[PCWorld]

Post your comments for Windows 7 RC Will Annoy You into Upgrading here

[waldojim]

who said we deserve a free ride at all? MS does not HAVE to give us a free run.
On top of that why are we complaining about 10 months of a free run? sounds to me like PCworld has just gone on a Microsoft bashin' of late, not that I care for Windows... but still guys, aren't you a bit one sided here?

[daniel142005]

Yeah really, be glad they made it publicly available at all... I mean if you owned a software company and decided to release a beta copy of your application would you want it to last that long after the official release? I'm in no way a Microsoft fanboy, but I get sick of seeing all the bashing of Windows 7 when it is not deserved. Windows Vista wasn't even that bad after it was out for a few months, but the media bashed it into oblivion and that stuck with people.

[yankeeDDL]

There's a typo in the title: should say "Windows 7 will annoy you".
:)
Sorry ... could not refrain myself.
I have two (more serious) comments:
a) how long do you think it will take before some crack appears that removes those nagging messages?
b) is it me, or this whole discussion is ... weird? We're talking about a non-free OS which the manufacturer is going to give out for free, but for a limited time and with nagging messages (or shutdown).
Isn't this the definition of shareware?
Try it: if you like it, you buy it ... and until you buy it, we'll nag you.

[kitsune17717]

although I agree with previous posts about how Microsoft is really generous in giving us a free preview of their OS, I still really don't like how they do this shutdown thing. In my opinion, it is completely unnecessary and annoying.

[waldojim]

Remember guys, this is 10Months before this problem. For 10months you get an OS that MS will maintain, FOR FREE.

Now all we have to do is convince them to give this upgrade to Vista users entirely for free :^0

[rgreen4]

Oh, you expect them to let you use it forever for free?

[Jiminator]

Just more Microsoft bashing.......nowhere in the article does it mention the fact that you can always revert back to your previous OS if you choose not to purchase 7 after the RC expires. But then, that would take away the fun they obviously have needlessly ripping on Microsoft, wouldn't it?

[yankeeDDL]

@Jiminator,

so you say that if I have a PC with Windows XP, I can upgrade to Windows7, work on it for 12 month or so, add, remove applications, then after 12 months I revert back to Windows XP and my PC will work as it's supposed to? I don't think even Microsoft will have the guts to make such statement.

[smax013]

yankeeDDL said:

@Jiminator,


so you say that if I have a PC with Windows XP, I can upgrade to Windows7, work on it for 12 month or so, add, remove applications, then after 12 months I revert back to Windows XP and my PC will work as it's supposed to? I don't think even Microsoft will have the guts to make such statement.

Yes...unless you lost your XP install/restore disks. It is not like installing Win 7 RC on your computer completely renders it unable to EVER run XP (or Vista) again. If you want to run XP again, just wipe the disk, stick in the XP install/restore disk, and reinstall XP (and then reinstall your apps and copy over your files from the backup...you DO have a backup right?).

[yankeeDDL]

@smax013

that was my point. Jiminator said that the article was bashing against MS because it does not mention that you have the choice of going back to XP.
It seems so obvious to me that I don't see the point of mentioning it, or, actually, I think it will almost be offensive to make such statement.

Basically, MS is giving you the chance to test W7, much like you would do with Shareware. If you like it, you'll have to buy it. It's a simple and reasonable practice. The question is, does it make sense, for a user, to do that with an OS? Perhaps, if you want to test the HW compatibility. But in general, that doesn't take 10 months, does it? So there's some not-so-subtle hint of desperation in this gesture (at least it does not seem subtle to me) where they're basically giving you the OS for free for a limited time.

Now, realistically, do you expect that there will be some jailbreak tools for W7 by the time the time expires? Which means, MS is once more relying on pirats to re-spread their OS for free so that they can regain the market share that they lost with Vista. Speculation? Perhaps. Time will tell.

I still wonder:
a) why do people go through all this trouble to use an OS which, substantially, does not give you any new functionality than Windows XP but it requires more hardware (or runs slower on the same hardware)
b) why do people advocate the use of private, non-free software. I can (barely) understand the will to inflict pain to themselves, but preaching so that others do the same, seems just wrong. I have installed W7 RC myself. I use XP for work and while I managed to stay clear of XP, by the time my laptop will be upgraded I'll probably be hit with W7, so I thought I'd take a look. Apart from 12.5GB of data after installation the first boot was actually quite speedy: just over 1 minute. 5 minutes in the game I get a pop up: "Hey, you're running windows without antivirus! Are you insane?" (I'm paraphrasing ... but thejist was that). True: I hadn't installed an antivirus. Nor a firewall, nor a backup software, nor an anti ad-ware. And so I went off, downloaded free versions (AVG, ZoneAlarm ...) and finally the warnings went off. Then I installed MS Office. Reboot. And the boot time went well beyond 3 minutes. There you have it: the good old Windows' habit. Intall software, and gets sluggish. It's been like this for 15 years and it ain't changing.

Now you may not like Linux, but Ubuntu 9.04 booted the 1st time in exactly the same time as W7. It does not need antivirus or a firewall, or an anti ad-ware. It has a ton of free software pre-installed or just one click away. And guess what, after I installedgames, productivity software, instant messaging and what not, the boot time had not changed. Not one little bit. And I know that it never will. Ever. It's beautiful. Makies sense. But most important, it's a proof that it CAN be done. Then why doesn't MS do it? I would live to have Windows that boots as fast as Linux, that needs as few resources as Linux. But it doesn't.

[waldojim]

any OS does need, and indeed ubuntu includes, and firewall. /rant

As to Windows needing 3 minutes to boot... what kind of hardware is that? I have the exact same software on my lapop (HP DV-5 1003nr - AMX Turion X2 2.0Ghz 3GB ram) and it takes no more than a minute to boot. I will get a more accurate count tonight, but it is certainly not 3. I would have restored Vista already if it was that slow.

As of this writing, I have the ususaly defense measures (AVG, ZoneAlarm, etc) in place, WoW installed, Steam running, ATI Crap, Powerlink dvd 9 (for the blu-ray) and FF, as of yet, the machine is humming right along the way an OS is supposed to. In the same breath, it is dual booting, and Linux (Mint) is running just as well. SO as far as I am concerned, they both do the job, and if Windows 7 is realeased as an inexpensive upgrade for Vista users, they can count on my buying a copy.

[yankeeDDL]

It's the same exact HW as I use Ubuntu on: a virtual machine (only Ubuntu runs OK with 384MB, for W7 I'm at 768MB)
The actual HW is a laptop with a Core 2 Duo, T7600 @2.33GHz with 2GB of RAM).
So no, not the perfect system, but 100% 1:1 comparable between Ubuntu and Windows 7.
And the point was not the 3mins, but the 3X increase going from a "clean" install to an 'operating' scenario (Ubuntu 9.04 boots in 1 minute 10 sec on my 8 years old Pentium 3 laptop, so I'm sure it will take a whole lot less on my current HW). The biggest jump by far was due to the installation of MS Office. There's nothing to it: the more you install on Windows, the slower it gets to boot. And I normally use Skype and other IM services in backgound, Google desktop and a few other TSRs. Same goes on Ubuntu of course. Heck, my XP on this laptop does take almost 5 minutes. It's a 2 years old installation: I'm sure a fresh install would get the laptop to boot a hell of a lot faster ...

I said this before: if Windows workd for you, or anybody else, knock yourself out. It's a free world. That won't change thefact that the vast majority of PC users will be able to do absolutely anything they need on a free OS. It won't change the fact thatan anti-virus and an anti-ad-ware on Windows will use resources and that you don't need them on Linux. You dual-boot on Linux so I don't need to tell youthat Linux Mint has a huge list of software available through its add/remove panel.
And it won;t change the fact that with MS products you will sign off an hefty EULA. Most people don;t read it. I didn't read it. Then I found out (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/02/oh-the-humanity-windows-7s-draconian-drm.ars) that Windows 7, has some "features" that can have others snooping in your PC to make sure you don't have illegal stuff (from the article: "...the features are there just in case Hollywood decides to make use of them.").
Now I don't know what you think, nor I expect everybody to think the way I do, but my PC and my laptop, are mine. And there is no way I am going to agree to have a backdoor for Microsoft, Hollywood or anyone else to see what I have on it.

As I said, I'll probably have W7 on my next work-laptop. And I'll use it like I used every other Windows release since 3.1. But it's important to know what it means to use a system with Windows 7. This to me is very important, and it's funny that nobody seems to talk about this. It's like buying a car with a webcam which is normally off ... but can be used to see who you're driving with. Or a GPS-transmitter that is off but can be used to track your movement. Oh, and these things will go off without teling you. Would you buy it? Would you advise people to buy it?And if you were 'forced' to use it, would it bother you to know that somebody, this very moment is going through your files to see if any constitute a copirigth infringment?

[waldojim]

you did not read that article did you?

I will not quote the article, as it is a bit much for the forum envrionment. But I will say, in the many years I have used vmware, I have determined one thing is true. It will never give you a true representation of how that os wil behave.

Your system has 2BG of ram - 7 using 768mb. how much ram is being used by the host? how much by VMware, and other apps? How much by your video card? If your machine fits the typical laptop description, I would figure the video card at 128MB, the host, let us assume Vista as it is not that old, would weigh in at 700MB give or take, 100MB for the emulator itself... and I can see RAM being an issue VERY quickly.

I am just saying, that you need to give it a fair testing envrionment before bashing. I am testing in the most ideal situation I can give it. I am waiting a little longer to see how it acts before trying it on my gamming beast... Now that will be a test of performance. That machine I tried Vista on, and went back to XP X64 just because of the performance loss of vista.

[yankeeDDL]

Of course I did.
And I also did read a separate article about installing W7 in Virtualbox. The author also used 768MB or ram.
W7 requirements are 512MB, so, albeit not ideal, 768 should be "enough".

Fact is, I wante dto compare apples to apples, and this was a fair comparison. I did not run anything else on the laptop so 768MB were definitely available for W7 to use and so were the other resources. Like for Ubuntu.

I know I can run Ubuntu on my old laptop, and this test confirmed it (now I have also installed it and I know it's the case). And I also know that:
a) W7 boot performance decreases as I install more programs. By how much, it depends on your HW, but it unequivocally does.
b) W7 does not do what other OS prove possible. Now you may or may not like Linux, but fact remains, Windows 7 has many of the issues of its predecessors in terms of performance and to run "smooth" needs some serious horsepower. This may be OK to some. For me is not.At least not yet.

[Northlite]

Quote

As I said, I'll probably have W7 on my next work-laptop. And I'll use
it like I used every other Windows release since 3.1. But it's
important to know what it means to use a system with Windows 7. This to
me is very important, and it's funny that nobody seems to talk about
this. It's like buying a car with a webcam which is normally off ...
but can be used to see who you're driving with. Or a GPS-transmitter
that is off but can be used to track your movement. Oh, and these
things will go off without teling you. Would you buy it? Would you
advise people to buy it? And if you were 'forced' to use it, would it
bother you to know that somebody, this very moment is going through
your files to see if any constitute a copirigth infringment?

I have no problem talking about my computer privacy or the privacy my operating system does or does not have.


If you are paranoid about eaves dropping you may not want to connect your computer to anything that takes you online (wired, dialup or wireless) - that alone can make your life an open book along with all the programs you run on your computer at any given moment. Using the car scenario is fine accept apparently you don't know about the black box installed in cars? Don't even get me started on how my cellphone can pin point me.


I am one of the lucky few evidently, as I am not forced to use a particular operating system. It is by my choice to do the things on my computers that I want to. I am also lucky enough to have all the software on my computer legal, either open source, shareware or paid for as they should be so as far as checking to see if I am bring it on and it is also important to know that MS software isn't the only software I have on my computer that phones home either.

[WinTard]

I'm only annoyed by these kinds of articles...

[yankeeDDL]

@Northlite,

I'm not paranoid about eavesdropping. I have nothing to hide. As I said,I use Windows on my work computer. I have used it for a long time and will keep using it.
It bothers me, and I find it highly unhetical, that Microsoft asks the users to sign off an EULA where, basically, th eusers acknowledge that Microsoft and a 3rd party could access your data without your explicit consent.

This is, in my opinion, ahuge violation of privacy and individual rights. I don't need to be paranoid: privately, I use Linux and I know that nobody will access my PC wihout my explicit consen. On my work computer, it's a headache of our IT organization to make sure that the company data stays where it needs to be.

The point I was making was not related to genuine software, but to private data. If MS needs to scan your PC to check for pirated music/video, how do you know that they won't have access to the videos of your kids playing in the garden? Or changing the diaper of a little one? Or their first words? Why does Microsoft, or anybody for what matter, have the rights to snoop in my drive?

Are there other software that "phone home"?Well, the article is about Windows, so this is not very relevant. Nevertheless, the same would apply in other situations too.

[WinTard]

Unless you read each and every line of source code, and also recompile your own (everything) from open-source, you don't have an idea of who can access what in Linux either. Nobody to be held responsible? Heck, the easier way to infect open-source would be to obfuscate 'something' into gcc. Thus, anything recompiled from source, could be 'infected'...
Fallacious idea?
> Solutions: Trojaned Compilers = Backdoored Binaries
-----
Excerpt from: www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/tech/0411/msg02000.html

To: tech@openbsd.org
Subject: Solutions: Trojaned Compilers = Backdoored Binaries
From: Zen Lunatic <lunaticster@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:07:21 -0500
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=DAoyUTJff6ZzmGC17eCD7GN6spYzK4EOYyCiDwMD0WNVKH6vNobltnzwNjkDIg9FQ1mmcxjFGd3+MgpzpKgH3S74oUOIqb5sBISHR0NitHXJfgbUOoxqKd4G/kTramONekBoZonWnKrJBgwIm/eF0yZrotvLhDg0RFF7BFnJS3k=-----
The following is a transcript of a thread I started on the gentoo linux user forums. I figured this list might care to read the thread. You can view the thread at
[http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=53194&highlight=gcc] phpbb. I'll attempt to provide a transcript.(The above as edited by smax013 lost the meaning of my post)Food for thought heh? ET Phone Home in all of Open-Source?
[/quote]
Message was edited by: smax013
Message was edited by: WinTard
@smax13 please DO NOT EDIT my posts like what you just did. You lose the meaning and purpose. I abide by the regulations, but am still free to post what I feel is right. That is overzealous moderating in my opinion. Again DO NOT EDIT my posts, please.
-----
Below is the information I intended to convey, it is not under copyright as an article, but just another public discussion thread into another public Linux forums. Should the author himself complain about any copyright violations, then you may edit. And please post that original objection publicly as well...
> Excerpt from: [http://www.monkey.org/openbsd/archive/tech/0411/msg02000.html]
The following is a transcript of a thread I started on the gentoo
linux user forums. I figured this list might care to read the thread.
You can view the thread at
[http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=53194&highlight=gcc] phpbb.
I'll attempt to provide a transcript.
[/quote]
Now I won't bother to reformat everything, with hyperlinks... What a waste of time for me and for you smax013. Easy does it.
Message was edited by: rgreen4 - Under the community standards which you agreed to when registering, you are not to quote an item from another source in it's entirety, but are supposed to post a "brief" sample of a few words and then provide a link. You have been warned on this in the past. You are also forbidden to repost material that has been edited by a moderator.
Message was edited by: bcappel Moderators are here to enforce the Community Standards and are authorized to edit any post they feel violates them. If you have questions or an issue with any actions please feel free to PM me directly. Do not repost content removed by a moderator. Thank you, Bill

[Evildave]

The thing is, since that exploit was demonstrated/discovered, they took extra precautions, such as recursively scanning the version control repositories for changes not made through version control. There's a small core of trusted people who ultimately 'OK' what gets checked into the main branch, and lots of people to second guess all of that. While the kernel source code does continue to grow, it doesn't grow by leaps and bounds. Everyone with a stake in it has eyes on the code coming in.

While not incorruptible (i.e. Microsoft could (and WOULD) bribe people to sabotage projects), the system makes this sort of attack unlikely to be successful, and if successful, it won't last for very long. Unlike critical Windows exploits where Micro$oft buries their head in the sand.


As for annoying you into upgrading, Micro$oft will probably dedicate some effort to start patching XP to eat more memory and CPU cycles to make Windoze 7 look 'better'. Security patches are as good a ruse as any to get people to adopt the square wheel 'upgrades'.