maly1

Windows 7

38 posts in this topic

I think that Microsoft should start fresh for win7 because of how they screwed up Windows Vista.

Possible Features(I Want them):

Configurable Internet(Choose what you have)

- Could make Internet FASTER

DO NOT RELEASE ONLY ON x64

- Too early.Next Windows(8) should be x64 only

Have the original WinFS idea in it.

Remove Windows Media Player from 7 and bloat so to make it faster.

Cut down on how many editions

That's it!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Microsoft should start fresh for win7 because of how they screwed up Windows Vista.

Start fresh? That would likely mean WAY more bugs initially (new code, not a codebase that's been tested and fixed for many years), it would likely mean very bad or no support for older/legacy stuff, it would take them MANY years to redo this from scratch, etc. It doesn't really make sense in any way I look at it. Besides, Vista works fine on a recent box.

Configurable Internet(Choose what you have)

Eh? Everything network-wise has long been configurable. You could configure your TCP/IP stack on Windows 3.x ... Hell, you can even do it with a DOS floppy! That would have been a new feature, hmm, 15 years ago perhaps.

Could make Internet FASTER

No OS is going to magically make your network latency for the countless hops across different routers on your ISP's network and the backbone any faster, nor is it going to make the plan you have with your ISP have a better throughput, nor make the server you make requests from respond any faster. The OS has no impact on any of this, I'm not sure what you're expecting them to do.

DO NOT RELEASE ONLY ON x64

Too early.Next Windows(8) should be x64 only

That would be their biggest mistake EVER. Are you planning on running a version of Windows heavier than Vista on an old P4 or an Athlon XP? No? Then your CPU is 64 bit already. And RAM is already becoming dirt cheap, soon everyone's going to have 4GB or more, and want to use it. If they release a 32 bit version, then you can be sure lots of companies won't really bother releasing x64 versions of their drivers or software, making x64 a pain in general (even though it would be the only version worth using). The point is to FORCE everyone to make their stuff work with x64 already, against their will if it comes down to that. It's the future, no doubts about it in anyone's mind, but some vendors need a kick in the pants to start supporting it. When Win 7 is gonna be released, you'll likely get quad core CPUs for under 100$ and 8GB of RAM for 50$ or so -- why would you want to run a 32 bit OS on that? It doesn't make sense.

Remove Windows Media Player from 7 and bloat so to make it faster.

No happening either. They WANT everyone to have their player, to make their windows media codecs the standard. Besides, there's no demand at all for the versions of windows that doesn't have it (i.e. the N versions).

Seriously, there's lots of new stuff they could add, lots of things they could improve and such, but none of those make any sense.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Microsoft should start fresh for win7 because of how they screwed up Windows Vista.

mabe not fresh just revised

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that Microsoft should start fresh for win7 because of how they screwed up Windows Vista.

mabe not fresh just revised

I would settle for total separation of kernel and user spaces. User mode apps and drivers shouldn't be allowed to bring an OS to its knees like is currently possible. Complete removal of all legacy code and systems from the main code base should also happen while all the older code were virtualized or at least (un)loaded on demand.

I think MSFT is going to have to do a radical overhaul at some point with the codebase of Windows. It is getting just a bit too big and heavy.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
User mode apps and drivers shouldn't be allowed to bring an OS to its knees like is currently possible

god i hate to think of the past with me and applications and drivers for vista.

i just now got my laptop at home to run xp (lack of finding drivers which now are avaliable) and its been a blessing.. for at least now.

im sure things should improve, mabe not asap but soon enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
User mode apps and drivers shouldn't be allowed to bring an OS to its knees like is currently possible

god i hate to think of the past with me and applications and drivers for vista.

Actually, Vista is much better for that. For one thing, video drivers run in user mode now (lots more stuff does actually), so they won't take down your system (it'll just restart the driver), unlike in XP. And god knows them ATI/GeForce drivers are often the ones who do so... (That, and crappy unstable chipsets with poor drivers)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, Vista is much better for that. For one thing, video drivers run in user mode now (lots more stuff does actually), so they won't take down your system (it'll just restart the driver), unlike in XP. And god knows them ATI/GeForce drivers are often the ones who do so... (That, and crappy unstable chipsets with poor drivers)

Let's not forget the support for heterogeneous video - let's say one 8800 GTS, one HD 4850 and one X1550. You could use the X1550 for PPU instead of an Ageia and the stronger two in software SLI. Everything done by the new XDDM2 and DirectX 11 driver model.

Edited by dexter.inside
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm with cluberti here...every new Windows release goes through the same thing. I think maybe the only release that didn't was NT4, but that was mostly NT 3.51 with the Win95 interface thrown on top. WinXP went through the same things. When it was released people said it sucked, was slow, had compatibility issues, driver problems...the list just keeps going on. Now look at it. It's a stable, mature OS that, when properly configured, runs great on even modest hardware.

I think what we are running into here are people who didn't experience how the development (cycle) played out for those older OSes. They don't remember how EVERYONE wanted Millenium when it was in RC1 or don't remember how NOTHING WORKED on Windows 2000 on opening day or how Longhorn ruled until MS put a different GUI on it. It's because they weren't around, maybe they were younger, or not born (face it, there's a lot of kids on the Internet nowadays) or weren't into computers this much, etc. Yes there will always be the argument of "it sucks when it comes out" vs "its always been that way" because new people are coming in and saying their part. I encounter this in the other forum arena I work with, that being Transformers. While it used to just be a bunch of people (older) of the same age group, it has become a battle of the generations as more people enter the community.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think maybe the only release that didn't was NT4

Not even! NT4 needed more than its fair share of bugfixes (7 service packs if you count SP6a, plus the rollup too). And the time, driver availability wasn't quite that great. Most manufacturers made drivers mainly for windows 95 and such. For instance, my old Epson Stylus Color II, the only driver that existed for it would only print at half the resolution and such (and if I recall properly, I had to wait to even get that, it came in a service pack). A very large amount of apps from those days plain didn't work at all either (a lot of stuff was still for dos/win9x -- not really written having NT in mind). It wasn't exactly flawless!

I think what we are running into here are people who didn't experience how the development (cycle) played out for those older OSes. They don't remember how EVERYONE wanted Millenium when it was in RC1 or don't remember how NOTHING WORKED on Windows 2000 on opening day

Exactly. And there will be plenty of those complaining about Windows 7 soon too. Win2k was particularly atrocious at first in my experience -- not quite that stable (especially pre-sp2), somewhat buggy, and the lack of drivers for most of our computers was pretty apparent... Some drivers just took forever to come out for it (in a non-broken state), like Creative's...

There's really NOTHING new at all about most of of the complaints about the new versions (bloated, space it takes, lack of drivers, slow, interface changes or differences in general, price... the old one works fine/I don't need this, etc). Eventually everybody moves to it. History repeats itself with every new version.

Edited by crahak
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to correct people who complain about companies not writing x64 drivers.

Today, to get a driver WHQL signed by Microsoft, you have to submit both a x86 and x64 version of it.

So they are forcing hardware vendors that wants their drivers signed to develop both versions :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Micro$oft always creates huge learning curves every decate.

Their blue screen of death and their crashing dll-s is what keeps me employed.

For example: For years we've had c:\documents and settings\

Now in Vista we have c:\users .

Why? Because they want to annoy you. Let's just start fresh with another piece of crap software/os and let's not make it backwards compatible with the other Os-s we've shipped over the past decade.

Great! This is what keeps me employed.

So the new OS will look like Vista, but in another decade they'll come up with a whole new design which has nothing to do with the Windows we use now.

Edited by engert100
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Micro$oft always creates huge learning curves every decate.

:huh: Huge learning curve? What's changed to the point where it's become difficult to use? If anything, things are getting easier for most people. For most end users, the main change is the new start menu, which now has a search box.

Their blue screen of death and their crashing dll-s is what keeps me employed.

You mean the hardware makers and their shoddy drivers (who are causing the BSODs) are what's keeping you employed (ok, back when people used Win9x, sure, a large part of those were MS' own fault, but XP's been out for ages).

Let's just start fresh with another piece of crap software/os and let's not make it backwards compatible with the other Os-s we've shipped over the past decade.

Great! This is what keeps me employed.

:huh: What's incompatible? 99% of stuff works just the same, even the 32 bit apps on the x64 versions of Windows. How is it not backward compatible? It's no worse than any previous version of Windows. The only thing that's not backward compatible specifically with Vista x64 is ancient 16 bit apps. That statement is at least 100% wrong.

For example: For years we've had c:\documents and settings\

Now in Vista we have c:\users .

Why? Because they want to annoy you.

Eh? The "documents and settings" thing was the annoying thing. And the name was fairly unrepresentative (should have been more like "User Profiles"). Those long names (like "Program Files") were meant to force developers to support long file names. Now that it's solved for good, we're moving to a more sane way to name things that's easier/faster to type. What's so hard about this anyways? Naming everything "my documents", "my pictures", "my music", and my everything was also pretty lame. Besides, I wouldn't complain about something that changed only once in 12+ years if you wanna complain about change.

With computers, you'll have to learn new things every so often, regardless of who makes the OS. Linux, Mac OS and others are no different. Some people adapt to change, others try to resist it. If anything, I'd complain it hasn't changed enough (they haven't solved many issues/made many things good enough yet).

Edited by crahak
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Micro$oft always creates huge learning curves every decate.

Their blue screen of death and their crashing dll-s is what keeps me employed.

For example: For years we've had c:\documents and settings\

Now in Vista we have c:\users .

Why? Because they want to annoy you. Let's just start fresh with another piece of crap software/os and let's not make it backwards compatible with the other Os-s we've shipped over the past decade.

Great! This is what keeps me employed.

So the new OS will look like Vista, but in another decade they'll come up with a whole new design which has nothing to do with the Windows we use now.

'huge learning curves' = shorter paths to users files

BSODs, crashing dlls = employment

Micro$oft = Microsoft

You know i hate how greedy Microsoft is. They only released Vista to get more money. Yeah we need Windows XP SP12 in 2017 before they should try to make any money by releasing a new OS! They should just stop releasing new OSes and pay their bills with magic and smiles instead of dollars. Im sure their shareholders would understand. Sure they wouldnt make any money or push the market forward but shareholders like to make other people feel good so they wouldnt mind. Releasing a new product when their previous one has only been on the market for 5 years? Now thats pointless profit mongering im you ask me.

sounds like you hate Vista but id be willing to bet youd love Windows Mojave :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, a lot of Bill Gates lovers here.

I don't hate Microsoft, i'm just saying that their glitchy produtcs keep me employed.

Have fun with Windows 7!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.