Were these Windows 7 bugs fixed in Windows 8?


Recommended Posts

Not a "BUG" I I would say is a feature--

The Shadow of the mouse is what you are seeing and if you turn that off in the effects the "BUG" will disappear.

If you notice there is a highlight under your mouse before you "mouse over" the close "X" which follows you to the Close "X"

The same effect can also be seen if you mouse over the start menu orb where it highlights itself to show it can be selected.

In earlier Windows such as XP that effect was called mouse spotlight.

It is not selecting and deselecting anything but showing you it is a click-able item.

If its a feature then my does the Red X not blink in any other windows?

Those bug don't exists in 7, your Windows installation is probably messed up (sounds like bad gpu drivers to me).

The flickering Close button is an issue that everyone has, just open the properties of any hardware you have installed and hold the mouse over the close button. It only occurs when it's in focus and TBH how many times are you holding the mouse cursor over the close button.

I reported Bug 1 during the Windows Vista beta back in 2006 on MS Connect. Closed as [Won't Fix].

Then reported Bug 1 during the Windows 7 beta. Closed as [Won't Fix].

Bug 1 definitely happens on all computers, but it's such a minor issue you probably won't ever find it. It certainly doesn't affect the functionality.

In the Windows 8 Developer Preview, the issue still exists - it still has different behavior from all other windows, but it doesn't blink anymore. As I recall, it will only blink once. So you won't notice it in Windows 8 unless you're really looking for it.

They'll probably end up fixing bug 1 as they're tweaking and changing the UI itself so they've probably all seen it in the process of making and testing things. We'll just wait for beta to come and see if it's fixed but since it doesn't happen on all windows it really is minor.

Those two bugs have been around for a long time. Also, UI tearing is more noticable on applications that do its own DWM calls (e.g. DwmExtendFrameIntoClientArea) such as Chrome and Firefox.

Button flickering (colors are a bit off):

http://i.imgur.com/XaFku.gif

UI tearing:

http://i.imgur.com/qS22s.png (normal window; barely noticable)

http://i.imgur.com/A1Fwy.png (Explorer)

http://i.imgur.com/ovGzp.png (Chrome)

http://i.imgur.com/3Ly1H.png (Firefox)

1st one I can't even reproduce in windows 7...

2nd one I've been complaining about since windows vista's beta where DWM was announced... it's always been marked as "by design" by microsoft...... every beta build I'd resubmit it and get it as "by design" all the way from longhorn up to 7's rtm....

There is a much larger bug called the Registry, that's the bug that really needs fixed. Tried running Windows 95 on a new machine under XP? It's crazy fast. MS is and has been going the wrong direction for quite a while now. The extended library situation back in the day, would be a crazy amount faster now because of multiple CPU's, GPU's, and the size of memory. What's in memory now? MS bloat in the name of security. The Windows registry should have been separated, and fully protected from 3rd party programs years ago.

watch really carefully and the X button kind of gets selected and unselected once every few seconds.

You mean here

post-14624-0-24466400-1325866853.jpg

I left it there a good 30 seconds never saw it flicker, then again why in the world would you hover your mouse there for more than a fraction of second in the first place?

I have never seen this, nor if I did would I more than likely give it a second thought.. Seem pretty nit picky to me ;)

Not showing hover or not working when you click it would be an issue - it flickers "sometimes" if you hover your mouse there long enough -- not so much ;) How do you know its just not a mouse issue, or detection of mouse location problem -- maybe the mouse is right at the border of selection and is moving from on and off the threshold?

There is a much larger bug called the Registry, that's the bug that really needs fixed. Tried running Windows 95 on a new machine under XP? It's crazy fast. MS is and has been going the wrong direction for quite a while now. The extended library situation back in the day, would be a crazy amount faster now because of multiple CPU's, GPU's, and the size of memory. What's in memory now? MS bloat in the name of security. The Windows registry should have been separated, and fully protected from 3rd party programs years ago.

There is nothing wrong with the registry. Stop disabling stuff like UAC and you won't have any issues with the registry, ever.

There is a much larger bug called the Registry, that's the bug that really needs fixed. Tried running Windows 95 on a new machine under XP? It's crazy fast. MS is and has been going the wrong direction for quite a while now. The extended library situation back in the day, would be a crazy amount faster now because of multiple CPU's, GPU's, and the size of memory. What's in memory now? MS bloat in the name of security. The Windows registry should have been separated, and fully protected from 3rd party programs years ago.

for the 10 millionth time the registery is not a problem, whats the alternative? config files? the registry is a transactional database, it can support concurrent usage, changes, and is better with corruption and can self recover from it.... all things a text config file can not do

You mean here

post-14624-0-24466400-1325866853.jpg

I left it there a good 30 seconds never saw it flicker, then again why in the world would you hover your mouse there for more than a fraction of second in the first place?

I have never seen this, nor if I did would I more than likely give it a second thought.. Seem pretty nit picky to me ;)

Not showing hover or not working when you click it would be an issue - it flickers "sometimes" if you hover your mouse there long enough -- not so much ;) How do you know its just not a mouse issue, or detection of mouse location problem -- maybe the mouse is right at the border of selection and is moving from on and off the threshold?

these problems only happen when DWM is running in "aero" mode

You mean here

post-14624-0-24466400-1325866853.jpg

I left it there a good 30 seconds never saw it flicker, then again why in the world would you hover your mouse there for more than a fraction of second in the first place?

I have never seen this, nor if I did would I more than likely give it a second thought.. Seem pretty nit picky to me ;)

Not showing hover or not working when you click it would be an issue - it flickers "sometimes" if you hover your mouse there long enough -- not so much ;) How do you know its just not a mouse issue, or detection of mouse location problem -- maybe the mouse is right at the border of selection and is moving from on and off the threshold?

I'm not saying that I think it's a huge problem (in fact, I use Device Manager daily and have never noticed this), but I was merely admitting it's existence :) And I know it's not a mouse issue or detection of location problem because (1) my cursor stays in the same place (2) this doesn't happen with any other windows. Try turning on Aero and try it, i think it might only happen in Aero.

  • 3 weeks later...
for the 10 millionth time the registery is not a problem, whats the alternative? config files? the registry is a transactional database, it can support concurrent usage, changes, and is better with corruption and can self recover from it.... all things a text config file can not do.

Bro, no use explaining the facts to some people. There is nothing wrong with the registry, as you've stated, with the only thing wrong have been third parties abusing the registry (using it as the dumping ground for random sh-t that doesn't need to be in the registry) and Microsoft themselves admitting that they failed to give clear guidelines on how the registry should be used and what shouldn't be put in there.

What I would like to see is for third parties to have better uninstallers and file tracking functionality so that when you uninstall their software it completely removes all the files and registry changes made - that is one thing I'd like to see Microsoft really emphasise when it comes to Windows 8 application certification. To attack the registry as justmike does is simply attacking a symptom rather than the real source of the problem.

In reference to Zimmedon's post - they're just a side affect of GDI's crappiness which can only be fixed by Microsoft moving their Common Control/Dialogue infrastructure from GDI to Direct2D/DirectWrite; don't hold your breath for that to happen given that Microsoft is focused on Metro at the moment.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!