OSNews

Well, then I'm stupid. I can't help it that Windows 7 RC, and even the beta, is a much more pleasant OS to use than any Linux distribution, XP, or Vista. My three Windows machines are all running the RC.

And yes, of course they get security updates, and no, Conficker had nothing to do with a lack of updates. Conficker only affected lazy people who were unwilling to properly take care of their machines, i.e. this happens on any platform. Please stop spreading nonsense.

OK, thank you.

If it really gets security fixes great!(Citation needed. I read the opposite on the intertubes (Slashdot) and I believe you as much as the next guy.)

Free Windows for ONE YEAR for me.(With a little patching probably more

And if it won't get security updates it can easily cause another Conficker, the RC will run for a year and a lot of people will probably keep using it once RTM is out and without security the next Conficker might be around the corner.(And I know that it is _mainly_ spread via unpatched XPs.)

yes it will get critical updates. Anyone who wants to use it as their main OS should. It's ready, and it's worth it.

If you have nothing better to do than reinstall the whole thing when the final version comes out that is...

who said you will have to reinstall it?

Conflicker was addressed last year with a security patch, IIRC October 28, 2008. What ever patch went into Windows Vista is also in Windows 7 given that the patch would have gone in the head of the development tree, ported back and provided via download.

Windows 7 has also changed the nature in which autoplay/autorun is done which should mitigate the spreading of it - although I personally believe that autorun/autoplay should be disabled by default. I personally don't see the justification of automating something that was never complicated in the first place - namely double clicking on the device then going in and running the said application or simply loading the relevant application as you need it.

Personally I'd sooner make the user do more things manually (within reason of course) so that they are actively thinking about things as they do it - consciously deciding to open up an application rather than the brain on autopilot and all hell breaking loose because of a loose trigger finger when it comes to left click on dialogue boxes.

Edited 2009-05-01 00:46 UTC

I made that mistake with Vista. Don't get your hope up too high.

I made that mistake with Vista. Don't get your hope up too high.

With that logic I would never touch linux again, it have betrayed me so many times. But i still use it some times.

"16 GB of available disk space (32-bit)/20 GB (64-bit)"

Really? O_o That much? o_O

I've got a fully-working and configured Linux installation, with office suite, all kinds of multimedia tools, programming tools and almost anything installed, and it takes about 4 gigabytes.. Where the heck do the spend 12GB?

The actual OS is a lot less than 16GB. It's between 2.5 and 4.5 GB depending on what you install. I've heard that it can be stripped down to 1GB.

When they say minimum of 16GB I guess it's because they want to make sure there is enough space for page files, temp files, user files and all the other stuff that takes up space when actually using the OS

I have gotten it to 980 megs after stripping out all drivers that my system didn't have and not having the Live programs installed (as well as the removal of other things that I am not sure I can bring up yet).

I have gotten it to 980 megs after stripping out all drivers that my system didn't have and not having the Live programs installed (as well as the removal of other things that I am not sure I can bring up yet).

That's still quite odd..How much space do the drivers take then? And the Live programs? I'm just curious about what it is on Win7 then that takes up so much space. I wouldn't count swapfile to it, though, it varies from system to system and so on. As said, a basic Linux installation does include almost every single driver out there, Beagle or similar (think of Live Search) and all that and it weighs in at about 2GB without including swap.

its default install size is not that large to begin with. but I did much more than just strip out drives and Live programs. much much more.

my homefolder on ubuntu linux is 12.5GB
system and programs take 2.8GB

Of which the majority of the space is used up in drivers - Windows does, after all, have the best hardware support on the market and ultimately it comes at the cost of hard disk space (yes, I know they could provide the drivers on cd and ask the user to insert the cd but given the nature of how Windows is now installed, configured, how updates are applied it would be impractical and the fact that users want to be able to plugin their dongle and for it to work (most of the time)).

Oh, and don't say, "Linux supports lots of platforms" because such a statement is completely irrelevant when it comes to actual hardware components being supported.

Windows drivers also tend to be bloated with lots of manufacturer-provided add-on programs (HP, I'm looking at you) and I know Vista included some of those. If there's a lot of these programs included with the Windows 7 drivers, that might explain the diskspace. I don't care how many drivers it has, a driver and its accompanying programs if necessary should never grow to the monstrous proportions that some of those in Windows have become. Look at HP's drivers, for example, their printer and scanner driver packages can be up to 500mb in size for the full download, or 45mb for the basic driver download. 45mb... for a device driver! If there are a lot of large drivers provided with Windows 7 as there were with Vista... there goes several gigs of hd space. Some of the provided drivers in OS X suffer from the same issue, so it's far from a Windows-specific bloat. A typical install of OS X Leopard, without iLife and without customizing the installation, is about 14gb due to several things--drivers, translations and duplications of translations, duplicated libraries, etc. It's sad, but Windows 7's disk requirements are pretty average when it comes to the most popular commercial desktop oses. I guess they figure hd space is cheap (which it is) but still, in my mind, it's a waste of space that I could use for my files.

I know exactly what you mean and I agree 200% with you - an example of this would be Lenovo and their thinkpad; why do they include 'wireless' widgets in the task bar when Microsoft already provides an easy to use tool to connect to a wireless network?

Why does RealTek feel the need to ram their 'customised volume control' down the collective throats of end users when Microsofts own bundled volume control and configuration does a great job already. Same can be said for bluetooth 'software' that is bundled and lots more.

This is one of the reasons I love my Mac's (iMac and MacBook) - I don't have to put up with that kind of garbarge. The hardware works with the operating system without any extra crap installed - nothing has ever stopped HP or Lenovo from saying to their suppliers, "I don't want all the crap you bundle with your drivers, I just want the drivers and nothing more - let Windows handle the rest".



I agree - but this is a trend through the industry - look at the size of Adobe Acrobat Reader for isntance - all it does it allow one to read a PDF and the size of the download cannot be justified.

Drivers are just that, drivers - the operating system should provide a uniform way of interacting with the devices; there is no need for 'custom volume controls'. Its about time driver writers spent more time on the quality of their drivers rather than widgets and dongles that they insist on bundling with their drivers.



Mate, you're preaching to the choir - I've been pulling my hair out for years. 77MB for a Nvidia driver, over 34mb for a Epson printer driver, then there is nero burnign rom that is expanding at a faster rate than my waist line!



For me, the typical Mac install based on complete restoration off the CD/DVD's provided by Apple is around 16.5GB which includes the full install of Mac OS X plus iLife. The driver problem is far less of a problem on Mac's. I've yet to come across a driver the size of a small island like I do in the Windows world. The drivers bundled with Mac OS X are light weight and simple - they do the job required and no other stuff is bundled with it.

With that being said, Snow Leopard is cleaning up alot of gunk - some applications are going to end up being 1/2 to 1/3 the size; alot of the stuff moving off being 'included' although I am worried, for example, when someone attaches a printer up, has no internet connection - they're up the creek with a teaspoon. I'd sooner see slim down, functional drivers included with it than no drivers at all and thus completely reliant on an internet connection (or media handy - but the problem is that when you install the driver, there might be an update which then makes it complex if you installed the update then added the old driver after applying the update).

I was going from the installation of Leopard from a retail Leopard DVD, not the system restore disk.
Either way, Mac has its share of bloated drivers. The usual offenders are involved--HP, Epson, and the like. Have a good look at the size of those drivers, and go on to their web sites and download their basic driver packages (HP in particular). They can be just as bad as their Windows counterparts, and sometimes worse.

I know what you mean; I know it sounds silly but I now make a decision on which printer to buy based on how big the download is. Samsung ML-2010 download is nice and compact, 548KB ( http://www.samsung.com/us/support/download/supportDownDetail.do?gro... ) which is how all drivers should be like. Allow me to print and nothing more.

some hardware doesn't have drivers for vista and will not have for win7

And some hardware had drivers for win9x and didn't for nt/2k/xp. Some hardware worked in Mac OS X Tiger and doesn't work properly in Leopard. Some devices worked in Linux kernel 2.4.xx but don't work as well in 2.6.xx. That's just the occasional price you pay when you upgrade, most hardware engineers aren't going to write new drivers for discontinued products, and even if they wanted to, they may be forbidden from doing so by their management. Now, if the hardware in question hasn't been discontinued... well, someone in charge of that product isn't thinking properly. Common sense is often lacking in the world...

In fairness though - some companies come to the end of the product life for their products, they see no business case to support them with the new operating system so instead provide Microsoft with the drivers. Its not exactly great but it is a good compromise.

Some businesses are better than others; some provide support for products in the long term - others almost drop support immediately; case in point would be Creative and their demand that users pay for a driver so that they can get full hardware support in Windows Vista. With companies like that I wonder why Microsoft would even bother allowing these organisations to be allowed to affix the Windows compatibility logo to their packaging.

Are you kidding? Microsoft, of all companies, would understand and approve of artificially limited functionality by default and requiring users to pay more to unlock the full potential of a device. They, after all, do it themselves with their multiple editions of Windows.

Yeah, noticed that as well. There's some really decent stuff in there.