Slashdot Mirror
What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1
snydeq writes "The first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program are beginning to emerge, with hidden registry keys and a leaked list of post-RTM build numbers surfacing on the Web. 'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches, we'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard. Likewise, enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in, allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever,' writes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy. 'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'"
Didn't you read the summary? They specifically mention bluetooth enhancements.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1. Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain *cough* Gartner Group *cough* suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Oh yes, nothing spells stable like a nearly instant service pack!
When I was a kid, we'd take a trip every summer down the Mississippi to visit my auntie in her antebellum house. She'd always play a trick on me that even today I play on my kids and their friends.
Pull my finger.
It seems like yesterday that I was installing Windows 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) on all the computers in my house. Nowadays, these newfangled operating systems update themselves with their service packs and hotfixes and whatnot.
I'll tell you, just like pulling my finger, pulling the trigger on Windows 7 is something that everyone wants to do. Unfortunately for them, the outcome is the same.
It stinks.
Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows. Granted, I like how it differentiates between "new" network connections as far as work, public, home for the purposes of firewall config, but it's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise. All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.
...Steve
Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.
An initial release of an OS was Microsoft's "signal" that it was ready. People eventually realized that MS's "signal" couldn't be trusted, and they adapted by developing their own "wait for SP1" wisdom. This has not been lost on Microsoft.
If MS's marketing dept. sees that it takes "SP1" to get people to buy their OS, they'll call something "SP1" whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products. So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.
Marketers are often sleezebags. Their goal is to drive sales, regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so.
No doubt, I _STILL_ don't know exactly what a 'homegroup' is and why I can be part of a domain (or workgroup) at the same time as a homegroup. I don't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it's doing since I have the sharing service off, either. That being said, the new firewall is money compared to the old one. I just wish they wouldn't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows. Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for!
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
let me see... ...an update?
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
I know that my experiences of Windows 7 shouldn't be considered as true for all, but in general day to day usage, I've had no problems at all.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of two bugs in Windows Backup. One where it reports that your backup drive is full and that you need to clear space and then presents you with an option to adjust the backup or let windows manage it automatically for you. The problem is that Windows is already managing it automatically for me and therefore it shouldn't be telling me this.
The other issue is that one of the buttons hidden somewhere within backup pops up a windows with a message along the lines of "Not implemented.". Looks like they ran out of time coding that bit!
I have no doubt that there are lots more.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
MS did it to add value to the MSCE. If they made it too easy, there wouldn't be any need for it, would there?
Yes, explosions.
I know everybody's probably already binned Vista, but I'd be happy if Microsoft fixed the bug where my search indexing daemon crashes in Vista before they started on the Windows 7 bugs. I just got this computer from work, so it'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.
Comment of the year
"I'm a PC and a really quick service pack was my idea." ----- "Hello, I'm a Mac" "And I'm a PC" "Hey PC, what's with the all bandages there? Are you okay? It looks like you're pretty banged up." "Well actually I'm just patching myself up because that's what PCs do." "Boy, that's probably going to hurt peeling all those bandages off later." "Yeah...later...right..."
I wish the would bring back the 3-license family pack. I have 2 xp machines and 1 vista machine and if I could upgrade the three for $150, I would. Right now, 3 upgrade licenses would be over $300. So, I'm not upgrading.
There are still very large workplaces that have Windows 2000 as the OS for the majority of their machines, my very large workplace included. I personally still use XP at home. I've played with 7, looked over its specs, and what I'm still left wondering is - why would I bother with it?
mmmm...forbidden donut
...to restart the dead corporate PC market. M$, Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away."
The bad news is that the problem is deeper than any, or all, of the following:
XP suffices for most corporate needs (and it works on their 4-year-old hardware).
Vista forced companies to stick with, and develop & purchase line-of-business apps for, XP (and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding, require local admin rights for everyone, and avoid UAC).
Vista SP1 (and SP2) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed, or even improved, by service packs (honestly, build a clean Vista SP2 machine: it will still suck).
Corporations can't afford to replace 70% of their desktops, and half of their core LOB apps, just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP. (Really, it is: I find XP boring now).
As for security, most corporate Desktop Architecture departments still think their XP boxes are secure, even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft.
There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7.
Problems with explorer.exe. No, not internet explorer. Their file manager has issues with selecting files where you could end up selecting files you didn't intend and having them be deleted as part of what you do. For instance, if you use the shift plus mouse click to select a range of files then choose to delete you might delete files you didn't want because the shift+click selected more or at least some that you didn't choose. The next normal step is to delete them, often without reviewing the names (since explorer.exe doesn't allow you to review the names--unlike dolphin in KDE which provides you a list of files it is going to delete before it deletes them).
So, be careful or you could wipe out a lot of important data inadvertently.
There are also problems with networking. After having Win7 on for a long time and having numerous computers access the files on the device over the network the computers network can begin to slow incredibly. For instance playing media files, one after another, after a long time the network connection can slow so bad that the media files begin to skip or break up thus causing artifacts on the screen. It only happens here under Win7, not Vista and not any Linux distro.
You can lead a man with reason but you can't make him think.
Nah, Windows 7 is more like a point release. 6.1 if you will to Vista's 6.0. They had to give it a new name because "Vista" became marketing poison. But that's why 7 has done pretty well out of the gate stability wise, it's not really a new OS at all. It's a refined version of the last one.
It's not LIKE a point release, it IS a point release. It literally is Windows 6.1 to Vista's 6.0, whether I will it or not.
I'm waiting until Windows 8.
There's no need to wait for SP1, if you're a small, agile...
Agile? Buzzword. Invalidates entire post...
My wife's Dell laptop (running Vista) works fine on our wpa2-secured wireless connection.
I just recently set up the wireless at work to use WPA2 Enterprise with an Airport base station and Mac OS X Server 10.5. With Mac laptops you just enter your username and password and click "continue" when it complains about a self-singed cert. And done. I've also connected with XP and 7, and they both have different multi-step with multi-sub-step procedures for connecting the first time. I suspect that if we were a MS shop, it would Just Work (as the steps are mostly undoing stuff relating to it trying to authenticate with your Windows domain credentials), but since we're primarily Apple, it's a huge PITA.
...A brand new screensaver. Ballmer throwing chairs at you :)
I'd install a few apps and after that the firewall would just disable internet access. Sure, some of the time it'd say "app Y is trying to access the net, you cool with that?" but sometimes it wouldn't. (And then it wouldn't mention which one it was complaining about.) Oh, the first time this happened it was actually worse. The firewall decided to block an app while I was at the log-in screen. As in no keyboard access at all. I had to log into Win7 in safe mode, disable the newly installed app just to log in. I'm guessing a 3rd party firewall would be an improvement. (Since it couldn't be worse.) Oh, I've had no problems with the Vista firewall which is odd. (Since I figure the one in 7 is just an upgraded version.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I'm interested to see Windows 7's USB performance with an upgrade to USB v3. While I am still on XP myself, I am definitely underwhelmed by Windows' ability to transfer large amounts of data via USB. I just had to back up a bunch of stuff (25G) this past Friday and, since I was already logged into Windows and was feeling lazy, I decided to just do that from Windows. It took 5 hours to transfer the files and this was a USB2 drive plugged into a USB2 port. When I later copied the same data back, I did it while logged into Linux (Fedora 11, specifically) and it only took 20 minutes. I've had the same experience transferring files to a USB1 drive plugged into a USB2 port: 15G transferred to that drive in 17 minutes in Linux, but Windows was telling me it was going to take something on the order of 23 hours! I concede that I have not attempted this experiment with Windows 7 at all, yet (No one I know has it).
With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:
Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
HP Color Laserjet 3600N networked colour laser printer - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
NOTES: Fair's fair: the netbook's WiFi Linux driver (both O/S's) will not connect to WEP WiFi APs (WPA works fine).
All Win7 Home versions have had the ability to connect to domains REMOVED. All previous versions of Windows allowed this.
Windows7 Home (all versions) is a DOWNGRADE from Vista/XP in terms of this connectivity.
Microsoft should do the right thing and return this 'feature' to the home edition(s) - you can't connect Win7 to an NAS server for basic backups - for example.
The default NTFS filesystem that Win7 creates is NOT backward compatible with XP/Vista.
Boot times to having network and desktop on the desktop machine: Win7 - 64 seconds, Ubuntu - 32 seconds
I won't editorialize - draw your own conclusions.
*** Don't be dull.***
"There are also problems with networking." - by HermMunster (972336) on Wednesday January 13, @01:09PM (#30753488)
Per my subject-line above? Here is another problem in the TCP/IP stack itself:
Microsoft needs to fix VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7's inability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows!
(I state this, because using 0 produces a far smaller file on disk (thus, a faster loading HOSTS file), and allows for faster internal parsing of each line record in a HOSTS file.
----
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES & PROOFS:
E.G. #1, using 127.0.0.1 (9 byte per line length) on a HOSTS file with 655,352 line records entries = 23mb sized HOSTS file (with longer per line items, which makes those slower to parse also, because 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in length, vs 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes in length, & 0 = 1 byte in length)
E.G. #1, using 0.0.0.0 (7 byte per line length) on a HOSTS file with 655,352 line records entries = 18mb sized HOSTS file (with longer per line items, which makes those slower to parse also, because 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in length, vs 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes in length, & 0 = 1 byte in length)
E.G. #1, using 0 (1 byte per line length) on a HOSTS file with 655,352 line records entries = 14mb sized HOSTS file (with longer per line items, which makes those slower to parse also, because 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in length, vs 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes in length, & 0 = 1 byte in length)
----
Now, mind you - Windows 2000 (SP4 onwards), Windows XP, & Windows Server 2003 can still use 0 (vs. the larger, & slower + more inefficient 0.0.0.0, & worst of all, the "loopback adapter addresss" of 127.0.0.1 which is not only larger, but, also incurs the "hit" of a loopback operation also) but, Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 cannot.
(Weird part is, VISTA was formerly able to use 0, but after Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" on 12/08/2008, it was suddenly unable to).
Now, funniest part of ALL here, is that Windows 2000 wasn't either, prior to Service packs for it (iirc, #4, but it may have been one before that).
See, Microsoft altered their BSD reference design based TCP/IP stack for HOSTS to allow the use of the smaller & faster 0 based blocking address in HOSTS files, as far back as Windows 2000 (thus, indicative of the fact that SOMEONE on MS' IP Stack team realized & saw the value in a smaller blocking address (doubtless for all the reasons I noted now above))...
Put it back in MS!
APK
P.S.=> I am in contact now with a senior mgt. person @ MS named Richard R. (who posts here on /., as Foredecker) after a discussion we had here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918 ...
He is now currently looking into this matter on MS' end, & hopefully, his peers/colleagues in mgt. @ MS realize they have made a mistake & fix this issue in HOSTS files being unable to use 0 as a valid blocking address in HOSTS files on VISTA/Windows Server 2008 & yes, Windows 7 also... apk
"Somehow I suspect you haven't actually used it. Either that or you're just a huge anti-MS bigot. Windows 7, SP0, is actually pretty darned good" - by bschorr (1316501) on Wednesday January 13, @12:22PM (#30752802) Homepage
It is, & I am an actual licensed user of it myself (Windows 7 64-bit), but... Per my subject-line above? Here is a problem in the TCP/IP stack itself:
Microsoft needs to fix VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7's inability to use 0 as a valid blocking IP address in HOSTS files in those versions of Windows!
(I state this, because using 0 produces a far smaller file on disk (thus, a faster loading HOSTS file), and allows for faster internal parsing of each line record in a HOSTS file.
----
PRACTICAL EXAMPLES & PROOFS:
E.G. #1, using 127.0.0.1 (9 byte per line length) on a HOSTS file with 655,352 line records entries = 23mb sized HOSTS file (with longer per line items, which makes those slower to parse also, because 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in length, vs 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes in length, & 0 = 1 byte in length)
E.G. #1, using 0.0.0.0 (7 byte per line length) on a HOSTS file with 655,352 line records entries = 18mb sized HOSTS file (with longer per line items, which makes those slower to parse also, because 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in length, vs 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes in length, & 0 = 1 byte in length)
E.G. #1, using 0 (1 byte per line length) on a HOSTS file with 655,352 line records entries = 14mb sized HOSTS file (with longer per line items, which makes those slower to parse also, because 127.0.0.1 = 9 bytes in length, vs 0.0.0.0 = 7 bytes in length, & 0 = 1 byte in length)
----
Now, mind you - Windows 2000 (SP4 onwards), Windows XP, & Windows Server 2003 can still use 0 (vs. the larger, & slower + more inefficient 0.0.0.0, & worst of all, the "loopback adapter addresss" of 127.0.0.1 which is not only larger, but, also incurs the "hit" of a loopback operation also) but, Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & Windows 7 cannot.
(Weird part is, VISTA was formerly able to use 0, but after Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" on 12/08/2008, it was suddenly unable to).
Now, funniest part of ALL here, is that Windows 2000 wasn't either, prior to Service packs for it (iirc, #4, but it may have been one before that).
See, Microsoft altered their BSD reference design based TCP/IP stack for HOSTS to allow the use of the smaller & faster 0 based blocking address in HOSTS files, as far back as Windows 2000 (thus, indicative of the fact that SOMEONE on MS' IP Stack team realized & saw the value in a smaller blocking address (doubtless for all the reasons I noted now above))...
Put it back in MS!
APK
P.S.=> I am in contact now with a senior mgt. person @ MS named Richard R. (who posts here on /., as Foredecker) after a discussion we had here -> http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1467692&cid=30384918 ...
He is now currently looking into this matter on MS' end, & hopefully, his peers/colleagues in mgt. @ MS realize they have made a mistake & fix this issue in HOSTS files being unable to use 0 as a valid blocking address in HOSTS files on VISTA/Windows Server 2008 & yes, Windows 7 also... apk
It happens all the time in big companies: I've seen it.
I used to design and deploy XP images for large, multistate corporations. Time and time again, business units within the larger company would demand that their users be granted local Admin rights... or else their custom applications wouldn't run right.
It's an argument they would always win, since the apparent cost of making some global group local Admin was less than the cost of replacing the LOB app affected.
In my dealings with bluetooth, a lot of vendors like to use Broadcom chips. These utilize Broadcom's own WIDCOMM stack, a finicky piece of crap that bothers you all the time about being undiscoverable and doesn't like to remember your settings. Sadly, people using these probably won't ever see the Windows 7 BT stack, as WIDCOMM pretty much says FU to it. Sad, as I've always enjoyed the Windows stack for its integration and simplicity. I know you can hack most Broadcom chips to use the Windows stack, but after dealing with the Dell 365/370 modules, which require a hardware reset after bootup before Windows sees them, I'm just totally put off by them.
Microsoft is not a software company, primarily. It is an abuse company. It is very successful in delivering abuse, you will have to admit.
never mind... pull my finger
"Why don't you use a tool that was actually designed to do what you are trying to do" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, @03:54PM (#30756016)
You must know much about how the HOSTS file works, or worse yet, HOW IT CAN BE USED, & TO GET YOU MORE SPEED, and YES SECURITY, online & from 1 single tool that eats no CPU cycles & is not vulnerable to security issues or bugs in it as programs can be or are (ala DNS servers for example on that last note)... read on, IF you are interested only, & thanks:
----
" ... like the IP firewall that is part of the OS?" - by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, @03:54PM (#30756016)
I use that, AND in combination with the HOSTS files, & far more too (ala the term "layered security") - like, in the case of HOSTS files which we are on about here as our topic @ this point.
HOSTS files can more than just potentially make you safer online, but also way, Way, WAY NOTICEABLY F A S T E R, too!
I.E.-> Can a software firewall alone get you more speed online (as well as more security via the simplest principal of all: 'IF YOU CAN'T GO INTO THE FIRE, YOU CANT GET BURNED', too)?
ANSWER - No, a software-firewall alone cannot get you more speed like HOSTS files can!
HOSTS files not only yield far better security, but also more speed, by blocking out adbanners (which also have been found to bear malicious code MANY times mind you as well), AND, via "hardcoding" your favorites IP-to-DOMAINNAME/HOSTNAME into your HOSTS files... This latter point makes you less trackable via DNS server requests logs.
DNS Servers, which have been found vulnerable in many ways, & badly the past 2-3 yrs. now, but if they go down? You will still reach your favs even if you do HOSTS "hardcoding" as I call it of your favorite websites etc. et al online.
See here -> http://www.tcmagazine.com/forums/index.php?s=1d1d476789da41e0d7fccdbb022cfb0b&showtopic=2662 .
That's the current model of my security guide (mine was also THE VERY 1st was THE first online for that purpose too, as "Article #1" @ NTCompatible.com... & even NeoWin rated it extremely well back in its "version #1", circa 1997-2001 -> http://www.neowin.net/news/main/01/11/29/apk-a-to-z-internet-speedup--security-text ) &, for Windows NT-based OS'.
My guide's the "topspot #1" on GOOGLE if you search "HOW TO SECURE Windows 2000/XP" in fact, & my guide also owns the top 50 or thereabouts on GOOGLE also (or more)
My securty guide has crossed over 250,000 views (in 2 yrs. time online in its current model), & been made an:
A.) "ESSENTIAL GUIDE"
B.) "STICKY/PINNED THREAD"
C.) Is in each of 15/20 site's it is posted on's "top 10 most viewed" usually (even though its been there a lot less longer than the ones ahead of it no less)
D.) My guide is usually "5/5" star rated on 15/20 forums it is featured on.
It covers HOSTS, extensively in fact, and HOW/WHEN/WHERE/WHY/WHAT they are valuable for, in terms of BOTH more SPEED ONLINE, & more SECURITY ONLINE (via the principle of "layered security")...
RESULTS OTHERS HAVE HAD VIA THIS QUOTED TESTIMONIAL:
----
----
BACK ON TRACK ON HOSTS FILES SPECIFICALLY NOW THOUGH:
You can obtain reliable HOSTS files from reputable lists for more security online, but also for speed!
(More on that later & WHY/HOW (I use reliable lists for that, such as these HOSTS @ Wikipedia.com -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_file or those from mvps.org (a good one this one))
I also further populate & keep current my custom HOSTS file with up to date information in regards to all of those th
don't need a XP partition just use XP mode.
Firewire / e-sata is much better even more so for big file moves.
Well, and that is true. However, all my external drives are USB.
Firewire (IEEE 1394) is broken in Windows 7 64bit. I've installed this OS on four PCs with with Firewire. Two PCs were AMD based, the other two were Intel. All four PCs had different chipsets. All four PCs did not have a single working Firewire port regardless of which external drive we used.
I've even tried replacing the driver with the built-in "legacy" driver. No go. Even if I try transferring data using the robocopy command, it just stops after a few megabytes of data. In short, it's not a hardware or GUI (explorer shell) issue. It's something at the core of Windows 7 that breaks firewire support. I hope SP1 addresses this issue.
Life is not for the lazy.
1) SCSI cards: 29160U is not supported. I was pleasantly surprised, as that was my
32bit Xp install, but seriously no support for this card? Humm.
2) Ok, some esoteric cards I can understand, but a RocketRaid 464 has had Win2k/Xp
drivers built into the OS (not sure about Vista). An IDE card that does RAID 0/1
onboard and 5 w/CPU, but in addition to not seeing the card, it would CORRUPT the
filesystem. During setup w/o driver, corrupt. left unconnected and as soon as
I'd check under xp = OK, 7 = corrupt. Of the two times it could read the disks
any copy to the drive (formatted under xp and 7) it would BSOD the memory mgmt
module.
Joy. Luckily recovery was easy, but JFC 6 hours+ to get it all back each time.
7 was/is fast, easy to get used to and GPU folding was pretty peppy, but can't
live w/o that RAID card when all is said and done.
I will give 7 some credit, I've got a dual boot of XP and 2k3 both 64bit and
guess what? both the SCSI and RAID work flawlessly. Not folding as fast as 7,
but smoother than xp32 by a smidgen.
Strangely I've got an itch to get redhat AS4 installed, but not when I've got
school to deal with. Next break, perhaps.
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Like some commenters noted, there is no need to wait until SP1. Windows 7 has been through a very wide Beta, then RC, RTM and finally the GA last October. During this whole process, IT Pros around the world have been able to test the new OS for performance and stability and have found Windows 7 to be great! If you want to follow us on Twitter (@MSSpringboard for IT Pros or @CIOsConnect for... CIOs) we can point you to people's feedbacks on the topic. Alex Microsoft Windows Client Team