Windows 7 beta available worldwide by weekend, says Microsoft

Originally posted by moonrat
I really think that people who use any M$ operating system needs their balls feeling.

It is all virus and spy laden crap. And you actually PAY good money for it and then you have to PAY for all the software you use.

Linux is safer (no viruses no spyware), cheaper (free), more versatile (more and free software) and it's a damn site faster (new distros are all 64bit (with 32bit versions if your hardware can't handle 64bit)).

Anyway, isn't Windows 7 supposed to be a 'touch screen' OS. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I certainly don't want my plasma screen covered in greasy fingerprints, snot and melted chocolate. No freaking way.

Microsoft is no good. No good at all.

You have little to no idea what you are talking about. Yes I do agree about Linux being safer, but that's because the user is not by default an admin. It also has other features that I won't get into. Linux can also be hacked and exploited if you don't take the necessary precautions.

Viruses on Windows? Sure, if you have no idea how to use it properly. My suggestion, stop downloading every attachment that someone sends you and visiting sketchy sites.

Windows XP has been released in 32 and 64 bit along with Vista and Windows 7. I don't see how Linux has an edge in this area.

And I have a simple solution to your touch screen dilemma, wash your hands. You shouldn't even be walking around with hands like that. I just installed Windows 7 again, I don't have a touch screen, and guess what? All I need is a keyboard and a mouse to maneuver around, just like all the other major operating systems.

reply to post by merka


If you're gonna go through all of that hassle of reinstalling Vista just to do the upgrade, then you might as well just do a clean install of 7.

reply to post by The Last Man on Earth


Don't forget, you can also thank them for X-Box 360s. They will never live that down. And don't even bother giving me the warrantee spiel.

You're right. Vista is a decent operating system. No problems whatsoever if you own a modern pc.

It's a meme going around propagated by people that don't know any better.

I have one fundamental issue with Vista and probably Windows 7, that Microsoft priced Vista just too high.

The perfect price is $0.00.

I've been using this new OS, windows 7 for over a week now, and based on the tests I've run, at its current beta stage it is far faster than Vista ever will be and even out-performing xp in everyday tasks of audio and video conversion, zip and unzip and photo editing. As of now it appears to be feature complete and very stable, with only one program I use not being able to run. (the programs fault, not windows for once.) At this point, I'm sticking with it as my primary OS on my laptop, and soon on my desktop.

Originally posted by rickrollz
You have little to no idea what you are talking about. Yes I do agree about Linux being safer, but that's because the user is not by default an admin. It also has other features that I won't get into. Linux can also be hacked and exploited if you don't take the necessary precautions.

The only way to exploit Linux is if you actively try to hack it... no software out there will make it easy for you. Basically if you've been hacked using linux, you've REALLY REALLY peeved someone off. Because it takes some incredible patience and determination.

Windows is incredibly easy to hack. Children can and do.

Viruses on Windows? Sure, if you have no idea how to use it properly. My suggestion, stop downloading every attachment that someone sends you and visiting sketchy sites.

Viruses come from many more locations than just sites and attachments in windows.
If your firewall isn't set up perfectly, you can acquire enough viruses to render your computer useless within seconds if connected to a network with other infected machines.
That was one of the main problems we had back in our dorms back at school... so many machines on one network... people computers would require a total format after just a couple of minutes with the wrong firewall settings.

That won't happen on Linux.

I've been running Linux for 5 years straight now on one of my machines with ZERO security. I still have yet to have any trouble what-so-ever... my windows machine, well, it requires constant upkeep.

Computers are supposed to be automated systems... I shouldn't have to hold the operating systems hand and bathe it ever month or so just to be able to use it.

Windows XP has been released in 32 and 64 bit along with Vista and Windows 7. I don't see how Linux has an edge in this area.

I use Ubuntu Linux 64 bit. Have been for years now.
You know little to nothing of what you're talking about.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by johnsky]

Gah.. so much misinformation in this thread. I've been in the computer business for 25 some odd years, and Vista is fine.. once you turn off all the gunk that people hate so much. Took less than 10 minutes in the registry to get it running fast and efficiently.

On my own built PC with Vista, and I've had 0 blue-screens. I've had next to no errors. It IS more solid than XP. I reimage computers quite often at work due to XP issues, and deal with plenty of BSOD issues.

But I see this every release. OS 'x' is horrible! Then.. 2 years later.. everyone is using it. And it's solid and great.. and the next OS is horrible! Lather, rinse, repeat.

Windows 7 is NOT a full blown new version. They are not rebuilding the entire OS infrastructure. MS made it clear that the guts are still Vista. This is a version that is essentially making optional many things that were default in Vista, such as UAC. Which by the way, is as easy to disable as going to HLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\System in the registry, and giving the EnableLUA a value of 0. Tadaa.. almost all the things people have complained about are gone.

Linux can't get viruses? Are you insane? I understand some of you wanting to tout Linux as something amazing.. but don't give out wrong info. It can and has received many viruses, and there are MANY anti virus programs made specifically FOR Linux. And Linux will NEVER be mainstream.. EVER. Businesses drive OS popularity, and Linux will never be a popular OS to support for more reasons than I have time to list. Without businesses supporting Linux as a mainstream OS, it will never get the legs needed to really be a competitor.

Windows 7 pretty much IS Vista 1.5, with some decent new features, like the touchscreen technology that will only be a fad for probably 10 years before it seems mainstream use. Also optimizing many things in Windows that should have been done many versions ago, like overhaul Paint so it's actually useful, the calculator, and other core tools and apps.

Major features will be probably parallel processing, much better virtualization, optional UAC (of which I'll still disable all of it), and supposedly better networking, although I suspect that's fully for home use, business networking probably won't change much.

I'll give it a year before I switch to it however. I rarely leap into a new OS, ever. No business does either.. at least no smart business does.

[edit on 9-1-2009 by fleabit]

The main issue with Vista when it came out was hardware drivers and that wasn't Microsoft's fault. Hardware vendors had more than enough time to write drivers for Vista.

The only issue Vista really has is with RAM and most of the people I've seen complain about that were running Vista on a system it wasn't really meant for. Not surprising that everyone I've seen complain are Linux/Apple fans and people who don't know much about PC's at all, but think they're experts.

Service Pack 1 fixed a lot of the early issues and people have no reason to still be complaining about it. There's another service pack slated to come out for Vista around the time Windows 7 comes out that might bring some Windows 7 features to Vista.

Microsoft has done very well with 7 and people comparing it to Vista have no clue what they're talking about and just bashing it because it's Microsoft. I doubt any of those people have actually tried 7 yet. I'm talking about actually installed it and played around with it. Not based their opinions on what others have said.

Microsoft showed a comparison of Vista and 7 at PDC and the boot time alone blew away a lot of people and that was an ALPHA build using un-optimized code and it booted up almost 10 seconds faster than Vista running on the exact same hardware and they didn't show it in video. They had the systems right there on stage and booted them both at the same time so people could see actual performance and not a video representation.

I'm tired of seeing people complain about UAC. It was purposely made to annoy users. Microsoft has admitted this and the people who still complain, only prove they don't know much about Vista because you can easily turn UAC off. If you don't view porn or warez sites and have common sense, you don't need it on. With SP1 it didn't come up as much and doesn't come up much at all in Windows 7 either.

People who complain about any version of Windows because of the security side don't know what they're talking about. They go straight into saying it's unstable and badly written. Windows runs on 9x% of PC's in the world. Hackers are going to attack what's used most and that's Windows, plain and simple. Since Apple has moved to Intel and grabbed more users, attacks against Mac's have gone up. 150 security flaws were found in OSX right after the Intel move that Apple didn't even know about. They're gaining more users so flaws are pouring out and it's going to keep doing that the more users they gain. Apple fans don't like to admit any of that, even though it's actually a good thing. The more users you gain, the more flaws are found and the faster they're fixed. So stop whining when the smallest thing is found.

It's no different for Linux. Until the Linux distros start becoming more user friendly for the average computer user, it's going to stay where it is. Look at what you have to do just to install an application on most Linux distros. The average user is going to be turned off by that alone.

No OS is perfect

Originally posted by rickrollz
You have little to no idea what you are talking about. Yes I do agree about Linux being safer, but that's because the user is not by default an admin. It also has other features that I won't get into. Linux can also be hacked and exploited if you don't take the necessary precautions.

Viruses on Windows? Sure, if you have no idea how to use it properly. My suggestion, stop downloading every attachment that someone sends you and visiting sketchy sites.

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but you have it exactly backwards. In order to make Linux insecure these days, you have to take steps to open it up. "Out of the box" it will simply not respond to hackers. So no necessary precautions are required.

In addition, windows has MANY exploits centered around the SVCHOST service which require no cooperation from the user to be successful. many virus's attack windows because of the lack of protection, not only because of actions by the user.

In our office we tried a simple experiment. We did a fresh install of windows 2k, then xp, then Linux. We put each install directly on an external public IP without additional protection. The win2k box lasted only a few minutes before it was exploited. The xp system fared much better, and made it a whole 5 hours before it was exploited. With the Linux system, well..after a week we called it a successful experiment. This isn't to say that Linux cannot be exploited, just that within our time frame it wasn't.

In defense of the average user, most have no idea when they are visiting a "sketchy" site. Phishing sites and hacker sites can look like and often do look like legitimate sites. This is the reason they are so successful. The real issue is with the core operating system itself. Simply make windows better, or at the very least, open the source so the community can make it better. Security through obscurity is no security at all.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


Right.. it can't possibly be because no one gives a rip typically about breaking into Linux, when so many readily available targets in Windows are already out there.

Just like Firefox. Couldn't be hacked! they said. Completely secure! it was touted. There are many pieces of malware that can utterly crush Firefox now. And as it grows in popularity, so will the # of viruses that can manipulate it.

No one cares about hacking Linux. There is no point.

Originally posted by fleabit
reply to post by v3_exceed

 

Right.. it can't possibly be because no one gives a rip typically about breaking into Linux, when so many readily available targets in Windows are already out there.

Just like Firefox. Couldn't be hacked! they said. Completely secure! it was touted. There are many pieces of malware that can utterly crush Firefox now. And as it grows in popularity, so will the # of viruses that can manipulate it.

No one cares about hacking Linux. There is no point.

Actually, for the most part, I use FreeBSD. There are still numerous attempts to hack into it. Most of the attempts are looking for a file system that just doesn't exist in the same way as on Windows or Linux.

It is true, that the number of windows installs equates proportionally to the targeting of windows, however the popularity of the OS is only part of the issue. Civic's get broken into because they are easy to break into, not just because there are some on every block.

Some components of windows are easily hackable due to the inherent arrogance of Microsoft. They could fix these holes, but they simply don't. (Is there any real reason raw socket support was included in xp or vista?) The average user couldn't even tell you what raw socket support is, and certainly doesn't need it.

In any other industry, if such a slip shod work ethic were applied to the products sold, the consumers would be up in arms demanding some kind of restitution, but in the case of Microsoft, we are expect to just suck it up, and take the blame for a lack of understanding of the product.

Although I have many years experience in the computer related field, and am more than capable with manipulating the windows registry, I strongly suggest that the average user does not access the registry without help. (in response to the just edit the registry comment by another poster)

Thanks for reading
..Ex

I've been running Linux for 5 years straight now on one of my machines with ZERO security. I still have yet to have any trouble what-so-ever... my windows machine, well, it requires constant upkeep.

Could you please define 'constant upkeep'? I'm curious.

it is a BETA it is so it can be tested and bugs can be reported so the general public has a good, reliable OS by the time it rolls out.

I lolled!
When has microsoft ever brought out a new, good, reliable OS?

reply to post by cruzion


Sometime around 1980, it was called DOS, but then nothing much can go wrong with a a:\ prompt and a flashing cursor.


1985 - Windows - where it all started
1987 - Windows 2 - the next generation
1990 - Windows 3 - Where it started getting good
1995 - Windows 95 - Now this is looking pretty sweet
1998 - Windows 98 - BSOD's for the masses!!!!
1998.5 - Windows 98 SE - Goddamn best operating system ever to come out of M$'s arse.

2000 - Windows 2000 - Hang on, this is NT, nothing works arrrrghh (at least they rectified the situation by about service pack 2 making this a not too bad OS.
2000.5 - Windows Monumental Error - Erm, this is 98 first edition, with no DOS, why has my screen just froze, nothings working, arrrrggghhh.
2001 - Windows XP - We are sorry about ME, the person responsible has just been fired, heres Windows 2000, behaving like Windows 98, and a pretty GUI to boot, oh crap we did it again. Never mind, by service pack 2 you will have a pretty functional system that does work but I would keep your darkest secrets on there.
2007 - Windows Vista - Hey remember ME? lets re-release it with a nicer GUI and some fancy features, and make sure that the users need to invest their life savings into a system that will run it properley!! It should be a laugh until we release Windows 7

I'm hoping Windows 7 will bring M$ back on track, so far it's looking good, lets hope they have learnt from their mistakes.

Since I know people from Microsoft personally I can speak openly and candidly. They are NOT the anti-christ people. LOL. They are a good company that produces THE operating system that drives all major consumer and business computers. I do not download anything BETA because it is not the actual fully released product which will always require support from corporations for hardware and software drivers. If you want to TEST a BETA format to make it better, then the BETA version is for you. I am doing that but I use it on my BETA test computers, so I won;t download it on my main Vista Windows computer. The best thing is to do is NOT to listen to the status quo or the public's ignorant comments when the problem lies with them not upgrading their computers to begin with.

I want a X-box type OS to install on hardware I choose. Start with the Xbox kernel and upgrade it to XP embedded. Optimize it only for running games. If you need other components then you can install them later if you need them.

And

Microsoft Linux. MS own twist so that they could add the ability to run Windows Apps. I know it is done now but something from them would work far better. DirectX running without emulation....

Speaking of DirectX, On my wish list is full DirectX support over RDP. My game machine would be better off in my server room among the other noisy boxes.



[edit on 1/10/2009 by staple]

It might have been pointed out in an earlier post but some people still have the versions wrong.

9x and ME still Ran on the DOS based code but their version paralleled some of the NT code. As far as I know all the 9x/me ran on a 4.x code base.

Windows 95
Windows 98
Windows 98 Second Edition
Windows Me


Windows NT 3.1
Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 (NT 5.0)
Windows XP (NT 5.1)
Windows Vista (NT 6.0)
"Windows 7" (NT 7.0)

Here is why I use MS Windows: it came pre-installed on my computer. And my previous computer, and the one before that, and the one before that. The same reason every else uses it! And we are not bothered enough to switch. Moving to something like Linux would be difficult because it would require learning a whole new system whereas I've been on Windows since childhood. OS's like Linux are for people who are more than casual computer users. I just want the damn thing to work, I don't want to program it.

My computer almost never crashes. I've only had 1 major virus problem and I was able to take care of it w/o assistance. But I have not yet used Vista, still using XP here. My brother uses Vista on his laptop and hates it.

reply to post by johnsky


Honestly, you didn't say anything new. You repeated what I said and added a little to it.

I do agree that Linux is harder to hack than windows, but not impossible. I don't do any maintenance on my windows machine, apart from updates. Very much the same as my Linux box. I am also aware that placing a new windows machine on a network unprotected will cause it to pick up virus and spy ware. But, the majority of people get their computers infected because they either downloaded something or went to a sketchy site.

I use Ubuntu Linux 64 bit. Have been for years now. You know little to nothing of what you're talking about.

Oh really? Well, like I said, I don't see how linux has the edge to this, especially Ubuntu which was released in 2004 and XP in 2001. So what is your point?

Windows is not terribly vulnerable because of arrogance, but because of their desire and need to cross platform with just about everything out there. They have to support a huge array of applications, that also need to work with each other, and it really creates a swiss cheese mess of things. Linux has always been painful for the average user. The cost to own per PC for Linux would probably be triple that of PCs (cost of PC, and long term support), and I know that some of our users, who might use 3 different CAD programs, and not common 3rd party geological and chemical software would be a nightmare to get working effectively in the environment. Also, I doubt that many of the corporate software run by license servers would function at all on Linux boxes.

Mind you.. I've never been a huge fan of Gates or MS, he IS arrogant. He and his wife are also very much so active philanthropists. So meh.. mixed feelings about him. I don't agree with many of their money grubbing corporate policies however. Their attempt to corner almost every computing market that screws over smaller companies trying to survive makes me shake my head in disgust. And their new ideas regarding charging for PC time use is just disgusting imo.

But there ARE brilliant people working at MS. For all the negative talk I hear about their different OS versions, I don't think people realize how good their software really is when it comes to working with multiple types of software on same systems. The network security is solid. As long as you use something like SMS to keep critical security patches up to date, and don't have people installing crap that opens ports on computers (without telling you), you are good.

I've only had one instance of a virus that got through due to someone not updating their web server software, and it got through an open port. Every other time someone got malware or a virus, it has been due to a user bringing an infected USB drive from home with the USB virus on it, or opening weird web pages and clicking on popups, or actually falling for a phishing attempt, and that sort of things. It's difficult to stop stupid.

As far as Windows 7: I expect more of the same as Vista, fixing some stuff that people hate, and tweaking stuff like the sidebar (which is gone.. but gadgets can be put on your desktop, which is kind of cool). The core is essentially Vista. But that's not a bad thing, seriously.