Living with Windows 7 release candidate
The first few hours with Windows 7 release candidate were a bit rocky for CNET News' Ina Fried, given that none of the windows appeared to have a close or minimize button. But once that glitch resolved itself, it has been smooth sailing.
(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET)I've been living with Windows 7 for some time now. Indeed, I've been using it since the first public release last fall.
At work, it has been my main machine for several months and I frequently bring it home and take it on the road. However, I have relied on my CNET-issued Windows XP machine for a number of key tasks, such as using the desktop version of Outlook and when I needed to access the Internet using a Sprint modem. (Our newsroom USB modem didn't work with the beta of Windows 7.)
With the release candidate (download), I was finally able to take the complete plunge. Since Tuesday, I have been using nothing else--at work and at home.
And I must say, despite one hiccup that I'll get to in a minute, Windows 7 is shaping up quite well. There's a lot to like about Windows 7 for those using Windows XP or Windows Vista.
Because Microsoft was urging people not to upgrade directly from Windows 7 beta to the release candidate, my first step, like many folks, was backing up the data on the beta version. I chose to try out Microsoft's Windows Easy Transfer to see if it lived up to its name.
For me, the hardest part was finding an external hard drive to borrow to hold the 14GB file that Windows Easy Transfer created. Once I managed to do that, the software lived up to its name. It moved the data, somewhat slowly, but effortlessly off my machine. After I installed the release candidate, it moved the data back. Again, the process was slow, but required no work on my end.
The result was a machine that looked very much like the setup I had created with the beta--minus all my applications, of course. Windows Easy Transfer migrates data and settings, but not Windows programs themselves.
Well, there was one other thing missing. After upgrading to the release candidate, all of the standard windows showed up without the usual close, expand, and minimize boxes. The boxes were actually there, but not visible.
The glitch affected windows created by the Windows Explorer shell and Office, but not programs with their own menu design, such as Yahoo Messenger or iTunes.
A few restarts did not fix the bug, and I left the office with the close box showing up intermittently.
On Wednesday, I went with Windows 7 alone--not by choice, but because I forgot the power cord for my XP laptop, which I had also brought with me. I had it as a backup, but was able to make it through the day using only the Windows 7 box to take notes at a health care conference and then for live coverage of Steve Ballmer's speech at Stanford.
As I went to leave the speech, I shut down Windows 7, as opposed to putting it to sleep. Having seen the shield next to the shut down logo, I should have known that I was due for a delay. As it was shutting down, Windows 7 installed a whopping 28 updates. That slowed my commute home by a good 15 minutes, but one of those updates was probably the driver that fixed the window issue. The close box has been showing up ever since.
And really, that has been my only complaint. So far, the release candidate is an even happier version of the operating system I had already grown to appreciate in beta form. It does all the important stuff--it let me write this blog, use Twitter, and play games on Facebook.
Windows 7 isn't a major change from Vista. It's just better in all the ways that really matter day in and day out.
There are two things I like about 7 in particular. First, it is much faster to start up, go to sleep, and shut down. The second is the improved taskbar, which makes it very easy to manage through lots and lots of open windows and programs.
But for me, who uses a computer for a good half of the day, that's a lot.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc976820.aspx (documentation is for server, but the client one is the same)
http://windowsitpro.com/article/articleid/13784/what-do-i-create-a-mount-point-from-the-command-line.html
Better to keep it in My Computer, where it belongs
We have a guy at work who stores everything on his desktop. He can only get two more files on there before he fills it.
We keep telling him that once he fills the screen, his computer will be full and he'll have to get a new one, so he's been very diligent about deleting old files so he doesn't completely fill up the screen. (This works mainly because he's afraid of new technology and will use a 15 year old windows NT box when we've got a selection of kickass XP machines and Mac Pros at his disposal.)
[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]
That was totally uncool. Hope you get banned. Ina has been providing exceptional coverage for as long as I've been reading CNET.
If you tried Windows 7, you would call it much, much more than Vista SP3.
Many people have said that Win7 is nothing more than Vista SP3. Those people need to give it a test drive, and see for themselves - It has a completely different taskbar, way better driver support, much, moch more. Way faster, too. Better than Vista will ever be.
In case you didn't already know, you can change the setting to stop removable media from appearing on the desktop. Simply go to finders preferences under the Finder Menu [?,]. This is the window: http://tinyurl.com/pbbv7r
Exactly! this release is nothing more than SP3 for Vista, it's been re-branded W7 to assuage WinBot customers after the original Vista fiasco. But hey, M$ had to take into consideration the hack fraternity and security software mafia, had they changed the code, re-written a new OS from ground up, they'd have to re-write their malware too. Even virus writers & professional hackers have feelings too.
I think that a new OS version doesn't need to be totally different from the previous version. Just look how people reacted when MS changed the UI for Vista - people started to complain that they don't know how to get around the OS.
As I said, a new OS doesn't need to be totally different than the previoujs version. It was possible to notice drastic changes in the move from Win 3.1 to Win 95, and to XP. But there were a lot of version in between, which weren't radical changes.
I think this goes to every OS, like in the case of OS X snow Leopard which is not going to be a drastic change than Leopard. The same with Ubuntu, etc.
I disagree. I think that there are a lot of changes in Win 7 when you compare it to Vista, which justifies the new version name.
Really what are the changes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
A nice long list for you.
And some here as well:
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/windows-graphics-ram-desktop-memory,news-30991.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/windows-solid-state-drives-ssd,news-31051.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/windows-graphics-desktop-multicore-cpu,news-30985.html
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Windows-7-Security-OS,news-30948.html
I have noticed several little improvements over Vista, from little things like improvements in Control Panel, things in Search (which is also a bit faster), some smarter things in Explorer, and of course I love the new taskbar.
In fact, I'm one of those 'power users' who always has my XP taskbar taking up two rows at the bottom of the screen, and my Quicklaunch section takes up probably half of that on both rows; it seems like the Win7 new taskbar like DIRECTLY addresses that issue for me. You can still have 2 rows of taskbar if you want, you can even change the icons to the smaller Quicklaunch size, but the really cool thing is that when you have a lot of windows open, it doesn't actually take up more space on the taskbar! I can have 2 Firefox windows, 2 Chrome windows, some IM client and a couple of Explorer windows open, and still have the same number of icons in the Taskbar, since the windows merge with those icons. I can keep all my frequently-used programs pinned there, and they start with a single click, just like Quicklaunch. And, I really, really love the live preview, that feature alone enraptures me.
I'm actually super glad that some compatibility is kept; that was far and away my favorite XP feature over Win98, was that all of a sudden even older programs worked (even DOS stuff) that I couldn't run with 98. I haven't messed with the new XP emulation yet, but if it works even a little bit it'll remove one major problem I have with Win7 and give me one less reason to dual boot with XP (though I'm quite sure I'd like to dual/tri-boot Ubuntu with KDE4 and OSx86 if I can get away with it).
Also know that I am in no way at all a MS supporter, just a power user who loves betas and new toys. For what it's worth, I'm super happy with Win7 so far, seems to be several steps better than Vista.
I mean, when I got a laptop with Vista, after a month and a half I downgraded to XP. When we get a laptop with Win7, I'll leave it on there, but I'll make sure I get a machine with at least 2GB of RAM.
The only two issues that remain for me are:
a) Don't try to fool ALL applications into using the new Documents and Settings paths. On any Win7 system, there are dozens of symlinks at legacy locations that point to the new locations. Not just, that, but the symlinks are often recursive. So, if you try to manage your files yourself, instead of dumping them in My Documents, you're in for a lot of trouble. Just try to backup your Windows files and you'll see. It would be better to catch access to legacy locations at the API level and not bother the user with it. Besides, with the current directory layout, developers have no incentive to use the correct paths.
b) The Explorer is unreliable, unstable and generally slow:
Explorer has improved in lots of respects, specifically its conflict management is lightyears ahead of what WinXP offers.But there are some fundamental flaws that often make it annoying to work with: It's not entirely aware of how symlinks and junctions work and often hangs as a result, it slows down to a crawl when dealing with files that require admin privileges (admin operations are spawned in a seperated sub process) and it's thumbnail system is so buggy and slow that it constantly gets in the way (if a video decoder doesn't work properly, it will bring down the whole explorer... and the thumbnails are re-created constantly, for example during copy operations, which results in a tremendous slowdown)
Its not even fully out of beta yet you can't base if something is bug riddled based on the beta...
My biggest problem is with the installation. I have a system with 3 SATA drives and Windows 7 refuses to install on any drive other than HD0, which happens to be my BSD drive. I have had to unplug the data cable from HD0, move the data cable from HD1 to the HD0 connector and then install. After installing I can move the data cable back to HD1 and plug the real HD0 data cable back where it goes.
Another problem is network drive detection. Sometimes my NAS and network printer will appear under the network. Other times neither appear under the network. The printer still works and I can access the NAS by using the map network drive option. These both occurred in the beta as well.
Other than that Windows 7 has been very well behaved for me. What we have to remember, though is that this is the Ultimate version. As such I will not be buying Windows when 7 is released. No OS for a home computer is worth the approximately $400 that will most likely be the price for the full version. This is one place where I think Apple understands pricing and versioning far better than MS does.
I think Windows 7 will be a much better seller than Vista and probably deservedly so. There are many improvements. I also agree with those who say MS should have some kind of special upgrading price to a full install version of 7 for those who bought the full install version Vista. They did not get their moneys worth. Would I use 7 if I had to? Yes. Would I use if if I had another option? No, because it really does not offer me anything that I have not already been using for some time now.
Memo to Ballmer: Check out Time Machine in OS X. Your typical user needs it...
Windows has a feature called "Volume Shadow Copy" that's does the same thing. (In Vista, it's called "Previous Versions".)
Bill
By comparison, when I got our laptop a year ago that came with Vista pre-installed, iTunes wouldn't work at all. Every launch would bluescreen-crash Vista. They released an update to my video card drivers after about a month of this, which let me launch and use iTunes, until I tried to play a video; even with the newest versions of Quicktime, iTunes, Windows and all drivers, playing a video would be very halting and would eventually crash Windows to bluescreen every time. But ever since the first time I installed Win7 on the desktop, which has an integrated Intel GMA950 video card, iTunes has worked pretty flawlessly, even syncing with iPods and my iPhone, so that's a major improvement! (And again, this is comparing the Win7 BETA to the RELEASED Vista pre-SP1.)
@monkey Shh, the adults are talking.
Yeah, I'd never pay for it, but I never pay for OS upgrades anyway. If I end up with Win7 it'll be because we bought a new machine with it pre-installed, or because I got it dirt cheap through my school (I paid like $15 for XP Pro SP2 full version).
In Vista/Win7, a totally seperate window is created; you can minimize it, expand it to see details like speed and estimated time (neat), and even better, you can close all the other Explorer windows. This is great, now I can close the extra Explorer stuff, minimize the copy window and it'll quietly do its thing, and close itself when it's done, exactly as it should be.
"As such I will not be buying Windows when 7 is released. No OS for a home computer is worth the approximately $400 that will most likely be the price for the full version. This is one place where I think Apple understands pricing and versioning far better than MS does."
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit is currently 179.99 on Newegg.com
Not really sure I agree with your prediction that Windows 7 Ultimate will cost $400. Sure seems like you are over exaggerating quite a bit, no?
These (mostly) Apple fan boys act as if microsoft is the only greedy, money grubbing corporation today.
As if Apple are constantly rolling out free iphones, ipods and macs costing hundreds and hundreds of dollars/euros.
Yet it isn't cool to hate Apple, so no one does.
As for Windows 7, i've been using it for a week or so during which I worked alot on MS SQL Server databases and the usual office 07, internet etc.
The new Internet explorer seems faster than before, at least for me. I know it can vary from one machine to another.
As for the overall experience, its excellent.
The new toolbar and other visual functionality are quite usefull, but the best of all is the peace of mind. Knowing rather than hoping that nothing crashes.
I've been using Vista for about a year now as a primary machine, i've been patient. I've never encountered anything major after SP1 but the explorer process tended to crash, not very often but often enough to be annoying. And the worst thing about vista is the shutdown and boot up times. Holy cow those took ages, I rarely used to turn it off, hibernate mostly.
It's lame. It's right down there with "crApple" or calling people fanboys so you don't have to think up a real argument.
Linux server price, $0 plus hardware, unless you just really need paid support. Windows Server price? Let's see:
Windows Server 2003: $600
Extra CALs (user licenses) over 5, about $100 apiece
Exchange Server 2007: $900 (on the LOW END)
Extra CALs just for Exchange (need one per EMAIL ADDRESS): $100 apiece
Telnet connector (so Exchange 2007 can actually function with Winmo phones): $300
Assuming only 5 users, that's already $1800, and we haven't bought the hardware yet! It's fragging rediculous. Honestly, if even 50% of the PCs that Best Buy/Dell/HP sold had Linux preinstalled over Windows, every corporate environment would just use Linux, and MS would have to dramatically lower their pricing to even compete (as well as port Office to some more architectures).
Everything they do seems to be aimed at setting up & supporting a software monopoly whenever possible. It may be smart business, but it's bad for everyone else.
The reason for M$ is obvious, the problem is that it amounts to schoolyard namecalling.
Whether it's M$ or crApple or reTHUGlican or LIEberal or just plain old "Fanboy", it's the reason why you can't have an intelligent conversation on the internet. It's easier for some people to resort to simplistic name-calling rather than address an actual, real live argument.
This is how these conversations usually go.
Me: I am satisfied with my Macbook Pro, and here's two good reasons why....
Other guy: You're just a FANBOY!!!11!!
Me: Dude, it's just a computer. I wouldn't choose windows for what I have to do, but I think that everyone should choose the OS that best suits their needs... though they should at least give the alternates one a fair look
Other guy: FANBOY! FANBOY!
1) On new laptops. Maybe. But the downturn has led people to Netbook: a place where we will see one of the worst competition of all, Microsoft against itself, with XP definitely wining or (if Microsoft prohibits this possibility) 7 loosing horribly against mini linuxes (e.g. Splashtop and Ubuntu) not for features but for price.
2) On Business. Could, with the added XP Mode, but in the end people will be running XP apps in a 7 carcass (no pun intended).
3) On new Touch enabled PC. Surely. But this new segment will amount to less than 1% of the crowd.
4) On game machines. Same as above.
5) On stylish laptops like Dell Adamo and Voodoo Envy. Same as above.
6) On Vista machines. Surely. But be prepared to hear the public outcry for a cheap (possibly $49 or $69) upgrade for the Vista disenfranchised. Microsoft pushed Vista down our throat, I think nobody's gonna want to spend $100 bucks or more to upgrade from an OS they didn't wanted, but was "strong armed" to them.
So think again. Don't let Microsoft fool you. Vista could be an even bigger failure than Vista, not 'cause of its features and problems, but more as a backlash of Vista user coercion and it consequences in the long run.
what does that leave, lol.
The 1% you give to touch PC's will start gowing under 7. This is one place where 7 and Windows will do well. If Apple isn't doing this with Snow Leapard they could lose some of the ground they have gained.
2) some businesses are skipping Vista for 7 so I think MS will get sales
3) too bad so few people figured out the usefulness of touchscreens
4) PC gaming is actually a fairly large industry. Most gamers, even if they don't have specialized gaming rigs will upgrade for DX11
5) agree that extreme form over function laptops are niche
6) agree, everyone with Vista will prolly upgrade to 7. I disagree that most people will demand ultra low prices
7 is a success for MS, MS will prolly use the Vista backlash to draw people to 7 [though I don't quite trust MS marketing]
Both Apple and Microsoft have their place. Apple products perform better out of the box, Microsoft products are easier to customize. I wouldn't give a Microsoft OS to my mother (well, I did: but that resulted in a lot of work for me and so I bought her a Mac instead, which resulted in about 90% less work for me), but then again, I can't see myself using a Mac, since as soon as you want to go beyond the default setup, you're pretty much stuck.
But I do agree that out of the box the Mac is easy enough to use, even for my grandmother (had she been alive).
When it comes to Windows 7 (the subject in question here) I feel disappointed as I had expected more in the way of user friendlyness but only found Windows Vista in a fancy dress.
Mac is still in the lead when it comes to user friendlyness (if you're not born and bred with Windows...)
Obviously you have never used a UNIX based OS much. I can customize my Mac every bit as much as I could the Windows based machines I ran for many years. Windows is actually much harder to get under the hood because MS does everything it can to discourage using DOS.
As for Windows 7, I do like it much more than I do Vista, but there is just not anything in it that would convince me to switch back. It doesn't do anything I haven't already been doing with the alternatives. If you are getting a new computer soon then wait for 7. If you are happy with your present XP/Vista machine then wait until you need a new computer.
I heard somewhere the 0-100 mph comparison and liked it. Mac 0-60. Windows 60-100, Linux 100 and beyond. All other combinations are possible but be prepared for the steep learning curve (including doing MacOS X as a serious SAP/Oracle server, been there, done that :-( ).
Are you from Pittsburgh?
But, naturally, if Microsoft had included these minor improvements in a Service Pack then people wouldn't pay prime price for a new version...
Again, I'm just saying: different operating systems for different people and different uses: what's wrong with that?
I had to buy a copy of XP to get out of that quagmire. That should have been a free upgrade but MS never could see the value of doing the right thing for its customers. I would not put Vista in the same class as ME, but I do think MS should actually do the right thing this time and give people a break on the upgrade pricing.
Use Google Bookmarks and the Google Toolbar -- you love having your bookmarks "just appear" on any computer, anytime, with no syncing required.
The end of XP is in sight. Maybe in Futureland or in Neverland. All other (real) places, is here to stay.
I heard the same argument about the mainframe and still have done two or three developments for mayor banks still using them.
BTW: My company still uses ActiveServerPages. Are they gonna go when 7 arrives (aka Windows Server 2008 R2)... nah... so why should COM+ and VB6 should.
Corporate IT people have really wanted Vista for awhile, due to its deploy and admin tools, but there have been too many issues supporting legacy apps. Since Win7 won't have any real compatibility changes over Vista, productivity apps will be less of a problem here. And XP Mode (or the enterprise equivalent in MDOP) means being able to run any legacy apps easily.
The biggest hurdle to corporate adoption will likely be hardware, but as companies purchase new machines over the next year or so, this will dimish as an obstacle.
I'm using Windows 7 as a full time operating system. One problem is using Virtual PC there is a conflict with Windows XP Mode and I can't use my virtual machines, but VMWare works flawlessly.
I've seen my fair share of vista installs behave the same !
Do a google search for Vista Slow Shutdown and you'll get thousands of results !
"you have some serious problems with your setup." - I suspect Vista may be the serious problem with setup.. Since Windows 7 shuts down just fine on the same system, because I'm dual booting.
For comparison I tried Ubuntu on a USB stick. They still need to work it out. Memory usage was 700MB after boot. Flash movies had skipping problems in full screen, and installing flash was very confusing too. Also, dual monitors had problems: I configured an external monitor as primary, and when I disconnected it, I was left with my netbook monitor without any menues to switch it back to single monitor. In Win 7, dual monitor configuration switch back and forth on cable connection/disconnection, and will remember different configurations with different monitors.For instance I have at home an external monitor that I configured primary and to the left of the netbook's. At office, I have another monitor, which I configure secondary and to the right. Win 7 remembers these settings: all I have to do is connect the cable. I'm very pleased with Win7 on my netbook, is the best OS experience I've had so far.
Windows 7 kicks butt and I suspect that many people will gravitate back to Windows who had recently swtiched to Macs once they get a chance to play on a Win 7 box. I know running RC1 certainly killed any thoughts I had about picking up a Mac!
and then added a hard drive to my other system and installed Windows 7
- by woodslawn May 11, 2009 7:56 AM PDT
- Windows 7 sp3 for Vista.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Sentax May 11, 2009 8:11 AM PDT
- I'm really sick of these comments.
- Like this
-
- by jinx101a May 11, 2009 8:37 AM PDT
- What a tired, baseless argument. If you don't like it, don't use it. In the mean time, I'll await my iPod OS "service pack" that I have to pay $10 for.
- Like this
-
- by Joey2250 May 11, 2009 10:50 AM PDT
- Agreed Win7= Vista SP
- Like this
-
- by pithenumber May 11, 2009 1:05 PM PDT
- @Joey
- Like this
-
- by DrtyDogg May 11, 2009 1:14 PM PDT
- Joey, so XP was just a SP of 2000?
- Like this
-
- by ccwsoftware May 11, 2009 7:06 PM PDT
- To the Windows version counter folk: too many people dribble out their flawed version numbering logic attacks, apparently without having paid much attention previously. Microsoft has told us, and this site has reported on it, that they are intentionally deviating from their legacy OS versioning system for Win7, in the specific interest of application compatibility. Many, MANY programs check the version of the installed OS before allowing installation, launch, or execution of certain tasks that they know would be a problem on incompatible versions. By avoiding the big bump to 7.x, Microsoft is doing even the trolls a huge favor. Get with it.
- Like this
-
- by Vegaman_Dan May 11, 2009 9:17 PM PDT
- Call it whatever you want- it's only a name. The product speaks for itself and that's what people are buying, not a name.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 4 pages (179 Comments)You can call every iteration of OSX since 2001 a Service Pack too, and guess what, Apple charged for it. When OSX came out the performance wasn't really there either, just like Vista. Get over it people.
Logic (Version #s)
WinXP = Win 5.x
Vista = Win 6.0
Win7 = Win 6.1
By the definition of version numbers, Windows 7 is only a REVISION of Vista, not a new version.
the OSX argument is stupid as a retort, because YES they are "service packs" OSX means OS 10.x and everyone has been of the format 10.x so DUH all you are doing is stating the obvious. Apple as never tried to cover up the fact that it is releasing 10.6 next. Windows on the other hand releases a version 6.1 and calls it 7 to fool you.
10.5=>10.6 is a new OS
10.5.0=>10.5.1 is the Apple equivalent of an SP
So if MS is tricking you into thinking that the next OS is new, so is Apple
If you really want, call it Orange, then we can really compare Apples and Oranges to maek the fanboys happy.