Will 7100 (RC) users get a patch to final build?
As title, really. We're allowed to use the RC for another year or so yet, so do we get a patch to the 7600 (or whatever) build when it goes public?
Microsoft has denied rumours that suggest the latest leaked build of Windows 7 is the final iteration of the upcoming operating system. The software giant went to great lengths to stamp out the speculation after Windows 7 build 7600 and Windows Server 2008 R2 build 7600 tipped up on BitTorrent tracker sites. Many pondered …
How the hell is anyone meant to install a different browser onto a machine without an existing browser to navigate to the web page of someone who provides a browser (either MS or a competitor).
To access the internet the purchasor of a new computer will have to use a different computer to download an installation of a browser to then install it on the original computer. Are you kidding me? What a pain in the a$$! That's really going to pee off Mr/Mrs Computer Illiterate when they buy a new PC and can't get onto Facebook ;)
Hmmm... given most retail outlets add their own 'software packs' (read crapware), could they install a browser?
That's a difficult question.
Do you release your 7600 build and allow the world to test it? Or do you keep hold of it, to give users more of a reason to buy a retail copy?
Do they need more of a reason to buy a retail copy? Will 7100 users buy retail Seven, or will they go back to XP, or Vista - whatever they already have a copy of?
I wouldn't be so sure. I despised Vista, but I installed Win7 at the end of last week and to be honest....it's actually pretty good. Does use more than twice as much RAM as XP, but I've got 4GB, so I don't care, and it uses no more processor power really, at least for day-to-day stuff. There are some nice tweaks, it's far less annoying, and the hardware compatibility at install is bloody good. It found my SCSI drives, installed drivers for my spanking new Radeon, and even sorted out my monitor splitter box without intervention. Nothing else that's ever been near this machine could do that. Which is a shame, because I'd love to dual boot Ubuntu on it.
Biggest problem I have at the minute is finding my way round some of the panels, but I'm sure I'll get used to it. Nothing's flummoxed me yet.
Jason - thanks for the info. Bugger. Still, can't imagine it'll make a huge difference. The RC is fairly solid on my machine. Few issues with the (rather impressive) power saving options, but I can live with that. I guess I'm just used to downloading an Ubuntu pre-release and having it slowly patched up to the final release. ;-)
“In particular, if while using the Web Browser control, you allow the application to open new windows that do not respect the user’s default browser choice, you may see some issues”
This is exactly the problem you get now if you set your default browser to anything other than IE; at least with this new edition you will be able to ensure that IE doesn't just run anyway despite being "disabled".
"Microsoft will additionally offer an IE 8 Feature Pack for Windows 7 E, intended for anyone who wants to use the company’s web browser."
(an offer that will be hard to refuse if you "want" to authenticate or get "critical" updates)
as predicted .. will probably be on the same disk for retail ..
OEMs can and will include IE and/or Firefox and/or Chrome (heaven forbid you'll have both monopolists installed by default)
now please STOP thinking the EU has somehow outsmarted MS on this browser fight
Ive got Windows 7 on my PC and I have to say its pretty good too. Very stable and also does not slow down after being on for a few hours.
I know its about time we have more Mircosoft competition, its long overdue; but lets at least say that this is what Vista should have been and it definitely is a lot tighter and has many useful features when you delve a little deeper into the control panel.
Go take a look...its OK.
This will definitely become the next defacto MS OS; like XP.
The interwebs are abuzz with much wailing and gnashing of teeth regarding Microsoft's handling of the EU situation, but all I see is a win in the form of FULL versions for UPGRADE prices for those who pre-order. Given that Europe -- and the UK in particular -- is normally on the receiving end of a financial shafting whenever a new version of Windows appears, this is great news.
As for the technical arguments, anyone buying a new Windows 7-E PC will no doubt find it comes with an installed browser courtesy of the OEM, and since OEMs won't want to be inundated with "what the hell is Operafox?" tech support calls they'll probably pick Internet Explorer. And most folks planning to install Windows 7 themselves will either be tech savvy enough to obtain a browser installer from elsewhere beforehand, or will choose the Internet Explorer option that will almost certainly appear in the list the first time they run Windows Update.
The whole situation is probably not what either the EU or Microsoft would have wanted, but if it means I can install full versions of Windows 7 Home Premium on my three machines for 3/4 of what it cost me to upgrade one machine to Win2K Pro back in 2000 then I'm more than happy with the way things have turned out.
What Firefox, Opera ... want is for users to be given a choice to undue the damage that has been done by Microsoft's anti competitive practices.
What Microsoft wants is to release a version of Windows without IE, in which case the only way most end users will be able to install a browser is via Automatic Update ... and the only browser on offer will be I.E.
"As title, really. We're allowed to use the RC for another year or so yet, so do we get a patch to the 7600 (or whatever) build when it goes public?"
Probably not. I've been a Microsoft beta tester for years, and they haven't done that before. Basically because if a particular beta version of Windows causes problems, patching it may actually cause other errors, even if it fixes the original error.
Microsoft prefer not to take that risk.
looks like EU is forcing us to revert to AOL carpet bombing of CDs again to get the initial browser install (at least until you have one way of getting on the web)
Of course MS, Google and Firefox will all pay to be pre-installed along with the rest of the crap on your shiny new Dell so don't worry, and if folks want to buy a shrink-wrapped copy of the OS I'm sure there will be a stack of disks at checkout (just 9.99 for a fully functional free browser)
Smart folks will of course be able to use FTP to pull down the package of their choice (as long as the EU doesn't decide that's anti-competitive as well and make MS take that, along with Calculator and Notepad, out of the base install!)
"Ive got Windows 7 on my PC and I have to say its pretty good too. Very stable and also does not slow down after being on for a few hours."
LMAO, talk about low expectations! Every machine I've run OS X and Linux on over the last 10 years has been stable and doesn't slow down, even after months of uptime. I wonder, how will Win7 performance hold up after several months of the registry ballooning as users install and uninstall crap?
winflp, xp for old hardware, gives you the option of NOT installing IE. Then you just type www.mozilla.org into an explorer address bar to download FF or opera.com for Opera.
Incidently, at install if you choose not to install IE you won't be able to put IE7 on later. It will FAIL 'cause no pre installation of IE on machine, but third party browsers fine. Go figure.
Installed it on my laptop
Install ran smoothly, thought setting up a USB install stick was a pain .. though I hear M$ might supply it on a stick so...
Laptop ran much better than when it was running hideous Vista
I touched windows 7 once and came away very happy
That's my experience, I sense no fail
I've been using the 7100 build as my primary home OS for months, mainly due to the fact that I'm not shelling out $ for 64bit XP so I can use 8gb RAM.
I avoided Vista like the plague, so I have no pre-conceived ideas about how crap it was.
All I can see, is that Windows 7 is a massive improvement over windows XP, which is good enough for me.
But what about the alternatives to windows?
*Use Linux* the cry goes out. I do. I use it as my server OS at work, in a virtual machine - debian testing. As a Desktop OS, it just doesn't cut it in terms of industry standard applications / gaming.
*Use MacOS* - I ran a hackintosh for 6 months, didn't like it much. My wife has a 24" iMac and I have little desire to use it.
I'll reserve final judgement on Windows 7 based on the price.
Taking price out of the equation, you can pour as much derision onto windows 7 as you want, it doesn't change the fact that this time, Microsoft are doing it right.
Nik, you're wasting your breath, mate. Windows 7 is absolutely fine, has some really nice touches, and I've yet to hear any negative comments from ANYONE who has *actually tried it*.
But of course, the MS haters will obviously want to hate it, and will probably all like to use words and phrases that someone once told them were cool, like FAIL etc.
I'll happily admit that Opera and FF are better browsers, if for not other reason than they comply with standards. And Microsoft deserve a kick up the arse for it. But to stick to this "Windows is shit regardless" nonsense is laughably fanboyish.
And regarding the upgrade path, you can upgrade from RC to RTM as follows:
Whether you SHOULD is another matter, of course.
"Windows applications using the Web Browser control function could prove somewhat flaky in the compatibility department when certain apps depend directly on a specific browser."
Well that's what comes of tying your O/S to closely to a program that is for all intents and purposes a text file ( with images ) document viewer! They wanted IE domination from it's conception ( primarily to kill NutScrape) and the only way they could achieve that was bury it almost at the core of the O/S, hoping no one would worry about it. While I thought Win7 was a damn good O/S when I tested it and I seriously think it will correct the damage Vista did, I will not upgrading this time Bill as the saviour, the Lord Jobs has called unto me and I have answered...
Vista really knocked me away from the MS camp for the main reason it seemed like Windows XP Media Centre Edition with a locked chest plonked on top and many many useless services for the every day desktop.
Testing the RTM build of Windows 7 though has got me a bit giddy, will have to approach it after a few Tequila's to remain neutral about things though.
In terms of everyday use though, other than unlocking 64-bit and allowing for a comfy chunk of RAM. Why honestly would I want to upgrade; for better hand writing recognition and a dock similar to OSX where quick launch is as beautiful as it gets?
IT graphic because, I see no real innovation, just rearranging what we already have in a shinier box where people need to learn another GUI.
Let's be under no illusions as to who will be responsible for "AOL carpet bombing of CDs", and that is Microsoft. See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/06/12/microsoft_windows_no_ie/. It's all gone too far. This whole IE issue was easy to fix - and it appears that it has been largely. Just let me decide if I want to install it or not. No need for poll's or for other vendors products. Give me, the user, the ability to uninstall and I mean completely remove IE from the OS. Also, how about taking a leaf out of everyone else book, and write a browser for multiple platforms? Just play fair and don't force people to use it! That goes for everyone else to and keep the "what about Apple/Linux" crowd happy too! Where has common sense gone?
and that is about as much as one can say. The old MS boys have been at this game a long time now so it is about time we got some half decent code out of them. As a business user I wish MS would realise that pros don't need crappy diagrammatic pictures to work what is wrong with their net connection. Lovely pictures, hand holding and stupid computer ratings based on processor, memory and video card are just excess code that need not be in OS built for work. These are fine for home users and people with limited IT knowledge. I want an OS that is stable, secure and works for months. It do not want a browser engine built in so a gaping great hole appears between the internet and my machine. IE is not all that great as a browser and it sure as hang has no place being reused as a file browser on a network. The windows OS design is flawed and it is about time it was properly rewritten.
I would use GNU / Linux but that is becoming bloatware in a lot of its incarnations and there are too many distros going off in all directions and moans about closed source drivers and purity of open source. Google's web OS looks more promising to browse the web built into the TV, Xbox / Ps3 /wii for games (turn on play game that works with hardware) and then in the corner a machine to do "real" work on. Rant over.
By magnetik Posted Tuesday 14th July 2009 18:43 GMT
"I've yet to hear any negative comments from ANYONE who has *actually tried it*."
Count me as someone who's tried it (still installed on a VM right now FYI) and can think of plenty of negative things to say. :-P"
Add another who has ACTUALLY tried to use Win 7....and have plenty of negatives....
If RTM is no better than RC-1 well then Micro$haft have done it again in my book..First WinME II = vista and now......WinME ( not )(again ) =win7.
How can so many thousands of overpaid minions and managers continually f#ck it up so badly....?????
So, Windows 7 fixes some of the glaring UI issues and retarded bugs that were introduced by Vista. Big Deal
It is still based on the same old flaky architecture with roots way back in 70's era CP/M. Why is that we still need *drive letters* in this day and age?
It is a single user, monolithic OS with a staggering amount of interdependancies. Proper programmers know that good software design will be as loosely coupled as possible. Windows, OTOH has so many critical interdependancies that a flaw in a single component can cascade through the entire system, leading to all sorts of fun and mayhem.
So, you guys saying that Windows 7 is "pretty good" are welcome to go ahead and use it. But don't kid yourselves into believing that Win7 is any less of a rats nest of intertwined components tweetering on the edge of systemic collapse at a moments notice than any previous versions of Windows.
It's just a bit shinier.
Great, ship an OS without a browser. No anti-trust (whatever that is...) there, no sir! You can install any browser you want, just go to, say, the Firefox website and ... DOH! You CAN'T without a browser! What are you going to use, floppy disks? BUY a CD with Firefox on it? This is an improvement how, exactly?
Anotehr point - I guess since MS aren't allowed to sell an OS containing a browser, you can get all Apple kit Safari-free? Hmmm? And what about Google OS Chrome? Are they going to have to ship that without Chrome?
That would be like selling beer without the bottle / can / glass. Or beer. You're just buying the right to pour your own beer into your own glass.
@ magnetix "Count me as someone who's tried it (still installed on a VM right now FYI) and can think of plenty of negative things to say. :-P"
Yep, I've tried it too, but NOT on a VM - on the same hardware as Vista it is a vast improvement -(based on installations on an Asus N10 netbook, and ASUS P5Q/iQ6600/4GBram machine) - my one gripe is my digital TV tuner won't work on it, but that's mainly because Australian DTV tuners are wierd yum-cha junk due to our FINE AND PERFECT DTV "standards".
I'm looking forward to the final release. Testing has been a good experience and it's very stable and light. Windows 7 is also paving the way for a lighter and faster OS in that it will groom us to accept virtualisation for legacy apps, and clear down its hefty footprint in the next incarnation of Windows (8?).
I did suffer one BSOD, it read something along the lines of "the testing period for this beta version of windows has expired". Quite why they had to present that to me as a BSOD I don't know lol.
Firstly let me say I've used Win7 on a fresh install on a laptop and as a Visrtual Machine on a Linux laptop.
It's OK. THat's about it really. It does what it does.
However it doesn't give me anything that I want over Linux, particularly with an Xfce window. That machine is a nice responsive machine for my daily tasks of email, web, documents, bit of coding, media playing (music, video, dvd).;
It doesn't really add much to the XP machine sitting in the corner. It is marginally more "sleek" but so is KDE4.2 and I don't use that either.
I've yet to see the big sell on this. So far it seems to be "It's like Vista but less sucky" which is not really an argument
"How can so many thousands of overpaid minions and managers continually f#ck it up so badly....?????"
Oh that's easy. They have different goals. *You* want an OS that keeps out of the way so that you can get some work done with third-party apps. *They* want an OS that is TOTALLY IN YOUR FACE FOR MAXIMUM IMPACT, and frankly would be happier if there were no third-party apps with their annoying compatibility issues and lack of revenue generating power. *You* want something that you already know how to use. *They* want to move the goalposts because Linux is catching up.
Can I just say that I don't agree that Microsoft are anti-competitive with respect to browser choice. They pre-install their browser in their Operating System. Big deal.
No one puts a gun to your head to use IE, MS don't stop you installing Firefox, Opera or even Chrome (to be fair they should stop you using Chrome as it's sh*te). And let's be honest, to the average computer use it's far easier to install Opera in Windows XP/Vista/7 than it is to install Opera in Ubuntu.
The bleating needs to stop. Or perhaps Ubuntu and the other 56 flavours of Linux distro should not have a browser pre-installed and give you the option of installing IE without typing endless frustrating commands to install WINE and all that other tosh.
I say Linux is anti-competitive to MS as you can't install IE easily. Let's see the EU go after that then.....
Hmmm, I can't really tell if you are just a troll or monumentally stupid.
You are correct in one area though. MS aren't anti-competitive for bundling IE with Windows. They are anti-competitive because they force OEMs to ship every PC they sell with Windows or suffer crippling sanctions. In other words OEMs are punished if they offer consumers a choice.
As for that retarded comment regarding IE on Linux. Firstly, you CAN run IE on Linux. This is due to the work of open source coders with ZERO help from Microsoft. In fact the IE EULA specifically forbids the installing of IE on anything other than Windows. How that can be the fault of "Linux" is something only a numbnut like you could understand, clearly.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019