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

By 1Frothy
in The Fast Ring (Insider Previews)

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

Linkinfamous

Posted
Posted
Well thats a pretty nasty elitist statement you just made.

About every third post asks for WinFS, advocates a from-scratch restart, or simply displays some other ineptitude beyond description (See lammmetak's post).

While Philip's comment is a little condescending, it's accurate.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
They could also get it to start a bit quicker - this can't be too hard. Currently as soon as you install your array of programs and drivers (and accompanying programs), your startup time skyrockets. I'm not talking about "seeing" the desktop, Im talking about your hard disk CPU and RAM calming down so you can actually do something. There's a setting for services in Vista, "Delayed Startup". Set this to on for all services, AND startup programs, that arent part of the OS by default. Only grant half the CPU/RAM/HDD access that it currently does, so as soon as the OS is started you can do something while the rest of your things finish loading. Can't be that hard!

That's exactly what Vista does. Some people don't like it, because it means their system doesn't "settle down" as fast as XP, but it means you can actually do something as soon as the taskbar is visible, since start-up tasks like Sidebar / messenger / whatever are given limited CPU and other resources.

Explorer

tnsply100

Posted
Posted
Sorry guys but most of you are not technical literate enough to request OS features. So what you want and what you think is "cool" or "nice to have" is not relevant. This is not an entertainment product, the business is relaying on it and the end users are staying at the "end" of the line. If it was a video game, then its ok but it is not. No offence,

This is absolutely correct (even if it sounds 'elitist'). An unfortunate side effect of the internet is that *everyone* gets to comment on just about everything - even things that they have no clue about. Time and again I see people asking for things that -

- already exist,

- flat out make no sense whatsoever,

- matter to such an incredibly small number of people that it makes no sense for MS to put them in

- are accomplished by well known tools which can be downloaded. (waste of resources from MS to make their own version)

Hell, I see people giving advice to MS about their kernel, when almost none of them have the faintest clue about what the kernel actually does. The above is true of many of the forums and blogs (even the new Engineering 7 blog) I've been to. The last *really* good conversation about the shortcomings of the internals of windows was between a couple of posters named PeterB and nksingh over on Ars (nksingh was from the kernel team at MS)..

Only a fraction of the newly requested features are worthy of consideration. I can only imagine how frustrating it must be for MS folks to listen to average joe users or people who *think* they are windows power users.

Proficient

pasty2k2

Posted
Posted
That's exactly what Vista does. Some people don't like it, because it means their system doesn't "settle down" as fast as XP, but it means you can actually do something as soon as the taskbar is visible, since start-up tasks like Sidebar / messenger / whatever are given limited CPU and other resources.

But it doesn't work.

In XP, it was pretty much just as bad as it is now for Vista in my experience - I don't mean the same machine, obviously you need to take into account that XP is 6 years old and Vista is 2. Cancel out that difference - get a machine from 2004, that was medium spec then, and a medium spec machine now. Use software from 2004 on that machine, and current software on the Vista machine. In XP it will be just as bad trying to get a useable desktop with loads of stuff installed as Vista.

The Delayed startup idea is great but it doesnt force it on everything, and grant the user most of the grunt of the machine. It could force all startup items - not just services, to do this. Who needs Adobe Reader Speed Launcher? Who needs Windows Live Comms service at startup? Who needs iTunesHelper at startup (what does this actually do anyway)?. If they cant stop them from being loaded at startup, delay them and only grant 50% "power" to them so the user can do their own thing ASAP. It would make every PC feel so much snappier at startup.

If you load a program straight away that requires one of these services, grant that service/item full "power" to load, and then continue loading the app you requested.

Just my ideas.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
The Delayed startup idea is great but it doesnt force it on everything, and grant the user most of the grunt of the machine. It could force all startup items - not just services, to do this. Who needs Adobe Reader Speed Launcher? Who needs Windows Live Comms service at startup? Who needs iTunesHelper at startup (what does this actually do anyway)?. If they cant stop them from being loaded at startup, delay them and only grant 50% "power" to them so the user can do their own thing ASAP. It would make every PC feel so much snappier at startup.

If you load a program straight away that requires one of these services, grant that service/item full "power" to load, and then continue loading the app you requested.

Just my ideas.

But it DOES do that for all startup apps, not just services. That's why Sidebar and Messenger seem to take a long time to start-up, and why I can launch Outlook or IE as soon as I see my desktop (before all the gadgets and such show up).

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted

I have been running Windows Vista for almost two years now with the same set of applications and personal data I had on XP (same system different partition), some of applications have been upgraded to new versions. The performance has remained consistent over time. Boot up is about 45 seconds vs. XP 1 minute. From the log in screen to desktop fully loaded about 1 minute, on XP thats about 5 minutes. So, the difference is major for me. I hope Windows 7 improves this even more, that Instant On survey is sounding very interesting. I think features in Vista like Defragmenter running in the background as a low priority task is doing wonders for the OS.

Apprentice

Happy-Dude

Posted
Posted

I will not buy Windows 7 unless it...

***

Is friendly with single core processors (like the grand WinXP P4 era) and has performance gains that, at the very least, makes it on par with Windows XP performance.

***

...

Well, hey, some of us have a great Windows XP-based system. (My PC boots up in less than 30 seconds and has been really nicely tweaked for a balance of performance, usability, and security.) Many people like me wish to upgrade, and besides, my PC has great sentimental value (it is the first PC I can call my very own). Vista, on a single core processor, and even with tweaks, will run horribly on my system.

Thus, I really need Windows 7 to be optimized and tweaked for performance that can allow it to come close to what I'm expecting with Windows XP.

Please, I ask just this :) . (It's actually perhaps the only reason why I don't perfer Vista, other than XP's sentimental value.)

...

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted
I will not buy Windows 7 unless it...

***

Is friendly with single core processors (like the grand WinXP P4 era) and has performance gains that, at the very least, makes it on par with Windows XP performance.

***

...

Well, hey, some of us have a great Windows XP-based system. (My PC boots up in less than 30 seconds and has been really nicely tweaked for a balance of performance, usability, and security.) Many people like me wish to upgrade, and besides, my PC has great sentimental value (it is the first PC I can call my very own). Vista, on a single core processor, and even with tweaks, will run horribly on my system.

Thus, I really need Windows 7 to be optimized and tweaked for performance that can allow it to come close to what I'm expecting with Windows XP.

Please, I ask just this :) . (It's actually perhaps the only reason why I don't perfer Vista, other than XP's sentimental value.)

...

Well, you better stick with Windows XP then, because I don't see how Microsoft is gonna make a 2010 OS run smooth on 9 year old hardware (Intel P4 circa 2001). Sometimes you gotta upgrade. I bought my PC at the right time, Dell Dimension 8300 back in March 2004 with 512 MBs of RAM, 3.2 GHz P4 HT (32-Bit), nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP. I have upgraded it since then to 2.6 GBs of RAM and a nVidia Geforce 6200 512 MB AGP. At least I know with a system like this, I will at least be eligible for entry when it comes to Windows 7 32 bit which should keep it going along into the next decade.

Apprentice

Happy-Dude

Posted
Posted
Well, you better stick with Windows XP then, because I don't see how Microsoft is gonna make a 2010 OS run smooth on 9 year old hardware (Intel P4 circa 2001). Sometimes you gotta upgrade. I bought my PC at the right time, Dell Dimension 8300 back in March 2004 with 512 MBs of RAM, 3.2 GHz P4 HT (32-Bit), nVidia Geforce FX 5200 128 MB AGP. I have upgraded it since then to 2.6 GBs of RAM and a nVidia Geforce 6200 512 MB AGP. At least I know with a system like this, I will at least be eligible for entry when it comes to Windows 7 32 bit which should keep it going along into the next decade.

Sigh ... Well, yeah, the day will have to come soon. I think I will keep XP as the main on that machine though, unless others make me change my mind.

I have 2GB of RAM and a GeForce 7800GS, so I'm pretty modern. But unfortunately, my P4 is a single core without HT (at 2.8 GHz, though).

Anway, think MS will try to optimize the OS at all to be friendlier on older hardware (I know, minimum reqs are same as Vista, but so far, Asus has been preparing their EEE's for Win7 support --> http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/16/asus-re...09-windows-7-l/ )?

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted
Sigh ... Well, yeah, the day will have to come soon. I think I will keep XP as the main on that machine though, unless others make me change my mind.

I have 2GB of RAM and a GeForce 7800GS, so I'm pretty modern. But unfortunately, my P4 is a single core without HT (at 2.8 GHz, though).

Anway, think MS will try to optimize the OS at all to be friendlier on older hardware (I know, minimum reqs are same as Vista, but so far, Asus has been preparing their EEE's for Win7 support --> http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/16/asus-re...09-windows-7-l/ )?

The specs are pretty good to me. I wouldn't worry too much.

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted
I will not buy the 7 unless they deploy the ribbon throughout the entire OS. From the images of paint, etc from a while ago it looks like they are doing.

Hmm, Microsoft Office's user interface was at a cross roads. 20 year old methodology, 1,500 commands and the Standard and Formatting toolbars were beginning to strain under that weight. Something had to be done to make the interface more efficient, while exposing features to users that didn't think even exist in Office, when they were actually there, just buried under Drop Down menus. Even Bill Gates who considers himself a Microsoft Excel expert, discovered features in Excel 2007 thinking they were new.

Now, Word Pad and Paint do no suffer from the same faith and the Command bar in Explorer is limited in its toolset. Its not something you are constantly working in like Microsoft Word or Excel where, you spend up to 8 hours of the day in. You probably go into Explorer to view a few files, search and you are out of it again. Word Pad and Paint are used for the most basic of task (although I have a friend who creates some of the most complex illustrations in it), then again he is not being hampered by the interface in its current state. Everything he needs to create his drawings are right there on the toolbar.

What the integration of the Fluent/Scenic UI might bring is consistency between Windows and Office and create synergy.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
As long as they keep the UI consistent everything is gonna look much better, the new light blue style is looking great.

I think MS is actually listening to some of the customer/consumer feedback this time around.

That's why I'm here :)

Rising Star

Sem XL

Posted
Posted
As long as they keep the UI consistent everything is gonna look much better, the new light blue style is looking great.

I think MS is actually listening to some of the customer/consumer feedback this time around.

I find the light blue colour scheme awful :(

i hope they let us change it to silver or a dark theme and have it affect the whole OS like in XP not just the toolbar like in vista

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted
I will NOT BUY Windows, and you bet I WON'T!, if 7 will still have stupid gimmicky features like Translucency in Windows and the Start menu. That's the most useless feature any OS could have.

In Windows Vista, right click the Desktop > click 'Personalization" > click Themes > select 'Windows Classic' > click Apply > OK. Done

You can further adjust effects and animation in the OS by clicking Start > right click 'Computer' > click 'Properties' > under Task > click 'Advance System Settings' > select the 'Advanced' tab, under 'Performance' > click 'Settings' under the 'Visual Effects' tab, select the appropriate options for best performance, you can also uncheck some of the visual effects listed.

Its that easy.

Contributor

rdxg0d

Posted
Posted
I find the light blue colour scheme awful :(

i hope they let us change it to silver or a dark theme and have it affect the whole OS like in XP not just the toolbar like in vista

Most likely there will be a way to change the style as we have now with themes. But as for the default I think there

moving in the right direction with the scheme they have now. It would be great to have options which could be something

they might take into consideration.

Mentor

Mr. Dee

Posted
Posted
Most likely there will be a way to change the style as we have now with themes. But as for the default I think there

moving in the right direction with the scheme they have now. It would be great to have options which could be something

they might take into consideration.

Windows Vista already includes the option of changing the color scheme to silver. Its available under Personalization > Color and Appearance options. It looks like people are not looking throughout Vista to find options they want already exist in the OS.

Rising Star

Sem XL

Posted
Posted
Windows Vista already includes the option of changing the color scheme to silver. Its available under Personalization > Color and Appearance options. It looks like people are not looking throughout Vista to find options they want already exist in the OS.

didn't you read my post

i want the colour changed across the whole OS

in vista that Colour and Appearance section only changes the Title bar colours

around 80% of the OS remains light blue....

in fact i don't see why they bothered adding that option it as changing it to anything except default only makes things look worse and more inconsistent

Enthusiast

CrazyK

Posted
Posted
didn't you read my post

i want the colour changed across the whole OS

in vista that Colour and Appearance section only changes the Title bar colours

around 80% of the OS remains light blue....

in fact i don't see why they bothered adding that option it as changing it to anything except default only makes things look worse and more inconsistent

Agreed, I hate the colours of Vista

Contributor

rdxg0d

Posted
Posted

I think MS is tackling the issue of an overall coloring scheme, but at both the same time has to work for different windows and applications. Lighter colors are sometimes much easier to work with, even tho we are very early in the game to say what might happen I just hope MS can come to a medium that works both for there most used applications such as the Windows Live apps to the Windowing color scheme in windows itself. I still say for a standard the light blue works and is the most effective. I could also be content with a light teal.

http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/77

Rising Star

Sem XL

Posted
Posted
I think MS is tackling the issue of an overall coloring scheme, but at both the same time has to work for different windows and applications. Lighter colors are sometimes much easier to work with, even tho we are very early in the game to say what might happen I just hope MS can come to a medium that works both for there most used applications such as the Windows Live apps to the Windowing color scheme in windows itself. I still say for a standard the light blue works and is the most effective. I could also be content with a light teal.

http://www.aerotaskforce.com/view/77

that is just terrible :rolleyes:

for shame Microsoft for shame

Contributor

rdxg0d

Posted
Posted
that is just terrible :rolleyes:

for shame Microsoft for shame

Actually its not bad if you think that different UI's work in different windowing schemes. Not everything is gonna look right with the same UI throughout the operating system. Keep in mind what might look good on one window might look or is impractical in another. Which is what I think is the major challenge at hand for MS. The ribbon UI looks great but it might not work for everything, if they come to a medium with 2 or 3 schemes for different aspects of the OS then i think things will look alot better.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.