Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Windows Microsoft IT Technology

What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1 344

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the but-i-thought-it-was-perfect dept.
snydeq writes "The first inklings of a public Windows 7 SP1 beta program are beginning to emerge, with hidden registry keys and a leaked list of post-RTM build numbers surfacing on the Web. 'Beyond the obvious bug fixes and security patches, we'll no doubt see support for the new USB 3.0 standard. Likewise, enhancements to the Bluetooth and Wi-Fi stacks will be slipstreamed in, allowing Windows 7 to retain its mantle as the most easily configured version ever,' writes InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy. 'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What To Expect From Windows 7 SP1

Comments Filter:
  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:42PM (#30752086)

    ...Techies know that SP2 is the new SP1. Microsoft has started rushing SP1 out the door ever since a certain *cough* Gartner Group *cough* suit-zine told management to never upgrade to a new Microsoft OS until it gets past SP1.

    • by 0racle (667029) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:46PM (#30752170)
      Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability. Testing Windows 7 release candidates indicated it was good for deployment on release day for a good number of people and businesses. You probably need to stop hanging out with geek squad 'techies.'
      • by lukas84 (912874) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:55PM (#30752318) Homepage

        I can only agree. I work for a small ISV and Microsoft partner. Under the partner program, we've rolled out the Windows 7 RC to 75% of our laptops/desktops. Roughly a month after we were able to get our hands on RTM (i think that was around August 5th), we've upgraded 100% of our machines.

        Now, roughly two months after GA, we have several smaller customers (10-20 machines) that are running Windows 7 only.

        Only issue we had was laptop-hangs-on-shutdown-because-of-bitlocker. While annoying, it didn't prevent it from doing anything. In the meantime, there's a hotfix for this issue.

        There's no need to wait for SP1, if you're a small, agile company. If you're a big corporation, these will likely finish there Windows XP rollouts somewhen past April 2014 ;)

        • Why is bitlocker still only on the most expensive version? Does anyone know?

          • by lukas84 (912874) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:12PM (#30752586) Homepage

            Well, first of, Microsoft wants to make money. Purchasing SA to an existing Windows 7 Professional OEM license is pretty cheap for corporate standards (around 100$). This will net you Windows 7 Enterprise (and a bunch of other goodies, like reimaging rights which you NEED if you have more than 5 computers).

            Also, there's the whole "shoot yourself in the foot" thing. If Bitlocker was in HP/Pro, there'd be countless people "trying" it out, then losing their USB key (for non-TPM machines) or changing the hardware configuration (for TPM machines), without having the recovery key handy.

          • by bschorr (1316501) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:18PM (#30752720) Homepage
            That doesn't make sense to me either, honestly, but since we use TrueCrypt (even on machines where Bitlocker is available) I've never really cared much. I think TrueCrypt is more widely compatible anyhow.

            If you've ever tried to use Bitlocker you'll notice it has some sneaky requirements about your hardware that even machines with the right OS version don't always meet. TrueCrypt is far more accepting (and totally OS agnostic), not to mention free.
            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by lukas84 (912874)

              TrueCrypt is also much more vulnerable than Bitlocker is, because it does not utilize the TPM. I've never seen corporate laptop/desktop offers that did not feature a TPM.

                It's also easier to manage in mid-sized environments than TrueCrypt (think automatic Key + TPM backups to Active Directory).

        • by Archangel Michael (180766) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:03PM (#30752442) Journal

          No it isn't.

          We have software that doesn't work right in Windows 7. We have software that doesn't work right yet with XP for heaven's sake.

          Of course, we can spend tons of money upgrading software to the latest greatest version, for no real reason other than it works with XP or 7.

          And at some point, we'll either drop the software, or upgrade it. And that will come as soon as we can replace the computers we currently have with machines capable of running 7 adequately. And by then, Windows will be running Windows 2012 (code name Apocalypse).

          Before I get Windows 7, I want a computer with 64bit CPU with 32 Gigs of Ram. And I'll probably run it in VMWare, with Linux, MacOS and ChromeOS along side.

          Or, I'll just have my Driod tablet/phone and googlize all my needs.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by ilsaloving (1534307)

            Windows XP has been out for so long now that if you still have software that doesn't work right on it, you have bigger problems to worry about.

            It never fails to amaze me how some people insist on wanting to upgrade their machines and do this and that, but they insist on clinging onto some old decrepit piece of crap software that was so badly written that you cannot do things properly for fear of breaking the software.

            I know a company that has just such a problem, and it is flat out impossible to properly up

            • by twidarkling (1537077) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @03:13PM (#30754422)

              My place runs a Mac environment, and we've a database program dependant on OS 9, and we only have one machine capable of running it any more: an old eMac. The database program is horrible. It barely works. But, it's organized in such a way that exporting all the data in a usable format is nearly impossible, so we're stuck with it. Personally, I'm just waiting for the day the machine explodes, wiping out the database (we can't even back up the contents properly). I'm gonna laaaaugh and laaaaaugh and laaaaaugh on that day. Mostly because the database is just for marketing, and doesn't relate to my job at all.

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by GameboyRMH (1153867)

                I'd say "closed source loses again," but even MS would make sure your ancient Access databases can be made to work, for a price...

                That is one epic fuckup.

            • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @03:39PM (#30754870)

              "It never fails to amaze me how some people insist on wanting to upgrade their machines and do this and that, but they insist on clinging onto some old decrepit piece of crap software"

              and it amazes me that software people don't understand the support lifetime that can really be required for software. This is particularly true in an industry or research environment. We have some old spectrometers that interface with the computer using an ISA card, with drivers for 95/98 or NT 4. You think we're going to throw out a $50k piece of equipment because Microsoft wants us to buy something with more eye candy? Or get rid of a scanning electron microscope, because it's attached to a 486 running Win95? We have some EG&G detectors that are integrated into MS-DOS based software. Heck, I saw one lab where they're using an Apple IIe to run an old wavemeter. Still works fine, and it's not like Coherent is offering an upgrade to interface to a modern PC. Or NI, for that matter...they'll drop driver support for older DAQ cards, so moving to a new OS means you have to redesign (or at least waste a lot of time testing) with new (expensive) cards.

              Software isn't just about IT systems. It's also about hardware that actually does stuff.

              • by FreonTrip (694097) <freontrip@@@gmail...com> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @07:35PM (#30758174)

                Having worked in a laboratory, I understand the need to wring life out of ancient equipment. The motherboards on this page may be of some interest to you:

                http://www.adek.com/ATX-motherboards.htm

                So far I haven't found a Core 2 motherboard with 2 ISA slots anywhere else. The NT 4 drivers will probably work under 32-bit XP, too; I can't vouch for Vista or Windows 7, but this could be a handy piece of information to tuck away somewhere. :) Happy experimenting.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

            We have software that doesn't work right in Windows 7. We have software that doesn't work right yet with XP for heaven's sake.

            I know. I couldn't get my copy of Visicalc to work in Windows 7 or XP, either.

            Before I get Windows 7, I want a computer with 64bit CPU with 32 Gigs of Ram.

            And you'll get a color TV as soon as they "perfect the technology", right?

            I'm impressed with the amount of effort some people are willing to expend to assert that Windows 7 is a horrible OS and a failure.

            • And you'll get a color TV as soon as they "perfect the technology", right?

              I hear they have this technology named Phase Alternating Line that fixes the color problems with NTSC. It will be introduced here in the United States "Real Soon Now" (tm).

            • by hairyfeet (841228)

              No shit. If their software is so damned old that it won't run on a NINE YEAR OLD OS (WinXP) the Windows 7 is the least of their problems! I have been switching over many of my SOHO and SMB clients to Windows 7 at release day, after running the RC myself and putting it through its paces, and they couldn't be happier. They love the new layout, saying it is more intuitive, when they have the occasional problem the new troubleshooter automatically fixes it a good 99 out of 100, and the networking stack in Windo

        • by jitterman (987991)
          Damn it sucks to be a double-me-too-er, but same here. While we haven't done this corporate-wide (we work with a number of government contractors, so there's that fun to deal with), those of us in IT and software development who are self-supporting jumped right away, with no issues.
      • by ArhcAngel (247594) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:55PM (#30752324)

        Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.

        Which he covered by saying that idea was sold to management...DUH!

        • by afidel (530433)
          Sucks to be you, our SVP of IT installed Win7 on his laptop by himself and knows for a fact it's stable =)
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by KennyP (724304)
        I've been running the Win7 open beta since it was available for public download - in a production environment.

        No issues. I'm currently deploying Win7 throughout multiple organizations. There are very few issues, as most of my customers run client/server apps via browser.

        Not one BSOD on any machine that wasn't bad RAM. Not even a bad driver!

        It's clearly Microsoft's best OS to date.

        It's no Bob, but, what is? ;-)
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by MrShaggy (683273)

          I have been running win7 for a month know.

          Mind you through parallels on my Imac.

          I have been pleasantly surprised about the fact that it has been reasonably stable.
          Not too mention there seems to be no reason to reboot after any install of software.

          Even when something hangs, a window opens up asking me if I want to close it.

          They part is the fact that the UAC refuses to remember the choices that I have made.

          Every-time I run anything with-out digital-signatures it pops-up asking me if its ok.

          I guess after 15

      • by MBGMorden (803437) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:02PM (#30752440)

        Unfortuneatly there is some truth to his statement, and it's not always related to technical merits. No company works in a vacuum, and for large application deployments you often have support contracts with vendors. Many of those vendors flat out will not support a brand new Microsoft OS (we have several app vendors who still will not officially support Windows 7 - if I have a problem on a machine running it I have to either not tell them which OS it is - which if they end up remotely accessing the machine won't work, OR I have to just solve the problem myself).

        For companies in that boat (which is a lot), regardless of how well it might work, you don't want to upgrade to a new OS until you've confirmed with all your support vendors that they are ready and willing to support the new OS (which sometimes takes a while).

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by QuantumRiff (120817)

        Except for printing.. 64bit windows 7 doesn't seem to like printing to shared printers running off a 32-bit, server 2003 system. I hear if you don't change the default printer name, it works better, but with larger offices, you have to. I can't have 8 printers all named "HP Laserjet 4515 series"

      • by syousef (465911)

        Only morons trust any version number as an indicator of stability.

        Gracie meet upper management. Upper management this is Gracie.

      • by Kjella (173770)

        Unfortunately, there's more to corporate life than technical merits. If you go by the popular opinion upgrade, you can say you're following best practice and blame Microsoft. If you upgrade to a non-SP Windows 7 and you run into trouble, whether deserved or not then it'll be your fault. You can try blaming the vendor, but everyone knows the vendor will always push their latest version almost no matter what.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by deniable (76198)
        Speaking of version numbers, What's the version number for '7?' Mine says it's 6.1. I think I'll wait for 7.0 to be released.
    • by Machtyn (759119)
      I always thought Windows 7 is actually Windows Vista SP3. Microsoft badly needed to rebrand Vista. So, this SP1 is actually WinVista SP4.
      • by Tridus (79566)

        Nah, Windows 7 is more like a point release. 6.1 if you will to Vista's 6.0. They had to give it a new name because "Vista" became marketing poison. But that's why 7 has done pretty well out of the gate stability wise, it's not really a new OS at all. It's a refined version of the last one.

        • Nah, Windows 7 is more like a point release. 6.1 if you will to Vista's 6.0. They had to give it a new name because "Vista" became marketing poison. But that's why 7 has done pretty well out of the gate stability wise, it's not really a new OS at all. It's a refined version of the last one.

          It's not LIKE a point release, it IS a point release. It literally is Windows 6.1 to Vista's 6.0, whether I will it or not.

    • by ukemike (956477)
      I'm confused, I thought Win7 was Vista SP3. So wouldn't it be ready for the big time now?
  • oh yes.. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:42PM (#30752100)

    Oh yes, nothing spells stable like a nearly instant service pack!

    • But theres no B's or L's in "Instant service Pack" - How did you manage to spell it at all!

      Seriously though, with our latest shipment of computers to come in from Dell, we got the Windows 7 upgrade option. We generally just run XP and aside from the SINGLE vista and about a dozen NT/2000 machines across the company, we're all pretty standardized on XP. This will be my first time having to go through a big OS Switch across the entire company. (I am a youngin' an' all)

      We know that other companies abide by tha

  • by Shaman (1148) <shaman.kos@net> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:43PM (#30752122) Homepage

    Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows. Granted, I like how it differentiates between "new" network connections as far as work, public, home for the purposes of firewall config, but it's BRUTAL to actually configure the network properties otherwise. All the obfuscation gets in your way and makes your teeth grind.

    • by heffrey (229704) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:52PM (#30752266)

      I just plugged in the network cable and the job was done. What's so hard?

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by jongalbreath (1621157)
        I have to agree. I didn't have any great difficulty. If anything, it's a vast improvement over Vista where at least 7 prompts that additional login information is required to establish a connection, such as in a hotel or hotspot.
      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:59PM (#30752392) Journal
        I'm assuming that Shaman is either trolling or (rather more likely) is trying to do something that isn't "1 NIC, DHCP, default firewall rules, no ICS, etc.)

        If you are in an environment where that is all you need, I'd be hard pressed to think of an OS that wouldn't Just Work. Even the more notoriously hostile Linux and BSD distros with text-based installers and a hatred of all things autoconf will typically at least offer to write the config file needed to bring eth0 up with DHCP on boot.

        You start to see the differences in configurability when you need to do something modestly unusual or complex.
      • You must be an end user

      • by WebCowboy (196209) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:37PM (#30753056)

        I just plugged in the network cable

        Cable? How quaint!

        How's it work with WPA2-secured wireless? Vista kinda stunk at that in my experience, and Win7 would have to do a lot of work to just stink slightly much less be good at it.

        Moreover wireless on Vista is almost, but not quite, as stable as Lindsay Lohan and Brittany Spears. On more than one Vista machine I've had the displeasure to deal with the wireless connection randomly decides to go on a bender. I try resetting the router. I try rebooting. No joy. Only fix seems to be to go into the network config, remove the connection and re-enter the security key. No rhyme or reason, and in one case there was a Macbook, a WinXP machine, an iphone a Linux netbook and an HTC Magic phone on wireless with the Vista machine. ALL OF THEM WORKED WITHOUT INTERUPTION EXCEPT THE VISTA MACHINE.

        An therein lies the rub: if for any reason you must open that wreched user interface to do ANY config task of ANY kind--whether it be simple troubleshooting, selecting the SSID, entering a key, putting in fixed network settings, the Windows network config UI is the suckiest, most regressive, confusing mess on ANY modern operating system WITHOUT QUESTION. If you want to convince someone that Linux is not harder than Windows, the best way you can do it is to show them how to manage network connections in Vista compared to any current Linux OS.

        I imagine that Win7 has made improvements--at least in stability...but that interface? Complete FAIL! I don't care if they've refined it--a polished turd still stinks. It needs to be completely redone again. I know "technical details" can intimidate novices but they should still be accessible. It baffles me as to why the basic details like IP address, netmask, default gateway and DNS entries being made HARDER to find than in XP is considered an IMPROVEMENT.

        • by Bigbutt (65939)

          My wife's Dell laptop (running Vista) works fine on our wpa2-secured wireless connection.

          Just a data point. I'm still running XP on my main computer :)

          [John]

          • My wife's Dell laptop (running Vista) works fine on our wpa2-secured wireless connection.

            I just recently set up the wireless at work to use WPA2 Enterprise with an Airport base station and Mac OS X Server 10.5. With Mac laptops you just enter your username and password and click "continue" when it complains about a self-singed cert. And done. I've also connected with XP and 7, and they both have different multi-step with multi-sub-step procedures for connecting the first time. I suspect that if we were a MS shop, it would Just Work (as the steps are mostly undoing stuff relating to it trying to

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Amen to that.

      It took me a while to figure why my DESKTOP BOX was loosing connection every 2 minute: power saving was enabled for the network card. Even a bittorrent client wouldn't stop it from going to sleep. Then it took me another while to figure how to disable the damn thing!

    • by Gazzonyx (982402) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:06PM (#30752486)
      No doubt, I _STILL_ don't know exactly what a 'homegroup' is and why I can be part of a domain (or workgroup) at the same time as a homegroup. I don't know why Windows Media Player daemon sometimes pegs both my cores or what it's doing since I have the sharing service off, either. That being said, the new firewall is money compared to the old one. I just wish they wouldn't rearrange the control panels and rename all the settings every version of windows. Imagine my surprise when I had at least five separate places to configure my network and none of them sounded like what I was looking for!
      • I'd install a few apps and after that the firewall would just disable internet access. Sure, some of the time it'd say "app Y is trying to access the net, you cool with that?" but sometimes it wouldn't. (And then it wouldn't mention which one it was complaining about.) Oh, the first time this happened it was actually worse. The firewall decided to block an app while I was at the log-in screen. As in no keyboard access at all. I had to log into Win7 in safe mode, disable the newly installed app just to log i
      • by XB-70 (812342)
        The answer is simple: when Microsoft invited the Linux Samba team to share resources and exchange protocols at their labs, they re-worked the networking protocol so that Win7 would create proprietary (Win7 ONLY) network groups. There is currently no other way to connect to these groups unless you 'upgrade' every one of your machines to Win7. It's a lock-in sales tool. Plain and simple.
    • by gad_zuki! (70830)

      >Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.

      Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh.

      • by jedidiah (1196)

        >>Windows 7 easily has the most confusing, difficult to configure network properties of any Windows.
        >
        > Techies should know how to use ipconfig and netsh.
        >

                  Techies should not NEED to use ipconfig and netsh.

        Why are Linux users starting to sound like MacOS users when talking to Windows users?

    • Differentiating between the various work, public home is nice until you find that Windows 7 thinks your network is new every single time you boot the PC. Fortunately I'm primarily a Ubuntu user so it doesn't bother me too much. I am on a university network so it is probably slightly unusual though.

  • Cue the morons (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:43PM (#30752128)

    Cue the morons talking about how Windows 7 is Vista SP3 and that SP1 is SP4.

  • Signals? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @12:49PM (#30752208)

    'But perhaps the most significant "update" to come out of Service Pack 1 will be the fact that it exists at all, and that by delivering it to market Microsoft will be signaling that it is now OK for IT shops to pull the trigger on their Windows 7 deployments.'

    An initial release of an OS was Microsoft's "signal" that it was ready. People eventually realized that MS's "signal" couldn't be trusted, and they adapted by developing their own "wait for SP1" wisdom. This has not been lost on Microsoft.

    If MS's marketing dept. sees that it takes "SP1" to get people to buy their OS, they'll call something "SP1" whenver they want to spur initial uptake of one of their products. So we may find before long that we should wait for SP2 of a given MS product to get the level of quality we want.

    Marketers are often sleezebags. Their goal is to drive sales, regardless of how much misleading or deception is required to do so.

    • Of course, in this case the RTM was already at a higher quality than the corporate world had seen in a commercial OS, but it's hard to break with habit. It's doubly hard when you've spent years convincing management that SPx is the time to switch.
    • by initialE (758110)

      By this logic their next version of Windows will be called "Windows 8 SP1"

  • let me see... ...an update?

  • I know that my experiences of Windows 7 shouldn't be considered as true for all, but in general day to day usage, I've had no problems at all.

    Off the top of my head, I can only think of two bugs in Windows Backup. One where it reports that your backup drive is full and that you need to clear space and then presents you with an option to adjust the backup or let windows manage it automatically for you. The problem is that Windows is already managing it automatically for me and therefore it shouldn't be telli

  • Commercials (Score:2, Funny)

    by Krau Ming (1620473)
    "I'm a PC and a really quick service pack was my idea." ----- "Hello, I'm a Mac" "And I'm a PC" "Hey PC, what's with the all bandages there? Are you okay? It looks like you're pretty banged up." "Well actually I'm just patching myself up because that's what PCs do." "Boy, that's probably going to hurt peeling all those bandages off later." "Yeah...later...right..."
  • by Eponymous Coward (6097) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:31PM (#30752962)

    I wish the would bring back the 3-license family pack. I have 2 xp machines and 1 vista machine and if I could upgrade the three for $150, I would. Right now, 3 upgrade licenses would be over $300. So, I'm not upgrading.

    • by jittles (1613415)
      Uh there was a family pack you could pick up for $150 the first few months from Costco. Apparently they did discontinue it [informationweek.com], though. Sad day.
      • Yeah, you could buy it just about anywhere. Unfortunately they sold out which is a ridiculous statement when you consider all that they are really selling is the right to use the software.

  • by spywhere (824072) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @01:32PM (#30752982)
    ...to restart the dead corporate PC market. M$, Dell and HP should take a tip from the National Rifle Association by warning customers that Obama is coming to take your 'puters away."

    The bad news is that the problem is deeper than any, or all, of the following:

    XP suffices for most corporate needs (and it works on their 4-year-old hardware).
    Vista forced companies to stick with, and develop & purchase line-of-business apps for, XP (and the app vendors were more than happy to stick with 32-bit coding, require local admin rights for everyone, and avoid UAC).
    Vista SP1 (and SP2) proved that some problems are too deep to be fixed, or even improved, by service packs (honestly, build a clean Vista SP2 machine: it will still suck).

    Corporations can't afford to replace 70% of their desktops, and half of their core LOB apps, just because Windows 7 is way cooler than XP. (Really, it is: I find XP boring now).

    As for security, most corporate Desktop Architecture departments still think their XP boxes are secure, even seven years after the Blaster worm blew through a vulnerability that had been patched months prior by Microsoft.

    There is no key business reason to migrate any company larger than 3 desktops to Windows 7.
    • As for security, ...

      Security is largely a PEBKAC [wikipedia.org] issue.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Spad (470073)
      • Proper 64-bit support (XP-64 doesn't count, it wasn't really XP and nobody wrote drivers for it
      • Bitlocker - Enterprise management may be a bit lacking, but it's a shitload cheaper than the other options (Truecrypt doesn't count, it doesn't have *any* management features)
      • Pre-logon wireless support
      • All the Powershell v2 features (Though many of them have been backported to XP SP3 where possible)
      • Proper IPv6 support
      • Proper multimonitor support for RDP
      • Proper Gigabit Ethernet support
      • File copies that don't fail if o
  • Problems with explorer.exe. No, not internet explorer. Their file manager has issues with selecting files where you could end up selecting files you didn't intend and having them be deleted as part of what you do. For instance, if you use the shift plus mouse click to select a range of files then choose to delete you might delete files you didn't want because the shift+click selected more or at least some that you didn't choose. The next normal step is to delete them, often without reviewing the names (

  • I just bought two brand new machines - an EeePC netbook and a custom-built, quad-core desktop. The netbook came with Windows7 Home Basic pre-installed and the Desktop had Windows7 Home Premium. I then installed Ubuntu 9.10 and OpenSuSE 11.2 Linux on each machine allowing me to triple boot.

    With all patches and updates, here is the question: will Windows 7 SP1 allow the following to work:

    Canon Canonscan LiDE 30 scanner - Win7 Not supported - Ubuntu/OpenSuSE - works perfectly

    HP Color Laserjet 3600N networke

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spad (470073)

      Also, you haven't *ever* been able to connect Home editions to a domain - XP Home only allowed Workgroups.

To thine own self be true. (If not that, at least make some money.)

Working...