I will not buy Windows 7 unless it has ... *Feature*

By 1Frothy
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
Ok, I don't know technically how processes and all those work, but I do know you should integrate more flexibility into handling processes. I mean pausing a process would freeze the application

You can "pause" a process today, just break into it with a debugger. Of course, it's not a very useful feature for users. If you block all the application's threads, it can't pump messages, so it can't draw anything. And as soon as its client area is invalidated (something moves over top of it, its resized, etc) it'll be busted. Seriously, what's the point in "freezing" an application? How is it useful? If an application is doing work that the user may want to suspend, the app should provide that functionality. And most of the time they do.

About the registry, what it sounds like your saying is how would you start a process, for example starting IE7. You don't need a registry, thats just what Microsoft uses (and you should know that since you work for them), like Apple uses LaunchServices to handle processes.

No, I said how would you implement COM. How would you create an instance of a CoClass registered with the system? You need to store that information somewhere, in a place that all applications can read from. And since most everything in Windows is built on COM, and objects often are being created thousands of times per second, it needs to be fast. It also needs to be transactional, with read/write locks and security at a very granular level (per key or value).

So just what exactly about the registry do you dislike? Is it the API? The visualization of its structure provided via regedit? Some feature or functionality of it that you believe is missing?

Like placing a window on a 1280x1024 display, the dimensions of the window and everything can be saved on an xml.

Window placements aren't stored in the registry... at least not by Windows in any generic fashion. Applications decide where their windows show up, not the OS.

Starting processes can be done by a utility similar to LaunchServices in OSX.

Not sure what you're talking about here. Are you referring to the "Run" key in the registry? That's one very, very small use of the registry, and it's basically an application setting defined by Explorer.

Maybe if everybody used the same programming language broken into several smaller ones, there would be simplicity in windows, like with all applications in Mac OS X, all the preferences can be changed by clicking the name of the application running in the top bar and clicking preferences, the best part is it has its own key shortcut.

But Mac OS X apps are not all written in the same language. And they don't all have Preferences in the same place or the same shortcut. Many of them do, but many Windows apps do as well.

In Windows, windows can have whatever they want inside them.

Just like the Mac.

No consistency, no simplicity, just complex programming languages to choose and learn.

There are complex languages and there are simpler ones.

Mentor

stereopixels

Posted
Posted
Maybe if everybody used the same programming language broken into several smaller ones, there would be simplicity in windows, like with all applications in Mac OS X, all the preferences can be changed by clicking the name of the application running in the top bar and clicking preferences, the best part is it has its own key shortcut. In Windows, windows can have whatever they want inside them. No consistency, no simplicity, just complex programming languages to choose and learn.

Programming languages don't usually have much to do with how an application looks; I can develop a vb.net application that would look exactly the same in C++ or C#; at the end of the day they're all compiled into the same base machine code. Windows applications do have the same kind of consistency Mac apps do; they appear, in a Windows-bordered frame, with max/min/close buttons in the same place, if there's a file menu, that's in the same place... yes they're optional for the programmer but the same applies to an OS X app; if I didn't want my OS X app to have the name of the app in the top bar, or a File menu, or 'Preferences' on the app name menu I could easily take those elements out. Consistency is down to software developers.

Yeah if we still had the registry in Windows 7 and just changed UAC to prompt for permissions every time an application needed administrative privileges would be bad. But if we got rid of UAC and the registry, and what permissions do in Windows today, and integrated a new security platform like Keychain in OSX, then permission would be completely different...

KeyChain is an application for storing passwords and usernames for websites/servers/applications. It doesn't offer any security itself, it's there to allow software packages to store passwords, for example allowing Safari to store your website logins, or OS X to store your FTP user/passes. In fact, if you want to do something which requires administrative privileges in OS X, you're still prompted for a password. This is exactly what UAC in Windows does, although I will admit, Windows seems to count more things as needing admin access than OS X does.

Rising Star

Infinione

Posted
Posted

A small, but significant improvement I'd like to see is for the My Photo's screensaver (which is fantastic), as well as Windows Photo Gallery (and Windows Live Photo Gallery) to use EXIF information within pictures so that pictures are orientated correctly.

I DO NOT want to see my portrait photo's sitting sideways ANYMORE! Grrrr...

Photoshop, PaintShop Pro, ACDSee, XNView, Faststone, IrfanView, and many many more pro and free photo viewers and editors all have this feature.

It can't be that hard can it?

Grand Master

Linkinfamous

Posted
Posted
Window placements aren't stored in the registry... at least not by Windows in any generic fashion. Applications decide where their windows show up, not the OS.

I can't imagine why you'd want to go through the trouble of opening a file, reading it, and parsing the XML just to read some window position data, either. That's a lot of work for a pair of numbers, coding-wise, and the stuff you're forcing the system to do. The registry is perfect for that kind of info. Just toss it in HKCU\Software\MyApplication\

Contributor

quicking

Posted
Posted

i've been dating a girl for a year, but i dont think she is my right lady.

a) she's fat, large woman. No,no.... she is HUGE. that's why i have to live in a 30GB room.

b) she never change. she've worn the same dress all year long, which is the only dress Mrs. Microsoft gave her.

c) she is not so smart. she messed up my folders. she call that "rearranging", but i dont think so.

oh, btw, i used to date her sister, we played pinball together. i kinda miss her.

so, should i ask out Mrs. MS's new daughter in 2009?

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Unless Windows7 is just a lighter, meaner, sharper product I can't see myself ever getting enthusiastic about Windows ever again.

Vista just felt like Windows XP in a fat suit - I want Windows 7 to FEEL like a new product, I want it to behave a little differently, and be exciting and interesting to use.

Microsoft must be able to do it with all the programming talent they must have over in Redmond!

Mentor

TheDreamX

Posted
Posted
Unless Windows7 is just a lighter, meaner, sharper product I can't see myself ever getting enthusiastic about Windows ever again.

Vista just felt like Windows XP in a fat suit - I want Windows 7 to FEEL like a new product, I want it to behave a little differently, and be exciting and interesting to use.

Microsoft must be able to do it with all the programming talent they must have over in Redmond!

I came here to post exactly that :D

To me, and, apparently, Chicane-UK, Vista feels bloated. To a lesser extent, XP felt bloated as compared to 98/2000, but it was much more bearable. I just don't understand how people claim that Vista is more streamlined. It's not, which is one predominant reason why I switched to Mac.

Grand Master

Titoist

Posted
Posted

I will NOT buy Windows 7 if it includes all the features that people have posted here, cause then it would be too "bloated"! :p Vista rhetoric.

Im just saying this since all the Vista bashers claim that Vista is "bloated" yet they were the ones that were saying what "Longhorn" should have and Visa has.

  • 3 weeks later...
Grand Master

zeta_immersion

Posted
Posted

i want nothing to do with windows **** ... i want the OS only ... no antivirus or live care or whatever it is called, no explorer and no media player .. just the os (or at least upon installation let me chose the language and what to install) ... then i would love to see something changed under the hood, stability and reliability with older apps and such, multiple desktop and ability to do whatever you want with the folders (i want to arrange them not you(the os)) ... then the ntfs ... give it a rest man .. tho it is ok-ish ... also themes ... let it be done easyer and more flexible for others to modify it, not everyone likes the xp blue or the vista dark theme and such ... (even if these are changes i might still end up using xp :D in 2010 ...

Rising Star

oCYBERDOGo

Posted
Posted

I hate to burst anyone's bubble here but Vista is the culmination of thousands of people's collaboration millions of hours to coding, development and testing. Six years okay. I think people who just expect any company to invest in the undertaking that Vista was billions of dollars to develop and we're asking for monumental changes. Vista is a good os if your into winodows. Get used to how Vista looks until at least 3 years from now. Then when Windows 7 is out you'll all still be disappointed. If someone could develop an OS better and having 85-90% World Wide share I'd like to see them come forward.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.