The thread wherein Windows 7 is discussed...

[SnakeCharmer]

Tawk amongst yawselves...

[Yegolev]

Mildly interested but have not assed to do any research.

Edit to mention that I hope it is easy enough to set up a dualboot with this since I don't have a spare machine with a CPU better than an AMD XP 3000+.

Edit again to put up the probably-official link: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/default.aspx

Maybe I am more than mildly interested, however it's just because I get excited over new and shiny things.

[Salamok]

I'm interested in seeing if they avoid the same pitfalls as vista, the main pitfall was they left all the software companies behind so maybe just the fact there was a vista and it was out for a few years will make this not be a pitfall for w7.

Is there any official statements on how many versions will be released?  Maybe we will get lucky and there will only be 1.

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.

[Segoris]

Taken from Wiki, the public beta to the first 2.5million downloaders starts today.

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.

 Anyone going to try it out? I'll probably snag a second computer from a buddy to test the compatibility of some programs I have laying around and to play around.

With how much faster this is supposed to run, I'm curious just how off these min requirements are though:

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)

Vista min requirements were

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

[Viin]

What the hell, I'll try it. My machine is completed fubared anyways.

[SnakeCharmer]

I've used Vista Prem for a while, and I've just never warmed up to it.  Something has never been quite right with it.  I  haven't gone back to XP because I run 4GB of RAM, and have heard horror stories about XP Pro 64.  

Suppose I could yank 2GB out and everything would be fine.

[BitWarrior]

Is there any compelling reason to switch to Vista (and, by association, Windows 7 when it is released)? Is there some feature I'm missing? Is it more optimized? Is it going to run my applications and gamers faster and leaner? Does it come with a better filesystem to reduce fragmentation and decrease access times? Does it come with new and useful previously unavailable features that will improve my daily workflow?

Honestly, I see none of these things in Vista. What is it honestly bringing to the table? This "upgrade" seems like more of a downgrade to less free CPU and memory available.

Here's Microsoft's own page on the advantages over Windows XP: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/windowsvista/torres_duel.mspx. It lists:

Windows Aero: Do not care, if anything I'll turn it off. Not buying a new operating system to see my windows flip around
Windows Sidebar: I'll turn it off. I'd uninstall software that did the same.
WMP11: Got it for XP, don't even use it. Go VLC.
Windows Search: I don't use search, it's largely unnecessary for me. If I need to do multiword replacement I'd use Windows Grep, otherwise get Google Desktop, it's better.
Parental Controls: I don't have kids, don't care.
UAC: Theoretically a good thing, from what I've heard it becomes so annoying people just turn it completely off.
Windows Firewall: Behind a router. Next.
New Start Menu: Apparently it's smaller. My current one is small because I'm not an idiot who a) installs a billion software titles b) Keeps things like Quicktime in the menu
Improved Folders: They list Documents, Pictures and Videos on the side now. Holy innovation batman.
Live Icons: Little preview window I guess for the taskbar if you're using Aero. Not bad, but not a selling point, its just a "thing". Might not have it because I might not be using Aero.

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.

[Viin]

DX10?

[Lantyssa]

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.

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.

[BitWarrior]

DX10?

Oh yeah, the forced "We're only going to ship DX10 with Vista in an attempt to force you to switch, bitches".

Nice. Additionally, a number of developers (Supreme Commander, Age of Conan) have dropped their support for it because the investment vs. reward didn't make sense.

[BitWarrior]

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.

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.

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.

[Krakrok]

The Windows 7 "new" taskbar looks like the Vista taskbar and the Linux taskbar mashed together and continues to suck. The Windows 7 website looks like the Windows ME box.

[rattran]

XKCD on Windows 7

I thought it was funny.

[fuser]

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/evalcenter/dd353205.aspx

Was leaked to a lot of sites. It's been up, its been down, its been green circles. hopefully it unlocks soon and the keygeneration is allowed for the 2.5mil.

[fuser]

Ah

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!

[Nonentity]

Heh...

Apparently the beta installer had an update released immediately after it. If you installed the beta, it would slowly start to scour your local drive and network for .mp3 files, and in an attempt to do something with the metadata, would strip a few seconds off the beginning of the files.

[fuser]

Login here first:
https://profile.microsoft.com/RegSysProfileCenter/InfoDefault.aspx

then keep reloading:

https://www.microsoft.com/betaexperience/productkeys/win7-64/enus/default.aspx
https://www.microsoft.com/betaexperience/productkeys/win7-32/enus/default.aspx

Might give you a key no luck here yet :(

[Fabricated]

I'll try it this next week. Eh, why not?

[Yoru]

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Salamok]

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.

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.

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.

They should also have an approved for windows software approval system in place.  Require devs a small fee (like $15 bucks) to submit their app for this certification.  All you need to get certified is a clean install and uninstall routine, a decent 2 line description of the product, an accurate list of what processes the app loads in the task manager, and a valid website.  Generate a checksum or something for the approved install package and validate that checksum with an online M$ run database at time of install to avoid bait and switch. All this information is then available to see in the task manager AND the add/remove programs section of the control panel.  At $15 per app submitted they can afford to hire an army of 3rd worlders to verify all this information and still make a tidy profit.  

Also these fucks need to help the sys admins of the world that have been supporting them for the last decade, can ya combine the above program registration with your allow run/disallow run user policy setting so that it can't be circumvented by simply renaming the exe.

[Trippy]

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.

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.

That is one of the features of the .NET framework, aka "zero-impact installs" aka "assemblies" (they also solve the "DLL Hell" problem). Unfortunately for Microsoft not many companies ship commerical products using .NET.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/6h38y9z9(VS.71).aspx

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.

[Salamok]

stuff about .NET being a clean uninstall

scenario 1:  I had a version of M$ Office that required the install files in the EXACT location they were at when the product was installed in order to uninstall the product.  That was office 2000, not sure if they still do this.

scenario 2:  Many a brand new Dell with works or office trial version on them that was a friggen nightmare to uninstall.  This was as recent as a year ago on multiple machines.

Isn't office a .net product?

Either way my bitch isn't with crappy uninstall routines it's more with vendors that purposefully design their uninstall process to be more than a single click.

edit: On the new Dells there was a program installed called "Install M$ office free trial" this could not be uninstalled.  It disappeared after you installed M$ office and then you could uninstall the free trial.  I already have a volume license for Office and it pisses me off that after spending $15k on software and another 5k on several new machines M$ wants me to jump through these types of hoops.  Free trial installation and the uninstall free trial software after that was an extra 15 min of my time wasted per machine.  Fuck these hold you hostage marketing tactics.

[sidereal]

(they also solve the "DLL Hell" problem)

Solve or replace with this?

[BitWarrior]

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.

[Salamok]

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.

Maybe for you but there is a bit more to it than that.  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.

Maybe not as glam as some of the other features but I was impressed and now that drivers are available and most software runs on Vista I will likely upgrade soon, maybe straight to w7 as it is probably so similar to vista that it uses the same drivers and software compatibility is a non issue.

[BitWarrior]

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.

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

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

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.

Additionally, Vista still represents a very small market segment, around 15% (http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp). The fact that authors are a) already able to write malware for the OS already and b) already are writing these programs considering how small the install base is does not bode so well.

I'm glad your father's computer was not infected this time around, however don't pin your hopes on it remaining that way.

[eldaec]

M$

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


Anyway, this whole thread is throwback, windows 7 will  have slightly neater and slightly more secure ways to do the shit you can already do in Vista, also it'll have slightly more headroom for supporting ever more powerful PCs. It won't be a life changing experience. You'll only switch a year after launch, and you'll wait until you buy a new PC to do so.

Do we really need to do the routine with the whole "OMG MS sucks, Win3.1 was the best! Never upgrade!" meme?

[schild]

M$

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

I just complained about this in IRC. How weird.

[Trippy]

Isn't office a .net product?

Nope.

[Trippy]

(they also solve the "DLL Hell" problem)

Solve or replace with this?

Well...that's because there's now a bazillion different versions of the .NET framework (well really only 4 or so) that aren't completely backwards compatible.

It's still better than the traditional way of doing things.

[Trippy]

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.

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

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

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.

UAC adds another hurdle before many types of malware can infect your system, assuming it's turned on. For day to day browser stuff instead of being infected in one inadvertent click (assuming there's no gaping browser hole they can use to bypass even that) you need two inadvertent clicks, the second one being the UAC dialog.

In fact I got tried of cleaning my dad's XP machine (fucking Chinese-language sites) and simply turned off admin for his user which is an even more draconian form of what UAC is trying to do.

[Salamok]

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.

Also old habits die hard and if i use M$ and you all know who i mean then it is still a valid way of referring to them. 

I am definitely not anti-microsoft and not really even anti-vista (other than them not making it easy to remove software users were tricked into installing), but I do wonder how they thought they could pull off a new OS that broke a ton of programs and hardware w/o doing the preliminary evangelist routine to get all the vendors on board prior to launch.  Someone dropped the ball there in a big big way and this single thing more than any other was what killed the vista launch and gave it such a bad rap. 

[Ratman_tf]

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.

OTOH that means Vista and soon Windows 7 will be the new target turkey and XP will be left alone.

Happend to me with Win98, which I held onto like a rabid pitbull until the very last.

[NiX]

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

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? Go take a look at the feature list for Windows 7, sure some of it is fluff, but for the most part it's adding features that actually make your experience with Windows easier and users are repeating that same experience after using it. The task bar has become a whole new creature and it really shows that Microsoft has listened and noticed that your average tech savvy person wants a clean desktop with easy access to all programs.

Or you could just keep being a real classy douche.

[Lantyssa]

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.

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.