GameMaster
New Member
I expect everything different than Vista.
What do you expect from windows 7
- Thread starter Monster92
- Start date
tlarkin
VIP Member
Nope, probably won't happen. MS needs to get rid of the bloat that is backwards compatibility. Sorry, developers need to update their products and quit acting like crying babies. They should take care of their customers, and that also costs money so people shouldn't cry about paying for it either. They need to totally get rid of all backwards compatibility, because that is one reason why Windows is so bloated to begin with. If anything, perhaps make some sort of virtual environment you can run older applications in, if you choose to do so.
They are going back to a more Unix-like structure, and start to migrate more towards that model of OS. User level preferences, perhaps no more registry, self contained applications, and actual local level administration. Instead of power user, super user, super admin, and all of that crap that makes ACLs and other windows permissions a freaking nightmare to deal with.
I expect people will cry about the changes and whine about the hardware requirements. Windows developers won't write proper drivers or applications and probably like a billion things will break when it is released. Hopefully they will get more efficient at their coding and no longer require over double the hardware requirements over every other OS in existence.
Oh, and it will have things like full on EFI support and ZFS support and all that great stuff that was cut out of Vista. Which is why when I said originally Vista was the new WindowsME. Those of you that didn't believe me - I told you so!
I agree. Backwards compatibility is the number 1 reason for the "bloat' and "insecurity" of any OS that incorporates it.
However, there is a reason.
The surveys and market analysis I've read clearly suggest that most users value their software applications and subsequent data more valuable than either the OS or computer itself.
And that is a very real and legitimate concern; thus affecting the base mentality of further OS development.
It's a shame that this causes so much problems.
But there are answers, such as a multi-boot system or virtualized environment, so if the OS vendors would push those technologies we could indeed have very streamlined, non-bloated OS's.
However, there is a reason.
The surveys and market analysis I've read clearly suggest that most users value their software applications and subsequent data more valuable than either the OS or computer itself.
And that is a very real and legitimate concern; thus affecting the base mentality of further OS development.
It's a shame that this causes so much problems.
But there are answers, such as a multi-boot system or virtualized environment, so if the OS vendors would push those technologies we could indeed have very streamlined, non-bloated OS's.
In layman terms, can you describe ZFS? This has to do with storage, right? How does this compare to NTFS?
tlarkin
VIP Member
Well....to sum up the wiki page that explains it very nicely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs
It allows for virtual devices so you can merge multiple partitions into say a RAID and not have to use the whole disk itself....
The big thing I like is how it always writes new data to new blocks on the hard disk, allowing for you to go in and take snap shots for instant complete back ups.
You find ZFS on like SANs (and XSANs) and is used for giant data mining, and the fact that you can go in at any given time and take snap shots very quickly and efficiently it allows you to make full cloned block for block back ups of your hard disk. Pretty handy if one is starting to fail and your back ups are over a month old.
Then of course you have the better checksum the better I/O so on and so forth, and again Microsoft is the last OS to adopt this technology, and they should have it in Vista given all the crashes the OS has, be nice to take multiple instant snap shots of your HD.
rydin4life
New Member
Well, my pc is about 5 years old now, running xp on 512megs of ram...runs fine but I was going to replace in 09 with a new vista machine, but it seems like I'll just wait until 2010 and wait for windows 7 to hit...ideas on that?
tlarkin
VIP Member
Especially if windows 7 has full on EFI support, you will want to buy EFI compliant hardware, otherwise you won't benefit from EFI period.
speedyink
VIP Member
My hopes are for microsoft to scratch everything and start from scratch. Apple did it, and it did wonders for them, I can only imagine what it could do for Windows. I also expect some damn nice eye candy
Otherwise the usual secure, customizable, stable, and some backwords compatiblity would be nice, but not necessary as it's needed for change.
But for now Vista is doing just fine. I love how people say it's broken and buggy and blah blah blah. Thats BS, Vista is fine, if it wasn't I'd be using XP. But I realize this is a lost cause, so bash away, cause I don't give a shit what the sheep say.
Otherwise the usual secure, customizable, stable, and some backwords compatiblity would be nice, but not necessary as it's needed for change. But for now Vista is doing just fine. I love how people say it's broken and buggy and blah blah blah. Thats BS, Vista is fine, if it wasn't I'd be using XP. But I realize this is a lost cause, so bash away, cause I don't give a shit what the sheep say.
tlarkin
VIP Member
My hopes are for microsoft to scratch everything and start from scratch. Apple did it, and it did wonders for them, I can only imagine what it could do for Windows. I also expect some damn nice eye candy
But for now Vista is doing just fine. I love how people say it's broken and buggy and blah blah blah. Thats BS, Vista is fine, if it wasn't I'd be using XP. But I realize this is a lost cause, so bash away, cause I don't give a shit what the sheep say.
Sorry, I disagree and think of myself as at least above a sheep. Vista is a steaming pile of crap, and the UI is chunky and unintuitive, though it does look more pretty than XP.
It also doesn't really improve any technologies or securities all that much, but what it does do is take up quadruple the amount of hardware specs to run.
I'm hoping for a good use of processing cores.... It would be awesome if the OS could optimize already-existent programs in order to multi-thread when possible.
I expect a later release date than that which is planned.... not to mention that intel plans to release an 80-core processor by 2010, so intense multi-threading capabilities are a must.
I'd be happy with an improved version of XP, one that supports both better hardware, and is able to make greater use of that hardware.
I expect a later release date than that which is planned.... not to mention that intel plans to release an 80-core processor by 2010, so intense multi-threading capabilities are a must.
I'd be happy with an improved version of XP, one that supports both better hardware, and is able to make greater use of that hardware.
IMO... bad.
I'd rather just get it over with, and keep my software. I don't like many commercial anti-virus software products for this very reason.
From what you've heard, is that a mandatory subscription? or could it be like renting an appliance... you could rent one, buy one, or rent until it is paid off.
speedyink
VIP Member
Well if you have your own respectible opinion on it thats alright, it's the people who say it because it's a fad that get to me.
I disagree with your opinion as well. I don't see how the UI is chunky and unintuitive at all. There are a couple of questionable placements for some options, but for the most part I find it faster and easier to navigate than XP, and definately faster than me trying to fumble around OSX or Linux.
As for not improving, it improves pretty much all the built in applications that are included in windows. Networking is improved, laptop battery options have improved, the start menu vastly improved etc. It has also been proven to have just under half the amount of security threats as XP in the past 6 months. The hardware requirements are higher than XP, but seriously, whats the big deal? I don't remember people bitching when XP ran like a bag of shit on 64mb of ram, whereas windows 98 was speedy under the same conditions. It's a part of computer evolution, and at the declining price of computer components it really isn't all that much of an issue. Leopard is also not all that far behind Vista with it's hardware requirements. Plus I've seen plenty of machines completely capable of running Vista nicely selling for like $399. Is $399 really too much for people nowadays?
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
399 is an outrage, and not to derail the thread but let me just give a few easy examples of why windows is totally nonintuitive. For one, IE has its own set of internet options that will trump the system options, then why have the system level options in the first place? If I go into control panels, or whatever and set default settings, I have to do it again in IE. Granted, I don't use IE, but that is just scratching the surface. Furthermore, many applications do that to the system, and it creates a confusion of where to go to configure what. I mean for crying out loud user data is still spread outside the \Users directory, which to me is asinine. Also, networking was broke like a hobo when Vista was first released. SMB2 increased the amount of packets on a single connection by like 1300% and broke compatibility with all legacy connections, including SMB 1 which comes standard on NT/2k/XP and there were tons of people would couldn't file and print share at all. sure some of it may be fixed now, but its not solid 100% fixed, you don't get that till about SP2 ish with MS.
Also, why can't the control panel be simple? It should just list the controls and the options, on or off, or advanced. It took me over 20 minutes drilling through looping preference panes to completely turn off that damn security message crap when I first loaded Vista. 20 minutes drilling through loop after loop of damned preferences in the same freaking control panel. WTF were their designers even thinking, or should I ask WTF were they smoking? Either way, I think it is a valid question. Why aren't all preferences pertaining to networking in the networking pref pane? I mean there are little things here and there that they do that just don't make sense.
Also, if you say, install office it automatically makes Outlook your default email client, which is annoying as hell as well. Then you want to use IE and say use some of the built in functions like send page to someone, and if you have lets say a WAB and outlook is installed it changes all the IE internet preferences to Outlook, when a WAB is not compatible with that, you would have to be running outlook and use a PST. So, they aren't even using any kind of database standard amongst their applications, again which is just dumb, and in a way locking you into a product.
Where as every other OS in existence just uses open source standards, so if I don't like address book app #1 I can export and import those open source standards into app #2, and vice versa. Microsoft does the complete opposite. They aren't the only one that does it either, some other major mail clients do that but most of them have open source plug ins, and this is why things like LDAP exist across the board. However, it seems MS always wants to make it their version so to speak, so their LDAP is never 100% compatible with anything else.
Also, I don't like short cuts or things on my desktop, and stacks is the answer to my prayers when it comes to that. Every damn windows installer in existence wants to put a short cut somewhere, or it wants to install crap in a location I don't like. No self contained apps are part of the issue.
Now add in the system requirements versus the eye candy and the fact that Aqua, Beryl and Compiz all do the same thing and are better and do it with less resources, another WTF were they smoking when they coded this.
I could go on and on and on, but I think everyone has heard my rants about Vista before. Windows 7 will make Vista look like another windows ME, mark my words.
Last edited:
speedyink
VIP Member
399 an outrage? I didn't realize people could be so cheap.
I'm not gonna argue with you, but in my defense:
1. Self contained settings has never got in my way.
2. I never had networking issues with vista, even in it's beta 2 stages.
3. Control panel is not hard to get used to.
4. I like shortcuts
5. I still think the system requirements argument is moot
I'm not trying to say that vista is technically better than other OSes, but for what I use my computers for, Vista works awesome. It completely depends on how you use your computer, so don't push your views on me because we obviously don't use computers for the same purposes.
Last edited:
tlarkin
VIP Member
I agree with you with the only exception is that I can do so much more with less than I can with Vista.
Some of my rant doesn't even apply to me because I hate IE and I hate outlook, so I don't use them. However, being in the IT field I have to deal with that crap all the time, and people don't understand it. So, I was perhaps generalizing my point of view to the average user. Average users have no idea that you need to set the default mail application in IE's internet settings, and they have no idea the differences between a WAB and a PST file, however they call me and complain when their systems don't work and I have to put up with petty problems like that rather than fixing or addressing more major issues. So, to me, in the view of the average user, Vista is way clunky and unintuitive. If it were intuivite it would just have one set of universal user level preferences, and be done with it. This is why supporting windows is a huge pain, and it is not always Microsoft's fault, some of the time it is a developer that is smoking crack.
I also hate how there is no command line application for everything like there is in other OSes, however, that is something that pertains to me personally and doesn't affect the average user really.
speedyink
VIP Member
Thank you for getting my point. I understand how it can be annoying when people don't get it, but I don't mind because it keeps me employed.