Windows 7 evaluation

[Whereismyangel]

Well...you MUST switch to Windows 7 : the calculator is much better, and there is a chess game !
 

[MilesAhead]

Well...you MUST switch to Windows 7 : the calculator is much better, and there is a chess game !
 

-Whereismyangel (July 19, 2009, 09:02 AM)

Insteada' that welcome screen with music they shoulda' had a video of those big red dice with the white spots and sharp edges rolling off the stop of the craps table, coming up with 7 logos and the voice saying "7! We have a winna'!!!!"

Then instead of the BSOD if you have a system check, it comes up snake eyes!!

[f0dder]

Seems like I should have reported the CHKDSK memory-gobbling bug to MS... apparently it's not fixed in Win7 RTM >_<

[SKA]

f0dder

What do you think of  - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1235

BTW I thought chkdsk was used all the time by windows before format for a clean install ?
(maybe not chkdsk /r which seems to be at issue here)

SKA

[urlwolf]

Gizmodo reviews the 'master CD'...

They like it.

[f0dder]

Gizmodo reviews the 'master CD'...

They like it.

-urlwolf (August 06, 2009, 02:26 AM)

From that link...

The more chaste User Account Control goes to that—the frequency with which it interrupts you was grating in Vista, like standing under a dripping faucet. But it actually works as Microsoft intended now, with more security, since you're less likely to repeatedly hammer "OK" to anything that pops up, just so it leaves you the hell alone.

-that link

WrongWrongWrongWrong. As mentioned several times already by other people, Win7 UAC isn't safe unless you crank it to the max. Sure, a lower level is still better than nothing, but since it allows for privilege escalation, it only guards against old threats - new ones are sure to use the design flaw.

f0dder

What do you think of  - http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=1235

BTW I thought chkdsk was used all the time by windows before format for a clean install ?
(maybe not chkdsk /r which seems to be at issue here)

-SKA (August 05, 2009, 11:32 PM)

I read that (linked from the OSNews article), dunno if I have anything to add to it. Since the problem only seems to happen with /R I don't find that it's a "showstopper bug", but the insanely high memory usage is definitely a problem. I don't think windows does chkdsk before install, since a format makes that unnecessary (why check filesystem integrity if you're going to wipe the filesystem anyway?).

[Innuendo]

]WrongWrongWrongWrong. As mentioned several times already by other people, Win7 UAC isn't safe unless you crank it to the max. Sure, a lower level is still better than nothing, but since it allows for privilege escalation, it only guards against old threats - new ones are sure to use the design flaw.

-f0dder (August 06, 2009, 08:02 AM)

So very true and in my opinion there is no sane reason in the world to run UAC at less than max setting. The third-party software authors have finally caught up with MS's new security model. Very, very few programs on my system ever invoke a UAC prompt these days. 99% of the UAC prompts I see are either when I install a new software package or I run some security software that needs direct access to the system to do its job.

I hereby declare that effective Windows 7 release if you get any computer advice that starts out with "Well, the first thing I do is turn off UAC..." that will be a surefire way of knowing you are talking to a whackjob.

[f0dder]

I hereby declare that effective Windows 7 release if you get any computer advice that starts out with "Well, the first thing I do is turn off UAC..." that will be a surefire way of knowing you are talking to a whackjob.

-Innuendo (August 06, 2009, 09:29 AM)

I really don't see the fuzz about UAC these days - the prompts are few and sane. One of the few things I'm not so happy about is that "shadow file storage" thingamajig, which mouser has also rambled about... but UAC is a good thing.

[johnk]

I've been testing Win7 and I think it's a fine product. Early adopters will snap it up, and eventually corporations that avoided Vista will switch to Win7.

But in the general consumer marketplace, I think upgrade sales of Win7 may well disappoint. I think the vast majority of home users will ignore Win7 (unless they buy new PCs).

Why? Well, with any technology, I apply the "good enough" test.

For example, audio: Vinyl was good enough for audiophiles, but for the masses? Nope. Too fiddly: all that cleaning, getting up to change sides, scratches....bleh. The mass market wanted portability, ease of use and decent sound. CD passed the good enough test with flying colours, audiophile gripes notwithstanding. SACD and DVD-A were doomed before launch.

TV? CRTs failed the test. They dominated the average British living room to an uncomfortable extent once you got to 28". Flat screens were always going to succeed.

Video: VHS was obviously not good enough, for too many reasons to list. Neither was Laserdisc (size, turning discs, no record facility). DVD? Passes the good enough test. Portable, fairly rugged and with video and audio quality that defy criticism for the average user. Blu-ray proponents beware. As SACD showed, early adopter enthusiasm is not enough.

Windows OS: Win98SE was okay for its time, but you didn't have to be a tech genius to see that XP brought a whole new level of sophistication and stability to your home PC. Particularly since SP2, XP has been a robust OS which does everything the vast majority of users need. The user base is also vast, much bigger than the days of Win98, so software developers will offer XP versions for many years to come. Crucially, in the Win98 days, a home was lucky if it had one PC. Now many homes have more than one. The proposed family pack upgrade would have to be priced very competitively to make it a serious option. XP passes the "good enough" test. XP was a giant leap. Win7 is gentle evolution. After the initial early adopter euphoria, Win7 has a fight on its hands. It may well rely totally on new home PC sales and corporate adoption.

Will I upgrade? No. We have four home PCs. Even if I had bought during the brief £50 upgrade offer, that's £200 just for a new OS. That's before we talk about essential software and hardware upgrades. Doesn't begin to make economic sense.

When I upgrade the home PCs, it will probably be Linux. Every year or two I run a test installation, and every time I say "not yet". But it's about 18 months since my last test, and Mint looks interesting...