Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1

CmdrTaco posted more than 4 years ago | from the but-i-thought-it-was-perfect dept.

Windows 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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752054)

But will it fix CmdrTaco's micropenis disorder?

Re:Yes... (1)

natehoy (1608657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752080)

Didn't you read the summary? They specifically mention bluetooth enhancements.

Only management is fooled (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752086)

...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 (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752170)

Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability. Testing Windows 7 release candidates indicated it was good for deployment on release day for a good number of people and businesses. You probably need to stop hanging out with geek squad 'techies.'

Re:Only management is fooled (5, Interesting)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752318)

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:Only management is fooled (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752434)

Why is bitlocker still only on the most expensive version? Does anyone know?

Re:Only management is fooled (4, Informative)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752586)

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 (4, Insightful)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752720)

That doesn't make sense to me either, honestly, but since we use TrueCrypt (even on machines where Bitlocker is available) I've never really cared much. I think TrueCrypt is more widely compatible anyhow.

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:Only management is fooled (3, Insightful)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752826)

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:Only management is fooled (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752442)

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:Only management is fooled (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752614)

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.

See my remark about large corporations.

That's what you get for buying shoddy products.

Re:Only management is fooled (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753122)

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:Only management is fooled (2, Informative)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753136)

We are a large corporation 50,000+ employees and all our development of our software products are done under Linux and then ported to the various OS'es. Windows releases are months after the initial releases under Linux, Solaris, HP-UX and AIX

Re:Only management is fooled (3, Interesting)

ilsaloving (1534307) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753148)

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 upgrade their infrastructure because of this thing. They can't even upgrade ie6 because this software has a bizarre dependency on it.

I told them that I won't do any more IT work for them until they drop it, because they won't pay for the amount of effort required to work around this white elephant.

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

jitterman (987991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753064)

Damn it sucks to be a double-me-too-er, but same here. While we haven't done this corporate-wide (we work with a number of government contractors, so there's that fun to deal with), those of us in IT and software development who are self-supporting jumped right away, with no issues.

Re:Only management is fooled (4, Insightful)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752324)

Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.

Which he covered by saying that idea was sold to management...DUH!

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752342)

I wish I had mod points right now to mod you up.

Re:Only management is fooled (1, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752424)

You probably need to stop hanging out with geek squad 'techies.'

And you probably need to cut back on the pompous asshattery. I know people that do senior software deployment for Fortune 100 companies and still refer to themselves as a techie. It's mystifying why you got so many positive mods for insulting someone and then re-stating the exact same point they made. I blame the bleary-eyed geeks rolling in on the west coast right now who haven't had their two cans of Dew yet...

Re:Only management is fooled (2, Informative)

kiwimate (458274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752750)

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 found upon evaluation to be fit for deployment at release".

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753132)

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 found upon evaluation to be fit for deployment at release".

Could you please quote me verbatim if you're going to do a side by side comparison? I think that's only fair. The reason Microsoft rushes to SP1 is because of bad advice by a major IT consultancy group. That was my only point. Windows 7 has been out for almost six months now and it looks like SP1 will be out very soon now. Vista was released November 2006, and it's first SP just over six months later. Windows XP, in comparison, was released at the end of August 2001, and SP1 was released a year later, in September of 2002. Windows 2000 was released in in February of 2000, and it's first service pack was released 8 months later. Ever since that report was published, Microsoft has been shrinking the timeframe between the date of RTM to SP1. Some googlging shows other operating system vendors release major patches quite a bit more randomly than that.

0racle gave the advice most people who work in the field already know (and his/her advice is correct). I wasn't making any statements about the merits of Windows 7 because I haven't had any professional experience with it in a deployment scenario (which is true for the vast majority of IT workers at this time).

Re:Only management is fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753266)

Irrationally sticking to a losing argument and an invalidated point.

So typically female.

Re:Only management is fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753334)

The "in training" part would lead to me believe that this isn't a girl, but MTF.

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753158)

> 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:Only management is fooled (2, Funny)

KennyP (724304) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752432)

I've been running the Win7 open beta since it was available for public download - in a production environment.

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:Only management is fooled (4, Insightful)

MBGMorden (803437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752440)

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:Only management is fooled (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752700)

Have you pestered those vendors about Windows 7 support?

When the Beta was out back in January 2009, i tested all our corporate software on it. All those that didn't work, i opened a support case with the vendors, asking them about when they will support Windows 7.

The reactions varied - some just closed the ticket saying that they do not support unreleased operating systems, others promised to look into it, and especially the small ones responded that they were actually testing it themselves and hoped to release a compatible version when the RC was out.

A month after the RC was public, i started another round of these tickets. Some vendors still refused to do anything, others sent me beta versions of compatible software.

Of course, as a Microsoft partner we really have a reason to do all this, since our partner licenses only give us half a year to upgrade (and stay on free licensing).

Re:Only management is fooled (2, Insightful)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752942)

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 (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753060)

Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.

Gracie meet upper management. Upper management this is Gracie.

Re:Only management is fooled (-1, Troll)

IdleTime (561841) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753082)

Luckily I decided to drop Windows completely with my new laptop rather than delve into more Microsoft nonsense.
Ubuntu 9.10 is working like a charm and do all the tasks I need to do better than on Windows. What is there not to love?

Re:Only management is fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752500)

Windows 7 is SP2 of VISTA, This OS was ready from the RTM in context

Fix the search function please, virtual PC is way too slow as well.

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

robinstar1574 (1472559) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752538)

Yeah, well, the upgrades are only stable if there the latest version. If you miss one upgrade, like the firefox .net bs, poo poo to you, you don't get a very stable version. That is why I prefer linux.

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

Machtyn (759119) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752912)

I always thought Windows 7 is actually Windows Vista SP3. Microsoft badly needed to rebrand Vista. So, this SP1 is actually WinVista SP4.

Re:Only management is fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753098)

If Windows 7 is Vista SP3, then what's Vista SP3?

So maybe, this Win7 SP1 is really Vista SP4A and Vista SP3 is really Vista SP3B...

Re:Only management is fooled (1)

Tridus (79566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753322)

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.

Re:Only management is fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753030)

I thought the word was that Windows 7 is Vista SP3? If so, we're looking at SP4 already, which should be a high enough number for anyone.

Re:Only management is fooled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753186)

Ahh.. With that logic then Vista was alpha, VistaSP1 was beta, and Win7 was the release version!!

oh yes.. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752100)

Oh yes, nothing spells stable like a nearly instant service pack!

Re:oh yes.. (1)

TMarvelous (928161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752784)

Oh yes, nothing spells stable like a nearly instant service pack!

Instant? It's nearly three months since Win 7 was released and we're discussing hints of an SP1 here. By the time an actual SP1 is released it will be far from instant.

Re:oh yes.. (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752920)

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 that "Wait till SP1 rule" so now a bunch of clients are going to start using Windows 7. We do alot of sharing of Spreadsheets, PDF files, and of course emails with our clients, and while we don't anticipate any problems, I have a feeling something will come up. We also have some people who VPN from home to access certain resources. We have enough trouble trying to support the people who use their Macbooks at work. Not because of disdain, but because Management is too cheap to get us ANY machine with ANY Mac OS on it. So our familiarity with it is a bit off.

So now we're going to upgrade one of the new Dells to Windows 7 and test it out. We looked at the Beta once or twice last year, just to get a "feel" for it. We're hoping to pick off any problems a mile away before the become problems. I can't imagine why, but if Windows 7 doesn't work with Exchange on Server 2003, I might just rage quit my job.

Re:oh yes.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752974)

As long as they fix those annoying explorer.exe crashes in Windows 7 x64, I'll be happy. There's a ton of us having this problem. Although I'm hoping they'll release a hotfix for it long before SP1 comes out. ;)

Pulling the trigger (0, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752108)

When I was a kid, we'd take a trip every summer down the Mississippi to visit my auntie in her antebellum house. She'd always play a trick on me that even today I play on my kids and their friends.

Pull my finger.

It seems like yesterday that I was installing Windows 3.11 (Windows for Workgroups) on all the computers in my house. Nowadays, these newfangled operating systems update themselves with their service packs and hotfixes and whatnot.

I'll tell you, just like pulling my finger, pulling the trigger on Windows 7 is something that everyone wants to do. Unfortunately for them, the outcome is the same.

It stinks.

Re:Pulling the trigger (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752226)

Spoken like a person that's never seen or used Windows 7.

Re:Pulling the trigger (1)

cbope (130292) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752524)

What did you expect based on his sig?

Re:Pulling the trigger (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752668)

Any good marksman knows that you try to squeeze the trigger, instead of pulling it. So in that way, Windows 7 is more like a rotten egg.

Re:Pulling the trigger (4, Interesting)

bschorr (1316501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752802)

Somehow I suspect you haven't actually used it. Either that or you're just a huge anti-MS bigot.

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:Pulling the trigger (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752970)

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:Pulling the trigger (1)

jitterman (987991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753190)

And, sadly, 9.2 seconds even behind one!

Re:Pulling the trigger (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753224)

Been using Vista Ultimate 64-bit SP1 for over a year without any issue whatsoever. I know some users have issues, but I havent seen a single one (which is why I didnt rush out and upgrade to 7). Given the problems I have had in the past with "cut down" versions of OS's, I go straight to the uncrippled top, and while it may have more features than I wish to use, it certainly doesnt lack some basic functionality that I have come to enjoy.

Re:Pulling the trigger (1)

GNU(slash)Nickname (761984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753110)

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:Pulling the trigger (1)

jitterman (987991) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753174)

Funny-ass post, as you often provide. I don't agree with your conclusion, but I got a nice chuckle.

Easiest Network config? (5, Interesting)

Shaman (1148) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752122)

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? (-1, Troll)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752260)

All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.,/quote>

PLeASe MovE QUickLY To tHe NExt dia-log box, as prolonged EXpos-ure to the box is NOT paRT of any TEst ProTOcol...
-- Microsoft, a division of Apeture Science.

Re:Easiest Network config? (3, Interesting)

heffrey (229704) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752266)

I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done. What's so hard?

Re:Easiest Network config? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752346)

VPN, differing wlan settings on different locations and so forth.
In short, things people with jobs need.

Re:Easiest Network config? (-1, Flamebait)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752388)

I found all of those things simpler to do in Win7 than in say XP. Maybe your just incompetent? Let me guess, you're probably a geek squad tech? No wonder it was so hard for you. You probably lost the CD that does all the work for you.

Re:Easiest Network config? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752480)

Maybe youre just cant spelling or grammar.

Re:Easiest Network config? (0)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752510)

People with jobs managing those things need them to be difficult...

Re:Easiest Network config? (2, Informative)

jongalbreath (1621157) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752386)

I have to agree. I didn't have any great difficulty. If anything, it's a vast improvement over Vista where at least 7 prompts that additional login information is required to establish a connection, such as in a hotel or hotspot.

Re:Easiest Network config? (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752392)

I'm assuming that Shaman is either trolling or (rather more likely) is trying to do something that isn't "1 NIC, DHCP, default firewall rules, no ICS, etc.)

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:Easiest Network config? (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752436)

You must be an end user

Re:Easiest Network config? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752758)

Either you should be modded funny or you learned how to use a computer from a TV show.

I guess (hope) most of the people here on /. don't just want to have a default config.

Re:Easiest Network config? (5, Insightful)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753056)

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:Easiest Network config? (1, Interesting)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752350)

Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.

How so? You either plug in the cable and it does all the work (and setting your ip address, etc manually is equally easy as it has always been) or you choose a wireless point (enter your key) and it again does all the work for you. My grandma was able to get her laptop with Win7 to connect to the router I set up for her without any help. Why is it so hard for you?

Re:Easiest Network config? (2, Informative)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752498)

Such as setting up wireless networks that are not currently active? I don't always want to set up the network when I'm able to access it.

(I'm at work on win xp right now so I could be remembering the problem I had incorrectly)

Re:Easiest Network config? (1)

flabordec (984984) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752960)

You probably are, because setting a wireless network connection when it is not active is a little bit more complicated, but nothing you've not seen before. Go to Control Panel -> Search Wireless Network -> Click on Manage Wireless Network -> Click on Add -> Manually create a network profile. You could even skip most of the steps searching for manage wireless network from the start menu.

Re:Easiest Network config? (1)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752596)

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?

Re:Easiest Network config? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752426)

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 (4, Informative)

Gazzonyx (982402) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752486)

No doubt, I _STILL_ don't know exactly what a 'homegroup' is and why I can be part of a domain (or workgroup) at the same time as a homegroup. I don't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it's doing since I have the sharing service off, either. That being said, the new firewall is money compared to the old one. I just wish they wouldn't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows. Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for!

Re:Meh, relatively speaking (1)

lukas84 (912874) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752770)

Erm, there's no new Firewall in Windows 7. It's exactly the same as the one in Vista.

The Homegroup feature is gold, IMO. It offers easy file sharing without the authentication hassles you have on non-domain computers. This is (obviously) meant for a Home setting, not the Office.

Have you ever tried to help your girlfriend on the phone transferring files to another Windows computer using the network? It was downright impossible without the Homegroup features for end-user to get the grasp of that.

There's a reason. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752662)

MS did it to add value to the MSCE. If they made it too easy, there wouldn't be any need for it, would there?

Re:Easiest Network config? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752882)

>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:Easiest Network config? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753240)

>>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:Easiest Network config? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753042)

I'd have to disagree - Vista was worse, so much worse that I just use netsh instead of the GUI for any changes I need on Vista. Win7 is actually usable, but maybe that's just because I was used to Vista :)

Re:Easiest Network config? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753118)

these features were available in Windows Vista. "it's not that bad" should be the slogan, if it isn't already : P

Cue the morons (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752128)

Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.

Re:Cue the morons (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752416)

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:Cue the morons (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752792)

Or you could look at the Wikipedia "New Windows 7 features" page and realize that article is full of crap.

Re:Cue the morons (1)

cptdondo (59460) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752430)

Ummm.... XP SP5?

Re:Cue the morons (3, Insightful)

kpainter (901021) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752594)

Win2K SP9

Re:Cue the morons (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752610)

Well, if you want to get technical and silly, Windows 7 is NT v.6.1 [wikipedia.org] , with NT v.6.0 being Vista. Soo... although version numbers are hardly a way to settle an argument, Windows 7 (NT 6.1) is to Windows Vista (NT v.6.0) as Windows XP (NT 5.1) is to Windows 2000 (NT v.5.0), and they're all service packs of the venerable Windows NT.

Re:Cue the morons (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752674)

Same concept as putting a new body on an old car. When the changes are only superficial its more annoying to have marketers claiming it to be something new.

However I would think (hope) that 7 does not star from the same code base as Vista or XP, I've seen the ugliness that method causes first hand...

Re:Cue the morons (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752904)

Cue the cretins talking about the hypothetical morons where no evidence of such exists.

Signals? (5, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752208)

'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.'

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:Signals? (1)

Drethon (1445051) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752588)

I don't disagree with your perspective but this may not be the case. Glancing over the article does not mention a date so it may be months or a year before the actual release (probably not but possible).

Honestly for a product like this SP1 should be in development even before release to work on issues that did not make the final code freeze or found since then...

Re:Signals? (1)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752940)

Of course, in this case the RTM was already at a higher quality than the corporate world had seen in a commercial OS, but it's hard to break with habit. It's doubly hard when you've spent years convincing management that SPx is the time to switch.

Re:Signals? (0)

sconeu (64226) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753272)

in this case the RTM was already at a higher quality than the corporate world had seen in a commercial Microsoft OS

There. Fixed that for you.

Re:Signals? (1)

initialE (758110) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753028)

By this logic their next version of Windows will be called "Windows 8 SP1"

What to expect from Windows Sp1... (1)

MindPrison (864299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752496)

let me see... ...an update?

Two bugs (1)

Mr_Silver (213637) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752562)

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 telling me this.

The other issue is that one of the buttons hidden somewhere within backup pops up a windows with a message along the lines of "Not implemented.". Looks like they ran out of time coding that bit!

I have no doubt that there are lots more.

Explosions! (n/t) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30752670)

Yes, explosions.

I kind of wish they'd work on Vista... (0, Offtopic)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752768)

I know everybody's probably already binned Vista, 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. 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.

Re:I kind of wish they'd work on Vista... (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752932)

>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:I kind of wish they'd work on Vista... (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752992)

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?

Commercials (3, Funny)

Krau Ming (1620473) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752814)

"I'm a PC and a really quick service pack was my idea." ----- "Hello, I'm a Mac" "And I'm a PC" "Hey PC, what's with the all bandages there? Are you okay? It looks like you're pretty banged up." "Well actually I'm just patching myself up because that's what PCs do." "Boy, that's probably going to hurt peeling all those bandages off later." "Yeah...later...right..."

Bring pack the family pack! (4, Insightful)

Eponymous Coward (6097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752962)

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:Bring pack the family pack! (1)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753338)

Uh there was a family pack you could pick up for $150 the first few months from Costco. Apparently they did discontinue it [informationweek.com] , though. Sad day.

Still waiting... (0, Offtopic)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752978)

There are still very large workplaces that have Windows 2000 as the OS for the majority of their machines, my very large workplace included. I personally still use XP at home. I've played with 7, looked over its specs, and what I'm still left wondering is - why would I bother with it?

They will try anything... (4, Interesting)

spywhere (824072) | more than 4 years ago | (#30752982)

...to restart the dead corporate PC market. M$, Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away."

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:They will try anything... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30753116)

Anyone developing an application to be used in a business setting will not be assuming admin rights. It's consumer software that does that.

Re:They will try anything... (1)

castironpigeon (1056188) | more than 4 years ago | (#30753200)

As for security, ...

Security is largely a PEBKAC [wikipedia.org] issue.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?