The difference between Windows 7 Startup and Recovery Console and the previous

is shown in the figure below, which is the setting screen of the Windows 7 Beta operating system and the 2003 operating system "Startup and Recovery" platform. On the left is the Windows 7 beta operating system, and on the right is the 2003 operating system. As you can see from the graphics, most of the features in the 2003 operating system are preserved in the Windows 7 operating system. However, some adjustments have still been made. Below I will do some analysis of these differences to help you understand the Windows 7 operating system as soon as possible.

Is the picture not clear? Please click here to view the original image (larger image).

First, the operating system startup sequence.

In the startup and failure recovery management platform, the first step is to set the startup sequence of the operating system. If the user's computer has multiple operating systems installed inside, you can modify the boot order of the operating system in this boot and recovery platform. If you want to use Windows 7 as the default operating system, you can select Windows 7 from this drop-down list. At the same time, in this platform, it is also possible to set the time for the user to select in the operating system selection interface, that is, the "time to display the operating system list" here. If this time is set to 0, then the system defaults to the Windows 7 operating system when it starts, and does not give the user the opportunity to choose.

As can be seen from the above figure, the biggest difference between Windows 7 and XP is that there is an edit button in the XP operating system. Not in the Windows 7 operating system. In the XP system, the selection settings for this system are saved in a boot.int configuration file. The system administrator can modify this through the graphical interface, or use this edit button to open the configuration file directly for modification. However, in general, the author does not recommend that the system administrator (especially the ordinary user) manually modify this configuration file, so as not to cause the configuration file to be damaged and the operating system cannot be started. However, some features need to be modified by modifying this configuration file. If you select the operating system in the startup interface, we hope that it does not display content that is not meaningful, such as XP, but wants to display the operating system according to the user, such as "XP test" and so on. In this case, the user can understand the purpose of the operating system as soon as he sees the name, which is beneficial for them to make a choice. At this point in the XP operating system, you need to click the "Edit" button to open the configuration file and modify the multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(1)WINDOWS="Microsoft Windows XP Professional" Content, change Microsoft Windows XP Professiona to XP test. The editing button was canceled in the Windows 7 operating system, probably because of the protection of this configuration file, and the user is not allowed to manually modify the configuration file.

Second, the processing when the system fails.

When the operating system fails during some use or startup, what should I do? This is a related solution in both Windows 7 and XP operating systems. And as can be seen from the above figures, their schemes are similar. However, the solutions they recommend are different.

In the XP or 2003 operating system, when a system failure or other problem causes the system to fail, the system can use three solutions to write events to the system log, send management alarms, or automatically re-create start up. If the system is written to the system log, the system administrator can view the contents of the system log through the event viewer to see what caused the system to fail. If you choose automatic restart, it means that the operating system will automatically restart to fix related errors when the system fails. If set to send a management alert, it means that when a system stop error occurs, a warning message is sent to the system administrator. In these three solutions, the application of events to the system log and automatic restart is very successful in the XP or 2003 operating system. But sending a management alert doesn't seem to have much practical value, or it doesn't work at all. I originally thought that this solution would be perfect in Windows 7, but I did not expect to delete this function directly in the Windows 7 operating system. This surprised the author. Because it can be seen from the previous Microsoft official documentation, this system failure solution is very useful. If you use the Microsoft operating system as a server, the system administrator can get the information in the first place when the server crashes and crashes. The system administrator needs to know this information regardless of whether the server is automatically started and the error is fixed. This allows the system administrator to eliminate errors by early action to prevent frequent operating system failures for similar reasons in the future. The author is not clear why the function is removed in the Windows 7 operating system (is it because the technical limitations can not be achieved, just give up?), but I still hope that after the official version is released, this program can be improved.

In addition, when the system encounters an error and stops working, there is still a lot of data in the memory. So what do you do with this data? The recommended solution for this is different in the Windows 7 operating system and the 2003 operating system.

In these two operating systems, there are four solutions to the processing method of system running failed memory data. First, you can take no solution, do not process any data in memory, and discard it directly. The second is to use the full memory storage method to write the data in all the memory in the computer to the dump file. The third is to use the core memory dump mechanism, that is, only the data in the memory occupied by the system core is written to the dump file. Compared with the second method, this saves less data, but can quickly save the data to the dump file. The fourth is to use a small memory dump solution, that is, only a small amount of memory that can help the system administrator find the cause of the problem is saved to the dump file. The fourth method saves the least amount of content and saves the least time. These four solutions are available in the Windows 7 operating system or the 2003 operating system. However, the solutions they recommend are different. In the Windows 7 operating system, the default solution is core memory dump. In the 2003 operating system, the default solution is a small memory dump. This is mainly because the Windows 7 operating system is more responsive when it encounters a system failure, and has enough time to write the data in the core memory to the dump file, thereby helping the system administrator to reduce the loss to the maximum extent. In the 2003 operating system, even if the solution is adjusted to the core memory dump, but when it encounters a serious error, the 2003 operating system still cannot completely save the information in the core memory to the dump file. For this reason, it is recommended to use a small memory dump scheme by default, storing only some information useful for resolving errors. I strongly agree with this improvement of the Windows 7 operating system.

In addition, as can be seen from the above figure, in the Windows 7 operating system, the title field of the window is transparent. However, the author does not agree with this improvement. When I first started using this Windows 7 operating system, I thought it was a problem with the display. Because it adopts a transparent treatment plan, this transparency is not thorough enough. When the windows overlap, it feels like there is a stain on the display or the display is damaged. Therefore, the author believes that Microsoft should improve on this detail, or to improve the degree of transparency. However, the author believes that it is best to cancel this function. Instead of letting the user manually replace the display solution, disable this feature. This feature does not improve the aesthetics of the interface.