Walt Mossberg of the WSJ has given 7 a good review. Says its closed the gap on OS X. Which is interesting as Mossberg is a big Mac fan, which means its probably a bit of an improvement over Vista.
[QUOTE=Sanfam;184460]Also, regarding the start thing, the classic nav is gone, but that's largely for the better. There are now other significantly improved means of navigating the menu tree than the older point-hover-wait-click, and this is from the perspective of a user with several hundred items in the programs branch.[/QUOTE]I have nothing against that program search function. Works well if you remember (or partially) name of program you're needing but after that it's like drinking tar while from logically arranged classic style menu you still had hope of finding it relatively fast.
There wouldn't have been anything preventing them from having combination of best of both.
Now it's just typical [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Finnish_idioms#J]juosten kustu[/url] update with one leg moving forward and other reaching way backwards.
[quote]7MC is the best iteration of the Windows Media Center platform...[/quote]Now that's one thing I don't need and want... Installation UI (XP's installation is&was horrible already because of floppy obsession) is now on level where some more known Linuxes were, uhh... decade ago, but just where's that custom install option still lingering?
After all it's my PC, not some remote terminal owned by MS.
[QUOTE=SpiritOne;184449]It runs great, its smooth, it uses less memory than vista...[/QUOTE]Wouldn't call it as really less memory needing, I installed it to PC with which I had done some overclocking experimenting (Q9550@3,7+slight undervolting) and at least RC seems to still hang on very Vista-like ~600MB. (fresh install of XP used around 100 MB, and run blazing fast)
Maybe kernel might be smaller but with all that automatically coming bolted on extra stuff it's just one part of equation.
But at least that thing is very forgivable considering 64bit architecture giving access to more memory.
(but just why on Earth they still keep releasing those 32bit versions?)
[quote]Currently running an AMD Quad Core 3GHZ processor and 8GB of DDR2 Memory.[/QUOTE]No such product as AMD Quad Core 3GHZ... or even 3GHz.
[QUOTE=Biggles;184540]Expecting MS to support everything from past operating systems is why Windows has all the problems it has today. It's so loaded down with years of cruft that it's huge, bloated, slower than it should be, and full of security holes.[/QUOTE]And did introduction of probably the biggest security hole of all time, IE+ActiveX, happen because of dragging along old stuff?
No, it happened because they weren't thinking anything and just wanted forward by force.
And how is it new thing to need to write everything instead those extra search options? Whole point of moving from command line to GUI was getting rid of need to memorize everything and suddenly it's going backwards!
Now I admit that use of size filter is still fast but there were also other useful settings... And instead of small resource consumption of command line there's still that resource consuming graphical bloat.
[QUOTE=Seafroggys;184552]I'm getting the full Corporate version for $10 :)[/QUOTE]Enterprise... and there never were any corporate versions, just volume license keys.
[QUOTE=Trident;184454]Pentium D 3.2ghz dual core with 4 gigs of ram and a 9800 GTX+.[/QUOTE]Such waste of graphics card with such CPU bottleneck...
[QUOTE=croxis;184475]It isn't a windows key, it is the meta key :D[/QUOTE]Wasn't Windows key name reserved for reset-button/Ctrl+Alt+Del?
No such product as AMD Quad Core 3GHZ... or even 3GHz.
[/QUOTE]
what the hell are you talking about?
[url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471]AMD Phenom II x4 (quad core) 3.0Ghz[/url]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=E.T;184657]And did introduction of probably the biggest security hole of all time, IE+ActiveX, happen because of dragging along old stuff?
No, it happened because they weren't thinking anything and just wanted forward by force.[/quote]
If Windows wasn't weighed down by requirements that software from 10 years ago run, ActiveX as designed wouldn't actually be a security hole at all.
[quote]And how is it new thing to need to write everything instead those extra search options? Whole point of moving from command line to GUI was getting rid of need to memorize everything and suddenly it's going backwards!
Now I admit that use of size filter is still fast but there were also other useful settings... And instead of small resource consumption of command line there's still that resource consuming graphical bloat.[/quote]
If they have to maintain every type of UI they've had because one group of people likes it more than the newer ones, they would rapidly run out of time to design improved UIs that can benefit from new techniques and the greater computing power available today. Sometimes it's just time to make a break with the past. Now, perhaps the Windows 7 start menu is crap (I don't know, I've only used it for about 30 seconds). That just means the Windows 7 start menu is crap, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have tried replacing the old one, nor that they should keep maintaining the old one. If you like the way old Windows worked, [i]use old Windows[/i]. (And don't go on about DX10, games still work with DX9, too.)
1: I don't know about anyone else, but I don't expect anything from search since Vista's search is more useless than talking to a 5 year old. I type in look for .exe or picture files and I get tons of shit that has no relation to any of it.
2: ET: Well if you want the card, it's worthless to me. I'll sell it to ya for the price I bought it. My desktop is fubar and there is no hope of repair. I'm stuck with my Laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5ghz with a Geforce 8600M.
Windows has been a security hole since the IE... 4 I think.
Sure, why not take all the backwards compatiability out. Then absolutly nothing we have bought or downloaded today will work at all. Everything would have to be re-programed for the new OS. There is a great marketing sceme, make a totally brand new OS with no compatibility with any software out so everyone is forced to buy all new software! So instead of the 300 bucks for an OS, you gotta re-buy all the games you want, re-buy that word processor you love. Wait months for all the inet apps you use to be re-written for the new OS. Then because the OS is so new, to keep up with all the hell that the new OS has, they have to drop all support of thier older products to force all buisnesses to upgrade their systems and software, thus raising the prices of all products!. Hell might as well buy a Mac, it would be cheaper.
I think it's possible to still support older apps, without the amount of legacy code that is still floating around in windows. but i'm not a programmer, so wtf do i know.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
It's not. There are two ways to support legacy apps: keep the old APIs around (the route MS takes) or run them in a VM (the root Apple took for a while). Either way requires legacy code being around in some form.
but if you do it in a VM, the OS itself does not need to load anything extra until it is needed, correct? thus leading to a more streamlined OS experience.
I believe window 7 ultimate does this, it runs xp in a vm
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=Entil'Zha;184680]but if you do it in a VM, the OS itself does not need to load anything extra until it is needed, correct? thus leading to a more streamlined OS experience.[/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, kernel APIs are not a matter of just appearing when needed. The API has to be there from the start, and if it's there, malware can load it. A pure VM model is the best because then the host OS [i]can't[/i] load the legacy code, and if you put suitable controls around the VM it can't do anything nasty. But that removes integration (imagine the complaints MS would get if people had to start an entire separate computer every time they wanted to run their favourite program). With an automatic virtualisation system, you still get the same old security problems because the malware can start the VM system as well.
Fun fact of the day: Windows has had a virtualisation system since Windows NT. Any 16-bit software on WinNT is run in a virtual layer ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_On_Windows]Windows on Windows[/url]) using 16-bit libraries. WinXP x64 uses a 32-bit version of this system for running 32-bit software.
Nifty, i'm still looking forward to windows 7, i am a bit concerned about the upgrade from Vista 64, only because i FINALLY got my new machine to where i like it, and if i narf the install and have to start over again i will be quite unhappy.
[QUOTE=Biggles;184668]If Windows wasn't weighed down by requirements that software from 10 years ago run, ActiveX as designed wouldn't actually be a security hole at all.[/QUOTE]Maybe we should also blame DOS for security problems of Windowses.
Or maybe fault is in Intel for making hardware for such code, in invertor of IC for making Intel's microprosessors possible, in inventor of transistor for making component which could be miniaturized for ICs, in inventor of vacuum tube for making component whose functionality could be used in computer, in Charles Babbage's ideas of machine which could be made to do things automatically... all the way to the first ape which dropped from the tree and decided to start using tools.
If MS had been able to think existing/past situation of malware it would have been obvious how huge security fuck up close integration of browser with such functionality into OS is!
But they sure weren't concerned about critical thinking. Because of screw ups with their own proprietary networks during birth of WWW they suddenly found themselves without control of that new area and had to start shitting out all kind of of PR BS gimmicks for hijacking that area.
[quote]If they have to maintain every type of UI they've had because one group of people likes it more than the newer ones, they would rapidly run out of time to design improved UIs that can benefit from new techniques and the greater computing power available today. Sometimes it's just time to make a break with the past.[/QUOTE]Funny thing but they always seem to have time to bloat up interface of everything...
But you're right, maybe it's time to replace steering wheel of vehicles with one button for turning wheels to left at constant rate and other for turning them towards right because steering wheel is such old relic.
Also graphical/textual data output of computers is also getting old so maybe that should be replaced by wall with lights giving output in binary format.
Did MS sponsor something for New Zealand or have you had too many visits from Mr. Morden?
[QUOTE=SpiritOne;184663]what the hell are you talking about?
[url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471]AMD Phenom II x4 (quad core) 3.0Ghz[/url][/QUOTE]So what's the product name in that?
AMD has at least five different quads.
You are unusually picky over terminology. I've done my time as a computer lab attendant (bloody printers...) and found that even my knowledgeable coworkers didn't always get it "right."
Enterprise vs Corporate? Really? I mean really? No need to get hostile over it.
Having spent some time in Linux I found myself moving back to a text based interface after the liberation from DOS in Windows 95 and again in XP. I use Gnome-Do in linux and Launchy in XP. In linux I almost always type out sudo aptitude install aweseomeprogramhere instead of digging it up in synaptic. Why? Because it is faster. It is also much more easy for me to fix other people's computers by telling someone to open up a terminal and copy and paste this in, instead of, "click here, then here, then go to this tab and click here..."
I also think you hit Biggle's argument on the head without realizing it. I don't think anyone knew what the internet would be like today when windows 95 and ie were first integrated. Heck, email itself has remained mostly unchanged for the past 40ish years. I don't think anyone realized back then how much a problem spam would be.
The python programming language have encountered this problem a couple of times. The first that I am aware of is with version 2.6. Its requirements for windows pushed the OS requirements to XP (I think it is something to do with Unicode). This made the users who still use 95 and 98 cranky. I find it similar to someone who owns an older car that uses lead gas complaining when all the stations dropped lead gasoline from the pumps.
Python hit the same issue again with version 3. Unlike version 2 which maintained compatibility with 1.x code, they decided not to do the same with 3. Computer science is undergoing improvement, it does do academic research to find new and better ways of doing things. At some point something has to be sacrificed, either backwards compatibility or performance.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE=croxis;184696]I also think you hit Biggle's argument on the head without realizing it. I don't think anyone knew what the internet would be like today when windows 95 and ie were first integrated. Heck, email itself has remained mostly unchanged for the past 40ish years. I don't think anyone realized back then how much a problem spam would be.[/QUOTE]
Actually, I think he completely missed it... Certainly his attempts to claim that I'm somehow blaming Babbage for MS's product decisions seems to indicate as much. Not to mention over-extrapolation of the idea of changing the UI. I think he just wants to pretend that MS intentionally ignores security issues like the big evil behemoth it obviously is.
My point is that if product managers at MS weren't so fixated on supporting software that ran on Windows nearly 15 years ago, then MS would have been free to redo their entire user and security model from scratch years ago, making a proper user model with a decent permissions system, and thereby allowing things like Activex to work as intended without being a huge security hole. That's just one of the things they could have changed (although easily the most important). It is true that noone realised back then how things would play out with the Internet, but it's perfectly technically feasible to fix those problems - provided you don't mind dropping or massively changing features such that they are incompatible.
Apple was in a much different position from MS in that they were essentially restarting their market, so the leap to OSX was possible. MS has a huge existing market to worry about and they are not willing to risk it when they know it's already tied up so tight that people will buy anyway. One of the biggest causes of MS's security issues lingering around is MS's own success. Hopefully with the improvements in virtualisation technology of the past few years, this will start changing. Although I'd still prefer they just redesign the entire guts of Windows from scratch...
[QUOTE=ET]So what's the product name in that?
AMD has at least five different quads.[/QUOTE]
Seriously what the hell? Would you like the extended name, model number and serial number of the processor I'm running?? I was casually mentioning what my system specs were in a thread about operating systems. I wasn't specific because only a handful of people know what a Phenom II 940 is...
I still don't know what you're talking about when you said [QUOTE]
No such product as AMD Quad Core 3GHZ... or even 3GHz.[/QUOTE]
Clearly, AMD makes quad core 3ghz processors, so I ask again, What the hell are you talking about????
[QUOTE=Entil'Zha;184599]I may be the only personi know of who's had almost no problems with Vista at all. and i've been using it since day 1.[/QUOTE]
You are not the only one. I too purchased Vista very soon, not day one but within a couple of months, and have had very few problems. The only major issue I had was a BSOD when installing my sound card driver, and even then I blame Creative more than MS as they failed to have a final driver released even multiple months after the Vista launch. When they finally released a final driver the BSOD problems went away.
I'm also of the camp that didn't have significant problems with Vista, though I did primarily stick with XP simply for the sake of being more comfortable with it.
There's a lot of unearned hatred filling the empty spaces of this thread...
Has anyone found anything similar to SandBoxie since Microsoft prevented using it (+not to forget problems with device drivers) with their better security:
[url]http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?WindowsVista64[/url]
Feature called as [url=http://www.istartedsomething.com/20081104/sandbox-users-with-windows-7-pc-safeguard/]PC Safeguard[/url] could have offered at least something similar to running program in sandbox but naturally MS removed such usefull feature after beta!
Comments
There wouldn't have been anything preventing them from having combination of best of both.
Now it's just typical [url=http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Finnish_idioms#J]juosten kustu[/url] update with one leg moving forward and other reaching way backwards.
[quote]7MC is the best iteration of the Windows Media Center platform...[/quote]Now that's one thing I don't need and want... Installation UI (XP's installation is&was horrible already because of floppy obsession) is now on level where some more known Linuxes were, uhh... decade ago, but just where's that custom install option still lingering?
After all it's my PC, not some remote terminal owned by MS.
[QUOTE=SpiritOne;184449]It runs great, its smooth, it uses less memory than vista...[/QUOTE]Wouldn't call it as really less memory needing, I installed it to PC with which I had done some overclocking experimenting (Q9550@3,7+slight undervolting) and at least RC seems to still hang on very Vista-like ~600MB. (fresh install of XP used around 100 MB, and run blazing fast)
Maybe kernel might be smaller but with all that automatically coming bolted on extra stuff it's just one part of equation.
But at least that thing is very forgivable considering 64bit architecture giving access to more memory.
(but just why on Earth they still keep releasing those 32bit versions?)
[quote]Currently running an AMD Quad Core 3GHZ processor and 8GB of DDR2 Memory.[/QUOTE]No such product as AMD Quad Core 3GHZ... or even 3GHz.
[QUOTE=Biggles;184540]Expecting MS to support everything from past operating systems is why Windows has all the problems it has today. It's so loaded down with years of cruft that it's huge, bloated, slower than it should be, and full of security holes.[/QUOTE]And did introduction of probably the biggest security hole of all time, IE+ActiveX, happen because of dragging along old stuff?
No, it happened because they weren't thinking anything and just wanted forward by force.
And how is it new thing to need to write everything instead those extra search options? Whole point of moving from command line to GUI was getting rid of need to memorize everything and suddenly it's going backwards!
Now I admit that use of size filter is still fast but there were also other useful settings... And instead of small resource consumption of command line there's still that resource consuming graphical bloat.
[QUOTE=Seafroggys;184552]I'm getting the full Corporate version for $10 :)[/QUOTE]Enterprise... and there never were any corporate versions, just volume license keys.
[QUOTE=Trident;184454]Pentium D 3.2ghz dual core with 4 gigs of ram and a 9800 GTX+.[/QUOTE]Such waste of graphics card with such CPU bottleneck...
[QUOTE=croxis;184475]It isn't a windows key, it is the meta key :D[/QUOTE]Wasn't Windows key name reserved for reset-button/Ctrl+Alt+Del?
No such product as AMD Quad Core 3GHZ... or even 3GHz.
[/QUOTE]
what the hell are you talking about?
[url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471]AMD Phenom II x4 (quad core) 3.0Ghz[/url]
No, it happened because they weren't thinking anything and just wanted forward by force.[/quote]
If Windows wasn't weighed down by requirements that software from 10 years ago run, ActiveX as designed wouldn't actually be a security hole at all.
[quote]And how is it new thing to need to write everything instead those extra search options? Whole point of moving from command line to GUI was getting rid of need to memorize everything and suddenly it's going backwards!
Now I admit that use of size filter is still fast but there were also other useful settings... And instead of small resource consumption of command line there's still that resource consuming graphical bloat.[/quote]
If they have to maintain every type of UI they've had because one group of people likes it more than the newer ones, they would rapidly run out of time to design improved UIs that can benefit from new techniques and the greater computing power available today. Sometimes it's just time to make a break with the past. Now, perhaps the Windows 7 start menu is crap (I don't know, I've only used it for about 30 seconds). That just means the Windows 7 start menu is crap, it doesn't mean that they shouldn't have tried replacing the old one, nor that they should keep maintaining the old one. If you like the way old Windows worked, [i]use old Windows[/i]. (And don't go on about DX10, games still work with DX9, too.)
2: ET: Well if you want the card, it's worthless to me. I'll sell it to ya for the price I bought it. My desktop is fubar and there is no hope of repair. I'm stuck with my Laptop with an Intel Core 2 Duo 1.5ghz with a Geforce 8600M.
Windows has been a security hole since the IE... 4 I think.
Sure, why not take all the backwards compatiability out. Then absolutly nothing we have bought or downloaded today will work at all. Everything would have to be re-programed for the new OS. There is a great marketing sceme, make a totally brand new OS with no compatibility with any software out so everyone is forced to buy all new software! So instead of the 300 bucks for an OS, you gotta re-buy all the games you want, re-buy that word processor you love. Wait months for all the inet apps you use to be re-written for the new OS. Then because the OS is so new, to keep up with all the hell that the new OS has, they have to drop all support of thier older products to force all buisnesses to upgrade their systems and software, thus raising the prices of all products!. Hell might as well buy a Mac, it would be cheaper.
Unfortunately, kernel APIs are not a matter of just appearing when needed. The API has to be there from the start, and if it's there, malware can load it. A pure VM model is the best because then the host OS [i]can't[/i] load the legacy code, and if you put suitable controls around the VM it can't do anything nasty. But that removes integration (imagine the complaints MS would get if people had to start an entire separate computer every time they wanted to run their favourite program). With an automatic virtualisation system, you still get the same old security problems because the malware can start the VM system as well.
Fun fact of the day: Windows has had a virtualisation system since Windows NT. Any 16-bit software on WinNT is run in a virtual layer ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_On_Windows]Windows on Windows[/url]) using 16-bit libraries. WinXP x64 uses a 32-bit version of this system for running 32-bit software.
Or maybe fault is in Intel for making hardware for such code, in invertor of IC for making Intel's microprosessors possible, in inventor of transistor for making component which could be miniaturized for ICs, in inventor of vacuum tube for making component whose functionality could be used in computer, in Charles Babbage's ideas of machine which could be made to do things automatically... all the way to the first ape which dropped from the tree and decided to start using tools.
If MS had been able to think existing/past situation of malware it would have been obvious how huge security fuck up close integration of browser with such functionality into OS is!
But they sure weren't concerned about critical thinking. Because of screw ups with their own proprietary networks during birth of WWW they suddenly found themselves without control of that new area and had to start shitting out all kind of of PR BS gimmicks for hijacking that area.
[quote]If they have to maintain every type of UI they've had because one group of people likes it more than the newer ones, they would rapidly run out of time to design improved UIs that can benefit from new techniques and the greater computing power available today. Sometimes it's just time to make a break with the past.[/QUOTE]Funny thing but they always seem to have time to bloat up interface of everything...
But you're right, maybe it's time to replace steering wheel of vehicles with one button for turning wheels to left at constant rate and other for turning them towards right because steering wheel is such old relic.
Also graphical/textual data output of computers is also getting old so maybe that should be replaced by wall with lights giving output in binary format.
Did MS sponsor something for New Zealand or have you had too many visits from Mr. Morden?
[QUOTE=SpiritOne;184663]what the hell are you talking about?
[url=http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103471]AMD Phenom II x4 (quad core) 3.0Ghz[/url][/QUOTE]So what's the product name in that?
AMD has at least five different quads.
Enterprise vs Corporate? Really? I mean really? No need to get hostile over it.
Having spent some time in Linux I found myself moving back to a text based interface after the liberation from DOS in Windows 95 and again in XP. I use Gnome-Do in linux and Launchy in XP. In linux I almost always type out sudo aptitude install aweseomeprogramhere instead of digging it up in synaptic. Why? Because it is faster. It is also much more easy for me to fix other people's computers by telling someone to open up a terminal and copy and paste this in, instead of, "click here, then here, then go to this tab and click here..."
I also think you hit Biggle's argument on the head without realizing it. I don't think anyone knew what the internet would be like today when windows 95 and ie were first integrated. Heck, email itself has remained mostly unchanged for the past 40ish years. I don't think anyone realized back then how much a problem spam would be.
The python programming language have encountered this problem a couple of times. The first that I am aware of is with version 2.6. Its requirements for windows pushed the OS requirements to XP (I think it is something to do with Unicode). This made the users who still use 95 and 98 cranky. I find it similar to someone who owns an older car that uses lead gas complaining when all the stations dropped lead gasoline from the pumps.
Python hit the same issue again with version 3. Unlike version 2 which maintained compatibility with 1.x code, they decided not to do the same with 3. Computer science is undergoing improvement, it does do academic research to find new and better ways of doing things. At some point something has to be sacrificed, either backwards compatibility or performance.
Actually, I think he completely missed it... Certainly his attempts to claim that I'm somehow blaming Babbage for MS's product decisions seems to indicate as much. Not to mention over-extrapolation of the idea of changing the UI. I think he just wants to pretend that MS intentionally ignores security issues like the big evil behemoth it obviously is.
My point is that if product managers at MS weren't so fixated on supporting software that ran on Windows nearly 15 years ago, then MS would have been free to redo their entire user and security model from scratch years ago, making a proper user model with a decent permissions system, and thereby allowing things like Activex to work as intended without being a huge security hole. That's just one of the things they could have changed (although easily the most important). It is true that noone realised back then how things would play out with the Internet, but it's perfectly technically feasible to fix those problems - provided you don't mind dropping or massively changing features such that they are incompatible.
Apple was in a much different position from MS in that they were essentially restarting their market, so the leap to OSX was possible. MS has a huge existing market to worry about and they are not willing to risk it when they know it's already tied up so tight that people will buy anyway. One of the biggest causes of MS's security issues lingering around is MS's own success. Hopefully with the improvements in virtualisation technology of the past few years, this will start changing. Although I'd still prefer they just redesign the entire guts of Windows from scratch...
AMD has at least five different quads.[/QUOTE]
Seriously what the hell? Would you like the extended name, model number and serial number of the processor I'm running?? I was casually mentioning what my system specs were in a thread about operating systems. I wasn't specific because only a handful of people know what a Phenom II 940 is...
I still don't know what you're talking about when you said [QUOTE]
No such product as AMD Quad Core 3GHZ... or even 3GHz.[/QUOTE]
Clearly, AMD makes quad core 3ghz processors, so I ask again, What the hell are you talking about????
You are not the only one. I too purchased Vista very soon, not day one but within a couple of months, and have had very few problems. The only major issue I had was a BSOD when installing my sound card driver, and even then I blame Creative more than MS as they failed to have a final driver released even multiple months after the Vista launch. When they finally released a final driver the BSOD problems went away.
There's a lot of unearned hatred filling the empty spaces of this thread...
[url]http://www.sandboxie.com/index.php?WindowsVista64[/url]
Feature called as [url=http://www.istartedsomething.com/20081104/sandbox-users-with-windows-7-pc-safeguard/]PC Safeguard[/url] could have offered at least something similar to running program in sandbox but naturally MS removed such usefull feature after beta!
anyway, my free copy of win7 finally arrived, it's sitting next to my computer until i have time to install it..