Windows 7 Beta - Is it worth it?

Hey Rmus,
i agree windows 2000 is a great OS. i also agree that the only improvement xp really gave was cleartype and maybe fast user switching.
btw my windows 2000 virtual machine without any service pack is less than 1gb space used.

 

Isn't Xp also supposed to be more secure ? if not then I might fire up my old copy.

 

Nah, XP isn't any more inherently secure.. secure is mostly what you make it, and how you use it. 2k is fine, just no updates for it anymore I guess. I'd use it now, but there are no ATI drivers for it, and it's not x64 either, so it's a bit too far down the old road for me. But if I had an older PC, that's what I'd run. 2k was blazingly fast....

 

This is certainly the whole point. I mentioned that newer versions of Windows meet needs. When something comes along that I need that won't run on Win2K, then I'll have to upgrade. I recently purcased a WinXP CD for just-in-case, and I suppose down the road I'll even have to go up another level!

What is disappointing to me is how unlimited resources (RAM, Hard Drives) take away the need from the developer's standpoint of worrying about what we call bloat.

But there is something satisifying about a nicely-coded application.

Windows is way beyond just a normal application, of course, because it has to do so many things, much of which is in reponse to user's demands.

Nothing wrong with that, but I've always felt that if the modular system had been part of development strategy, users could choose what they wanted to install and many would be much happier!.

Marketing considerations prevented that, of course, which is why IE was integrated, as an example.

So today's experience with Windows could have been quite different if user choices had been a part of development in the first place. Again, look how you can choose what to install with MSOffice. Don't need Access? Just uncheck and it stays on the CD.

Let's protest for a 'Windows Custom Edition' in the next version!

----
rich

 

That would certainly be an excellent idea, and perhaps even a good marketing move nowadays....

 

It can be done. It takes just the right kind of pressure.

From Paul Thurrott's SuperSite, on Windows 7:

EDIT: Mrk, did you notice these options when you installed?

----
rich

 

Did not pay attention to these programs at all ... regardless, there was no option to not install anything ... Maybe they can be removed after the install?
Mrk

 

they will have allready have clattered your registry by then,so unless there is no services running from them u'd only gain like 700mb of space,which lol is a 8 cent cd.

 

One of my biggest gripes is the Search feature. In Win2K it is very simple. In Vista,

Well, that option is already in the Search box in 2K. I searched for 'electronics warehouse' in a document. It took about 5 seconds:

​

Lets Look at Search in Windows XP. Doing the same thing as above brings up a Menu:

​

To get the interface I have in Win2K I select "All files and folders." But the Search options are compressed. It takes two more clicks to expand and get the Date option.

​

Looking at the Menu for searching Pictures and Documents:

I searched for photographs named "water" and I see that Windows searches first in the Pictures folder. But I don't store my photographs in the Windows picture folders. Search is wasting time looking there first before it looks elsewhere. If I search documents, the same thing. I don't store anything in Windows Documents folders, so time is wasted looking there first. There is no "Look in" box to specify my photographs nor main documents locations. Yet, these "features" are supposed to save time. (maybe the dog helps speed things up). It is quicker to just use the "All files and folders" search option, where I can specify a location - partition\principal directory in my case.

​

Obvious, of course, is that Microsoft wants me to set up a filing system in their way and search accordingly.

Well, I detail all of this as one example of how Windows complicates "features" in ways that are often unnecessary. Here, a simple Search interface in 2K has become fussy with additional steps to take in XP. That certainly adds lines of code. Multiply that by many other "enhanced" features and the size continues to increase.

XP offers the option for a "Classic" Start Menu. It would have been nice for it to include the Win2K simple Search interface.

Vista - and I assume Windows 7 likewise - adds more complexity with additional Search features, none of which I find necessary. The Wikipedia article linked by lodore describes the Vista "Search Engine." Wouldn't it be nice if Microsoft gave the option to specify a Search Engine module or plugin to install: one being the old simple Search interface without the various filters. If Microsoft can leave SRP out of XP Home Edition, they can certainly tailor the OS in other ways.

You can argue, Well, you've always done it that way and you should be willing to change. Perhaps, but if simplicity leads to complexity with no added advantage from the person's perspective, then what is really gained?


----
rich

 

I agree, with your point on the hardware side. That's why we still have old machines with miserly 512 MB ram and PIV processors in lab. They still are prevalent. But in my experience the reason for this is, that most people in developing countries don't see the value of a upgrade.
An example: As part of the eGovernance project, I was to support some uni students to implement a local project where the students where developing a interactive tool for farmer to identify crop pests/disease.
The university kids, in their zeal developed the stuff using C# and .Net 3.x . They showed confident demos and when they when to the rural site. They found a PIII 1 Ghz with 256 MB RAM and Win98 . Now as per the project, the village could upgrade their computers. But instead they had chosen not to, they invested that cash into buying other items. For them, the machine was used only for sparse emailing, checking food grain prices and some paperwork. Why pay more money for this they asked ?? The kids had no answer, but thankfully due to the resemblance of C# and Java, they were able to port the code quickly enough.

Hence even if hardware prices plummet, you still will find older machines here. Since the simple rule is "If its not broken, there is no need to fix it".

Bandwidth, on that you are inaccurate. Hi-Speed connectivity (both wireless & wired) has seen great growth:
http://www.medianama.com/2008/12/223-state-wise-list-of-broadband-subscribers-in-india/

There has been a growth of nearly 60% in broadband connections ( 256 kbps or above ). The majority of the remaining people use hi-speed connectivity via 2G CDMA/GSM ( 3G spectrum will be auctioned by govt. only in Q2 of 2009) which over speeds on 116 to 200 kbps. And the dial-up is virtually at the bottom of the pile. Keep in mind that The PC penetration is estimated to be around 3% and most users have a common PC for usage.
( Just to mention the rural PC sited in the earlier example, even though having only win98 did have a 256kbps ADSL connection )

But overall, even if MS is able to sell Win7 to even 10% of India. They will be laughing their way to the bank. That is for sure

 

Hello,

I've made a rough calculation and came to conclusion that there are still some 200 million dial-up users in India and China alone - that's the almost entire US Internet user base. Plus, they pay far more for broadband than, let's say Americans, in relative terms.

The computer market is geared toward the rich part of our world mostly. What we perceive as norm is in fact a luxury that only a few can afford. When you think more deeply, only a small part of humanity can afford food, water, electricity, or medicines on regular basis, to say nothing of computers, Internet or quad cores.

But with companies based on a "make-money" policy, there's seems to be no gain in making software for "poor" people.

Mrk

 

Good, point. Computers and Internet is a luxury for many. But in India, where I see great increase in standards of living. I don't see the PC penetration increasing.

Like I said PC penetration is roughly 3-4 %. But the mobile phone penetration is almost 10 times more. Why ?? PCs are not that hugely expensive as many bare bone PCs are promoted at almost the same price as a decent cell phone today and you can get old/refurbish ones for even less.
But the main reason is the rural mass is neither attracted to computers nor the Internet. The Village Council I mentioned had 3 PCs with broadband. And for most of the time, they lie idle.

IMO, PC penetration and broadband usage could probably be same as cellular phone usage if the general public had a craving for the same. When demand/production increases automatically prices will fall to American levels.

See:
http://www.capitalmarket.com/cmedit/story2-0.asp?sno=252239

India's largest mobile operator adds an average of 2 million subscribers in a month. So its just that many people, fail to see the need to make a PC/Internet investment whereas cellphone is seemingly essential. And due to such massive user base and demand, all competing firms in the wireless space have very competitive rates. Hence cellular plans and rate in India, are probably the cheapest in the world and definitely better than US. For example: In $2, you can buy a lifetime pre-paid from any of the cellular providers now, by which you get unlimited lifetime incoming calls for free. And you have to just recharge for outgoing calls which is $0.02 per min.

 

I wonder if the lack of take up shows no more than the reality that we don't actually need the hardware and software that we currently have ?

I could undoubtedly run my business with windows 2000 + Paperport 9 on my old P4 2.4 with 500 mg of ram. I buy new machines and new software simply because I can afford. The solution perhaps is not to stop windows 7 but to stop screwing the developing world - if for no other reason than in say a 100 years from now the developing world will almost certainly have overtaken the current developed world.

 

What about security wise?

I've been giving 7 a try and I noticed that Standard User accounts seem more polished than XP with limited accounts. If you try to install a program, a pop-up appears and asks for the administrator account password similar to how it's done in OSX and linux variants.

I haven't been able to try how program/game compatibilities under the Standard account in 7 but I'd like to hear everyone else's experiences.

Granted, I never really used Vista in depth so I may just be re-hashing the same security improvements implemented there.

How does standard user in 7 compare to say... XP with LUA + SuRun?

Oh, and is SRP still a good idea with 7?

 

I think there's a more flexible tool in Win7, but i've only read about it. If it is Win7's SRP, then yes, it's a good idea imo.

 

What have you guys observed regarding 7's compatibility for apps designed to run on XP/Vista?

 

Compatibility with XP/Vista app is very good. More often than not, you won't have to do anything special. When you have to, however, there's a really nice compatibility assistant tool that will walk you step-by-step to try and make the application run.

 

I recently started a thread in these forums questioning how to best secure older Microsoft operating systems that are no longer supported. My primary focus was on Windows 95, Windows 98, and the soon to be unsupported Windows 2000 and following the comments received, I am certain that an older OS can be secured against even today's threats.


After trying Windows 7, I am convinced that I will not be buying it as "7" offers nothing I need. I made the mistake (for my needs) of purchasing Vista and don't need yet another OS that I won't use or can't use properly unless/until I upgrade hardware.

I'm not a gamer; I surf the internet, participate in a few chat rooms and forums, e-mail, and occasionally back up a DVD. I love the familiarity and simplicity of XP back to W/95. There are sufficient software resources available to make them work safely, so the biggest problem for me are graphics drivers.
Still, a $100.00 PC with '95 and '98 loaded (dual-boot) and another with '98 and W2K (also dual-boot) give me everything I need for the basic tasks I engage in.

For what will most probably be the cost of W-7 OEM, I have added two Dell Precision 590 PCs with licensed W-'95, W-'98, and W2k to augment my three-plus year old Dell E510 running XP.

I couldn't be happier.

 

It's good that you are able to work things out the way you like it.

 

Can anyone explain the advantage of using a Standard Account in Vista/7 as opposed to the Administrator account when you already use UAC?

 

Hello,
you are given less rights as limited user account.
everytime you get a uac prompt you are asked for your password.
there is quite alot of benefit of using limited user account.
may as well just have an admin account and change your normal account to limited user.