Windows 7 Discussion Thread

[Ranger]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

i think i found a problem with Vista and laptop heat. i noticed that the paging file settings were wrong by default. same thing on Vista. change them from default to 2x to 4x your physical RAM and it will use less disk I/O and less heat should be created

I'm confused. You're saying the Vista pagefile setting is 1x of ram? That's XP's default as well.

Also, doesn't increasing the page file size actually increase disk I/O?

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Brain Stew

Bob was a program for Windows 3.1 not an operating system. (Interface does not equal operating system)

Windows 3.2 only offered a Chinese translation.

Windows Fundamentals is essentially XP.

Originally Posted by Kdogg

I thought I typed 4.0 after DOS. Anyway, yeah I have used every MS OS since DOS 4.0 - circa 1989. (Most of the Mac operating systems too.) Bob was not an OS, just a very insulting front end but I did play with that too. The only operation systems that I truly hated were Windows ME and System 7. I actually threw a System 7 Mac out a window after it destroyed two weeks of DNA sequencing data.

Edit: I actually liked OS/2 especially the later IBM warp flavors.

Yeah, I know Bob wasn't a full fledged OS, but it's too amusing a failure to not have brought up. As for the others, I was just pointing out the absurdity of stating that one's used every MS OS. I didn't even mention Server 2003 or 2007, or Windows CE and its variants. And neither of you had anything to say about Singularity.

Me, I've used DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows for Workgroups 3.11, Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE, Windows ME, Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Mobile 6, and Windows Vista. That's a lot of MS OSes, but it's not every one that they've released.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by Ranger

I'm confused. You're saying the Vista pagefile setting is 1x of ram? That's XP's default as well.

Also, doesn't increasing the page file size actually increase disk I/O?

not sure what the default is but i think if the PF is too small then it will read and write to it too much causing disk I/O. if it's large and holds all the data then there should be less I/O.

same thing in windows 2003 server x64. if your paging file is too small there are bugs in there that will kill performance

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

i think i found a problem with Vista and laptop heat. i noticed that the paging file settings were wrong by default. same thing on Vista. change them from default to 2x to 4x your physical RAM and it will use less disk I/O and less heat should be created

Originally Posted by al_bundy

not sure what the default is but i think if the PF is too small then it will read and write to it too much causing disk I/O. if it's large and holds all the data then there should be less I/O.

I think the logic here is flawed. Too little RAM will cause a lot of disk I/O. The only I/O a too little PF will cause is the fragmentation that'll occur when it expands.

If, say, you have 2GB RAM, a 2GB PF is going to have as much disc I/O as a 4GB PF. Unless you use over 2GB of total memory, the disc I/O isn't going to be much. Once you exceed your RAM in terms of memory usage, you're going to get a lot of disc I/O as memory is paged. For example, with 3GB of memory demands, 1GB is going to be paged no matter whether you have a 2GB or 4GB PF. If you're regularly using almost twice the amount of memory as you have RAM, you should really increase your RAM instead of the PF.

same thing in windows 2003 server x64. if your paging file is too small there are bugs in there that will kill performance

If a paging file is too small, and it's not able to automatically expand, memory will fill up and cause a lot of errors.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Keep hoping. Are you logged in as an Administrator? Kiss any real sort of security goodbye. Is Windows 7 going to default to users being admins? Then it's the same old story.

User Account Control limits applications to standard user privileges until the user specifically grants it higher privileges. It's the same security system that OS X and a lot of Linux platforms use. The only drawback is that since it's new on Windows a lot of people find it annoying and turn it off. Also, Vista defaults every new account after the first to standard, so people that use multiple accounts are less likely to have more than one running as administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

Originally Posted by Shazam

Windows XP wasn't really all that stable until the release of SP2. Christ, the fucking thing didn't even come with a built-in firewall until then. My, I still remember people pining for Windows 2000 before then.

The firewall in SP2 was a security upgrade, not a stability one. Also, XP RTM did have a firewall included. It was disabled by default and hard to find/configure for most people though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Firewall

There were criticisms of XP when it was younger though. At first, it looked like just a toyed up version of Windows 2000 to users of 2000, while those making the migration from Windows 9x ran into a lot of issues with legacy apps, especially DOS games and the such; no more exiting out of Windows to straight DOS.

[dx23]

Originally Posted by al_bundy

i think i found a problem with Vista and laptop heat. i noticed that the paging file settings were wrong by default. same thing on Vista. change them from default to 2x to 4x your physical RAM and it will use less disk I/O and less heat should be created

That's another problem I found with Vista that I hope they fix with Windows 7. It seems that most fo the Vista defaults cause some type of problem with the computer. One of the earliest problems I had with mine, was the constant crashing of Explorer and the inability to open both Explorer and Outlook at the same time because it slowed down my laptop. The problem was in the default settings and after googling around I found how to fix the problem which was in the Vista default settings for memory usage.

Most people aren't computer savvy, they just want a plug and play machine.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

User Account Control limits applications to standard user privileges until the user specifically grants it higher privileges. It's the same security system that OS X and a lot of Linux platforms use. The only drawback is that since it's new on Windows a lot of people find it annoying and turn it off. Also, Vista defaults every new account after the first to standard, so people that use multiple accounts are less likely to have more than one running as administrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control

LOL. UAC is nothing like the security model on *nix. To even suggest as such is silly. I take it you've never used a *nix OS in an enterprise capacity.

The firewall in SP2 was a security upgrade, not a stability one. Also, XP RTM [d]did[/b] have a firewall included. It was disabled by default and hard to find/configure for most people though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Firewall

ICF? You're stretching.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

I think the logic here is flawed. Too little RAM will cause a lot of disk I/O. The only I/O a too little PF will cause is the fragmentation that'll occur when it expands.

If, say, you have 2GB RAM, a 2GB PF is going to have as much disc I/O as a 4GB PF. Unless you use over 2GB of total memory, the disc I/O isn't going to be much. Once you exceed your RAM in terms of memory usage, you're going to get a lot of disc I/O as memory is paged. For example, with 3GB of memory demands, 1GB is going to be paged no matter whether you have a 2GB or 4GB PF. If you're regularly using almost twice the amount of memory as you have RAM, you should really increase your RAM instead of the PF.


If a paging file is too small, and it's not able to automatically expand, memory will fill up and cause a lot of errors.

Do you know what a heap and stack are?

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Shazam

LOL. UAC is nothing like the security model on *nix. To even suggest as such is silly. I take it you've never used a *nix OS in an enterprise capacity.

You're right, UAC is in some ways better than the security model on most *nix, since it forces programs to run with standard privilages even when started in an administrator (or "superuser") account.

I guess it's my personal setup that might've led to my confusion, since I setup an password-protected administrator account in Vista that I don't log into, and a standard account that I use regularly. Whenever a program wants admin privilages (such as an installer), UAC pops up a window prompting me for the admin account's password, and then the program runs with that account's privilages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superusers

Admittedly, my experience with *nix accounts is limited to OS X, my XO, and an AIX machine at work.

ICF? You're stretching.

Yes, Internet Connection Firewall. It's right there in the name that it's a firewall.
http://www.theeldergeek.com/internet...n_firewall.htm

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Do you know what a heap and stack are?

Yes, those are programing terms for applications. Those terms don't really matter to the Virtual Memory Manager though, which is just going to place the memory allocated to the program into either physical RAM or the pagefile based on its own rules, regardless if the memory in question is heap, stack, or even text.

[dx23]

Vista all over again with Windows 7:

Remember that screenshot we saw of all those different Windows 7 versions (pictured above)? Well guess what? It's worse than you could have possibly imagined. The following will be the actual new SKUs for the OS:

* Windows 7 Starter (limited to three apps concurrently)
* Windows 7 Home Basic (for emerging markets)
* Windows 7 Home Premium (adds Aero, Touch, Media Center)
* Windows 7 Professional (Remote Desktop host, Mobility Center, Presentation mode)
* Windows 7 Enterprise (volume license only, boot from virtual drive, BitLocker)
* Windows 7 Ultimate (limited availability, includes everything)

This information has been confirmed by Microsoft... who never listens to us. At least most consumers will only see Home Premium and Professional options at retail, which is more akin to the XP options of yore, and means WMC will be "baseline" for most PCs.

Update: Just to be clear, we've checked specifically with Microsoft on all six versions, and the placement of Home Basic in emerging markets. There's now a full breakdown after the break.

Windows 7 Starter

* Available worldwide to OEMs on new PCs
* Missing Aero UI tweaks
* Limited to 3 simultaneous applications

Windows 7 Home Basic (Vista equivalent: $200)

* Only available in emerging markets
* Missing Aero UI tweaks

Windows 7 Home Premium (Vista equivalent: $260)

* Available worldwide, to OEMs and in retail
* Includes Aero UI tweaks
* Features multi-touch capabilities
* Adds "premium" games
* Adds media capabilities (Media Center, DVD playback, DVD creation, etc.)
* Can create home network groups

Windows 7 Professional (Vista equivalent: $300)

* Available worldwide, to OEMs and in retail
* Includes all features of Premium
* Adds enhanced networking capabilities (Remote Desktop host, domain support, offline folders, etc.)
* Adds Mobility Center
* Adds Presentation Mode

Windows 7 Enterprise

* Available only in volume licenses
* Includes all features of Professional
* Adds Branch Cache
* Adds Direct Access
* Adds BitLocker

Windows 7 Ultimate (Vista equivalent: $320)

* Limited OEM and retail availability
* Includes all features of Enterprise

http://www.engadget.com/2009/02/03/w...e-has-come-to/

Windows 7 version lineup revealed: Prepare for disappointment
Remember when Vista was announced, and Microsoft decided to release six different versions of the operating system, much to the confusion, disappointment, and ridicule of potential buyers? Well guess what? Microsoft is back with the Windows 7 strategy. What has it learned in the last three years? Pretty much nothing.

While Microsoft is touting the "two primary editions" of Windows 7 -- a Home Premium edition and a Professional (intended for business) edition -- the fact is it's sticking with the same six different versions (or SKUs, stock-keeping units) that it had for Vista.

The real difference is that Windows 7 Home Basic -- the much-reviled stripped-down version of Vista that was designed for bare-bones PCs -- is now being shunted to emerging markets only, though it will still exist. But to confuse matters, a Windows 7 Starter edition, which will run only three applications simultaneously, will also be available.

Also a glimmer of hope: Home Premium will have most of the same features you're used to in Vista Home Premium, but the new Windows 7 Professional is a nice improvement over Vista Business Edition in that Windows 7 Pro will include all of the features from Home Premium (including Media Center and gaming capabilities), plus some other business-centric extras. If there's a bright spot in this news, it's that the Pro version finally looks enticing, unlike the neutered business version of Vista that was pawned off on workplaces two years ago.

But Microsoft blows it again with two more SKUs, again offering an Enterprise and Ultimate version of Windows 7, both containing features that ought to be included off the shelf in Windows 7 Professional. That means nickel-and-diming buyers once again in order to get the BitLocker encryption system.

Microsoft touts the new SKU structure as a "streamlining" of its product line, but I'm having trouble seeing how the Windows 7 lineup is much of an improvement. Things seemed to work pretty well with XP's two versions -- and the Mac folks get along fine with just one. But in an attempt to wring every last dollar out of every last customer, Microsoft again sticks us with a complicated version nightmare that no one's going to like. Is the honeymoon over already? Dang.

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/118401

Microsoft doesn't learn, do they? More variations of what is probably going to be another bloated operating system.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by dx23

Microsoft doesn't learn, do they? More variations of what is probably going to be another bloated operating system.

It's not any more editions than what Vista had. In fact, it's the same exact editions, which makes sense for upgrade reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista_editions

People seem to forget that XP ended up with almost as many editions. They were:

Starter Edition
Home Edition
Media Center Edition
Professional Edition
Tablet PC Edition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions

The Tablet PC Edition features in XP got integrated into all versions of Vista/7, so that's why that Edition no longer exists. So all Vista added was an Enterprise Edition that most consumers are never going to see (available only to volume-licensed Software Assurance members) and the Ultimate Edition, which combines all the features of the other editions. In XP, for example, if you wanted both WMC and Tablet PC features, you were SOL.

As for bloat, Windows 7 Ultimate has been demonstrated on netbooks that Vista could never install on. So Windows 7 seems better at resource management than Vista was.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Yes, those are programing terms for applications. Those terms don't really matter to the Virtual Memory Manager though, which is just going to place the memory allocated to the program into either physical RAM or the pagefile based on its own rules, regardless if the memory in question is heap, stack, or even text.

This actually isn't true. And "heap, stack, or text"? Is text neither a reference or value type?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

You're right, UAC is in some ways better than the security model on most *nix, since it forces programs to run with standard privilages even when started in an administrator (or "superuser") account.

I guess it's my personal setup that might've led to my confusion, since I setup an password-protected administrator account in Vista that I don't log into, and a standard account that I use regularly. Whenever a program wants admin privilages (such as an installer), UAC pops up a window prompting me for the admin account's password, and then the program runs with that account's privilages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superusers

Admittedly, my experience with *nix accounts is limited to OS X, my XO, and an AIX machine at work.

You see, the problem is that for most people your setup is utterly useless. For most people, they're going to log into an Admin account and use the UAC from there, which really doesn't help for exploits and other methods of OS manipulation, besides the fact that most people simply click okay with the UAC prompts.

You also have a pretty good idea of what you want to run on your machine, which is not the case for the typical user. Most people simply don't have the expertise to suss out what's "safe" and what's not.

Your setup is much more safe, but unless it's the default setup in Windows 7, I don't see a drop in compromised PCs occuring.

Do you administer the *nix machines at work?

Yes, Internet Connection Firewall. It's right there in the name that it's a firewall.
http://www.theeldergeek.com/internet...n_firewall.htm

And Windows is secure because Microsoft says so! The original ICF was not enabled by default, and was actually pretty limited. ICF was changed a lot in SP2 and was rebranded as "Windows Firewall". Again, no outbound protection, which basically makes it half a firewall.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Shazam

This actually isn't true.

Wow, 3 months late, and no references or arguments other than "nu-uh." Is that the best you can do?

Originally Posted by Shazam

And "heap, stack, or text"? Is text neither a reference or value type?

http://ee.hawaii.edu/~tep/EE160/Book...on2.1.1.8.html
When a program is loaded into memory, it is organized into three areas of memory, called segments: the text segment, stack segment, and heap segment. The text segment (sometimes also called the code segment) is where the compiled code of the program itself resides. This is the machine language representation of the program steps to be carried out, including all functions making up the program, both user defined and system.

Are you trying to say you didn't realize that there were three types of memory segments?

Originally Posted by Shazam

You see, the problem is that for most people your setup is utterly useless. For most people, they're going to log into an Admin account and use the UAC from there, which really doesn't help for exploits and other methods of OS manipulation, besides the fact that most people simply click okay with the UAC prompts.

Actually, UAC helps for Admin accounts as well, since it by default runs applications the user starts with reduced permissions, and the UAC prompts when an app wants to run with admin privileges. Admittedly, people simply allowing everything UAC prompts for is a problem, but it's akin to these users sudo-ing everything in *nix, if they had such an OS.

Originally Posted by Shazam

And Windows is secure because Microsoft says so!

Windows certainly isn't 100% secure. Like every OS it has its flaws, and Windows may have more than some others (or at least it's flaws are more commonly exploited). However, Vista is more secure than XP, which was more secure than 2000, etc. Vista introduced features than can help make Windows very secure. It's not totally MS's fault if some users find the enhancements (like UAC) annoying and ignore them/turn them off.

Originally Posted by Shazam

The original ICF was not enabled by default, and was actually pretty limited.

But it existed, contrary to your original claim:

Originally Posted by Shazam

Windows XP wasn't really all that stable until the release of SP2. Christ, the fucking thing didn't even come with a built-in firewall until then.

I wasn't saying that the firewall originally built-in to XP was any good, just that it existed. Thanks for repeating what I already wrote though:

Originally Posted by Jay G.

Also, XP RTM did have a firewall included. It was disabled by default and hard to find/configure for most people though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Firewall

[twikoff]

ive been so busy with work and havent had a chance to play with win7 much..

i loaded it on my dell 64bit x86 solaris machine at work under a virtualbox and it seems to boot and run fine.. although my desktop has a couple quad core procs, 8gb ram, and 15k drives.. so i was able to give the virtual instance plenty of resources

a couple of the other guys in our IT group took my copy and loaded it on their home machines to play with.. 2 of them swear that this is the faster OS that MS has ever made.. one of them says he put it on an older machine that was using XP and insists that win7 runs significantly faster even on the older hardware than XP ever has.

obviously Im a bit reluctant to believe that.. but 3 different guys in our IT group are saying they have had pretty much the same experience.. so Ill probably go ahead and rebuild my home machine with 7 when i get a chance.
only hardware Im concerned about is my dazzle that i use for pulling vide off my camcorder.

[GizmoDVD]

Any chance to get the Windows 7 beta to run on a Mac with Bootcamp?

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by GizmoDVD

Any chance to get the Windows 7 beta to run on a Mac with Bootcamp?

Yes.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...boot_camp.html

[GizmoDVD]

I didn't see anything on there...but can I just download Windows 7 (its free, right?) and run it in Bootcamp without buying XP/Vista?

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by GizmoDVD

I didn't see anything on there...

It's a guide that steps you through the entire process of installing Windows 7 onto a Mac via BootCamp.

but can I just download Windows 7 (its free, right?) and run it in Bootcamp without buying XP/Vista?

Yes, at the moment you can download, get an activation code for, and install Windows 7 beta for free:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../dd353205.aspx

Availability of the beta ends on Feb 10, so you only have a few more days to download and install it. Also, the beta expires in August of this year. At that point you'll have to install a different version of Windows.

[GizmoDVD]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

It's a guide that steps you through the entire process of installing Windows 7 onto a Mac via BootCamp.


Yes, at the moment you can download, get an activation code for, and install Windows 7 beta for free:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/w.../dd353205.aspx

Availability of the beta ends on Feb 10, so you only have a few more days to download and install it. Also, the beta expires in August of this year. At that point you'll have to install a different version of Windows.

Ok, great. A free look until August is fine - I can decide if I want to keep two OSs or not

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by twikoff

. so Ill probably go ahead and rebuild my home machine with 7 when i get a chance.

I wouldn't recommend making Windows 7 beta your main OS, especially if you're going to overwrite an existing Windows install. If you want, you could try dual-booting your system.

only hardware Im concerned about is my dazzle that i use for pulling vide off my camcorder.

Pinnacle has release drivers for the Dazzle for Vista, those should work in Windows 7 as well:
http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSit...ents&Display=1

[twikoff]

meh.. dual-booting = eating up harddrive space with an OS that you never boot to

ive never been afraid of a beta.. i considered myself an advanced user and dont really sweat having to work through an issue or two here or there.

[al_bundy]

been running it on my work laptop and desktop

the laptop is dual core and 2 GB RAM. desktop is a P4, 1GB RAM and almost 5 years old. runs very nicely on both. going to put it on my home desktop tonight and finish tomorrow. Vista is so slow compared to it

[zuffy]

Definitely faster than Vista but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's faster than XP with the same hardware. I will be switching to Windows 7 once it's release. All of the software I have in Vista are working with the beta Windows 7.