is mostly the source for Microsoft's worst ideas or twisted implementations of what were formerly good ideas before Microsoft mangled them. Apple not-so-secretly wants to be Microsoft, but they've accepted that they can't be that, so they are basically exploiting their high-margin fan boys. Perhaps I'm too harsh on Apple, but I don't regard Apple as a real choice for me.
Sun? I have quite a bit of experience, but I regard them as a small desert island these days. Not a choice I like.
We're back in the Microsoft ocean, with nary a drop to drink. (Shall I regard Ubuntu as my handy dandy solar still.)
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
because I have a 5 digit UID and microsoft pai^H^H^H^H let me beta test it and it ROCKS.
anti-libel note: the above is a joke and is not to be taken literally.
...upgraded a low end netbook from Windows XP to Window 7 the other day.
I'm more than happy with it, you can dial down all the OTT UI stuff and make it look like XP, it runs all my existing programs, and actually gives a really welcome speed increases (no, really, it does, even on a cheap machine).
Time has come to upgrade lads.
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
Why are we still calling the long (and painful) Windows 7 public beta Vista?
If Microsoft had any sense of decency they'd offer Vista users credits or vouchers for free upgrades. Windows 7 is about as unexciting as XP was, but as least it feels like an upgrade.
Quack, quack.
Most people are ready to try Windows 7 as the tried Vista. The interesting question is how many will stay on Windows 7. How about business and application compability? I know about XP compability mode, wont happen. If its much work going from XP to Windows 7 there will be tough resistance.
I suspect the most eager people to go to Windows 7 is those on Windows Vista, not those on XP.
Essentially the problem is the same for Windows 7 as for Windows Vista. It doesnt bring anything that isnt already in Windows XP. Its just not worth the hassle.
HTTP/1.1 400
"More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch." I'm betting that's not 70% of people who are currently using XP (versus Vista & XP combined)! I've literally just reinstalled XP from giving our Technet Win 7 (RTM) a go for a while, if they could make the interface more consistant and allow the old start menu behaviour - I could probably bear it permanently.
Windows 7 will be a huge success for home users that bought Vista boxes and are in desperate need of relief.
I've been running it in an experimental vm since RC, and now thats its RTM I can honestly say it doesn't suck as bad as Vista.
However, it still has the same core flaw that kept Vista from passing our initial predeployment testing. IT staff can't run it. Sure, you can surf the net on it, or RDP into a machine you can actually do work on, but as an IT person its a pretty useless environment to try to work in. adminpak hacks from vista aren't as useful as they used to be, and the rsat is pretty limited unless you've magically replaced every last server with windows2008R2 since last week. (which BTW, you can't because Windows2008R2 doesn't support ANY shipping version of exchange).
If you can somehow bypass IT and give it to end users, particularly the dolts that only run 3-4 apps in their entire work day yet somehow have fantastically overpowered workstations, they might just like it. But then you get back to the original problem: how do you support an OS in deployment that you can't run in IT.
My most-used PC utilises a 1.8 GHz Athlon CPU. It has 1 GB of DDR memory, and an IDE/PATA hard drive. The OS is Windows XP SP3. After all these years of constant usage it is as finely-tuned to my needs as possible, and does absolutely everything I need it to.
Installing anything "above" Windows XP would simply cause the PC to run slower and less efficiently. It would also break any number of driver and application compatibilities.
One day reasonably soon I will upgrade the hardware. Is there any reason why I shouldn't stick with WinXP, rather than "upgrade" to Windows 7? Won't the new(er) hardware run at least as well - if not actually much faster - with Windows XP installed as the OS instead of Windows 7?
What, if any, compelling reasons exist for me to migrate to Windows 7 from Windows XP when I finally upgrade my most-used PC?
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/software/0,39029471,49303203-7,00.htm it's only faster at shutting down - all other differences are hardly noticable
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I've tried Windows 7. It is much, much better than Vista, and quite a bit better than XP.
But it's nowhere near good enough to get me to switch from Gnu/Linux.
Giving Win 7 a chance is like giving peace a chance. Lots of good will and not much in return.
Remember kids. Always demand a refund for any Windows-flavor bundled with your new computers. Easy money.
NEWSFLASH:
Vista is NT6.0
Win7 is NT6.1
I dont want to use Windows7sp0. When Win7sp2 exist i'll try it. Assuming i havent switched to Chrome or Xubuntu by then. I'll use my tweaked XP until it stops updating around 2014.
This would be like me saying my dad is technically advanced on Windows but doesn't know how to install Windows programs.
Several ways to solve:
Old unix way:
change group permissions (chmod g+r). you as another user would be part of the same "users" group.
New unix way:
chacl.
Yup, the same command that Windows would use. Except that this chacl is about eight years older on UNIX than it is on windows.
And if you wanted to do it "the GUI way", then in konqueror/dophin, click on "Properties" and select the new permissions from the list. INCLUDING ACL's.
In July, an article was posted claiming that no businesses are going to be moving to Windows 7.
I posted a comment pointing out that businesses have said this about the next version of Windows since 95 (excluding ME and Vista), complained that this wasn't really news and that Slashdot should stop recycling tabloid fodder. I got marked down for being a troll (my guess is that they're still trying to make Linux look like a desktop contender - good luck with that).
Oh, but look - here's an article point out that users *are* going to be moving to Windows 7. Just fancy that. Never saw that one coming.
No doubt Slashdot will moderate me down as a troll again - which is why I'm going to point out that I was trollified for saying so on every article they post about Windows 7 selling well - just so people are aware that on this site 'Troll' appears to mean 'non-Linux user' or 'someone that doesn't agree with us'.
And to think some claim that it's *microsoft* that are facists....
.. but when. All people whether on XP or not, will move to Windows some day. Unless they stop using Windows series that is.
They will pretty much change whatever they want whenever they want. In addition to the things you mention, lots of software for XP insists on SP2 or even SP3 to install, it was more than just bug fixes here. And somewhere in the series they snuck in .NET (although .NET is also available as a separate download, so that doesn't explain the service pack requirements for some XP software.
But perhaps the most significant example that shows how much an existing system was changed was Win98 Second Edition, a.k.a. Win98SE. Released less than a year after Win98, this version not only included fixes like the notorious memory leak fix, but it included new USB and AGP support, connection sharing, and plenty more. The changes in Win98SE were at least as significant as the changes being made to Vista, and with the exception of the GUI these changes were all things that the Vista team must have been at work on to address serious problems that were well protested in Vista. And the GUI changes are something that no one outside Microsoft really asked for, they are being done to support the claim that this is a new OS as much as for any other reason.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
I spun Win7 on a newish Toshiba laptop, and simultaneous use of the LCD and a plugged in monitor is **completely** broken. This is something that worked when the laptop had XP.
To see how dual monitors is supposed to work, whether mirrored or expanded, use a Mac. Any Mac.
All we are saying is give Seven a chance
I swore that I'd never use Vista after hearing the horrible things about it. Then my work laptop died and I had the opportunity to buy a personal one for relatively cheap. Only problem was that it came with Vista preinstalled. It also comes with a free Windows 7 upgrade, so I figured I'd deal with Vista for now. I'll admit, there are things to like with Vista. For example, the application specific volume controls. Finally, I can tell my web browser to shut up while my MP3s play on.
Still, I hit upon a frustration before the laptop was completely set up the way I like it. I used this application called menuApp to bring up drill down menus of my file system. When I clicked on it in Vista, though, I was told "The publisher count not be verified. Are you sure you want to run this software?" I unchecked the "Always ask before opening this file" and clicked Run. Then I clicked on menuApp again and was asked the exact same question. Vista wasn't remembering that I told it not to ask again.
Finally, I was pointed in the right direction for a fix. Long story short, there was an "alternate data stream" in the file that tripped up Vista. I'm very tech-savvy and even I couldn't figure out this one. What's Joe Averageuser supposed to do?
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
...but I have to say it. As soon as 7 sp1 arrives and the OEM clean versions are available for *download*, I know for a fact almost everyone here will get it, install it on virtual box and then upgrade one of their XP boxes to 7 because they like it. Heck, I bet the zero day download for 7 will be higher than Vista, but not as high as FCKGW edition XP.
Admit it guys, if it were free, you wouldn't be complaining. I love Linux as much as the next geek because it's free and customizable, but my *OEM* Vista, since it's *free*, is just as awesome.
Special upgrade package just for disgruntled Vista Users
Windows 7: Fool Me Twice Edition(tm)
How come that I read exacly the same translated ummm.. copy in a German bulletin board?
Ok, I'm an Ubuntu user who runs MS office 2000 (Yes, 2000, I've never seen a reason to upgrade) under wine and has both XP and Windows 7 running in VirtualBox. Both work perfectly in a virtual environment and I can run the apps I need and fiddle around without fear of messing up my system or losing data. Yes, there is nothing quite as funny as a BSOD in a window on your Ubuntu desktop :-) I find I kind of like Windows 7 except for one thing, I have a 64 bit system running an older AMD Athlon X3 3800 with 6 gigs of RAM. In VIrtualBox XP feels just fine, nice and responsive while Windows 7 is sluggish. That tells me that Windows 7 is not going to be acceptable on a lot of hardware that runs XP just fine. Also, since I have used Windows since version 3.0 I can claim some familiarity with the Windows UI. I can tell you that there are some things in the Windows 7 UI that drive me nuts. Why do they hide so much? I think they are trying to make it appear simple to new users but they aren't really doing that. They are just making it very hard to find the parts of the UI you need. They are definitely making it harder for long time users.
Imagine if the car makers tried to simplify the car UI by hiding the all the gauges and gear shift in the glove box, that would be a lot like the Windows 7 UI.
Stonewolf
Windows 7 *is* Vista rebranded and with different eyecandy.
Are you serious? What kind of kindergarten crap is this? "those who know something" tend to disagree, huh? The good 'ol appeal to authority.
Well, how about this:
"You might not agree with me, but most people with even a passing intellect do."
"You think you're right, but I did an informal survey of people with brains and they say you're wrong."
Astroturfer Harry, you might think you have a penis, but all the women I talked to said you don't. How about that for a summary?
Gullible has been removed from the dictionary too.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Sounds like you're a liar, alternately a shill. Based on several hundred first and second hand contacts, not counting schools, tech support calls go away after upgrading parents or non-technical users to Ubuntu or OS X. Really. If you failed to give a quick orientation, then you'll get a few days of 'how do I' calls. After that it's smooth sailing. Maintenance is a major savings once you leave M$ products behind.
A hidden savings is found with the end users. The end users are more productive as well, once you leave M$ products behind. Interestingly, even crusty, old KDE 3.5 is easier to use than XP, even for those with a Windows legacy.
YMMV, but I find the above based on several hundred first and second hand contacts, not counting schools.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It probably won't be noticed by most home-users but if I were still an admin, I would want to deploy W7 for the simple reason that it has a useful shell integrated. W7 includes PowerShell 2.0 and it is indeed pretty cool. I use Mac and Linux on my own but those are generally not an option in the workplace, in regard to the desktop. Microsoft has been trying to replicate the stability of Unix for years but just fairly recently, they've finally been getting around to trying to replicate the usefulness of the CLI.
The biggest advandage over XP is I/O prioritization. Auto updates and large file operations can be a serious bottleneck on my XP SP3, and it has gotten worse since running NT 4 on a p-233, not better. Probably because apps use more disk space and less optimization work.
Of course, vista also had this but I never found out until Windows 7 came out on MSDN. I would have updated just for that alone.
"Feedback about how Windows 7 works in these respects would be much appreciated" - by JustNiz (692889) on Tuesday August 18, @01:30AM (#29101761)
Adding 2 more, than most folks are NOT aware of, regarding HOSTS, & WFP/NDIS6. See subject-line, & this next - "Ask & ye shall receive" (per your quoted request)... read on (IF you can handle a long, technically detailed read, that is):
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your point of view (mine's based solely on efficiency & security), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post:
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe? It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one)
Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file for VISTA/Server 2008/Win
I'm still on XP-32 lol. I've pre-ordered windows 7, namely because of 64 bit support, DX 10, better gaming support and a better default install.
I have to upgrade sometime and by all accounts, this release will be decent.
Don't kid yourself. It's the size of the regexp AND how you use it that counts.
If you pay M$ for 7, what should M$ assume of your IQ & knowledge?
Even Linux apps are plagued with 'are you sure' crap because X Microsloth users demand it.
They get charged for service pack updates all the time.
"Windows XP (original release) wasn't really much more stable than Win98."
Win98 could not prevent an application with a bad pointer to crash it since there was no process isolation. Such a crash would be impossible on Windows XP.
...the only advantage Win 7 is offering over Win XP is 64-bit gaming. But for that, you have to pay big when it comes to security, stability, comfort (seriously, Aero may look good, but imo, it's a pain to use - though, this probably is a matter of personal taste...), and control over your files (XP cannot lock you out from editing files on your own computer or prevent you from copying audio stuff during playback - 7 can). XP 64 may have driver issues, but it works for companies and other areas in which a 64 bit Windows environment is required (or they could just use Linux). I certainly will stay with XP until either somebody figures out how to disable all the Win 7 idiocy and it becomes more or less secure or gaming on a 32 bit machine becomes impossible (in which case I might install 7 on a partition exclusively used for gaming and use Kubuntu for anything else). I really don't think upgrading is worth it.
A good education is a bit like a STD - it makes you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and gives you a desire to spread it.
Count me as one XP user thats not willing to touch Windows 7...
I switched from XP to Windows 7 Beta x64. All worked very well except for problems related to x64 third party drivers. Then MS forced me to abandon the Beta for the Release Candidate, so I went with Windows 7 RC x32. The device driver problems went away, but instead I have multiple problems of various sorts. The DVD drive cannot be used as a write device (worked in the Beta). Printers install but none show up in the "Devices and Printers" list. Clicking on a folder in Explorer always opens a new window, in spite of the settings to the contrary. My camera is recognized as a USB device, but the automatic downloading function no longer works. When I activate it manually, it tells me I need a scanner. WTF! It feels like I've gone back to Windows 95. I've reported these problems on the MS forums, and in spite of also seeing other people with the same problems, MS hasn't bothered to respond.
"I recently put Windows 7 on my Bootcamp partition and I've been pleasantly surprised. It runs pretty snappy on this older MacBook with 2GB of ram" - by ducomputergeek (595742)on Tuesday August 18, @01:26AM (#29101715) Homepage
Snappy? First of all - You can make ANY Windows NT-based OS 'snappier', simply by trimming off excessive services & tuning/tweaking. You probably know this, but yet you failed to mention/note it. It is, after all, largely what MS did over the VISTA setup this way (& yes, they did more that was GOOD, but some that was bad... read on):
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point
My first hands on experience with Vista was through Home Basic 32-bit. I had to format my hard drive which seemed so counter-intuitive, when Home Premium didn't have that restriction yet Basic offered an 'anytime upgrade' capability. After swapping out PC parts that weren't compatible or weren't signed I was never able to aactivate the product. I called MS activation, read the info from the inner ring, proved beyond a doubt that I had an authentic retail version but it never validated. In the end I put the disc back in the case and it sits under my desk unused, a $100 mistake.
"More important, 70 percent of respondents who have used Windows 7 say they like it, which is a sign that Windows 7 stands a chance of being what Vista never was: an upgrade good enough to convince most XP users to switch."
Wait wait... what? How does the summary come to this conclusion when it states just above it that "MANY HAVE NO PLANS TO LEAVE IT AND 80% WILL BE UNHAPPY WHEN MICROSOFT COMPLETELY DISCONTINUES IT."?
What the article should really be concluding is "70% of XP fans will reluctantly switch to Windows 7 when Microsoft finally gives them absolutely no other option."
This reminds me that I should try to buy a secondhand comp that still comes with XP sooner than later.
"...despite its age, XP works." - by tecker (793737) on Tuesday August 18, @12:08AM (#29101099) Homepage
Righter than you know, in regards to HOSTS files & WFP/NDIS... read on:
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can read english + use a text editor like notepad.exe? It is truly a good tool for extra layered security + an easily managed one)
Anyhow/anyways - by removing the ability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in a HOSTS file for VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 - MS has literally promoted bloat in this file, making it load slower from disk, into memory! T
"And this time, unlike Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows XP, and Windows Vista, Windows 7 really will be secure. Really!" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18, @12:06AM (#29101087)
ROOTKIT.COM, says quite otherwise (& I say even more, & didn't get an answer from MS in regards to what I will put out next) - I sense your sarcasm: It's NOT unjustified either, because if you keep reading, all the way down to my "p.s." below? You'll be even more sarcastic... read on:
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in the business"), & when coupled with say, IE restricted zones, FireFox addons like NoScript &/or AdBlock, or Opera filter.ini/urlfilter.ini, for layered security in this capacity for webbrowsers & SOME email programs - HOSTS also provide a single easily managed point to control this, & if you can
Why is Microsoft still stuck in this outdated model? I mean, really, Windows 7? Why not just incremental upgrades to XP?
Vista sucked! That's why a lot of people are still on XP 2.5 years after the release of Vista. Windows 7, really no more than a rewrite and cleanup of Vista, is still gonna suck because of all the new problems that it will incorporate. XP is now, clean, stable and relatively usable. Why do I want to give that up to run a new, bug-infested piece of crap that will take Microsoft several years to fix? Microsoft can no longer offer enough in a major upgrade to make me switch. In fact most of the "improvements" they list for Vista (and now Windows 7) are things things that I don't want!
Feh! I don't need it. *nix desktops are now good enough, I control the bloat in them loading only as much as I need AND I don't have to scrap everything and relearn the entire environment to fix little problems that nag at me.
Took me a lot of moving to go from Win2K to XP, quite a few years ago. I've loaded and am using the RC for Windows 7 64-bit @ home and have had no major issues (except for game compatibility - no big deal). I'll buy Win7 eventually - it works. My kids, however, are on Ubuntu (works GREAT) - to which I will go when I've finally decided to throw up my hands at big brother. :)
Fair is foul and foul is fair... and some are fairly foul.
The Intel PRO/100 network adapter in my laptop doesn't work with a default install of Windows 7. I have to disable/enable the adapter to make it work once it boots up. I'm assuming it's a bad driver that's shipped on the CD, and hopefully they'll have an updated one at some point. But having a bad driver for such a common network adapter is probably going to be a showstopper for a good number of people.
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Speak for yourself and stop fixing what's not broken.
To run W7 effectively most XP users will require a hardware upgrade: DX10 minimum video card, more ram, virtualization-enabled CPU. At that point a new system overall becomes a compelling alternative meaning, are they really switching to W7, or just using what comes preloaded on their new system?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"I haven't tried windows 7 yet. Before I even consider buying it (just to get away from Vista) can anyone tell me if Microsoft have continued the ongoing trend of assuming the users IQ and knowledge of computers is seriously diminishing with every new windows version?" - by JustNiz (692889) on Tuesday August 18, @01:30AM (#29101761)
Pretty much right, ESPECIALLY on the IQ part, because when I confronted MICROSOFT THEMSELVES (Mr. S. Sinofsky in their Engineering Windows blogs no less, & he is a "big cheese" on Windows 7 development) on the material (2 of 3 url's @ MS where I did so are below) I am going to put out (that ROOTKIT.COM seconds, mind you)? They "blew it off", even though it illustrates, CLEARLY, that they are promoting BLOAT, and also less secure systems! Read on, if this has "piqued your curiousity", because a lot of naysayers here & elsewhere (doubtless MS "shills", or their marketing boys) didn't like what I put out, but, @ every turn & every objection they raised, I countered it with visible, easily proven concrete tests any coder could perform as I did, to bear what I state, out! They were, in turn, left speechless... some even AGREEING with my points below!
(Many of my "naysayers" here & elsewhere, used pure "b.s.", or cop-outs, like geekboy (an MS man here on this site no less, MS employee or was in him) saying that "I was using the HOSTS file for something it was not intended for & MS has no obligation to make it work the way it used to" which is PURE B.S. - WRECKING USEFUL FUNCTIONALITY BY MAKING IT BLOATING & INEFFICIENT? THAT IS INEXCUSABLE! Then again though, there is what Ms is doing to OpenGL on Windows (icd from oem's of videocards only), to promote "DirectX 'Uber Alles'" no doubt, is yet another (won't cover THAT here though))
Read on (IF you don't mind long, & technically detailed posts, or if you don't have ADD/ADHD or DYSLEXIA, because it is, a LOT to read + "Drink in & Digest"... but, I wager, you'll find it VERY interesting)!
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep
So are you saying that UI's from the 1990s (your words, not mine) are broken, always were broken, and are essentially unusable now?
Or that you want the latest and greatest eye candy, ribbons, or whatever which is exactly what MS and Apple are selling you in every new treadmill iteration of their operation systems?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I have not seen that usage of that word before. I presume you mean it in the context of being capable of doing significant damage.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Except in China. There they prefer 8.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I am not a gamer. I dual boot w2k/debian on my home PC, and run XP on my laptop. I just see no good reason to "upgrade."
All my apps, and hardware, work just fine with either w2k or XP. I am already familiar with those OSes. So what is the point?
Sure, msft may eventually force me to abandon w2k and/or XP. But until that day comes, why bother?
Please spare me all the "why not just run windows 3.1" comments, and give a compelling reason to upgrade - if you can.
One thing that you (and the Mohave ads) ignore is the fact that Windows Vista in its RTM release was an absolutely horrible operating system.
It was nowhere near ready to be released, but with a 5 year delay already my guess is that Microsoft felt forced to release something, even if that meant it still had an ocean of issues still to be ironed out. The Mohave test is therefore not fair simply because what they experienced during the test had nothing to do with all the issues and poor performance of Vista RTM.
That said, yes, Windows 7 is nothing more than a service pack to Vista in the same way that Windows XP was a service pack to Windows 2000.
Then I guess they will sell much more copies of their next version! Could it be their plan ?
I bought Vista for the PC I built in April. I guess I just missed out on the 'free Windows 7 upgrade' window. I don't care because as far as I can tell, Windows 7 is identical to Vista with the exception that they crippled UAC, thus making it less secure!
Thanks for the "+1 INFORMATIVE" mod up, to whoever did so... I hope you find it useful, and of course, informative.
(The unfortunate part, is 2 fold here - I was actually hoping somebody could/would prove me wrong, as I do NOT want to see MS do badly, & that it appears they are not doing things as well as is possible on all fronts for Windows 7)
I expect this post to be "modded down" by naysayers, as it largely has been a few times (but, it also has seen its share of "mod ups" as well), but what I hope to achieve by this is to get Microsoft to be aware of it, acknowledge it, & correct it...
I state this, because, speaking for myself @ least (via the points I note in HOSTS files & WFP/NDIS6)?
They're SEVERE "sticking points", that will hold ME back @ least, from purchasing Windows 7 in fact.
(I am sure I am NOT alone in this either)
E.G.-> Others, such as Mitch Tulloch of WindowsNetworking.com are aware of this also, as I conferred w/ he on it, after I discovered this going on... That, as well as my confronting MS as directly as possible also on the points noted in my last post above... so far? Same old, same old - MS is doing what THEY want, not what we users find & tell them is done wrong. To their marketing people: You're wondering WHY nobody bought VISTA?? THIS IS WHY!
You marketers @ MS - You ought to pay attention to your buying public, not your bosses, who obviously do NOT know what the hell they are doing either... Microsoft needs "King Billy" again, & guys like Jim Alchin, but they're gone... now instead? You have the "marketing types" running the place... &, clearly? They're NOT doing a GOOD JOB of it... far from it!
I.E.-> You're a TECHNICAL oriented company... not a clothes manufacturer! You want to sell this OS? You cater to what us "geeks" find wrong with it, the rest of the crowd WILL follow - as they tend to read what guys like US have to say... not your marketing minds!
APK
P.S.=> Again, also - Thanks for your time... apk
Three comments about your rant: 1) Way too long (didn't read it all). 2) You over used bold!. I'm sure you think the bold bits are important, but relax man. You have an over inflated sense of ego, and that in itself makes this hard to read. 3) *nix isn't for everyone. My gf tried Ubuntu, she didn't "get it", and she isn't going to waste her life trying to learn it to browse the web and type documents. She tried Win7 beta and loved it. She is currently using Vista and doesn't like it, but can't say why. So when it officially releases, she will be back on Win7. It may be bloatware, unsecure, and created by Lucifer himself, but your taking a very zealot like position. It's just an OS man. I myself like OpenBSD, but I'm not going to force anyone else to use it.
"Three comments about your rant: 1) Way too long (didn't read it all). 2) You over used bold!. I'm sure you think the bold bits are important, but relax man. You have an over inflated sense of ego, and that in itself makes this hard to read" - by ChefInnocent (667809) on Tuesday August 18, @02:25PM (#29109099)
Ok, a naysayers: So, tell us - are you a A.) Botmaster OR B.) Webmaster? Either one loses revenues by adbanners (or, known bogus sites) being blocked... thus, it would make sense to see that type of people "bitch" here about my post.
And, per my subject-line?? If you cannot read something, then don't... it's not my fault you have difficulties reading & have a short attention span, as well as obviously lacking the technical acumen required to reply on the technical matters noted in my initial posting. "Hooked on phonics" may be "4U".
Now, on the "overinflated sense of ego" - I must ask a question, since you see fit to dispense such advisement, & I'd wager w/out you being in possession of the skills or degrees that make you an authority to do so here or elsewhere online:
1.) Do you possess a PHD in English?
If not, then, well... that's ONLY YOUR OPINION!
I say this, because, after all - This same post has been modded up here many times on these forums, & only modded down by those "adversely affected" by it (see above, along with DNS Server admins, but then, Dan Kaminsky shows those folks "where it is at" lately, hasn't he?)...
Also, as you can see from my original post above?
Every "point" my 'naysayers' like yourself brought up, I easily countered, leaving them, speechless... examples of that are in my post, & I'll entertain ANY 'naysayers' on any points I noted above, anytime... it's "TOO EASY" to "blow them away", & it ought to be - the truth is, the truth.
To quote the old adage:
"The BIGGEST fear of those in power? Losing their power..." (or monies)
----
2.) Is this the "English Grammar & Spelling Section" of /. forums (is there even such a thing)?
No, it is not... so, your "spelling & grammar nazi" b.s. is clearly OFF-TOPIC, period... & besides - this is not my "last will & testament" here, nor other form of legal correspondence (not even a paper for a grade in academia, for Pete's sake), plus, others rated this post well elsewhere here many times, & clearly understand it's wording/grammar/phrasing + writing style.
Thus - That 'dyslexia/limited IQ/limited attention span/ADD-ADHD' (whatever), of yours? Again - that's YOUR PROBLEM - not mine.
(Others' opinions of my points, clearly differ from YOURS... period.)
APK
P.S.=> As far as *NIX? I use it, have to on the job & sometimes I try out new builds of Linux (it's 'coming along nicely', finally, especially since I first tried it in SLACKWARE 1.02 iirc, circa 1994) & I like MacOS X even... very "pretty" & easy to use...
Pretty much everyone/anyone that's run into me here, or elsewhere online, KNOWS that I am a "Windows Fanboy" & yes admittedly on MY part...
However, I am NOT so much of one I won't try to "signal MS" that "HOUSTON: WE HAVE A PROBLEM!"... &, on the issues I noted in my post you replied to?? They clearly do... apk
I'm currently running XP SP3 and Windows 7 on a dual boot. I would switch, but my FPS in Left 4 Dead fall off too much with W7. My current system started life in late 2003 and has been upgraded as I've needed. I'm still stuck with AGP graphics and an old P4 3.0 GHz with HT. Right now I'm running a BFGTech Nvidia 6800 OC with all 16 pixel channels unlocked. I bought a 7950 GT off eBay earlier this year. It lasted about 3 months. Sometime the first of the year I'm going to build a new system. I will put Windows 7 on it, as it will be build for it.
It's a perfect time for being wasted.
A perfect time to watch the stars.
- Burden Brothers, "Beautiful Night"
Sysinternals and SyncToy run on XP. I can't do without them. they don't run on 7. I will be using XP for some time.
It has been my experience that all Windows OS'es suffer from a lack of driver support in their infancy. Windows XP blew until SP1, Win 2000 was terrible until SP2, and so on. I was so annoyed with XP when it first came out, I formated the drive and loaded Mandrake Linux. When SP2 came out on XP, I decided to try again, and I was able to use my PC without crashing to BLUE everytime I installed a USB device. I really liked the Win 7 RC, until I put it on a newer PC. (First MOBO was an ASUS socket A with ATI x700) This machine worked great with all my devices. However, I upgraded my MOBO to a (AM2+ Asus board and geforce 9600) and every 5 minutes my wireless USB adapter would cause the device manager to freeze and I could only get it to work again by doing a hard reset. (win 7 would not shutdown on it's own.) I tried a fresh install... same problem. I replaced my wireless USB for another... same problem. I decided to install Vista SP2 and everything works without Flaw. I figure about the time WIN 8 is on the horizon, I'll be able to use Win 7 (SP2), until then... I am content using Vista. -Which, by the by, works fine when you disable UAC control. Games work better than XP, system is reliable, and I don't have to worry about my OS any longer. Rectum? Damn near Killed 'em.
In Soviet Russia, road forks you!
Holy insane ramblings, Batman!
"Holy insane ramblings, Batman!" - by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 18, @04:06PM (#29110591)
See subject-line, & try to stay "on topic", won't you, please?
APK
P.S.=> IF the subject-material I was discussing is "too much" for you, or you have some mental disturbance such as ADD/ADHD that affect the length of your attention span, or other types of mental problems like dyslexia? That's YOUR PROBLEM, not mine... & just don't read it, is all! apk
Why not just replace Wine with Virtual PC, move everybody onto a stable Ubuntu platform, and let them eat Quake?
``Tension, apprehension & dissension have begun!'' - Duffy Wyg&, in Alfred Bester's _The Demolished Man_
Many WIndows users who were late getting into computing have only ever used XP. Others will have used 95 and 98 and XP's interface is basically just a themed version of 98 or a tweaked version of Windows 2000.
Rather than refine the desktop Microsoft threw much of it away and started again. This is the problem, novice users who don't want to be out of their comfort zone.
"they built a reasonably secure operating system from the ground up and decided to actually enforce the programming paradigms. The problem isn't with Vista, it's with the antiquated applications that still need tons of shims to work" - by onionman (975962) on Tuesday August 18, @12:06AM (#29101085)
They did SOME things, VERY right ("under-the-covers") but, they also "screwed up" a couple things... what, you ask? Well, HOSTS files, & WFP + NDIS6 (in terms of efficiency & possibly security, respectively, & SEE MY P.S. please, because I am NOT the only person stating it, ROOTKIT.COM does also)...
Ok, here goes: Read on (IF you don't mind long, & technically detailed posts, or if you don't have ADD/ADHD or DYSLEXIA, because it is, a LOT to read + "Drink in & Digest"... but, I wager, you'll find it VERY interesting)!
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ SecurityFocus.com sees using HOSTS as a good thing for added layered security AND MORE SPEED ONLINE -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491
AND?? So do folks like "SpyBot Search & Destroy" also (since their app populates not only the HOSTS file, but, also files like Opera's Filter.ini, FireFox's block lists, & IE Restricted Zones also, for LAYERED SECURITY (this is the trend & recommended practice by security folks by the by, myself included))
Hey - Even this slashdotter, sootman, uses one & made many interesting points that support his usage of a HOSTS file, from mvps.org, here -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1300193&cid=28677363
(& HOSTS files extend across EVERY webbrowser, email program, or in general every webbound program you use & thus HOSTS are "global" in coverage this way AND function on any OS that uses the BSD derived IP stack (which most all do mind you, even MS is based off of it, as BSD's IS truly, "the best in
That's the only way Microsoft could drag him to Tomorrowland, by sticking him into a hot-air baloon and forcing him into a world of dry and cracked Insomnia in a 5x5 basket of constant woo-ing elevation; It's always 12 o'clock under the sun. Meanwhile, RMS and ESR have the exact same for a poor werewolf they forced into their solar-powered submarine; to never see his former life in the day, under perpetual darkness of moonlight in a nightmare to howl "This is the Year of the Linux Desktop" every longitudinal impulse they balast from the depths to surface.
... do not go together unless you are Carrie-Anne Moss.
You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
Weaponised level, as in to "refine plutonium to a weaponised level".
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
To the Microsoft fan boy who modded it off topic:
Thanks for proving my point about how shitty moderation is destroying /. (as if more proof were needed).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I like how he didn't mention spelling or grammar anywhere but you decided to rant about it anyway. Incidentally, English doctorates have nothing whatsoever to do with correct spelling and grammar, so your bringing it up as I have seen you do on a number of occasions is about as specious an argument as you can make.
That particular post that you constantly repost variations of has poor aesthetics. You can't legitimately deny this. It also says means nothing whatsoever with regards to the content of the post, but that sort of thing turns people off regardless. You may want to look into improving the look of your post.
...I find Windows 7 pleasant to use. I run it via VirtualBox at work in order to doing Windows-platform testing (Because in web-dev IE running through Wine is not always the same as IE running on Windows) and the performance level is actually great, as compared to XP running in VirtualBox which performs only moderately well. Maybe this "performance" is just a responsive GUI and nothing else, but I'm not complaining :-)
but this could be the last opportunity that i give to ms inc.
I doubt any survey that Microsoft puts out, especially dealing with the fact and ALL of my corporate client base have ALL said "No classic startmenu & No Classic Desktop then NO WINDOWS 7" I hae also Beta test Windows 7 and I am NOT IMPRESSED. If you must switch from Windows XP then goto uBuntu or Red Hat and save your money!
This isn't the English Class section of Slashdot... realize this - you're off-topic.
"You can't legitimately deny this. It also says means nothing whatsoever" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19, @01:08AM (#29115229)
See subject-line above: That quote of your own words describes these blatantly off-topic replies of yours to a tee. You can't legitimately state that your so-called "critique" based on writing style, grammar, &/or spelling!
(As that is USUALLY, the "final resort" (only resort, lol), of the "technically challenged", in this art & science)
Your "critiques"? Sorry, but, they have nothing to do with the topic @ hand, period...
----
"Incidentally, English doctorates have nothing whatsoever to do with correct spelling and grammar, so your bringing it up as I have seen you do on a number of occasions is about as specious an argument as you can make." - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19, @01:08AM (#29115229)
INCIDENTALLY, Critiques of writing have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF THE ARTICLE WE ARE DISCUSSING, NOR OTHERS' REPLIES HERE WHICH ARE, ON-TOPIC... let alone the fact this is NOT the "English Writing Section" of /. ... period.
APK
P.S.=> IF you guys have critique, please, attack the post I did and its points based on their technical merits... not "english class" b.s., because in case you have not noticed? The article is not about English, nor is my post reply in regards to it... apk
Maybe the 70% XP users like me are forgetting that XP is still the most trustworthy of all Win OS's.
pochp
See subject above and answer the question it asks.
You can't legitimately deny this - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 19, @01:08AM (#29115229)
You can't deny the article is not about English writing in any capacity, nor the fact this is not the 'english writing style' section of slashdot (because no such section of these forums even exists). Modding down posts based on off topic critique of what you feel is 'good writing style' has nothing to do with the topic of the article, nor others' replies whom you replied to, whatsoever. That is what cannot be legitimately denied here. Especially considering you are not an educated authority on the subject of English grammar, spelling, or writing style on your part, in any capacity on your part, whatsoever.
Three comments about your rant: 1) This is not the english grammar, spelling, or writing style section of /. (there is also no such section), thus, you are clearly off topic 2) You lack a PHD in English. I'm sure you think the irrelevant off topic writing style critique are important, but they're off topic, so relax man. You have an over inflated sense of ego thinking you are an English writing critic (considering you obviously lack a PHD in English, and while we're at it, do you have a PHD in Psychology as well, what with your ego estimation comment?), and that in itself makes you nobody worth listening to, because you are not an expert in either English or Psych (nor have you performed a formal evaluation of anyone to make said estimation, nor do you possess a license to practice psychiatry). 3) Reading technical detail obviously isn't for everyone. Especially the illiterate, or the brain damaged (ala add/adhd or dyslexia).
See subject above, in regards to the down moderation.
Truth is truth. The post is correct per the subject at hand: Computing. I am surprised no 'english writing style critics' have appeared (with their usual lack of a PHD in English to their name, as is usually the case here @ /.) Barring that much, that 'type' is always minus a PHD in Psychiatry as well, considering how often those same types often 'see fit' to psychoanalyze others here, minus a license to practice psychiatry as well (Always doing so, minus a formal psychiatric evaluation also). I just laugh at these 'unqualified critics' whose egos are so overblown they have to use the 'last resort of the computing technically challenged' to attempt to do so, which is either calling others crazy, or picking at writing style which is in and of itself, off topic considering this is not an article or other post about english writing style. All they have is downward modding posts with no justification based on the actual computing-oriented technical merits (of the post being down modded) as regards computing, which is the topic at hand here. These wanna be english profs or sidewalk psychiatrists are hilarious comedy, but the joke's ultimately on them, since they are nobody worth listening to.
"What's stopping you from trying the beta ?" - by PIBM (588930) on Monday August 17, @11:56PM (#29101007) Homepage
This set of blatant errors in VISTA, Server 2008, & yes... Windows 7 (read on, if you don't mind long technically detailed posts, or don't have ADD/ADHD, or dyslexia etc. et al) & IF my findings here are "not good enough"? Then, I suggest you take a peek @ my "p.s." below, & what ROOTKIT.COM found as well:
In fact, on that last note? Well, when I confronted MICROSOFT THEMSELVES (Mr. S. Sinofsky in their Engineering Windows blogs no less, & he is a "big cheese" on Windows 7 development) on the material (2 of 3 url's @ MS where I did so are below) I am going to put out (that ROOTKIT.COM seconds, mind you)? They "blew it off"!
Yes, even though this post & ones I have done like it here + elsewhere online, clearly illustrates, CLEARLY, that they are promoting BLOAT, and also less secure systems! Read on, if this has "piqued your curiousity", because a lot of naysayers here & elsewhere (doubtless MS "shills", or their marketing boys) didn't like what I put out, but, @ every turn & every objection they raised, I countered it with visible, easily proven concrete tests any coder could perform as I did, to bear what I state, out! They were, in turn, left speechless... some even AGREEING with my points below!
(Many of my "naysayers" here & elsewhere, used pure "b.s.", or cop-outs, like geekboy (an MS man here on this site no less, MS employee or was in him) saying that "I was using the HOSTS file for something it was not intended for & MS has no obligation to make it work the way it used to" which is PURE B.S. - WRECKING USEFUL FUNCTIONALITY BY MAKING IT BLOATED & INEFFICIENT? THAT IS INEXCUSABLE! Then again though, there is what Ms is doing to OpenGL on Windows (icd from oem's of videocards only), to promote "DirectX 'Uber Alles'" no doubt, is yet another (won't cover THAT here though))
Windows 7, VISTA, & Server 2008 have a couple of "issues" I don't like in them, & you may not either, depending on your POV (mine's based solely on efficiency & security - which ought to concern ENTERPRISE class users/admins, greatly), & if my take on these issues aren't "good enough"? I suggest reading what ROOTKIT.COM says, link URL is in my "p.s." @ the bottom of this post, because it says it better than I do really!
1.) HOSTS files being unable to use "0" for a blocking IP address - this started in 12/09/2008 after an "MS Patch Tuesday" in fact for VISTA (when it had NO problem using it before that, as Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 still can)... & yes, this continues in its descendants, Windows Server 2008 &/or Windows 7 as well.
So, why is this a "problem" you might ask?
Ok - since you can technically use either:
a.) 127.0.0.1 (the "loopback adapter address")
b.) 0.0.0.0 (next smallest & next most efficient)
c.) The smallest & fastest plain-jane 0
PER EACH HOSTS FILE ENTRY/RECORD...
You can use ANY of those, in order to block out known bad sites &/or adbanners in a HOSTS file this way??
Microsoft has "promoted bloat" in doing so... no questions asked.
Simply because
1.) 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in size on disk & is the largest/slowest
2.) 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes & is the next largest/slowest in size on disk
3.) 0 = 1 byte
Using a 0 also eliminates the need to perform the "decimal-to-hexadecimal" conversion process that 127.0.0.1, or even 0.0.0.0 go thru, since 0 decimal = 0 hex... plus, since the filesystem, memory mgt, & caching kernel mode subsystems of the OS itself use 4 kb sweeps/reads/passes to load up, using a SMALLER string via 0 usage (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1) will tend to "pack" more records into each pass of the read being done, on disk & in memory, per pass/sweep/read as well.
Even "security guru" Oliver Day @ Secu
"1) Way too long (didn't read it all)" - by ChefInnocent (667809) on Tuesday August 18, @02:25PM (#29109099)
See subject above, & try reading sometime... it's "fundamental".
APK
I bought a used PC with a Windows XP COA sticker on the side of it. It didn't come with the OEM XP CD, and I failed to convince Retail XP to accept the COA number. Not unexpected, of course, but I thought I could finagle a way.
I couldn't. I didn't. I installed Debian Lenny, installed Quicken using Wine (which was the point of the new machine), and chipped away at Microsoft just a little more. Now that I have Quicken again, I can use it to convert my QDF files to QIF files and try out GnuCash again. Maybe it's not as strange as it used to be...
I don't know if you're APK speaking in a remarkably restrained manner for him, or a misguided fan. But your question is disingenuous.
Is this the English Writing Class here at /.?
No. Guess what? I never claimed it was! I was supporting APK and giving him some friendly advice with regards to his implicit lies, among other things. Apparently reading comprehension here is at an all time low.
You can't deny the article is not about English writing in any capacity, nor the fact this is not the 'english writing style' section of slashdot (because no such section of these forums even exists).
I was not responding to the article so this complaint would be irrelevant, except that it was already irrelevant because my post wasn't about English writing in any capacity.
Modding down posts based on off topic critique of what you feel is 'good writing style' has nothing to do with the topic of the article, nor others' replies whom you replied to, whatsoever.
Of course modding down posts for writing style is egregiously stupid. I was agreeing with him on this. Either way however I have never had any mod points, so your complaint is misdirected.
Bottom-Line is that this is not "english class" here at slashdot.
"I was supporting APK and giving him some friendly advice with regards to his implicit lies, among other things"- by by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23, @09:07PM (#29167953)
What "lies" are those?
APK
P.S.=> This I just HAVE to hear... apk
Subject line is the "bottom line" here. The "grammar & spelling" nazi "critique" attempts are clearly off topic, and it's good that that much has been established... FINALLY!
APK
P.S.=> What amazes me the most, lol, are the b.s. attempts @ evasions the "grammar & spelling nazis" here use, just to try to get that "last word" (see above & post I just replied to), but guess what?
I was watching this thread, & waiting for that!
(Yes - Days to weeks later no less, because I have seen this type of "slashdot dolt" before, & their "wannabe PHD in English critique" crap and all... Amazing as it seems, you see the proof above: That they will try for that 'last word', even days to weeks later... hilarious!)
Well, guess what - I'm NOT going to give that much to you either... I'm going to get THAT as well! I am patient, & I just keep the session going with the post in question in a tab & watch it, alongside others I find interesting... when it changes, I know that the "grammar trolls" are @ it again, lol... "trying for that last word" or, to "save face"... amazing, & again - hilarious!
(Plus, Hey - @ least I can stay "on topic", & I have the means technically in this art & science to do so, easily... instead of resorting to "the last resort of the 'technically challenged'", via "grammar & spelling nazi tactics"... the resort of the clearly, lame)
I don't give others a hard time over how they write (because I have enough intelligence to gather the meaning of what they say via the context of the rest of the words & statements they use), and because I realize this isn't "english class", nor is it a document for any kind of legal correspondence etc. et al...
SO, that "all said & aside"? Well, to the "grammar & spelling nazis" around here: Hey - Give it a rest, ok?? You're not very effective, trolls... apk
See subject-line above, & please - enough already.
"as critiquing your spelling/grammar/and so forth when it doesn't do anything of the sort" - by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24, @03:25AM (#29170193)
B.S. - what about the comments about BOLDING etc. et al? Please... give us a break - AND, then there was the comment about "overinflated ego" directed my way as well (got your PHD in psychology or psychiatry as well)? Some folks might call that one libellous... but then? 'IANAL', either... admittedly.
"The point is that this sort of behaviour may harm your creditability in some peoples' eyes. - by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24, @03:25AM (#29170193)
You lack that PHD, & yet see fit to "critique" others' writing style, with your BOLD comments, and then to 'goad me' w/ the ego comments you used, etc., AND, you have the nerve to say that as well, now quoted above... ?
Ever think your lack of a PHD in English (or psychology, due to your "overinflated ego" comment, obviously stated to try to be 'clever' on your part & to goad me... that is the OTHER "typical track" taken by those who pull the "I don't like your writing style" or "you are crazy" off-topic attempts @ attacks here & elsewhere on forums online) harms YOUR "credibility"?
Consider those points... before you call others, liars.
APK
P.S.=> Pitifully transparent attempts to try to "goad me", & such? Please, & then, you try to "play the innocent"?? Who do you think you are fooling here??? apk