Gates hints at Windows 7 features
Posted by Tom Warren on 13 May 2008 - 09:48 · 44 comments & 10999 views
About the Author
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Tom Warren
Forum name: creamhackered
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
(14 replies)
#1 Posted by leesmithg on 13 May 2008 - 09:52
- Q4 2009, better they say Q4 2011 and make sure they get it spot on.
Last edited by leesmithg on 13 May 2008 - 10:04 -
#1.1 Posted by Typhon on 13 May 2008 - 10:12
- That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
-
#1.2 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 10:58
- (Typhon said @ #1.1)That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time. -
#1.3 Posted by
neufuse on 13 May 2008 - 11:19
- (Kushan said @ #1.2)(Typhon said @ #1.1)That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.
Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app... -
#1.4 Posted by kaiwai on 13 May 2008 - 11:35
- (neufuse said @ #1.3)(Kushan said @ #1.2)(Typhon said @ #1.1)That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.
Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...
Of course, but we have idiots here talk about these issues like so-called 'experts', repeating urban legends over and over again. You're right - infact, its actually based off Windows 2003 SP1 (IIRC).
Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that. -
#1.5 Posted by Foub on 13 May 2008 - 13:01
- (kaiwai said @ #1.4)Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that.
It seems that only Windows has had "problems" with backwards compatibility as compared to other OSes out there already...... M$ made far more compromises than this. It would be better if they started with a kernal like with Linux. -
#1.6 Posted by Deviate_X on 13 May 2008 - 13:02
- (kaiwai said @ #1.4)(neufuse said @ #1.3)(Kushan said @ #1.2)(Typhon said @ #1.1)That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.
Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...
Of course, but we have idiots here talk about these issues like so-called 'experts', repeating urban legends over and over again. You're right - infact, its actually based off Windows 2003 SP1 (IIRC).
Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that.
You should have kept your reply to the first paragraph. -
#1.7 Posted by kaiwai on 13 May 2008 - 13:11
- (Deviate_X said @ #1.6)(kaiwai said @ #1.4)(neufuse said @ #1.3)(Kushan said @ #1.2)(Typhon said @ #1.1)That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.
Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...
Of course, but we have idiots here talk about these issues like so-called 'experts', repeating urban legends over and over again. You're right - infact, its actually based off Windows 2003 SP1 (IIRC).
Windows Vista's problems have more to do with the fact that they compromised improvement in favour of compatibility. I'd sooner see Microsoft completely gut out Windows and find none of my applications work than have an operating system riddled with issues because of the backwards compatibility and compromises made for that.
You should have kept your reply to the first paragraph.
Why? have you looked at some of the stupid **** that remains in win32 and should have removed in Windows Vista. Please, go get yourself a Popsicle and sit in the corner - you're embarrassing both of us. -
#1.8 Posted by occam on 13 May 2008 - 13:52
- (Gates @ Mr)With Windows 7 likely to be complete in Q4 2009, Microsoft's chairman Bill Gates hinted.
Mr Gates will be lucky if Windows Vista is ready by Q4 2009. What a moron! -
#1.9 Posted by C_Guy on 13 May 2008 - 14:20
- Yeah, what kind of moron pictured a computer on every desk or could get a perfect score on his math SAT's?
Let me know if you need helping taking your foot out of your mouth. -
#1.10 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 14:51
- (neufuse said @ #1.3)(Kushan said @ #1.2)(Typhon said @ #1.1)That will never happen. Windows 7 is based on Vist so it will not take 5 years to put out W7.
Not to mention that they've essentially gutted windows and are starting almost from scratch. The kernel (read: The hard part) is the same, but the rest can be recoded from scratch, using modern API's and development tools and not having to worry about backwards compatibility. That alone will save them YEARS of development time.
Windows was at no point ever coded again from scratch... in Longhorn they only scapped what they did and went back to the Windows 2003 code base and restarted from there... windows 7 will start at Vista's code base and go from there... they never ever "restart" from scratch... it's always the previous version... a restart from scratch would take a VERY long time to rewrite something like windows... the Kernel is a very small part of windows when you look at the entire app...
I never said Vista was coded again from scratch, I don't know how you managed to get that idea?
What I said was for Windows 7 they started with Vista and stripped a LOT of the old code away, leaving little more than the Kernel. An entirely new API is being created for the OS, one that doesn't need to worry about legacy apps or being compatible with them and the rest of the OS will be built from the ground up using said API.
It'll still be compatible through a compatibility layer, but the core of the OS itself is essentially new.
This is essentially what Apple did with MacOSX and it worked very well for them. -
#1.11 Posted by boho on 13 May 2008 - 15:30
- (C_Guy said @ #1.9)Yeah, what kind of moron pictured a computer on every desk or could get a perfect score on his math SAT's?
Let me know if you need helping taking your foot out of your mouth.
And he wrote The Road Ahead in 1994 / 5 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Ahead-Bill-Gates/dp/0140243518 which he and his co writer devoted about 4 pages to the Internet. Now there's vision!
-
#1.12 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 17:08
- (boho said @ #1.11)(C_Guy said @ #1.9)Yeah, what kind of moron pictured a computer on every desk or could get a perfect score on his math SAT's?
Let me know if you need helping taking your foot out of your mouth.
And he wrote The Road Ahead in 1994 / 5 http://www.amazon.co.uk/Road-Ahead-Bill-Gates/dp/0140243518 which he and his co writer devoted about 4 pages to the Internet. Now there's vision!
So he predicted one of the biggest changes to our lives for the last 30 years, yet because he missed something just as revolutionary, he's an idiot? If you're so smart, why don't you go write a book predicting the future and 20 years down the line if you're a millionaire, I'll stand corrected. -
#1.13 Posted by neufuse on 13 May 2008 - 20:37
- I never said Vista was coded again from scratch, I don't know how you managed to get that idea?
What I said was for Windows 7 they started with Vista and stripped a LOT of the old code away, leaving little more than the Kernel. An entirely new API is being created for the OS, one that doesn't need to worry about legacy apps or being compatible with them and the rest of the OS will be built from the ground up using said API.
It'll still be compatible through a compatibility layer, but the core of the OS itself is essentially new.
This is essentially what Apple did with MacOSX and it worked very well for them.
MS never said they where recoding the OS in that way... as for OSX it's a completely different OS then OS9 was... not even a part of OS9 remained in OSX... completely different kernel, completely different Shell... that was one of the big "I dont like OSX" complaints from users back in 2000... none of their OS9 apps ran natively in OSX, they needed to boot into "Classic" to run them... -
#1.14 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 23:33
- (neufuse said @ #1.13)I never said Vista was coded again from scratch, I don't know how you managed to get that idea?
What I said was for Windows 7 they started with Vista and stripped a LOT of the old code away, leaving little more than the Kernel. An entirely new API is being created for the OS, one that doesn't need to worry about legacy apps or being compatible with them and the rest of the OS will be built from the ground up using said API.
It'll still be compatible through a compatibility layer, but the core of the OS itself is essentially new.
This is essentially what Apple did with MacOSX and it worked very well for them.
MS never said they where recoding the OS in that way... as for OSX it's a completely different OS then OS9 was... not even a part of OS9 remained in OSX... completely different kernel, completely different Shell... that was one of the big "I dont like OSX" complaints from users back in 2000... none of their OS9 apps ran natively in OSX, they needed to boot into "Classic" to run them...
They may not have said it, but they've sure as hell hinted at it. We'll just wait and see what happens.
And my comparison to OSX is still valid, OSX may have been COMPLETELY new, but the principal is the same - start from the ground up (or in this case, the foundation up) and instead of worrying about incompatibilities, emulate the legacy stuff.
-
(11 replies)
#2 Posted by Dualkelly on 13 May 2008 - 10:30
- maybe this time they can design a quality os that is not designed to annoy legit users and a graphic interface that does not bog down the hardware. i run compiz on my old Pentium 2 makes windows aero look like a cheap knock off.
-
#2.1 Posted by GP007 on 13 May 2008 - 11:10
- I seriously don't understand what's so great about compiz, are you that big into fancy windows animations and transparency? It's not like the thing has any ground breaking new UI to it. It's all effects and animations. And while it looks nice and all, uhhh ok?
-
#2.2 Posted by kaiwai on 13 May 2008 - 11:30
- (GP007 said @ #2.1)I seriously don't understand what's so great about compiz, are you that big into fancy windows animations and transparency? It's not like the thing has any ground breaking new UI to it. It's all effects and animations. And while it looks nice and all, uhhh ok?
Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota. -
#2.3 Posted by Relativity_17 on 13 May 2008 - 11:45
- (kaiwai said @ #2.2)Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.
Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off. -
#2.4 Posted by kaiwai on 13 May 2008 - 12:27
- (Relativity_17 said @ #2.3)(kaiwai said @ #2.2)Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.
Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off.
I've done one better - I don't run Windows
One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.
Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance. -
#2.5 Posted by Jugalator on 13 May 2008 - 13:37
- (GP007 said @ #2.1)I seriously don't understand what's so great about compiz, are you that big into fancy windows animations and transparency? It's not like the thing has any ground breaking new UI to it. It's all effects and animations. And while it looks nice and all, uhhh ok?
I prefer the virtual desktop integration + Exposé-style layouts of Compiz more than the layered windows of Aero. -
#2.6 Posted by bluarash on 13 May 2008 - 13:56
- (kaiwai said @ #2.4)(Relativity_17 said @ #2.3)(kaiwai said @ #2.2)Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.
Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off.
I've done one better - I don't run Windows
One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.
Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.
I think because Microsoft wants to actually make their platform look modern. Windows classic is a nice theme, but it is very dated. Luna is simply hideous. As for turning it off, I pretty much think anyone can figure that out. -
#2.7 Posted by C_Guy on 13 May 2008 - 14:23
- Glad to see you're still enjoying your Pentium II. Sorry that the newer versions of Windows were designed for more advanced hardware.
-
#2.8 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 14:58
- (kaiwai said @ #2.4)(Relativity_17 said @ #2.3)(kaiwai said @ #2.2)Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.
Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off.
I've done one better - I don't run Windows
One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.
Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.
Yeah, why enable one of the core features of an OS? That's just stupid! Disable it, Microsoft!
In fact, disable that stupid explorer thingy as well, it's not needed, it's just a fancy GUI after all. In fact, disable all graphical output bar the command line, that's all anyone should ever need and use. -
#2.9 Posted by WICKO on 13 May 2008 - 18:36
- (kaiwai said @ #2.4)(Relativity_17 said @ #2.3)(kaiwai said @ #2.2)Well, that is all Aero is - it is nothing particularly special. For me, I'd sooner have none of these effects as they don't help my computing experience on iota.
Then you must be glad that options exist for turning all that off.
I've done one better - I don't run Windows
One shouldn't *NEED* to disable it. It should be disabled by default.
Why isn't it disabled by default? because then hardware sales wouldn't get driven, and thus upset OEM's. End users are lazy, most won't know how to 'turn off' the effects, so they purchase a machine that is an over kill just to get decent performance.
Umm.. that makes just as much sense as leaving it enabled by default. What they SHOULD have done, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been done already, is have it enabled depending on the current hardware. Which, could be done very easily. In fact, they already benchmark your PC the first time it runs in Vista. Could have been a simple test to see what the score was for the video card was, and judge based on that. I know, the first time you run, no video drivers. The solution would be to decide every time the user runs the benchmarking program. and maybe prompt the user to run the benchmark program when drivers have been installed (or new hardware, etc). A simple option there to disable or enable testing or prompting for benchmarks would be fine. -
#2.10 Posted by Primexx on 14 May 2008 - 04:10
- (WICKO said @ #2.9)What they SHOULD have done, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been done already, is have it enabled depending on the current hardware. Which, could be done very easily. In fact, they already benchmark your PC the first time it runs in Vista. Could have been a simple test to see what the score was for the video card was, and judge based on that. I know, the first time you run, no video drivers. The solution would be to decide every time the user runs the benchmarking program. and maybe prompt the user to run the benchmark program when drivers have been installed (or new hardware, etc). A simple option there to disable or enable testing or prompting for benchmarks would be fine.
yea uhm...that's already what happens in vista. -
#2.11 Posted by PureLegend on 14 May 2008 - 06:55
- (WICKO said @ #2.9)What they SHOULD have done, and I don't really understand why it hasn't been done already, is have it enabled depending on the current hardware. Which, could be done very easily. In fact, they already benchmark your PC the first time it runs in Vista. Could have been a simple test to see what the score was for the video card was, and judge based on that. I know, the first time you run, no video drivers. The solution would be to decide every time the user runs the benchmarking program. and maybe prompt the user to run the benchmark program when drivers have been installed (or new hardware, etc). A simple option there to disable or enable testing or prompting for benchmarks would be fine.
I think MS beat you to your brilliant new idea
-
(3 replies)
#3 Posted by kaiwai on 13 May 2008 - 11:16
- "take less memory" - by what definition? does he mean less memory by the percentage used based on the average amount of memory loaded in a computer at that moment in time? If the average amount of memory in a computer doubles and the amount of memory used by Windows only increases by 30%, does that mean that Windows hence "takes less memory"?
-
#3.1 Posted by Intelman on 13 May 2008 - 14:19
- (kaiwai said @ #1)"take less memory" - by what definition? does he mean less memory by the percentage used based on the average amount of memory loaded in a computer at that moment in time? If the average amount of memory in a computer doubles and the amount of memory used by Windows only increases by 30%, does that mean that Windows hence "takes less memory"?
Don't be dumb, you know what he means, and if you don't, I really am sorry for calling you dumb. -
#3.2 Posted by kaiwai on 13 May 2008 - 16:53
- (Intelman said @ #3.1)(kaiwai said @ #1)"take less memory" - by what definition? does he mean less memory by the percentage used based on the average amount of memory loaded in a computer at that moment in time? If the average amount of memory in a computer doubles and the amount of memory used by Windows only increases by 30%, does that mean that Windows hence "takes less memory"?
Don't be dumb, you know what he means, and if you don't, I really am sorry for calling you dumb.
Excuseme dip stick, but the same thing was said about Windows XP - and it rang hollow when people started saying that it was consuming 512MB (or more) on a clean boot. -
#3.3 Posted by WICKO on 13 May 2008 - 18:51
- (Intelman said @ #3.1)(kaiwai said @ #1)"take less memory" - by what definition? does he mean less memory by the percentage used based on the average amount of memory loaded in a computer at that moment in time? If the average amount of memory in a computer doubles and the amount of memory used by Windows only increases by 30%, does that mean that Windows hence "takes less memory"?
Don't be dumb, you know what he means, and if you don't, I really am sorry for calling you dumb.
I would go as far to say that making assumptions on what he means is pretty stupid in itself.
-
(4 replies)
#4 Posted by bluarash on 13 May 2008 - 14:03
- I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.
-
#4.1 Posted by computergeek83 on 13 May 2008 - 14:19
- (bluarash said @ #4)I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.
an apt-get in windows? to download freeware? wait a minute, were are talking about the same company here right. as far as MS is concerned the only freeware out there is Adobe Acrobat and Macromedia Flash. Internally Microsoft couldn't care less about 3rd party compatibility, if it was left up to them the only software you would be allowed to install would be MS software, and last time I checked it wasn't cheap, little on free. -
#4.2 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 15:04
- (computergeek83 said @ #4.1)(bluarash said @ #4)I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.
an apt-get in windows? to download freeware? wait a minute, were are talking about the same company here right. as far as MS is concerned the only freeware out there is Adobe Acrobat and Macromedia Flash. Internally Microsoft couldn't care less about 3rd party compatibility, if it was left up to them the only software you would be allowed to install would be MS software, and last time I checked it wasn't cheap, little on free.
That's a purely ignorant and idiotic statement, right there. Microsoft LOVES 3rd part support. Windows is one of THE BEST OS's for 3rd party support and Microsoft practically bends over backwards and takes one up the ass JUST for that 3rd party support and to ensure it's compatible with the OS. Windows 7 will actually be the first to finally DUMP a lot of that built-in compatibility in favour of emulation.
Apple, being a fine alternate example, don't give half as much of a **** about 3rd party support and are happy to ditch their platforms and/or API's every now and then just to move to a shiny, new one. This is why the next version of Photoshop (a former powerhouse on Mac) will be developed with Windows in mind FIRST.
The ubiquitous 3rd party support is something Microsoft needs and relies on in order to keep you locked into their system. If they didn't care about 3rd party support, people would be developing more apps for MacOS and Linux. -
#4.3 Posted by Magallanes on 13 May 2008 - 16:14
- (bluarash said @ #4)I think the one feature that Windows could use would be an official apt-get. They could branch it off into multiple repositories with at least one dedicated to commercial software updates, one to freeware and finally another, to those licensed under an OSS like the GPL. This would allow individuals to stay current with a valid certificate (that wasn't logged). I am not sure how bandwidth costs would be shared due to the size of the Windows Community though.
why?.
Currently windows is way more friendly to install a new application rather linux. -
#4.4 Posted by ikyouCrow on 13 May 2008 - 18:54
- (Kushan said @ #4.2)(computergeek83 said @ #4.1)an apt-get in windows? to download freeware? wait a minute, were are talking about the same company here right. as far as MS is concerned the only freeware out there is Adobe Acrobat and Macromedia Flash. Internally Microsoft couldn't care less about 3rd party compatibility, if it was left up to them the only software you would be allowed to install would be MS software, and last time I checked it wasn't cheap, little on free.
That's a purely ignorant and idiotic statement, right there. Microsoft LOVES 3rd part support. Windows is one of THE BEST OS's for 3rd party support and Microsoft practically bends over backwards and takes one up the ass JUST for that 3rd party support and to ensure it's compatible with the OS.
i agree. people don't understand that Windows wouldn't be the dominant OS today if it weren't for the eco-system built around it, and this eco-system is sustained by the legacy support Microsoft builds into Windows.
takes two hands to clap, and slapping your leg doesn't count.
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by Logizomechanophobic on 13 May 2008 - 16:48
- Magallaneswhy?.
Currently windows is way more friendly to install a new application rather linux.
Any particular distro? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Do you actually use Linux? Having had several problems recently with software installs on Windows I'm not feeling personally like Windows is "way more friendly". I use both Linux and Windows and overall find the Linux distro very easy to install apps and update them. Central repository for installation and updating of all the apps I run. Click, type root password, enter, click, click. Done. What's the problem with that?
If you're talking about installing from source, then yes, there can be pitfalls, but that sort of goes with the territory. -
#5.1 Posted by computergeek83 on 13 May 2008 - 17:39
- (Logizomechanophobic said @ #5)Magallaneswhy?.
Currently windows is way more friendly to install a new application rather linux.
Any particular distro? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Do you actually use Linux? Having had several problems recently with software installs on Windows I'm not feeling personally like Windows is "way more friendly". I use both Linux and Windows and overall find the Linux distro very easy to install apps and update them. Central repository for installation and updating of all the apps I run. Click, type root password, enter, click, click. Done. What's the problem with that?
If you're talking about installing from source, then yes, there can be pitfalls, but that sort of goes with the territory.
Amen, Linux is getting to where it's easier to use than Windows, flame me if you want but thats the truth.(Kushan said @ #4.2)If they didn't care about 3rd party support, people would be developing more apps for MacOS and Linux.
Open your front door and look outside, there are tons of free apps available for linux, and several paid versions also, the majority of software for windows isn't free, Microsoft or not. It's not Linux's fault that application developers are too lazy to port their programs to Linux, or atleast make them Wine friendly. -
#5.2 Posted by Kushan on 13 May 2008 - 18:08
- (computergeek83 said @ #5.1)(Logizomechanophobic said @ #5)Magallaneswhy?.
Currently windows is way more friendly to install a new application rather linux.
Any particular distro? That's a bit of a sweeping generalisation. Do you actually use Linux? Having had several problems recently with software installs on Windows I'm not feeling personally like Windows is "way more friendly". I use both Linux and Windows and overall find the Linux distro very easy to install apps and update them. Central repository for installation and updating of all the apps I run. Click, type root password, enter, click, click. Done. What's the problem with that?
If you're talking about installing from source, then yes, there can be pitfalls, but that sort of goes with the territory.
Amen, Linux is getting to where it's easier to use than Windows, flame me if you want but thats the truth.(Kushan said @ #4.2)If they didn't care about 3rd party support, people would be developing more apps for MacOS and Linux.
Open your front door and look outside, there are tons of free apps available for linux, and several paid versions also, the majority of software for windows isn't free, Microsoft or not. It's not Linux's fault that application developers are too lazy to port their programs to Linux, or atleast make them Wine friendly.
I never said there were no apps for Linux, what I said was that if windows was so poor at 3rd party support, there would be a LOT MORE. Big difference, there.
I never said anything bad about Linux, nor did I say any of this was Linux's fault, I'm simply saying that if the above commenter was even half right about 3rd party support on windows, Linux would have a lot more apps for it.
-
(1 reply)
#6 Posted by mel00 on 13 May 2008 - 17:37
- "The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient,"
just that got my attention. if Microsoft manage to get rid of all crap they like to include every release
and just leave essential. We won't need to use nlite or vlite to
strip down os and remove Applications are useless. I rather have os boot up quick and quick as hell and everything quick I drop money in heart beat, and Security not annoying
security.. -
#6.1 Posted by computergeek83 on 13 May 2008 - 17:46
- (mel00 said @ #6)"The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient,"
just that got my attention. if Microsoft manage to get rid of all crap they like to include every release
and just leave essential. We won't need to use nlite or vlite to
****ing strip down useless ****. I remember good all day we could remove crap before we install windows 9x.
Can you bring that Microsoft? please.
but then we might not have such valuable programs as Windows Messenger, Notepad, the feature rich program Wordpad, Calculator, Solitare, the great Backup program that everyone loves, or heaven forbid we omit the most feature-rich program Microsoft has ever developed, Windows Genuine Advantage.
I can't wait for Ubuntu Genuine Advantage myself.....
-
#7 Posted by TheNay on 13 May 2008 - 18:08
- Vista is just a mistake and their pushing out the real Vista version 2.0 next year, it'll fix all the things he mentioned, "lower power, take less memory, be more efficient, and have lots more connections up to the mobile phone"
I'm waiiting for that OS to upgrade to, I hate Vista with a passion (I know some love it, but I and many ppl I know close to me feel the same way as I do). Hopefully this one works as good as XP and they cleaned up UAC.
-
#8 Posted by rpgfan on 13 May 2008 - 21:30
- Gates also mentioned Windows Live services and the fact the company has 400 million users connected to these services.
Is that number a total figure or a figure representing the number of active users? I have a Windows Live account, and I only log in for MS stuff (the Express Editions of Visual Studio applications mainly). Beyond that, I have no reason to use it.
-
#9 Posted by MountainSnake on 13 May 2008 - 22:32
- WHAT???
He didn't talk about speech recognition this time???
In a speech at the Windows Digital Lifestyle Consortium (in Tokyo) last Wednesday, Gates hinted:
"We're hard at work, I would say, on the next version, which we call Windows 7. I'm very excited about the work being done there. The ability to be lower power, take less memory, be more efficient, and have lots more connections up to the mobile phone, so those scenarios connect up well to make it a great platform for the best gaming that can be done, to connect up to the thing being done out on the Internet, so that, for example, if you have two personal computers, that your files automatically are synchronized between them, and so you don't have a lot of work to move that data back and forth."
Gates also mentioned Windows Live services and the fact the company has 400 million users connected to these services. Also mentioned was the fact that Gates sees "a major new version of Windows every two to three years", noting that services that Windows connects up to would be updated on a regular basis.
Microsoft is currently in the middle of building Windows Live Mesh which plays on the idea of being able to sync data between multiple PCs and mobile phones.