Death Metal Maniac tips an Ars Technica piece suggesting that the media's coverage of Vista's flaws portrayed the operating system as worse than it was, and, if early reports on Windows 7 are any indication, positive hype will create the opposite reaction this time around. Quoting: "... the problem is exaggeration; ... bloggers and journalists alike use their personal experiences to prove their point in their writing. The blame doesn't solely lie with us, as Vista was by no means perfect, but we did manage to amplify the problems beyond reason. And if the beta is anything to go by, Windows 7 is going to fly. This is, by far, the best beta operating system the software giant has ever released. The media has locked on to this, and is using exaggeration already, before Windows 7 is even ready for prime time." Apparently a decent beta can succeed where $300 million and Jerry Seinfeld failed.
It looks like their marketing department has refined what appears to be their only effective strategy.... Which we've seen before with Win98->WinME->WinXP.
You HAVE a perfectly serviceable product, WindowsXP.
You release something really shitty, Windows Vista.
The expected backlash gives you an opportunity to announce the release of the panacea for all Vista's ills. Windows 7.
Now, since Windows 7 APPEARS TO BE so much better than the APPARENTLY SHITTY Vista, there's a lot of positive attention.
But at the end of the day, Microsoft's PRODUCTS still aren't compelling -- Windows 7 main selling point is that it just doesn't work like shit -- and that appears to be good enough.
But 'not working like shit' is what we already HAVE, with XP.
Problem is that it relies on OLD technology to 'work well'.
In that case, why upgrade the Linux kernel, ever? It works well. Why upgrade your car? It gets you from point A to point B. Why upgrade anything, ever?
If you're in that mindset, you would suffice with having a butter churn and live by candlelight. They are servicable too.
But for the rest of us who want "next gen" technology, I think Windows 7 does have some benefits (as did Vista, in a much crappier package) over XP. And if you don't see that, then stick with XP. I don't see the big deal.
Problem is that it relies on OLD technology to 'work well'.
That's a dumb argument. I still slice bread with knife, a technology which has been around for thousands of years - I could move to spiffy new computer controlled laser system, but why? It's expensive, both to acquire and replace, it's more work to service, and it doesn't get me much.
So what if the technology is old? Why is the new technology any better? What is the new technology that Win7 introduces that makes it so much better than XP? You don't mention it in your post.
Have you actually tasted commercially packaged, pre-sliced bread? It is terrible. Go to a good baker, now, and get a fresh whole loaf. No, don't go to the supermarket, a real baker! If you're fast, it might still be nice, warm, and crispy.
Vista and Win7 introduced image based installers so you can use one image on all your enterprise hardware without having to worry about weird interactions like you did with unattended installations of XP.
Full disk encryption can be deployed centrally with keys managed centrally. Vista introduced a lot of new technologies that people are still learning. Group policy support has been greatly extended in Vista and Win7 allowing for much tighter control over the enterprise environment.
I would go into more details but I am just learning how to use all the new features myself as I am only beginning the process of deploying it out to the corporate desktops. It will take me a little while longer as I have no plans to upgrade XP, I'll only move to Vista or Win7 when hardware leases are up.
Centralized software licensing, auditing, encryption, and indexing are all new features in Vista that would appeal to the enterprise. This is in addition to things like bringing volume shadow copy to the desktop with automatic versioning.
The enterprise side of the house has a great number of features which make the experience worse for the home user but that's the trade-off. Microsoft should separate out the operating systems as they are trying to service everyone and making no-one happy.
Do some research spewing assertions that are incorrect. Serrated blades have been used for bread for thousands of years, and have been found in N. Africa, Egypt and Great Britain. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472505.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Badly composited windows that take way too many resources? Removal of receiving and sending faxes from the home (crippled user) version? Non-accelerated sound system? DRM system built in on the audio and video subsystems? Ram gobbler (2GB.. not enough)? 10GB install with no real apps (where did the space go)? yay solitaire.
It only took ~6GB when I installed it. 7 ran quite well on 512 MB RAM. Turns off defragmenter for SSDs More efficient SSD formatting Boot from VHD CableCARD and H.264 support built-in MP4, MOV, 3GP, AVCHD, ADTS, M4A, and WTV multimedia containers, with native codecs for H.264, MPEG4-SP, ASP/DivX/Xvid, MJPEG, DV, AAC-LC, LPCM, AAC-HE UAC is way better--less prompts Windows Biometric Framework DNSSEC support Powershell built in Can burn ISOs Wordpad supports OOXML and ODF Libraries Federated Search via OpenSearch Re-arrange things on taskbar...yes you can make it look almost exactly like the Vista taskbar if you want. Jump Lists WinKey+Arrow Key for moving applications to one half of the monitor or the other Touch integration
Yes a lot of these things can be had on Linux/through 3rd party programs. But now they are included in the OS, which 99% of the time means less problems/slowness/crashes. And developers can count on them to be there.
10GB install with no real apps (where did the space go)? yay solitaire.
Seriously, what the hell are they doing with all that space? Freshly-installed Vista eats more space than Ubuntu with every app I might conceivably want to ever use installed, even with Vista's disk-swap turned off!
Vista was compared to XP, which thanks to its long long long lifetime has become a standard, fairly polished, with known and mostly manageable security issues.
Vista comes along, does things different, breaks a lot, and is considered shitty.
Then Win7 is released, and it is now being compared to it's direct parent, Vista. Not XP. So MS only has to put a product in the market that appears better than Vista (reviewers won't complain too hard about drivers and other compatibility I suppose, it's beta after all), not better than the old and trusted XP.
That said I doubt Win7 will work on netbooks, so I won't be surprised that XP will be with us for a long long time to come.
That said I doubt Win7 will work on netbooks, so I won't be surprised that XP will be with us for a long long time to come.
Actually, there have been lots of Win7 installs on netbooks, [liliputing.com] and the general consensus is that it runs fine. Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
I've been running the Win7beta for a couple weeks now, and it's been a pretty nice experience. My machine's perfectly capable of running Vista, though, so I haven't noticed many speed gains. The UI touch-ups are nice, though.
>>Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
>You see I don't get this comment. Since the operating system 7 years ago had to run on much slower hardware, well, don't expect that now?
>WHY F***G NOT! What on earth does an operating system have to do so that it sucks up ever bit of my quad core machine?
Hear Hear. Yeah, early computing tech was slow, but at least the programmers were on average more careful with resource use. Today's increase in tech level has allowed people to make bloated stuff where the bloat isn't really necessary. There are improvements in general, but so much of it is just stupid waste.
I shouldn't _need_ 42 bazillion megs of RAM for my computer to work properly
You know, I'm quite certain that if I tried to run Ubuntu 8.10 or whatever the newest release of it is (I've been out of the loop for a bit) on the same machine that I was running Red Hat 5.1 on ten years ago, it would choke.
I'm not. There are not really any more background processes. Code efficiency has improved... the only thing that probably would be slower is the GUI, but that's only the window manager and can be changed out easily or scaled back with settings changes.
Fundamentally Windows gets slower because the core system gets slower in the background, meaning the system as a whole needs more CPU just to stay in place. This contrasts with both Mac and Linux systems where new releases generally do not cause overall system slowdowns, even though they may add some components that are more CPU intensive.
How is one random user with one specific machine with something working moderated "Informative"? Suspend doesn't work on my Inspiron 6000.... so uh, I cancel you out? Not to mention that the latest Ubuntu boots and responds much slower than either XP or Win7beta on _this_ machine... but one machine tells you nothing doesn't it?
I've been using the beta for several weeks now, and its certainly no complete rewrite, but it has had stuff rewritten - its an OS I would more than be happy to use, and that's including any comparison with XP as well as Vista.
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue? Because its not something you can ever completely solve through OS security alone, when your users still need to do stuff...
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue?
First, stop making the product so absurdly exploitable. In no way should it be possible to contract malware from simply visiting a website, or leaving a network cable plugged in.
Second, make it obvious what you're doing, but not actually intrusive. It should not be possible to download and execute a program without realizing what you're doing. For an example of how to do this wrong, see VBA -- I should not be able to contract malware from a fucking office document. Nor should I have to memorize a list of dangerous file extensions. Compare with Linux -- until you chmod +x, or unpack the archive, it's not dangerous.
Third, provide known-good channels for obtaining new software. See: Linux package managers and repositories. Tie it in to Microsoft Update. Make it possible for third parties to run their own repositories. No need to host everything yourself, but it should at least be possible to periodically fetch, from a trusted source, a list of updated packages and signatures.
And finally, educate your users. The only computer which is secure from a user's own idiocy is one which doesn't let the user do anything worth protecting. Not limited to Windows, either, though it would help if the OS encouraged more secure, rather than less secure, modes of operation.
But until you've done the other steps, no amount of education will solve the problem. As long as the standard Windows method of installing software is some random EXE downloaded off a website, with at most an unverifiable signature claiming it's from that website, it requires too much effort.
Please explain how acrobat had write permission to the operating system files. ---- This "No viruses for linux/bsd/osx because they are not popular" is simply microsoft propaganda. If the 90/10 market share is true, then those systems should have 10% of the virus market by that logic.
Since so many web servers out there are linux, it stands to reason that virus writers would be more motivated to attack linux, owning a much more strategic point in the web than some end user's windows PC.
Google is a massively parallel network built on linux. You're claiming no virus writers would be interested in owning the google cloud?
Servers on any OS are harder to attack, because most viruses (in fact, all viruses, if you go by the strict definition of a computer virus, as opposed to a worm) require human interaction at some point to aid them. As servers tend to run unattended most of the time, the attacker has to resort to fully automated methods to exploit the system (i.e. security holes).
With desktop, all that's really needed is tricking the user into opening an infected file one way or another. On a system with properly configured security (i.e. user is not root - such as any Linux, or Windows starting with Vista), you also need to trick the user to click the confirmation prompt to access files. It is fairly obvious that both Linux and Vista/Win7 have equivalent security measures to prevent this scenario (which are sadly still not enough to overcome the human stupidity). However, 90% of all desktops are still Windows, which is why it makes more sense to attack it. Well, and also because Linux users today tend to be more tech savvy and will actually wonder why their email client asks them to elevate - but that's another story, and is not something that can be fixed by technical measured today.
So, the argument is valid, and abundance of Linux servers does not enter into the equation. All that matters is the desktop.
by Anonymous Coward
on Sunday January 18 2009, @02:14PM (#26508285)
My Linux server was exploited, I'm not quite sure how (nor did the server management guys).
If you're not quite sure how it was exploited, how do you know Linux itself was at fault? Overwriting a few PHP files could have easily been done through a security hole in the PHP app itself.
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue? Because its not something you can ever completely solve through OS security alone, when your users still need to do stuff...
We go over this all the time here. Yet some people never seem to read it. So, here they are again. In no particular order.
#1. Understand the difference between a "virus", a "worm" and a "trojan".
#2. Take a hint from Ubuntu and have NO open ports on the DEFAULT installation. That will pretty much wipe out worm attacks. Do NOT depend upon a firewall to do that. The firewall is a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE that is often disabled because it interferes with legitimate apps that the user wants to run. I can put a default installation of Ubuntu directly on the 'Web and it will NOT be cracked.
#3. Provide a "known good" list of files (names, date/time, multiple checksums) for ALL of the OS files. This way, at least infections can be removed easier. It's easier to find a file that is NOT on the known good and remove it than it is to find a file that MAY be a newly obfuscated version of an old virus.
#4. Keep the OS directories CLEAN. That means that installing MS Office MUST NOT install ANY updated files in the OS directories.
#5. Move to INI files for apps instead of allowing them to edit the registry. If you really must keep the registry, keep it clean.
#6. Consolidate the various temp directories and DUMP them during the boot process.
Remember, viruses, worms and trojans are nothing more than code. They are not magical. Limit how code can be written to the system and you limit how they may spread. Enforce organization and you limit where they may be written.
Once the disinfection rate exceeds the infection rate, the viruses, worms and trojans will die.
Except that Windows is a sucessfull platform because it's the only one that actually allows lots of random applications to be executed without much help from technicians.
If that's the reason for Windows' success, then how do you explain the fact that so many of the biggest Windows users (i.e. major companies) explicitly go out of their way to prevent that kind of behaviour? Most places these days have a horribly bureaucratic process required to get access to the most trivial of utilities. Many companies even use programs designed to sniff out unauthorised software, to ensure that nothing they don't know about ever gets run on their computers.
And of course it's worth noting that since Vista, Microsoft have been doing everything they can to move towards the Linux/Unix style, where even home users need to use an administrator password to install software. So apparently even Microsoft disagrees with you about what makes Windows successful...
If Microsoft audited their code and used the same kind of measures that OpenBSD does, they would be miles ahead of were they are now. Security models and sandboxes in all their glory, but a *lot* of the problems are down to faulty code, code that Microsoft owns and can audit and freaking fix. Only after they have done that can we talk security models and such things. With all the bugs and holes it is so easy to attack windows that nobody really will care about trying to do anything on a grander scale.
Consumers don't care. They didn't care about Vista, except that it didn't work like their old XP box and they had to learn new stuff. Consumers don't like learning the new stuff but they do it because it's easier than jumping through the hoops to get another XP box.
IT people killed Vista, and I see no reason why they will be any happier with Win7. I have talked to dozens of industry people, from the guys who network mom & pop shops to guys who run databases for Fortune 100 companies, and NONE of them wanted anything to do with Vista. Their complaints were that it was entirely too dependent on internet connectivity, it was totaly different and therefore a major hassle to integrate with their existing network infrastructure and to maintain at the user level, and could not be locked down in a corporate environment properly. Win7 is a finger in the eye to these people -- it doesn't even have Classic mode any more. I've only spoken to a couple of them since Win7 was introduced but they aren't impressed.
And it is a truism from the days of Dos 2.0 that people do prefer to use at home what they use at work. When the tech friends they depend on to fix what they can't insist they run XP, they will insist on XP. Office and Word became popular not because they're all that good but because people brought them home and became comfortable with them there.
This has all come down to a giant Mexican standoff between Microsoft, which wants to determine how your computer looks and acts, and corporate IT types who want to determine those things. (As for you determining those things, that ship has sailed; the end of Classic mode tells that tale.) The IT guyes will not give up their control. Microsoft has obviously dug in their heels. It is not clear to me how this will end, but from what I have seen it will not end with widespread Win7 on the corporate desktop.
The users I support are going to have *huge* problems with the new taskbar. First, they have a problem with grouping tasks into one icon. They never did get the hang of that, so we ended up just unchecking that feature.
Second, the default is to have no text under the icon. They are going to have a hard time figuring out what is already running. They'll end up double clicking everything.
Third, the taskbar no longer appends each new application to the end of the running tasks. That will throw people off.
In addition, they are really going to confuse themselves with all of the new mouse gestures.
Other than that, windows 7, like Vista, and XP before it has the same basic interface as 9x. Taskbar at the bottom of the screen, Menu launcher in the lower left hand corner.
The real reason Vista really failed is the same people who are hyping up 7, the media.
Vista changed the way drivers needed to be written for security reasons, and because hardware vendors suck at writing drivers for whatever they make, there were all sorts of problems with hardware compatibility, ESPECIALLY with older hardware. Add to that UI changes ranging from minor to extensive in both Vista and Office 07, overzealous UAC, and a million other little things (on top of the million other little things that didn't make it into vista (i thought it was funny that theirs actually a wikipedia page for "Features removed from Windows Vista")), and obviously, almost no ones first impressions were good. Tech writers ravaged it, the mainstream media picked up on their stories and killed most of the little momentum Vista had by simply parroting the tech writers.
However, since then drivers have gotten good, service pack 1 has come out, and Vista has matured. You'd have a hard time finding a second impression review of the OS that did nothing but bash the OS like the first impression ones did. In fact, lots of reviews coming out now are actually praising Vista for becoming better than its predecessor (granted only with modern day hardware).
Windows 7 is Windows Vista++. A refined UI, refined UAC, drivers are mature now, performance is approximately as good or better than vista (which is as good or better than XP on the right hardware), IE8 is shaping up to be an improvement, and the whole package seems to just work better. Most of the tech writers have already been won over by Vista, windows 7 appears to be better than that (and its just a beta!), so obviously they write favorable reviews. The mainstream media is picking up on their stories and hyping up the slowly growing mass of momentum Windows 7 has by simply parroting the tech writers.
TL;DR: vista was killed by bad first impressions that the mass media ran with. windows 7 will succeed because of good first impressions that the mass media is running with.
Windows 7 should go back to home and pro setup no 5+ vers like vista. Maybe also have a enterprise ver with extras apps / tools for that as well.
Also all packs should oem and retail should come with the 32bit and 64bit disks or let people down load the 64bit iso for free and let them use there key that they have.
Then you've been hearing wrong. Which is sort of the point of the article. There's all this positive hype around 7, true or not, just like there was negative spin around Vista, true or not. Show me one thing in Vista that's "turned off" in 7, bloat-wise. Windows 7 is Windows Vista with performance optimizations, visual tweaks and UI improvements.
I was ready to throw Vista out of the window within minutes of my first encounter with it. So far I've clocked a few hours in Win7 and, as of yet, the same compulsion has not struck me.
Only time will tell if that's going to last. UAC really *really* still needs a "remember my answer for this file" checkbox to avoid being turned off completely. It makes no sense what so ever that I should have to click "yes" every bloody time I start my defragmentation application. Sure, if something tries to start it without my direct interaction, tell me. But as long as I'm selecting the menu option to start it, and I've previously said "go ahead", and the file hasn't changed... Just bloody start it already!
I wouldn't be surprised if these are the same people who complain, "Why does Microsoft spend all its effort on making Windows 'look cool'? They should spend all their efforts on making technical improvements and just stop making visual improvements."
And with Calc, that's exactly what happened: Massive technical improvements. No visual improvement. And nobody noticed. In fact, the complaints just keep coming. "Look at Calc, same as it always was."
The innards of Calc - the arithmetic engine - was completely thrown away and rewritten from scratch. The standard IEEE floating point library was replaced with an arbitrary-precision arithmetic library. This was done after people kept writing ha-ha articles about how Calc couldn't do decimal arithmetic correctly, that for example computing 10.21 - 10.2 resulted in 0.0100000000000016.
I didn't even know the two modes worked differently until now. In my eyes the problems are:
That the mode is switched from a menu called "View", implying that there is only a visual, not a functional difference.
A scientific calculator shows you the expression so far, while this one doesn't, despite having way more screen estate than a desktop calculator. So it functions differently from what it displays to the user (it remembers the whole expression, but only shows you the last thing entered).
Both are pretty major issues for such a simple app, IMO.
actually there are two modes of operation (as the grandparent said). There is "standard" which works like an off the shelf cheap calculator. This mode *ignores* order of operations by design, because that's what cheap non-scientific calculators do!.
In scientific mode, it will properly use order of operations.
Funny enough, I do some contributing to kcalc for KDE and having a mode which ignore orders of operators to make it work like a "real calculator" is a relatively frequent request. I'm not a fan of this idea, so I never did it...but there is a demand for it.
Almost all of those issues seem to be aesthetic, and that opinion will vary between person to person. For instance, I love the new control panel, the Ribbon, and the style of the windows/taskbar. Sounds like this OS is right up my alley!
5 - The only view I ever want to use in Explorer is Details. So like every other version of Windows, the first thing I did was to set the view to Details for a folder, go into the Folder Options, and tell Windows not to use unique views for each folder. Despite doing this many times, Vista will still randomly pick other views that it thinks are better (even though they're worse) for some folders some of the time. It also refuses to remember the sort order I choose for my Documents folder, and every time I go into it, it's sorted by Type, not Name.
Oh dear god yes. This has got to be my #1 annoyance with Vista.
Wow, I don't know what you've done to your Vista but somehow or other you've monged it thouroughly.
1. Mine actually does this. In fact, the behaviour you suggest for default is...erm...the OS default. It's only if you click the "remember this choice" button that it changes. 2. They are slow, though that did improve witht he service pack. 3. I've shared arbitrary folders as writeable. I use it to mount my entire C drive from my Mac. 4. Or you could right-click->Properties->Sharing. Your call. You can't take the long way round and then blame MS for it. 5. I've never done this, so no comment. 6. This is the most annoying thing. Seems like every time you boot the computer you have to reboot it! But this is a flaw with Windows vs. Linux etc, not with Vista in specific. 7. Again, this is not something I've had a problem with (as in, my behaviour has never been restricted by it) but it may be true. 8. A lot of this was driven by the device manufacturers. See the Creative vs. Daniel_K fiasco, discussed here a while ago. 9. Most times I boot the PC I don't run into UAC. It does trigger too often (e.g. when changing user settings) but it doesn't really bug me much more than a privileges elevation in Linux. 10. I actually like the Network and Sharing center. It's a central interface for networking activities. I wish Ubuntu had one by default. 11&12. Yeah, but again, these are criticisms of Windows vs. *nix and the average consumer doesn't seem to care.
I've had no problems with Vista, or at least none that weren't caused by Creative.
I can't agree with that at all, Dave.
Windows 95 was fantastic at it's release. In converted many diehard DOS users when they had turned their nose to Windows 3.x. Windows 98 on the other hand was nothing but a bloated Windows 95. They just added enough "needed features" in 98, that you had to upgrade. I mostly upgraded for the USB support.
Win2k was an absolute masterpiece at it's release. It just never caught on outside of enterprise, which was really a great shame. It was bad marketing on Microsoft's part. They worked out the kinks in their marketing with Windows XP, which again was just a bloated Win2k. Most companies transitioned from Win2k only because Microsoft stopped supporting it. (And many still haven't)
Well (Score:5, Insightful)
At least Microsoft's marketing department is doing its job right this time.
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
It looks like their marketing department has refined what appears to be their only effective strategy.... Which we've seen before with Win98->WinME->WinXP.
You HAVE a perfectly serviceable product, WindowsXP.
You release something really shitty, Windows Vista.
The expected backlash gives you an opportunity to announce the release of the panacea for all Vista's ills. Windows 7.
Now, since Windows 7 APPEARS TO BE so much better than the APPARENTLY SHITTY Vista, there's a lot of positive attention.
But at the end of the day, Microsoft's PRODUCTS still aren't compelling -- Windows 7 main selling point is that it just doesn't work like shit -- and that appears to be good enough.
But 'not working like shit' is what we already HAVE, with XP.
Brilliant.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Problem is that it relies on OLD technology to 'work well'.
In that case, why upgrade the Linux kernel, ever? It works well. Why upgrade your car? It gets you from point A to point B. Why upgrade anything, ever?
If you're in that mindset, you would suffice with having a butter churn and live by candlelight. They are servicable too.
But for the rest of us who want "next gen" technology, I think Windows 7 does have some benefits (as did Vista, in a much crappier package) over XP. And if you don't see that, then stick with XP. I don't see the big deal.
Parent
poor reasoning (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a dumb argument. I still slice bread with knife, a technology which has been around for thousands of years - I could move to spiffy new computer controlled laser system, but why? It's expensive, both to acquire and replace, it's more work to service, and it doesn't get me much.
So what if the technology is old? Why is the new technology any better? What is the new technology that Win7 introduces that makes it so much better than XP? You don't mention it in your post.
Parent
Re:You're out of time (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you actually tasted commercially packaged, pre-sliced bread? It is terrible. Go to a good baker, now, and get a fresh whole loaf. No, don't go to the supermarket, a real baker! If you're fast, it might still be nice, warm, and crispy.
Parent
Re:poor reasoning (Score:5, Funny)
That sounds exciting. Does that involve you fighting Ubuntu, or is it Ubuntu versus Windows to decide which gets to load?
Parent
Re:poor reasoning (Score:5, Informative)
Vista and Win7 introduced image based installers so you can use one image on all your enterprise hardware without having to worry about weird interactions like you did with unattended installations of XP.
Full disk encryption can be deployed centrally with keys managed centrally. Vista introduced a lot of new technologies that people are still learning. Group policy support has been greatly extended in Vista and Win7 allowing for much tighter control over the enterprise environment.
I would go into more details but I am just learning how to use all the new features myself as I am only beginning the process of deploying it out to the corporate desktops. It will take me a little while longer as I have no plans to upgrade XP, I'll only move to Vista or Win7 when hardware leases are up.
Centralized software licensing, auditing, encryption, and indexing are all new features in Vista that would appeal to the enterprise. This is in addition to things like bringing volume shadow copy to the desktop with automatic versioning.
The enterprise side of the house has a great number of features which make the experience worse for the home user but that's the trade-off. Microsoft should separate out the operating systems as they are trying to service everyone and making no-one happy.
Parent
Re:poor reasoning (Score:5, Informative)
Do some research spewing assertions that are incorrect. Serrated blades have been used for bread for thousands of years, and have been found in N. Africa, Egypt and Great Britain. For example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/472505.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Parent
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
And pray-tell, what real benefits are those?
Badly composited windows that take way too many resources?
Removal of receiving and sending faxes from the home (crippled user) version?
Non-accelerated sound system?
DRM system built in on the audio and video subsystems?
Ram gobbler (2GB.. not enough)?
10GB install with no real apps (where did the space go)? yay solitaire.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
And pray-tell, what real benefits are those?
Vista's Freecell is fully horizontally resizable. I've been waiting 15 years for that feature, if that isn't worth the upgrade I don't know what is.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
It only took ~6GB when I installed it.
7 ran quite well on 512 MB RAM.
Turns off defragmenter for SSDs
More efficient SSD formatting
Boot from VHD
CableCARD and H.264 support built-in
MP4, MOV, 3GP, AVCHD, ADTS, M4A, and WTV multimedia containers, with native codecs for H.264, MPEG4-SP, ASP/DivX/Xvid, MJPEG, DV, AAC-LC, LPCM, AAC-HE
UAC is way better--less prompts
Windows Biometric Framework
DNSSEC support
Powershell built in
Can burn ISOs
Wordpad supports OOXML and ODF
Libraries
Federated Search via OpenSearch
Re-arrange things on taskbar...yes you can make it look almost exactly like the Vista taskbar if you want.
Jump Lists
WinKey+Arrow Key for moving applications to one half of the monitor or the other
Touch integration
Yes a lot of these things can be had on Linux/through 3rd party programs. But now they are included in the OS, which 99% of the time means less problems/slowness/crashes. And developers can count on them to be there.
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7#Core_operating_system [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, what the hell are they doing with all that space? Freshly-installed Vista eats more space than Ubuntu with every app I might conceivably want to ever use installed, even with Vista's disk-swap turned off!
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
I would phase that slightly different.
The bar has been lowered.
Vista was compared to XP, which thanks to its long long long lifetime has become a standard, fairly polished, with known and mostly manageable security issues.
Vista comes along, does things different, breaks a lot, and is considered shitty.
Then Win7 is released, and it is now being compared to it's direct parent, Vista. Not XP. So MS only has to put a product in the market that appears better than Vista (reviewers won't complain too hard about drivers and other compatibility I suppose, it's beta after all), not better than the old and trusted XP.
That said I doubt Win7 will work on netbooks, so I won't be surprised that XP will be with us for a long long time to come.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
That said I doubt Win7 will work on netbooks, so I won't be surprised that XP will be with us for a long long time to come.
Actually, there have been lots of Win7 installs on netbooks, [liliputing.com] and the general consensus is that it runs fine. Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
I've been running the Win7beta for a couple weeks now, and it's been a pretty nice experience. My machine's perfectly capable of running Vista, though, so I haven't noticed many speed gains. The UI touch-ups are nice, though.
Parent
Re:Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:4, Insightful)
>>Is it as quick as running XP? Well, no, but don't forget that XP is a seven-year-old operating system that required a Pentium II at release.
>You see I don't get this comment. Since the operating system 7 years ago had to run on much slower hardware, well, don't expect that now?
>WHY F***G NOT! What on earth does an operating system have to do so that it sucks up ever bit of my quad core machine?
Hear Hear.
Yeah, early computing tech was slow, but at least the programmers were on average more careful with resource use.
Today's increase in tech level has allowed people to make bloated stuff where the bloat isn't really necessary. There are improvements in general, but so much of it is just stupid waste.
I shouldn't _need_ 42 bazillion megs of RAM for my computer to work properly
Parent
Why are you so sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I'm quite certain that if I tried to run Ubuntu 8.10 or whatever the newest release of it is (I've been out of the loop for a bit) on the same machine that I was running Red Hat 5.1 on ten years ago, it would choke.
I'm not. There are not really any more background processes. Code efficiency has improved... the only thing that probably would be slower is the GUI, but that's only the window manager and can be changed out easily or scaled back with settings changes.
Fundamentally Windows gets slower because the core system gets slower in the background, meaning the system as a whole needs more CPU just to stay in place. This contrasts with both Mac and Linux systems where new releases generally do not cause overall system slowdowns, even though they may add some components that are more CPU intensive.
Parent
Re:Why Not as Fast as XP? (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 7 is literally putting lipstick on a pig!
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
I prefer Windows 7, even at this beta stage, over XP - direct comparison.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:4, Informative)
There is a 64 bot Windows XP but they have stopped supporting it. I have it on two workstations at my office and it uses more than 4GB RAM just fine.
Windows Vista's and now Windows 7's most significant competition is Windows XP.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Funny)
There is a 64 bot Windows XP but they have stopped supporting it.
I wouldn't want to support a Windows install with that many bots either!
it uses more than 4GB RAM just fine.
Why does this not suprise me? Bots are hardly memory-efficient.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
Win7 has superfast wifi connect and resume. Big benefit on laptops.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Interesting)
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue? Because its not something you can ever completely solve through OS security alone, when your users still need to do stuff...
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Out of interest, how would *you* solve the virus issue?
First, stop making the product so absurdly exploitable. In no way should it be possible to contract malware from simply visiting a website, or leaving a network cable plugged in.
Second, make it obvious what you're doing, but not actually intrusive. It should not be possible to download and execute a program without realizing what you're doing. For an example of how to do this wrong, see VBA -- I should not be able to contract malware from a fucking office document. Nor should I have to memorize a list of dangerous file extensions. Compare with Linux -- until you chmod +x, or unpack the archive, it's not dangerous.
Third, provide known-good channels for obtaining new software. See: Linux package managers and repositories. Tie it in to Microsoft Update. Make it possible for third parties to run their own repositories. No need to host everything yourself, but it should at least be possible to periodically fetch, from a trusted source, a list of updated packages and signatures.
And finally, educate your users. The only computer which is secure from a user's own idiocy is one which doesn't let the user do anything worth protecting. Not limited to Windows, either, though it would help if the OS encouraged more secure, rather than less secure, modes of operation.
But until you've done the other steps, no amount of education will solve the problem. As long as the standard Windows method of installing software is some random EXE downloaded off a website, with at most an unverifiable signature claiming it's from that website, it requires too much effort.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Please explain how acrobat had write permission to the operating system files.
----
This "No viruses for linux/bsd/osx because they are not popular" is simply microsoft propaganda.
If the 90/10 market share is true, then those systems should have 10% of the virus market by that logic.
Since so many web servers out there are linux, it stands to reason that virus writers would be more motivated to attack linux, owning a much more strategic point in the web than some end user's windows PC.
Google is a massively parallel network built on linux. You're claiming no virus writers would be interested in owning the google cloud?
Enough with the illogical propaganda.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
Servers on any OS are harder to attack, because most viruses (in fact, all viruses, if you go by the strict definition of a computer virus, as opposed to a worm) require human interaction at some point to aid them. As servers tend to run unattended most of the time, the attacker has to resort to fully automated methods to exploit the system (i.e. security holes).
With desktop, all that's really needed is tricking the user into opening an infected file one way or another. On a system with properly configured security (i.e. user is not root - such as any Linux, or Windows starting with Vista), you also need to trick the user to click the confirmation prompt to access files. It is fairly obvious that both Linux and Vista/Win7 have equivalent security measures to prevent this scenario (which are sadly still not enough to overcome the human stupidity). However, 90% of all desktops are still Windows, which is why it makes more sense to attack it. Well, and also because Linux users today tend to be more tech savvy and will actually wonder why their email client asks them to elevate - but that's another story, and is not something that can be fixed by technical measured today.
So, the argument is valid, and abundance of Linux servers does not enter into the equation. All that matters is the desktop.
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Insightful)
My Linux server was exploited, I'm not quite sure how (nor did the server management guys).
If you're not quite sure how it was exploited, how do you know Linux itself was at fault?
Overwriting a few PHP files could have easily been done through a security hole in the PHP app itself.
Parent
And again. (Score:5, Interesting)
We go over this all the time here. Yet some people never seem to read it. So, here they are again. In no particular order.
#1. Understand the difference between a "virus", a "worm" and a "trojan".
#2. Take a hint from Ubuntu and have NO open ports on the DEFAULT installation. That will pretty much wipe out worm attacks. Do NOT depend upon a firewall to do that. The firewall is a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE that is often disabled because it interferes with legitimate apps that the user wants to run. I can put a default installation of Ubuntu directly on the 'Web and it will NOT be cracked.
#3. Provide a "known good" list of files (names, date/time, multiple checksums) for ALL of the OS files. This way, at least infections can be removed easier. It's easier to find a file that is NOT on the known good and remove it than it is to find a file that MAY be a newly obfuscated version of an old virus.
#4. Keep the OS directories CLEAN. That means that installing MS Office MUST NOT install ANY updated files in the OS directories.
#5. Move to INI files for apps instead of allowing them to edit the registry. If you really must keep the registry, keep it clean.
#6. Consolidate the various temp directories and DUMP them during the boot process.
Remember, viruses, worms and trojans are nothing more than code. They are not magical. Limit how code can be written to the system and you limit how they may spread. Enforce organization and you limit where they may be written.
Once the disinfection rate exceeds the infection rate, the viruses, worms and trojans will die.
Parent
Re:And again. (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's the reason for Windows' success, then how do you explain the fact that so many of the biggest Windows users (i.e. major companies) explicitly go out of their way to prevent that kind of behaviour? Most places these days have a horribly bureaucratic process required to get access to the most trivial of utilities. Many companies even use programs designed to sniff out unauthorised software, to ensure that nothing they don't know about ever gets run on their computers.
And of course it's worth noting that since Vista, Microsoft have been doing everything they can to move towards the Linux/Unix style, where even home users need to use an administrator password to install software. So apparently even Microsoft disagrees with you about what makes Windows successful...
Parent
Re:Well (Score:5, Informative)
If Microsoft audited their code and used the same kind of measures that OpenBSD does, they would be miles ahead of were they are now. Security models and sandboxes in all their glory, but a *lot* of the problems are down to faulty code, code that Microsoft owns and can audit and freaking fix. Only after they have done that can we talk security models and such things. With all the bugs and holes it is so easy to attack windows that nobody really will care about trying to do anything on a grander scale.
Parent
TFA is totally wrong about why Vista failed (Score:5, Insightful)
IT people killed Vista, and I see no reason why they will be any happier with Win7. I have talked to dozens of industry people, from the guys who network mom & pop shops to guys who run databases for Fortune 100 companies, and NONE of them wanted anything to do with Vista. Their complaints were that it was entirely too dependent on internet connectivity, it was totaly different and therefore a major hassle to integrate with their existing network infrastructure and to maintain at the user level, and could not be locked down in a corporate environment properly. Win7 is a finger in the eye to these people -- it doesn't even have Classic mode any more. I've only spoken to a couple of them since Win7 was introduced but they aren't impressed.
And it is a truism from the days of Dos 2.0 that people do prefer to use at home what they use at work. When the tech friends they depend on to fix what they can't insist they run XP, they will insist on XP. Office and Word became popular not because they're all that good but because people brought them home and became comfortable with them there.
This has all come down to a giant Mexican standoff between Microsoft, which wants to determine how your computer looks and acts, and corporate IT types who want to determine those things. (As for you determining those things, that ship has sailed; the end of Classic mode tells that tale.) The IT guyes will not give up their control. Microsoft has obviously dug in their heels. It is not clear to me how this will end, but from what I have seen it will not end with widespread Win7 on the corporate desktop.
Re:TFA is totally wrong about why Vista failed (Score:5, Informative)
Last I checked, if you don't want Windows 7 or Vista, you don't have to buy them.
Until they stop supporting your current OS with security upgrades and activation.
Parent
windows 7 has flaws too (Score:5, Interesting)
The users I support are going to have *huge* problems with the new taskbar. First, they have a problem with grouping tasks into one icon. They never did get the hang of that, so we ended up just unchecking that feature.
Second, the default is to have no text under the icon. They are going to have a hard time figuring out what is already running. They'll end up double clicking everything.
Third, the taskbar no longer appends each new application to the end of the running tasks. That will throw people off.
In addition, they are really going to confuse themselves with all of the new mouse gestures.
Other than that, windows 7, like Vista, and XP before it has the same basic interface as 9x. Taskbar at the bottom of the screen, Menu launcher in the lower left hand corner.
Why Vista Really Failed (Score:5, Insightful)
The real reason Vista really failed is the same people who are hyping up 7, the media.
Vista changed the way drivers needed to be written for security reasons, and because hardware vendors suck at writing drivers for whatever they make, there were all sorts of problems with hardware compatibility, ESPECIALLY with older hardware. Add to that UI changes ranging from minor to extensive in both Vista and Office 07, overzealous UAC, and a million other little things (on top of the million other little things that didn't make it into vista (i thought it was funny that theirs actually a wikipedia page for "Features removed from Windows Vista")), and obviously, almost no ones first impressions were good. Tech writers ravaged it, the mainstream media picked up on their stories and killed most of the little momentum Vista had by simply parroting the tech writers.
However, since then drivers have gotten good, service pack 1 has come out, and Vista has matured. You'd have a hard time finding a second impression review of the OS that did nothing but bash the OS like the first impression ones did. In fact, lots of reviews coming out now are actually praising Vista for becoming better than its predecessor (granted only with modern day hardware).
Windows 7 is Windows Vista++. A refined UI, refined UAC, drivers are mature now, performance is approximately as good or better than vista (which is as good or better than XP on the right hardware), IE8 is shaping up to be an improvement, and the whole package seems to just work better. Most of the tech writers have already been won over by Vista, windows 7 appears to be better than that (and its just a beta!), so obviously they write favorable reviews. The mainstream media is picking up on their stories and hyping up the slowly growing mass of momentum Windows 7 has by simply parroting the tech writers.
TL;DR: vista was killed by bad first impressions that the mass media ran with. windows 7 will succeed because of good first impressions that the mass media is running with.
Windows 7 should go back to home and pro setup no (Score:4, Interesting)
Windows 7 should go back to home and pro setup no 5+ vers like vista. Maybe also have a enterprise ver with extras apps / tools for that as well.
Also all packs should oem and retail should come with the 32bit and 64bit disks or let people down load the 64bit iso for free and let them use there key that they have.
Best beta ever? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Vista Lite (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Vista Lite (Score:5, Interesting)
I was ready to throw Vista out of the window within minutes of my first encounter with it. So far I've clocked a few hours in Win7 and, as of yet, the same compulsion has not struck me.
Only time will tell if that's going to last. UAC really *really* still needs a "remember my answer for this file" checkbox to avoid being turned off completely. It makes no sense what so ever that I should have to click "yes" every bloody time I start my defragmentation application. Sure, if something tries to start it without my direct interaction, tell me. But as long as I'm selecting the menu option to start it, and I've previously said "go ahead", and the file hasn't changed... Just bloody start it already!
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is actually not the first time Calculator has received an update, but of course When you change the insides, nobody notices [msdn.com]:
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pressing 3 + 2 * 2 = in windows calculator.
Standard: 10 (as a handheld calculator would produces, as it calculates 3 + 2 when you press *)
Scientific: 7 (as the scientific calculator on my desk produces)
What's the problem?
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
I didn't even know the two modes worked differently until now. In my eyes the problems are:
Both are pretty major issues for such a simple app, IMO.
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Interesting)
actually there are two modes of operation (as the grandparent said). There is "standard" which works like an off the shelf cheap calculator. This mode *ignores* order of operations by design, because that's what cheap non-scientific calculators do!.
In scientific mode, it will properly use order of operations.
Funny enough, I do some contributing to kcalc for KDE and having a mode which ignore orders of operators to make it work like a "real calculator" is a relatively frequent request. I'm not a fan of this idea, so I never did it...but there is a demand for it.
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Informative)
But did they fix the [calc] bug? Or does it still produce 'scientific' and 'wrong' results for 3+2*2?
Ages ago. http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2004/05/25/141253.aspx [msdn.com]
The calculator in Windows 7 is also vastly improved: http://lifehacker.com/5078756/windows-7s-calculator-bundles-real+life-uses [lifehacker.com]
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Please... (Score:5, Funny)
Sounds like this OS is right up my alley!
We like to keep a modicum of decency in these forums, what you do in the privacy of your own home is your own business.
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Informative)
Oh dear god yes. This has got to be my #1 annoyance with Vista.
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow, I don't know what you've done to your Vista but somehow or other you've monged it thouroughly.
1. Mine actually does this. In fact, the behaviour you suggest for default is...erm...the OS default. It's only if you click the "remember this choice" button that it changes.
2. They are slow, though that did improve witht he service pack.
3. I've shared arbitrary folders as writeable. I use it to mount my entire C drive from my Mac.
4. Or you could right-click->Properties->Sharing. Your call. You can't take the long way round and then blame MS for it.
5. I've never done this, so no comment.
6. This is the most annoying thing. Seems like every time you boot the computer you have to reboot it! But this is a flaw with Windows vs. Linux etc, not with Vista in specific.
7. Again, this is not something I've had a problem with (as in, my behaviour has never been restricted by it) but it may be true.
8. A lot of this was driven by the device manufacturers. See the Creative vs. Daniel_K fiasco, discussed here a while ago.
9. Most times I boot the PC I don't run into UAC. It does trigger too often (e.g. when changing user settings) but it doesn't really bug me much more than a privileges elevation in Linux.
10. I actually like the Network and Sharing center. It's a central interface for networking activities. I wish Ubuntu had one by default.
11&12. Yeah, but again, these are criticisms of Windows vs. *nix and the average consumer doesn't seem to care.
I've had no problems with Vista, or at least none that weren't caused by Creative.
Parent
Re:Hookay... damage control? Paid by MS? (Score:5, Funny)
5 - The only view I ever want to use in Explorer is Details.
LIES!! You've got at least one folder that uses thumbnails view. We all do...
Parent
Re:Not a Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent