Anyone Else Think Windows 7 Is Going To Suck?

[markwolfe Veteran]

Missing registry doesn't seem to slow down Ubuntu or OpenSolaris. Quite the opposite. Do you mean that Windows would be even slower if they dumped the registry? :p

...

...

I won't pretend to be an expert on how Linux/Unix work. However, I do consider myself somewhat of an expert on Windows :) So what I can attest to is the fact that yes, Windows would be much slower if it relied on XML files to fulfill the purpose of the registry. More than that, XML files have many limitations that would need to be overcome for them to even work at all.

...

I think that there are trade-offs either way. I prefer the simple text files that are read into memory as needed (on boot, or whenever). They are human readable, and easy to individually edit, repair, parse, or even fully remove if you decide to remove that app or package. It seems obvious and clean. :yes:

However, Microsoft chose to go with a single system-wide "registry" database. There had to be some modifications to how it works over the years (user vs. admin rights, etc), but they have a foundation that relies on it, so it would be kind of difficult to try to remove it. Certainly legacy apps that relied on it would have to be presented a virtual registry, or they would be hopelessly broken (and imagine all the whiners complaining about that).

Regardless of your feelings about it, I don't see Microsoft just suddenly dumping it. There would be many new challenges to be overcome so that a change in direction would not adversely affect all the legacy 'registry-dependent' apps that people would expect to run.

Argue the pros and cons, abcdefg, if you like, but I find it absurd to advocate immediate removal of something that so much software relies on. While I don't often agree with BrandonLive's expressed opinions of Linux/Unix, I 100% respect his knowledge of Windows.

[abcdefg]

Argue the pros and cons, abcdefg, if you like, but I find it absurd to advocate immediate removal of something that so much software relies on.

Of course it won't be removed immediately. Heck, I'm sure that in Windows 8 there'll be some kind of registry. But in its current form it is like I mentioned, accident waiting to happen. It would be easy to blame third parties for misusing the registry but Microshaft themselves encouraged its usage.

It is pretty much the same as what is now happening with UAC. M$ made a huge mistake in the past making users admins and now they are starting to change that. Years too late. It will take years to change the registry but I'm sure it'll happen.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I think that there are trade-offs either way. I prefer the simple text files that are read into memory as needed (on boot, or whenever). They are human readable, and easy to individually edit, repair, parse, or even fully remove if you decide to remove that app or package. It seems obvious and clean. :yes:

However, Microsoft chose to go with a single system-wide "registry" database. There had to be some modifications to how it works over the years (user vs. admin rights, etc), but they have a foundation that relies on it, so it would be kind of difficult to try to remove it. Certainly legacy apps that relied on it would have to be presented a virtual registry, or they would be hopelessly broken (and imagine all the whiners complaining about that).

One thing I've tried to point out before is that applications don't need to make use of the registry. It was designed, essentially, to enable COM. Its functionality proved useful enough that other parts of the OS jumped onboard and started using it as well. From there it seemed to make sense to open it up for applications to use. Not everybody wants to write their own high-performance configuration database.

That said, plenty of applications don't use it at all. My own Start++ tool uses XML files for its settings. It has a simple Options class that defines its user configurable parameters, and makes use of .NET's handy XML serialization to persist the object. I could make it faster by doing my own binary serialization, or using the registry, but there's no reason to since it's already such an insignificantly small part of the app's performance profile (and only read/written at start-up or when a setting is changed).

On the other hand, the OS uses the registry for things that can be accessed hundreds of times a second. Like whenever someone calls GetLocalTime, that API call results in looking up time zone information in the registry. Whenever the shell needs information about a filetype, like to know what properties to display on its tile in Tile View, it looks that up on the assocation registration. Fortunately, the registry automatically handles all the caching, transactional access, and concurrency issues - so that consumers of the registry don't have to.

That's not to say it's perfect, or that apps like Explorer don't do some caching of their own to avoid unnecessary registry calls. But doing that kind of optimization in a general way and across processes necessitates the use of something like the registry.

Now, the registry could conceivably be constructed upon XML files, maintaining the same APIs and general functionality... but why? Everybody knows that XML parsing / writing is slow (compared to binary serialization, and even moreso when compared with a proper database).

So basically, if you want something to be human-readable and portable, write your data to an XML file. If you're implementing COM, or a general registration mechanism that will be accessed from several processes concurrently and with great frequency - the registry just might be for you.

Argue the pros and cons, abcdefg, if you like, but I find it absurd to advocate immediate removal of something that so much software relies on. While I don't often agree with BrandonLive's expressed opinions of Linux/Unix, I 100% respect his knowledge of Windows.

Likewise :)

[redvamp128]

I feel like bringing up a fun SAT analogy game...

Anyone care to guess the answer?

Windows ME : Windows Vista

Windows XP : Windows ____

Catch my drift?

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

As far as you saying Windows Me was a flop....

In My opinion it was not. based on these facts.

It was actually the first 9x kernel to make auto restore points without user intervention.

Not to mention it had more Plug and Play built in without having to install drivers and patch the OS.

It was a flop mainly because of the timing of the release was off

ME is actually was a fairly stable running OS for its time.

It also had a zip utility built into it by default.

If you read the other post

https://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?show...#entry589467425

And Yes we probably will need it... Since the Time line for new devices will dictate the need for it.

That means what Hardware Manufactures produce ... MS wants to be able to have it compatible with the OS.

Also if MS were smart they would make User Interfaces that would allow windows to talk to your cell Phones . By default to download music and your picture files.

An example of why we need it is if MS didn't release Win98 then we would not be able to run more memory. (there wold be have been machines that can only handle 128megs of memory) MAX. SO that is probably why we need a new relese.

I mean their 3-5 year product cycle which is really to keep either ahead or on tract with hardware manufacturers.

But I don't think it would "Suck"

Edited June 9, 2008 by redvamp128

[anonymous_user]

I'm thinking Win7 should have about the same system requirements as Vista

Id be happy if it did have the same requirements. But then again maybe thats too optimistic.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Id be happy if it did have the same requirements. But then again maybe thats too optimistic.

Well, so far what's been said publicly is:

"Sinofsky: We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same"

[Typhon]

Well, so far what's been said publicly is:

"Sinofsky: We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same"

That's good. My only problem is creative and that I decided to buy an X-FI, I should have got that Asus card but o well.

[geddeeee]

I'm using Windows 7 Build 6801 at the moment. This is supposed to be a 'pre-beta'. It is rock solid. So much so, that I have now installed it as my main OS. Everything works, apart from a few programs, but I can do without these.

All the games run superbly (think Windows XP speed). Disk operations are smooth and fast, and the GUI is a real joy to use. Snappy and pretty. OS footprint is very small too. Most impressive. I don't think I've experienced any real 'bugs' yet.

If this is the sign of things to come from Microsoft, than I for one will applaud their efforts.......

[sundayx Veteran]

Bottom line is, it won't be like Vista. Seeing the reviews and all the coverage lately, Windows 7 looks promising. Again now I think Microsoft want Windows 7 to be under-promising and hope to surprise users at release.

[Premgenius]

Windows 7 will be much better then Vista. It will be what Vista should have been

[DigitalE]

I'm very optimistic about Windows 7.

[naquis]

I don't mean, to be mean.

But what's this: "But what the hell, if Apple has some real competition this time, I will be happy."

I was sure that 90% of the world's desktops run Windows and of that about 15% are Vista PC's.

:geek:

I can't help but laugh at comments like this one, how ?90% of the world's desktops run Windows? as if consumers bought PCs with no OS and then said ?Hey I need an OS, I'll go buy Microsoft Windows!? We all know it didn't happen like that and those PCs, the ?90%?, were purchased from an OEM (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc..) or off the shelf from a retailer, with Windows pre-installed.

[HawkMan]

Because even the Linux vendors knows that linux pre-loaded computers don't sell, and those that do sell get returned.

[mikeleo]

I'm still using Windows XP. I will be getting a new PC with VISTA next month. I'll wait till all the bugs are out of Windows 7 before even trying to install it. :whistle:

[AJerman]

Old topic!

We obviously know more since this was originally posted. 7 runs better on every computer than Vista does (at least for now), and runs great even on very old computers or netbooks.

And of course a touch screen isn't REQUIRED. But I have a feeling you'll want one soon. 7 may not bring a touch screen to every house, but it'll help expand multitouch laptops and build the software base. It's an "If you build it, they will come" type thing. Gotta put it in the OS to get the market sparked, then the next version you can polish it and make it mainstream.

[HawkMan]

Actually I believe it's more along the lines of running the same as Vista.

Anyway as far as touch go, I doubt many will be getting touch screen or such. it's cool and it's practical for infokiosks and manufacturing/ontrol screens. But for an average user, not so much.

The only place it's even remotely practical to swish you greasy fingers all over a screen, covering most of the screen while doing it, and that's not even counting the massively unnecessary hand movement to do basic tasks, is on a tablet pc. OF course the thing is that a tablet pc is designed for use by artists, it has a tablet, essentially most proper tablet PC's have a wacom cintiq for it's screen. So if you're using a tablet you'll be using the pressure, tlt and rotation sensitive pen, not you big ass finger.

For a regular user, touch just is NOT a practical computer interface compared to a mouse, wich allove you to get anywhere on the screen by moving your hand 1 cm with the right settings, or giving you precision control at the same time using acceleration.

Touch screens are fine for phones, where you can hold it with one hand and rich the entire screen with your thumb, bugger than that, and usefullness is out the window for regular usage.

just for fun one day, preten to use your hand to click in every button, link or scrollbar on your screen instead of the mouse. I think the problems with this interface will be quite apparent within a short time.

[anarkhy]

Cant get worst than Vista.

[dwarhya]

Well, so far what's been said publicly is:

"Sinofsky: We're very clear that drivers and software that work on Windows Vista are going to work really well on Windows 7; in fact, they'll work the same"

Here is a perfect example of Microsoft listening ... Nobody asked if the drivers and software would work in Windows 7 ... they asked if the *system requirements* would be the same :no:

[HawkMan]

Here is a perfect example of Microsoft listening ... Nobody asked if the drivers and software would work in Windows 7 ... they asked if the *system requirements* would be the same :no:

and you're quoting a post from july, from when 7 wasn't even a pre beta.

but basically it boils down to the same, same drivers, same subsystems same performance. wich is shown to be how it is in the pre-beta and it's what microsoft has said in newer statements. in fact performance might increase a bit for windows if you have a dx 10/11 card.

Cant get worst than Vista.

sure it could.

win 9x, 2k, xp...... OSX, *nix :laugh:

[DavidGP]

Know this is a long running thread.

Personal opinion on Windows 7 is that its a step forward and "maybe" how many wanted Vista to end up as, as mentioned above Microsoft are listening to users who are feeding back constructive feedback and have done since the end of Vista beta testing (still betas for the Vista SPs ongoing) which many ideas have been added to Win7.

Think before saying its gonna "suck" is actually testing it out for yourself and for a long period of time, not just a day! its pre-beta at present so not best to judge an OS until its around RC2 phase, but fortunatly I was invited to test and comment on Windows 7 and installed it on my 2yr old ACER laptop which I ran the betas of Vista on and installed and all drivers are working fine, stability at this point is very good, some bugs and a few applications dont work, but on the whole if it works in Vista its likely too in Windows 7, think many of the non-installing apps are due to the installer not recognising the OS version and a few like this I have got working by extracting the files out of the installer using WinRar, then installing from the setup file inside.

If the touch technology works as good as it does on Surface then it will be extremely accurate, did get a chance to play with a Surface machine in early October at MSFT UK, impressed with it and could see many uses for it and the technology used in its touch screen, how well touch screens would be in home inviroment would be interesting as mentioned above, great in phones and portable devices, I have a iPhone and iPod Touch and the screens get really grubby at times, so could see this being an annoyance on a desktop PC LCD, also the arm ache from having your arm up touching the screen. (N.B... Surfaces backend is Vista) HP seem to be promoting touch screens alot in many of their desktop and laptops, so touch "may" take off.

Early days for this OS, like worth commenting on it this time next year when its near completion, but so far and I judge OSes on coudl I use this in production enviroment, and at present I do use my laptop with Win7 v6801 for work.

[gate1975mlm]

Not only will Windows 7 not suck it will be the greatest OS to date!!!

[Owen W Veteran]

I just saw the demo video and I'm really starting to hate Windows 7 (codenamed Vista with touch or Vistouch). I hate the fact that I will have to go out and buy a touch screen and I can only imagine the monster of a computer it would take to run it. Why doesn't Microsoft take it one small innovation at a time and try not to make operating systems with the same requirements as a Crysis, Far Cry 2, and Gears of War Hell spawn.

This post prove's that your an idiot and that you haven't done any readng up.

Fine, stick with your 'fantastic' XP. Let the rest of us move on.

[jjrambo]

I think it already sucks :laugh:

As long as i see this

Program Files

Windows

When i open drive C

I can't help but laugh at comments like this one, how ?90% of the world's desktops run Windows? as if consumers bought PCs with no OS and then said ?Hey I need an OS, I'll go buy Microsoft Windows!? We all know it didn't happen like that and those PCs, the ?90%?, were purchased from an OEM (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc..) or off the shelf from a retailer, with Windows pre-installed.

Actually number is below 90%. Based on newest research, less then 90% of people who regularly browse Internet are doing from non Windows OS. I think the number is 87%. I'm so glad MacOS is selling big time at Best Buy. There are only two things i use Windows Vista and that's gaming and forum discussion:Dn neowin :D .

As far as my laptop i have Vista for Visual Studio because of the work, but other things i do in Ubuntu. I wish MS makes some miniWin enough to run games and probably would never look at Windows anymore.

[afusion]

I think the Op has his head under some sand.

[Spartan Erik]

Mmm flame time.

After seeing how badly Vista sucked, I won't be suprised if Win 7 sucked as well. Microsoft has just been building up and up on an aging kernel.. total rewrite would be nice!

This will be a Vista clone with some additional functionality, more RAM consumption, and higher hardware requirements (though the latter is becoming less of an issue as we progress, but can't Microsoft at least be efficient in its usage?)

I'm sticking to XP for as long as I possibly can. Don't bother changing what works well. Glitz and glamour of Vista doesn't attract me, it's the performance that XP does.

But, touch screen will not be a requirement for Win 7.. just some useless eye candy that has no practical application for most users (why lift an arm when you can move a mouse? It just seems useless.. limited applications like that Surface technology)