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.'"
Only management is fooled (Score:4, Insightful)
...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1. Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain *cough* Gartner Group *cough* suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Interesting)
I can only agree. I work for a small ISV and Microsoft partner. Under the partner program, we've rolled out the Windows 7 RC to 75% of our laptops/desktops. Roughly a month after we were able to get our hands on RTM (i think that was around August 5th), we've upgraded 100% of our machines.
Now, roughly two months after GA, we have several smaller customers (10-20 machines) that are running Windows 7 only.
Only issue we had was laptop-hangs-on-shutdown-because-of-bitlocker. While annoying, it didn't prevent it from doing anything. In the meantime, there's a hotfix for this issue.
There's no need to wait for SP1, if you're a small, agile company. If you're a big corporation, these will likely finish there Windows XP rollouts somewhen past April 2014 ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is bitlocker still only on the most expensive version? Does anyone know?
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:4, Informative)
Well, first of, Microsoft wants to make money. Purchasing SA to an existing Windows 7 Professional OEM license is pretty cheap for corporate standards (around 100$). This will net you Windows 7 Enterprise (and a bunch of other goodies, like reimaging rights which you NEED if you have more than 5 computers).
Also, there's the whole "shoot yourself in the foot" thing. If Bitlocker was in HP/Pro, there'd be countless people "trying" it out, then losing their USB key (for non-TPM machines) or changing the hardware configuration (for TPM machines), without having the recovery key handy.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've ever tried to use Bitlocker you'll notice it has some sneaky requirements about your hardware that even machines with the right OS version don't always meet. TrueCrypt is far more accepting (and totally OS agnostic), not to mention free.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
TrueCrypt is also much more vulnerable than Bitlocker is, because it does not utilize the TPM. I've never seen corporate laptop/desktop offers that did not feature a TPM.
It's also easier to manage in mid-sized environments than TrueCrypt (think automatic Key + TPM backups to Active Directory).
Re: (Score:2)
Is that really what you want?
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't.
We have software that doesn't work right in Windows 7. We have software that doesn't work right yet with XP for heaven's sake.
Of course, we can spend tons of money upgrading software to the latest greatest version, for no real reason other than it works with XP or 7.
And at some point, we'll either drop the software, or upgrade it. And that will come as soon as we can replace the computers we currently have with machines capable of running 7 adequately. And by then, Windows will be running Windows 2012 (code name Apocalypse).
Before I get Windows 7, I want a computer with 64bit CPU with 32 Gigs of Ram. And I'll probably run it in VMWare, with Linux, MacOS and ChromeOS along side.
Or, I'll just have my Driod tablet/phone and googlize all my needs.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows XP has been out for so long now that if you still have software that doesn't work right on it, you have bigger problems to worry about.
It never fails to amaze me how some people insist on wanting to upgrade their machines and do this and that, but they insist on clinging onto some old decrepit piece of crap software that was so badly written that you cannot do things properly for fear of breaking the software.
I know a company that has just such a problem, and it is flat out impossible to properly up
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say "closed source loses again," but even MS would make sure your ancient Access databases can be made to work, for a price...
That is one epic fuckup.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
"It never fails to amaze me how some people insist on wanting to upgrade their machines and do this and that, but they insist on clinging onto some old decrepit piece of crap software"
and it amazes me that software people don't understand the support lifetime that can really be required for software. This is particularly true in an industry or research environment. We have some old spectrometers that interface with the computer using an ISA card, with drivers for 95/98 or NT 4. You think we're going to throw out a $50k piece of equipment because Microsoft wants us to buy something with more eye candy? Or get rid of a scanning electron microscope, because it's attached to a 486 running Win95? We have some EG&G detectors that are integrated into MS-DOS based software. Heck, I saw one lab where they're using an Apple IIe to run an old wavemeter. Still works fine, and it's not like Coherent is offering an upgrade to interface to a modern PC. Or NI, for that matter...they'll drop driver support for older DAQ cards, so moving to a new OS means you have to redesign (or at least waste a lot of time testing) with new (expensive) cards.
Software isn't just about IT systems. It's also about hardware that actually does stuff.
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:4, Informative)
Having worked in a laboratory, I understand the need to wring life out of ancient equipment. The motherboards on this page may be of some interest to you:
http://www.adek.com/ATX-motherboards.htm
So far I haven't found a Core 2 motherboard with 2 ISA slots anywhere else. The NT 4 drivers will probably work under 32-bit XP, too; I can't vouch for Vista or Windows 7, but this could be a handy piece of information to tuck away somewhere. :) Happy experimenting.
Re: (Score:2)
I know. I couldn't get my copy of Visicalc to work in Windows 7 or XP, either.
And you'll get a color TV as soon as they "perfect the technology", right?
I'm impressed with the amount of effort some people are willing to expend to assert that Windows 7 is a horrible OS and a failure.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear they have this technology named Phase Alternating Line that fixes the color problems with NTSC. It will be introduced here in the United States "Real Soon Now" (tm).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
It isn't shoddy products. The products work fine, which is why we haven't paid to have them upgraded to the latest greatest. They work fine for the environment they were originally purchased for, and do exactly what they are supposed to do.
Shoddy products don't work, these products work fine. Just not with XP or Win 7.
And for your info, I manage somewhere around 600 computers, plus all the networking equipment, printers, and servers, mostly by myself (Network Analyst) and one (sometimes 2) Tech. How many techs do you have for supporting your user base?
Yeah, I do, no lie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.
Which he covered by saying that idea was sold to management...DUH!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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?
Re: (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
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortuneatly there is some truth to his statement, and it's not always related to technical merits. No company works in a vacuum, and for large application deployments you often have support contracts with vendors. Many of those vendors flat out will not support a brand new Microsoft OS (we have several app vendors who still will not officially support Windows 7 - if I have a problem on a machine running it I have to either not tell them which OS it is - which if they end up remotely accessing the machine won't work, OR I have to just solve the problem myself).
For companies in that boat (which is a lot), regardless of how well it might work, you don't want to upgrade to a new OS until you've confirmed with all your support vendors that they are ready and willing to support the new OS (which sometimes takes a while).
Re: (Score:2)
I'm perfectly happy to let people like you test the waters, spend time, money and energy on sorting out all the bugs, and wait for everybody else to get their 2 cents in before I spend a dime. I'm not in the minority, especially in this recession.
The day we migrate to Windows 7 (which will require hundreds of new PC's) wil
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for printing.. 64bit windows 7 doesn't seem to like printing to shared printers running off a 32-bit, server 2003 system. I hear if you don't change the default printer name, it works better, but with larger offices, you have to. I can't have 8 printers all named "HP Laserjet 4515 series"
Re:Only management is fooled (Score:5, Informative)
Every printer I've worked with did just fine after following that basic step.
Re: (Score:2)
Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.
Gracie meet upper management. Upper management this is Gracie.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there's more to corporate life than technical merits. If you go by the popular opinion upgrade, you can say you're following best practice and blame Microsoft. If you upgrade to a non-SP Windows 7 and you run into trouble, whether deserved or not then it'll be your fault. You can try blaming the vendor, but everyone knows the vendor will always push their latest version almost no matter what.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
And you probably need to cut back on the pompous asshattery.
For /., actually, that was pretty mild.
I know people that do senior software deployment for Fortune 100 companies and still refer to themselves as a techie.
The comment wasn't insulting people who call themselves techies. It was panning the typical Geek Squad so-called techie.
It's mystifying why you got so many positive mods for insulting someone and then re-stating the exact same point they made.
He/she didn't restate the exact same point you made. Go back and read again; he/she made a contention that was exactly opposite. Your point was essentially "it used to be said you never buy a Microsoft OS until they get to SP 1, and now you have to wait until SP 2". 0racle's point was "people should evaluate the OS on its own merits, and Windows 7 was
Re: (Score:2)
> 0racle's point was "people should evaluate the OS on its own merits ...which went whoosh right over your head (apparently) like a Blue Angel.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Red Hat sees it differently, RHEL is designed not to break (unless you really try to break it). That tends to work better in the long run. That's one reason we moved our critical systems to RHEL 3 (and later to RHEL 5) and didn't look back. Others running the same software compiled for Windows are dealing with vendor-suggested monthly reboots. No thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, Windows 7 is more like a point release. 6.1 if you will to Vista's 6.0. They had to give it a new name because "Vista" became marketing poison. But that's why 7 has done pretty well out of the gate stability wise, it's not really a new OS at all. It's a refined version of the last one.
Um, no need to be metaphorical (Score:2)
Nah, Windows 7 is more like a point release. 6.1 if you will to Vista's 6.0. They had to give it a new name because "Vista" became marketing poison. But that's why 7 has done pretty well out of the gate stability wise, it's not really a new OS at all. It's a refined version of the last one.
It's not LIKE a point release, it IS a point release. It literally is Windows 6.1 to Vista's 6.0, whether I will it or not.
Re: (Score:2)
oh yes.. (Score:3, Funny)
Oh yes, nothing spells stable like a nearly instant service pack!
Re: (Score:2)
But theres no B's or L's in "Instant service Pack" - How did you manage to spell it at all!
Seriously though, with our latest shipment of computers to come in from Dell, we got the Windows 7 upgrade option. We generally just run XP and aside from the SINGLE vista and about a dozen NT/2000 machines across the company, we're all pretty standardized on XP. This will be my first time having to go through a big OS Switch across the entire company. (I am a youngin' an' all)
We know that other companies abide by tha
Easiest Network config? (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows. Granted, I like how it differentiates between "new" network connections as far as work, public, home for the purposes of firewall config, but it's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise. All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.
Re:Easiest Network config? (Score:4, Interesting)
I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done. What's so hard?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Easiest Network config? (Score:5, Informative)
If you are in an environment where that is all you need, I'd be hard pressed to think of an OS that wouldn't Just Work. Even the more notoriously hostile Linux and BSD distros with text-based installers and a hatred of all things autoconf will typically at least offer to write the config file needed to bring eth0 up with DHCP on boot.
You start to see the differences in configurability when you need to do something modestly unusual or complex.
Re: (Score:2)
You must be an end user
Re:Easiest Network config? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just plugged in the network cable
Cable? How quaint!
How's it work with WPA2-secured wireless? Vista kinda stunk at that in my experience, and Win7 would have to do a lot of work to just stink slightly much less be good at it.
Moreover wireless on Vista is almost, but not quite, as stable as Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Spears. On more than one Vista machine I've had the displeasure to deal with the wireless connection randomly decides to go on a bender. I try resetting the router. I try rebooting. No joy. Only fix seems to be to go into the network config, remove the connection and re-enter the security key. No rhyme or reason, and in one case there was a Macbook, a WinXP machine, an iphone a Linux netbook and an HTC Magic phone on wireless with the Vista machine. ALL OF THEM WORKED WITHOUT INTERUPTION EXCEPT THE VISTA MACHINE.
An therein lies the rub: if for any reason you must open that wreched user interface to do ANY config task of ANY kind--whether it be simple troubleshooting, selecting the SSID, entering a key, putting in fixed network settings, the Windows network config UI is the suckiest, most regressive, confusing mess on ANY modern operating system WITHOUT QUESTION. If you want to convince someone that Linux is not harder than Windows, the best way you can do it is to show them how to manage network connections in Vista compared to any current Linux OS.
I imagine that Win7 has made improvements--at least in stability...but that interface? Complete FAIL! I don't care if they've refined it--a polished turd still stinks. It needs to be completely redone again. I know "technical details" can intimidate novices but they should still be accessible. It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT.
Re: (Score:2)
My wife's Dell laptop (running Vista) works fine on our wpa2-secured wireless connection.
Just a data point. I'm still running XP on my main computer :)
[John]
Try WPA2 Enterprise instead of WPA Personal (Score:2)
My wife's Dell laptop (running Vista) works fine on our wpa2-secured wireless connection.
I just recently set up the wireless at work to use WPA2 Enterprise with an Airport base station and Mac OS X Server 10.5. With Mac laptops you just enter your username and password and click "continue" when it complains about a self-singed cert. And done. I've also connected with XP and 7, and they both have different multi-step with multi-sub-step procedures for connecting the first time. I suspect that if we were a MS shop, it would Just Work (as the steps are mostly undoing stuff relating to it trying to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Amen to that.
It took me a while to figure why my DESKTOP BOX was loosing connection every 2 minute: power saving was enabled for the network card. Even a bittorrent client wouldn't stop it from going to sleep. Then it took me another while to figure how to disable the damn thing!
Meh, relatively speaking (Score:5, Informative)
I've had no luck with that firewall (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.
Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh.
Re: (Score:2)
>>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.
>
> Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh.
>
Techies should not NEED to use ipconfig and netsh.
Why are Linux users starting to sound like MacOS users when talking to Windows users?
Re: (Score:2)
Differentiating between the various work, public home is nice until you find that Windows 7 thinks your network is new every single time you boot the PC. Fortunately I'm primarily a Ubuntu user so it doesn't bother me too much. I am on a university network so it is probably slightly unusual though.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
(I'm at work on win xp right now so I could be remembering the problem I had incorrectly)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the way its been since like... Windows 95?
I haven't had to manually enter an IP since I wanted to port forward. Does Windows 7 automagically know which ports are needed for incoming connections, and set that up on your router or modem?
The only extra step to Wireless setup that I can think of was specifying what kind of encryption you are using (AES2 etc) which I understand can be confusing to new users, has Windows 7 taken that part out? Just enter the key and go?
Cue the morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.
Re:Cue the morons (Score:5, Informative)
I present to you for your reading pleasure right from the horses mouth.
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/mojave-experiment/ [microsoft.com] Seems they have changed it since the last time I looked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Experiment [wikipedia.org]
What did they learn? People really do not care what it was called just dont call it vista. They even tested it on a group of people.
http://www.whibb.com/win-7-windows-vista-difference.html [whibb.com]
The real differences between vista and 7 are fairly 'minor' usability changes. 'faster' should have been in a service pack (oh sp2-sp3)... The under the hood stuff was not really that compelling to warrant a full version change. It is a rebrand to make people think 'oh they fixed a bunch of things'. When the reality is they made all the hard changes in vista. Vista was miserable because of those changes. They had 4 years to fix all of that in the driver stacks... Which is why 7 is firing on all cylinders...
You look at the benchmarks coming out and they are pretty much the same between vista and 7.
Call me a moron if you will. But I see a marketing ploy that is working pretty good.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Or you could look at the Wikipedia "New Windows 7 features" page and realize that article is full of crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm.... XP SP5?
Re:Cue the morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
NT4 SP15a
Signals? (Score:5, Insightful)
An initial release of an OS was Microsoft's "signal" that it was ready. People eventually realized that MS's "signal" couldn't be trusted, and they adapted by developing their own "wait for SP1" wisdom. This has not been lost on Microsoft.
If MS's marketing dept. sees that it takes "SP1" to get people to buy their OS, they'll call something "SP1" whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products. So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.
Marketers are often sleezebags. Their goal is to drive sales, regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By this logic their next version of Windows will be called "Windows 8 SP1"
What to expect from Windows Sp1... (Score:2)
let me see... ...an update?
Two bugs (Score:2)
I know that my experiences of Windows 7 shouldn't be considered as true for all, but in general day to day usage, I've had no problems at all.
Off the top of my head, I can only think of two bugs in Windows Backup. One where it reports that your backup drive is full and that you need to clear space and then presents you with an option to adjust the backup or let windows manage it automatically for you. The problem is that Windows is already managing it automatically for me and therefore it shouldn't be telli
Commercials (Score:2, Funny)
Bring pack the family pack! (Score:5, Insightful)
I wish the would bring back the 3-license family pack. I have 2 xp machines and 1 vista machine and if I could upgrade the three for $150, I would. Right now, 3 upgrade licenses would be over $300. So, I'm not upgrading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, you could buy it just about anywhere. Unfortunately they sold out which is a ridiculous statement when you consider all that they are really selling is the right to use the software.
They will try anything... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bad news is that the problem is deeper than any, or all, of the following:
XP suffices for most corporate needs (and it works on their 4-year-old hardware).
Vista forced companies to stick with, and develop & purchase line-of-business apps for, XP (and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding, require local admin rights for everyone, and avoid UAC).
Vista SP1 (and SP2) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed, or even improved, by service packs (honestly, build a clean Vista SP2 machine: it will still suck).
Corporations can't afford to replace 70% of their desktops, and half of their core LOB apps, just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP. (Really, it is: I find XP boring now).
As for security, most corporate Desktop Architecture departments still think their XP boxes are secure, even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft.
There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7.
Re: (Score:2)
As for security, ...
Security is largely a PEBKAC [wikipedia.org] issue.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
So, so wrong. Just about every Healthcare app in use in the UK requires either admin rights or some nasty permissions hack to get it working with regular user sessions.
EMIS should be taken out and shot for the state of their clinical software with regards to permissions.
Problems with explorer.exe & networking (Score:2)
Problems with explorer.exe. No, not internet explorer. Their file manager has issues with selecting files where you could end up selecting files you didn't intend and having them be deleted as part of what you do. For instance, if you use the shift plus mouse click to select a range of files then choose to delete you might delete files you didn't want because the shift+click selected more or at least some that you didn't choose. The next normal step is to delete them, often without reviewing the names (
Side-by-side - what will SP1 fix? (Score:2, Informative)
With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:
Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly
HP Color Laserjet 3600N networke
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, you haven't *ever* been able to connect Home editions to a domain - XP Home only allowed Workgroups.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you read the summary? They specifically mention bluetooth enhancements.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Spoken like a person that's never seen or used Windows 7.
Re:Pulling the trigger (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows 7, SP0, is actually pretty darned good - especially compared to that steaming pile of mediocrity (Vista) they put out last time. It's faster, the UI is cleaner and more useful (most of the time), it's very compatible with a wide variety of hardware. Even hardware that Windows 7 cautioned me probably wouldn't work...works.
This is probably the first usable 64-bit Windows version for the desktop.
We have several clients who have, or who are in the process of, rolling it on on their desktops and in every case they're quite pleased with it and their staff is finding it to be a productive work environment.
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait, they will screw it up.
XP SP0 is at LEAST 40% faster than XP fully patched.
Problem is it get's infected in 6 seconds on a non firewalled network.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hm, I wouldn't expect reply such as yours in response to a post made by BadAnalogyGuy ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I run primarily Linux desktops. I installed Win7 a few weeks ago on a couple Vista-32 and Vista-64 laptops (one with the vendor supplied upgrade, the other with a 3-pack update). So far, nothing to complain about. Some apps still aren't Win7-64 ready, but for the most part the 32-bit and 64-bit versions are nowhere near as problematic as Vista. I am not a huge fan of the networking configuration tools as it's been difficult finding the correct tools for certain tasks and some Java64 glitches (mostly related
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have used Windows 7 and I hate it. Is that ok with you? Does everybody have to like it?
I just want XP, it works for me, I don't have to learn new shit. I don't have to worry about them moving the control panel around.
7 offers nothing new for me, for it to be worthwhile spendying anytime learning new stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
When I was a kid, we'd take a trip every summer down the Mississippi to visit my auntie in her antebellum house
Me too, 'cept it was my Granny and her antebellum world that I would visit. Then I would run barefooted all day long, climbing trees, free as a song.
Wait - Hugh, is that you? It's me, Ray!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>but I'd be happy if Microsoft fixed the bug where my search indexing daemon crashes in Vista before they started on the Windows 7 bugs.
Pretty sure they have two teams here. Its not one one guy in a basement being horsewhipped by Balmer and Gates. Fixing one thing in 7 doesnt mean something doesnt get fixed in Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I know, and despite the negative hype I think Vista's a very good and stable OS, so you're right that my post is perhaps a bit unfair.
That search indexer bug is fucking annoying though, and it's been around for months. I'm sure there's one specific file or file format causing the crash when it gets indexed, but how do I find out which one?
Re: (Score:2)
I just got this computer from work, so it'll be another year minimum before I can justify trading it in for a Windows 7 box.
Or if your company is switching to Windows 7 and has an Enterprise copy, just install Windows 7 on your current system! I'm sure there will be some bug fixing going on in Vista still, but don't expect them to put much effort into it seeing as how Vista never sold too well and most people are more than eager to switch over to Win 7.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree and I'm not bothering either. Sure it works fine on my water cooled rig but I'm using two laptops and some old Duron systems as well. In these systems Windows 7 is from just slower to unbearably slow compared to XP, while XP still allows the old Duron systems to be used for Firefox browsing, text editing and word processing comfortably and securely (with the addition of Comodo & Avira).
As for bluetooth, there is always the Widcomm/Broadcom stack which is miles better to Microsoft's.
So, what's th
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (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, Netscap