Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

locolorenzo — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 11:36:42 GMT

@Steven

It's actually funny that there is nothing to report in the bug department.

I am using Windows 7 in production now, yet from the same machine I can perform my hobbies.

Very Cool when you can push the limits and not have a crash, I am glad that your team has had such a hands on approach to building this OS.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Domenico — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:38:18 GMT

Mamma mia GREAT POST!!

Congratulation Mr. Steven

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

MrDiSante — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 13:58:47 GMT

Great post, however there are a few changes that both break away from the de facto standard that has developed over the years and that make no sense.

My greatest bone to pick is the lack of Software Explorer in Windows Defender. What's the rationale behind that?

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

adcworks — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:43:22 GMT

a good post, an essay in how it should be done and i agree and applaud it all. yet when i see so many applications in windows 7 with different user interface schemes and menus i wonder how that could have escaped through this wonderful process that ought to have caught that. i won't accept that it's unimportant and i know paul thurrot feels the same about this. i suspect the fragmentation of microsoft departments creating these different apps causes an integration problem but for me it should have been one of the cornerstones of w7 - integrate, stablize and make consistent the out of box experience.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

fowl — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:44:57 GMT

I think that documenting the rational reasons for changes and communicating effectively about the *why* of changes/additions/removals would go a long way to reduce frustration with the apparent "not caring".

Part of the is, of course what you are doing now with a blog - but there are many teams that don't blog, or communicate much outside of putting a few api outlines on MSDN. There are so many changes and the scope of the product is so large that even a simple changelog would be good.

I don't have all the answers but I think that communicating and *responding* would make a huge difference.

PS. Connect, as a website, sucks. (good feedback I know;)

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

tom5 — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:19:06 GMT

Thanks for the interesting, in-depth info.

I wanted to let you know about the issue I currently regularly experience with Windows 7 beta 1. This issue (of high priority IMO) has been described in detail in this blog post ("System Fatal Program Crashes"):

http://www.designisphilosophy.com/windows-7/windows-7-beta-report-part-1-bugs-20090202/

Hope you fix it.

And BTW: get yourself some more servers/bandwidth/anything because all blogs @msdn.com have become sooo sloow recently.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Tihiy — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:59:15 GMT

I've been submitting feedback using various tools about one noticeably broken bitmap in system file leading to Windows Explorer Classic interface back/forward arrows display problem since Vista beta 2.

Many things have changed, bitmaps were moved into new file, but it's still broken. :(

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

d_e — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:33:06 GMT

The frustrating thing about all my feedback on Microsoft Connect is that most of the time I got one reply: "You should create a DCR. This is not a bug.". My response: "How can I create a DCR?". And I got no answer...

And there are sites like the Windows 7 Taskforce. Where users discuss and most of the time come to a consensus. There is 1 issue that "will be fixed" and 4 things that are fixed. One feature request was marked as "fixed" when in fact it's not. Out of over 500 entries. Most of these things wouldn't be hard to implement: Adding 1px borders around elements, changing bitmaps, changing colors and so on have NO impact on stability and don't have to be localized. I don't get why MSFT doesn't change those things. If only to make Windows look more polished.

But in the end you guys are still on the right track. Windows 7 feels and looks better than any version before. If you continue to make improvements at this pace Windows 10 will be almost-perfect.

Btw: I need three hours on average per 100 bug-reports.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

jestempies — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:17:16 GMT

Very informative article (if a bit long;)

As Google's Marissa Meyer said it in her IO'08 keynote (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6x0cAzQ7PVs), that user testing finally allows us to transform usability and UI design from an art into a science.

While a great designer can intuitively resolve most obvious problems, user testing and bucket testing, of which telemetry is an example, allow us try to really measure, in hard numbers, what the best solutions are.

That won't put designers out of their jobs, since there are classes of problems that user feedback rarely solves (i.e. innovation.)

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

wguimb — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:00:51 GMT

You da man Steven!! Fantastic article on feedback and bug reporting. Now I know why Windows 7 is so great even for a beta! I'm looking forward to the RC, can't wait.

PS. My Connect submissions have all been adequately responded to. Tell the folks reporting to you they are doing a super job!

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

darrenkopp — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:41:25 GMT

of those 7.5M that didn't need drivers, how many were VM's?

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Manosdoc — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 19:52:41 GMT

Steven,

In every manner in life, there are people who will always find something to argue, and look at the tree, not the forest.

We believe, we, as Beta Testers, Tech entousiasts that our feedback and our work, is going to be considered, whether nothing from our suggestions happens.

This is because, we are just customers, not Operating System designers and trust your desicions.

The "thing" you did with the Feedback on windows 7 Beta is something that is absolutely positive, and will change the way later products from microsoft being developed.

Keep up the good work, try to focus on the actual feedback and don't let anything "bashing" frustrate you, cause trolls won't apreciate anything either way, but us will !

Best Regards, Manos, Greece

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

solaris — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:32:34 GMT

first of all: great post to an interesting topic.

what I see is this: many people consider Apple as being innovative while Microsoft as being not innovative.

I don't think that this is true but in my opinion Apple is way better in communicating changes and advances of new products. And they have a great sense for taking PC downsides and make them their upsides.

Microsoft should adapt that. Instead many areas where Mac OS X shines feel abandoned: File Previews, File Visualisation (Coverflow), Gadgets, Style (the superbar looks like the dock in tiger) etc.

But the Windows Experience relies very much on third party applications. Too many software is low quality, slows down my pc even if I don't use the software, doesn't fit in with the interface and too many codecs make problems and so on. Windows needs an app store as a quality control and an easy way to find, install and update software.

Microsoft can create the best Windows, it's useless if it is installed on a crappy computer with crappy software.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

asymtote — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 20:57:05 GMT

Great discussion of what is clearly a passionate topic for you.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

wtroost — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:46:04 GMT

Good reading.

The beta is probably thick on skilled IT hobbiests. If you ask me how I like W7, I'd say it's great. If my boss asks me if we can roll it out, I'd say no way. We have this application that requires IE6, and vendor X, Y and Z don't support Vista/W7. In the workplace, Vista/W7 breaks too much stuff; I don't see how W7 solves that.

Telemetry measures quantity, but not quality. For example, the new Explorer library function has greatly improved Media Player's usability. The library in Media Player is completely dysfunctional. But the combination of Explorer's library, and Media Player's "Now Playing" mode, is workable.

So Media Player usage is up, but it's not because of Media Player has improved. That's the kind of thing that would be hard to extract from telemetry.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

jestempies — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:46:05 GMT

@solaris: "File Previews, File Visualisation (Coverflow), Gadgets, Style (the superbar looks like the dock in tiger)"

Not everyone cares about file previews. By that I don't mean Windows should have great file previews, but simply that personally I don't consider that a priority at all. I barely keep any photos on my PC, and the text files I work with (PHP, Javascript, CSS etc.) can't really be previewed as a thumbnail. Same thing with coverflow-like interfaces, which are directed at visual thinkers working with images.

I do think Windows could use some Mac-like features, like a more consistent user interface, very good bundled apps, or details like making it easy to create screenshots. But if I was to decide, at the moment I'd focus Windows development on speed and reliability, more than fancy previews.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

marcinw — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:31:08 GMT

@Steven,

This is post good. But I would like to remind you few obvious things (really without trolling):

You're speaking about complexity, dependencies and similar things and problems connected with it.

Please note, that you made it.

You don't have clear barriers among applications and system, applications can change Registry keys belong to other one, etc. etc.

The faster you will change it, the faster you will be able to decrease number of problems & reports and the faster you will be able to react on market needs. You can't start from symptoms, but you should rather start from roots.

Your system would be built using new rules (they don't have to be totally different - NT architecture good implemented is OK) and it will use some kind of virtualization for existing win32 apps (sandboxing or other form). You can say - it will cost and need time. OK, but - how many USD you're paying employees for resolving current issues ? Many can be avoided.

Of course, some of your apps will have less meaning then. IE for example. But currently - you need to pay employees for creating "N" version and lawyers for depense against other companies.

Maybe it will possible to implement less DRM then too. But once again - many customers are afraid of protections put into WIndows 6.x, many are notifying, that they affect them somehow even when shouldn't

Maybe it's time to change it ?

Of course, you will have your own opinion and I respect it. But once again: your company want to earn money and you should go rather way, which allowed to create windows xp than way, which allowed to created windows vista.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

steven_sinofsky — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:36:35 GMT

@wtroost -- While no doubt the beta is heavy on tech enthusiasts, with the sample size we have it is more clearly representative of a broad set of customers. We have customers in 4 major languages, almost every country, and all walks to life.

I'm visiting some colleges on a recruiting trip and the flight attendant asked me about my PC (you know which one that is!) and she said she got a new "netbook" and just installed the WIndows 7 beta. The Air Force officer in the seat next to me chimed in and said he has the WIndows 7 beta as well. So we feel pretty good about the breadth of usage and many anecdotes seem to confirm this :-)

Our telemetry measures sequences of feature usage as well and we often spend considerable time understanding the starting point/end point of sequences. So not just quantity.

--Steven

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

steven_sinofsky — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:37:39 GMT

@marcinw -- it would be really great if you didn't randomly toss in a comment about DRM in every post. It does not add very much to our dialog.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

marcinw — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:50:47 GMT

@Steven,

I really try to forget about it and don't write about it, but when I use Vista/Seven : these systems remind me about it too often even I don't anything connected with playing music or watching videos. And my words are words from really annoyed customer (in this topic).

Additionally I know many people, who said - we will not switch from Win 5.x to 6.x because of it (and they're not making something illegal too).

Maybe it will be good to start dialog about it too ?

Please note, that many other companies are resigning from it...

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Livecrunch — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:05:22 GMT

I can't say anything but the best about Windows 7 even tho I am Linux user for past decade. As I always was saying. Windows 7 is an upgrade from Vista just like from ME to XP (remember ME? that thing was I think waist of money).

Steven, you write a lot! Took me so long to read it ;) but the more I read about it the better explanation I got. Sorry I am use to shot blog posts.

You guys have a great year and I hope I'll get the copy of Windows 7 by end of the year.

You know where to find me :)

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Domenico — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:52:58 GMT

marcinw

e stop troll'n roll

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

solaris — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:57:39 GMT

@jestempies: I agree with you that reliability and performance should be prioritized. And I also agree that the things I've mentioned aren't the most important aspects of an operating system.

But Microsoft wants to establish Windows as a consumer product, as an exciting product, as something that evokes product lust and that people should buy instead of a mac.

Now imagine an everyday normal customer in a store comparing computers. Why shouldn't he buy a mac? His mind will probably tell him Windows but his emotions tell him to buy the computer that runs the fancy operating system.

I mean it's all there. Gadgets, Previews, Thumbnails, the superbar ... why not make it look great?

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

planetf1 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:15:52 GMT

Wow. A fantastic post Steven.

I work in Software development so understand the points you're making. The numbers very much say it all.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

marcinw — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:01:07 GMT

@Domenico,

If there is something wrong in my words, please show it - I will be more than happy, if you will demonstrate mistakes there.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Domenico — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:29:46 GMT

@marcinw

I have never seen a part of your , one post of appreciation.

you do not look only at what you want ,

Windows is a product for all ,

and I can tell you that this beta is greater than the quality any other commercial operating system and not.

If you want a dress made to measure, you must hire a personal tailor.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Colin^ — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:59:56 GMT

Great blog, enjoyed reading it.

Steven Steven Steven

jetblueISAM — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:30:06 GMT

I'll start this post with word "DRM" since it apparently gets a rise out of you. :) I think it is hard to be in your position but in the business of supporting end users a "bug" is typically a feature that existed in previous versions that was taken away in a newer version. I am not even talking BIG FEATURES. For instance, a security best practice is to logon as a normal user and then elevate your permissions using RunAs but with VISTA and Windows 7 that feature is GONE! However, I can download code from MS and install it but that should not be the case. Also, many XP administrators used to be able to right-clicking Network Connections and then be able to manage network adapters. Sure we can run ncpa.cpl from the RUN command but that is one more thing that must be done to support this new OS. Also your enterprise customers were left in the wind with the decision to remove GINA integration at system startup. I cannot tell you how many complaints I've had now that the Cisco VPN client or even Juniper GINA client cannot be fired up before desktop logon. The answer is NOT "use the Windows VPN client"....I'm sure you get over a million things to "fix" or new "features" but this is a pre-existing feature that NO LONGER EXISTS! I'm not talking about bringing back the classic toolbar, etc, etc. or even eliminating DRM because we all know that is a political and strategic decision Microsoft has lots of capital invested into. Your technical customers are expecting "small issues" to be resolved before this product goes RTM. I'll use your words against you on this one because your goal of Windows 7 was to make access to items they use daily EASIER. Bring back my RUNAS and Manage Network Adapters!!!! Windows 7 has significant improvements over Windows VISTA and I'm actually running it daily without any major issues. I'm sure you've heard the "bugs" with IE8 but that itself is minimal. I think you are doing a great job and while my complaints are minimal I want them to fit in the 10 percent. :) As happy as I am with Windows 7 beta, even after your post it just feels that you all are just fixing broken items without any input regarding small features that bring added value. A good example was your fight regarding UAC and it took serious negative publicity for you to actually fix the feature. Maybe I'm wrong but that is how your community feels...or at least people I work with in the community.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

marcinw — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 02:33:02 GMT

@Domenico,

Build 7000 seems to be between XP and Vista, today I have even put it into state (by installing patches or disabling services), where each UAC required action is blocked (you can't click Manage on Computer, install software, you can't change UAC level, etc.) - report about it was sent using "Send feedback".

I would like to remind you, that market seems to adopt Vista slower than previous Windows and there were reasons of it. I'm trying to show sometimes, what and how was done wrong (when there is possibility, that it will be repeated). I'm very sorry, but you haven't showed, what exactly was wrong in my words (we could discuss it then). And I must notify, that I'm not the only one person writing about some disadvantages and areas to improve in current solutions.

As summary, I will say - I like new toys :) When this one will be great, I will write only good words about it :)

Solaris...Not Correct

jetblueISAM — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 03:44:17 GMT

@solaris

I believe one of Apples biggest issues is they communicate HORRIBLY!! They pushed out 200+ MB's worth of patches almost three days apart back in August of 2008 and caused nightmares for security professionals in the industry. If Microsoft did that they would have been BLASTED!!!! Apple is like the "Barack Obama <--just an example" of the IT industry right now and can do no wrong. However, over time and the increase of Apple devices on the market, this too will fade and the hype will be gone. Microsoft is very deliberate and communicates greatly with security and IT professionals via their channels very very well. Every patch with Microsoft is communicated, tested and they work with their community well before it gets released. Apple does NOT do this at all. I have so many examples why Apple is horrible to their user community because they use them as their TEST LAB. With that said Microsoft could learn that they should have saved some "features" for a "wow" factor during release. This is one thing Steve Jobs does well. Until release he has everything very tightly controlled. Also, Microsoft could learn to have a consistent UI and I think W7 is a step in the right direction on that front. But hey lets not forget...telemetry drives Microsoft innovation nowadays. :)

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Jon_DeVaan — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:14:10 GMT

@jetblueISAM

Thank you for your kind words overall. I can offer some assistance to you on your wishlist.

Run As is discouraged for security purposes, but it is still available using shift+right-click.

You can create and customize a Quick Launch tool bar: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/add-the-quick-launch-bar-to-the-taskbar-in-windows-7/ is one location that has the full instructions.

On the “Manage Network Adapters” I recommend adding ncpa.cpl to the quick launch bar. I apologize this isn’t what you are asking for exactly.

On GINA, the add-in mechanism for login was redesigned for Vista, which Windows 7 inherits. Any ISV or IHV that used GINA is encouraged to use the new interface: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163489.aspx

Cisco for example has done this in their Vista compatible VPN client.

Jon DeVaan

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

blargsoup — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 08:34:06 GMT

After reading this article, it would seem that there would be a great benefit to having a beta 2 before locking into the release candidate. One of the comments here was about how there seems to be no response to the Windows 7 taskforce suggestions, but I would guess that some of these suggestions have been looked at, and we just need a chance to use the latest build to see this. It's unfortunate that the public beta is the only opportunity to submit feedback with the hope that a large change will take place. Please don't rush 7.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Mike Williams — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:21:57 GMT

"Our telemetry measures sequences of feature usage as well and we often spend considerable time understanding the starting point/end point of sequences. So not just quantity."

In the example given of Media Player's library I wonder if that telemetry measures the disjunction between the reduced feature set of v12 and the far-from bridging-the-gap additions to Explorer for managing media files. I think there would also be a lot of unquantifiable sequences as users try to figure out how to do something like rip a CD now that the Rip tab has gone. After using many versions of the player and writing articles on its use, I feel like a newbie trying random left and right clicks over the Media Player interface trying to figure out where they've hidden stuff.

"For us a bug is any time the software does something that someone one wasn’t expecting it to do."

One of the most passionately argued items in the Vista and W7 betas has been the reduction in UI contrast for so much of Windows (and in moreso for Media Player which likes to use grey text over various shades of blue). Those of us who are contemporaries of you Steve but may not be able to afford bleeding edge video equipment, find it increasing difficult to easily read so much on the screen because of color choices and font sizes that can ONLY be adjusted by going to one of the extreme High Contrast schemes. Even with so many people voting on these issues, the beta team does us the disservice of saying "NOT REPRO". Do we need to contribute telemetry data from our visual cortex before this is taken seriously?

"The work of acting on feedback responsibly and managing the development of Windows through all phases of the process is something we are very sincere about."

For two Windows betas now we've had problems with the Feedback tools that seem to require entirely new builds of Windows to address. In Build 7000 the flag to set feedback as Public almost never works, which means that almost every beta tester has to edit each bug after submission to reset that flag. Why not issue a patch? It's very likely that we're never going to see a pre-RC build so why not make beta-testers' work easier?

We're also unable to see attached screenshots on bugs, something simple promised during the Vista beta but still eluding Microsoft 3 years later in the W7 beta.

Older -XPDM- graphics drivers

Henk Poley — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:57:58 GMT

Could Microsoft put some effort in the XPDM graphics driver layer? For laptops upgrading the graphics card is not an option. And from Vista -> 7, the compatibility with these older drivers has deteriorated. I hope the engineers get enough telemetry data from the broken installs on such systems. Or get around talking the few graphics chip builders to update their drivers to the new stricter rules.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

hitman721 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:34:10 GMT

I can attest that to the folks I've encountered that have used Windows 7, they are very pleasantly surprised at the quality of the Beta build and the potential for the final product. All the users I've spoken to are itching to get the RC and it does span the userbase from the basic skilled users to the more advanced users. I'd also like to thank Microsoft for respond to issues very quickly.

The IE 7 update has improved some issues. However, I'm now getting the same amount of crashes as in IE 7 on Windows Vista. I hope the RC version of IE 8 improves upon this. However, I do love the recovery feature that allows me for the most part to resume whatever I happen to be working on. This is very useful and helps you cut down on wasted time.

I would have to agree that Microsoft does need a few rabbit's in the hat, a few aces, and a joker's in the deck of a "Wow" must have features that neither Linux or Apple has. A couple of these game changers or the killer app to movtivate folks who need something extra. In Windows 95, it was the clean UI that was the must have. In Windows 98, it was the tight integration of IE plus WMP that was the game changer. In Windows 2000, the NTFS switch and new driver model that was the must have. For Windows XP, besides streamlining 2000, it was the emergence of new technologies and stability. For Vista users, the security was supposedly the big sell, but it wasn't communicated and there was no "Wow" app considered a game changer. It was percieved as slow and it was correct.

Here we are slowly approaching Windows 7 RC, and there is a lot of promise with Windows 7. However, there isn't that killer apps, game changers, aces, jokers, etc. I really do hope between now and the RC, Microsoft has something hidden to spring onto users. Some set of killer apps that make the case. Those of us using the beta have been pretty much sold. I'm really speaking for the average joe, the not so technical user, the Mac skeptic, and other users who might not get it. Steven and Jon, just something for you guys to think about and cook up before Windows goes to RTM.

Thanks.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

cuddlydragon — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 16:03:14 GMT

@ "needy state changes"

Please, i BEG you! give us a choice for the needy state taskbar blinking.

when there is a taskbar button flashing of a window that i cannot immediately divert my attention to, it drives me nuts. it's like my taskbar is visually shouting at me like a kid with ADHD demanding attention.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

jetblueISAM — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:54:35 GMT

@Jon_Devaan

I always try to be kind regardless of the situation. Sugar vs Spice. From a security perspective, having administrators logon to their workstations with elevated domain credentials is directly against best practice. Just add a nice custom logon script on a DA workstation and welcome to hell. Maybe just a difference in opinion on this one. In response to your response to my wishlist.

1.) Even the new Cisco VPN 5.0.05.0.280-Beta for Vista DOES NOT support START BEFORE LOGON. This has not changed since the release of Vista and is a really big deal. Let me know if I am missing something on this one.

2.) Yes the hidden SHIFT-RIGHT-CLICK works for certain file types. However, most administrators will want to run Snap-In Consoles when running under alternate credentials. Unless I am missing something the RunAs different user does not work under these file types. Of course we can open a cmd under the context of an elevated account and then execute the msc but that is just another set of steps to do. I could also execute MMC.EXE and then add snap-in consoles. Just more steps once again.

3.) In Windows 7, if I right-click on "Network" the menu is practically empty. You could put it right below "Disconnect Network Drive" Why is it a major issue to add the Manage Network Adapters back when the menu itself is already small? I understand a quicklaunch is another workaround but I'm not going to deploy that to every single workstation as I want to make it transparent to our normal end users. In addition, do you have a reason why this option was removed from Vista in the first place?

I am very happy where you are going with Windows 7. As an enterprise customer, these are some of the smaller issues I see that can easily be fixed. Maybe you can work with Cisco to bring back "Start Before Logon" features that existed back in Windows XP. I appreciate the links outlining the GINA as they were very informative.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

noroom — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:11:50 GMT

Thanks for this great post! This will surely encourage beta testers to submit more and higher quality feedback. You can at least count me in for that!

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 20:25:04 GMT

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter):

----

1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file (vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

E.G.-> Here, using 0 as my blocking IP address in a FULLY normalized (meaning no repeated entries) HOSTS file with nearly 650,000 bad sites blocked in it, I get a 14++mb sized HOSTS file... using 0.0.0.0 it shoots up to 18++mb in size (& even worse using 127.0.0.1, to around the tune of 24++mb in size)... semseless & bloat creation is the result!

2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section (this is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... port filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

----

Ordinarily, I wouldn't post anything that "puts down Windows" here, ESPECIALLY THIS SITE (since it's KNOWN to widely be a more-or-less largely "Anti-Microsoft" type of news website, lol, & facts like these give the 'antimicrosoft' faction here ammo to use), but...

Facts, are facts.

APK

P.S.=> MAN, all that said & aside? I had to post those 2 objections I have to newer MS OS' - I mean, hey:

Doing both of those alterations (crippling ones imo) on MS' part? Dumb...

So, unless someone can show me a GOOD solid technical reason (because I have YET to find any reasons WHY both of those things were done) on why these cripplings were implemented in VISTA/Server2008, vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003??

I will stick by that statement! apk

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

teoh.hanhui — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 22:24:41 GMT

I hope you've done something about WMP 12's UI since build 7000. Features aside, WMP 11 had a more sensible design and looked much better.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

cjohnsen — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 23:55:33 GMT

I've been a beta tester since Windows NT 4.0, and I completely sympathize with the Windows dev team, however I decided to resign my beta tester credentials after receiving "will not fix" responses to the vast majority of my Vista bug reports and all of my Windows 7 bug reports.

I guess the inability to successfully run vanilla .vbs logon scripts without first turning off UAC isn't critical to Microsoft. And that's fine, I understand that you have to have your priorities. Some of my bug reports are stupid cosmetic things (those usually get fixed), and some are not. If MS is going to consistently flag the stuff that is actually >important< as "will not fix", then I'm not going to waste my time or yours continuing to file bug reports when the outcome is already known.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

manicmarc — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:04:58 GMT

Great post. No one serious about release a product can just add in every suggestion. Months of delays (because extra features/changes always add more unexpected bugs!) vs. an early and controlled polished release. I know what I'd choose!

Marcinw - you're talking nonsense. The DRM in Vista doesn't effect me because none of my devices or windows media files are DRMed. In fact iTunes probably has actively running DRM code since I do actually buy songs/apps from the store.

You must understand that code doesn't slow down your system unless it's being constantly executed or it has large amounts of data in memory.

Vista may have built in DRM, just like the iPod and even the Mac OS X contain code to control what hardware the OS will run on (a form of DRM if you ask me).

If you won't a totally "open" non DRM system, then use one you can view the source code of, like Fedora.

However say goodbye to interoperability with all your devices, graphics cards, sound cards and online stores. You either live within the ecosystem and accept that your operating system will contain some DRM, or move to a different platform (or, as you've suggested, stay with an antiquated, and soon to be not-supported OS for ever and ever).

DRM = Minor issue. Move on.

Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7 IP Stack!

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 02:28:01 GMT

2 things BOTHER me about Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & doubtless their offspring in Windows 7 (unless you can tell me otherwise on the latter):

----

1.) The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

(vs. 0.0.0.0 or 127.0.0.1, which are bigger, slower on load into the local DNS Cache (as well as slower flushes via ipconfig /flushdns) & also occupy more RAM once loaded, for NO GOOD REASON - 0 blocks as well as the other 2 do, & is smaller + faster!)

In this case, this happened on 12/09/2008 Microsoft "Patch Tuesday" updates, it wasn't LIKE that before then!

2.) The removal of IP Port Filtering GUI controls for it via Local Network Connections properties "ADVANCED" section

(This is up there w/ when MS removed the GUI checkbox after NT 4.0 for IP Forwarding, only, this time, the difference is (and, it's a PAIN) is that it is NOT a single 1 line entry to hack via regedit.exe, but FAR MORE COMPLEX to do by hand)... port filtering is a USEFUL & POWERFUL security (& to a degree, speed also) enhancing feature!

Afaik, on THIS case (vs. #1 above)? It has always been that way in VISTA &/or Windows Server 2008... & not just the result of a Patch Tuesday modification.

----

APK

P.S.=> WHY HAS THIS BEEN DONE? Makes NO sense people... none for efficiency & security @ least that I can see & thus? I'd like to know WHY these crippling things were done to otherwise possibly FINE OS (these things DO affect my decisions to upgrade & possibly those of others as well, something to consider)... apk

re: IP Stack

RalphTrickey — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:38:16 GMT

About this question...

The removal of being able to use 0 as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file

I've got $20 bucks that says it was removed for one of two reason.because it was the

re: Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7 IP Stack!

RalphTrickey — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:42:54 GMT

Let me try again.

About this question...

The removal of being able to use 0 as a block ing IP address in a HOSTS file

I've got $20 bucks that says it was removed for one of two reason.

Because they also removed 1234567 as a valid IP to make it more obvious that you were being hacked.

I don't know if the 1234567 form is compatible with IPv6.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 05:11:07 GMT

IPv6 is, AFAIK @ least, driven by a DIFF. driver than tcpip.sys (iirc, it's "tcpip6.sys" & tcpip.sys is for IPv4) as far as drivers go @ least...

Also, IP addresses in IPv6 are a LOT longer than the 4 section IP addresses IPv4 uses, so I wouldn't say it's that...

Speculation's fine & dandy, but I'd like to know the REAL answer for:

1.) Why 0 is no longer working as a blocking IP address in a HOSTS file in VISTA or Server 2008

2.) Why has the PORT FILTERING gui front been removed from the configuration GUI in VISTA &/or Server 2008?

Again - doing so, makes NO sense for either efficiency (in regards to #1 (hosts file)), & also for LAYERED security (in regards to @2 (Port Filtering)).

Let's hear the REAL answer to this, from "the horses mouth", in the folks from Microsoft!

Thanks...

APK

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

x86-64 — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:34:13 GMT

SORRY TO HAVE TO TYPE IN CAPS BUT,

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE FIX WINDOWS 7 SO IT REMEMBERS WINDOW VIEWS AND WINDOWS POSITIONS ON THE DESKTOP. THIS HAS BEEN A NAGGING ISSUE SINCE WINDOWS 3.1 AND AGAIN IT IS PRESENT IN THE WINDOWS 7 BETA, BOTH X86 AND X64. IT'S SO EASILY SOLVED YET MICROSOFT HAS YET TO ADDRESS THIS COMMON ANNOYANCE.

THERE ARE SO MANY SMALL ANNOYANCES THAT MICROSOFT HAS YET TO FIX. ANOTHER ONE IS WINDOWS MEDIA PLAYER NOT REMEMBERING YOUR VIEW SETTINGS TOO. WHEN STARTING WMP YOU HAVE TO MANUALLY ADJUST THE "FIT TO PLAYER ON RESIZE" EACH AND EVERY TIME. VERY ANNOYING!!

ANOTHER IS WMP AUTOMATICALLY CREATING A STARTUP ENTRY FOR WMPSNCFG REGARDLESS OF YOUR SETTINGS IN THE WMP OPTIONS MENU. CURRENTLY THE ONLY WAY TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE IS TO GO INTO THE REGISTRY. VERY ANNOYING!

There are those who might say oh my god you're nitpicking but I'm not. These are basic functionality issues that have been present since Windows inception. Sometimes it's the small things that make a product great. Thank you!

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

vistisen — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:06:58 GMT

It seems that WMP12 is getting a bit of a bashing, I have to say that it is for me, the weekest point of the beta, and about the only thing that makes me think about going back to vista. The main problem is when using it to stream video. I have an Netgear EVA700 box connected via a wireless network. There are two computers in the house, one running Vista servicepack1, and the other running windows 7. Playing DIVX files on the netgear works fine when they come from the VISTA computer, but the same file when played via the windows 7 beta version has much poorer picture quality (diagonals are stepped, and panning is very jerky). Even worse the video restarts about 10 minutes into the program. I have tried several files and the results are the same.

I have tried copying the file to an USB stick and it plays fine when the usb stick is set in the player, in other words its not the file (usb works fine) or the network (the vista machine works fine) It can only be either windows 7 or the mediaplayer 12.

I can understand a bug causing the restart, but the large difference in picture quality, i can not understand. I thought that all the video processing took place in the netgear EVA700, and that all the computer does is send the file over the network, otherwise I do not understand how the EVA can play from a USB stick. Does anyone else have a similar experience?

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

someone — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:26:36 GMT

"the reality is that early in the cycle there is time for us to manage through the process of substantially changed code and the associated regressions that will happen"

This is precisely why there should be two betas for what is considered not as big a major release as Windows Vista.

"There over a couple of million people using the beta and if each one, or for that matter just one out of 10, have some unique change, bug fix, or must do work item we would have literally years of work just to make our way through that list."

This challenge can be solved by implementing a Digg/Aero taskforce-like system of fixing "bugs" (Sorry Connect doesn't do the job because it's limited to tech beta participants). Doesn't Microsoft see its potential? "rule by the crowd" is what is exactly needed to set things right in most of the cases.

Lastly, all the product teams (right from Windows Media to WNDP) should blog and respond to feedback.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

anonymuos — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 11:31:01 GMT

While we as users understand how incredibily complex and difficult it is for the Windows teams to make even a small change while minimizing its negative impact on users, as far as removing features are concerned, clearly the best approach IMO is to not remove them even when they are not being replaced by something else. Take for example the classic Start menu, or the Software Explorer in Windows Defender. Having that additional code wouldn't have added to the product's complexity as much as it would now affect millions of users who were used to it and wouldn't want it to change at any cost. Once you "give" a feature to users, you have a moral responsibility to NOT TAKE IT AWAY. Wherever features are removed, it is best to keep them as an alternative choice forever, follow the additive model as far as possible, not the destructive one which throws away things based on management "decisions". Microsoft does not even provide a rationale behind each and every feature removal; these lists are only complied by users who used them in their day to day activities and one fine day discover that it's been pulled and are helpless without it. If you really follow this additive model where no features (that make up these lists) are removed, Microsoft will see a very huge numbers of users who are holding back merely for removed features, migrating to the newer operating system. As a aside, did Microsoft ever think why before Windows Vista, there was not such a huge number of (www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_Vista). The features removed list is itself a bug report for a beta for things that are getting overlooked or removed without careful thought, but Microsoft is hardly doing anything to justify their removal, let alone add them back as they were in previous versions of Windows. As a matter of fact, most of the comments on this post are regarding crippling/dumbing down/removals. Anyways, I'm despondent about seeing them back ever at this stage of the beta cycle, moreover "telemetry drives Microsoft innovation nowadays."

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

micfo — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:43:38 GMT

The beta stage is more about checking several tasks, and catch problems rather than extensively changing the way particular software works.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 22:41:53 GMT

http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1143349&threshold=-1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&pid=27012231

Take a read, Microsoft...

APK

Found out rationale behind Windows VISTA/Server2008/WIndows 7 Port Filtering GUI front removal... apk

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:11:48 GMT

I found the (imo) rather flimsy reasoning behind WHY the PORT FILTERING gui controls were allegedly removed in Windows VISTA, Server 2008, & Windows 7, after consulting with Mr. Mitch Tulloch... here tis:

<b>From Chapter 27 of the Vista Resource Kit that explains the rationale for removing the TCP/IP Filtering UI:</b>

----

"Windows XP Service Pack 2 actually has three different firewalling (or network traffic filtering) technologies that you can separately configure, and which have zero

interaction with each other:

Windows Firewall that was first introduced in Service Pack 2

TCP/IP Filtering, which is accessed from the Options tab of the Advanced

TCP/IP Properties sheet for the network connection

IPsec rules and filters, which you can create using the IPsec Security

Policy Management MMC snap-in

On top of this confusion, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 had a fourth network traffic filtering technology that you could use: the Routing and Remote Access Service

(RRAS), which supported basic firewall and packet filteringthe problem, of course, is that when more than one of these firewalls is configured on a computer, one firewall can block traffic that another allows"

----

<b>Lame reasoning imo!</b>

I say this, because it is TRIVIAL to create exceptions rules in most any software (or hardware based) firewall generally, & to match that in Port Filtering is quite simple also (even easier imo, provided you know what port's involved, & that's what the IANA lists are for, after all).

AND

Once a malware gets inside? One of the FIRST things it does, is disable a software firewall... & with NO OTHER BARRIERS IN THE WAY, such as PORT FILTERING RULES?

You get, what you get (infested systems galore online today).

APK

P.S.=> HOWEVER - Mr. Tulloch & I are currently in progress searching for the reasoning behind the removal of 0 as a valid IP blocking address in a HOSTS file, but even HE was unaware of WHY this was done... but, with any luck? We're going to find out - &, I'll let you all know, here, since nobody else here has to date... that is, if the thread isn't dead by then... apk

Need access to the admin account from a very limitted account!

thoeg — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 01:21:39 GMT

HI,

I have installed the beta, since I am blind and there is no way of installing any version of Windows without sighted help, I had a person telling me what was on the screen during the installation. Most things went ok, but since this person has almost no knowledge of Windows is a regular user, we missed the place where you choose the correct account. I have an account but it seems to be of the most restricted type. I cannot see files on an attached flash card, where my Screen reader installation is! I cannot start narator the built in very limitted screen reader, for some reason narator have never been working on the Wisown versions I have used since 2000 where it was introduced. Before I can start using the beta I need to know a way to be able to install my screen reader and it would be best if it can be done without too much work in a GUI environment since I will be using the same person for the screen reading.

claus

As regards the HOSTS file 0 vs. .0.0.0.0 issue

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:04:20 GMT

Upon speaking with Mr. Mitch Tulloch & doing my own queries about it as noted above over @ /. (slashdot), a Mr. Harm Sorensen was good enough to point out that HOSTS files using 0 are indeed smaller & faster on disk as I noted, & using 0 is thus smaller & faster to load into the local DNS cache (doing the math in theory alone shows anyone this much), BUT, once in memory? I had already heard tell that the load eliminates repeat entries, but NOT that the API does a conversion of 0 entries into 0.0.0.0 ... so, in RAM, it may not be a bloating, but on disk? It unquestionably, is.

Getting those answers people, & they are still in favor of what I stated on BOTH points (HOSTS files not being able to use 0 anymore for a blocking IP Address, AND, on Port Filtering being foolishly removed for very lame reasons which affect the practice of "layered security", by removing the ability to use it easily since the gui for it is gone).

APK

P.S.=> To Microsoft: I really hope you folks have a GOOD SOLID TECHNICAL reason for doing both of those things I note above, because thusfar, I cannot see it & neither can others... the justifications are not good enough for such cripplings AND inefficiencies being implemented! apk

More HOSTS files analysis follow-up... apk

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 18:26:46 GMT

Additional findngs that myself and Mr. Harm Sorensen (noted in my last post above) found in regards to HOSTS file usage were rather astounding, & don't make a lot of sense (especially the result), read on:

Mr. Sorensen espouses the use of a local DNS server to cache URL-to-IP address equation, which do work to do the job but, may be vulnerable to attacks/exploits, for one thing (& more below it, read on please)!

E.G.-> Attacks & exploits such as those Mr. Dan Kaminsky found in BIND &/or the recent DJBNS (Dan J. Bernstein) a few days prior to this post OR just plain old "DNS-Poisoning" & DNS server programs eat up cpu cycles, memory, & other forms of I/O as well... needlessly for most people that do not really need one because of HOSTS file usage (for both speed and security online).

What Mr. Sorensen found, was that disabling the DNS Client causes more disk I/O than was present using the DNS Client service.

(Which fails on HOSTS files larger than 1mb or so, not exactly SURE of what size begins to make the local DNS client start to lag but it is near that size)

Turning off the DNS Client Service caused the system to constantly re-reference the HOSTS file from disk, which IS expected.

To the tune of 1500ms to Open/Read/Close the HOSTS file in order to obtain a URL-to-IP address equation from it (whether for blocking or speeding up access to said site online).

This to myself, also seemed excessive & impractical to use as he felt also because it makes sense & I am not one to argue with numbers, @ least not until they do not make sense, and they don't if you see the results people get using custom HOSTS files for both more speed & more security online.

I.E.-> Because of what Mr. Sorensen found, it also made no sense to myself this should give people the speed boosts they see using custom HOSTS file!

E,G,-> Speed boosts folks are seeing, such as Mr. Oliver Day of SecurityFocus.com noted in his recent article regarding the "Resurrecting the Killfile" on 02/24/2009 this year. His results? See quote:

----

"The host file on my day-to-day laptop is now over 16,000 lines long. Accessing the Internet — particularly browsing the Web — is actually faster now." Oliver Day, SecurityFocus.com

----

Which is also what I see here, as does anyone else using a HOSTS file for faster & more secure online internet experiences. I can provide such testimonials easily, for anyone curious in regards to this. Just ask.

Anyhow/anyways:

Here, I offset more of that disk I/O bound lag of access/reaccess via placing my HOSTS file onto a TRUE SSD (not flash ram based type) called a CENATEK RocketDrive via altering the DataBasePath parameter found here in the registry:

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters

(Which is composed of RAM (2gb PC-133 SDRAM) much faster access than std. HDD's have by many orders of magnitude since there are no read/write heads per se, as in a mechanical HDD. Speed of RAM, vs. Speed of disk basically).

Other folks usually won't/don't have that "luxury" so they ought to be REALLY feeling Mr. Sorensen's lag he found via analysis using both Process Explorer &/or Process Monitor (hello Dr. Mark Russinovich), but strangely, just using the words of Mr. Oliver Day above?

Well, apparently? They're not.

Mr. Sorensen also found that once his HOSTS file was first called upon, that 1500ms lag cut into 1/2 around 700ms... &, we could not figure it out, until he noted that the Operating System's native diskcache was caching the file content, which made COMPLETE SENSE to myself also.

This also makes one think that the DNS Client caching system for a local DNS cache may be unnecessary, because as is, it 'chokes' on a HOSTS file of the size of mine, causing INCREDIBLY noticeable lag, but when the DNS Client is stalled? NO more lag.

However, that SHOULD theoretically, begin causing another form of lag: Diskbound access & reaccess of the HOSTS file for resolution of URL's to their correct online IP address.

Still, all the theory in the world does not seem to be holding up in regards to creating a slowdown apparently if one just reads MR. Day's quote from above, because that is what I experience here, as do other users of the HOSTS file (especially large HOSTS files).

Either the local diskcache is doing a GREAT job, seemingly replacing the need for the DNS Client service, or we are still overlooking something (perhaps it is a matter of "the weight of each term" like in mathematics? The disk access end is not as great a detriment as thought, & is TOTALLY OFFSET by the OS diskcache caching the HOSTS file content)?

I'd say it may be a good idea to EXTEND the size of the array/datastructure/buffer used to populate the DNS Client service so it does not lag on HOSTS files, or even do away w/ it altogether (because of the results Mr. Sorensen saw in his analysis).

Either way, it seems HOSTS files are 'bucking the odds' & making it less efficient on disk via no longer allowing 0 as a blocking IP address (vs. the larger & slower to disk access 0.0.0.0, or, even worse still, the std. 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter).

Thoughts?

APK

P.S.=> AND again, as regards "Port Filtering":

Folks @ MS, do also consider putting back the Ports Filtering GUI back into the local area connection icon item for the sake of layered security as well, per the reasons noted above... apk

hosts files

Harm Sørensen — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 02:14:06 GMT

Regarding the information posted by Mr Kowalski above about hosts files, here follows a summary of my findings (on Windows XP SP3; other versions may differ):

- If the DNS Client service is started, it reads the hosts file into its in-memory cache once at the start, and again if it detects a change in the file.

- The time taken to read the hosts file exhibits exponential growth relative to the number of entries already read. I suspect this is due to the data structures and methods used to add data to the cache; certainly, when reading the file in, the DNS Client is CPU-bound rather than I/O-bound.

(As as example on my computer: a 6,400 entry hosts file takes approximately 500 ms to read in fully, a 64,000 entry hosts file takes about 1.5 minutes and extrapolating the data I found that a 640,000 entry hosts files would take over 3 hours to load in to the cache.)

- This makes large hosts files unsuitable for use with the DNS Client service. So one alternative - which Mr Kowalski uses - is to stop the DNS Client service. This causes the DNS API to read the entire hosts file upon every name resolution.

- This takes a linear amount of time relative to the size of the file, and is constrained by I/O rather than CPU. This leads to the essence of Mr Kowalski's complaint: by disallowing integer IP addresses and thus requiring the longer dotted octet notation, it slows name resolution down for him as the hosts file is larger.

Hope this helps clarify.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:25:35 GMT

To continue from where Mr. Sorensen left off (great job Harm by the by):

The only real slowdown I can HUMANLY perceive in using a LARGE HOSTS file here, and it takes me a program to note it which I wrote this year to remove duplicated entries in HOSTS files and to convert the larger, and yes, slower 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter address?

(Which afaik, & iirc, 127.0.0.1 does actually use SOME cpu + I/O to do its job vs. others like -> 0.0.0.0 to plain jane smaller & faster 0 in a HOSTS file to block out bad sites)

Was loading mine into my program, @ first @ least, read on:

I.E.-> I use this program & I populate my HOSTS file thus, daily & have been for nearly 12++ yrs. now to protect myself & others from known BAD websites &/or adbanners that house malicious code on them.

(My sources are reputable, such as the HOSTS files @ wikipedia, & also BISS/BlueTack, mvps.org, & my own original list + stopbadware.org & Mr. Dancho Danchev's blog for ZDNet, to note just some).

NOW - At first, because I do this "oldschool/primitive" method of profiling my code, by inserting a hi-res timer into the routine & 'ticking off' the amt. of time it takes to perform said routine?

Well - I saw slower loads into my arrays (re-dimmable type, via using listboxes (yes, I know, NOT as efficient as a redimmable array, but it works))

That alone told me that accessing a HOSTS file using 127.0.0.1 or 0.0.0.0 would be slower for the DNS cache system (or, really anything else parsing that file's contents) because of greater size.

Again - Just common-sense really.

HOWEVER:

Running into the DNS Client lagging was like (for lack of a better analogy here) IRON MAN falling out of the sky when he went up as far as the SR-71 Blackbird did, & he yells:

"We iced up Jarvis: DEPLOY FLAPS! Jarvis?!? Come ON, WE GOTTA BREAK THE ICE!"

I did but - funny part was, that I have been disabling the local DNS Client service via services.msc for decades now & forgot all about it!

(I noted it in this guide which has been showing people getting NO malware infestations by using it, for more than 1++ yrs. now, see here -> Thronka's reply, specifically: http://www.xtremepccentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=0f176a41d58da62679173e0c55362014&t=28430&page=3 & there, I realized I had to amend it for that 'tiny detail' & did so)

It was my "way around it", disabling the local DNS cache, as Mr. Sorensen noted above, & it works!

(The funniest part is, despite all the CPU or DiskBound numbers saying it's the 'wrong thing to do'? That folks like Mr. Oliver Day's quote above from -> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/491 where he goes faster online, and many others do so as well online using custom HOSTS files like mine)

People can undoubtedly actually go a LOT faster online this way (via blocking adbanners & not using javascript aid this tremendously for speed, but, also for security too by cutting out the root causes (again, imo just common sense))

----

NOW, on running a LOCAL DNS Server here:

The ONLY problem I have with DNS servers is illustrated today on MS-Patch Tuesday (2-3 patches to MS' own DNS server) & that of the DJBDNS server showing holes 2 days ago, and that of BIND which Mr. Dan Kaminsky discovered & the entire internet was in an uproar about.

----

Bottom-line? I don't trust them anymore... or, not as much & I do use one external to my systems!

(No need for AD here, which has HEAVY dns dependencies is why, & only single system here now online & no need to run yet another program I do not need consuming RAM, CPU &/or disk I/O, or other forms of resources also)

I do however, still use the "Best the the business" imo, in OpenDNS, who immediately worked & responded to Mr. Kaminsky's findings to secure themselves.

However, if THEY don't have an address I need to reach cached, as Mr. Day later noted & I covered in my security guide from last year?

I can still reach it via a "hardcode" I turned Mr. Sorensen onto by equating the right IP address to the right URL inside my HOSTS file!

(That is also in addition to blocking out bad sites &/or adbanner, this manifests itself in gaining yet more speed to these websites, by omitting the roundtrip URL-to-IP resolution that results & is shown by a PING of said website, IF referencing a DNS server, which varies from 30 - N return trips times)

But, by also using a hardcode as I do (which I do not distribute that model to others, they have to do that themselves)?

0 ms response!

(& most sites don't OFTEN change their IP address, & if they do? They let you know, WELL beforehand, when changing hosting providers)

Anyhow, HOSTS files are IMMENSELY useful as another "layer of security" here, & even SpyBot "Search & Destroy" does a population of your local HOSTS file vs. such attacks (they are yet another reputable source I use also to populate mine, in addition to those above).

APK

P.S.=> As Mr. Sorensen did, I am clarifying my "POV" here, & using the results of others who have also found HOSTS files useful in this capacity for both speed & security online, layered security mind you, today...

AND, folks @ MS:

Please, do also consider reinstating the PORT FILTERING gui front-end in Windows' own local network connection advanced properties back into VISTA/Server 2008/Windows7.

Your rationale above is flawed per the VISTA resource kit (which Mr. Mitch Tullock of windowsnetworking.com nicely provided) - I say this, because the fact remains that IPSec, Software Firewalls, AND port filters use diff. drivers & operate @ diff. layers of the IP stack in Windows, & if you take 1 down (which malwares often seek to do, disabling the software firewall for example)?

The other 2 are in the way.

You folks @ MS saying "we will remove 1 only" is contradicting your own statement, because you still would have 2 discrete & disparate methods in the way that will NOT "sync" automatically as to the ports you allow or disallow, & personally?

I find creating IP security policies (IPSec) the most difficult of them ALL to work with, vs. software firewalls &/or Port Filtering (I use all 3 in addition to my LinkSys router & they all work, flawlessly & fast -> "HANDLES LIKE A DREAM!" IronMan/Tony Stark on his init. test flight of his armor from the great film last year).

Sorry for the ramble, hope this all works out! apk

List of improvements in Windows 7 RC

pinko76 — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:03:16 GMT

Well, I another way to evidence this changes and improvements , in Windows 7 64 Bit exepecially RC Build:

Absolute Performance :

Improve Very very well Boot of windows 7

Improve very very well preview of open applications in Supertaskbar ( when mouse is passed over preview of open programs , the preview of programs it does not follow in real time , the advances of real applications operations), Fix this bad bug , it seems being a bug or lag latency of Direct 3d.

In other words , eliminate all Lag or Latency or slow performance Of Api Direct 2d-Direct Write- Direct 3d , for fast desktop composition in all scenarios !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Complete All Api:

Graphics Infrastructure: Direct Write-Direct 2d- Ui Animations- Direct 3d , for extreme performance to end ALL lAGS OF AERO INTERFACE in windows 7 64 bit!!!!!!!!!!!

Complete all api and module for Support Multicore and many core Machines extreme scalability , in windows 7 64 Bit !!!!!!!!!!

And in the and i note for you another way, that in windows 7 64 bit, Directx 11 for GpGPU and Api and Module for Multicore , do are the imperative Voice!!!!!!!!!!!!

Optimize code and bugs of all setions:

Interface ( no lag , fast , usability , all extreme)

Fas Speed on ( Boot , many many applications open contemporary , " see Many and multicore optimizations" , with alla Api of case)

Eliminate Bugs relative to Supertaskbar , with usability supertaskbar extreme !!!!!!!

Thank you !

Imrovments in Windows 7 64 Bit ( Speed and stability)

pinko76 — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:16:06 GMT

Well , dear windows 7 Team , i write for another words , for improve windows 7 64 bit system in RC Build.

If Possible , make it :

Gui : Improve speed of Aero gui ( Eliminate all lags and latency of flip 3d , preview of open applications , make it preview in real time ) , improve memory management of DWM !!!

Improve DWM , so that video memory occupation , remaining costant in TIMES , after that All Applications Graphics are closed !!!!!!

Performance General:

Improve performance of windows 7 64 bit in this areas:

Boot !!!!

Gui , same in the top !!!

MUlticore optimizations !!!

And OVERALL , make a windows 7 performanve, remaining ever COSTANT IN TIMES !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Stability : Make a great stability in windows 7 64 bit !!! The major stability in Windows History !!!!

conjugated both Performance and Stability and overall costant IN TIMES !!!

Small Note : If possible change positions of flip 3d open windows , not oblique positions , but frontal positions , similar to EXPOSE ' , and do make the user possibility to change keybord shortcut of flip 3d ( it will be good idea , to activate flip 3d with ONLY ONE keybord shortcut and not combination of 2 keyboard shortcut ).

And remaining flip 3d active also when shortcut is released , while deactivate it push newly shortcut .

If it possible !!!!

Thank you !!!

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

venomz3 — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:23:20 GMT

I founded same kind of bug in vista ultimate x64 like described > http://www.designisphilosophy.com/windows-7/windows-7-beta-report-part-1-bugs-20090202/.

Downloaded to desktop autocad 2009 student version (2.5GB). for testing I did:

I right clicked to run as administrator.after that there`s lot file file io and everything is hunging.Mouse showing loading forewer. after I managed to go taskmanager and killed explorer.exe. Then when I started explorer again only internet explorer was in taskbar,another programs were missing like firefox,pspad editor etc. Also live messenger was not in systray. This is a serious problem. Same problem happens with catalyst drivers before run as administator automatically promts. But it so much smaller file that file io doesn`t last so long that everything hangs thats why i haven`t noticed this bug yet.

If someone at microsoft wants to contact me for solving this problem in windows i would be gladly to help. Y know where you get my email as I`m registered to here. I did`t know were else to submit this.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

egads — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:36:32 GMT

@ manicmarc, re: DRM

A few months ago I had a funny thing happen. I was testing a HP printer driver, scanned and printed some currency. Intricate and colorful. The printout was interrupted and a tiny RULESFORUSE.ORG url was footnoted on the page. I went to that site and learned that my print was ok. Not that I would care anyway while printing a one-sided ordinary-paper oversize water-soluble ink-jet copy as a test. But I was outraged by this BIG BROTHER inside my computer.

You should be too.

I think I will put black opaque tape over the webcam when not in use.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

venomz3 — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 18:14:48 GMT

One thing i have in vista is that when something wakes computer from sleep why, when the task is complete, why windows can`t automatically put computer back to sleep. I`ve take allwous everything off that i can think that coud wake up computer. I`ve put windows update to manual, every wakeuppable device is set to not wakeup and allmous all scheduled tasks are disabled. '

I`ve set my computer to sleep after 30mins.

And still my computer wakes random times and is on when i wake.It should save power at nights.

There should be a way to know witch thing has powered computer and setting for only wakeup when pressing power button or mouse or keyboard only for example. I hope there`s better way to diagnose wakeups in W7.

WINDOWS 7 DIRECTX 11 AND MULTICORE !!!

pinko76 — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:24:15 GMT

Dear windows 7 Team and dear Mister Sinofsky, so this is that I have to say you:

Continue Yor good job on windows 7 64 bit , for RC , these are imperative :

1) Complete all Api of windows 7 64 bit and finalize and activate also , the Multithereading Processes on windows 7 , for improve brutally power of Boot Speed and Multicore Performance on windows 7 scenarios!!!!

2) Attenction!!! Today Open Cl library of Kronos Group are reality !!!! ( See Havok Engine on Open CL , with Power of Computation of Graphic-Phisyc and AI) , on GPU !!!!!!!!!

I HOPE THAT MICROSOFT DIRECTX 11 HAVE SAME POWER OF OPEN CL AND SAME OPEN CL , ALLOW TO COMPUTE ON GPGPU , GRAPHIC-PHISIC AN AI !!!!!!

IT SEEMS THAT WITH DIRECTX 11 YOU ARE FAR IN COMPARISON TO OPEN CL !!!!

SO COPLETE DIRETX 11 AND ALLOW WITH THEM , GPGPU COMPUTATION POWER , WITH COMPATIBILITY ON ALL GRAPHICS ENGINE ( HAVOK 6.5-PHISYX AND ALL)

ATTENCTIONS, THIS IS MUCH WAIT ON DIRECTX 11 POWER , YOU DON'T DISAPPOINT USERS HOPES ON DIRECTX 11 !!!!!

WITH DX 11 , HLSL DO MUST HAVE GREAT POWER AND EASY MANAGEMENT , ALLOW USERS AND DEVELOPERS , TO COMPUTE ALL ENGINE AND ALL APPLICATIONS POWER ON GPGPU !!!!!

3) COMPLETE MULTICORE POWER SUPPORT ON WINDOWS 7 64 BIT SYSTEM , FOR NEW ERA OF POWER WITH WINDOWS 7 AND IMPROVE COMPATIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT OF HARD-DISK DRIVE FILES WITH ENABLE ANOTHER SPEED BOOST !!!!!

4)SALL UI COSMETIC CHANGES : CHANGE IF POSSIBLE, FORM OF START BUTTON , FROM CIRCULAR TO SUARE , BECAUSE , I REPEAT, CIRCULAR FORM NOT IS GOOD WITH FLAT TASKBAR OF WINDOWS 7 !!!

IF POSSIBLE CHANGES OTHER ICONS , WITH FORM SQUARE OR FLAT , FLAT !!! FLAT FORM IS SIMPLE REFINED , OBLIQUE ICONS ARE UGLY !!!!

AND IF POSSIBLE , CHANGE FLIP 3D BUTTON , WITH ONLY ACTIVATE SHORTCUT KEYBOARD, NOT COMBINATION OF TWO SHORTCUT OF KEYBOARD !!!!

IT'S SIMPLE WITH ONLY ONE KEYBORD BUTTON !!!!

ALL THESE API AND CHANGES , IT IS PRESENT IN WINDOWS 7 RC OR RTM !!!!

THANK YOU.

Still nothing from MS about PORT FILTERING gui gone in VISTA/Server2008/Windows7, & HOSTS file 0 blocking IP being removed?

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 18:44:47 GMT

See my subject-line, & earlier posts in this regards:

I have YET to see a valid technical response from anyone online, be they Microsoft networking personnel (or otherwise) as to:

----

1.) Why HOSTS files in VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 cannot use the more efficient on disk smaller 0 blocking IP address

(vs. the larger & slower to load 127.0.0.1 loopback adapter, or the slightly less efficient 0.0.0.0, for stopping known bad site access)

----

AND

----

2.) Why the GUI front-end for PORT FILTERING has been removed in VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7...

(&, the reasoning from the VISTA resource kit is poor in this regards, because removing the PORT FILTERING gui control feature ONLY doesn't prevent the other 2-3 methods of layered security from working WITH (or against) one another, as the reasoning was stated)

----

Removing the PORT FILTER gui control layer of security is a BAD MOVE - the reasoning was that removing it was because none of the methods in software firewalls, IP Security Policies, Port Filtering & even RRAS methods do not "automatically sync" w/ one another...

WELL - so what?

I say that, because this actually WORKS IN FAVOR of "layered security", because if 1 of them goes down (or, is taken down, which is what malware often seek to do, say, in the case of software firewalls), the other layered security methods are in the way...

This is much like folks using deadbolt locks, door handle locks, & chain locks on the doors of their homes - break 1? The others still function to stop intruders.

I.E.-> By removing port filtering's easy to use GUI front-end?

MS, You removed 1 of those layers of layered security.

APK

P.S.=> Nobody seems to be answering why this was done, especially in favor of BOTH of the above points, as to WHY it was done... could it be MS has made a mistake here, & is unwilling to admit it publicly?

Until I see a SOLID, LOGICAL TECHNICAL REASON for both of the above occurring, because I have not to date, @ this poin, from YOU folks @ MS, or from others interested in the area of TCP/IP networking online?

I am leaning to my conclusion here - MS has messed up...

(& so what to that also?)

I say this, because this is only notice from myself that it needs fixing on BOTH accounts above, per the reasons noted by myself here a few times earlier above already - giving you an opportunity to either FIX this, or tell us WHY THIS WAS DONE on both accounts #1 & #2 above now... apk

XPS Document Writer -a lot of potential

graham.lv — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 09:45:26 GMT

I think your Microsoft XPS Document Writer has a lot of potential - hope people remember to use it. just installed 7 (7057) and forgot to install nitroPDF from print.. although have it online.

I saw XPS but never used it, today I made the 'accident' of using it because nitro was not there - IT IS GOOD!

Windows Filtering Platform single layer method (VISTA/2k8/Windows7) vs. Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 3 layer method

Alexander Peter Kowalski — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 17:42:57 GMT

Following up on what I wrote up above!

(That's so others here have some documentation from Microsoft themselves, & especially in regards to the differences in HOW their security works now)

Thus, I'll now note how:

----

1.) TCP/IP packet processing paths differences between in how Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 did it (IPSEC.SYS (IP Security Policies), IPNAT.SYS (Windows Firewall), IPFLTDRV.SYS (Port Filtering), & TCPIP.SYS (base IP driver))...

2.) AND, how VISTA/Server 2008/Windows 7 do it now currently, using a SINGLE layer (WFP)...

----

First off, here is HOW it worked in Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003 - using 3 discrete & different drivers AND LEVELS/LAYERS of the packet processing path they worked in:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878072.aspx

The Cable Guy - June 2005: TCP/IP Packet Processing Paths

====

The following components process IP packets:

IP forwarding Determines the next-hop interface and address for packets being sent or forwarded.

TCP/IP filtering Allows you to specify by IP protocol, TCP port, or UDP port, the types of traffic that are acceptable for incoming local host traffic (packets destined for the host). You can configure TCP/IP filtering on the Options tab from the advanced properties of the Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) component in the Network Connections folder.

Filter-hook driver A Windows component that uses the filter-hook API to filter incoming and outgoing IP packets. On a computer running Windows Server 2003, the filter-hook driver is Ipfltdrv.sys, a component of Routing and Remote Access. When enabled, Routing and Remote Access allows you to configure separate inbound and outbound IP packet filters for each interface using the Routing and Remote Access snap-in. Ipfltdrv.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic (packets not destined for the host).

Firewall-hook driver A Windows component that uses the firewall-hook API to examine incoming and outgoing packets. On a computer running Windows XP, the firewall-hook driver is Ipnat.sys, which is shared by both Internet Connection Sharing and Windows Firewall. Internet Connection Sharing is a basic network address translator (NAT). Windows Firewall is a stateful host-based firewall. Ipnat.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic. On a computer running Windows Server 2003, Ipnat.sys is shared by Internet Connection Sharing, Windows Firewall, and the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access. If the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access is enabled, you cannot also enable Windows Firewall or Internet Connection Sharing.

IPsec The IPsec component, Ipsec.sys, is the implementation of IPsec in Windows to provide cryptographic protection to IP traffic. Ipsec.sys examines both local host and transit IP traffic and can permit, block, or secure traffic.

----

1.) After receiving the IP packet, Tcpip.sys passes it to Ipsec.sys for processing.

If the packet has IPsec protection (the IP Protocol field value indicates either Authentication Header [AH] or Encapsulating Security Payload [ESP]), it is processed and removed. If the Windows Firewall: Allow authenticated IPSec bypass Group Policy setting applies to the computer, Ipsec.sys sets an IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet. Ipsec.sys passes the resulting packet back to Tcpip.sys.

If the packet does not have IPsec protection, based on the set of IPsec filters, Ipsec.sys determines whether the packet is permitted, blocked, or requires security. If permitted, Ipsec.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys without modification. If the packet is blocked or requires security, Ipsec.sys silently discards the packet.

2.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipfltdrv.sys for processing.

Based on the interface on which the packet was received, Ipfltdrv.sys compares the packet to the configured inbound IP packet filters.

If the inbound IP packet filters do not allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys silently discards the packet. If the inbound IP packet filters allow the packet, Ipfltdrv.sys passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.

3.) Tcpip.sys passes the packet to Ipnat.sys for processing.

If Internet Connection Sharing or the NAT/Basic Firewall is enabled and the interface on which the packet was received is the public interface connected to the Internet, Ipnat.sys compares the packet to its NAT translation table. If an entry is found, the IP packet is translated and the resulting packet is treated as source traffic.

Windows Firewall checks the IPsec Bypass flag associated with the packet. If the IPsec Bypass flag is set, Windows Firewall passes the packet back to Tcpip.sys.

If the IPsec Bypass flag is not set, Windows Firewall compares the packet to its exceptions list. If the packet matches an exception, Ipnat.sys passes the IP packet back to Tcpip.sys. If the IP packet does not match an exception, Ipnat.sys silently discards the IP packet.

Tcpip.sys compares the IP packet to the configured set of allowed packets for TCP/IP filtering.

If TCP/IP filtering does not allow the packet, Tcpip.sys silently discards the packet. If TCP/IP filtering allows the packet, Tcpip.sys continues processing the packet, eventually passing the packet payload to TCP, UDP, or other upper layer protocols.

====

NOW, the new method, "WFP", used by Windows VISTA, Windows Server 2008, & the upcoming Windows 7:

====

"The IPsec Policy Agent service and Windows Firewall are examples of WFP applications that are included with Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008"

and

"Because all the applications and services use the same filtering engine, it is easier to determine whether other applications or services exist that perform the same function."

(JUST A SINGLE LAYER/LEVEL OF WORK, instead of 3 discrete-separate ones)

====

SO - what is the "problem" I have with this NEW method?

(That yes, does seem to "sync" what was 'out-of-sync' in older Windows 2000/XP/Server 2003, but, what I felt was a STRENGTH of that, & NOT a weakness)

Well...

THE NEW "WFP" METHOD apparently only REPRESENTS A SINGLE POINT TO ATTACK FOR MALWARE MAKERS...

(I.E.=> ONLY 1 THING TO "TAKE OUT" vs. 3 like before... actually making it EASIER to attack because of this!)

APK

P.S.=> I'll gladly take feedback on this, especially from NETWORK ENGINEERS or NETWORK CODERS in Win32 API's especially...

Mr. Mitch Tulloch of WindowsNetworking.com & I have been looking into this, & today, I came upon the "Windows Filtering Platform" documentation today, & those are MY thoughts on it, thusfar: Feedback, please! Thanks for your time... apk

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

DasFox — Tue, 05 May 2009 01:34:49 GMT

I hope someone really reads this and even someone from Microsoft will really consider what I'm saying here.

Vista seemed to come with a mix of emotions, much love and hate. But the overall public's perception didn't seem warm. Vista wasn't the success Microsoft hoped for and these are facts. So why now would Microsoft make a new OS that even remotely looks like the old?

From a technical perspective, the geeks themselves, people might be saying, who cares? But what about the general public that hated Vista so much, don't you think the average consumer who knows nothing about computers is going to look at this and go, here's just a Vista look alike update and I don't want to be bothered with anymore of this Windows garbage.

Let's be honest here people are fed up with the virus and malware problems that persit in Windows and Vista wasn't much of a help. Also Microsoft's efforts at trying to give the general public a tool to help, namely Windows Defender hasn't turned out to be much help at all. In fact the general consensus is to not use the product once they've learned about better 3rd party freeware applications. It's only a matter of time and Windows Defender gets dumped by users. Windows defender should be an option to install.

Speaking of options that we all started to love in 98 and 2000 with choices during the install, what happened to these? Microsoft should give users choices. Consumers should be allowed install options of what they want and don't want during the install. No install options and people feel left out, forced to take what they get. This was one thing I really hated when I saw Microsoft move away from, just making it a auotmated one size fits all install, no options, we all take the same thing and learn to like it.

Let's take a laymans perspective here, honestly, do people all drive the same cars, like the same colors, clothes, dogs, just about anything you can think of? Of course not people have personal choices for just about everything, so why does Microsoft think we don't want choices during the installation to customize Windows to our software tastes?

Getting to pick your wallpaper and login icon are not choices. Users need software choices during the install, to pick and choose what they want.

Getting back to the OS, why would a company take a product that didn't have good success and continue making a new product that looks similar? This doesn't make good business sense. Maybe Microsoft's thinking here is that the look and feel has become comfortable and we don't want to rock the boat to much on this and give the general public something with a whole new look and feel and shock them.

For whatever reasons, possibly time constraints, just not enough time to push something out the door, completely fresh in the GUI looks. No matter what the reasons are Microsoft should of never given it the same looks at all, this might backfire.

Microsoft took a lot of backlashing on Vista and now to bring a new OS with the same looks and feels is a big mistake.

If Microsoft has the time they really need to go back to the Windows GUI department and bring a new look. I only installed the RC last night and didn't have a chance to really explore it, but I was really shocked to see the same looks, I really didn't like at all what I saw. I felt like all I was running in the cosmetic department was a Vista update and people are drawn by looks.

Let's consider just one small thing here, the taskbar, look how cool a taskbar OS X gets and this is the best Microsoft gives Windows users, at least from a cosmetic perspective? The look is not that great and the icons are the same old sad look.

Windows 7 really needed a fresh look with some really cool modern 3D looking icons.

Of course underneath the hood Windows 7 is different, but only techs and geeks will appreciate this. The average lay person is looking at the overall look and feel and how it seems to respond to user input and when it looks the same, feels the same and responds the same, well I hope you get the picture, you're going to get the same crowd yelling about how they don't like it.

When Microsoft announced a new OS the world that hated Vista so much jumped in joy and couldn't wait to do what? ---> SEE IT!

Now that I see it and it looks pretty much like the old except for a few cosmetic changes I can't say I'm all that excited and I have a feeling so will a big majority of the world's population, but one fact that is true that no one can argue, only time will tell. But is Microsoft really going to bank on it being good enough after all the slapping around it took on Vista, to then give users what this looks like in the RC? Please someone slap me, you've got to be joking.

When you have a flop you give the public a new look, a complete makeover, you remove the picture of the past failure that no one wants to remember what it looked like and move on with this new fresh look that takes their mind away from the horror of the past.

Windows 7 needs it's own look, not a clone Vista wannabe, because that's what Windows 7 appears to be, big brother wanting to look like big sister.

Remember for all I've said here, we're not talking about what is under the hood that really counts, because when the average consumer goes to buy a product or a car, are they really under the hood, flooding themselves on the technical specs? No they are not, they are moved by what they SEE and FEEL!

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

multii — Tue, 05 May 2009 19:46:00 GMT

My comment/suggestion for the windows devs or 3 party if it isn't included in the release... is;

Have an option to change between the different power saving options from the system tray.

ie. a check box to show options in the system tray at control panels option selection page.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

aigphoto — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:03:49 GMT

This is a good perspective. Of course, I have a suggestion. :)

It has seemed to me for some time that one underlying assumption should change: that one family of Windows needs to satisfy all the user communities you list. I don't believe this to be the case.

As a professional user (graphic design and web development) I have certain needs that are not only not met, but are actually interfered with by the consumer/homeowner features that I call "The video game as User Interface." Things like window animations or Flip 3D only slow me down. It's not a matter of system speed, it's that an animation takes time, no matter how fast the CPU or GPU run.

I not only don't need, I absolutely don't want media center code cluttering up my work system.

As "Tier 0" tech support (aren't we all?) for friends and family, I see many complexities in Windows, essential for Enterprise deployment, that have absolutely no value to the home user. But there they are, and the home user is baffled.

Telemetry in and of itself, without differentiating home user from professional user (not to mention IT pros), can lead one far astray. Office 2007's ribbon may, in the very long term, turn out to be quite useful for the home user. For people who know how to run Office, in my own experience, it's a nightmare. (I didn't upgrade because all the tools I use were mostly impossible to find when I tried out 2007.)

Worse, there are hundreds of thousands of users who run Word and Excel by following step by step notes from the help desk or people like me, to do simple tasks like print, save, open and change documents. All of those carefully crafted How-Tos were swept away.

So my beef is not "you absolutely should fix X". There are lots of "X" and viewpoints are individual. It's that telemetry only gives aggregate data, heavily weighted to the home user, who is overwhelmingly in the majority.

There are other user communities whose needs are far, far different, and the professional communities in general, necessarily in a minority and who are neither home users nor enterprise IT users, seem to be getting the short end of the telemetry stick.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

aigphoto — Sun, 10 May 2009 02:08:05 GMT

@dasfox: I feel you're confusing a PR problem (Vista was in a PR black hole before it was even released) with technical or user issues. PR problems are solved with PR, not a new UI or more chrome. Whoever handled the PR and marketing of Vista did a phenomenally bad job, because they allowed Apple to walk all over them and utterly failed to create the perception that Vista was a big step forward (which it was and is, in many ways).

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

byakugan — Thu, 14 May 2009 10:49:37 GMT

I installed Windows 7 RC on my computer, which equipped with 3gb ram, intel Q6600 processor and a geforce 9500gs.

I tried some programme and games without problem.

But when I tried the game crossfire (downloaded on http://www.subagames.com/), which i played on vista, there was a dumping error and windows shut downed. After that I have a problem to restart or restore my computer.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Konstantinos — Fri, 22 May 2009 04:05:55 GMT

Just in case you care for user feedback look from this post and below:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/02/a-little-bit-of-personality.aspx#9598140

don't forget this one:

http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/05/02/a-little-bit-of-personality.aspx#9598179

need environment variables for \Users\Default

henrigu — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:55:14 GMT

Hi Win7 engineers,

We need environment variables for:

\Users\Default

\Users\Default\AppData\Local

\Users\Default\AppData\Roaming

I hope those EVs can be add to Win7.

Thank you.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

brotherburnham — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:35:43 GMT

It would be really great if somehow before Windows is released if the ability to manipulate the taskbar was simpler. I use a tablet PC quite often and use both portrait and landscape screen orientation (depending on what is comfortable). When I am in landscape orientation it is easier to have the taskbar on the side. When it is in portrait orientation it is better on the top or bottom. This allows for more screen room to write. It would be so easy if somehow there was an option to have the taskbar automatically move to those positions when I switch orientations. If that is not possible, then it would be nice to at least have to have "Auto-hide The Taskbar" and the "Taskbar location on screen" options in the drop down menu when you click on the taskbar (alon with "Lock the taskbar"). Even if this was all that was possible that would make Window 7 Top Noche for me. OTher than this suggestion, I think that Windows & has turned out well. Is this even the right place to leave this kind of feedback? Is is too late? Thanks.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

nantucketbob — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:39:12 GMT

Please make Windows 7 tell us when it is fully booted up and when it is fully ready for shutdown (standby). Sometimes my computer is very busy loading WinXP long after it appears to be finished (intense hard drive activity). If I try to do something, it is clear that the processor is busy. Nothing much shows up in the task manager.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

logo design — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:37:32 GMT

If that is not possible, then it would be nice to at least have to have "Auto-hide The Taskbar" and the "Taskbar location on screen" options in the drop down menu when you click on the taskbar (alon with "Lock the taskbar"). Even if this was all that was possible that would make Window 7 Top Noche for me. OTher than this suggestion, I think that Windows & has turned out well. Is this even the right place to leave this kind of feedback? Is is too late? Thanks.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Custom Logo — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:52:17 GMT

necessarily in a minority and who are neither home users nor enterprise IT users, seem to be getting the short end of the telemetry stick.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Website logo design — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 08:53:12 GMT

Also live messenger was not in systray. This is a serious problem. Same problem happens with catalyst drivers before run as administator automatically promts. But it so much smaller file that file io doesn`t last so long that everything hangs thats why i haven`t noticed this bug yet.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Custom Logo Design — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 09:04:42 GMT

Office 2007's ribbon may, in the very long term, turn out to be quite useful for the home user. For people who know how to run Office, in my own experience, it's a nightmare. (I didn't upgrade because all the tools I use were mostly impossible to find when I tried out 2007.)

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Network management degree — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:25:33 GMT

On a computer running Windows Server 2003, Ipnat.sys is shared by Internet Connection Sharing, Windows Firewall, and the NAT/Basic Firewall component of Routing and Remote Access.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

Online degree in teaching — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:27:12 GMT

Our goal with this level of feedback is for it to be representative of the broad set of Windows customers, even if we don't have a 1:1 interaction with each and every customer.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

coskun73 — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 21:13:10 GMT

why does not "Windows 7 32 bit" support 4 gb ram or above, it should support. I have used about for two mounths Win7 32 bit, it works really good and stable, no problems with programs and drivers.

Space progress status while adding files in a DVD or Cd

enricoc — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:40:47 GMT

Hi there,

it would be great to have a progress bar or in any case to identify the remaining space while adding files in a DVd or CD before burning it.

Cheers

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

DominionGalactica — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:00:52 GMT

Hi,

( i dont know if this is the right place for this request, but...)

I would dearly love to be able to match the basic desktop icons colour scheme to my glass colour. Just the 6 main ones: computer, libraries, recycle bin etc. I tried adding a colour overlay to the icons, but the definition loss of the .ico files was a bit terrible. Failing that, can we have an option to use .png files instead of .ico files.

Thanks heaps.

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

cash gifting — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:24:31 GMT

try and create custom icons or change your desktop color scheme

re: Feedback and Engineering Windows 7

cash gifting — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 23:30:59 GMT

and make sure not to save image file to a lower resolution