RSSTop 10 Windows 7 Features #10: Homegroup networking
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published May 1, 2009, 12:59 PM
Beginning now, Betanews is going to get a lot more intimate with technology than you've seen us before, particularly with Microsoft Windows 7 now that it's becoming a reality. Next Tuesday, the first and probably only Release Candidate of the operating system will become available for free download.
It's probably not so much a testing exercise as a colossal promotional giveaway, a way to get Windows 7 out in the field very fast...and use that leverage to push Vista out of the way of history. So much of what you'll see in the Release Candidate in terms of underlying technology is finalized; any tweaks that will be done between now and the general release date (which PC manufacturer Acer blabbed last night will be October 23) will likely be in the looks department.
So with a reasonable degree of confidence that the Win7 RC is much more than half-baked, today Betanews begins a continuing series looking into what we believe to be the ten most important new features that Win7 brings to the table -- features that represent significant changes to the platform we've been calling Vista, and changes which appear very likely to be improvements. Maybe they should have been part of Vista to start with.
There's no reason that the experience of setting up networking equipment at home should be a subset of the pain and misery businesses sustain when they toil and sweat over Vista. Business networking has evolved into a very complicated context that cannot be made simpler or more palatable or livable through the use of any metaphor you can come up with. You can't make Active Directory simple enough for everyday home users to want to wrestle with it, or even for sophisticated network admins to want to deal with the same dredge when they get home.
In Microsoft laboratory projects that first came to light during the "Code Name Longhorn" project in 2003, engineers found themselves reasoning this way: There's only a few basic principles that home network users want to see implemented anyway. They want all their machines to share content with one another. They want any resource to be visible to the entire network (why would you want to hide a printer?). If they do mean to hide something from accessibility, users want the ability to do so explicitly, but only when it's necessary. They want portable components and devices to know they're on the network when they're in range or plugged in, and for the network to know when they're gone. And they want other people's equipment to stay off of their network.
So the trust situations between home network components should be fairly straightforward. Thus rather than forcing home users to wrestle with enterprise-quality network resources, but just have them wrestle with it the same way every day until they get accustomed to it, the engineers came up with an idea called "Castle," whose legacy is a mention in Microsoft's pre-release privacy statement for Longhorn testers. Without invoking any part of Active Directory (and making the Windows Client far more cumbersome than it needed to be), this system created a kind of default home network user template that applied in most situations, creates the trusts that most users would expect, and gives users easier ways to adjust those trusts when necessary.
Vista was so late to the game in getting anything even partly resembling Castle to market that only in Service Pack 2, which hasn't even been released to the public yet, will we see a feature called Windows Connect Now -- a facility that actually works just fine in Windows XP SP2 -- be implemented for the first time in Vista.
Finally, Windows 7 is giving this concept a try, with what's called the Homegroup (now with a lower-case "g," in keeping with the growing trend to remove unnecessary upper-case from product names). The basic concept boils down to this: If Win7 devices can identify themselves as being "at home" when they're on premises, then there's really no reason why their shared resources can't all be seen as unified. In other words, not "Scott's Pictures" and "Jennifer's Pictures" but "Pictures."
Enrolling a computer as a homegroup member is a simple process -- so simple that reviewers of the earlier Win7 betas, for good reason, were skeptical that the security would be as porous as Windows XP. To become a member of an existing homegroup, one need only know the password, the default for which was generated when the first Win7 computer created the homegroup. For now, only Windows 7 computers can be homegroup members, and that will likely always be the case seeing as how WCN functionality was only just now added to Vista SP2 (unless there is an SP3 to come).
Next: The promise of single media libraries...
Actually if you do your homework you'll realise, Windows Connect Now implements the Wi-Fi Protected Setup (Wi-Fi Simple Config) standard which covers several methods to simplify Wi-Fi configuration. XP supports only the USB flash drive method. Vista added the PIN method. So it already has "Windows Connect Now". Feature pack for wireless/Vista SP2/Windows 7 add the push-button method.
Score: 0
|What's new I am currently sharing my stuffs over the wireless network I have at my home. IT24BY7 (www.It24BY7.com) has helped me to set that up. they provide the best computer service.
Score: -1
|Oooh... Spammer. Nice.
Score: 0
|Is windows 7 rc still calculating file sizes wrong.
e.g. for a 5*10^6 bytes file, the explorer will not say 5MB like expected but
will divide 5000000 by 1024 and then again by 1024.
This bad behaviour is still in Windows Vista.
If they can't change the division, they should at least respect the standard.
That is KiB, MiB and GiB and so on instead of kB, MB and GB and so on.
Score: 0
|No-one cares.
No....really.
In fact, I doubt even you do.
Score: -14
|i think that displaying accurate folder and file sizes is very important when people are trying to resolve space issues.
seems odd, that with all of the "brain" power microsoft employs, they can't add a service or utility to display files data like some nifty freewares can, but without the spying features covertly built into the freewares.
Score: 0
|"i think that displaying accurate folder and file sizes is very important when people are trying to resolve space issues."
Great? You do. Heh... "space issues"
*laughing*
Didn't see that one coming....
Again, *you* are not the entirety of the installed-base, nor are you even remotely representative of it (God help us). Most of us have figured out how to access folder properties without 3rd party tools. In fact, most of us rarely even need to do that. :)
Microsoft is not going to code functionality into an OS unless feel it will be used by the majority (or simply *want* it used by the majority) and if it isn't, they may consider it so long as it isn't going to use an ungodly amount of resources...as they have commented that this functionality does. (not that I'd necessarily suggest taking their word for that, but...) Ask people on the street..."Do you want to be able to view your folder sizes?" Blanks stares, man...blank stares (If you haven't been maced already)
Score: -14
|well, just because you don't find a need for such a feature doesn't mean that everyone else wouldn't appreciate having it.
such a tool would be a handy because it can be a very difficult task finding out why disk space decreased unexpectedly.
granted there is freeware that will provide the service because it stands tor eason that a simple feature for providing accurate folder and file sizes, numerically and graphically is simply too difficult of a task for the "microsoft software engineers" to achieve.
Score: 0
|"well, just because you find a need for such a feature doesn't mean that everyone else would appreciate having it."
There, fixed that for you.
Until we see a whole slew of people asking for such a feature (Or rather, until MSFT see's a huge slew of people), it's probably safer to assume it's just you. ;-)
Score: 0
|Personally, I do not care any longer about this. While it is a valid point, with the advent of 1TB+ drives, most people will never really take a long look at their free space and realize that 1MB1MiB. Those that do, will probably have more concern over the fact that their 1TB drive is actually only 930GB after formatting/partitioning.
Score: 1
|What silent majority voted on the Big Ben clock?
Score: 0
|I took my work computer which had Vista, took backup and installed Windows 7 RC yesterday. Installed all the tools and softwares needed to go back to work on monday and it's working flawlessly...it's just awesome....all the software that I usually work with used to eat up close to 80% of the CPU when running concurrently...now the CPU hardly reaches 50%....
The UI takes a little getting used but it's snappy and i have yet to encounter a lag....the best part...as a precaution, I downloaded all the drivers needed from Dell for Vista 32 bit as dell doesn't supply W7 drivers yet...I didn't use any driver...W7 just detected everything...for my graphics card it even searched and got a driver....and it's all wireless..
Do I recommend W7...absolutely...101%
W7 is no Vista...infact I never had any issues with Vista as well...let's say Vista was little strange...it needs a little bit understanding...and tweaking...but W7 just works right...
so for people hesitant to try this out...don't be...try it out...it's best OS out there bar none.
Score: 2
|I think it's best to wait for at least SP 1 before venturing into this new release of Windozz. You never know what surprises lay in store with this. Look what happened with Vista.... a total fiasco and then some!! Win7 could be Vista2., who knows!
Score: 1
|Well, actually, we do know, because any of us and all of us can and have been testing the pre-release versions. The beta was more stable than Vista SP1 (on my system), the RC so far has been great also... in fact I'm so impressed by it I'm almost tempted to install the RC on my mission-critical systems, because it just HAS to be better than the allegedly 'stable' Vista installs there.
I hate to say it, but Windows 7 is actually damn good. Microsoft have really turned around with this one. If they're lucky, they might even make us forget about Vista. :p
Score: 0
|You lost your argument when you used 'Windozz'. Have you even tried Windows 7 yet? I have and it's much better than Vista.
Score: 0
|looks like repackaging.
the options / settings are already provided, without the "idiot proof image" like the above. but the problem with the inability to network is rarely caused by the o.s.
instead the problem is "hardware" and getting them to handshake and configured properly is something that windows is unable to help users
with.
for example, if one network card is set to 2kps and the other network card is set to 6mps, windows "DOES NOT TELL YOU THAT THIS IS T-H-E PROBLEM" and people don't know why the connection is slow.
if the computer fails to launch windows because there are "mapped network drives" but there is no network connectivity, "WINDOWS DOESN'T TELL THE USERS THIS IS THE PROBLEM"
the crap goes on and simply making a graphical user interface like the above image is not a solution.
Score: -3
|*laughing*
2kps and 6mps...
That's funny sh*t, right there, man.
Score: -13
|Please, please tell me you don't work in the IT field...
Score: 0
|Seriously. Heh...
Wow.
Score: -13
|@ niro and pct
yeah, its funny, but i was simply making a point using an extreme perspective.
however, don't minimalize a typical consumer because "you" know where to scratch and digg to find a simple problem like the above.
also, don't be so conceeded. microsoft is engineering the software for the consumer in mind and not i.t. techs.
perhaps, when microsoft truly designs a self sufficient operating system, you guys may find yourself looking for a new job.
Score: 0
|DBBen, if *any* OS doesn't tell the "average" consumer there's a problem....they'll never know.
Look, name an OS that tells you your NIC is operating at Half Duplex instead of Full Duplex (Which is where I assume you were trying to go with those wacky "kps" comments) without making you *dig* for the info.
Yeah, none. Exactly.
Why? Because it's almost *always* an issue between the NIC and the device it is "connected to' (modem/router/switch), and *not* an OS issue.
...something your network monitoring software should probably clue you into... ;-)
Score: -12
|@pct
well, we are not talking about any o.s., just windows and why it does not provide enough clues.
perhaps, win should include "network monitoring software", since microsoft's touts "connectivity" in their marketing.
if windows cannot provide "connectivity", then "it" should know what doesn't add up in the formula and inform the user which "variables" are "faulty".
those of us who have been around this microsoft block wonders what the hell are they actually engineering.
seems to me that they are simply repackaging outdated code because it is enough to persuade people into believing microsoft has made improvements to the o.s., when in fact there is not much to prove as "new" and "improved".
Score: 0
|*laughing*
Ok, man. OK.
Seriously, if that's your worst gripe against Win7, it's a win. Seriously. Not telling you if you're running in full or half duplex? Wow.
Been around the MSFT block, have you? Somehow (kps???) I doubt that....very much.
Score: -12
|Another good one is windows not starting because of a mapped drive...yea, sure...:)
Score: 0
|Maybe he's booting Windows from a mapped drive and THAT's the problem... LMFAO!!! (sorry, I just couldn't resist)
Score: 0
|well if users cant reconnect at login, then they can't login.
this is a common problem experienced by many users.
read their posts on the discussion groups to get a foundation of what real people/consumers experience.
Score: 0
|Mapped drives do not affect one's ability to log into the OS.
Period.
If they lose connection to the network, they won't authenticate with the server, but their roaming profile will load and they (or their support staff) will be able to determine the cause of the problem.
Loss of connection is generally a hardwrae issue, not an OS issue, and you *are* notified of this via the system tray icon (Network icon with a red 'x' on it).
Really, one would think, after reading your latest batch of posts, that you'd never even used a Microsoft OS, much less supported them.
Score: 0
|At this point, why would there ever be a need for anything to be set at "half-duplex"....seems that in itself would be an issue. If it can be set to that though, why would an OS need to say anything to the user? It would be better to remove that as an option (in the NIC).
Score: 0
|Top Windows 7 features: Multi-touch, BitLocker, AppLocker, booting from VHD, Superbar and Direct3D 11 (Vista too but improved performance will be noticed on Windows 7) :)
Score: 0
|BitLocker is in Vista...?
Score: 0
|BitLocker ToGo ain't there in Vista
Score: 0
|I believe it will just another OS, to heave to buggy, and to demanding?
But i hope i`m wrong :-)
Score: -1
|sounds like windows 7 is shaping up nicley and it sounds quite user friendly and simple without taking away more of the comands that we like to keep our own pc to ourselves and do what we want with it,
each successive windows has taken away the users rights to pick and choose what they would like to do a bit more, sure we want it secure and some users dont want to be bothered with ant of the technical stuff to make it that way, but theres also a lot of users that have there own ideas of what secure is and just want to implement there own idea of secure
when is the free windows 7 coming out ?
and the article was slighly wrong
"I personally wrestled with this issue to no avail; at present, it's impossible for a business' laptop PC that uses a VPN to also be a member of a local Windows 3.11-style workgroup; it can be one or the other, but never both."
impossible meens it cant be done but if you put 2 operating systems on 2 partitions you can switch between the 2 for where your at, if i was a programmer id say take the networking software and just double it so you can choose which 1 you woud like with a flick a button which would be a logical way to achieve this rather than a full OS, every system ive run for the last 5 years has had 2 OS's on with a 3rd partition or extra harddrive to put music pictures or anything else personal on so that if an OS fails or catches a virus that cant be cured im up and runing in 1 minute with no downtime to speak of, this redundacy meens i save all persdonal stuff without thinking about it and its also easier to virus clean an OS when it isn't in use
Score: 0
|I am really interested in seeing how they plan to tie Homegroup in with Windows Home Server. WHS currently doesn't have that capability and it would be the logical "master" computer for all the others to join. Anyone heard any gossip about how they intend to work in WHS?
Perhaps the next upgrade to WHS will be Win7 based and get all of the MSFT products working on the same page. I love Win7 so far and am also impressed with the Windows XP Mode so far, but I'll wait for the feature article that I'm sure will be included in this series to comment on that. :-)
Score: 0
|totally off-topic (Sorry to derail, Scott...we need an actual "Forum" here): I've been having some fun with the RC and thought I'd share this tidbit with ya'll...
Installed a few OSes into VMWare the other day and actually remembered to check the file sizes of the hard drives.
These are post install, complete with updates and VMWare tools. No apps installed other than what comes installed by default. This is the size of the .VMDK file (The dynamically expanding disk image) which should give an *excellent* indication of the base size of the OS (since at least with Vista/7 the *sxs folder messes it all up):
XPSP3:.vmdk 1.3 GB
Ubuntu.vmdk: 2.6 GB
Win7RC.vmdk: 5.3 GB
VistaSP1.vmdk: 8.5 GB
XP wins out, but 7 Is hella better than Vista, with Ubuntu resting nicely in the middle.
AFAIK, VMware doesn't compress their images, so these should be pretty legit unless someone else knows more about the disk images for VMWare (very likely...).
All disks were 75GB max. XP and Ubuntu were installed with 512MB "Virtual" RAM and Vista and 7 given 1024MB. (This is somewhat relevant as the OSes determine swap-size based on available RAM and that Win7's "system partition" is sized based on available HDD space.)
Score: -14
|You think this may be in part due to the whole xpm feature? Since it may help remove some bloat needed for legacy stuff. I also wonder how large it will get once you download some of the more useful addons
Score: 1
|"more useful addons"
Whatever you add to the system doesn't really figure into the base install...
Score: -14
|technically true, but in reality you still have to take this into account. MS could then just strip down the os so much and make even notepad an addon. The base install would be smaller but let's face it some addons are windows features that you have to dl. Could be a way for ms to stick it to pirates since WGA would block these downloads,,,,, in theory.
Score: 1
|*laughing*
Yeah, OK. This is totally irrelevant to my post so, include whatever you want for your own pleasure.
The comparison was base installs...I'm sure lots of people would do lots of things afterwards to make it usable for them...totally not the point.
Score: -14
|it's not, and you fail to see that. I am expanding the discussion and you are still sticking to the technical semantics of your statement. I was actually trying to have a useful discussion with you but seems that after years of posting on this site you have grown a bit jaded and too used to flame wars with the fox guy. You have useful insight sometimes but damn learn to talk to people.
someone had to say it.
Score: 0
|SSDD?
Post was about the base installs...*as-is*. Not some wishlist of what one person thinks it *should* be....that would make it an "opinion", not an informative list of "facts".
I posted a list of base sizes. Not a list of my opinions on what should be included in them. :)
Score: -13
|Hey Tool, whatever happened to your hatred of Ubuntu? ;-) (couldn't resist the dig) ;-)
Score: 0
|Still simmering. I install it and boot it up every now and then...just to make sure my hatred is still well placed. ;-)
Score: -4
|Homegroup: I've been using it since the beta on all of the PCs (except one ancient Dell lappy) in our home. It's probably one of my favorite features of Win7....
Any PC in the home or on the same "Home" network can join one Homegroup. They can, by default, share their music, videos, pictures and printers. The "documents" library is currently unchecked by default, but when it first pops up with your pre-generated password, you can select or deselect any of them.
Other folders can be added to your homegroup in Read/Write or Read Only mode via the explorer right-click menu.
On an existing Homegroup, a new installation will detect the homegroup (as long as one of the system's in the group is running) and once you enter the password, you're in. Nothing else is required.
Under the "Homegroup" location in Explorer, each PC/Device in the group is listed. Under each of those is listed the shared libraries from that PC/Device. The Homegroup libraries are *not* combined. "Scott's Pictures" remains "Scott's Pictures" in the Homegroup located under his PC in the Homegroup location.
This seems such a simple and intuitive solution one can only ask..."Why on Earth did it take so long to get here?"
Score: -13
|Thank you for the detailed review. recently, I had to change my laptop to a new one with Vista and trying to connect with my XP deskrtop is a PITA. I hope that with Windows 7 the things will be as esay as with XP...
Score: 0
|It has been a while since I have messed around with XP home networking, but from what I recall, for basic sharing of printers and the folders most folks want to share anyway, this is *much* easier. No enabling of file-sharing, no having to click "Just share the friggin' folder already!".. ;-)
Score: -14
|"It's probably not so much a testing exercise as a colossal promotional giveaway, a way to get Windows 7 out in the field very fast..."
Got that straight from slashdot, didn't ya?
No, it's not going "out in the field". No business or enterprise in their right mind is going to use an RC on *any* production system. The very suggestion of it is ludicrous.
That's the reasoning you're using to come to the conclusion that "with a reasonable degree of confidence that the Win7 RC is much more than half-baked"? Really?
...not the fact that it is ...a "Release Candidate"? Ya know, that stage in development that, by *definition*, is feature complete and a ...candidate for, uh....release?
Pure genius.
Score: -13
|Well, thanks for the assessment. First of all -- and not to offend anybody here (heaven knows one hates to be offended in the Betanews comments) -- but I don't read Slashdot, so answer to your first question, "No."
And while your assessment about Win7's use in businesses is accurate (testing of the Advanced Installation Kit notwithstanding), I think Microsoft's real goal here is to get Vista's lifecycle in the home wrapped up and outta here as soon as possible. If it can do so by essentially selling the product to consumers on the honor system for the short term, then it's probably worth it.
If my editor's hat extended to comments, I'd say something about your paragraph 5 contradicting your reasoning in paragraph 3, but I'll leave that out -- wouldn't want to offend. But your paragraph 6 is spot on.
-SF "PG" 3
Score: -12
|"I think Microsoft's real goal here is to get Vista's lifecycle in the home wrapped up and outta here as soon as possible"
The only response I can come up with for this is; Duh? ;-)
"If it can do so by essentially selling the product to consumers on the honor system for the short term, then it's probably worth it."
This is where you venture off into la-la land. Home users aren't even going to know about this, and the people who are know that this is a non-upgradeable, non-production OS. I'm certain MSFT is hoping this might be a slim possibility, but I highly doubt that it's the basis of their plan...considering public pre-release is pretty much common in most apps now as a basis for wider ranges of testing.
The contradiction is in your head. Paragraph 3 refers to the reasoning of yours *for* the statement...not the veracity of the statement. :)
(Reading comprehension FTW!) *wicked grin*
All this talk of offense... You know none of this is personal, right? You don't actually get offended by anonymous blow-hards on teh intarwebz, do ya? ;-) I'm just giving you a hard time because, well...I give *everyone* a hard time. No really, ask anyone...
Score: -13
|In use here, we like the Homegroup idea.
It was easy to setup, and is easy to add or remove content from.
The only sticking point is that you should make a 'always home' computer the master. If the master is out, it is hard to add new systems/devices.
Otherwise, those here who are not IT types have no problems in using the libraries with homegroup material.
Score: 1
|The security concern is really only relevant in situations outside the home (where this would likely be disabled by any security-minded IT types). Frankly, I'm amazed the feature is even available on the "business" oriented editions.
Anyone wanting access would have to first hack into the network, acquire the Homegroup password and join....the whole point of the feature is to keep it simple.
Personally, I would love to see them add the ability of routers to "join" the Homegroup so you wouldn't even need to have another PC on in the house to join it...just network access through that router and the password.
Score: -13
|