DonationCoder.com Forum
Main Area and Open Discussion => General Software Discussion => Topic started by: zridling on September 12, 2009, 04:59 PM
-
By all accounts, Windows 7 is going to be worth having, but I have a few questions.
[ You are not allowed to view attachments ]
(a) Are you planning on upgrading to Win7 before year's end?
(b) Will it last as long as XP, or will Microsoft kill it in time for another upgrade in two years?
(c) Are you planning to buy an upgrade version, full version, or just buy it with a new computer?
-
(a): Yes, as soon as newegg ships my copy
(b): I predict Windows 7 will probably last for a good amount of time, 3-4 years, before we see the next release (or at least a release date).
(c): I pre-ordered an upgrade copy, will be purchasing a full copy through my school, and will probably get it with my next PC.
-
a) Hope so. I plan to install it during Christmas, so it's either the last days of 2009 or the first ones of 2010.
b) That's something only Microsoft knows. While it's evident they won't release Windows 8 in two or three years as a solution to the problem that Windows 7 doesn't seem to be, whether they decide to carry on with the idea of shorter development cycles or not it's up to them.
c) Getting a full version through MSDNAA. And if some day I decide to get a portable computer, I'll have to decide if I get it with Windows 7 or opt to install some Linux distro (because, you know, Macs are a bit pricey :P)
-
a) No
b) neither, it will last for 6 years
c) neither
-
a) I already upgraded a month ago (MSDN Subscription)
b) I think that will depend on how well it captivates (and holds) the markets attention.
c) See a. ;)
The new interface enhancements make it incredibly easy to re-find your place when you get side-tracked while multi-tasking. Like when you're in the middle of 12 different things and get called away from your desk by a user that needs to be rescued from some personal computing tragedy (which generally means arriving in person and pointing at the button you'd told them about on the phone). /BOFH Mode
-
a) no, i'm fine with vista actually
b) no, not applicable
c) absolutely not. no job right now, it will literally be a miracle if i even make the rent
-
a) My netbook is already running the RC. If I can find the time between when I get my copies and the end of the year both it and my desktop will be upgraded.
b) I don't think it would be wise for Microsoft to let 7 stand as long as XP did (I'd say at most 4-5 years). Nor do I think Apple, Google, and Ubuntu (or other distros) will afford them the chance.
c) I pre-ordered an upgrade copy of Home and Ultimate, but I also enrolled in one of the Launch Events where attendees supposedly get a free copy, so one of those pre-orders may be canceled.
-
a) No - I cancelled my pre-order upgrade. Vista is rock solid and I like it.
b) I hope so, unless Microshaft decide to shift toward Apple's OS more enlightened upgrade/new release pricing scheme - ALL versions of a new OS X release are the same price, including upgrades, on a single DVD. I haven't checked on Snow Leopard, but at one point Leopard was $99 here (Canada) and that was for a DVD that contained the full version, not just an upgrade.
c) Don't see myself buying a new computer anytime soon... but who knows!
Caveat: If I start reading accounts from shocked and awed Win 7 adopters (ie those who have upgraded to it on existing hardware) that rave about the tremendous performance boosts that they're seeing on relatively recent Vista machines, I might be regretting cancelling my pre-order. However, I suspect that there will be some decent sales on upgrades around Christmas time, so I'm not too worried!
-
Well... Both of the machines I primarily use (here/home = x64 & work = x86) were upgraded from Vista to 7 about a month ago. While both are running noticeably crisper in the UI response department, I can't really say it's an earth shattering improvement. However the 32bit work machine having only 2GB of RAM does seem to show the most dramatic improvement as it's much less prone to lagging when I start a 2nd VM.
-
a) Yes. Fortunately, I have the luxury of running multiple machines so I don't have to abandon XP. For Win7, I'll do what I always do with a new OS. Win7 will get it's own machine with two separate installations on swappable hard drives - one to use on a day to day basis, and one to screw around with and break.
I've just downloaded Windows 7 and Server 2008 via MAPS (see note below). I should have both up and running by the end of next week.
b) If it works reasonably well (like XP) it will be around until Microsoft finally pries it from our cold dead hard drives. (Just like XP! ;D)
c) Ideally, it gets purchased with a new machine, but it ultimately comes down to economics: full OEM copies for new builds, and upgrades for everything else.
------------
Note: if you are professionally involved with any of this and have your own business, you may be eligible to join the Microsoft Partner Program. Doesn't take much to get accepted. Basically you need to fill out an application; take an online course and pass a not very difficult test every so often; and have some proof you actually have a bona fide tech business. In most cases that means furnishing a copy of a business tax permit or similar document.
Once you're registered as a partner, you become eligible to purchase something called a Microsoft Action Pack Subscription - or MAPS for short. A MAPS subscription provides copies of a goodly number of Microsoft products for internal use in your business. Cost for a subscription is approximately $300 (US) annually.
Most of the Server products are there along with desktop OSs, Visio, MSProject, and the most recent version of Office. Some of the products (Win7 and Office) allow for up to 10 copies to be installed.
Subscribers can download these products from dedicated servers Microsoft has set up just for MAPS. You may also elect to get delivery via hard media for an additional fee if bandwidth is a problem.
All in all it's a pretty good deal and well worth looking into if you're "in the business" as the saying goes.
-
It's been said to wait for first service pack before upgrading? :-\
-
It's been said to wait for first service pack before upgrading? :-\
-CleverCat
Not sure that applies to Windows 7 - think of it more of a major service pack on Vista with some new features.
Running Pro version on 3 computers and the only issues I have had so far are:
- one piece of software that wouldn't install (the software didn't recognise the OS) - but it did install when I told the installer to install it in XP compat mode (not XP VM) - and it works fine.
- a couple of drivers are missing because vendors are not releasing official drivers until Win7 official release date. I have installed Vista drivers where necessary and not noticed any problems at all.
-
(a) Yep, did it last week.
(b) From what I've tried, it looks rock solid. Looks like there has been major worry with user interface and generaly making stuff simpler (while I think in Vista they didn't have that objective, some stuff got more complicated than on XP).
(c) Full version, win7 x64 Pro via msdnaa subscription.
I'm not using it as my main OS, so I guess I still need to play with it a bit more. (that's also why I upgraded so fast - I had no important data on the previous windows installation).
My experience is:
I really like the new interface. So much so that I installed a similar taskbar in linux. The update on window management (for maximize/restore) is a huge step forward (linux has done that since a while, it's good to be able to also use it in windows).
I think that programs that run on the tray (steam, winamp and live messenger come to mind) sort of break the interface, since the tray icons are hidden. There may be a way to have them showing, though.
As for drivers, the driver site for my laptop was down, but I installed the nvidia drivers from nvidia site installed with no problems.
-
It's been said to wait for first service pack before upgrading? :-\
-CleverCat
Not sure that applies to Windows 7 - think of it more of a major service pack on Vista with some new features.
Running Pro version on 3 computers and the only issues I have had so far are:
- one piece of software that wouldn't install (the software didn't recognise the OS) - but it did install when I told the installer to install it in XP compat mode (not XP VM) - and it works fine.
- a couple of drivers are missing because vendors are not releasing official drivers until Win7 official release date. I have installed Vista drivers where necessary and not noticed any problems at all.
-Carol Haynes
I'm still on XP....
-
I think that programs that run on the tray (steam, winamp and live messenger come to mind) sort of break the interface, since the tray icons are hidden. There may be a way to have them showing, though.
-jgpaiva
Just right click on the taskbar and in Properties you can customise the tray icons to show what you want.
-
a) been running a post-rc beta for quite a while, will upgrade to MSDNAA RTM version as soon as I get around to it.
b) who cares
c) see a
-
b) who cares
-f0dder
Anyone who has to pay for the new version, I suppose :P
-
(a) No. I like linux, but applications like BitWare have nothing comparable in linux so I run two WinXP boxes as well.
(b) Win7 looks pretty good. I expect MS will keep it around for awhile.
(c) definitely only when I need another machine
-
a) I plan to wait until some of the usual startup bugs are eliminated and then buy a new computer with Windows7 preinstalled.
b) My crystal ball is in the shop
c) See a). I also hope to buy a netbook with Windows7 - I'm eager for a netbook but want to get one with an operating system that will be around and supported for a while. Seems silly to buy one with XP at this point, and I don't want Vista.
-
and I don't want Vista.-cyberdiva
Keep in mind that Win7 isn't that different from Vista.
-
I'm not using it as my main OS, so I guess I still need to play with it a bit more. (that's also why I upgraded so fast - I had no important data on the previous windows installation).
-jgpaiva
This is a major factor in why I cancelled my pre-order: there's no upgrade path unless you go from Vista Ultimate to Win 7 Ultimate and I'm not too interested in having to reinstall my software and migrate my settings. Again. I know that there are programs out there that are supposed to will let me do this, but...
-
Keep in mind that Win7 isn't that different from Vista.
-f0dder
Thanks, f0dder. I realize that, but from what I've seen so far, people seem much happier with W7 than with Vista. Since I'm still running XP Pro, I don't have direct experience with Vista, but my impression is that at least some of the aspects of Vista that bother people have been changed/eliminated in W7. At least I hope so. :)
-
Vista has worked pretty well since SP1 arrived - after all, I kept it on my laptop (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=15243). Win7 seems a bit faster & lighter, and I definitely like the various enhancements (user interface, optimizations, etc) that it brings over Vista - but it isn't that different. It's definitely more than a service pack, though :)
-
(a) Are you planning on upgrading to Win7 before year's end?
-zridling
Not in the least. I upgraded to Win95 in 1997 or so; to XP only after SP2 was released; never intended to upgrade to Vista. And in XP, I enabled the default (themed) interface only a year ago :)
Vista never had a compelling reason to upgrade, and I have yet to see one for 7. But most of all, I cannot risk any instability, since it might easily cost me my monthly income, or a loss of a client.
When I upgraded to XP, it was for two reasons: certain drivers for Win2000 were becoming flaky or non-existent, and a number of applications I must use for work were becoming XP-only. Interestingly, none of these apps (including some in-house apps made by Microsoft and heavily reliant on .Net) ever became Vista-only. I'd say it's a good rule of the thumb to do what Microsoft does, not what they say.
(b) Will it last as long as XP, or will Microsoft kill it in time for another upgrade in two years?
-zridling
Who knows. I'm happy to see Vista didn't last long. It's a pimple on the face of computing. But how is 7 any better?
(c) Are you planning to buy an upgrade version, full version, or just buy it with a new computer?
-zridling
Probably a new version, since there seems to be no upgrade path from XP. But I'll be sticking with XP until some technology critical for my work requires a switch.
-
I really like the new interface. So much so that I installed a similar taskbar in linux.
-jgpaiva
Looking at the screenshots, the taskbar seems way oversized now (just like the Office 2007 ribbon), but no longer displays any text - just the icons. This seems like it's going to be inconvenient: with two instances of the same app, how can I tell which is which? Can the taskbar be configrued to look like XP, with regular text labels?
And is it really all black, as some screenshots imply? (I'd hate that.)
-
Who knows. I'm happy to see Vista didn't last long. It's a pimple on the face of computing. But how is 7 any better?-tranglos
I wouldn't exactly call SuperFetch, UAC and usermode graphics drivers pimples on the face of computing... Aero is also pretty sweet, especially in Win7 with WDDM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model) 1.1 :)
-
Who knows. I'm happy to see Vista didn't last long. It's a pimple on the face of computing. But how is 7 any better?-tranglos
I wouldn't exactly call SuperFetch, UAC and usermode graphics drivers pimples on the face of computing... Aero is also pretty sweet, especially in Win7 with WDDM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Display_Driver_Model) 1.1 :)
-f0dder
UAC? We'll just have to agree to disagree, then!
Aero looks good on screenshots, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't be too much lucre and visual distraction for me. And I would probably disable it anyway, since I want my CPU to be there when I need it :)
Now, as a translator I'm bound by all sorts of non-disclosure agrements, so I can't be specific here - but I've seen a little bit of internals (system messages, not code) in my work. I would never want to run an OS that can display the kinds of error messages Vista is capable of displaying, related for example to network connectivity and missing updates or some validation procedures. If "code is law", as said by Larry Lessig (the lawyer who instituted Creative Commons), then Vista is a prison.
I suppose Windows 7 is going to be even more so, and I will nevertheless upgrade when faced with the choice of upgrading or changing jobs. But I'll be kicking and screaming when I do.
-
UAC? We'll just have to agree to disagree, then!
It's the best thing that has happened for Windows security for a long while, and it really isn't that annoying when you're done with the initial program installs and setup after a fresh Windows install.
Aero looks good on screenshots, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't be too much lucre and visual distraction for me. And I would probably disable it anyway, since I want my CPU to be there when I need it :)
The cute thing about Aero is that it runs on the GPU, not CPU :) - and that it allows for live previews on alt+tab (without being hacky and resorting to the cpu-sucking "take constant screenshots" approach that some fancy switchers use). This allows for a very smooth Exposé (https://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=9819) clone, which I've quickly grown fond of.
. If "code is law", as said by Larry Lessig (the lawyer who instituted Creative Commons), then Vista is a prison.
Dunno; I'm not fond of the DRM (which hasn't bitten me yet, but I haven't attempted to hook up a TV via HDMI), but other than that I don't see big issues with Vista. Given beefy enough hardware, I'd even choose Vista over XP these days (yes, it's more demanding than XP, but it's also better at utilizing a powerful PC than XP is - SuperFetch rocks.)
-
UAC? We'll just have to agree to disagree, then!
It's the best thing that has happened for Windows security for a long while, and it really isn't that annoying when you're done with the initial program installs and setup after a fresh Windows install.
-f0dder
I only know what I've read about other people's experiences, and from the interminable confirmation messages I've had to translate. But as a philosophy, I think it's flawed. First of all, users don't read stuff (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000062.html). If you put up a dialog box, you have a lot of people who will hit Enter (rarely Esc) without reading. And often for a good reason too, since the system is asking them a question they don't know how to answer. The other group of users, those who do read messages and do know the good answer - I don't think they need UAC in the first place. These are the same people who install their AVs and their firewalls and basically know what they are doing.
That is a theory (though advanced by long-time practitioners like Joel Spolsky, linked above), and in practice you may be right :) I just don't like the idea, without having been personally subjected to it yet.
Aero looks good on screenshots, but I'm not convinced it wouldn't be too much lucre and visual distraction for me. And I would probably disable it anyway, since I want my CPU to be there when I need it :)
The cute thing about Aero is that it runs on the GPU, not CPU :) - and that it allows for live previews on alt+tab (without being hacky and resorting to the cpu-sucking "take constant screenshots" approach that some fancy switchers use). -f0dder
Thanks for the correction. I've found though that I can't use the "snapshot" task switchers of any kind. I've tried TaskSwitchXP, for example, and there's a Firefox extension that does a similar thing with tabs. It's weird, but I just can't use those, because I'm lost. I can't instantly recognize a window by its downsized graphical snapshot - they look all the same to me. When I switch, I recognize apps by their icons, and tabs by their titles. Every time I tried a snapshot-based UI like that, I end up randomly switching to things in panic, can't tell which window is which. Don't know whay that is, but it just doesn't work for me at all.
-
I'm running Windows 7 RTM now and I have been for quite some time. I see people in this thread saying that Win7 isn't worth upgrading to & I imagine their opinions are based on screenshots they have seen. This really is the best version of Windows yet & one needs to experience it in person to see how smooth MS has made things work together. Sitting down in front of a Vista PC is now awkward for me & sitting down in front of an XP PC is a painful experience.
As for whether or not Win7 will last as long as XP....XP wasn't supposed to last as long as XP did. A screwed up development cycle for Vista is what prolonged XP staying on store shelves for as long as it has. Microsoft has stated that from here on out there's going to be a new OS released every 2-3 years just like in the past. The Vista development cycle length was an anomaly.
Having said that, though, Microsoft and Apple are running out of evolutionary enhancements to make to their respective OSes, IMHO. Things are getting to the point where the OS you have is good enough & there's not enough that can be added to a new version of your OS of choice to warrant an upgrade cost. There may need to be a revolutionary change to the OS to get people to upgrade to Win8.
-
win7's taskbar is a whole new concept (well, not very new, one can say it's similar to mac os's dock).
There's a button per application, and you switch between application's windows when you hover over the buttons.
In my opinion, vista suffered way more bad publicity than it deserved, I've used it reliably since it launched and until last year, and found it the best OS I've tried until then.
Regarding UAC.. It's very useful even for a user who installs his own AV. It's great to be able to use an application and know it can't damage your computer. For example: you download an exe and run it on XP, and it may do all sorts of nastyness to your computer. If you try that in Vista, it'll only be able to do it if you let it. It just gives you way more feedback than xp does.
Furthermore, vista, 7 and office 2007 benefit from what I think was one of the best ideas microsoft has had: microsoft user experience.
They have used the knowledge about the user's most frequent actions and problems and tried to work the interface so that those problems would be gone.
It's like innuendo says: it just feels much more confortable.
-
I've made no secret of the fact that Vista, both 32 and 64 bit versions, has been a very stable OS for me. As f0dder notes, it really doesn't deserve the negativity that has surrounded it since its release.
I guess I'm going to have to wait for Win 7 to arrive on store shelves as the preinstalled OS on new hardware so that I can "experience" it for myself. Innuendo and João have me curious about the improvements that have been made.
-
I only know what I've read about other people's experiences, and from the interminable confirmation messages I've had to translate. But as a philosophy, I think it's flawed. First of all, users don't read stuff. If you put up a dialog box, you have a lot of people who will hit Enter (rarely Esc) without reading.
Well, some people can't be helped (boy, does the gene pool need some chlorine!), but I'm fairly certain that there's a large gorup of people (perhaps not in America, but the world is bigger than .us ;)) that actually do read confirmation messages and can think a bit for themselves.
And UAC isn't as intrusive and happening-all-the-time as a lot of other security software.
And often for a good reason too, since the system is asking them a question they don't know how to answer. The other group of users, those who do read messages and do know the good answer - I don't think they need UAC in the first place. These are the same people who install their AVs and their firewalls and basically know what they are doing.
3rd party software firewalls are superfluous since XP SP2, and UAC means that I don't have to bother with running antivirus software - and it's a lot less of a hassle than running a Limited User Account on pre-Vista NT systems.
Thanks for the correction. I've found though that I can't use the "snapshot" task switchers of any kind. I've tried TaskSwitchXP, for example, and there's a Firefox extension that does a similar thing with tabs. It's weird, but I just can't use those, because I'm lost. I can't instantly recognize a window by its downsized graphical snapshot - they look all the same to me. When I switch, I recognize apps by their icons, and tabs by their titles. Every time I tried a snapshot-based UI like that, I end up randomly switching to things in panic, can't tell which window is which. Don't know whay that is, but it just doesn't work for me at all.
It does take a bit getting used to, but the cute thing about Switcher is that in addition to showing the window content, it also shows the application icon. It's very keyboard-friendly, and I feel more productive than Alt+Tabbing :)
Oh, apart from UAC, Vista also included some under-the-hood improvements to make exploit writing more difficult. And Win7 has had numerous performance enhancements; some of them won't be noticable until you scale to a pretttty high number of CPUs, but it does show that MS takes this OS seriously, and expects it to be used not just for the desktop.
-
3rd party software firewalls are superfluous since XP SP2, and UAC means that I don't have to bother with running antivirus software - and it's a lot less of a hassle than running a Limited User Account on pre-Vista NT systems.
-f0dder
f0dder, can you say a bit more about this? From time to time I read anti-malware forums where people running WinXP with SP2 and SP3 and Vista are seeking help after getting all sorts of viruses. It hasn't happened to me, so I can't comment directly, but I've never before heard anyone claim that WinXP with SP2 or 3 eliminates the need for a software firewall, nor that Vista users don't have to bother with AV software. Have I misunderstood you?
-
cyberdiva: I'm not a big fan of 3rd party software firewalls, since I find blocking outgoing connections pretty much useless; if you've got malware on the system you're already game over (I know the proponents have some opinions as to why it can be useful, but imho it's too much hassle and regular users will just end up saying "yes yes, allow olsentwins.nude.sexy.exe to connect to the intarweb" anyway). The focus should be on preventing badstuff from entering your computer - and XP SP2 built-in firewall takes care of not getting service ports exposed to the internet.
As for antivirus on Vista, I'd still advise normal users to grab an antivirus product - I just don't find it necessary myself. Being a bit careful about the sites I visit, not running random .exe files, and checking could-be suspicious stuff in a virtual machine does the trick for me. Sure, I can't be 100% certain that somebody doesn't find a 0-day flaw to bypass UAC and exploit FireFox, and hack a bunch of legitimate websites to serve the malware... but I'd rather reinstall Windows and restore my backups if that happens, rather than wasting system resources daily :)
-
What? You mean I shouldn't have put olsentwins.nude.sexy.exe in my trusted programs list so my firewall would stop asking me about it? :D Seriously, though I can see your point, I'm not sure I agree that all is lost as soon as you've got malware on your system. If it's trying to send information out and the firewall prevents it from doing so AND alerts you to the fact that something is trying to do so, you can work on getting rid of the malware before it succeeds in sending out info.
Anyway, thanks for your quick response. You've definitely given me something to think about.
-
What? You mean I shouldn't have put olsentwins.nude.sexy.exe in my trusted programs list so my firewall would stop asking me about it? :D Seriously, though I can see your point, I'm not sure I agree that all is lost as soon as you've got malware on your system. If it's trying to send information out and the firewall prevents it from doing so AND alerts you to the fact that something is trying to do so, you can work on getting rid of the malware before it succeeds in sending out info.
Anyway, thanks for your quick response. You've definitely given me something to think about.
-cyberdiva
The trouble with software firewalls is that they fall into two categories: set it and forget it (which is no better than those built into XPSP2 and later versions of Windows) and firewalls that allow user control. The latter requires a lot of knowledge and tenacity on the part of users to use the firewall effectively. I would guess that 90% of the time when a third party firewall pops up a prompt the average user just clicks ALLOW without thinking.
A far better solution (IMHO) is to use the Windows firewall behind a hardware router based firewall.
By the way from Windows Vista onwards the built in firewall has outgoing protection features too but you need to configure them.
The other big problem with software firewalls is that software can leak out information without the firewall's knowledge (rendering the protection useless) unless you batten down the security to such an extent that you spend 90% of your time online responding to firewall warning/prompts.
I'm afraid I disagree with f0dder on the need for a good AV solution. With the best will in the world websites and download sites however reputable can make mistakes or be hacked leaving anyone without AV protection exposed to viruses and other malware no matter how careful they are. Granted if you are sensible you are unlikely to get infected but it isn't impossible. Just use a very low impact AV solution such as AVAST for home use or NOD32 for the office.
-
Carol: well, I wouldn't advise normal people to not use antivirus software - but it works well for me. If there were other people than me using my workstation, I would use protection :)
And good point about leaky software firewalls; imho it's better to not run one (and be careful) than having a false sense of security.
-
Just use a very low impact AV solution such as AVAST for home use or NOD32 for the office.
-Carol Haynes
This seems to be my day for asking questions. Carol, can you tell me why you would recommend a different firewall for home use than for the office? Is there much difference between AVAST and NOD32 other than the fact that AVAST has a free version whereas NOD32 does not?
-
There are two reasons:
1) They aren't firewall applications - they are AV applications ;)
2) Avast is free for home use, NOD32 isn't
-
1) They aren't firewall applications - they are AV applications ;)
2) Avast is free for home use, NOD32 isn't
-Carol Haynes
Thanks, Carol, for your response. I don't know where my brain was when I wrote that last message. I'm well aware that AVAST and NOD32 are AV apps, not firewalls--why I wrote "firewall" is a mystery. Then again, lots about my so-called mind is a mystery :-[ .
So am I right in interpreting what you've said as 'NOD32 is probably better than AVAST, but you'd have to pay for NOD32, so let your company pay for it at work and use AVAST at home because it's pretty good and free'?
-
I think they are probably comparable in terms of quality. The main reason I don't go for AVAST on business machines is that you end up with firewalls and antispam too - the basic free AV solution for home use is very good (at least I haven't had any problems with it and clients seem happy plus it seems light on resources). NOD32 has a good track record and is very light on systems but has the big advantage that you can buy a license for just the AV software so you don't end up with bulky and uncontrollable suites on business machines.
Having said that I did advise a client to try the NOD32 Security Suite and I now wish I hadn't. The firewall is impenetrable (and as far as I can tell it doesn't obey its won rules). My client had endless problems with a WiFi Brother printer attached to their network (mainly that no one could print on it when NOD32 firewall was enabled). I checked the firewall settings and it clearly stated that network printing was allowed but it didn't work. I tried making specific rules and even through the firewall into learning mode so I could tell it to allow communications through when a print attempt was made. Nothing I did made any difference.
In the end I simply disabled the NOD32 firewall and enabled Vista's firewall which causes absolutely no problems.
-
I checked the firewall settings and it clearly stated that network printing was allowed but it didn't work. I tried making specific rules and even through the firewall into learning mode so I could tell it to allow communications through when a print attempt was made. Nothing I did made any difference.
-Carol Haynes
We're drifting off topic for the thread, but it seems to me the scenario you describe above is what eventually happens to some firewalls, after they go beyond some threshold of complexity. I had exactly the same experience with Outpost after a few years of usage. It would randomly block outgoing FTP among others, and no amount of tweaking would fix that. These were known problems, with solutions poste on user forums that required manually changing ini settings, but after a while Outpost became unbearable. I switched to the ESET suite then, and it has served me well for two years, and just last month it decided it didn't like it when Backup4All was copying files to a network drive. Backup4All would freeze at n% copying a random file, and it would not continue until I disabled the firewall in ESET correction: not the firewall, but the real-time scanning component. The end result was the same though, since ESET was taking inordinate amounts of time to finish scanning a tiny .txt file, which it shouldn't even be looking at in the first place.
My guess is at some point the firewall rules become too complex, or maybe there are remains of old rules or old behaviors that the developers abandoned but didn't quite remove from the code? Who knows, but I think I'm seeing a pattern.
I dropped ESET and, since my subscription was about to expire anyway, I bought Kaspersky AV. (Tried their firewall too, liked it in general, didn't like the constant pop-ups. "Total Commander is trying to start a process, blah blah." I'm not paying for you to annoy me, firewall :-) )
-
The trouble with the ESET firewall is that it was set to 'out-of-the-box' settings since only very common applications are used (e.g. MS Office is the main application) and the firewall has pre-built rules to deal with common applications and simple network setups (including network printing). Even though nothing was tweaked it caused problems and tweaking the settings didn't seem to have any effect at all.
-
I'm not a big fan of 3rd party software firewalls, since I find blocking outgoing connections pretty much useless...-f0dder
While blocking/monitoring outgoing connections is useless in regards to fighting malware I find it invaluable in discovering what non-malware programs are doing and what web sites they are trying to contact. My favorite example to cite regarding this point is that early versions of WinDVD, a popular DVD player, would contact the author's web site and communicate the movie titles of every single movie you watched using their software. I never would have known this without my software firewall. Heck, the current version of WinDVD may still do this. I haven't used it in years, though.
I have to agree with Carol's assertion for having a good AV program installed. Even the best, most cautious behavior surfing the internet isn't an impenetrable defense when people are discovering viruses and trojans on pressed discs bought from a brick and mortar store. I won't even get into the crap we're now having to deal with with poo imbedded in Flash ads, cross-site vulnerabilities, etc. The vectors of attacks are increasing and the days of just being careful what you click on and which sites you visit are coming to an end. The bad guys are getting very clever.
Makes me yearn for 1993....biggest problem we had on the internet was trying to figure out how to block banner ads and popups.
-
Innuendo: well, I block flash and java. Of course there is the risk of a whitelisted sited being hacked... but to be really dangerous, it would need to combine 0-day exploits in {firefox, flash, java} (pick one) and UAC, and it would be on a whitelisted site and something that passes through AdBlock. Could happen, but for now (and I might one day regret this) I personally prefer not bogging my system down with AV software. Even the relatively light NOD32 causes a noticeable speed hit for me.
-
How about we fork firewall/av requirements off to a separate thread?
-
How about we fork firewall/av requirements off to a separate thread?
-Josh
Sounds like a good idea to me, it's cluttering the thread a bit but is still a useful discussion.
-
My Windows experience is admittedly second-hand these days: I setup and maintain the wife's business machine that runs Windows. And if your choice is between Vista and Win7 -- and you're staying with Microsoft -- take the Win7 every time.*
.......................
*Otherwise, I'll suggest you try something like openSUSE (http://www.opensuse.org/en/) or Linux Mint (http://www.linuxmint.com/).
-
After my last serious attempt to switch to the open source world, the lack of apps that work smart (apart for a few glorious text-based ones - but my gripes with FOSS desktop are a things for another thread) and get out of the way clearly shows me I'm probably staying on the windows train for a bit
So it would make sense to update to a family pack of some sort when there is a good deal
(I am trying to be thrifty, no income at the moment while I find my next reinvention)
My problem:
1. So far windows 7 does not work properly on my main desktop, it's a problem between motherboard and graphics card that gives garbled graphics (not usable, you are guessing where buttons would be). I could try other graphics card or change the motherboard, but of course that makes it a bigger job... or wait and hope it gets better. (I updated the bios to all versions and alas no improvements, and i lost the fan speed management somewhere along the way)
2. I use a lot of shareware, some of it is not updated often or an old version. Not sure it all will work ok on Windows 7 unless I get the Pro version, if I understand it correctly. Due to my graphics issue I havent been able to test that :(
3. Not sure about this but I'd want to have ALL my main OS on my machines on the same, rather than some still on XP some on 7 (ofc for the usual "fix someone's problem" i have several OSes on multi boot - a win98 and a 2000 somewhere too, but havent looked at them in ages)
All in all I am tempted to wait and upgrade a bit later, but getting knowledge of it is also important...
In short? undecided
-
I would check out Windows 7 graphics card drivers in November and December - I'd guess your problem will be fixed if it hasn't in the RTM build. I had a few issues with the Beta and RC versions an the onboard graphics on one of my systems (it caused endless rebooting during installation unless you used VGA to install instead of DVI and then installed an older Vista driver before reconnecting DVI). This has been fixed in the final release version and it now installs fine.
The only minor frustration I am having with Windows 7 is that third party drivers from many manufacturers are scheduled for release after Windows 7. It isn't actually causing a problem because it installed fine and Vista drivers seem to work for those devices that didn't install automatically with Windows. Given the lead time for developers you would have thought Windows 7 drivers would have been emerging (at least in beta and RC form) from device manufacturers for some time now.
-
Drivers have flowed quite easily for most of my hardware. The only company dragging their feet in my case is Creative, but that's nothing new. They must only hire programmers who have successfully finished reading Visual Basic for Dummies. Fortunately, someone's modded the Vista drivers to work perfectly with Win 7.
My ATI card is fine (even though I have an older card that has to use the legacy drivers. Bah!) and my Intel NIC is a dream. The Intel Win 7 drivers are giving me better performance than I got under Vista. Probably due to all that auto-adjusting networking stuff that never was quite right in Vista.
Windows 7 is coming and it's just a little over a month away. Companies really don't have any excuse not to either have their drivers released or near release. Windows 7's driver model is not that much different than Vista's so there's not the excuse available there was when people were transitioning from XP to Vista.
As little Kylie says in the new Windows 7 commercial: I'm a PC and more happy is coming.
Windows 7 is snappy and 'reponisive'. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssOq02DTTMU)