f13.net

The official beta, announced at the CES 2009, was made available to MSDN and TechNet subscribers on 07 January 2009 and was made available for public download on Microsoft TechNet on 09 January 2009. [18][19] The public download will be limited to 2.5 million users.

These are the Microsoft minimum hardware recommendations for systems that will be running the Windows 7 Beta. These recommendations are specific to the beta release and are subject to change:

Processor: 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor
Memory:  1 GB of system memory
Hard drive: 16 GB of available disk space
Video card:  Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128MB memory (in order to enable Aero theme)
Drive: DVD-R/W drive
Internet connection (to download the Beta and get updates)

Windows Vista minimum supported system requirements
Home Basic / Home Premium / Business / Ultimate
800 MHz processor and 512 MB of system memory

20 GB hard drive with at least 15 GB of available space

Support for Super VGA graphics

CD-ROM drive

and finally can we finally get a GTFO option in the add/remove programs tool, i simply shouldn't have to recreate a network share, insert the install disk, visit a website or hack my registry to get ANY piece of software off my machine.

DX10?

As much as I love this, as long as there isn't a "The program goes in this folder here and that's it" requirement, I doubt it will happen.  There really, really, really needs to be such a requirement though.

Due to very heavy traffic we’re seeing as a result of interest in the Windows 7 Beta, we are adding some additional infrastructure support to the Microsoft.com properties before we post the public beta. We want to ensure customers have the best possible experience when downloading the beta, and I’ll be posting here again soon once the beta goes live. Stay tuned! We are excited that you are excited!

See, now THIS kind of thing would compel me to upgrade. Those little application package thingies on Mac (no idea their technical term, I don't use a mac regularly but I know *of* them) are perfect. Drag the software into here, when you don't want it, you literally toss it into the bin. No registry, no DLL's installed to the system folder, etc. I do believe some preference files are perhaps made in the user profile, but assuming they're never accessed outside of the parent program, it would never present as a possible slowdown.

Things I *would* upgrade for:

- As mentioned, program "packages" that don't install like an orgasmic explosion of files on your OS
- A protected "startup" feature, where no program can attempt to make itself startup without asking first (and a la Firefox, being able to say "No, and never again for this software")
- Automatic, system level driver and software updates. Every program and device now for Windows installs its own update manager, just make a single service other programs can tap into. Ubuntu already does this marvelously, Mac as well. Fuck, I'm pretty sure my microwave does.

As much as I love this, as long as there isn't a "The program goes in this folder here and that's it" requirement, I doubt it will happen.  There really, really, really needs to be such a requirement though.

See, now THIS kind of thing would compel me to upgrade. Those little application package thingies on Mac (no idea their technical term, I don't use a mac regularly but I know *of* them) are perfect. Drag the software into here, when you don't want it, you literally toss it into the bin. No registry, no DLL's installed to the system folder, etc. I do believe some preference files are perhaps made in the user profile, but assuming they're never accessed outside of the parent program, it would never present as a possible slowdown.

Many deployment problems have been solved by the use of assemblies in the .NET Framework. Because they are self-describing components that have no dependencies on registry entries, assemblies enable zero-impact application installation. They also simplify uninstalling and replicating applications.

stuff about .NET being a clean uninstall

(they also solve the "DLL Hell" problem)

64-bit support, if you ever want to run with 4+ GB of RAM in your box, or (in a few years) 4+ GB of RAM for any given process. The way games and high-end apps are gobbling memory, you're going to need it sooner or later.

The only reason to upgrade to Vista/7 is to work with additional ram. There is nothing the operating system itself is bringing to the table. Nice.

A year ago I set my non computer literate dad up with a Vista laptop, he brought it with him over christmas and I ran some checks(spyware/malware/virus/patches/general maintenance stuff) on it and the OS was in perfect condition on his previous XP computer I would spend half a day once a year cleaning it up.

MSRT found and cleaned malware from 60.5% fewer Windows Vista-based computers than from computers running Windows XP with Service Pack 2 installed

M$

Do people still do that? I mean people who aren't being dicks?

Isn't office a .net product?

Solve or replace with this (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS291US303&q=+side-by-side+error)?

Are you suggesting that Vista is invulnerable to malware? Because it certainly is not.

A post from a MS developers blog on the MSDN: http://blogs.msdn.com/windowsvistasecurity/archive/2008/05/09/windows-vista-windows-2000-and-malware.aspx


Malware certainly still affects Vista. Why the lower numbers? The are a number of factors. Obviously Microsoft would have attempted to make this operating more secure, but was it successful? The reality is that it most certainly can still become infected. Programs are still able to creep onto a Vista machine, whether by injection or by being bundled in software; they are still permitted to start up, create outgoing connections and potentially download and install additional malware on your machine without user awareness. Unfortunately, being that the rate of infected Vista machines is not 0%, we can safely assume this will be a problem once again.

I wasn't implying that vista was impervious to malware, but you have to admit that it isn't very backwards compatible friendly to software in general and this includes a significant amount of malware.  One of the number one reasons to move on from XP is that the malware coders have all it's holes extremely well documented, I think XP is a fine OS but after 6 years of people poking holes in it the game is up.

Are you suggesting that Vista is invulnerable to malware? Because it certainly is not.

Yer telling me that the almighty M$ can't figure out a subversion like rollback tool for the registry?  Screw that they have the money to build this in.  They already have system restore this would just be a subversion like version of that.

Their OSes are far more complicated than they need to be.

Yer missing my point.  If they go the simple route there is no registry for programs to install to.  It's all self-contained.  It solves far more problems than just uninstalls.

Their OSes are far more complicated than they need to be.

Why did you ask people what reasons you should upgrade to Vista/w7 if you're just going to keep pushing your preconceived notion that "M$" is the devil and both iterations of Windows are terrible things that just want your money?

Or you could just keep being a real classy douche.

People are strange, my business has been using vista since shortly after release for our various customer's media center computers with zero issues, and i have had zero issues with vista 64 bit. I have no idea where the bad hype comes from, I think some of you are fricken crazy.

I really think vista got its bad rap because people tried to install it on shitty old computers with not enough ram and not enough current hardware to support it.

I really think vista got its bad rap because people tried to install it on shitty old computers with not enough ram and not enough current hardware to support it.

Yer telling me that the almighty M$ can't figure out a subversion like rollback tool for the registry?  Screw that they have the money to build this in.  They already have system restore this would just be a subversion like version of that.

Photoshop doesn't work like that for me. Also, if you're in photoshop that often, why aren't you using Bridge?

Vista is all around faster for me. I'd never drag an image to my taskbar. I don't even know what you're talking about with that.

System Restore does take a snapshot of the registry. It's actually a very good way to get rid of malware registry entries. But you wouldn't use it to uninstall the registry changes of a regular app install unless you happened to make a restore point just before the install and you hadn't made any registry changes post install. The same thing applies to Subversion. You wouldn't try to extract out the changes between two adjacent tags (actually copies) in the arbitrary past by "rolling back". You could only do it against the most recent tag.

Extremely efficient ram usage (Some processes turned off, but you should be doing that in XP/Vista too)

Make sure you get a key or else it expires after 30 days. You can get 64 bit keys here (https://www.microsoft.com/betaexperience/productkeys/win7-64/enus/default.aspx).

You guys realize you could have done this a lot easier just using visualization, right?

http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/

Grab the demo. Enjoy.

Why would I run it in a virtual machine when the whole point is compare/contrasting it to Vista?  For that you have to let it get next to the metal.

I enjoy the irony in your statement.

As for Windows7, it boots faster than Vista for me, and looks nicer. I like the new taskbar, and a few other bells and bobs. Seems like a decent iteration OS for them. I'll keep using it for now, see what other problems I come across.

The most fucking amazing thing to happen to my computer since invention of the internetz.  Enough said.

MS doesn't have the luxury that Apple and Linux do where they can just break their legacy applications.  If they ever attempted something like what Apple did with OSX the ensuing shitstorm would make the black eye they got with Vista (an undeserved black eye, in my estimation) look like a sloppy french kiss.

Have you encountered problems already? If so, which version are you using (x86 or x64)?

I was thinking more of a subversion like tool that worked in reverse (code compare pre and post install take those differences and extract them from the current version), probably wouldn't be too clean in the event you had a seperate app that dependant on entries from the app you were installing but it would be easy enough to add an undo changes feature as well.

Anyone having problems with connecting to public network peripherals such as printers?
My school's network printers are located on a "run source" extension.  Every time I try to log on with my user-id and password, it is "unknown" to the server.

Great. The biggest software company in the world cannot afford to do any amount of customer research. Valve is in the same state as them - they should ask for some advice.

You are not in one of microsoft's target demographics.

Late twenties businessmen and developers are certainly not on the radar for Microsoft  :uhrr:

The actual improvement that was a significant reason to upgrade from an engineering or business standpoint you pooh-pooed on the first page.

You aren't going to be happy in this thread, why don't you move along?

(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/windows_7.png)

from http://xkcd.com/

XKCD on Windows 7 (http://xkcd.com/528/)

I thought it was funny.

You guys realize you could have done this a lot easier just using visualization, right?

http://www.vmware.com/products/ws/

Grab the demo. Enjoy.

I'll believe Win7 isn't a bucket of suck designed to make me buy all new hardware when I see it.  Until then, I'm going to assume it will be worse than useless on any system with less than 8gig of memory and a quad-core processor

I can't decide whether to categorize you as tinfoil hatter or shortbus, so in the interest of getting things straight let me pose this question:

Without getting into the  :tinfoil: :uhrr: debate, he is pretty accurate about the MS betas getting slower after they remove their debug code. That said, many people do have 8gig and a quad core now. And as has been reported, the current beta is a smaller memory footprint and seems snappier than Vista.

Also, what is it with the trolling personal attacks lately?

FWIW, Windows betas have always shown considerable improvement over the immediately earlier version, right up until the last couple of release candidates, when performance mysteriously nosedives just enough to justify another round of CPU upgrades.  WinXP blew WinME out of the water by every metric right up until the last month.  Vista's beta looked *awesome*, until they split it into 6 different versions, the "Home" track of which mysteriously performing about 30-50% slower.

I'll believe Win7 isn't a bucket of suck designed to make me buy all new hardware when I see it.  Until then, I'm going to assume it will be worse than useless on any system with less than 8gig of memory and a quad-core processor, and will contain "Trusted Computing" logic bombs designed to let MS collect a console-like royalty on every bit of software, content, and hardware sold (and that sucks up about 75% of all system resources making certain my system can be "trusted").

--Dave

I'm a sarcastic and hateful person.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how you do skepticism properly.  I also happen to agree with Dave.  I cannot believe that W7 will be better-performing than Vista or XP because it makes zero sense.

Your naive belief that massive corporations do not collude for profit would be cute if The Children were not Our Future.  Do you think MicroSoft executives never talk to Intel executives?  Mayhap they are completely unaware of each other's existence and the symbiotic nature of their products has all been one large coincidence.

Microsoft and Intel have a working relationship going back 30 years.  Windows is an IA based OS.  Windows could not exist without Intel sharing information with them  Intel makes the vast majority of IA CPUs.  Intel customizes their chips to streamline Windows OS functions.  If Intel makes more processors Microsoft makes more money.  If Microsoft makes a killer ap that uses lots of resources so that Intel sells more processors Intel makes a lot of money.

Are you seriously suggesting that one or both sides of that equation aren't completely aware of that?  Or are you really, really naive?

Here's a new thought: Microsoft realizes that the vast majority of their sold software is on pre-built machines utilizing last generation (at best) technology and in order to attempt to salvage their name has decided not to bloat the hell out of their next release so that it will run passably.  Simultaneously they realize that adoption by enthusiasts (the ones buying i7's) is reliant upon performance rather than pretty widgets and streamline accordingly.

Your optimism could power North America for a decade if we could harness it.  :grin:

...
 In fact, I'm so optimistic I can't be arsed to download it for myself for free.
...

Would you kindly go fuck right off back to whatever basement you crawled out of then? This is the thread wherein Windows 7 is discussed after all.

"Not a downgrade from XP" is not a good endorsements, though. After the dud that was Vista they better have something that counts as an upgrade. And among that whole bunch of people there should be enough smart ones to realize that.

I guess it does say a lot about the Vista system if they are already basically scrapping it and looking at the next iteration. 

The Core i7 architechture is not related, since not only was Nehalem in the works before Vista, but because the fortes of the new cpu are in server architechture, not consumer related performance.

Win 2k = NT5/Windows 5
Win XP = Windows 6
Vista = Windows 7

edit: to clarify my point the choice of a new "iteration" was for marketing reasons and not for your usual software life cycle/production reasons.

Here's a new thought: Microsoft realizes that the vast majority of their sold software is on pre-built machines utilizing last generation (at best) technology and in order to attempt to salvage their name has decided not to bloat the hell out of their next release so that it will run passably.

Don't try to get sympathy from me with invoking Outlook.  I use Lotus Notes. :uhrr:

Don't try to get sympathy from me with invoking Outlook.  I use Lotus Notes. :uhrr:

i'm stuck on groupwise  :ye_gods: which isn't even close to being the worst of the outdated tech crap that is forced on us.

For some reason it won't map my IDE drive, so all of the files I backed up to it are safe... and completely unreachable.

Really?  2 of my drives are IDE and it mapped them without a problem...  Have you updated your mobo's drivers yet?

I really don’t understand the Vista hate.

People praising XP and damning Vista should remember Windows XP's state at launch, before it had 2 service packs worth of fixing behind it.

btw - i am still boggled by the total lack of an up folder button.  Not sure if they fixed it but my 1st Vista experience right after release consisted of the following data cleanup scenario (basically copied a bunch of user data onto the new laptop then went to clean it up):

1 - go into a folder to see what the heck it contained, see a bunch of subfolders.
2 - go into each subfolder to see what they contained, back out of the folder and delete it if it was garbage.
3 - done with the parent folder so try and get back to a level above it.
4 - WTF?  Guess what used to be a commonly used 1 click operation now isn't and I seem to recall Vista actually giving me an error when trying to use the back button when the last folder visited was deleted.

BigGulp, what system are you running? I ask because explorer on my Vista box is as instantaneous as I could wish for, unless, of course, I have that whole thumbnail thing going on in a folder with tons of pictures, in which case it does take a while.

Another thing, I'm not sure how significant having Wow FPS at 30 in two monitor mode is nowawdays.

I think installing this is going to be my project for the 3 day weekend.  I read the thing about backing up you mp3's but other than that any problems laying this alongside XP in dual boot config?

* Win+Home: Clear all but the active window
* Win+Space: All windows become transparent so you can see through to the desktop
* Win+Up arrow: Maximize the active window
* Win+Down arrow: Minimize the window/Restore the window if it's maximized
* Win+Left/Right arrows: Dock the window to each side of the monitor (If you've got dual monitors, adding Shift to the mix (e.g., Win+Shift+Right arrow) will move the window to the adjacent monitor.)
* Win+T: Focus and scroll through items on the taskbar.
* Win+P: Adjust presentation settings for your display
* Win+(+/-): Zoom in/out
* Shift+Click a taskbar item: Open a new instance of that application

That said, many people do have 8gig and a quad core now.

Whoa, wuh? Define "many".  :headscratch:

Faulting application name: MSIEXEC.EXE, version: 5.0.7000.0, time stamp: 0x49431c33
Faulting module name: ntdll.dll, version: 6.1.7000.0, time stamp: 0x49433f8c
Exception code: 0xc0000005

The Native API (with capitalized N) is the publicly incompletely documented application programming interface used internally by the Windows NT family of operating systems produced by Microsoft.  Most of the Native API calls are implemented in ntoskrnl.exe and are exposed to user mode by ntdll.dll. Some Native API calls are implemented in user mode directly within ntdll.dll.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntdll.dll

At least you using Office 07 now, we are still on Office 2002 with Outlook 2003. 2002 doesn't play well with files saved from my Mac Office 2008.

Even once Dell is selling 8gig quad-cores for it's $400 desktops, we're a ways from that being the "standard".  The best system in my house is only dual-core with 3GB (and it's not mine).

uhm, green text? Or do you think the problem is something you did?

Click the Start button , click All Programs, and then click Accessories.

Right-click Command Prompt, and then click Run as administrator.  In the User Account Control window, verify that Program name is Windows Command Processor, and then click Yes.

In the Administrator: Command Prompt window, type or paste the following text at the prompt:

reg delete HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\SQMClient\Windows\DisabledSessions /va /f

Press Enter to install the solution.

If you are having problems installing apps, try this:

We'll I be dammed. That fixed the MSI installer issues for me, thanks a lot!

ATi cards have problems too.  The beta drivers that win7 comes with doesn't include the catalyst control panel or OpenGL 2.0 drivers (same as with nVidia's beta drivers I think... I know it doesn't come with the nVidia control panel).

Nice.  I didn't notice the control panel link in any of the usual places when I tried it out on my nforce mobo.

Edit: And the beta driver pack I was talking about was for catalyst (http://support.ati.com/ics/support/default.asp?deptID=894&task=knowledge&questionID=39069)

Not everyone has problems installing the normal drivers, but enough people have had it happen to find multiple posts about it on different forums.  My mobo has an embedded 3200hd, so I can't really say.  I thought I saw a post from someone with a 48X0 having this problem, but I could be mistaken.

It might be based on the installer itself.  Were you using the ATi exe that unpacks itself before installing, or the the installer from your vid card manufacturer/cd?

Jackass MS decided to go with five or six versions of w7.... did they not look at any of the confusion about choosing Vista versions?

So if this does in fact launch this year, and it is in fact nothing but a rebranding of Vista, is there any reason to go out and buy it?

So if this does in fact launch this year, and it is in fact nothing but a rebranding of Vista, is there any reason to go out and buy it?

Just tossing a log on the fire.  I assembled a new PC and 64-bit Catalyst for W7 Beta just flops on the hardware detection (4870) while the Vista 64 version works great.  Stupid ATi.

Otherwise it's fine so far.  Just been a few hours, though.  Failed to remember to order a wireless LAN card so I won't be able to give it a workout for a few more days.  So far, I like it.

I've read something about it doing horrid things to your sound card... Like making it so it can't record what it hears....

Have you tried running the driver install in Vista emulation mode with admin privileges?  That sorted out my problems with my 4850.

In fact, that's worked pretty much every time for any program that decided to be bitchy about it.

Have not tried, do not know how.  Yet.  Will report back.

I heard W7 DRM'ed out the ass.

Anyone run into the "this version of Windows requires all drivers to be signed" situation?  Because that pisses me off a lot.

I heard W7 DRM'ed out the ass.

How old is your switch/hub?

The link speed thing is quick to check out. In xp, just right-click on your connection icon and select 'status' and you should see the speed you'rre at. Other than that, your ideas seem like a good path.

Filesharing is, in fact, more confusing.  Unless you want to open up your whole machine, I guess.

Filesharing is terribly painful up until you realize you just have to turn off the password option in the settings.

Just FYI, I think the task manager in Windows7 can be reached as in Vista and XP, by right-clicking on the task bar...should show up on the context menu. Or did you mean something else?

Meanwhile, those stick-in-the-muds who “really, really need to” bypass Microsoft’s request that they revert to Vista first will need to boot from a flash drive or another partition before modifying the build number in the “cversion.ini” file via text editor.

It also seems at least somewhat likely that you'll have problems if you use it.

I keep partitions and such anyway, so it won't be TOO bad, but still.


So, once again, I guess MS is gonna rape people to buy the "real" usable package? I never understood how they could justify different OS levels with different prices; all the code for the top-level product is already written, and doesn't cost them more to include everything on a single disc, so why the cockblock with "lesser" versions that cost what the "real" version should?

So when 7100 goes out, we have to format to install it?

RC build 7100 is out on P2P now, alas its not on technet(30th)/general release(may 5th) yet.

No "official" hash/md5sums on Microsoft site so watch out if you attempt to use it.

One cool new feature inside of RC is the XP mode (http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs/paul/archive/2009/04/24/secret-no-more-revealing-virtual-windows-xp-for-windows-7.aspx). Basically Professional/Ultimate/Enterprise Windows 7 has the update option to download the product which is a fully licensed windows xp sp3 emulation for your PC. It requires processors with hardware virtualization and snaps right into Windows 7 so it offers seemless end user experience launching a XP based app on your Windows 7 host PC.

OK, that is hot shit.  Which processor(s) am I going to need for this?

Here’s what you can do to bypass the check for pre-release upgrade IF YOU REALLY REALLY NEED TO:

   1. Download the ISO as you did previously and burn the ISO to a DVD.
   2. Copy the whole image to a storage location you wish to run the upgrade from (a bootable flash drive or a directory on any partition on the machine running the pre-release build).
   3. Browse to the sources directory.
   4. Open the file cversion.ini in a text editor like Notepad.
   5. Modify the MinClient build number to a value lower than the down-level build. For example, change 7100 to 7000 (pictured below).
   6. Save the file in place with the same name.
   7. Run setup like you would normally from this modified copy of the image and the version check will be bypassed.

Watch the calendar. The RC will expire on June 1, 2010. Starting on March 1, 2010, your PC will begin shutting down every two hours. Windows will notify you two weeks before the bi-hourly shutdowns start. To avoid interruption, you'll need to install a non-expired version of Windows before March 1, 2010. You'll also need to install the programs and data that you want to use.

Really? Really guys? You know, if you wanted us to stop using RC1 on March 1, it'd be totally fine to just have it expire. That's cool. The trial's over, time to move on people. But turning the entire OS into a crippling piece of harassmentware? Way to turn something awesome into a huge douchebomb moment for yourselves.

That's totally absurd. I agree - just have it f***ing expire rather than do this BS.
Makes me not want to download it at all.
Douchey move.

I've seen the same wailing as people notice the beta will start doing the same July 1. Shutdown every 2 hours.

Q: Can I upgrade from the RC to the final version of Windows 7?
When you install the final version of Windows 7, you'll need to do a clean installation. So plan on backing up your data then reinstalling your applications and restoring your data.

People have probably alrady commented on this on the earlier version, but has anyone had any compatibility issues with the 64 bit version?

I'm not convinced Win7 32 is a serious upgrade from Vista 32.

People have probably alrady commented on this on the earlier version, but has anyone had any compatibility issues with the 64 bit version?

The W7 upgrade requires 11GB free on my C: partition, which is only (ha!) 20GB and I just have 7.5GB free.  So, anyone have any suggestions on free repartition tools?

My addition to the thread, anyone running an ATI card under Win7? I've been quite happy with my nvidia's performance in Win7 which was better than XP or Vista, but it's an old 8800GTS/320 and yesterday it started to throw all sorts of hardware failure looking errors whilst playing Eve, so I'm contemplating a new PC.

Windows 7 installs a 100 mb 'admin' partition. Anyone know what that's all about?

Windows 7 installs a 100 mb 'admin' partition. Anyone know what that's all about?

Windows 7 installs a 100 mb 'admin' partition. Anyone know what that's all about?

I need to stop learning things and reinstall my games.

Don't need to reinstall your games to have them working on win7 or xp64.

Touche, however your adherence to the Old Ways will betray you... in time.

My main obstacle for my current upgrade project is a power bloc of folks at work who insist they can't read anything on a 19" screen unless it's at 800x600. The minimum res of the app they need to upgrade to is 1024x768. Most of the office (and entire library system and world in general) is using modern resolutions. Stupid politics and it's going to get ugly when I finally admit that I am just ordering the 19" monitors and they have to suck it up.

My main obstacle for my current upgrade project is a power bloc of folks at work who insist they can't read anything on a 19" screen unless it's at 800x600. The minimum res of the app they need to upgrade to is 1024x768. Most of the office (and entire library system and world in general) is using modern resolutions. Stupid politics and it's going to get ugly when I finally admit that I am just ordering the 19" monitors and they have to suck it up.

Why in the world would a boss want to cajole their employees into using a specific, crappy resolution?  If my boss walked up to me and was all, "WHAT IS THAT TINY TEXT THERE?  WE USE GOOD OLD PIXELICIOUS 800x600 HERE BY GOD," I'd assume it was some sort of stupid joke.  Then they'd probably just get a blank stare.

As I said, Numtini understands. Break-time and general office chatter, slowly pushing your agenda and painting other people as having an agenda (mine is buying technology that exists and meeting minimum requirements of the software, you know, pure ego).

Moving to macs makes sense, we're a mac house and only needed pcs in their department because the interim software we used was pc-only (oh, the battles back then). Now it's java-based, so we can go back to macs. But this department only had one mac, they've basically transitioned from dumb VAX terminals to XP. Now we'll be putting OSX 10.5 in front of them. Should be an interesting year.

Umm, don't you work in a library?

I'd be irate if my local library was pissing away my property tax money to pay the Apple tax.  The cheapest (and by cheapest, I mean just that.  It's crap) Mac Mini starts at $600.  The least expensive iMac starts at $1200, for Christ's sake.  Now if you're buying for your home, fine, knock yourself out.  If you're sucking on the government tit, though, should you really be spending that much for a fucking library?  You know, the place where the elderly and the homeless go to pass their meaningless existences?

. Now it's java-based, so we can go back to macs. But this department only had one mac, they've basically transitioned from dumb VAX terminals to XP.

It's a lot of not very subtle comments about things not being large enough to read.

Perhaps settings the resolution to 1024 *and* the background to this (http://www.worldofstock.com/slides/CON1986.jpg) could help? I mean, if the not very subtle comments are all fine and all...

Or do the right thing and ridicule the problem person to the point where they lose all credability.  Blind old biddy's who have 1 foot still in the stone age giving computer advice to coworkers isn't something to be tolerated.

Sort of like the "oh, I know nothing about your application, userbase, support, or infrastructure, but I object to you wasting money on Macs because as a citizen I have the right to second guess any decision you make."

I'd be irate if my local library was pissing away my property tax money to pay the Apple tax.  The cheapest (and by cheapest, I mean just that.  It's crap) Mac Mini starts at $600.  The least expensive iMac starts at $1200, for Christ's sake.  Now if you're buying for your home, fine, knock yourself out.  If you're sucking on the government tit, though, should you really be spending that much for a fucking library?  You know, the place where the elderly and the homeless go to pass their meaningless existences?

What is that Mac doing that couldn't be done for far cheaper on commodity hardware?

Second, the mini is about $50 more than the state contract Dells, and it's fine for browsing and Office.

Not getting viruses, being easier to set up and deploy.

Sky, to be fair, anyone with the internet who knows how to use it never has to go to a library again.

Libraries creep the shit out of me anyway, too many people touching too many books who have dirty hands. Everyone has dirty hands. They have to be stopped.

Sky, to be fair, anyone with the internet who knows how to use it never has to go to a library again.

(IT staff of half a dozen)

See what you did there?

Our library system recommends Deep Freeze, but I've worked with the MS freeware they built on top of the old Gates Foundation tools. The first two generations sucked compared to the old tools (which had snapins that rocked), but the newest version is pretty good. Finally have the windows boxes working
like I want, and it's free.

Are you using techsoup.org for the public machines? YOU NEED TECHSOUP if you work at a non-profit with the public.

When my computer comes back (again), it'll have WinXP on it. Is it safe to jump to Windows 7 in July-ish? Or should I wait for the inevitable SP1?

Umm, don't you work in a library?

I'd be irate if my local library was pissing away my property tax money to pay the Apple tax.  The cheapest (and by cheapest, I mean just that.  It's crap) Mac Mini starts at $600.  The least expensive iMac starts at $1200, for Christ's sake.  Now if you're buying for your home, fine, knock yourself out.  If you're sucking on the government tit, though, should you really be spending that much for a fucking library?  You know, the place where the elderly and the homeless go to pass their meaningless existences?

Back to Windows 7: you all hear RCs are going to begin shutting down computers every two hours come June 10? Not a shocker of course, but  prompts me to ask:

When my computer comes back (again), it'll have WinXP on it. Is it safe to jump to Windows 7 in July-ish? Or should I wait for the inevitable SP1?

And that still doesn't address the "joy of computing" factor — the truth that every time I have to boot up Vista I want to cry like a hungry newborn.

And that still doesn't address the "joy of computing" factor — the truth that every time I have to boot up Vista I want to cry like a hungry newborn.

The conversation went into Funny Land when I read six people to do IT at a library.  My team has eight people and we support about 150 enterprise AIX servers of "varying complexity".  Our Windows team has eight-ish people and they have more like 1500 servers spread around the world.

So?  Don't use Vista.

We're talking about a library, not your home setup.  Sky has already admitted that his tech budget is nonexistent and he operates off of grants.  That's an even better reason not to buy Apple and just switch over to Ubuntu.  You can use cheap, outdated commodity hardware, and as long as people have a browser and an office suite (all free, by the way) they're set.  I have zero sympathy for the whole "BUT APPLE IS THE ONLY COMPANY WHO CAN SAVE US FROM MALWARE!!!" horseshit.  He's an Apple fanboy trying to justify spending too much so he can deploy his pet OS.  Nothing much more than that.

He's an Apple fanboy trying to justify spending too much so he can deploy his pet OS.  Nothing much more than that.

But you don't have to deal with end users workstations where a general call could be "our PC has smoke coming out of the back", or "someone stole all our mice". It's like comparing apple and oranges of support where something server based has a very optimized work flow with remote management tools, monitoring, and predicted failures.

You could spend your whole job there on road just repairing malicious software and physical damage.

It won't start doing the shut down after 2 hours until March of 2010.  It won't stop working until June of that year.  So basically, you get a free OS for a year.  And I'm also willing to bet that some enterprising community member will find a way to circumvent that shutdown date.

I downloaded the beta, and am going to install it over the weekend.

I'm guessing that when reinstalling software, if they ask for operating system the Vista version should run fine?

Also I assume you downloaded the RC instead of the beta. :oh_i_see:

So at what point is my beta install going to crap out?

Lern2reed.  March of 2010 is when it'll start automatically shutting down after 2 hours.

For the average gamer here, with a good vid card, this seems like very good news. On the other hand, what if you have a wimpy integrated graphics chip?

Is there any particular reason I shouldn't do this?  Is driver support bad?  Still buggy with games?  Anything?

Some almost all programs will run without the registry entries.

So, with my new system, I'm going to be using the 64-bit OS with 6 gigs of DDR3 Ram.  Do I not need to worry about the page file?

It's a lot of not very subtle comments about things not being large enough to read. "Oh look at your new computer! Oh Martha, how can you see that?! I can't see that at all. It's too small, how does she ever think you can read that. You get on the phone and call her right now. She's not going to put one of those on my desk. What's wrong with her that she can't make that the right size. Doesn't she know what she's doing? My computer at home has a flat screen too and it's not like that at all." 

You take someone trying to install that kind of doubt and mix that in with a really healthy dose of "change is bad" conservative thinking. It works, especially in office groupthink.

Need I mention this 800x600 achiever has tried everything up to and including claiming a fake disability accomodation in order to get her CRT at her normal workstation replaced with a flatscreen?

I work for the guvment and when hired I let them know an LCD was a condition of employment.  Took them 3 months to get it to me though.

City government?  (Very small city at that.)

I work for the guvment and when hired I let them know an LCD was a condition of employment.  Took them 3 months to get it to me though.

Interesting, I didn't realize that. A couple articles linked to the register:

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2009/02/05/windows_xp_7_vista_upgrade/

Looks like it only supports clean installs, but who the heck upgrades in place?

I would also like to hear reasons we shouldn't be jumping on that $50 pre-order deal, because I'm going to find a way to scrape up some dough for it...

Keep in mind that unlike recent versions of VirtualBox, the stripped down copy of Virtual PC included with Windows 7 Pro and Ultimate doesn't virtualize the GPU, so if the XP app you're hoping to run in XP mode is a game, you're very likely to be sorely disappointed.

They've only ever said it would support XP applications and on MSDN they've made numerous posts to say it's not for gaming. Of course not everyone reads MSDN, but I'm sure you realize that Virtual PC gaming is not anywhere close to a big part of their demographic.

Main reason is because you should be jumping on the pro upgrade for $100.

That is not an acceptable reason. Telling me why I should shell out $50 for the pro version would be a reason  :awesome_for_real:

All retail editions of Windows 7 will ship with both the 32 & 64 bit DVDs.

Highly doubtful.  You can watch your RAM usage for shits-n-giggles and decide, but if you end up using that much RAM I'd say you might actually know what is consuming it all.  Or close a few dozen apps.

If you have enough RAM, you won't need a pagefile.  No, really.  It's meant as a cheap overflow for when you run out of expensive (meaning $$$) RAM.  Hell, I had not had one for some time and I only have 3GB of RAM, but now that I'm using a 64-bit OS I figured I should implement one again.  As for solid-state disks, it would be cheaper and easier to install more RAM and leave out the pagefile.

RAM doesn't actually work that way in Vista or 7 or 2k8. The OS will cache RAM for frequently used programs and internal tasks and release it back as available when something else needs it. Having almost-full memory usage is not a problem in those operating systems.
Free RAM is wasted RAM.

Screw it.  I'm trying the upgrade.  I absolutely refuse to in-place upgrade, so if it doesn't allow for a clean install it goes in the trash, but at $50, I'm willing to take the risk.  Worst case, that's one less crappy MMO I try for the included month this year.  It's almost like they're doing me a favor.

For the record, I have not, as of yet, had a problem running any programs at all. Including old XP stuff from around 2000.

HotHardware claims no clean installs from Windows 7 upgrade editions. (http://hothardware.com/News/Rules-for-Windows-7-Upgrades-Verified/)  There's enough confusion surrounding the matter that I've cancelled my preorder.  OEM editions won't be hugely more expensive, and the ability to perform a truly clean install onto a just-zeroed partition is worth the premium to me.

What is the risk, other than a random BSOD? If you're just playing Call of Duty, who cares? Sure, its not healthy to risk your machine faulting on a dime, but at the same time, if its a gaming rig, you probably don't want to have -too- valuable unreproduceable data/programs/config on it in any case.

I'd imagine there's no serious risk outside of lack of memory errors from the Windows processes that demand a page file. Would it gain you any performance? Slight, but only in the case that a lot was being put into page file while you were doing something.

Pretty sure they are interpretting this wrong.  The fact that they don't cite an official source makes it tough to tell for sure though.

Disabling the page file will not magically force the OS to use physical RAM instead.

I've got a XP key, but I've had to build/rebuild/modify my computer using the key often enough that if I so much as sneeze at my computer, I have to go through a phone call with a person to reactivate. 

Sounds like an OEM key as they are very touchy to activate with hardware/os rebuilds.

 Shouldn't be an issue on an upgrade tho as it "converts" to a windows 7 key if you bought the retail upgrade. Bascially microsofts logs the xp key and i think will stop WGA activatations of that key again. I cannot see them blocking an OEM upgrade because its a whole level of support/media it dosen't need. If you have a WGA valid key it should work.

 The question is what the end key would be, and it would be really amazing if it came out as retail key. I'd say the new 7 key thrown out tho will be bound to your new hardware (the same as if you call about an XP oem activation) as a new OEM key.


Technet discussion (http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproinstall/thread/9c80645c-ce1e-420e-a65c-c9754cf7faf8) on the same problem.

Surely you phrased that incorrectly.

Sounds like an OEM key as they are very touchy to activate with hardware/os rebuilds.

 Shouldn't be an issue on an upgrade tho as it "converts" to a windows 7 key if you bought the retail upgrade. Bascially microsofts logs the xp key and i think will stop WGA activatations of that key again. I cannot see them blocking an OEM upgrade because its a whole level of support/media it dosen't need. If you have a WGA valid key it should work.

 The question is what the end key would be, and it would be really amazing if it came out as retail key. I'd say the new 7 key thrown out tho will be bound to your new hardware (the same as if you call about an XP oem activation) as a new OEM key.


Technet discussion (http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproinstall/thread/9c80645c-ce1e-420e-a65c-c9754cf7faf8) on the same problem.

What is the risk, other than a random BSOD? If you're just playing Call of Duty, who cares? Sure, its not healthy to risk your machine faulting on a dime, but at the same time, if its a gaming rig, you probably don't want to have -too- valuable unreproduceable data/programs/config on it in any case.

Date: Mon, 09 Aug 2004 03:32:47 GMT


diesel <diesel@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I'm confused as to what the PF usage box and graph shows. The Microsoft docs
>say they show how the pagefile is being used. Well, I have 1gb RAM and with
>nothing really running the usage screen shows:
>
>PF Usage shows 192mb
>
>Physical Memory:
>Total 1048092
>Available 797952
>System Cache 131356
>
>There is plenty of physical memory available why is the Pagefile being used?
>
>Shouldn't "PF Usage" show 0mb until I run out of physical memory?
>
>Thanks.

There are two kinds of page file usage.

The first is actual usage, which means the actual movement of active
memory content from RAM to the page file so as to allow that RAM to be
used for other, currently more important, tasks. This is what the
utility that Gerry Cornell referred you to reports.

The second kind is, for want of a better term, "virtual" page file
usage. This is what Task Manager reports on the Performance tab. This
virtual usage of the page file includes not just the actual usage (if
any) but also the usage of the page file address space by Windows to
satisfy the unused portion of Memory Allocation Requests.

This is sometimes a bit difficult to grasp. What happens is that
application programs, device drivers, and Windows components typically
request memory allocations that are larger than what they actually
need under normal circumstances. There are sound reasons for doing
this, or so I am assured by experienced programmers. Windows must, by
definition, identify memory locations for all requested memory. So
what happens is that the Windows memory manager allocates addresses in
RAM only to those portions of these requests that are actually used.
The unused portions are allocated memory address space in the page
file. Note that this allocation of page file addresses does not
involve any actual disk activity - just entries in the memory mapping
tables maintained by the CPU.

And if it subsequently happens that a program needs to use a
previously unused portion of the memory it requested then the memory
manager will instantaneously remap that portion to available locations
in RAM.

Here are some current figures from my own computer:
- Actual page usage = 47 mb
- Current page file size = 160 mb
(these two values are from Bill James' utility)
- Page file usage = 333 mb
(from Task Manager)

Note that Task Manager is reporting a figure that exceeds the actual
current size of the page file. This is okay in Windows XP, so long as
the Task Manager value does not exceed the maximum size limit for the
page file because the page file could be increased in size should that
become necessary, again provided that there is enough free space on
the hard drive to do so.

Note also the difference between the Task Manager figure of 333 mb and
the Actual usage figure of 47 mb. That figure, 286 mb at the moment,
represents the sum total of the unused portions of the memory
allocation requests that have been issued by everything that is
currently active on my machine.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Good luck


Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca
"The reason computer chips are so small is computers don't eat much."

If things are tighter, though, then you are actually interfering with Windows' ability to optimize your RAM usage if you turn off paging as the "greedy" apps (apps that grab more memory than they actually use) may keep apps that really need the extra RAM from getting what they need.

Thanks for the Qemm flashback and the memory of those DOS days!  :ye_gods:

"Now, lets see where I can move that driver..."