Win7

[Zorak]

Anyone take a look at the latest stuff coming out of Redmond?

I'd like to hear what you guys think of the new Windows and the new features being touted at the PDC.

-Zorak

 

[Zorak]

Not a single response in three days? Come on, I swear this is not flamebait. I really want to know what you guys think of the new windows UI.

-Zorak

 

[JustSomeJoe]

To me a PC is a tool rather than a toy, it has to earn it's keep.
Blista was a big disapointment when it finaly arrived, most of the functionality I was waiting for and expecting had been removed to get the thing out the door.

If they get it out the door on time, and it contains something I can't get with OpenSource I'll have a look, untill then...I'll just stick with what works for me.

 

[linux_0]

Blista just about describes it.

It is so damn bloated and slow it's not funny.

Give me Linux *BSD Unix any day!

 

[linux_0]

As far is win7 goes, anything that shares any code with vista is just about guaranteed to blow.

Give me open src or give me death!

 

[Ijack]

I'll be interested to have a look at Win7 when the public beta is available, but I'm not really interested in reading too much about it until then. Unlike other posters I'm hopeful that, after the disaster of Vista, they can get back on track - something nice and simple like Windows 2000 was. I prefer that to XP, but, unfortunately, lots of software needs XP or better (and there's no 64-bit Windows 2000).

 

[MrLinux]

If Win7 was to give me the level of choice I currently enjoy with OpenSource I might consider it; if it gave me a guarantee that an application wasn't trying to "phone-home" I'd probably sell-out.

I've lost count of the number of times I've installed a Windows App and then noticed mysterious network activity, or found firewall exceptions I didn't create (or had previously deleted!); most of the time it's probably an update check, but when it doesn't ask first...I get suspicious about what is being sent.

 

[Zorak]

Well, as for me, from what I have seen of the new UI, I can only see 2 good features. Their "peek" feature might be somewhat useful, but I use alt-tab for everything anyways so it is kinda a moot point. Also, I like the drag to sides to snap the window to half the screen and drag to the top to snap to maximize. That could be a pretty useful UI change. As for that abomination they call the "improved taskbar"... All it is is a f*cking dock with a start menu and thumbnails, and I HATE docks! To me a dock is a stupid UI because it can't decide whether it wants to be a taskbar that lists open windows or a quicklaunch bar that shows icons for your launchers. I used to find the first useful (before i started using all alt-tab all the time), and the second I absolutely detest because it takes up valuable real estate that could be used for something useful like the taskbar. So, I think MS is making a HUGE mistake by going to a dock, even if they say it isn't a dock. The worst part is that there will be no option to even go back to the classic taskbar! Honestly, why do they feel they need to cram UI changes down our throats? I love Linux so much because it allows me to make the decisions on how my UI will work (for the most part) and I am not forced to use stupid docks and taskbars if I don't want to. In fact, all I use is just a system tray for the time and the systray icon for pidgin. Other than that, my interface is very clean and simple and it works just great for me.

Here's hoping that we can take whatever good things may come from win7 and watch MS shoot itself in the foot again with the bad stuff!

-Zorak

 

[audiovoodoo]

From what I've been reading it is faster than Vista, don't expect a revolution but don't forget the impact Netbooks have been havign on MS and having to extend support for XP. They have some serious motivation to improve performance!

Also worth noting that much of the code will be common with Server 2k8 which can be turned into quite a useable little desktop OS when you strip out some of the crud. Throw in multi touch and I can see it selling a lot of new laptops. I'm looking at Win7 as being an NT4 type product, if you have taken the hit of moving to Vista then the transition to Win7 should be mild, following the NT analogy if you still use legacy code then expect grief.

Oh.. and my present vote for King Evil is Apple over MS. Opera Mini anyone??

 

[Zorak]

Heh, apple has always had my firm vote for King Evil... They have a cult that rivals scientology with its rabid userbase and that is certainly not a good thing. But, since that is incredibly OT I'll gracefully try to get back on topic.

I just read that in win7 they have decided to add ribbons to WordPad and MSPaint? Honestly, why do they feel it is necessary to change things that "ain't broke"? Another note on the ribbon: people really seem to like it, do you think that people will eventually request it in OOo? I might be willing to try an interface like that, but if it becomes THE interface for OOo with no option to change, I might have to find myself a different office program.

-Zorak

 

[amdfangirl]

Heh, apple has always had my firm vote for King Evil... They have a cult that rivals scientology with its rabid userbase and that is certainly not a good thing. But, since that is incredibly OT I'll gracefully try to get back on topic.

I just read that in win7 they have decided to add ribbons to WordPad and MSPaint? Honestly, why do they feel it is necessary to change things that "ain't broke"? Another note on the ribbon: people really seem to like it, do you think that people will eventually request it in OOo? I might be willing to try an interface like that, but if it becomes THE interface for OOo with no option to change, I might have to find myself a different office program.

-Zorak

lol I love Ribbon for office '07 but for everything else? That's kinda stupid. Paint barely has any options in the first place

 

[Zoron]

Vista isn't the disaster people like to make it out to be. Sure, driver and app support was a little slower than for most Windows releases up to that point... but now that is no longer the case. I'm not in any way trying to sway any regulars in here... I'm simply saying information from a year ago no longer applies.

Slow and bloated... but I seem to hear that about every Windows release... so that opinion no longer has any affect on my decision to use the latest version of Windows. (I did try ME before going back to 98... lol).

For me it's a Windows world, and I will always continue to use the latest version to make myself fully familiar with the interface and how to fix any issues that may arise. I usually find that most issues are blown out of proportion. I don't find Vista to be any worse than any other version of Windows at it's prime... and I've even grown to prefer it over XP. ME was the only version of Windows that I really despised.

I'll wait for a public beta of Win 7 before I try it. I'll reserve any judgement of it until then... although there have been a lot already bashing it long before it's released. New Windows = same old complaints rehashed. WinXP was once the subject of such ire.

 

[linux_0]

Geeky is right, they are not likely to change much of the code.

A full re-write would take 5-10 years.

Semper Fi

 

[bmouring]

While I find that, like many here, that Linux and BSDs serve my needs better than other OSs, I really enjoy seeing what other groups com up with. Pushing technology in new and different directions due to competition has helped create some rapid changes due mostly to the renewed competition (from the boys in Cupertino and the group of friends who share code over ftp/cvs/svn/mercurial/irc) that pushes everyone to innovate and improve. The more evently-split the market gets, the better it will be for all consumers.

My $.03 (inflation)

 

[Zorak]

I wholeheartedly agree with bmouring about the benefits of an evenly split market. Although I must say I would be very happy if a non evil company or inovative group were to completely steal apple's marketshare and crush that company without mercy or remorse :lol: All joking aside, if we had like 25% MS 25% apple 25% linux and 25% someone else (preferably someone who isn't evil to balance things out) I would be really happy. Heterogeneity in the PC space will spur improvements and make it harder for black hats to do their thing, which everyone can agree is a good thing. However, for this to be beneficial to the public there MUST be open standards and interoperability, otherwise lock in problems will be just as bad as before if not worse. I just hope that the future of personal computing will be one filled with consumer empowering choices.

-Zorak

 

[linux_0]

slashdot

"InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy examines Windows 7 from the kernel up, subjecting the 'pre-beta' to a battery of benchmarks to find any signs that the OS will be faster, more responsive, and less resource-intensive than the bloated Vista, as Microsoft suggests. Identical thread counts at the kernel level suggest to Kennedy that Windows 7 is a 'minor point-type of release, as opposed to a major update or rewrite.' Memory footprint for the kernel proved eerily similar to that of Vista as well. 'In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities,' Kennedy writes, before discussing the results of a nine-way workload test scenario he performed on Windows 7 — the same scenario that showed Vista was 40 percent slower than Windows XP. 'In a nutshell, Windows 7 M3 is a virtual twin of Vista when it comes to performance,' Kennedy concludes. 'In other words, Microsoft's follow-up to its most unpopular OS release since Windows Me threatens to deliver zero measurable performance benefits while introducing new and potentially crippling compatibility issues.'"

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/11/0110251


Confirmation.

 

[Zoron]

Not buying it... at least not this early in the game. Vista is most definately not 40% slower than XP overall. The "huge" memory footprint that people keep harping on is a bit of a myth. Vista reports it's memory usage different than XP did... Vista tells you exactly how much RAM is being used, while XP was a little more secretive about it. In day-to-day usage (including gaming), I notice no difference at all between the two.

In my mind, nothing has been confirmed except for the same old recycled complaints about every Windows release. It happens so much that I've started tuning it out as background noise. I've seen so many people wrong about so many things that I don't trust their opinions anymore... I prefer to make up my own mind after actually giving the product an honest try.

 

[linux_0]

A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing, however economics and microsoft's track record lead me to believe that they lack the will, the time and resources to do a full re-write.

In the absence of a full re-write win7 will be much of the same.

You are encouraged to draw your own conclusions from there.

Semper Fi

 

[Ijack]

InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy examines Windows 7 from the kernel up, subjecting the 'pre-beta' to a battery of benchmarks to find any signs that the OS will be faster, more responsive, and less resource-intensive than the bloated Vista.

I'm surprised that a reputable(?) journalist would do this. It's just not sensible to draw conclusions about speed, or resource usage, from a pre-beta release. Almost certainly this will have debugging code in it that will be slowing down the OS considerably, and bloating it. Personally I would say that if the pre-beta is running at the same speed as Vista then the RC will be considerably faster.

Whenever I install a beta of FreeBSD the first thing that I do is to recompile the kernel with debugging turned off. That normally makes the system run about twice as fast.

Pre-betas allow one to evaluate proposed features in a new OS, but wait for the late betas, or RC, before worrying about speed.

 

[audiovoodoo]

Actually... it can work the other way. I was a corporate beta tester for 95 and there were rare builds there that were quicker in a few places than the final release. I agree though that it's best to wait for an RC beofore you draw any great conclusions.

 

[Ijack]

there were rare builds there that were quicker

Quicker to crash?

 

[Zoron]

People "borrow" ideas from one another all the time. After all Linux heavily "borrowed" from Unix, did it not? It may not be innovation to Linux diehards... but to Windows users it's new. Not everyone knows or cares about any other OS.

I have nothing against open source software... but I don't speak for the majority of the market. I have little doubt open source will eventually overtake "paid" software... but it won't happen overnight. There are too many people making too much money for it to go away without a fight.

 

[audiovoodoo]

there were rare builds there that were quicker

Quicker to crash?

Well that just got better with every build!

No, there were some builds where it was clear that they had added extra checks or code and things were just slower for that bit of functionality, sometimes the reverse. I had similar experiences with the Daytona builds although a fair bit of that was drivers and DecNET stacks... ** SHUDDERS **

Before you jump to judge 95 don't forget that at the time the standard client in the research arm of the company I worked for required: QEMM, DecNET, Trumpet Winsock, Win3.11 (with the 32 bit extension), Netware client... the list goes on. It was better... LOTS better! Mind you, I still wanted an Indy...

 

[Ijack]

Oh yes, DOS was a nightmare. I actually went the OS/2 route which, at the time, was a far better and more stable solution than Windows 95. Unfortunately it lacked support (or IBM didn't market as aggressively as Microsoft) and the rest is history.

 

[audiovoodoo]

OS/2 was an interesting beast. Never went for it myself but had a few friends that did. I remember the WARP adverts, although they were not quite such a hit as 'start it up' was for MS. For quite a few people being able to run OS/2 applications on NT meant that it lost. For the server side it was a bridge between Netware and NT 3.5, once NT caught up (by which I mean got stable enough to deploy!) MS raked in the cash.

My recommendation after testing 95 and NT side by side was to go NT Workstation on the desktop. It never happened where I was working but my boss went with that plan when he left very shortly after for a new job. I've not spoken with him for a few years now but he rates that as one of his best moves starting a new job, the savings he made later down the line moving to Win2k, AD etc worked for him.