Windows 7 SP1 annpunced

Don't get too excited. It probably won't be out until at least Q3 2010, and doesn't contain anything exciting, other than possibly "RemoteFX" .


http://tech.icrontic.com/news/windows-7-sp1-announced/

 

Ugh, I hope SP1 doesn't have KB971033 packaged with it...

 

It probably will be, seeing as Microsoft is like that.

Windows 7 for me right now is near perfect, and I don't think I will be downloading this SP.

 

lol....hahahaa..why?

 

Well, the SP will for the most part contain all of the patches and fixes released up until that point.

I would love it if they integrated further optimizations of the OS itself (not that it doesn't run great already, it's just that there's always room for improvements) ... because that would be one of the biggest reasons as to why one would download/install the SP1.

As for the KB71033 ... it will probably be integrated into the SP.

 

I feel the same way. I find that Windows 7 is a fine OS already.

No particular reason. It's just the thought of MY property phoning home to MS for verification really rubs me up the wrong way. It irks me a lot, it's my OS that I paid money for, so I should be allowed to use it however I want.

 

Correction: It's actually Microsoft's OS.
You merely paid for the right to use it.

Overall though, I do agree it's annoying that the software is phoning home to MS for verification.
After that whole fiasco with them having legit versions being reported as not-legit, I'm not entirely certain I want a repeat of that performance ... especially since we live in a world where people repeat mistakes.

 

If there's a few security updates with the service pack, I'll go ahead and install it. I don't care about verification, and I don't see why anyone with a legit copy should. But if the service pack hits performance at all, I'm saying no...Windows 7 is perfect the way it is.

 

It's not your OS, you didn't code it or anything. You just bought the right to use it.


Also doesn't Microsoft only phone home once to verify your Windows Installation?

 

A rather narrow view. Privacy advocates are mainly concerned as once big brother gets his foot in the door it then leads to big brother getting in! Whle agreed the intrusion seems minimal the intrusion will undoubtably get larger, not smaller.

when you give people rights, there are always a few out there that will exploit those rights for illegal and/or immoral gains. This has always been a fact of life. M$ and other companies must ballance these rights with their corporate loss. Left unchecked we would have no privacy and they would have zero loss with the plans to further intrude on our privacy to prevent any future loss.

Now if you gave up all your rights to privacy would it make the OS cheaper and better yet is it worth that price difference (if any) to you?

 

We've been through this numerous times in other threads.Yes, it is MS's OS, granted, but I paid money for it, so I shouldn't have the overlord watching everything I do. Of course, it isn't at this point yet, but as TANware said, it's likely that it will get to that point. Which plainly pisses me off.

And keep this civil please. I'm not here to debate about whether I have things on my computer that I shouldn't be proud of (which I actually don't, there is nothing on my computer that I would delete before someone went through the hard drive FYI), I'm here to discuss the update. If you want to make personal attacks against people, take it to PM. It's not welcome on the boards.

 

I will freely admit I have personal and private videos on my computer, digital only HD camcorder. While 100% legal I wouldn't want ANYONE else to have access to them. I have them password protected by my computer and its login so I do have an expected right to privacy. So when I pay for something that is supposed to provide me with privacy that is exactly what I expect to get, not intrusions. So I have a sympathy for the extreemists that in the end are really only protecting my rights!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Not to start a flame war, so please don't take it that way. But that is like saying I bought a car from a vehicle company, and they have the right to come and change something about the car, just because they made it.

If I bought it, and paid good money for it, I should be able to do what I want with it (inside the law of course, no piracy intended).

 

Oh I'd love to know who came up with the EULA and a time machine on hand. I probably won't be installing it either. Just for the simple fact that my install works just fine, and SP1 more than likely will NOT add functionality (just bring that horrid KB971033 along with it). I like MSFT but they need to put some R&D money and public opinion into some other anti-piracy measures. SP1 will mostly be for Enterprise and Small Business uses, for deploying up-to-date machines with clean installs across multiple computers simultaneously.

 

The biggest difference I see in the car analogy is the car company is pretty confident that you will not be making illegal copies of it for your friends to use.

I like my privacy too but we can thank the people who like to make a buck off others illegally for all this. I don't blame Microsoft for that.

 

i hope SP1 fixes 3 bugs and 1 is if you move an icon to a certain spot in the superbar and at times it will randomly go back to where it was previously and number 2 is the desktop icons won't stay put they always move around and fix the jumplists so they don't dissapear on you as they are handy.

 

And, what is the third?

 

No idea what you could even possibly be talking about. Nobody has access to your private videos. Neither Microsoft, nor any of the Microsoft services and programs that run on any Windows OS will ever even look at any of your private data, let alone transmit any information, of any kind, about your data anywhere.

Really, really bad analogy. You bought your car, so it's your property, so you can do whatever you want with it, and nobody else has any rights to touch your car. On the other hand, you acquired a license to use your Microsoft OS (or any other software you may have bought, incidentally). With that license came certain restrictions and conditions, which you accepted, both implicitly and explicitly, when you first initialized or installed the system. If you don't like the terms of the license, you are perfectly free not to use the software.

 

I have to agree with Pirx. Buying a software license and buying a physical asset are two completely different things. Also, MS will NOT transmit any personal information or access any of your videos or documents. They are simply trying to cut down on the number of pirated OSes. And I don't blame them.

As someone said before, if you have a legit copy, you have nothing to worry about. Simple as that.

 

Then again, that borders a bit too close with the following premise:
'If you've got nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about'.

Some people use this expression as justification for full-time surveillance of the population by the government (which I am completely against as it infringes on personal privacy and freedoms).

Also ... just because one might have a legit copy of the OS for example, doesn't mean they might not be using it for 'shady' things (whichever is considered 'shady' or downright 'illegal' under the system).

 

Sure, and I agree with you there, but this has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand.

Likewise, this has nothing to do with Microsoft, their operating systems, or their actions.

 

They're not checking up on what you're using you OS for or HOW you're using. They're simply checking to see if your copy of Windows is legit or not.

I agree that if they snoop your computer for personal information or to record your activities, it's a definite privacy violation, but that's not their goal or their intent.

 

Not only is this not their goal or intent, it would be illegal, too, not to mention incredibly stupid. Can you imagine the public outcry, and the kind of repercussions something like that would have for Microsoft?

If you are afraid of invasion of privacy, it's Google you should be afraid of. Ever thought of all of those happy users of Google Chrome, obediently sending all sorts of usage data, browsing habits, etc., etc., to the mothership? But that's a different subject, I guess...

 

You guys do not really get it. The OS is not an app that the user has decided to use or install. The OS should be installed, initialized and rightly verified at that stage. from that point the Core OS has no right to keep checking up on you for ANY reason!!!!!

If your left work started at 9:00 would you want your boss without your knowledge and for any reason they wanted monitoring you on your drive before you got there to be sure you made it on time and didn't do something they didn't like? Also by allowing this corperate behaviour where does it end? If you have Office student teacher (non commercial version) should they monitor if you do work on your work files from the office? The door has to be closed as soon as it is cracked open because once you let them in try and get them out or to stop them from taking liberties.

My software and hardware is to the best of my knowledge 100% legal. I constantly thrive to stay that way. Do I enjoy being checked up on, absolutley NOT. Would I at almost any time click to say go ahead and check, most assuredly I would. The biggest problem here in my view is CONSENT..........

 

I agree with everything everyone said, pro or con in this thread....



Now where the heck is that darn linux disk?!?!

 

What’s even more amazing is that a completely free OS, like Linux or the BSDs, doesn’t even do this…

Nothing like being guilty until proven innocent I guess…

 

Therein lies the difference. Linux doesn't stand to lose substantial amounts of money unlike MS does. They call Windows a proprietary OS for a reason.

Wouldn't you want to protect your assets? Stealing is stealing is stealing.

And seriously, if you have a legit, activated copy of Windows, you have nothing to worry about. Their aim isn't to get your stuff or check in on what you're doing, hell, they CAN'T.

You guys just need to calm down and quit blowing this up.

 

Microsoft is a veritable monopoly—it’s why they can do this and get away with it. The difference is I pay Microsoft to treat me like a criminal—whereas Linux assumes I’m innocent until proven guilty and has no software bugs to ensure I’m complying with the GPL. One would think it would be okay to spy and gather data/monetize my use of a free Linux (see Google’s Chrome for an example of this), but they still do not do this.

The best part of this is I’m not stealing—and the police don’t check the items in my house daily to make certain none of it is stolen.

And therein lies the rub. They can do anything they want—it’s their software/they control the whole environment—you are only paying for the privilege of using their software until deemed a crook. Yesterday you needed to prove you were “genuine” to get software updates. Today Microsoft will be checking regularly to see if you might be a criminal from one day to the next. Want to take a gander on how Microsoft will further violate your personal computer/operating environment tomorrow?

 

does it matter if you do a clean install of windows 7 and use the key that is on the bottom of the laptop? Is it still considered legit?

 

An OEM key on the bottom of your laptop is fine. But it will only work on that exact machine, if I'm not mistaken.

 

OK thank you just making sure.

 

Would the OEM key work when installing win dows 7 ultimate on another system? As ultimate is valid for 3 systems?

 

You're COMPLETELY blowing this out of proportion and are taking is WAY out of context. They legally CANNOT gather information on you, nor snoop your computer for installed programs, nor track how you use your computer. They are merely checking if your copy of Windows is valid, which you agreed to as soon as you installed and validated your copy Windows. That is is. End. Fin.

If you did not pay for a license, then you shouldn't get access to all the features, JUST like they state in the EULA for Windows. At no point are they deeming you a crook, they are merely assuming you just don't have a valid license. Period.

 

Ultimate is not valid for 3 systems.

 

Totally agree with that. MS has better things to do than spy on your computer. It would be wise to spend ones energy keeping keyloggers, spyware and malware from entering one's computer.

I installed the update on several of my computers and haven't had one problem yet.

 

I have no problems or reservations with installing all updates offered by Microsoft.

 

I do, the monthly malicious code update. I install it once and ignore the rest.

 

Why even bother doing it the first time then? The point of the monthly malicious software removal tool update is to add new malware definitions that were not on the previous month's update. If you're not going to do it each month just don't even bother with it then, and run other malware scanners like MBAM or SAS at least on a monthly basis (and make sure you update their definitions prior to scanning).

 

That's exactly what I decided to do as I have malware scanners and AV installed on my computer.