Windows 7 Beta Reviews

Originally Posted by Remus
Mine is 3.16GB. There might have been problem when burning the iso file. Try again.

Your .img is for 64bit ,what about the 32bit?

The size of your download sound right as reported around 2 GB. A search on google indicated the problem could be related to old BIOS or motherboard.

http://connect.microsoft.com/Connect…dbackID=396492

So my only options are to update BIOS(sounds dangerous) and change motherboard(no-go)?
It's just embargoing, netbooks will run win7 and my PC won't

I tried installing it in my computer, and it would BSOD after about 70% of the installation process. I tried the 'official' forums (if there's such a thing) but couldn't get an answer. I then googled a lot and found a solution for a very similar problem for people installing Vista, which I tried and worked! (which confirms my belief that W7 is really just Vista SP2). Basically, I disabled my onboard LAN in the BIOS, and that did it. After W7 finished installing, I shutdown, re-enabled the onboard LAN, started W7 and it recognized it without a problem.

It is not your belief that W7 is really just Vista SP2 - everyone followed the news close enough knew the W7 is not new OS but an update of Vista. The SP1 also improved the original Vista release so the different in stability and compatibility with W7 not is very far apart.

Latest news - Microsoft confirmed the release candidate of Win7 is planned for April. That pretty much means Win7 will be available at the end of this year.

Latest news-Internet Explorer is now an optional feature in Windows 7 quite surprising after what happened with Vista,seems like M$ is actually listening to users and this is something to write home about.

It will not be like in XP were the option to uninstall Internet Explorer just deleted links.

No, I don't believe MS was "actually listening to its users". Instead, I believe it has something to do with their "problems" with the EU commission …

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
No, I don't believe MS was "actually listening to its users". Instead, I believe it has something to do with their "problems" with the EU commission …

That's what I first thought but then how would an option to remove IE actually help M$ in that case,anyway EU is getting way beyond line why are they harassing MS so much.

Originally Posted by Kostaz
That's what I first thought but then how would an option to remove IE actually help M$ in that case,anyway EU is getting way beyond line why are they harassing MS so much.

The EU demanded (will demand?) this because last time MS outplayed them. The Windows versions without IE (or was it the Media Player?) were available - for the same price. This time the EU demanded MS let's the customer choose what he wants. Present all relevant browsers as alternative. If he is stupid enough to choose IE, then fine.
Microsoft's move is either implementation of the EU's demand or a clever preemptive strike to prevent the EU from requesting even more.

This is not harrassment. MS is a quasi-monopolist. They could set the prices as they wish and squash every competition if nobody showed them the limits. Unfortunately that's necessary because the high-volume OS market does not work. There is no competition for Windows.

Originally Posted by Gorath
The EU demanded (will demand?) this because last time MS outplayed them. The Windows versions without IE (or was it the Media Player?) were available - for the same price.

Not that I'm against this but I think it's just unfair.
Why don't they do the same with Apple?

This time the EU demanded MS let's the customer choose what he wants. Present all relevant browsers as alternative. If he is stupid enough to choose IE, then fine.

Hey, when you go into McDonald's, you should see:

Burger King Whooper
McDonald's Big Mac
Wendy's Square Burger (idk)
etc.

But you dont. They're a competing business, they can't promote the competition. Same with IE and the other browsers.

Originally Posted by Kostaz
Not that I'm against this but I think it's just unfair.
Why don't they do the same with Apple?


Hey, when you go into McDonald's, you should see:

Burger King Whooper
McDonald's Big Mac
Wendy's Square Burger (idk)
etc.

But you dont. They're a competing business, they can't promote the competition. Same with IE and the other browsers.

It's not the same thing. Problem with Microsoft is that IE is completely immersed in the OS, you can't uninstall it. Even when you install other browsers, many things are internally connected to IE so you will use IE like it or not. That's the "unfair competition" part I guess. I don't care if it comes with Windows, just let me cleanly uninstall it.

Originally Posted by Kostaz
Not that I'm against this but I think it's just unfair.
Why don't they do the same with Apple?

What's the problem with Apple?

Hey, when you go into McDonald's, you should see:

Burger King Whooper
McDonald's Big Mac
Wendy's Square Burger (idk)
etc.

But you dont. They're a competing business, they can't promote the competition. Same with IE and the other browsers.

Please list other PC operating systems besides Windows and their rough market share. Maybe it will help you understand the difference.

Originally Posted by Gorath
What's the problem with Apple?

Safari,why doesn't the EU pressure apple to include FF or Opera in OS X?

Please list other PC operating systems besides Windows and their rough market share. Maybe it will help you understand the difference.

The difference is hard to ignore but does it really matter since it's just business?

Sorry, I don't have time for a beginner's lesson in antitrust law. You can get an introduction at Wikipedia. There are also segments and links dealing directly with the EU vs. MS case.

Originally Posted by Kostaz
Safari,why doesn't the EU pressure apple to include FF or Opera in OS X?
The difference is hard to ignore but does it really matter since it's just business?

That's easy — because Apple isn't in the dominant market position. The EU couldn't care less what Microsoft bundles or doesn't bundle in its OS if it didn't have over 90% of the desktop OS market.

Antitrust laws only come into play if there's a monopoly in place. Microsoft has a de facto monopoly of desktop OS's, which means that antitrust laws apply to it but not to its competitors with single-digit market shares.

Ahem. Nice: http://www.networkworld.com/news/200…w-to-take.html

"While VBootkit 2.0 shows how an attacker can take control of a Windows 7 computer, it's not necessarily a serious threat. For the attack to work, an attacker must have physical access to the victim's computer. The attack can not be done remotely. "

"However, when the victim's computer is rebooted, VBootkit 2.0 will lose its hold over the computer as data contained in system memory will be lost."

A computer has never been really safe from someone physically present. It's not like they had found a major security failure or something.

Originally Posted by vanedor
"While VBootkit 2.0 shows how an attacker can take control of a Windows 7 computer, it's not necessarily a serious threat. For the attack to work, an attacker must have physical access to the victim's computer. The attack can not be done remotely. "

"However, when the victim's computer is rebooted, VBootkit 2.0 will lose its hold over the computer as data contained in system memory will be lost."

A computer has never been really safe from someone physically present. It's not like they had found a major security failure or something.

I don't see the point of the 'vulnerability'. If it requires physical access to the computer, I can write another 'vulnerability'… "del /s c:*.*"

What bugs me most of that is this:

"There's no fix for this. It cannot be fixed. It's a design problem," Vipin Kumar said, explaining the software exploits the Windows 7 assumption that the boot process is safe from attack."

Well, I don't believe it is a good idea to make any assumptions at all, regarding security.