There's loads better over XP. Some of my favourites:
-Hardened & auto-switching/location-aware network security (all ports & services shutdown/blocked until an admin unlocks them for a location). -"Root" accounts impossible; elevation only possible via UAC -64bit -3d accelerated desktop (turn it back to classic & familiar Win2000 if you so wish) -Process sand-boxing -Much better power/battery control
Windows 7 is the first OS that "could in theory" work on a tablet/slate, but like TFA says, it's taking Windows and down-scaling it for a much lesser subset of it's design. Windows CE did this; tried to have the full/normal Windows desktop experience on a (much) lesser device and now they've scrapped it in favour for a massively redesign & specifically engineered mobile OS, because that too was ultimately a shit idea. Horses for courses.
I don't see tablets/slate as being productivity work-horses; you get a laptop if you want that. Tablets require something tailored, and as much as I hate to admit it, Apple have gotten off to a good start on that at least. I think it's way more likely Windows Mobile 7/8 would be a better fit, or indeed Android.
You're confusing "waste of time" with "badly managed development project".
The end result took a while to get here and was a painful process, but was most definitely needed & is now paying off with Windows 7, therefore not a waste of time.
Vista brought many changes to Windows that were very necessary, and a long time coming. It was the medicine needed to drag Windows into the 21st century IMO. Look at the levels of malware when XP first went gold, and the levels it rose to when Vista went gold; the hostilities of the normal user environment from one time to another is unrivalled, partly because of how long Vista was in development; partly because of the XP makeover that the increasing security threats prompted. Vista basically was supposed to be, not the final bullet in the Windows malware problem, but a significant one built from the ground up and such remediations always come at a price.
Security was only part of the rebuild & rethink effort though; there were other sections of the kernel that needed a makeover; networking; graphics; sound all got rebuilt from scratch to address various other problems, to name but a few. All changes were needed to support a core platform for the next-generation IMHO. Not to mention it was the first Windows to seriously do 64-bit.
Nay, the problem with Vista was it was too much all at once; the project did have a terribly unpredictable timeline and the OEMs understandably didn't want to commit to a project with no definitive delivery date; meaning the compatibility problem was magnified exponentially as very few committed to getting 100% compliant with the new OS.
Thankfully that's a problem that's in the past now; the growing pains have finished, and W7 success is testament to the foundation laid out by Vista; meaning it was not, IMO, a waste of time. Lessons learnt; time to move on.
Areo isn't even installed by default with Windows Server 2008 - you have to install it, reboot, and then enable it. That's hardly any attack vector at all IMO.
"Microsoft produces software that competes with FOSS" is basically the headline. Well who knew?!
Something they're also learning is that the above statement doesn't necessarily mean they can't work with FOSS in areas that are mutually beneficial. This, believe it or not, is happening too.
...for most users I'd imagine. The number of people I've seen close Norton/McAfee messages that say "For Gods' sake man, you're trial-ware virus subscription have expired - your computer could literally be ass-raped any minute!" leads me to think most users won't give a shit about other browsers.
What happens if you close the ballot screen? Nothing I suspect. This'll just be a case of all but mildly technically curious people closing it and clicking the blue "E" anyway.
Anyway, after all this I think it's for the good. If nothing else it makes Apple seem a little more evil; I hope all the fanbois realise the same shake-down will happen to their beloved MacOS X should ever come close to the domination it apparently deserves.. Anyway, I for one don't miss the days of pure IE domination & 'marque' tags floating around, so again this is a good thing.
Canonical Landscape is a nice tool, but lacks anything like the GPOs natively drilled into every Windows since NT3.5
Same goes for Endpoint Management; again a nice tool, but you have to remember Microsoft have the advantage with Active Directory Services that they built 100% of the client & server, so deep integration with everything above kernel into ADS (and therefore Windows Server) comes out-of-the-box.
Almost everything in Windows-land has a policy defined for it that can be overridden at server-level, from the desktop wallpaper to USB drive encryption policies. It's like the ultimate admin-friendly root-kit (once a domain has been joined).
Public networks have all inbound ports blocked by default. Changing a network type to anything other than public requires admin rights, so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.
That's only hype if you don't understand why you'd use it.
You're building a website for example; you think it *might* become highly popular & high bandwidth. Normally you'd have two options; 1, invest in a tonne of infrastructure just in case and risk hugely over investing in nothing; 2, don't bother and risk collapsing under strain of hugely underestimating traffic demands.
Well, cloud computing takes that worry off your shoulders. If your app needs more "cloud"; you can give it extra juice in minutes without any interruption to service. In azure anyway it's just an XML file change - "instance count" to add/remove more/less VMs to your collection. Insane amounts of processing horsepower if you want; nay if you have the cash to match it you can have thousands of servers at your command without even restarting the app. That's value, and it doesn't even take much to "cloudify" an app either.
Yes it costs more to feed it more processing, but you know you only pay for what you need at any time.
So no; cloud computing isn't perfect or for everyone; but it certainly has its' place.
For some reason, Apple decided to use their own USB driver; one not exactly known for it's stability, evidently. Yes, Apple would rather risk your system instability than use a standard tried & tested driver to write files to any iPod. That'll be why Windows 7 doesn't like it I expect.
It won't install though unless you validate your copy of Windows (doesn't need WGA to be installed), which effectively does the same thing except then refuses installation rather than nags.
It's not forced on users; you can say "no". But you won't get any Windows freebies if you say no (Security Essentials, IE8, etc, etc) - patches will come regardless of your answer.
So interop efforts only count if they willingly devoted time & money to a non-profit project now?
Sorry; in which case you're probably right; they've done very little for interop.
Btw; the ODF implementation for the Excel that's non-standard was non-standard because there is no standard for the part everyone complained about.
Also, RE: samba; Microsoft also donated Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) Premium subscriptions to the core Samba team; built a test bed with them; started sharing testing tools; and worked to preserve the Unix Extensions in CIFS to ensure continued compatibility with Microsoft's software. A bit more than emailing a PDF.
Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.
Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.
Incorrect. They've actually helped out quite a few OSS projects including samba, ODF, FireFox, Apache to name but a few. 10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but Microsoft are much more open to interoperbility now than ever before.
True; I just don't see the two forms of software delivery being mutually exclusive to each other that's all. Maybe I've been spoilt by the likes of Steam etc
I don't see why it would be so difficult to have a website where you can buy Windows 7; download it as a customised ISO wrapped into a CD-burner program for the OS of choice, and burn it yourself complete with auto-generated serial.
Slashdot Mirror
There's loads better over XP. Some of my favourites:
-Hardened & auto-switching/location-aware network security (all ports & services shutdown/blocked until an admin unlocks them for a location).
-"Root" accounts impossible; elevation only possible via UAC
-64bit
-3d accelerated desktop (turn it back to classic & familiar Win2000 if you so wish)
-Process sand-boxing
-Much better power/battery control
All kinds of stuff
What a shame neither common-sense or basic facts back you up - http://www.thebookseller.com/news/99958-toc-piracy-may-boost-sales-research-suggests.html
Very few Windows programs require admin privs to run after install. There are no open ports by default on Windows Vista +
Also, the certificates make it easier to know if anything wanting elevation is likely to be safe not; Windows will advise as appropriate.
Finally, Mac OS doesn't have a full ASLR implementation; and their NX implementation only works on 64 applications.
http://www.laconicsecurity.com/aslr-leopard-versus-vista.html
Feel free to provide some kind of evidence for any of those huge assumptions whenever you can.
This is what I love about iPhoners.
"We don't want to be able to choose or not Flash video"
Seriously.
Windows 7 is the first OS that "could in theory" work on a tablet/slate, but like TFA says, it's taking Windows and down-scaling it for a much lesser subset of it's design. Windows CE did this; tried to have the full/normal Windows desktop experience on a (much) lesser device and now they've scrapped it in favour for a massively redesign & specifically engineered mobile OS, because that too was ultimately a shit idea. Horses for courses.
I don't see tablets/slate as being productivity work-horses; you get a laptop if you want that. Tablets require something tailored, and as much as I hate to admit it, Apple have gotten off to a good start on that at least. I think it's way more likely Windows Mobile 7/8 would be a better fit, or indeed Android.
You're confusing "waste of time" with "badly managed development project".
The end result took a while to get here and was a painful process, but was most definitely needed & is now paying off with Windows 7, therefore not a waste of time.
Vista brought many changes to Windows that were very necessary, and a long time coming. It was the medicine needed to drag Windows into the 21st century IMO. Look at the levels of malware when XP first went gold, and the levels it rose to when Vista went gold; the hostilities of the normal user environment from one time to another is unrivalled, partly because of how long Vista was in development; partly because of the XP makeover that the increasing security threats prompted. Vista basically was supposed to be, not the final bullet in the Windows malware problem, but a significant one built from the ground up and such remediations always come at a price.
Security was only part of the rebuild & rethink effort though; there were other sections of the kernel that needed a makeover; networking; graphics; sound all got rebuilt from scratch to address various other problems, to name but a few. All changes were needed to support a core platform for the next-generation IMHO. Not to mention it was the first Windows to seriously do 64-bit.
Nay, the problem with Vista was it was too much all at once; the project did have a terribly unpredictable timeline and the OEMs understandably didn't want to commit to a project with no definitive delivery date; meaning the compatibility problem was magnified exponentially as very few committed to getting 100% compliant with the new OS.
Thankfully that's a problem that's in the past now; the growing pains have finished, and W7 success is testament to the foundation laid out by Vista; meaning it was not, IMO, a waste of time. Lessons learnt; time to move on.
Areo isn't even installed by default with Windows Server 2008 - you have to install it, reboot, and then enable it. That's hardly any attack vector at all IMO.
Mozilla clearly have no idea about....... ....wait a minute....it's not a Microsoft product we're talking about?!
THIS IS SUCH A NON ISSUE! The German government are clearly over-reacting here.
"Microsoft produces software that competes with FOSS" is basically the headline. Well who knew?!
Something they're also learning is that the above statement doesn't necessarily mean they can't work with FOSS in areas that are mutually beneficial. This, believe it or not, is happening too.
...for most users I'd imagine. The number of people I've seen close Norton/McAfee messages that say "For Gods' sake man, you're trial-ware virus subscription have expired - your computer could literally be ass-raped any minute!" leads me to think most users won't give a shit about other browsers.
What happens if you close the ballot screen? Nothing I suspect. This'll just be a case of all but mildly technically curious people closing it and clicking the blue "E" anyway.
Anyway, after all this I think it's for the good. If nothing else it makes Apple seem a little more evil; I hope all the fanbois realise the same shake-down will happen to their beloved MacOS X should ever come close to the domination it apparently deserves.. Anyway, I for one don't miss the days of pure IE domination & 'marque' tags floating around, so again this is a good thing.
Canonical Landscape is a nice tool, but lacks anything like the GPOs natively drilled into every Windows since NT3.5
Same goes for Endpoint Management; again a nice tool, but you have to remember Microsoft have the advantage with Active Directory Services that they built 100% of the client & server, so deep integration with everything above kernel into ADS (and therefore Windows Server) comes out-of-the-box.
Almost everything in Windows-land has a policy defined for it that can be overridden at server-level, from the desktop wallpaper to USB drive encryption policies. It's like the ultimate admin-friendly root-kit (once a domain has been joined).
They are (disabled by default).
Public networks have all inbound ports blocked by default. Changing a network type to anything other than public requires admin rights, so this would have to be an internal DOS attack realistically.
Since Vista, Microsoft have made it much easy to slip-stream apps & customizations into the install process for OEM / system builders and such like.
It just so happens that works for hackers too; your Windows torrent comes pre-rooted quite often - it is a very popular download after all.
Also, WGA does not prevent your from downloading critical patches.
That's only hype if you don't understand why you'd use it.
You're building a website for example; you think it *might* become highly popular & high bandwidth. Normally you'd have two options; 1, invest in a tonne of infrastructure just in case and risk hugely over investing in nothing; 2, don't bother and risk collapsing under strain of hugely underestimating traffic demands.
Well, cloud computing takes that worry off your shoulders. If your app needs more "cloud"; you can give it extra juice in minutes without any interruption to service. In azure anyway it's just an XML file change - "instance count" to add/remove more/less VMs to your collection. Insane amounts of processing horsepower if you want; nay if you have the cash to match it you can have thousands of servers at your command without even restarting the app. That's value, and it doesn't even take much to "cloudify" an app either.
Yes it costs more to feed it more processing, but you know you only pay for what you need at any time.
So no; cloud computing isn't perfect or for everyone; but it certainly has its' place.
Perhaps, just perhaps, you know Windows 7 isn't quite as bad as many anti-MS people would like it to be? Perhaps people actually like Windows?
For some reason, Apple decided to use their own USB driver; one not exactly known for it's stability, evidently. Yes, Apple would rather risk your system instability than use a standard tried & tested driver to write files to any iPod. That'll be why Windows 7 doesn't like it I expect.
http://www.google.com/search?q=itunes+BSOD
Sometimes I wonder if Apple make PCs crash deliberately to fuel their ad-war
It won't install though unless you validate your copy of Windows (doesn't need WGA to be installed), which effectively does the same thing except then refuses installation rather than nags.
It's not forced on users; you can say "no". But you won't get any Windows freebies if you say no (Security Essentials, IE8, etc, etc) - patches will come regardless of your answer.
So interop efforts only count if they willingly devoted time & money to a non-profit project now?
Sorry; in which case you're probably right; they've done very little for interop.
Btw; the ODF implementation for the Excel that's non-standard was non-standard because there is no standard for the part everyone complained about.
Also, RE: samba; Microsoft also donated Microsoft Developer Network (MSDN) Premium subscriptions to the core Samba team; built a test bed with them; started sharing testing tools; and worked to preserve the Unix Extensions in CIFS to ensure continued compatibility with Microsoft's software.
A bit more than emailing a PDF.
Thus far, all they have done is contributed some drivers to Linux that make it easier to run Windows in a VM, and made it slightly easier for open source developers to develop software for Windows. Note their emphasis on running Windows. Note that Windows is more proprietary, more shackled than ever before.
Call me when Windows and/or MS Office have been GPLv3'ed.
Incorrect. They've actually helped out quite a few OSS projects including samba, ODF, FireFox, Apache to name but a few. 10 years ago I would have agreed with you, but Microsoft are much more open to interoperbility now than ever before.
True; I just don't see the two forms of software delivery being mutually exclusive to each other that's all. Maybe I've been spoilt by the likes of Steam etc
I don't see why it would be so difficult to have a website where you can buy Windows 7; download it as a customised ISO wrapped into a CD-burner program for the OS of choice, and burn it yourself complete with auto-generated serial.
Just my 2c.