Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 5th May 2009 08:41 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Windows A little earlier than expected, Microsoft has already released the Windows 7 release candidate to the general public. The Redmond company had already put the RC up for download on TechNet and MSDN, but from now on, everyone can download it. I've already updated all my Windows machines to the RC, so let's take a quick look at what I found. Note: The Windows XP Mode beta is also set to arrive today, but has not yet been made available. We'll update this item accordingly once it's released. Update: The Windows XP Mode beta is also available. Get it now!
Order by: Score:
I'm currently downloading it.
by SReilly on Tue 5th May 2009 08:56 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

My company has decided to test it out as we skipped Vista (we have a total of two Vista systems running).

I'm really looking forward to this release as I'd like to see if all the administration tools I use will work with it. As much as I like XP, it is starting to get a bit long in the tooth.

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Because not every application one might need is available under Linux?

For example, I like Linux a lot but it does not support the ACPI controler on my motherboard, so no Linux for me. ;)

On top of that, many SDKs that I use are Windows only, again no luck with Linux.

And I don't see the point of installing Linux and then spending 90% of the time slowly using Windows inside a VM.

Currently my Linux usage is limited to the server side.

Reply Score: 7

drlecter Member since:
2007-10-08

Will you buy a motherboard whose ACPI controller is not supported by windows?
don't cheat linux ;)

Edited 2009-05-05 09:55 UTC

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

For example, I like Linux a lot but it does not support the ACPI controler on my motherboard, so no Linux for me. ;)


What you actually mean is that the ACPI controler on your motherboard is not compliant with the ACPI specification, i.e. non-standard, and hence doesn't support Linux.

Edited 2009-05-05 10:51 UTC

Reply Score: 9

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

A failure is a failure. Non-standard or not, Windows supports it and Linux does not. Couldn't be simpler....

Reply Score: 2

moondevil Member since:
2005-07-08

Exactly! And my motherboard, which is actually part of a laptop, is already 4 years old now.

It is more than time to support it. And before you suggest, no I won't be doing reverse engineering to try to find out how to support it.

I have better things to do with my time.

Reply Score: 1

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

I assume your laptop is a Sony, then. My condolences.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

For some, it's important to understand why something fails and how it could be improved or replaced with a better product. Some won't buy hardware that works with only one platform even if it is 90% of the consumer market or has a pretty fruit picture on the back.

Want better hardware and consumer benefiting industry standards; vote with your wallet.

Reply Score: 2

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

There is also another possibility - bad firmware.

I seem to remember reading (I forget where, might have been LKML) about how some devices (mobo's) had valid entries for Windows in the firmware provided ACPI lookup table, and the firmware writers didn't bother to do so for non-Windows OS's. Thus the ACPI stuff didn't work with Linux. Some developers discovered this when they read over the tables - valid functions if the OS reported itself as Windows; otherwise invalid functions. Some mobo's could be supported by using the Windows ACPI functions reported by the BIOS - but it's risky to do so as they may not be compatible.

It's simple laziness on the mobo firmware writer's part - though more likely a lack of their management allowing them to do so due to schedules. (I wouldn't be surprised if MS had some kind of hand in it, but I doubt that'd be the case.)

So - basically complain to the maker (Dell, Foxconn, whoever) until they provide you updated firmware to install and get support. If you let them be, they'll just assume their decisions were the right ones when that is clearly not necessarily true.

The other option, as stated by another commenter, is to simply vote with your wallet on your next purchase. If it doesn't work with Linux, return it and state why.

Failing that, stop complaining to us as you are not helping - just trolling.

Reply Score: 3

visconde_de_sabugosa Member since:
2005-11-14

Sorry, but for me it is not very smart to buy an expensive new windows incompatible with your legacy windows applications to run them using a XP virtualized...

Or you stay with Windows XP forever or you can use NOW linux as desktop and run your legacy applications on a virtual machine with XP inside. There are many free virtualization solutions like virtualbox, vmare server and player, etc.

Reply Score: 4

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Sorry, but for me it is not very smart to buy an expensive new windows incompatible with your legacy windows applications to run them using a XP virtualized...

The thing is, I don't take all the decisions around here and I doubt very many system administrators do. You have to remember that running XP in a virtual machine under Linux still requires (in some of my bosses minds at least) an XP license and support contract. Why bother when you can buy the license and support contract for one operating system and have support and licenses for both?

In the end, we buy laptop and desktop machines with Windows pre-installed. Why bother reverting to XP when the new system, which already comes installed anyway, supports your legacy code?

Reply Score: 4

marcelkoopman Member since:
2007-03-23

I understand your point of support. However you are I believe referring to application support instead of OS support. You could view it as a lack of development insight to write applications that are tightly coupled to a certain OS. This is why JAVA is so important, write once run everywhere. But this doesnt help you I know. Just my two cents.

Reply Score: 1

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

I know what you mean, believe me but one thing you should be aware of is that the whole Java "right once, run everywhere" myth is nothing more than that, a myth.

The sheer amount of times that I have hear people complain about java apps using native system libraries is more often than I'd like, I'll tell ya.

Reply Score: 2

marcelkoopman Member since:
2007-03-23

I know what you mean, believe me but one thing you should be aware of is that the whole Java "right once, run everywhere" myth is nothing more than that, a myth.

The sheer amount of times that I have hear people complain about java apps using native system libraries is more often than I'd like, I'll tell ya.

If that is the case, then you are referring to bad development skills. If these developers write applications agains the principle of write once run everywhere, then you are a bad developer. So again this is not a issue of Java but an issue of development and insight in what you are doing.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Well, not screaming fast like against a bare metal gaming rig but a Linux OS hosted VMware runs a WinXP guest very nicely. Expanded to full screen, you won't realize you where on a VM unless you needed some specific bit of hardware not supported (3D GPU mostly). This is the same reason it's well suited to servers; different resource management.

By contrast, the same VM image run under a Windows host OS feels like I'm working through remote desktop on a sub-par network connection. VM hosting is just not what Windows is best used for though it has other advantages (runs my Cain real nice though ;) ).

I'm on the other side of it, I'm 90% of my time in Mandriva or Debian. It's not uncommon for me to boot a Windows or Debian VM under my Mandriva host OS when needing something specific to each. At home, my workstation always has a light Debian VM doing my in house mail server and IDS; it's unnoticeable in the background. I often open a WinXP VM at home to test leaky protocols using Cain too though. It just depends on which platform provides most of your needs and which is the secondary for specific needs.

Really, I'm only butting in because I think you'd find a Windows VM runs very nicely under a Linux OS hosted VMware deamon. That doesn't change the fact that you'd be spending 90% of your time working inside a VM though so it still depends on what platform covers your needs best.

Reply Score: 4

rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Umm .. not every application is available under Linux????

You're right. Only half-baked, worthless, buggy, open-sores applications are available under Linux.

The rest of them are available for Windows or Mac OS X.

Reply Score: 2

gfx1 Member since:
2006-01-20

On some boards if you have overclocking features enabled it will give a complaint message about acpi in linux.
Set it to standard non overclocking solves it probably

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Why are you even trying Windows 7? Why not go for Linux?


I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that his company, like the local government I work for, is fully dependent on at least one legacy Windows app. That would explain why they haven't previously converted to Linux or even Vista. With the virtualized XP compatibility freely available to the top tier customers, switching to 7 is a real possibility for a lot of companies and organizations. While it is possible to run a virtualized Windows environment under Linux or BSD, it's difficult to manage and not supported at all by Microsoft. With 7 you have official support.

Remember that Vista was marketed as the best thing ever, so please keep away from the hype.


You are right, Vista came nowhere close to living up to the hype. From what I've seen of the Windows 7 Beta though, it's what Vista should have been and much more. I'm not a Microsoft fan by any stretch of the imagination; all the computers in my house run either Mac OS or Linux with the exception of a ten year old laptop with Win2k, which the kids use for schoolwork that requires Windows. But I've tried the 7 Beta on my Mac mini and it really blew me away. Based on their previous track record, I was amazed to see such a great OS come out of Redmond. It's still not quite there, and has a little further to go to match OS X, but in my opinion Windows finally has enough stability, security and usability to keep up with Linux on the desktop and workstation.

Reply Score: 5

averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

While it is possible to run a virtualized Windows environment under Linux or BSD, it's difficult to manage and not supported at all by Microsoft.

Running virtualized Windows in Linux is very, very easy with VMware. Also, I'd take VMware support over Microsoft support any day.

That said, use whatever works best for you. A VMware license isn't exactly cheap (although it's useful for a lot more than running one legacy app), and price is one of the main advantages of Linux.

Reply Score: 5

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

While it is possible to run a virtualized Windows environment under Linux or BSD, it's difficult to manage and not supported at all by Microsoft.

Running virtualized Windows in Linux is very, very easy with VMware. Also, I'd take VMware support over Microsoft support any day.

That said, use whatever works best for you. A VMware license isn't exactly cheap (although it's useful for a lot more than running one legacy app), and price is one of the main advantages of Linux.



I think the main difference would be that with Microsoft's XP Mode you get official support on both sides of the equation: The host OS and the VM. Plus, it's a free add-on to the host OS so there is no added cost. With Linux and VMware, the OS is free but the VM is not. It would seem to balance out on the surface, but you also have to consider that most WIndows-only companies and organizations have been that way for many years. Not only is there legacy application cruft, but many times there is no desire by the senior IT staff to retrain themselves on another operating environment.

The county government I work for has an IT staff of four people, two administrators and two grunts, who have to manage servers and workstations for 1200 county employees. The two admins are die-hard Microsofties with multiple MS certifications; they cringe at the mere mention of Linux. The two field workers also only have experience with Microsoft though they are a bit more open to change. In such an atmosphere, there is a better chance of switching to Macs than to Linux.

Reply Score: 3

marcelkoopman Member since:
2007-03-23

Why switch to a new OS for that one legacy windows application? That seems to me as very risky.

Reply Score: 1

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Why switch to a new OS for that one legacy windows application? That seems to me as very risky.



Yet in your previous post you suggested switching to a different type of OS entirely. I'd think that would be much more risky than a new version of the current OS.

Look, most of us here love Linux and open source; this is OSNews, not MicrosoftNews. But, there is a time and a place for everything and for some companies it's just not a good fit with anything but Windows. The same could be said about a graphic design firm that has been on Mac OS for years; they too would do best to stick with what they already have.

Don't get me wrong, I'd jump for joy if they switched to Linux where I work. The few Windows-only apps (jail/court management and GIS) and the IT cronies notwithstanding, it would save us hundreds of thousands of dollars every year just in software licensing. Everything else we do would be covered; in fact, Firefox would be a better fit than IE for my particular job as it is inherently more secure, as well as being officially supported by the Georgia Technology Authority. Indeed, the vast majority of the work done around the county is either web based or clerical, so open source software would be just fine.

Reply Score: 1

terog Member since:
2007-03-09

Don't get me wrong, I'd jump for joy if they switched to Linux where I work. The few Windows-only apps (jail/court management and GIS) and the IT cronies notwithstanding, it would save us hundreds of thousands of dollars every year just in software licensing.


Most organizations could use that money to develop their own Linux versions of the few proprietary Windows-only apps, and save money from thereafter.

Having full control over the software would have many other benefits as well, as they could tweak it in-house to better suit their needs and workflow. There would also be no "legacy apps" anymore - just hire a freelance coder to port it to a new QT or GTK version or fix compiling with newer GCC versions.

IMHO, this would make more sense than continuously buying new licenses, which is like throwing money away. Hell, with those "hundreds of thousands of dollars" they could hire their own full time developer(s).

PS. I understand this might not be feasible, if the software projects are big enough.

Edited 2009-05-05 16:14 UTC

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I'm right there with you, but unfortunately I'm not in the IT department, and they don't like me anyway because I'm a Mac and Linux user. We regular users are at the mercy of the Microsoft entrenched admins.

Reply Score: 2

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

Why are you even trying Windows 7? Why not go for Linux?

You can thank IBM for that. As we are IBM partners, our sales team needs to download updates for their IBM product database several times a day. This database (it's basically a tool with an indexed flat file backend) runs only on windows. I've tried getting it to run under wine but it's just so unused by the rest of the world that getting support for it is very hard.

Many in our tech teams runs Linux and are very happy with it. I myself don't see the point at the moment as the administration tools I use don't all have Linux counterparts and I'd rather run my software natively.

Reply Score: 2

marcelkoopman Member since:
2007-03-23

Is there any guarantee that this application will work under Windows 7?

Reply Score: 0

SReilly Member since:
2006-12-28

No, that's why we have decided to test it.

Reply Score: 4

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Gee, I guess that's why he's testing the RC? To make sure it does? It's called being a professional.

Reply Score: 2

Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

Why not go for Linux? Remember that Vista was marketed as the best thing ever, so please keep away from the hype.

Yeah well, on the other hand you guys keep "marketing" Linux as a "best thing ever" which clearly, it is not - far from it - on the desktop. Now, you said something about keeping away from the hype? ;)

Reply Score: 6

bannor99 Member since:
2005-09-15

A lot of the reasons why Windows has been getting better is that they've been implementing things that were present earlier ( sometimes much earlier ) in Unix.

The free Unices do make for pretty good desktops, but that depends on what your definition of a desktop is.

Reply Score: 3

Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

A lot of the reasons why Windows has been getting better is that they've been implementing things that were present earlier ( sometimes much earlier ) in Unix.

I don't really care who made it first, I just care about what works best for me.

The free Unices do make for pretty good desktops, but that depends on what your definition of a desktop is.

I like to separeate the term into workstation-desktop and entertainment-dekstop. As a workstation, linux may work well as long as you don't do any serious multimedia work. As as entertainemnt desktop it fails terribly unless all you need for entertainemnt are those silly games installed by default by many distros. Windows, in my opinion can cover both bases well enough, so it's a winner for me ;)

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Why are you even trying Windows 7? Why not go for Linux? Remember that Vista was marketed as the best thing ever, so please keep away from the hype.


What a childish attitude to have; do you instantly dismiss something because many years ago they released a bad product? Here comes another car analogy! ;) its funny how Japan and Korean when they first started to make cars there was much deriding by those in the US about the cars. Look at the situation 30 years later.

Windows Vista was a flawed product but should you then turn around say, "well, because they released a flawed product - all their products past and future are crap"? of course not! even as rabid Mac fanboy I accept that Microsoft has really listened to the complaints and improved Windows.

Windows 7 is going to benefit all concerned even if you don't use Windows yourself - although I'll keep with the Mac, Windows 7 is the first version of Windows that I've seen where I can say with a strong and sturdy voice that if you want a PC, Windows 7 is a great piece of software.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"do you instantly dismiss something because many years ago they released a bad product"

I wouldn't be knocking Win7 as it's too early still to have enough experience with it (happily got my RC trial install today). However "many years ago they released a bad product":

- Dos 6.1 drive compression leading to Dos 6.11 "fix"
- Bob
- WinME
- Vista ("years ago" being within the last 12 months)
- IE (jury pending on V8, V7 and V6 not as advertised)

I wouldn't say it's "a bad product" but 'a history of bad products' mostly surviving through innovative business strategies.

This still being separate from Win7 until such time as it earns it's own reputation. In that regard, I agree that Win7 should not be prematurely tarred with the Bob and Vista brushes.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

"do you instantly dismiss something because many years ago they released a bad product"

I wouldn't be knocking Win7 as it's too early still to have enough experience with it (happily got my RC trial install today).


One also has to remember that Windows Vista has problems at the moment of RC but I think a lot of people assumed, or more correctly hoped, that maybe these issues would be fixed. When compared to Windows Vista at this point, Windows 7 is so far ahead its almost like day and night.

Windows 7 so far is superior to Windows Vista in every way and matches Windows XP when it comes to performance (which was the big gotcha) and brings a whole heap of updates. Its a 'good thing'(tm) when an operating system brings a heap of improvements and doesn't end up dragging down the performance of the computer :-)

However "many years ago they released a bad product":

- Dos 6.1 drive compression leading to Dos 6.11 "fix"
- Bob
- WinME
- Vista ("years ago" being within the last 12 months)
- IE (jury pending on V8, V7 and V6 not as advertised)


I guess I was lucky given that I avoided DOS, Bob and WinME. When DOS 6.1 was released I was using my Amiga 500 (could never work out why people were using PC's at the time given Amiga was far superior). Bob was a product that should have remained in the workshops - I can understand the ideas behind it and I certainly am not going to abuse them for at least trying to give something new ago; infact I think bob actually resulted in Microsoft taking less risks and resulted in the mediocre bit by bit progression forward which a mountain of legacy garbage left behind within Windows.

I wouldn't say it's "a bad product" but 'a history of bad products' mostly surviving through innovative business strategies.

This still being separate from Win7 until such time as it earns it's own reputation. In that regard, I agree that Win7 should not be prematurely tarred with the Bob and Vista brushes.


I have a feeling that Windows 7 is what Windows Vista should have been had there not been the massive code reset and getting Windows XP SP2 out the door; had they used the Windows 2003 code from the beginning rather than Windows XP, then I think you would have found alot of the problems wouldn't have arisen given that they would have had time to include alot of the features in Windows 7 in Windows Vista.

I say this because I get the impression that alot of the features within Windows 7 were things that could have gone into Windows Vista but due to time constraints Microsoft decided to cut their losses and 'ship the damn thing'. If that is the case then I think that if Microsoft wishes to earn some 'brownie points' then they should provide a heavy discount to Windows Vista users who upgrade.

Regarding compatibility/incompatibility of Windows Vista (and Windows 7) with previous versions- I think a lot of it is over blown and quite frankly I think Microsoft should ignore those who complain about incompatibility; I'd sooner see Microsoft clean up their code, throw out huge amounts of gunk from Windows, improve performance, improve stability and security. If all that requires that I can't run a 20 year old poorly written application then quite frankly its a small price to pay.

Edited 2009-05-06 01:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Microsoft should ignore those who complain about incompatibility; I'd sooner see Microsoft clean up their code, throw out huge amounts of gunk from Windows, improve performance, improve stability and security. If all that requires that I can't run a 20 year old poorly written application then quite frankly its a small price to pay.

So basically, Microsoft should ignore their biggest market segment, that being the enterprise? They haven't gotten rid of all that backward-compatible cruft because, if they did so, they'd be facing far more complaints from large businesses whose software no longer worked. I'm not making excuses for them... but to Microsoft, keeping that stuff in there is literally a matter of satisfaction over hatred from their biggest market segment. Home users, on a scale of 1 to 10 with regards to their importance to Microsoft in the big scheme of things, rank down close to a -5--i.e., completely unimportant.
Microsoft will do what is best for Microsoft, and it's in their best interest to break as little backwards compatibility as possible over the longest stretch of time. As long as big businesses use their software, and OEMs continue to ship it on basically everything, they're set. Lose the big businesses, and they've lost most of their customer base.

Reply Score: 2

kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

So basically, Microsoft should ignore their biggest market segment, that being the enterprise? They haven't gotten rid of all that backward-compatible cruft because, if they did so, they'd be facing far more complaints from large businesses whose software no longer worked. I'm not making excuses for them... but to Microsoft, keeping that stuff in there is literally a matter of satisfaction over hatred from their biggest market segment. Home users, on a scale of 1 to 10 with regards to their importance to Microsoft in the big scheme of things, rank down close to a -5--i.e., completely unimportant.
Microsoft will do what is best for Microsoft, and it's in their best interest to break as little backwards compatibility as possible over the longest stretch of time. As long as big businesses use their software, and OEMs continue to ship it on basically everything, they're set. Lose the big businesses, and they've lost most of their customer base.


Why not offer virtualised solution that can work on hardware without virtualisation? who said throwing out backwards compatibility I said don't include it as part of the 'base system' and instead virtualise it. You'll find that backwards compatibility be alot better for the business user than it would be under the attempts so far with shims, virtualising the registery and other such hackery.

Its about approaching the matter of backwards compatibility the right way. Microsoft has not approached it the right way.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

I agree, virtualization is the best way to do it... provided, of course, they actually did it right. I'm not impressed with Windows XP Mode so far, and I'm actually glad they didn't start removing compatibility if that Virtual PC knock-off is the best virtualization they're planning to offer.
Microsoft doesn't always look towards the long term, and it's not economic right now for them to start moving the cruft into virtualization when everything is working, for the moment, and they've gotten in most peoples' good graces again with Windows 7. Realistically, they want to do as little work (spend as little in time and money) as possible for the largest possible short-term gain.
I want them to move old compatibility layers into Virtualization. I want them to make a concerted effort to slim down Windows, clean up the APIs, and lock down the system tight. I just don't see them doing it until they're forced too--and they will be, when the Windows codebase eventually collapses under its own weight as it inevitably will. How long that is I have no way to even guess, but it's unavoidable. The NT kernel is a strong foundation, however the Windows userland is not, and without a strong foundation all around the house will fall down.
I, however, am not in charge of Microsoft, and past history shows that they don't make any huge changes until they absolutely have to either by law, or by sheer necessity.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Coming from me, it may be a sign of impending apocalypse but I felt the "new OS" excitement when installing and booting Win7 for the first time yesterday. I mean that "oh I have to explore this new toy" feeling that I haven't gotten from a Microsoft product since the 3.11 too win98 jump or Win2k too WinXP jump. It feels very much like the Vista that should have been.

I'll have a better opinion once the shinny new OS honeymoon ends and I can have a good look beyond the makeup.

Reply Score: 2

jedimasterk Member since:
2006-10-23

I agree. We all remember Window Me. Than Windows XP came out. Even though I prefer Ubuntu or any Linux distro to Windows for most of my daily tasks. I still dual boot between Windows and Ubuntu, mainly for certain games, astronomy apps, and photo-editing/video-editing software. Microsoft is trying their best to put out a way better product than Vista. They heard the gripes!. So now, hopefully, Windows 7 will be a better product than Windows Vista. The big question will be "price", which we haven't heard yet. We may all be surprised, it could be cheaper. Both operating systems have their advantages and disadvantages.

Reply Score: 1

BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

Why are you even trying Windows 7? Why not go for Linux?


Yeah, everyone knows that it's your moral duty to always use Linux for everything, everywhere. Otherwise, you're evil, immoral, and (worst of all) the GNU/Freetards will accuse you of being on Microsoft's payroll.

Reply Score: 6

suryad Member since:
2005-07-09

haha nice post ;)

Reply Score: 2

Phloptical Member since:
2006-10-10

...because Linux as a desktop replacement in the corporate world is a pipe dream. It will never happen. Ever. Just like X-Serve in the datacenter is also an exercise in futility.

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm currently downloading it.
by ecruz on Wed 6th May 2009 05:09 UTC in reply to "I'm currently downloading it."
ecruz Member since:
2007-06-16

I downloaded the RC. Pretty fast, no problems with servers.
Install went flawlessly and very fast. By the way, you can dual boot Vista and Windows 7. It gives you the option if you use custom setup, to use another partition on the hard drive.
I had the beta in a partition, so I reformatted that partition and installed Windows 7 there. No problems at all. Now I dual boot Vista and 7.

My one complaint so far is that Windows 7 looks to much and act too much like Vista ( I have had Vista since the Beta, and it has worked flawlessly for me). There is nothing that tells me or shows me that I need to upgrade. Once Vista SP2 comes along, things will equal out even more. Windows 7 is solid and well done, but nothing in there yet to make me switch from Vista if I have to pay for the upgrade. 7 feels to me more of a service pack than a new OS.

I think I will wait for Windows 8 or whatever other name they use. I want to see more work in the internals, including a stop to this backward compatibility mentality that MS has. Cut off that and start a brand new OS without all the baggage. And last, I want to see a new and updated interface, more modern and more intuitive. We had the same interface for XP for over 7 yesars I think. Will that be the same from Vista on to the next 3 or 4 releases? Boring.

Overall, Windows 7 will be a hit!

Reply Score: 2

Comment by averycfay
by averycfay on Tue 5th May 2009 09:22 UTC
averycfay
Member since:
2005-08-29

Windows 7 will mean the end of driver hunts after installing a fresh copy of Windows, and it has certainly closed the gap with Linux on this one.

Well, sure when it's released. The problem is that Microsoft OS updates are few and far between whereas Linux (at least Ubuntu and Fedora) are updated quite regularly. Six months after Windows 7 is released, you're going to need to use driver disks again.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Comment by averycfay
by Morgan on Tue 5th May 2009 09:27 UTC in reply to "Comment by averycfay"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

The problem is that Microsoft OS updates are few and far between whereas Linux (at least Ubuntu and Fedora) are updated quite regularly.



Just curious, why only these two distros? I was under the impression that driver support was in the kernel, which is independent of any particular distribution's update schedule. I'm not disagreeing with you, by the way; I feel as you do that Windows is historically not updated nearly often enough, just puzzled by your example.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by averycfay
by averycfay on Tue 5th May 2009 09:37 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by averycfay"
averycfay Member since:
2005-08-29

No reason. I just named Ubuntu and Fedora because they're popular. Almost any distro is updated far more frequently than Windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by averycfay
by miscz on Tue 5th May 2009 10:32 UTC in reply to "Comment by averycfay"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

Unless it's your network adapter that needs drivers you can get almost any driver from Windows Update automagically.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by averycfay
by google_ninja on Tue 5th May 2009 12:10 UTC in reply to "Comment by averycfay"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It was like that in xp. Vista had more drivers in windows update, and they were updated more regularily. Windows 7 has even more.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by averycfay
by zlynx on Tue 5th May 2009 14:00 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by averycfay"
zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

The Windows Update drivers were a bad experience for me. I have two different computers where if I allow certain Update drivers to install, the computer becomes a brick. System Restore gets it back, but it makes me wonder if MS does any testing at all on those drivers.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by averycfay
by google_ninja on Tue 5th May 2009 15:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by averycfay"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Funny, I recently had the exact opposite experience. My IDT/Sigmatel drivers from the website wouldn't work on windows 7 RC1, but the ones off of windows update worked fine, and the forceware drivers i got off of laptopvideo2go were total crap compared to the ones that came off of windows update. In both cases they even installed the proprietary control panels for sound and video.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by averycfay
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 6th May 2009 07:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by averycfay"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Actually, unfortunately, I think the drivers on windows update are still 'owned' by the companies that produce them, so they're no more special than WHQL drivers you get off the vendors' websites.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by averycfay
by darknexus on Wed 6th May 2009 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by averycfay"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Actually, unfortunately, I think the drivers on windows update are still 'owned' by the companies that produce them, so they're no more special than WHQL drivers you get off the vendors' websites.


Interesting. I've had drivers from Windows Update cause problems on occasion, whereas the drivers downloaded directly from the vendor didn't, so sometimes I wondered where the drivers on windows update came from. In particular, I no longer download video drivers from Windows update, it's not pleasant when you get a bad one. The general rule I tend to stick to due to experience is this: If the driver originally came with Windows, go ahead and update it via Windows update. If not, download it from the vendor and ignore the one on Windows update.

Reply Score: 2

Does it work in VirtualBox?
by elvstone on Tue 5th May 2009 09:43 UTC
elvstone
Member since:
2005-09-08

Anyone tried to run it in VirtualBox? Also, anyone know the size of a vanilla install?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does it work in VirtualBox?
by miffe on Tue 5th May 2009 09:50 UTC in reply to "Does it work in VirtualBox?"
miffe Member since:
2005-07-06

The linked page says the installed size is 16GB for 32bit and 20GB for 64bit.

The 32bit iso is 2.36GB. I'm going to try it in VBox as soon as it finish downloading.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Does it work in VirtualBox?
by miffe on Tue 5th May 2009 11:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Does it work in VirtualBox?"
miffe Member since:
2005-07-06

The install finished. VBox Guest Addons work without problems.

The final install size is 6.33GB.

Reply Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

The install finished. VBox Guest Addons work without problems.

The final install size is 6.33GB.

Woe. That's a hell of a lot smaller than my install was in VMware, when the install was completed and without VMware tools it was 18gb. This was the 32-bit version. Wonder why there's such a massive difference? I'll have to try it in VBox and see what I get.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Not the brand name you requested but it may give you an indication. It's run fine under VMware with 1gig ram issued though I didn't check the disk usage before shutting it down a few minutes ago. The VM disk as a 16gig and it didn't complain about running out of space. I've heard rumor that it's around a 12gig install but I may be confused with Vista on that one.

Reply Score: 2

I'll try it...
by rramalho on Tue 5th May 2009 09:44 UTC
rramalho
Member since:
2007-07-11

...just to see what's all about it.

But I don't expect to use it... I left that world long ago.

Reply Score: 2

Impressive for Windows
by darknexus on Tue 5th May 2009 11:06 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

I find this RC to be a very good Windows release. That said, however, I'm only impressed with it as compared with other Windows releases, not by comparison to other oses out there. OS X and various Linux systems have given me most of 7's functionality for years, with the obvious exception of being able to run Windows apps natively of course. Further, other oses have done all this without a ridiculously cluttered and overweight UI--it's not as bad as Vista, but I find it gets in my way more often than providing me any additional functionality. It's not as keyboard-friendly as XP was either. The driver situation is very nice for now, but the other posters are correct in that about six months from now you'll be needing to download drivers again. XP had current drivers when it was released too.
All and all, I'm impressed with it enough that I'd run it if I need to run Windows. It doesn't, however, offer me any insentives to use it over Ubuntu and OS X, and those systems have impressed me far more than Windows 7.
Hope I didn't offend anyone by not falling to my knees and worshipping Win 7. ;)

Edited 2009-05-05 11:07 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: Impressive for Windows
by google_ninja on Tue 5th May 2009 12:13 UTC in reply to "Impressive for Windows"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

How is it cluttered and overweight? And how is it less cluttered and overweight then vista?

Reply Score: 2

still NTFS
by chekr on Tue 5th May 2009 11:58 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

MS obviously can't get WinFS right...why not just swallow their pride and give their customers ZFS. Defragging in 2010...wtf?!

Reply Score: 0

RE: still NTFS
by darknexus on Tue 5th May 2009 12:12 UTC in reply to "still NTFS"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

What are you talking about? WinFS has been cancelled for several years now, they never did anything with it. It's the same NTFS as is used by Vista.
If you mean Windows filesystems in general, then I agree with you, though whether zfs would be the best choice I'm not sure, as it's rather memory intensive.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: still NTFS
by chekr on Tue 5th May 2009 13:50 UTC in reply to "RE: still NTFS"
chekr Member since:
2005-11-05

What are you talking about? WinFS has been cancelled for several years now, they never did anything with it. It's the same NTFS as is used by Vista.
If you mean Windows filesystems in general, then I agree with you, though whether zfs would be the best choice I'm not sure, as it's rather memory intensive.


As recently as late 2006 MS (Bill himself even) were saying that it is still in development and would be delivered post-vista. Go ahead and educate yourself: http://www.crn.com/software/196600671

Thanks for the -1 mod because of your ignorance btw...

Edited 2009-05-05 13:57 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: still NTFS
by darknexus on Tue 5th May 2009 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: still NTFS"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

And thanks for being a complete arse... anything else to give thanks for while we're at it?
And I don't mod, modding is childish... as is everyone's obsession with it. My view: If you've got a disagreement, you speak it. Modding is a pitiful way for cowards to hide.
Now, I honestly did not realize MS actually still had any plans for WinFS, although realistically if MS says it's "in development" with no sign of activity after all these years we can consider it dead until proven further. I thank you for the link... there's that other thing to give thanks for.
The proper response, when someone is wrong, is to correct them... not to act like a prick and bitch about someone modding you down, which you falsely attribute to me. A little hint: don't accuse unless you can back it up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: still NTFS
by poundsmack on Tue 5th May 2009 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: still NTFS"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

WinFS has changed direction a bit, it is still in development but not as a full blown file system replacement to NTFS. It is the Logical eveolution of NTFS. It is planned for Windows 8, but as of current is not planned for Vista or 7 (a technology pack with it might be released in the next year but it will only be to the select few, like vista's feature packs were 6 months prior to them being in the SP2 release).

MS is working with all the storage makers of solid state drives to create a true game plan for the future. When that plan shows some maturity then you will start hearing more about WinFS. as for now though, here is what MS is working on...

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-sol...

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: still NTFS
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 5th May 2009 18:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: still NTFS"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

WinFS has changed direction a bit, it is still in development but not as a full blown file system replacement to NTFS.


It never was supposed to replace NTFS. WinFS was a relational database layer atop NTFS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: still NTFS
by poundsmack on Tue 5th May 2009 18:59 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: still NTFS"
poundsmack Member since:
2005-07-13

you are exactly right, but, as you can see in this thread, at least one person was unaware of that.

Reply Score: 2

RE: still NTFS
by google_ninja on Tue 5th May 2009 12:15 UTC in reply to "still NTFS"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

I would rather have to defrag, then not be able to run firefox because of how high latency the filesystem is.

Reply Score: 3

Still buggy ..
by kragil on Tue 5th May 2009 12:33 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

.. you can go to a sub directory. Go to the parent. Delete the sub dir and hit BACK and a stupid message will appear.(Location not available + _lots_ of text.) It just shouldn't let you go back once you deleted the dir. It should know that you just deleted it. It's not rocketscience.

But in MS defense Vista, Nautilus and Dolphin etc. are no better AFAIK.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Still buggy ..
by kragil on Tue 5th May 2009 14:06 UTC in reply to "Still buggy .."
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

I found a another bug in my very short testing.

I was trying out the maintainance features. While making a backup I tried to create a System Rescue DVD and I had to blank one so I used the Win7 Util and checked that checkbox to close it once it is done blanking. On completion the taskbar crashed, but came back.

I wasn't able to reproduce it, but I guess as always:

_Wait for the Service Pack (2)_

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still super buggy ..
by kragil on Tue 5th May 2009 14:55 UTC in reply to "RE: Still buggy .."
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Found another one:

I have the taskbar on the right hand side and I use Firefox and drag the Firefox window to the right so that it uses the right side of the screen (new window draggin feature) and then I click the Firefox icon to minimize/show it it will show at different positions from where it should be.

Annoying.

RC, I don't think so.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Still super buggy ..
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 6th May 2009 07:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Still super buggy .."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I tried this with IE on a build pretty close to RC. The window maximizes back to the correct location (adjacent to the taskbar which is on the right side of the screen). Maybe FF is doing the wrong thing or it's a bug that's fixed already.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Still buggy ..
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 6th May 2009 07:38 UTC in reply to "RE: Still buggy .."
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

If you submitted the crash report, there's a chance it will get fixed (or already has been fixed).

Reply Score: 2

Mistake on Microsoft windows 7 site
by tiesto404 on Tue 5th May 2009 12:40 UTC
tiesto404
Member since:
2009-03-01

Omg I just seen funny thing. Have look at screen on below link for Microsoft windows 7 Windows XP Mode:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/

It's an linux desktop!

Reply Score: 1

antik Member since:
2006-05-19

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/virtual-pc/

It's an linux desktop!


Are you sure? Maybe it is OpenBSD with KDE 3.something?

Reply Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

OpenBSD? I haven't heard of that distro before. Is it Ubuntu-based?

I think its to illustrate that it can run other operating systems and to pre-empt the misconception that it is an MS-only party.

Reply Score: 3

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

OpenBSD? I haven't heard of that distro before. Is it Ubuntu-based?


No, OpenBSD has very little to do with Linux. It's related to the other BSDs out there, FreeBSD and NetBSD, and they are all derived from AT&T Unix. More info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD

Ubuntu and all other Linux distributions are based on the Linux kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and the GNU user tools originally developed by Richard Stallman. GNU/Linux, as it is properly called, has no Unix code whatsoever in the source.

So to sum up, OpenBSD is similar to Linux, both being open source alternatives to Unix, but they are not otherwise connected.

Reply Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

OpenBSD? I haven't heard of that distro before. Is it Ubuntu-based? ;-)


I should've used an emoticon...

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, my bad, I think my sarcasm meter needs a tune up. Can't help it though, I have a lot of love for the BSD projects.

Reply Score: 2

werfu Member since:
2005-09-15

It is Xandros, you can see it by the menu button.

Reply Score: 1

I will let the frogs croak
by _QJ_ on Tue 5th May 2009 13:32 UTC
_QJ_
Member since:
2009-03-12

Like most probably a vast majority of people, I will
let the early adopters and gamers embrace the Win7 cause.

Once they have sorted out the remaining bugs, security holes, unwanted behaviours, etc.
... Maybe one day, I will buy a new PCs for my two kids, and if it appears to run Win7(SP-2)smoothly, okay let it do it.

Ho and needless to feed the troll, I have XP (4 Kid's games), Linux (To develop for my company), and FreeBSD for sensitive data (Net-Banking, family photos/vids, personnal web server, etc).

It is just common sense for an IT person: use the right OS for the right thing to do.

Let the major companies (like mine) adopt Win7, they will analyse how much it costs, how it is secure, what it brings.

To sum up my point of view, the best policy on Win7: Wait and see !
;-)

Reply Score: 1

Why do people become MS' Beta Testers?
by eantoranz on Tue 5th May 2009 14:04 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

I wonder, why do people bother to use Windows as Beta Testers and help them out? Is it that they are going to get a Free Windows 7 License or something? No, right? Then why bother? Let Microsoft spend a few million of their bucks paying for beta testers instead of giving them your time for free. In the end, they are going to collect money big time once its finished (hopefully it won't be that much from now on), beta testers will only get a "thank you" and a Windows 7 that will die next year. So cool! :-S

Reply Score: 2

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Well, I wonder why people spend time with Linux, they don't get anything and "linux" as a corporation either…

Reply Score: 2

eantoranz Member since:
2005-12-18

What do you mean we get nothing? We get the operating system (plus a bunch of applications) plus the source code for free... and Free. What else do you want to get along with it? Phone Support 24x7?

Reply Score: 4

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

And if you beta test W7 and you buy the licence, you get a better operating system (after the horrid Vista experience).

Not everyone cares about free, sourcecode, documentation, etc. I personally don't mind, but I wouldn't read linux kernel source code, why?

I have other things to do.

On the other hand, I use OS X and a variety of Windows (XP/VISTA) in Virtual Machines for developing and testing. Linux is a subversion/webserver/fileserver box in the middle of UPSs.

I don't have passion for Windows (I really can't stand working in it for long) but Windows 7 has made me think twice. It is a nice OS if you get used to it.

So spending time with it, for me, was a must and overall a good experience. It is a must because i must make sure that our product (for healthcare) works under W7 64 bits, which will be where everyone will be going.

We had problems with Vista and thanks to w7 we fixed those and made sure everything worked. Try W7, it's a nice OS. And you can play World of Warcraft. Try that under ubuntu/wine ;) (it works, but horribly compared to native).

As you can see, not everyone is interested in your priorities (free, sourcecode,etc), therefore people testing W7 "for free and to get nothing in return" as you see it, is as valid as you using a "cheap, free, open" operating system. Both are valid.

And we don't test for free. We don't get anything material in return, but thanks to the telemetry and thousands of beta testers that did it "for nothing", W7 has improved a lot.

Sorry to disappoint you, but linux on the desktop is not going to happen this year. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Syirrus Member since:
2009-05-05

I wouldn't say that Linux on the desktop is not going to happen this year... I've run Debian (Lenny) and Ubuntu 9.04 and have had no problems at on the desktop. Granted a few years ago I would agree with you about it not being ready. The best part about Linux is free, runs much faster than Vista on my system (Q6600 @ 3.0ghz 4gb RAM NV295GTX), and if you are a developer... the shy is the limit for developing applications. Granted it does require that you tinker with your computer a bit more, but that is part of the learning process at least for me. I will admit wine + wow ='s a joke. Currently I have a dual boot setup with windows 2008 server (as a workstation) so I can play my games. I do appreciated wine for its attempts / successes and I know with time it will get better. Linux is not for everyone, however I do see the appeal.

- Linux user since SUSE 6.0

Reply Score: 2

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

I agree with you and I think the OP just was trolling or has no real sense of what the IT industry uses. There are users for Linux and uses too. But that doesn't mean beta testing W7 is dumb because "you don't get anything in return".

I've used linux on the desktop when E16 was "the new kid on the block" and you had to manually configure it tweaking the xfree86 files…

But then I needed to get things done and stayed on W2k for some time. Then some XP and then I switched to Mac. Linux has always been my router at home and my server of choice. Windows 2008 and Windows 7 may chance that for some things. One has to be open ;)

Reply Score: 2

eantoranz Member since:
2005-12-18

Having a product that you have to make sure runs on Windows 7 is a good reason to use it, man... I encourage you to do it (I'd encourage you to make it run on other platforms not Microsoft centric even more).

I'm talking about normal plain people that will use it just because (and I know a couple of people like that).

Reply Score: 2

Gryzor Member since:
2005-07-03

Having a product that you have to make sure runs on Windows 7 is a good reason to use it, man... I encourage you to do it (I'd encourage you to make it run on other platforms not Microsoft centric even more).

I'm talking about normal plain people that will use it just because (and I know a couple of people like that).



The application I work with, uses GDI+ and .NET to a point where mono.net would laugh at the mere attempt of running it (we've tried). So we are stuck here. But I don't feel "bad" with .NET. I think it's a comfortable framework. (Better, IMO than Java).

Regarding the usage of W7 by "casual users" I agree but in the end, I think that I rather have that casual person using W7 than vista. I'd love to see more OSX but in some countries that is too expensive. I'd love to see everyone using linux (for once we wouldn't waste time with Antiviruses) but if they are going to use Windows (because they will want the next game…) I'd rather use W7. It's way more stable. Trust me. I don't like Vista, w7 feels better.

Reply Score: 1

aacs Member since:
2008-12-13

Broader testing involving the community is obviously a win-win situation which corporate, home users and MS all benefit from. It is a new thing from Microsoft, could be part of the reaction to the pressure to open up; still it's a sign of much-awaited coolness for the casual observer. Also, the automated usage/crash reporting is interesting, I wonder how they cope with that insane amount of data collected.
Apart from the often mentioned bizarre, static UI and other usual deficiencies it is certainly a better and leaner Windows than Vista.
If you aren't willing to try it out then don't.

Reply Score: 1

REM2000 Member since:
2006-07-25

Personally i beta test windows for two reasons,

The first and most important, is that im not really beta testing Windows for Microsoft, im beta testing it for my company. I am making sure that when/if we migrate then Windows 7 will be problem free, if not then i will know whats going to happen. I beta test to ensure that i get an early peek at the product and can support my users, so again when/if we migrate i can help them without looking like i don't know what im using. I beta test it against our applications, servers and hardware/IT infrastructure to ensure compatibility and in the event of a problem, there is a clear path for upgrading nessary items.

The second is that i am an OS / IT enthuast. My passion is computers and i want all OS's regardless of the manufacturer or coder to be successful and work how i like it, i like to see interesting new ideas that they have in their products and have a glimpse of whats around the corner. I also like to help with feedback to ensure that Windows x, Mac OS 10.x and Ubuntu/Debian x is the best release yet!

So far as others have said, im equally blown away by how good windows 7 is, its very fast and has some really excellent UI usuabilities added to make using a computer more efficient and easier to use.

The thing also to remember is that Windows works well for getting the job done, it works well for general office work for companies around the globe, Windows server and windows client is an easy OS to get a company infrastructure up and running.

I think the person we really have to thank for Windows 7 is Steven Sinofsky the head of Office 2007, he has really managed two big microsoft projects incredibly well.

I also think we have apple to thank for Windows 7. Ive always said that when Microsoft is under pressure they churn out some of their best work. It's the reason why Windows server has enjoyed quaility releases, as they have had to fight with Unix and linux in the server market. With Mac OSX, even only commanding 8% odd of the market still has given Microsoft a big kick up it's complacent butt!

With Windows 7 and Mac OSX snowleopard just around the corner and the many quaility releases from Linux distros (ubuntu, fedora, SUSE) This year is hotting up to be a great one for computer enhuasts!.

Reply Score: 3

v Was the article about Linux 7 RC?
by ecruz on Tue 5th May 2009 15:49 UTC
Comment by dtravis7
by dtravis7 on Tue 5th May 2009 16:47 UTC
dtravis7
Member since:
2005-07-14

Installed the RC on my Acer Aspire One. Everything worked first time. No additional drivers needed at all. Works great so far.

So far best running OS I have tried on the Aspire One.

Edited 2009-05-05 16:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Surprise
by aacs on Tue 5th May 2009 17:50 UTC
aacs
Member since:
2008-12-13

WordPad has an option to save as OpenDocument, and the save dialog has a checkbox to set the currently selected format as default! Wow.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Surprise
by darknexus on Tue 5th May 2009 18:25 UTC in reply to "Surprise"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Wow, I hadn't really explored Wordpad. Is it true, compatible ODF?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Surprise
by aacs on Wed 6th May 2009 01:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Surprise"
aacs Member since:
2008-12-13

Created a test document in WordPad, with some aligning, indents, sub- and superscripts, different fonts, images, pretty much what the program offers, then began to save back and forth OOo3. Some bullet formatting was lost in the process but everything else seems to work without major layout differences or any corruption. OOo saves quite a bit more files including a thumbnail.png into the ODT, and WP complains but loads it anyway. The base XML's seem close.
I didn't have time to look closer but this quick run bodes adequate support for basic things WordPad is used for. Not sure if it can be called true and compatible.
It should be interesting to thoroughly check Office 2007 SP2 in this regard.

Reply Score: 1

Virtual XP - Dissapointing Rehash.
by deathshadow on Tue 5th May 2009 23:31 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

"Virtual Windows XP" - Marketed as a new and easy way to use your XP programs - what a bunch of bullshit. All it is is an XP VHD booting in virtual PC as this is NOTHING 'new', they made this shit available back when Vista was introduced. I was expecting something like Parallels Fusion where the applications running under the VM would be seemless to the desktop - instead we yet another rehash of Virtual PC that frankly, has little or no differences since they bought up the property from Connectix (in a number of ways it's still inferior to VPC 5.2). Sure, you can run the applications, inside a VM window... Assuming they work in the first place on the crappy hardware they emulate.

For all of you expecting it to miraculously allow legacy gaming for the handful of games that don't work right under V or 7, FORGET IT. Virtual PC in this newest incarnation STILL emulates a S3 Trio 32/64 as the video adapter, so don't expect to be running DirectX stuff inside it... and certainly that Soundblaster 16 emulation is really a big feature. Of course, it doesn't include full support for Win9x which is when that level of hardware was actually relevant.

Which is funny, directX is just an API to wrap to the video drivers, why can't they pass the directX calls in XP to directX on the host?

Talk about overhyped nonsense - just hoping to slap a new name on it and prey on the ignorance of Joe user perhaps? I will end up using it just like I currently use XP on VPC under vista to run the tredosoft standalone's of IE for site testing - I just really was expecting more out of this 'feature' than something we've already had for the better part of a decade.

I'm sure the folks at VMWare, Sun VirtualBox and Parallels are laughing themselves silly.

The only real 'advantage' is that you get a fee licenced legal install of XP - like you can't find a spare sticker on the bottom of one of your retired machines somewhere...

Reply Score: 3

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

Hah, and while it's SP3, it still needs a half dozen updates made to it.

Here's a tip Microsoft, before releasing a virtual hard drive to the public, try running windows update on it first so that we aren't applying hotfixes that are a year or more old.

Reply Score: 3

dragossh Member since:
2008-12-16

Before bashing Microsoft, try installing an app in it and then run that app from Windows 7's Start menu. While it's nothing new (Parallels, VMware and VirtualBox all have some sort of seamless mode), it's nice that MS caught up with others. It also seems a little bit more integrated than every other virtualisation solution on Windows.

Reply Score: 1

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

>> Before bashing Microsoft, try installing an app
>> in it and then run that app from Windows 7's
>> Start menu

Applications installed in the VM are not appearing in my start menu here... Though I did have someone else say the same thing, that they are supposed to appear under the virtual PC menu, they don't. It would appear that functionality is broken, missing or otherwise non-functional here.

Edited 2009-05-06 10:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

no luck for me so far
by Cytor on Wed 6th May 2009 12:01 UTC
Cytor
Member since:
2005-07-08

Win 7 randomly locks up every application currently open. First i thought it was Firefox, but this also happens when using IE or any other application.
All applications will then be reported as "not answering" and I can't even Ctrl+Alt+Del to enter the task manager... I can only do so much as move the cursor.

Maybe it's related to the beta Nvidia driver for Win7.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by phobos_anomaly
by phobos_anomaly on Wed 6th May 2009 18:02 UTC
phobos_anomaly
Member since:
2009-05-06

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I have to comment on this article.

The fanboys seem to be coming out of the woodwork today. As I sat in my chair eating my lunch and reading the comments, I can't decide whether to laugh or to do a face palm at the comments made by the ms trolls.

Someone said "This is osnews.com not Microsoftnews.com"
Sure could have fooled me... Its not like you see osnews posting articles on the latest revision of say... debian or a release candidate of gentoo. Come to think of it, when compared with microsoft, there is very little about solaris, mac, bsd, and unix in general.

The ms fanboys should be ashamed of themselves... advertising and promoting a substandard os from a company with a track record of releasing bad products, stealing ideas from others, then claiming it all as their own. When was the last time that microsoft released an os that didn't bsod? or require a defragger, or an os that didn't automatically give a user root access. The cost alone of windows is enough to send any bean counter into shock... atleast 200$ for the license itself, probably around 40k a year for a windows admin, antivirus programs, a 3rd party firewall to get at least somewhat decent protection, sometimes 3rd party spyware removal, the constant upgrade cycle of hardware and software... whereas with a unix based os... one only has to pay someone to maintain the box's.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by phobos_anomaly
by daedliusswartz on Wed 6th May 2009 21:35 UTC in reply to "Comment by phobos_anomaly"
daedliusswartz Member since:
2007-05-28

When was the last time that microsoft released an os that didn't bsod?

Oh man.. get over the BSOD.. it doesn't happen anymore except in very rare cases, just like in OSX and Linux.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by phobos_anomaly
by ssa2204 on Wed 6th May 2009 22:29 UTC in reply to "Comment by phobos_anomaly"
ssa2204 Member since:
2006-04-22

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I have to comment on this article.
So you resort to being a troll? How genius.

Reply Score: 3

Bug or by design?
by Chatbox on Thu 7th May 2009 08:55 UTC
Chatbox
Member since:
2007-03-06

Using W7RC1.

I've enabled Explorer to show hidden files. Then on the desktop, now I have two "desktop.ini" icons.

One belongs to "C:\Users\Public\Desktop" and the other belongs to "C:\Users\<myUserID>\Desktop" (after checking the files' properties).

Is this supposed to happen? Two icons with the same name to appear on the Desktop? It can be somewhat confusing until the user check the file's properties to find its actual path. Seems like the user's Desktop is a logical composition of two directories/folders.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bug or by design?
by deathshadow on Thu 7th May 2009 11:34 UTC in reply to "Bug or by design?"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

They are separate files, though to see them you did NOT choose show hidden files, you unchecked 'hide protected operating system files' - not quite the same thing.

I usually go with show hidden but hide protected unless I really need access to those files - which to be honest I've really NOT needed since I moved away from 32 bit XP.

Reply Score: 2

If only it didn't expire after a year...
by madcrow on Thu 7th May 2009 11:58 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

... I'd be more interested. As it is, I spend 90% of my time in Linux and only boot to Windows when I want to emulate Amiga (WinUAE is lightyears ahead of it's Linux equivalent)

Reply Score: 2

Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

For me, a year is more than enough time to decide whether I want to buy it. I also rarely use Windows; right now just to update my BlackBerry's system software and to screw around with custom firmware on my PSP. Otherwise OS X and Linux have me covered. My wife, who until she met me only ever used Windows, actually prefers the Mac for web browsing and games. The kids love iLife and all the ported Linux games on their managed accounts.

As I've said previously, I really like what I've seen of 7 but I doubt I'll ever go back to that world; it would be a severe downgrade for us. I've always viewed computers as either an appliance that should work simply and well, or as a hobby to satisfy my tinkering nature. My Macs are my appliances and my other PCs running Linux are the hobby.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

It starts expiring three months before then, apparently.

http://www.itpro.co.uk/blogs/daveyw/2009/05/07/has-microsoft-gone-m...

Here’s the thing: you have invested a lot of time and money in shoving out yet another new Windows OS hot on the heels of, let’s face it, a not very well received new Windows OS in the shape of Vista. Obviously, you want people to try it, so some clever sort in marketing strategy says “why don’t we let users play with the release code of Windows 7 on as many different computer as they like, without restriction, for a whole year?”

You know what, it is actually a good idea. Until, that is, you get to the bit about what happens when that year is up. Or rather what happens before that year is up.

...

What is totally mental, and I mean running around without the supermarket without your pants on shouting “where is the mustard” mad, would be to start shutting down the user PC every two hours until they upgrade to a paid for OS and to start this nutball feature THREE MONTHS before the thing actually expires.

Yet that is exactly what some loon at Microsoft thought would be a good idea, and that’s what is going to happen. Starting March 1st 2010 your PC will shut down every two hours.


Wibble wibble wibble indeed.

Reply Score: 2