Monday, March 28, 2022

Works Suite 2006 OK

Works Suite 2006 OK

After the problems I had installing Works Suite 2003 - see

http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itproappcompat/thread/3db7673b-312c-4908-b4de-62354845dab5

I installed Works Suite 2006 (incl Word 2002) in XP compatibility mode with no problems.

However I had to download and install msagent.exe so that the Office assistant and some other  Word functions worked

TomTom One XL device

 TomTom One XL device works fine with TomTom Home V 2.5.2.60 (no compatibility options needed)

Ultimate should be for the advanced users!

why not disable the safety options in ultimate and make the other W7 releases a safer environment for users who cant control their actions with web surfing and installs. im sure if a user doesnt know not to open an exe in an email a W7 secure would be a better product for them, while admins and power users could have "ultimate" user controlled.

Reply:
Why not leave the safety options in Ultimate alone and let the advanced users turn them off manually?

Shipping Ultimate with unsecured default settings would probably be a turn off for most power users.

What exactly do you mean by "safety options" Do you mean putting the UAC on its lowest setting by default? Or shall we go crazy and remove windows firewall and disable automatic updates?


------------------------------------
Reply:
JumpinJehosaphat said:

Why not leave the safety options in Ultimate alone and let the advanced users turn them off manually?

Shipping Ultimate with unsecured default settings would probably be a turn off for most power users.

What exactly do you mean by "safety options" Do you mean putting the UAC on its lowest setting by default? Or shall we go crazy and remove windows firewall and disable automatic updates?


i like the second option, except having no UAC and removing the dependancy of the sidebar and such for UAC to be activated. my router is my firewall and i use my own AV. as for updates i always do manual, good thing too seeing as how MS search 4.0 is a mess

------------------------------------

Win-7 Beta Failed to install again - different failure - second install failure - second machine - this thread about my Dell Inspiron 530S install attempt

 

Hello fellow Beta testers:

    The only feedback from Win-7 beta install attempt an hour ago or so; was that my upgrade attempt failed, while working with my copy / build / version of Windows Vista.

    Second Win-7 beta message indicated it was restoring my previous copy of Windows, (in which it did and Vista seems to be back operational OK so far).

    Third Win-7 message to me failure message, suggested not attempting to install Win-7 again; with the two OS's, as they exist; in my current configuration today.

    No details everyone!  Sorry!  Not much feedback from my failed attempt with this specific Win-7 beta upgrade install.  (This install process with Win-7 beta was the least failure reporting back to me, that I am able to recall, from any of my Windows product installs, that I have installed.....to date......(and able to recall on short notice).

    I would have at thought a reporting tool would have surfaced upon restore of Win Vista.  Maybe there are crash logs embedded someplace in my copy of Windows, (or maybe not).  The logs maybe useful for someone who knows more about crash examining....(the "what went wrong" info.).

    I gave Win-7 beta a try, sorry I am unable to provide more good feedback at this time!

     This was my second machine and second attempt, please see my other thread, (if you want to).  Thanks for your time and reading!

                                            

                                   Bye for now,

                                                                               Jim

        ________________________________________                    

Intel Pentium Dual 2G and 2G

1G Ram

32-bit OS

 

Soyo P4-VSA Motherboard

I'm trying to install the beta on a system with a Soyo P4-VSA motherboard that has a 1.6 GHz CPU and 1 GB of RAM.  Just about the minimum requirements.

During the Starting Services part of the installation I get an error message that Setup Cannot Continue and must reboot.  I've acknowledged the error messare and rebooted the system about 7 times, but it still gets stuck at the same place.   Do I need more reboots, or is the install really stuck?

Reply:
It would be really stuck.  Check out this KB article.  It is the same for Windows 7 or very close to it.  This will be able to help determine where the process is failing.
~Alex T.~
~Windows Desktop Experience MVP~

------------------------------------

Sound Card Driver Not Available Yet

M-Audio Fast Track Ultra doesn't work in Windows 7   YET 

Reply:
Did you try to install the Vista Drivers in Vista Compatibility Mode?
~Alex T.~
~Windows Desktop Experience MVP~

------------------------------------

Cant Enable Aero

I tried clicking the windows 7 theme. Doesnt work. Is there other features i have to install for it to work?

Reply:
I figured it out, i had to enable the themes service...

------------------------------------
Reply:

hi there,

 

yes, you need to enable themes service which will provide you windows vista theme.

 


sainath Windows Driver Development

------------------------------------

Boot issues

I just installed Windows 7 onto it's own partition on my new hard drive, and all went well. When I rebooted and went to switch back to XP (Windows 7 install disk was out), the computer just get restarting whenever I normally would select the OS (or have XP boot up before Windows 7 was installed). It kept doing this until I put the Windows 7 disk in, and then I was able to select which OS I'd like to use.

 Anyone know what the problem could be? A friend of mine said something about the MBR...

 

Thanks


Reply:
Sounds like the MBR has been updated and points to a new partition. You might want take a look at it and see. http://www.vistabootpro.org/
David Dracoules

------------------------------------

Linksys Wireles pci card cannot connect

 I installed Windows 7.0 last Monday, Installation went fine but windows did not see my wireless network card. I read on the forums that if I download updates that this would correct the problem which it did. The problem is I can't connect to my network. It recognizes my network name but I cannot find where to go to put my pass phrase in to connect. Right now to get onto the internet with windows 7.0 I have to run a 25' network cable across my living room. Does anybody know how to correct this problem? The network card is a Linksys WMP54G (v4)
  • Changed type Mark L. Ferguson Thursday, February 5, 2009 4:06 AM no fix mentioned.

Reply:
Are you running 32 or 64? I have the same card but havnt tried the wireless yet. I'm on 64. Ill post results later today if i get the chance to try it out.

------------------------------------
Reply:
I am using the 32 bit version. What would be the advantages to using the 64 bit version? My processor and motherboard is compatible with windows 64 bit but I am using the 32 bit version because that is what version of windows XP I am running on another partition. I don't know if all of my hardware is compatible with 64 bit and how available drivers are for the 64 bit windows.

------------------------------------
Reply:
Nevermind I got it fixed, But thanks anyways

------------------------------------

Itunes

its not really causing any problems, itunes still works and my ipod syncs fine but i noticed upon installation that windows defender reports the helper programs (mobileme and bonjour) that apple installs with itunes as suspicious and requests permission to send information back to MS. 

 

I just found this odd

WTF? what customers are they listening to?

I cant share my files, Opening My computer is a 3 step process, and if i want to install a program i need to say i really do want the program 30 times. so that one is overstated a little, but not by much. if they were truly listening they would make XP faster, safer, and easier for grandma surfing the net. desktop items are grandmas friend, not a redesigned start menu with a ton of sub menus and flash. didnt they learn from vistas debacle, no one likes being told how to do things, especially by their home electronics. customers are still migrating back to XP!

Im a real customer Microsoft, hear me roar!

Reply:
I agree 100%.

The OS philiosphy that MS unvelied with Vista and is now charging forward with on W7 is significantly flawed.  It's not this item or that item , it's the overall philosophy of letting the programmers decide rather than letting the user decide.  It's very, very Mac. (and very, very BIG Brother)

I have no doubt that MS thinks it's heading in the right direction but Sergio Zyman also thought he was correct. (google him)

For the people who like to have flashing transparent pictures floating all over the place, that's fine.  For people who want to have a nanny-OS hold their hand through the computing process, that's fine.  But, allow those of us who don't want those things to be able to totally and completely and absolutely TURN them OFF!  This includes, but is not limited, to UI issues, automated task issues and system process issues.  I'm still struggling to figure out if possible and how to turn all this OFF.

The backlash on Vista wasn't simply driver support and buggy code.  It was a rejection of the philosophy. 
I'm coming at this from XP. I have never been a user of Vista.

------------------------------------
Reply:
but the programmer has ALWAYS decided things, with feedback from users.  it's not as if XP was designed by users and the programmers took over on vista.

I'm sure MS spent tons of dough doing usability testing.  maybe you should blame their methodology or testers.

remember the mojave experiment?  it probably works so well b/c they had vista installed properly on decent machines not loaded with a bunch of useless 3rd party apps.  maybe they had actual people standing by to guide the testers.  if that's how they test windows for usability, of course everything is hunky dory.

UAC is bad not b/c it's "hand holding".  It's just the opposite.  Basically they're abdicating security and putting the onus on the user to decide what's safe.  All they're doing is train people to click Yes and Allow b/c that's how you get anything done.  eventually, they're going to say yes to something that'll wreck their system.  It's security theater, a system designed by lawyers, not real programmers.

btw, I think win7 is quite good (except for the cleartype that I hate, and yes I've used the tuner til my eyes bleed).  there are lots of neat stuff compared to XP, even if there's nothing earthshaking.  but hey, do you want your OS to rock your world?

------------------------------------
Reply:
 

This incorrect.  The XP designers decided the following:

 

That files should be moved to the recycle bin when deleted

That the OS should take a snapshot of the registry every so often

That I should allow remote access

That I should report errors to MS

That windows and menus should be fancy with plenty of eye-candy

That the OS should automatically discover SSPD and wireless devices

That the computer should have a dynamically assigned address.

That the computer and shared drives need password access

Etc, etc, etc

 

I have disagreed with all of these decisions and guess what, my decision rules!  As a matter of fact, there is really nothing that I want to change in XP that I can't … including putting a "new folder" option in the context menu.

 

I have now posted about 2 separate W7 decisions (and have cataloged dozens of others that I'm still working on) that the W7 designers have made and it seems I can't change them.

 

I'm sure Vista, and now W7 has adopted a new philisophy "our designers will decide and we really don't have to give the users a different choice, because this is better for them".


I'm coming at this from XP. I have never been a user of Vista.

------------------------------------
Reply:
My Point exactly, i want to decide what goes where and why. i dont need W7 or Vista assigning some code that i now have to remember just to share a folder with my other PC's. it took me forever to find where to change my workgroup name on W7, and just getting around seemed a pain. within 4 hours i had decided to dump W7 for my superior XP.

P.S. UAC is the Devil Bobby Buchae. security is what symantec is for, microsort needs to worry about the holes hackers use and let other developers do their jobs

------------------------------------
Reply:
It's the same with every OS microsoft has made. When XP came out everyone hated it!

Try to think back all those years ago about how much people couldn't stand XP. I remember it clearly, and it makes me laugh everytime I hear someone go on a XP rant saying how great it is. Yes, people want a simple OS, but people also want a lot of other features that XP never had.

Awsome organization tools, quick and easy search features, far better graphics, a lot more mobility features for battery conservation, and the list goes on. Not to mention the technical features such as IIS 6 and the fact that vista fixes most of it's problems by itself. Plus the repair tools are a heck of a lot better than XPs, and the fact that your files are now far more secure.

Yes it's different, yes your grandmother will have difficulties learning it, but if you set grandma, your grandma who has never used a computer in her life, in front of XP or Vista to learn for the first time. Vista will be far easier to learn. Just as I'm sure Windows 7 will be a lot easier to learn.

The hardest part as I tell every customer I've dealt with, is the fact that you have to be willing to unlearn to relearn a far more efficent and productive OS.

When I do web development I start off thinking of what do I want in a site. After I know what I want, I take that and compare it with what others want. Than i figure out why they actually need and how to make it was simple as possible to give them what they want, but still give them what they need. Trust me, end users normally don't know what they need until they are shown it.

I support 7 100% just like I supported Vista.

------------------------------------
Reply:
you are stating that these new products are more efficient and productive, yet the steps involved in trying to complete a task have increased and become more difficult to locate. and i do believe that all the added features people want could be added to an existing OS including cleaner more detailed windows

------------------------------------
Reply:
I haven't been able to make the Windows 7 machine join the Network all other computers are in. There are XP and Ubuntu powered machines there, and configuration was flawless.

I can't even find where the options for joining an old-school network are. I read about all the new, flashy options, yes, and I find them interesting. But I don't want to use them.

It's like the ribbon, the new toolbar for Microsoft software. I'm not asking for it to go away, I know a lo of people like it. But I'd like the option to use old-fashioned menus for a change.

------------------------------------
Reply:
i do agree, i would like W7 if i could turn the ____ i didnt like off. in vista id turn it off an not be able to do somthing else because vista wants what i didnt. in W7 i couldnt even turn it off

------------------------------------
Reply:
lastot069 said:

I cant share my files, Opening My computer is a 3 step process, and if i want to install a program i need to say i really do want the program 30 times. so that one is overstated a little, but not by much. if they were truly listening they would make XP faster, safer, and easier for grandma surfing the net. desktop items are grandmas friend, not a redesigned start menu with a ton of sub menus and flash. didnt they learn from vistas debacle, no one likes being told how to do things, especially by their home electronics. customers are still migrating back to XP!

Im a real customer Microsoft, hear me roar!


How is opening my computer a three step process? Double Click on the desktop icon. Done. Now I guess you could argue that you have to "enable" the desktop icon, but big deal a couple clicks per installation.

I also have a feeling that you are an old Microsoft customer, accustomed to doing things one way and unable to adapt to new ideas. I am not saying that this way is better, I like it, but you better start trying to get used to it because Windows XP is not going to last forever just because you can't figure out how to use a new start menu.

------------------------------------
Reply:
i have figured it out, and its a piece of junk! now i have quick launch an its a one step process to my computer. and as i said in another post, what sence is having a start menu you cant organize or use, go ahead and support microsoft for their mistakes in judgement, i wont, and neither will the hundreds of people that listen to my recomendations on proudcts


------------------------------------
Reply:
To answer the original post, they are listening to the customers who have been asking for changes and improvements to the way Windows works. "It's too slow! It's too bugy! It's too backwards thinking and archaic! Why can't it be more like...?" They're listening to the millions of people who have avoided Vista and/or switched platforms to Mac OSX and Linux. They are listening to the people who use XP and have constructive, specific points on how to improve the changes in Windows 7 beyond just saying "it's different, so I hate it!"

There are some thing that you don't have to like... and while occasionally you just have to suck it up and deal with those things, this isn't one of those times.

You have the option of staying on XP for years and years the way a lot of people stay on 98 and NT and whatever else. It happens. You're never going to be happy until it's YOUR idea to switch, and so frankly, you're NOT the type of customer that Microsoft is listening to.

You are welcome to your opinions, and if you don't like it... by all means be specific and constructive and use the Send Feedback option. If you do, someone will listen and evaluate if it's possible, practical, and useful given the scope of the release. Or, just go back to your corner and throw a tantrum.

------------------------------------
Reply:
Raingna said:

I haven't been able to make the Windows 7 machine join the Network all other computers are in. There are XP and Ubuntu powered machines there, and configuration was flawless.

I can't even find where the options for joining an old-school network are. I read about all the new, flashy options, yes, and I find them interesting. But I don't want to use them.

It's like the ribbon, the new toolbar for Microsoft software. I'm not asking for it to go away, I know a lo of people like it. But I'd like the option to use old-fashioned menus for a change.


What do you mean "old school network" ? Are you talking about a domain? A normal workgroup? Because both of those settings are still in System Properties (right click My Computer > Properties) the same place they've been since 2000. :)

I got the same "home group" prompt you got... I read the description and said, "no thanks" and moved on.

------------------------------------
Reply:
GoodThings2Life™ said:

To answer the original post, they are listening to the customers who have been asking for changes and improvements to the way Windows works. "It's too slow! It's too bugy! It's too backwards thinking and archaic! Why can't it be more like...?" They're listening to the millions of people who have avoided Vista and/or switched platforms to Mac OSX and Linux. They are listening to the people who use XP and have constructive, specific points on how to improve the changes in Windows 7 beyond just saying "it's different, so I hate it!"

so they are listeng to the people leaving their product, and mis-interpreting its loyal ones. yes fix the bugs and holes, make it prettier, make it safe. not change it into a nightmare. Raingna's problem is obvious if you read the other threads it is a big problem sharing your folders from W7 and having other OS's see them on a workgroup. then the rest of the nightmare continues with UAC, the whole reason vista failed! then continues on into this new start menu with lack of customization, and extended steps to do simple tasks. makes perfect sence i should just like it and accept it!

------------------------------------
Reply:
To answer your question, I think they are listening to the customers that provide specific examples and detailed feedback, not rants.

Anyway, I don't see how opening Computer is a 3-step process.  Start button -> Computer.  That's 1, or possibly 2, depening on how you define "steps".  If that's not fast enough for you, right click Computer - > check Show on Desktop, then double-click the icon on the desktop, that's 1 step (or 2 if you really want to go there).

There's plenty to gripe about in W7, I've done my share, but at least try to be specific.

------------------------------------
Reply:
lastot069 said:

GoodThings2Life™ said:

To answer the original post, they are listening to the customers who have been asking for changes and improvements to the way Windows works. "It's too slow! It's too bugy! It's too backwards thinking and archaic! Why can't it be more like...?" They're listening to the millions of people who have avoided Vista and/or switched platforms to Mac OSX and Linux. They are listening to the people who use XP and have constructive, specific points on how to improve the changes in Windows 7 beyond just saying "it's different, so I hate it!"

so they are listeng to the people leaving their product, and mis-interpreting its loyal ones. yes fix the bugs and holes, make it prettier, make it safe. not change it into a nightmare. Raingna's problem is obvious if you read the other threads it is a big problem sharing your folders from W7 and having other OS's see them on a workgroup. then the rest of the nightmare continues with UAC, the whole reason vista failed! then continues on into this new start menu with lack of customization, and extended steps to do simple tasks. makes perfect sence i should just like it and accept it!


Calm your rant jets for just 30 seconds dude. Nobody is saying there isn't a problem, but nobody can hear what you're asking for when you're ranting and raving (and nothing personal, it's not just you).

I've been on Windows 7 for two weeks now and have yet to see a single UAC prompt while logged into my user with administrative rights, and my basic user account has only been prompted for major things like software installs. Not saying things aren't different for you, but be specific and say, "This is what I tried to do, and this is what happened. Who can help me?"

I've also been perfectly successful in setting up both standard workgroup AND domain level network clients on Windows 7, but then again, I do this for a living. So go on the network forum and say, "This is what happened. This is how I believe it could be improved."

But here's the key to remember:

If you want XP, use XP.

If you want Windows Vista, use Vista.

If you want Windows 7, use 7. If you want it all, then say, "I like the way THIS works in 7, but if we could have a combination of this from XP and this from 7, that would be better."

------------------------------------
Reply:
Windows 7 is overall a positive experience.

What went wrong was that MS thought customers were becoming dumber and dumber. They attempted to simplify everything with a help file and wizards. That adds up to a 10gb installation ... :\

I could care less about help. When I start 7 for the first time, I am able to pick out about 10 to 15 services running and disable them, with no functionality loss.

7 just has so much bloat still. MS says that hard disk size will outgrow Windows' demands; however that is not an excuse.

With XP, this is less of a problem; nevertheless it exists.

I haven't really heard much of a response for this argument, which one of the fundamental arguments against Vista.  just generic, canned responses, for example:

"we are constantly looking for ways to improve our OS; thanks for your input. However, technological advances will outweigh the drag 7 puts on your system. "

I think that Balmer said that he wish he could shrink 7; however he said it wasn't possible.

Norton AntiVirus 2009

------------------------------------
Reply:
Example: every install i do requires UAC permission!
Example: tried to add folders to the start menu UAC denied it because it was in use!
Example: 900 posts on this forum where people can share W7 folders but no other system will access them

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE EXAMPLE GoodThings2Life™ BECAUSE YOU HAVNT UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE ONCE IN THE 900 POSTS ABOUT IT ALREADY AND HAVE TORE PEOPLE UP BECAUSE OF IT!

Example: 900 posts about the increased clicks or travel time to accomplish a task that took less clicks and travel before
Example: F your a gimp
Example: difficulty in customizing the task bar to ones own liking as stated in many posts

i dont understand where the difficulty is in understanding what people are seeing as wrong in this new OS, i believe people are being quite clear and the MSFT folks in the forum that are reading this are getting quite a clear picture, so lay off of people you are attacking in the 900 times i have seen you attacking them and trust MSFT to ask for more info if they want it!

P.S. im done with you



------------------------------------
Reply:
Tech0utsider said:

Windows 7 is overall a positive experience.

What went wrong was that MS thought customers were becoming dumber and dumber. They attempted to simplify everything with a help file and wizards. That adds up to a 10gb installation ... :\

I could care less about help. When I start 7 for the first time, I am able to pick out about 10 to 15 services running and disable them, with no functionality loss.

7 just has so much bloat still. MS says that hard disk size will outgrow Windows' demands; however that is not an excuse.

With XP, this is less of a problem; nevertheless it exists.

I haven't really heard much of a response for this argument, which one of the fundamental arguments against Vista.  just generic, canned responses, for example:

"we are constantly looking for ways to improve our OS; thanks for your input. However, technological advances will outweigh the drag 7 puts on your system. "

I think that Balmer said that he wish he could shrink 7; however he said it wasn't possible.


Norton AntiVirus 2009


i do agree for the most part W7 rocks. But sacrificing user control for an automated control and added bloat is not worth the Vista it was written on top of

------------------------------------
Reply:
Tech0utsider said:

When I start 7 for the first time, I am able to pick out about 10 to 15 services running and disable them, with no functionality loss.


Actually, the same is very much true of every version since NT4 and 2000. On a "clean" install, I can always go into Services and find a half-dozen or so services and shut them down with no loss of major functionality... meh, depending on the hardware and network configuration in use. On 2000 and XP, I can reduce a system to around 25 processes on a truly clean startup and not feel like I'm missing anything. I've never been able to reduce Vista below the 35-40 range, but W7 I was able to drop to about 30-35 including drivers and such.

You're right though-- they cater for the "most common" users possible. You can never compensate for all the idiots, it's impossible, nor can you satisfy every administrator like myself, but you can usually satisfy a majority of average users long enough to get them pulled into the investment. Then everybody else follows suit out of ignorance or necessity. :)

In any case, benchmarks have been performed on a number of test sites that demonstrates that more often than not, W7's "bloat" is STILL less than Vista, and for most people that's a nice big piece of cake. For someone like me who hated XP until SP2 was out and has hated Vista since the early betas, I feel like the fact I installed W7 and haven't found a reason to uninstall it is a very promising situation.

Incidentally, it's no accident that Microsoft didn't provide a direct XP-to-W7 upgrade option. They fully expect people to buy new systems that are truly designed for W7 (and NOT that Vista Capable kind of new system either, lol), and trust me when I say the OEM computer makers don't have a problem with that at all!

------------------------------------
Reply:
I have used every Microsoft desktop OS since DOS, except for Vista.  I have administrated NT 3.5, NT 4.0 and Win 2003 servers...and I am no MCSE  I've been using Win 7 Beta since the release, so that means that I have been using the beta for a week or so now.

I have heard about the advances that Linux made in security, but never tried their systems tools in that area.  I am not a big Linux guy, the interface is lacking and I do not need twenty ways to do one thing, wherein few if any ever work.  I have used OpenBSD for a secure system however and found the desktop environment lacking so I used it for a firewall and to practice shell scripting.

I think Microsoft had to come out with UAC in order to compete with Linux, where the real competition is.  They especially had to do it before Apple came out with it.  I have not yet installed any applications on Win 7 Beta so I cannot comment on what the problem is with installing to a system with UAC, but will be installing applications this weekend.  I will see first hand what the problem is if there is one.  I think you may have to just lower the level of protection for a time then reraise it after you install the application.  If that is too hard for you maybe you need an Apple OS....the OS for dummies. 

If you want a system to remain secure, you are going to have to put up with a small amount of insignificant intrusion into your life.  Microsoft is not making UAC available to bother you.  If you do not want to use it, as I understand, you can decrease the effectiveness of it and the amount of intrusiveness in to your life.  Again, I will be checking this out this weekend too.

The market has to play itself out.  The systems that will remain secure and useable will be the better system.  Microsoft is going to have to continue to tweak UAC as time goes by so as to get it dialed in properly.  To not have started on the technology by this time would be the mistake.  That leaves Apple as the company lacking in this technology area for as I said Linux already has it....developed by the NSA.  Microsoft is trying to have the most widely used and most secure operating system out there that is feasible for world wide use, and if they play their cards rtight they just might pull it off.  If they do they will be the last man standing when the inevitable network wars take place and systems everywhere globally will come under attack. 

Apple looks like a loser in this.  They have not created any technologies in this area and therfore would be at a total loss when the events take place that I know will be upon us in the next world war.

Oh, and I can't stand Balmer.  He is too loud and obnoxious....and NO I do not own any Microsoft stock.

------------------------------------
Reply:
@TechOutsider " 7 just has so much bloat still."

?

Exactly what are you trying to put the most advanced desktop operating system in the world on?  A 1990's system?

The systems you buy today have terabyte hard drives.  What exactly are you complaining about?  A 2GB OS?  That does not make sense.

------------------------------------
Reply:
Showflash said:

@TechOutsider " 7 just has so much bloat still."

?

Exactly what are you trying to put the most advanced desktop operating system in the world on?  A 1990's system?

The systems you buy today have terabyte hard drives.  What exactly are you complaining about?  A 2GB OS?  That does not make sense.


who cares about the space, he meant bloat as in unnecessary features. if a stable OS without bloat and preinstalled unnecessary programs were 500 gig i wouldnt care as long as it worked well and was efficient.

------------------------------------
Reply:
lastot069 said:

Example: every install i do requires UAC permission!
Example: tried to add folders to the start menu UAC denied it because it was in use!
Example: 900 posts on this forum where people can share W7 folders but no other system will access them

PAY CLOSE ATTENTION TO THE ABOVE EXAMPLE GoodThings2Life™ BECAUSE YOU HAVNT UNDERSTOOD THAT ONE ONCE IN THE 900 POSTS ABOUT IT ALREADY AND HAVE TORE PEOPLE UP BECAUSE OF IT!

Example: 900 posts about the increased clicks or travel time to accomplish a task that took less clicks and travel before
Example: F your a gimp
Example: difficulty in customizing the task bar to ones own liking as stated in many posts

i dont understand where the difficulty is in understanding what people are seeing as wrong in this new OS, i believe people are being quite clear and the MSFT folks in the forum that are reading this are getting quite a clear picture, so lay off of people you are attacking in the 900 times i have seen you attacking them and trust MSFT to ask for more info if they want it!

P.S. im done with you


I don't like making a habit of responding to flame posts, but you are a very rude person, you know that? It's no wonder nobody is listening to your "feedback".

Every post you make is like you're just trying to pick a fight with everyone who responds to you, and at first it was people trying to offer suggestions, but you tear into them the same way as you tear into this beta as if you expect a new beta release right this minute or else someone is going to die. Now it's someone like me who just wants you to act like a human being instead of a horse's rear end.

900 posts of people ranting isn't feedback. It's ranting. Yeah, OK, fine... I'm sure someone at Microsoft is reading the feedback... it's still in development, and I have no doubt they'll do as much as a majority of users are asking for... what do you want at this point? A letter from Ballmer personally thanking you for your rant and handing you a binky? Calm down already, join the conversation, and stop yelling at people who would be more than happy to listen to you.

------------------------------------
Reply:
lastot069 said:

Showflash said:

@TechOutsider " 7 just has so much bloat still."

?

Exactly what are you trying to put the most advanced desktop operating system in the world on?  A 1990's system?

The systems you buy today have terabyte hard drives.  What exactly are you complaining about?  A 2GB OS?  That does not make sense.


who cares about the space, he meant bloat as in unnecessary features. if a stable OS without bloat and preinstalled unnecessary programs were 500 gig i wouldnt care as long as it worked well and was efficient.



Do you actually have benchmarks to show that it's faster with those 10-15 services disabled?

I don't see the point of disabling a service if it's using 0% resources, or uses 0% most of the time.

Yes they have a ton of services installed by default, they have to, they don't know what kind of config you're going to throw at it do they?

Seems like most of the services don't impact system performance, but then again I've only tested W7 on my high-performance desktop, not a notebook/cell phone/etc...

------------------------------------
Reply:
Well that's just it walk2k, several mobile-tech blogging sites like Gizmodo and GottaBeMobile and jkOnTheRun have been testing it on netbooks and low-end portables with very promising results. ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley has posted several benchmark results on his blog.

------------------------------------
Reply:

I think W7 is awesome, 2 days ago I wiped Vista Ultimate and installed WIN7 Ultimate on my machine I use on a daily basis. I know thats not the best way, and most will say its dumb, and most will agree because its a beta, but I fell in love and I'm not going back!
To me its faster, prettier, easier to find information, and just has a really nice feel to it!


------------------------------------
Reply:
GoodThings2Life™ said:

Well that's just it walk2k, several mobile-tech blogging sites like Gizmodo and GottaBeMobile and jkOnTheRun have been testing it on netbooks and low-end portables with very promising results. ZDNet's Adrian Kingsley has posted several benchmark results on his blog.



Promising results out of the box, or after disabling a bunch of services?

------------------------------------
Reply:
You guys do all know that you can turn UAC off/lower etc in the control panel don't you? (Start>Control Panel>User Accounts and Family Safety>User Accounts>Change User Account Control Settings)

That's one of the changes from Vista to Win7 because the users didn't like it so MS changed it.

If I want a completely unbloated OS I'd use Linux (and do on my other computer) but for my main rig I use Win7.

I want a new OS to LOOK newer, i.e. crisper, more vibrant with more effects.

If you don't want that, don't upgrade, stick with XP or buy a PC with Linux preloaded.

And for those complaining that all you are offered is Vista on new PC's, you can't go into a new car showroom and order a 1980's Rover Mini either.

To get into My Computer you click Start>Computer, thats the same as clicking twice on the "My Computer" icon.

Windows 7 is looking good so far, it's kind of a fixed/improved version of Vista.

Soggy.

<Edited to include instructions for changing UAC levels>

------------------------------------
Reply:
@walk2k... out of the box. Most of the netbooks jkOnTheRun and GottaBeMobile have tested it on have 1GB of RAM tops with the 1.x Ghz ULV processors... netbooks and UMPC's.

 Adrian Kingsley tested on higher end systems.


------------------------------------
Reply:
@Soggydoggy,

Yes, we know you can turn it off, and the whole point is that Windows 7 doesn't NEED to turn it off, because it's not as annoying in the first place. As I stated before, with an administrative account I've not seen a single prompt under the default setting. With a limited user account, I only saw prompts when I'd go to install a program, and that's expected since most programs need to be an Administrator to install anyway. But simple tasks on the computer don't prompt, which is what I was looking for.

Still, the critics believe you shouldn't need to turn it off, because it shouldn't be annoying users in the first place. Frankly, I think sometimes people are their own worst enemies, and while I don't want to annoy them I do want to provide a level of safety. Windows 7 is doing a good job of providing that, in my opinion, and I've been doing this a long time.

Of course, it's very welcome to see some more control over the system too, and not just in the way of shutting it off completely.

 

As for the rest... you're exactly right. I want it to feel like it's something new, and I want a new experience. I buy a new car because I want a NEW car, not because I want the same beat up junker I just got rid of... I buy from the same vendor, because I want familiarity, but being familiar isn't the same as being the same.


------------------------------------

Backup and Recovery in Windows 7 - usefull for end users, and works with .VHD format

All,
I have tested the "Backup and Recover" in Windows 7, Image + Recovery CD, and it works fine. I guess this future is very helpful for end users without any IT expertise.
1: Created the Image DVD (12 GB of Windows 7) 4GB.
2: It asked to create the Recover Media, Did that.
3: Have tested it, though it takes longer then GHOST's operation, but again for end users it's a perfect solution to backup.

* The image actually a .VHD format, I guess that a prepared .VHD from the Virtual Machine will do, 'cause in the Recovery CD Tool (WinPE based) there is an option to add drivers before applying an image to a HD, will test it later. There are of course many other options like "Recover to a certain recovery point", "Memory Diagnostic", "Boot repair".

Reply:

Confirm, 7 backup restore works great. I have done a number of them now. Tested from 'live' recovery and   from the Recovery CD.  Since I am testing so many programs, I really need a few backup positions. I have tested the recovery from different   checkpoints.

I also have CASPER 5.0 a direct HD copy clone program that works great. I run a CASPER clone before I do any major changes.  WAY better then the old GHOST.

I run the W7 image every other day.

I DO NOT want to have to reload and start over. I have 2 weeks of assorted program installs. MOST working great.


------------------------------------

Taskbar behavior consistency when clicking task icons

When you have one instance of an application running and it's not in focus (perhaps it's minimized), clicking its taskbar icon brings it into focus.

When you have two instances of the same application open and neither one of them is in focus, clicking the taskbar icon forces me to make a choice as to which of the two instances to bring to focus.

Would it be possible to make Windows 7 assume that the last-focused instance is the one I am after, and bring it to focus, without forcing me to make a choice?

As a multi-tasker, I am constantly switching between many instances of various applications and being asked to make a choice on some applications (where there is more than one instance open) hinders my productivity. Usually, the last instance of the application I was looking at is the first one I want to see when coming back to that application.

If I wanted to switch between application instances, I could just hover my mouse for a half-second on the icon and choose another instance.

To me, it feels like the conditional (is more than one instance of this application running?) is breaking consistency, and when it comes to productivity, consistency is always appreciated.

The same would be true for minimizing an application from the taskbar. If only one instance of the application is running, clicking its icon toggles between focused and minimized.

If there are 2 or more instances of the application, it's behavior is different and assumes you are trying to select a window.

If I got into the habit of clicking the taskbar icon to minimize the window, then I would assume all running tasks could be minimized by clicking their taskbar icons.

Tale of two systems

I have tried about ten times to install Windows 7 on two systems, both clean installs and upgrades.  The closest I got was a clean install working for an hour or so, then wouldn't reboot, and the repair instruction didn't work.

Both systems are home brew, and both run both XP and vista (from interchangable drives, not dual boot).
The first system is a Pentium 4, 3.2 Ghz, and the second is a quad core 2.4 Ghz, both are maxed out on memory and have dual displays.  Prior to the install attempts both systems were brought up to date and backed up.  Also, prior to the last attempts the CEIP fix from this forum was completed on both machines.

On the P4 machine, upgrade got as far as "Completeing Upgrades" with the message " Installing devices and setting up your System". The green stripe was about 75% of the way across the screen, the three dots were counting away, and the cursor was not frozen.   After ten minutes of no disk activity, I reset the machine and the "Unable to complete upgrade" message came up, followed by restoration to Vista. 

On the quad core machine, running 64 bit Vista Business, Upgrade got as far as the "Completing Setup" step, with the green stripe about 75% across the screen. A box stated "Windows could not finish configuration..." Restarting resulted in "Updating Registry settings"  followed by "Starting services", followed by the box "Windows could not finish the configuration..."  I had to manually select the restore option on the boot menu to get out of that loop. 

Observations:
1. the dots counting up to three after the steps are not a reliable indicator of useful activity.
2. Some more definitive indications of what the problems are would be nice.
3. If I wasn't retired I wouldn't waste time with this sort of software.

GPL RegEx Source Component

While working on a recent project, I needed to import a number of old mainframe generated text reports.  Since they didn't work on the one-record/one-row construct, the Flat File Source won't work.

So, I created a custom component that allows you to specify a Regular Expression pattern, and it will parse a text file and return columns.  Each capture in the RegEx pattern is returned as a column, and you can also specify column names in the regex with the standard (?<colname>) syntax.  The code is fairly basic really, but if you are comfortable with regular expression syntax, it can handle a huge variety of unusual text file formats.  It also includes a UI editor for the RegEx pattern property that will allow you to test the pattern against a sample text file; it will highlight each row in blue and each column in green (see screenshot)

Since this might have applications for other folks, I added it to SourceForge under GPL.  So if you might find that functionality useful, please check out http://sourceforge.net/projects/textregexsource/ and send me some feedback.  There isn't much there yet, so check out the screenshots/news/release notes for the basics. 

If there is demand, I'll create a more robust install package and documentation.  Also looking for feature suggestions.

Cheers...Geof


Reply:
Seems interesting. When (if) I get time I will take a look at it and at least come with feature suggestions :)

------------------------------------
Reply:
You may also be interested in the four other RegEx components I've located to date.  Review the SSIS Community Tasks and Components project on CodePlex.  There's another RegEx source by Microsoft, and three RegEx transforms by Microsoft and SQLIS.com.
Todd McDermid's Blog

------------------------------------

L2TP/IPSec VPN doesn't work

Hello all,

I can't connect to my ISA server via VPN (L2TP/IPsec). Authentication by using computer and user certificates. I received error code 809 in application event log. 

When I use Windows XP or Vista everything works.

Any ideas ?

--
 777

  • Changed type Mark L. Ferguson Thursday, February 5, 2009 2:53 AM no reply to followup Q

Reply:
Are you using the ISA Firewall Client?  I installed that and have been unable to use Windows Update with it installed, regardless of VPN or not.

------------------------------------

OS Comparison: Graphics Resource usage

Not sure if this is the right forum, but hopeful. IN any case, can anyone point me to a resource that compares/contrasts OS usage of Graphics resources? I consult in the Architectural field, and there is a LOT of confusion out there, which leads to a lot of stress when trying to plan for the future. A lot of offices are sticking with 32 bit XP and I would really like to be able to explain the difference between 32 and 64 bit, and XP/Vista/7 with regards to RAM and graphics performance in non-game applications.

Specifically I would like to get my head around these specific questions.

1: How does Windows XP take advantage of Graphics RAM, both the OS itself, and non-game applications? I know that Graphics RAM must be mapped to virtual address space, and thus impacts machines with 4G of RAM and the 3Gb  switch in use. With Autodesk Revit this is a VERY common scenario (4GB, 3GB switch, 256MB or 512 MB Graphics card), so the issue is salient. So, how much Graphics RAM do Windows XP and non-game applications make use of?

2: How does Vista/7 address the above question? Specifically, will a Vista/7 machine take advantage of more/all available Graphics RAM? And how does it address that RAM? Is there an equivalent of the 3GB switch user USERVA switch in Vista and/or Windows 7?  This is especially important as 32 bit Vista/7 still has the same 4G issues, but as I understand it a different level of usage of resources. And Revit pretty much demands a full 4GB of RAM for many projects, so Graphics RAM becomes a conflict. 

3: How does WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) compare to the older APIs with regards to GPU use, Graphics RAM use and general performance? Especially with regards to DirectX and openGL Professional Graphics packages (i.e. non-game)?

4: What are the implications of running a WPF based application on Windows XP with the separate WPF install as compared to running that app on Vista/7? Do you gain all the benefits, at least within the WPF based application? Are there tradeoffs when running WPF on XP? And what about the OS? Does it gain anything by the presence of WPF, or only WPF based apps do?

5: With regards to the above questions and 64 bit Vista/7, are there benefits beyond not needing to worry about the amount of Graphics RAM impinging on physical RAM because it is mapped well above the physical RAM address space?

Thanks for any info or links!
Gordon

Currency gadget

Deleted

  • Edited by Picsoe Friday, January 30, 2009 1:53 PM

Reply:
yep, same for me, can only change using the numbers above the letters, and not using the numberpad on the right of the kbd.
i have seen this somewhere else too, but can't remember where....

------------------------------------

DameWare Mini Remote Control Problem

Hi,

Using DameWare Utilities Mini Remote Control version 6.8.0.1 in Windows 7, causes the app to not save display settings (haven't really tried other settings). Or should I say, it saves the settings but doesn't apply them. For example, I set the remote window to 8-bit + greyscale (so the remote access is faster) but it always shows the remote display's settings.

sharepoint login -add webpart on login.aspx

 
Hi All,

I am using form based authentication in sharepoint site. now I want to add webpart on login.aspx page. I have customize by modifying simple.master but i am unable to add webpart in it since login.aspx inherits from loginpage class and not from webpartpages. can any one give me idea or can provide the solution so that i could add webpart on my page.

thanks in advance

Deewaker

Reply:
Please see your other thread on SUGUK http://suguk.org/forums/thread/16714.aspx

Dave
My SharePoint Blog - www.davehunter.co.uk/blog

------------------------------------
Reply:
thnx for ur comment.
bt i could nt get a satisfactory reply either.

Deewaker

------------------------------------

No comments:

Post a Comment

Setup is Split Across Multiple CDs

Setup is Split Across Multiple CDs Lately I've seen a bunch of people hitting installation errors that have to do with the fact th...