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 so miss the /. of old.
"The real test of Windows 7 won't be users, it would be enterprise customers... The decision to switch would in that case be taken by Sysadmins and the like." - by quarterbuck (1268694) on Monday August 17, @11:54PM (#29100981)
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:
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! Thi
"Microsoft just needs to shed the bad reputation of the Vista name to get the dumb users back." - by Brian Gordon (987471) on Tuesday August 18, @12:13AM (#29101147)
Microsoft NEEDS to listen to their users, in order to do THAT very thing: NOT try to sell them something they do NOT want (OpenGL icd only from vidcard vendors, anyone? How about UAC nags?? More that is worse is coming in THIS VERY POST, regarding security (see ROOTKIT.COM quote @ the bottom especially) & inefficiency/bloat)...
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", 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 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))
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
"Windows 7 is simple, plain, and in the West, comforting. It's lucky number seven. It sounds like it's a serious operating system that is focused on doing its job, and not blinding me with flashy trends. It sounds like an operating system I can trust." - by Keen Anthony (762006) on Tuesday August 18, @12:22AM (#29101231)
Per my subject-line? Think again... I am NOT out to "criticize MS" just because I am a *NIX person - I am out to help them improve it, so folks like you have their faith justified: I'd love to see it be "the best windows ever" in fact, but... MS NEEDS to listen to their users, in order to do THAT very thing: NOT try to sell them something they do NOT want (OpenGL icd only from vidcard vendors, anyone? How about UAC nags?? More that is worse is coming in THIS VERY POST, regarding security (see ROOTKIT.COM quote @ the bottom especially) & inefficiency/bloat)...
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", 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 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))
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