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.'"
...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!
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.
Spoken like a person that's never seen or used Windows 7.
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.
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 - especially compared to that steaming pile of mediocrity (Vista) they put out last time. It's faster, the UI is cleaner and more useful (most of the time), it's very compatible with a wide variety of hardware. Even hardware that Windows 7 cautioned me probably wouldn't work...works.
This is probably the first usable 64-bit Windows version for the desktop.
We have several clients who have, or who are in the process of, rolling it on on their desktops and in every case they're quite pleased with it and their staff is finding it to be a productive work environment.
-B-
"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 $300. So, I'm not upgrading.
...to restart the dead corporate PC market. M$, 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.
I agree and I'm not bothering either. Sure it works fine on my water cooled rig but I'm using two laptops and some old Duron systems as well. In these systems Windows 7 is from just slower to unbearably slow compared to XP, while XP still allows the old Duron systems to be used for Firefox browsing, text editing and word processing comfortably and securely (with the addition of Comodo & Avira).
As for bluetooth, there is always the Widcomm/Broadcom stack which is miles better to Microsoft's.
So, what's the point in Windows 7 ? A cooler UI ? I would rather play a game than stare at the OS UI...
The most pressing argument would be that XP is a ridiculously outdated OS, well over a DECADE old at this point, and that XP's default security configuration is absolutely atrocious. Because it needed to be compatible with the programs from the Win9x era, by default it sets up every user as an administrator(root), which everyone who has ever used a Unix-like OS will recognize as a cardinal sin. XP probably wouldn't have had half the viruses, trojans, and overall security threats if it had gone the route of every other sane and modern OS on the planet and set up its users as regular limited accounts. This was practically impossible in the early years of XP of course, as thanks to lazy programming which demanded admin rights nearly 100% of the time, running as limited user meant you could scarcely run an application to play an audio CD.
Later on, MS patched in the "runas" command, a function analogous to Unix "su", making it possible to run admin commands through an administrator account without having to log out completely. This was a good thing, and while it greatly eased the hassle of running a limited account, it was still not as robust as the Unix "sudo" command. While su runs as another user, sudo elevates the current user to administrative privilege, meaning if you install a program, the installer will make changes to your own profile if necessary, instead of to a different administrator's account as the runas command would do.
Windows didn't gain true sudo functionality until Vista introduced UAC, and as much as people bemoan having to click OK whenever running a task requiring admin privilege, this is exactly how a properly security multi-user OS is supposed to function. Running as a limited account in Vista/Win7 is the default operation and it is a sane, standardized security protocol. Running all the time as an administrator is a stupid, risky, boneheaded thing to do, but unfortunately in XP the only alternative is to put up with the frustration of running a semi-functional limited account.
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.***
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
The issue that will get me to upgrade is when I want to increase the RAM of my computer. If I want to have a Windows machine running more than 4GB of RAM, I have to upgrade to a 64-bit OS and Vista/7 is better than XP in that regard.
I have used Windows 7 and I hate it. Is that ok with you? Does everybody have to like it?
I just want XP, it works for me, I don't have to learn new shit. I don't have to worry about them moving the control panel around.
7 offers nothing new for me, for it to be worthwhile spendying anytime learning new stuff.