What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1 344
snydeq writes "The first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program are beginning to emerge, with hidden registry keys and a leaked list of post-RTM build numbers surfacing on the Web. 'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches, we'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard. Likewise, enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in, allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever,' writes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy. 'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'"
oh yes.. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yes, nothing spells stable like a nearly instant service pack!
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:2, Funny)
No issues. I'm currently deploying Win7 throughout multiple organizations. There are very few issues, as most of my customers run client/server apps via browser.
Not one BSOD on any machine that wasn't bad RAM. Not even a bad driver!
It's clearly Microsoft's best OS to date.
It's no Bob, but, what is?
Commercials (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:3, Funny)
I have been running win7 for a month know.
Mind you through parallels on my Imac.
I have been pleasantly surprised about the fact that it has been reasonably stable.
Not too mention there seems to be no reason to reboot after any install of software.
Even when something hangs, a window opens up asking me if I want to close it.
They part is the fact that the UAC refuses to remember the choices that I have made.
Every-time I run anything with-out digital-signatures it pops-up asking me if its ok.
I guess after 15 some odd years of trying they finally got a mac-os clone.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:4, Funny)
My place runs a Mac environment, and we've a database program dependant on OS 9, and we only have one machine capable of running it any more: an old eMac. The database program is horrible. It barely works. But, it's organized in such a way that exporting all the data in a usable format is nearly impossible, so we're stuck with it. Personally, I'm just waiting for the day the machine explodes, wiping out the database (we can't even back up the contents properly). I'm gonna laaaaugh and laaaaaugh and laaaaaugh on that day. Mostly because the database is just for marketing, and doesn't relate to my job at all.
Re:USB performance under Windows (Score:3, Funny)
I don't want to start a holy war here, but what is the deal with you Mac fanatics? I've been sitting here at my freelance gig in front of a Mac (a 8600/300 w/64 Megs of RAM) for about 20 minutes now while it attempts to copy a 17 Meg file from one folder on the hard drive to another folder. 20 minutes. At home, on my Pentium Pro 200 running NT 4, which by all standards should be a lot slower than this Mac, the same operation would take about 2 minutes. If that.
In addition, during this file transfer, Netscape will not work. And everything else has ground to a halt. Even BBEdit Lite is straining to keep up as I type this.
I won't bore you with the laundry list of other problems that I've encountered while working on various Macs, but suffice it to say there have been many, not the least of which is I've never seen a Mac that has run faster than its Wintel counterpart, despite the Macs' faster chip architecture. My 486/66 with 8 megs of ram runs faster than this 300 mhz machine at times. From a productivity standpoint, I don't get how people can claim that the Macintosh is a superior machine.
Mac addicts, flame me if you'd like, but I'd rather hear some intelligent reasons why anyone would choose to use a Mac over other faster, cheaper, more stable systems.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:3, Funny)