|
When my customers start to deploy Vista and Windows 7 so will I. BTW, they are banks, and they have currently no intention to do so, because it would entail upgrading thousands of PCs and retesting all their applications.
|
|
|
|
|
We're using our favorite OS for development (personally, I'm using Win7) and to ensure compatibility with other systems we use VMs.
So, I refuse to see this statement about compatibility thing as a valid argument against using other OSes.
|
|
|
|
|
Like many others, a lot will depend upon the price. It is my feeling that Microsoft has redefined PC to be something like "Proprietary Computer" and they are the controller. Even operating systems designed for home users take away so many options from the user that we can no longer feel that we can do what we want the way we want. Email and internet options are restricting (as a security measure to protect us from hackers) to the point I wish I could cut off both operations and run my computer independent of both. However, I like being able to email friends and surf the internet.
It's too bad someone can't figure a way to include security options without forcing the user to surrender their freedom to use their computer the way they want. I'm not saying that computers in corporate networks shouldn't be restricted; I'm talking about privately-owned computers and home networks. I wish they were considered two entirely different entities and treated as such. I also wish that the software for home computers was priced for individuals who don't have large budgets and yet allowed some of the same capabilities as business or enterprise software (perhaps scaled down and easier to use).
I also would like to see development software and training programs for home users that didn't cost as much as the corporate versions. Again, maybe they could be scaled down as appropriate for home users and also not assuming that the user understood the abstract explanations found in so much of the development documentation (help files?) available.
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest trying out other operating systems. There's good choices out there that cover each point. And that also goes for 3rd party software like development tools.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" -Arthur C. Clarke-
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn A. Russell wrote: Email and internet options are restricting (as a security measure to protect us from hackers) to the point I wish I could cut off both operations and run my computer independent of both.
There have always been third-party alternatives to IE and Windows Mail. Try Opera...its an awesome browser with full internet standars support, an email client, an IRC chat client, bittorrent client, RSS reader, widgets, and much, much more.
Glenn A. Russell wrote: It's too bad someone can't figure a way to include security options without forcing the user to surrender their freedom to use their computer the way they want.
Windows 7 made UAC considerable more configurable. Security options arn't as restrictive, and security prompts are far less intrusive (rather than getting one or more additional security popups, Win7 just presents you with a UAC button that, when clicked, elevates your priviledge and executes the requested action).
Glenn A. Russell wrote: I also would like to see development software and training programs for home users that didn't cost as much as the corporate versions.
Microsoft offers free versions of most of its development tools (Express versions of C#, VB.NET, Web Developer are all available). There are also many sites provided by Microsoft geared towards teaching software development to the uninitiated. Most of Microsofts latest initiatives, such as ASP.NET MVC, Data Services, Asure, etc. all have large libraries of video tutorials that introduce you to these frameworks and take you through the most common and critical tasks in an easy to follow way.
I think Microsofts biggest failing isn't the quality or capabilities of their products. Its educating its users (or potential users) to the vast body of resources and free tools out there to help get them started. Everything you asked for is available in Windows or a Microsoft product.
|
|
|
|
|
For some odd ball reason my XP SP3 bridged network (needed for an older version of virtual box) decides to release its ip address and this triggers the 15 year old bug. I mean after the release of the ipaddress, all of my network drives on the gigabit network (we have a gigabit private + 100MB internet connection to every machine) will not be able to connect. So the bug is that with the disconnected network every time I open a My Computer window it locks up trying to connect to the drives that it could not possibly connect to because the network is down. I end up waiting several minutes while this bad behavior manifests itself. This even happens sometimes if I only choose to browse local drives, open save boxes ... I know for a fact that this bug existed in windows NT in 1994.
BTW, I will shut up if this was fixed in Vista. I do not have any vista/windows7 boxes on the corporate network.
John
|
|
|
|
|
For home use, i have Vista x64 Ultimate and would love to go to a system which has the features of vista (ie the nice n shiny looks, instant searches etc) but with a much lower required spec and heopfully wider driver support. My wireless driver crashed too often, the display driver crashes from time to time, and now IE has developed a stange fault where openeing new tabs or windows from links just crashes the browser.
But then it all comes down to price for the vista users like myself who probably feel a little shafted by the problems of vista.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Simone Serponi wrote: God, it too much asking for an OS that works Fine and does not force you to buy a 3K+ $ /Euros Computer? D'Oh!
From Microsoft? Of course it's too much to ask!
|
|
|
|
|
|
The main reason is at work I really need a 64 bit windows box. We have tried xp64 with some success but also some bad behavior. And then vista and its poor implementation of UAC, I really do not want to go there.
I have been using windows7 on the laptop for a few months and it generally works great except for yesterday when I had to boot my machine to linux so that I could put an executable in C:\Program Files. For some reason windows was doing everything it could (paste was not an option from explorer and the command window gave me access denied) to stop me from doing so. So where else am I to install applications (that do not have installers)? It would have been nicer to see a prompt that told me that installing an application may be dangerous and ask me if I want to continue?
[EDIT]Perhaps the folder I was trying to write to (under C:/Program Files(x86)/) was read only. I did not check, because this is not something you see on XP or lower. [/EDIT]
John
modified on Monday, April 27, 2009 9:55 AM
|
|
|
|
|
Windows Vista and Windows 7 both protect critical system folders, such as Program Files, Program Files (x86), Windows, etc. You need to be an administrator to copy stuff there...and depending on how your copying, you may need to explicitly elevate the program your using to "install" to administrator level first. (i.e. Your trying to copy with the command prompt, which defaults to a normal user level...run it as admin first, and copy will work fine.)
|
|
|
|
|
I was logged in as the administrator which is the only account on the machine. I have heard that I should change this to a normal user for UAC to work better, I just have not done this yet.
John
|
|
|
|
|
On Vista and Win7, being logged in as an Administrator does not mean the actions you take happen as an Administrator. If UAC is turned on, then you have to explicitly choose to elevate your processes to admin level for your activities to be administrative. (If UAC is in silent mode...which some third party programs allow you to enable, then your not prompted by UAC, but neither are you automatically elevated when explicit elevation is required. If UAC is off, then its as if you were logged on as an Administrator in WinXP.) Otherwise, they take place as if you were a normal user. There are other rules around it all, too...doing things in your User folders are automatically elevated (or they don't require elevation...depends). However, modifying system locations such as Program Files do not automatically elevate...and require explicit elevation. Windows 7 has much improved the elevation, and offers buttons that can elevate your privilege momentarily only for the action in progress.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks.
I did not turn UAC off or change any of the default settings. I just wanted to copy a normal win32 application executable to a path under c:\Program Files(x86).
After a google search, I found a way to run explorer elevated. I will try to remember this next time I try to install an application that does not have an installer.
John
|
|
|
|
|
I used to have Win 7 but missed the Hyper-V that much that I changed to Windows Server 2008 R2 beta (Windows 7 Server) as my main Workstation OS.
|
|
|
|
|
Its like bying a new car, the old one will get you there in rather good comfort. There was a time I could fix it myself, but now I have to pay through the nose. The rest of the family will want one too! Oh Oh there goes the retirement budjet. Now we all need new computers to run the new OS not tomention new applications (a licence for each member).
Il have to chuc along in my old JALOPY for a few years and skip a fey model years.
Sorry GM FORD CHRY etc....
|
|
|
|
|
I'd consdier this version if and when can be set to look, feel, and run like XP, then I'll switch over (cautiously, after the cannon fodder find the bugs for me).
and, if that doesn't happen,
I'll just continue waiting for Micrsoft's master plan for Win9: MS Windows UBUNTU .
"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein
"How do you find out if you're unwanted if everyone you try to ask tells you to stop bothering them and just go away?" - Balboos HaGadol
"It's a sad state of affairs, indeed, when you start reading my tag lines for some sort of enlightenment. Sadder still, if that's where you need to find it." - Balboos HaGadol
|
|
|
|
|
They say that windows 7 will magically fix all the problems with Vista. Is it true? Who knows, but for the meantime I'm sticking with XP.
|
|
|
|
|
You can try the betas out for yourself and see. As far as I can tell after using it since the beginning of December 2008, Win7 is definitly an improvement over Vista: prettier, more compatible, lower profile, less intrusive (UAC is configurable and not as nagging), more efficient (laptop battery power lasts much longer), and generally a joy to use.
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Rista wrote: prettier
If you mean it looks like Win3 then I might consider it.
An operating system should be pretty like a Liebherr T 282B[^] is pretty. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is no way I can get my business to fork out extra costs for install, training and redevelopment work involved (even with virtual XP).
Management teams moto 'if it ain't broke...'
|
|
|
|
|
As funny as it sounds, I do use Win7 at work (and love it), but Vista works just fine on my home machine and XP on the netbook, so I don't plan on replacing them.
|
|
|
|
|
I am using XP in my office and Vista on my laptop.Using XP for almost 8 years,still i don't know necessary in-out about XP. i am slow learner.. i think i will pick window 7 when window 8 will be in market!
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
)
... 
