This post has been edited by Shaan Mirchandani: 18 June 2008 - 02:01 AM
great ideas for Windows 7
Posted 18 June 2008 - 02:00 AM
Posted 19 June 2008 - 11:04 AM
It pretty much already is the case. Ancient 16 bit stuff runs under ntvdm.exe, older versions of windows used winoldap.exe, etc. And now we have WOW64, to run 32 bit apps on a 64 bit OS. And that's not counting the compatibility modes either. And for the very old DOS stuff that tends not to run too good (graphics/sound intensive apps mainly, like old DOS games), then there's dosbox. Or virtual machines as a last resort for some legacy stuff (VERY rarely have to resort to that). You're just NOT going to see 100% support for 100% of the ancient apps anytime soon. Besides, I have yet to find a single app that doesn't run on Vista SP1.
The old NT 3.1-era installer is GONE as of Vista (it was so overdue, it's almost ridiculous). There is NO text mode part of the setup anymore, it's WinPE based now. It detected every SATA controller I've tried out of the box, but it can't possibly support each and every mass storage adapters out of the box (especially the ones not out yet at the time they release it). At least now, you don't need a stinking floppy for that...
Vista already uses DX 10.1, by the time v7 is out, it'll likely be v11 or such.
Posted 29 June 2008 - 06:22 PM
Posted 29 June 2008 - 06:56 PM
On that page: http://www.siliconimage.com/support/downlo...&sataraid=0
Posted 29 June 2008 - 09:52 PM
On that page: http://www.siliconimage.com/support/downlo...&sataraid=0
I tried that and no drives showed up in the vista installer. During post the drive showed on the sata bios screen and the card was just pulled from my retired server 03 box. Hmmm. No clue. Oh well.
Posted 13 July 2008 - 10:57 AM
Are you using the BASE drivers, or SATARAID drivers? There is a difference, and it all depends on what BIOS your card has. You can find out right after your BIOS posts. You'll see something like "SiI3512 SATALink" or "SiI3512 SATARAID". I can't remember off the top of my head
Posted 25 August 2008 - 03:16 AM
I would love to be able to choose what gets installed when installing the OS, or at least have the option to uninstall things that I don't want or need.
I'd actually be happy if MSFT would put additional features on hold and just start optimizing the hell out of the OS. Get rid of redundant code. Drop support from NT for anything older than NT. 9x leagcy code should be erased from the OS. If people still need to use that old software then use it on the OS it was designed for.
Posted 26 August 2008 - 09:09 AM
My suggestion is for the Vista/ XP start menu. Have you ever tried to dock it to the right/ left/ or even top? Not pretty ...
Here is my quote from ShippingSeven (E7 didn't put it up, tried two times, but I realize they were moderating it and rejecting it. Oh well.)::
Here's the default behavior:
-Start Menu (taskbar) on bottom
-Menu opens up to top
-Since XP, there has been a division of pinned, quick links (system and folder tasks related), and most recently used
-The all programs would span out to right (or in Vista, start into a scroll search)
-Vista has the quick search at bottom
**Now that works all well and such ... But what if you dock it to the left, right, or even top ?? Yeah ... not very wieldy or even that useful (makes you even wonder why Microsoft allows people to do that). Instead of the "panning out to top" effect, its to the side of the taskbar (heck, even to the bottom of it). If the start menu is to the side or top, the way the menu opens makes absolutely no sense.**
Now, my proposal to fixing this weird behavior (I thought of it last night, and I was gonna post it during your next blog, but ... Couldn't wait):
-Keep the *Start Menu from taskbar at bottom* behavior the same. Pans out to top, vertical separation, divisions, search, tasks, all good (though, some icons for visuals in the system and folders links are preferable. You guys did it for XP, and took it out for Vista.)
***NOW for RIGHT or LEFT positioning:: (we gotta make this make sense)
--Start Menu opens to the SIDE of the Start Orb (Pearl?). [[Try using XP and dock it to the right. The menu ... opens to the bottom of the Start buttons position ... What ??]]
--Instead of vertical divisions, have it horizontal. Trust me, it makes sense and looks better.
--User picture at top or side. Which ever fits best (come on MS, your design people know how to do it)
--Have the programs and links become listed side by side instead of top to bottom
--Have a small thin line that divides pinned from frequently used
--For all programs (thank god Vista behavior simplifies this), just click the button, and all program folders will display side by side
--Search is where it is, bottom
--Login/ Shut Down too. Bottom of menu.
**I did want this for WinXP though ... But looks like work for it is kinda ... Halted, should I say ...? A difference I saw was the All Programs panning out instead of in the same area, so perhaps if MS were to correct it in left/ right position, have it pan out to the bottom (like an arrow thing and then it expands to the full menu, with programs side by side ?)
**Perhaps, since horizontal behavior gets a bit unwieldy with soo many things side by side, have the user pick detail view, list, or even tiles view (I think this is fairly easy to do ... Just have the menu link back to Windows Explorer).
... Wait ... That's another good idea ... Windows Explorer inside the start menu !!!! I should probably get to that later.
--> This proposed left/ right position fits in with some Vista designing. Open a folder, and common tasks are at a horizontal bar with icons, right? Well, this menu is horizontal, common tasks on top, and "working area" on bottom of it.
Now for the TOP::
--User picture at bottom of menu. Think about it, it completely makes sense (opposite of bottom, you know?)
--Log in/ Shut down at top; same reason as for user picture.
--Not sure about this one ... But common tasks on left? I might not like it, but it is how bottom/ top plays out if things are inverted.
**Thanks about it for top, keep all the functionality of bottom, except invert it to make sense for the actual position.
.... Yeah ... My proposal.
Heck, why not make ALL of this an option ?!?
You guys differ from Apple in your way of allows users to power tweak and customize (even sometime unknowingly; have you checked out the UXTheme.dll patches and themes?? They are indeed really well done).
MS says its for productivity (a selling point) ... But, its more of preference (a bunch of things, emotional, usefulness, style, etc.). Why have (XP standpoint here) Luna when Classic takes less visual resources? Preference.
So, have more options to customize the start menu in Windows 7 (I like how you guys did it a bit for Vista. Kudos ).
**Meaning, Start Menu at bottom, allow the user to choose whether or not to have a horizontal division behavior (horizontal divisions + side by side icons/ folders) rather than vertical (vertical divisions + top to bottom icons/ folders).
Have the user choose whether or not he/ she wants to display their User icon, and where. Vista has this nice box junting out ... Let the user select where to put it; top, side, bottom, whatever. Let them decide.
Allow the user to choose a view for the all programs list? Like my proposal for horizontal divisions, tiles, list, or details.
Can we finally get a resizable start menu? It would make sense for the horizontal behavior ...
As for Windows Explorer inside the Start Menu ... They are, after all, dependant processes (all of the same, are they not?). Explorer crashes, taskbar disappears, correct?
So ... (This makes most sense in horizontal division.) This might be quirky until the bugs and visual placement gets worked out, but next to all programs, why not have something that allows Windows Explorer (with breadcrumbs) to pan out to side?
Vista does this a bit nicely, since All Programs opens a scroll-list menu. So, Windows Explorer can pan out as like its own (attached) window to the side of that menu (over placing the common tasks/ links area).
Perhaps you can even do this for Control Panel (the one which I see can have the most potential for this behavior). Have the window pan out.
***Course, users can/ WILL be able to disable this behavior. If they don't like it, disable it and it will open a new windows instead of panning out. Perhaps, if they do like it, but wish it to be larger, allow them to resize? What if they wish it to reposition it to the center of the screen ? Well, allow them to drag/ input their position and have the Window (control panel/ windows explorer/ etc.) open up there as a separate thing.
What do you think? Thanks my proposal, Windows 7 team !! I think its great ...
If your design team works in this, it will no doubt be perfected (just remember, icons also in the common tasks panel. The right panel of the current start menu. Visuals, people look rather than read more often ... Like me.)
Don't forget to get the design team to also check out Long Zheng's Aero Taskforce (http://www.aerotaskforce.com/). I think the design team should work on http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/77 + http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/18 + http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/470 (this is a biggy, the other two you can get used to ) + http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/761 + http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/92 (top two are Desktop suggestions, really need some more flexibility here).
Well ... That's it !! Have fun guys !! And don't disappoint !! (And don't forget, hardware optimization. Optimize, please. I'll post a quote from a book that I've read on this during your next blog. Ppppllleeeassse.) I'll be waiting.
[Ribbon is nice, but not grand for current Start Menu styling ... Unless you redo it ! <-- Course, allow user to switch back.]
Posted 26 August 2008 - 10:08 AM
Shame on you for that sentence! Every new version of Windows hid more and more of what actually happened within the system. What for? Security by obscurity? Bulls***.
Virtualization is omnipresent these days. Have a look at MacOS X (classic), VirtualPC, vmware, ... I personally run Windows 95/98/Me and Windows NT 3.51/4/5.0/5.1/5.2 on my Vista machine for software compatibility testing...
Besides the points already mentioned, I'd like Microsoft to reconsider their course concerning the "ease of use" of the "New Start Menu". IMHO it's never ever a good opinion to try to make something easier by adding complexity. The only thing that was wrong with the "Old Start Menu" was the way installers added new applications. Why should one want a folder structure like Programs/Company/Product/[Version/]Program.lnk?
I 'still' use the "Old Start Menu" with the applications organized like Programs/Category/Program.lnk. Intuitive, for me.
Posted 26 August 2008 - 03:02 PM