Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Leaked
Slatterz writes "Screenshots of what is said to be the next version of Microsoft's Windows operating system have been leaked onto the internet. The ThinkNext.net blog posted a range of screenshots over the weekend which it said represents Windows 7. Overall, the screenshots show a distinctly Vista-like interface, but there is still plenty of time for tweaks and changes to take place."
Funny thing is they're not actually screen shots, they're running videos... guess they haven't fixed the memory management or paging issues in v7 either.
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
That said, given that aero was one of the nicer things about Vista, I imagine they'll base the GUI on it but make it look different enough to elminite comparissons between vista.
Ideally they'll strike a balance between the prettyness of vista and the functionality and performance of XP.
For those of you who cannot read the article due to slashdotting, here are some highlights:
* It's main color is no longer blue, it's brown
* The default desktop image features a graphical heron
* The start button is now a circular orange button
* Task bars or "Panels" can now be found both at the top of the screen AND at the bottom.
* The new graphical bells and whistles previously referred to as Vista Aero is now called "Beryl".
* Beryl is cooler and runs much smoother than Aero. It requires much less hardware power than Aero.
* The new version of Windows is said to be much more stable and secure than any previous version.
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Look and Feel isn't the problem with Vista.
A todo list would be a far more valuable leak at this point if MS want to change their fortune.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
As far as I can tell, there is nothing that looks really really special that would prompt me to shift off what I'm running now. The fact that they still require malware protection (evidenced by the "we can't detect any anti-virus software, panic" screen), tempts me to question why they haven't focused more energy on securing the system.
The only really interesting thing I saw was the sharing option, "homegroup"? Could be interesting. But overall, nothing revolutionary.
Come to think about it, I remember reading before MS Windows XP came out about all the wonderful things that were going to be in it. Yet, when it did come out, it wasn't a revolution, just more gradual changes.
This promises more of the same.
So, as I said, I'll stay with Ubuntu, because if nothing else, at least it runs on my machine with only 512 MB of ram. (I'm poor, and it works, why would I upgrade?)
I wank in the shower.
They missed this one from their screen-shots.
Will another vista-like gui save windows users from another vista-like system?
slashwhat?
Everyone knows 'Leak' is Public-Relations-Speak for 'Released'. Now if someone uploaded Windows 7, *THAT* would be a leak. But for anything else than that, why can't we call it what it is?
"Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Released"
Fix'd!
Slashdot is not the place for hot news. Slashdot is a community forum dedicated to discussions regarding "news for nerds." The point of Slashdot is not to present you with news but to allow you and other nerds to debate yesterday's news.
With a product that's been stable for a long time (stable in the development sense, not in the 'not crashing' sense) you shouldn't expect any large changes between major versions, and no changes at all between minors. You don't just throw away decades of work to make it different for the sake of it. If there are any differences they're probably only there because the marketing department demanded something obviously different so people would upgrade for the new eye candy. Or, at a push, because some HCI guru has had a brainwave about how to make things radically easier to work with. That's very rare though.
Frankly, the fact it looks very similar is a good thing. It might mean MSFT aren't just doing some window dressing.
http://twitter.com/onion2k
But is the blue screen of death (bsod) still blue? Or have they changed that one finally?
Microsoft UI has always been behind the curve in my opinion. Since most people know they have to re-learn where and sometimes how to interact with each new Microsoft release why do people care what it looks like. Do default border color and a new desktop background really get peoples E.D. to relapse?
Yes I looked at the pictures. Woooo.
*DrugCheese rants*
From what I understand, and from personal experience, the way Vista looks is not the problem. It wouldn't make sense for them to invest so much money in a new look and then dump it. After all, if we take a look at previous Windows versions, this doesn't happen very often. Additionally, you can customize Vista in a million ways with the plethora of skins out there.
Windows 7 will be a hit if they focus on what people have been complaining about, which is largely the sluggish performance - and this is what we should devote our attention to.
Full Tilt
The name. They couldn't figure out how to salvage Vista trademark, so they're just making some relatively minor changes, and releasing it with a new name.
I've always relied on it to keep me informed of technology and interesting news before anywhere else...
Well, the continuum transfunctioner isn't working properly. Sadly, Slashdot's submitted articles are posted after the source.
Full Tilt
Nothing new here..
They can't really do anything else without pissing off a majority of their customers. Lets face it, if they put in a dock or unified titlebar on the top everyone would lambaste them for copying Apple, not to mention there are 3rd party apps that have the same functionality, which may put them in an antitrust situation.
The only annoying thing about vista UI is UAC, and from the article it appears that they possibly fixed that. I was envious of expose, but then I installed Switcher, and while it may not have the same functionality, I'm content.
The only things I would like out of windows 7 is for it to use less resources, improve UAC, and increase security. The last thing I want is a total UI overhaul or total rewrite making 98% of my programs run slower in emulation mode, or not run at all.
Why does the phrase "Even if you polish a turd, it's still a turd" come into my mind?
Try Ubuntu 8.04 with an ATI/Nvidia/Intel graphics card, and install "ccsm", and play with all the options. I have actually grown to like the "wobbly windows" that act a little like sheets of paper.
Get your own free personal location tracker
I look forward to the renaming and release of Microsoft ViXP
AT&ROFLMAO
...with yet another desperate GUI attempt to catch up with OS/X, why don't they release the tentative minimum CPU and memory specs for the OS so people will know if they'll be able to boot it and run up notepad with anything less than a 5Ghz 4 core machine with 1 terabyte of memory.
They are posting about ribbons and screenshots in Windows 7, but I wonder, will there be any other improvements aside from GUI?
If you are in marketing, and have a dog of a product to sell, a good tactic is to focus attention on the jam that you'll be selling tomorrow. Of course you don't actually have the jam yet, and you're still selling borg-daschund, so you can't just come out and say 'hey we have this radical NEW NEW softwares so much much better than the old tired limp one you are using to wash your spreadsheets'. So you behave like a hose. A drip here. A leak there. And before you know it all the people are clustered around the tiny tiny pastures of green in a desert of grey, saying 'wowser, check that colour scheme out'. Such a pity that they can't click to discover that the buttons don't do anything, but that's someone elses job and Bob is on an extended five year coffee break.
Don't get too excited people. Remember that Microsoft is incapable of shifting an OS in the timescales that we've seen casually prognosticated. By the beginning of 2010 Vista will have hit its sweet spot in terms of hardware, and the drivers will be mature. That would be the worst time of all to introduce Vista2. Look to about 2012 for the next version, once Vista has peaked.
Microsoft are in a monopolists market, there's no need for them to improve Vista in the short term despite the screams of pain from users. And anyway, the way to maintain dominance when you are the market leader is to force changes, so that your competition looks like followers; there's no way back for them.
Executive summary: don't wait, at best this is a distraction. Go make some software. You be the leaders now.
It's all subjective. When I tried a Mac, there was an error with a program - but instead of it telling me what the problem was, the icon got a little question mark on it. When I clicked on it, it bounced.
What does that even mean? Is it not starting? Is it already open? Is the bouncing some kind of metaphor for the futility of human existance?
There are things they can do, but aren't. UAC doesn't solve anything, all it does is make the user annoyed. The programmer who caused UAC to fire up and tell the user that the program is trying to do something stupid doesn't care if the user is annoyed. He cares about production cost and knows damn well that the user blames Windows instead of the program. Why hasn't Microsoft created a way to do what Application bundles do on OS X? Drag and drop installs with full metadata support for supported files and cross application access of share libs all done on the fly without every loading anything at boot or changing a single thing in the registry. Why can't Windows do that? Why is it still possible to create an application that can only be run by Admin? Why isn't the entire Windows directory structure completely segregated from the application space which is in turn completely segregated from the user space? Why is it even possible for an application to install ANYTHING in your taskbar? Why can't the user have a formal list of launch items to prevent all non operating system elements from loading on login and still have all applications works exactly as intended? OS X is better than Windows for home use not just because of the widget lay out and management services, but because FUBARing the OS actually takes real work on the part of the user and the application developer. The very core of Windows is completely broken, the now failed experiment with UAC was an attempt to dress up pig so that they could buy more time to think the problem out.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Yeah, you're the only one using those applications.
Erik Dalén
Ah, nope.
Slashdot is CmdrTaco's blog.
This
They aren't even that coy about it; they admit they've been doing some market research.
CheShA: Manchester Breakcore / Drill and Bass Yes I'm a s
Really? I'd like to see Treacherous Computing out of Windows 7. That's one of my major concerns.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Don't forget the kick to the 'nads for DRM integration. I'm game if they just get rid of that crap.
The name. They couldn't figure out how to salvage Vista trademark, so they're just making some relatively minor changes, and releasing it with a new name.
So let me ask you, what would you, in all your wisdom, do if you woke up tommorow as the product manager of Windows tommorow?
If you would "shut down and give the money to the shareholders", or you would "drop all code and start over", you'd be the lousiest product manager in the history of software development.
The screenshots page http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2268 linked from the article tries to download & execute the following files:
/. - that's a 1st !
ucsb_evoting_attack_dl_small.3gp
sa.aspx
Linking trojans from
1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
More security is usually more annoyance unfortunately.
The cancel or allow bullshit comes up, in general, because some crappy program is trying to do something which really does require elevation. Windows does try to be nice, and has quite a few dodgy hacks - shoving writes to /Program Files/ in ~/AppData/VirtualStore/Program Files/ etc. Similar with registry virtualisation.
Theres probably a bunch of API calls that could be called with lower permissions, but it would be a pain to isolate them without introducing some serious local exploits.
You'd think after 5 years of developing under the XP guidelines that developers wouldnt be fucking up anymore. :S
I'd actually call a per-user XP VM coming preinstalled with some hacks to share /home pretty damn awesome. The "It looks like you are trying to run some crap software written by a monkey. Well, you can't. Go mess up this VM with your crap." and "Cancel" or "Aaargh!".
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
"Well, it's almost here - might as well wait for Windows 7 and skip Vista altogether".
My guess is: almost all.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The funny thing is: I JUST commented the "leak" of the Google phone in another site. These "leak" conspiracies shouldn't be encouraged. Let's just use the word release instead, my guess is we'd be more often correct than vice versa.
I am the lawn!
To be honest, I don't care what it looks like. So long as there's a "classic" option, that'll do, but I have much bigger problems that are not addressed by releasing videos/screenshots.
I don't care what it looks like SO LONG as it has something I need. It doesn't look like it. In fact, it looks like they jiggered the Vista menus and toolbars a bit, renamed a few items, etc. These are changes I expect to see between SVN versions 7348738 and 7348740 of a window manager, not a "show-off" of the next version of Windows.
The main problem I have with Windows is the laughable security - just look at that warning next to "no anti-virus software found"... those sorts of messages make me crease up.
Antivirus software is like employing a $30/year, 500lb security guard to sit on the front step of your house and "confront" burglars, but who can't actually do anything to them because he can't stand up (and even if he could, why would he bother at $30/year?), while leaving all your doors and windows open and a ladder up to your bedroom out the back with a large sign that says "Free stuff inside" attached to it. Security Centre and UAC are like a nosey neighbour who you can't get rid of (without a lot of hassle) that likes to tell you that your security guard didn't come into work today or that some people walked out with tons of your gear but he didn't bother to call the police or anything.
Also, I hate the pathetic attempts to set standards for everyone, rather than letting the users adjust Windows to their liking. Even Vista's "classic" mode isn't like it should be, it's impossible to get things exactly how they were in XP. And somehow the OS thinks it "knows better" than you. I daresay it does most of the time but the point is that sometimes IT DOESN'T and I need to override it, whether that's simple and personal (I don't WANT to know that I don't have antivirus, I don't WANT a new start menu) or complicated and technical (e.g. if I'm setting modelines in X). Don't like the new ribbon? Well.. tough really. We've splatted it over everything from Paint to Wordpad.
I don't know if the release of Windows 7 is trying to cover for Vista's "mistake" (which, of course, MS has done quite well out of anyway because of the usual reasons) or whether they really think that people will want to upgrade to Vista and then to Windows 7 within the space of three or four years. Tell me that WinFS is in it, tell me it doesn't NEED antivirus or a third-party firewall any more (you could still install it, obviously, but if it didn't need it, who would?), tell me you've condensed all the versions into one quite-cheap version with no artificial limitations, tell me it's got some radical new ideas that nobody's seen before, tell me anything... but don't show me screenshots that I could mock up in seconds using Vista's menu and a quick Photoshop. Don't show me "features" that would take about 20 minutes each to write once the windowing/toolbar code was properly seperated out into new libraries. Don't show me even more of the same rubbish that I can't stand Vista for.
In the meantime, I've got to print off that antivirus screenshot and pin it on my wall to laugh at occasionally.
The wha?
Tip: With ram at around $20 a gig, the people running around screaming that Vista won't run on ten bucks (512meg) of RAM should probably not be considering a $200 OS. It doesnt run on the free toy you get with a happy meal either.
DAMN YOU RONALD MCDONALD... DAMN YOUUUUU!
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Wouldn't "Microsoft Vixen" be even better? ;-)
Because it was posted by a Mac user.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
If you would "shut down and give the money to the shareholders"
oops.
Well, they've got to prop the share price up somehow.
Unfortunately for Microsoft Windows XP is the first OS to "work well enough" which makes me ask, why would I update? IE 8 certainly looks nice along with the enhanced GUI features, but they aren't so large an improvement that I'm going going to spend $120 to upgrade.
As long as OOo, Firefox, Thunderbird and Gimp work on my computer, I don't see any pressing need to upgrade. They're going to have to pull out something much better for Windows 7 to get my hard-earned cash.
Even getting it "free" when I upgrade my computer isn't enough of an incentive because my computer's speed seems good enough at 2.67 GHz with 2 GB of RAM. I've also only used 32 GB out of 201 GB (I actually have more then that but they're on a separate partition for Linux which I need to develop in sometimes for university).
A) Vista uses, on a clean install, about 3 to 4 times the base resources of XP (more CPU while indexing, but I've had no trouble with it doing that when I'm trying to do something else). Considering it's had 3 iterations of Moore's Law to play with, that's not bad overall. Personally, the only time I've had bad experiences with Vista systems was trying to run an OEM copy, or trying to run it with 512MB or less (non-shared) system RAM. The OEMs install so much crap as to make the system WAY slower than it really is, and while Vista will run on 512MB RAM (without Aero), it runs about like XP on its "minimum requirement" of 128MB.
B) UAC prompts much less by default (though it's highly configurable - look for the Local Security Policy settings in Vista). This is the equivalent of going through and making a bunch of stuff in the OS setuid root - convenient but dangerous. External programs (installers, or anything which must run as Admin) will still generate prompts.
C) What security do you want increased? They spend years fixing security bugs in the NT codebase (specifically XP and early Longhorn/Vista) and you (Slashdot in general) complain about how long it's taking to get the new OS. They provide an easy way to run as standard user without the pain that doing so in XP caused, and you call it "annoying". They add ASLR, and you complain that performance has decreased by a few percent.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
So let me ask you, what would you, in all your wisdom, do if you woke up tommorow as the product manager of Windows tommorow?
I'd just kill myself. and there would be no salvation for me.
Having worked on the Win7 team, I'd say Vista to Win7 felt more like the difference between 2000 and XP. There are a couple new big features (Win7 has multitouch support, BitLocker has been dramatically improved, etc.), a variety of UI tweaks and tricks (the new theme picker, the modified system tray, and more of that sort), and some mostly-behind-the-scenes changes (faster bootup and hibernation on multicore machines, UAC by default now elevates without prompting for Microsoft-signed executables, and a few others).
It *is* an improvement, but could arguably be described as a refined and matured version of Vista, with a couple new features. It's a bigger change, especially from the user perspective, than XP RTM to XP SP2, but much smaller than XP SP2 to Vista.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
How did they go from version 3 to 95 to 98 to 2000 to 7? If an operating system can't increment it's own version properly, how could you ever trust it to calculate anything for you?
3. Windows 3/3.11/NT 3.5
4. Windows 95/ NT 4.0
5. Windows ME/ Windows NT 2000
5.1 Windows XP/ Windows Server 2003
6. Windows Vista/Windows Server 2008.
Whoa, could use some paragraphs.
"Why hasn't Microsoft created a way to do what Application bundles do on OS X?"
Good point. I think that would mostly amount to a sort of wrapper around a folder to hide the internal files by default, as well as associate double-clicking on said folder with some executable within. Kind of like how CD drives work in Windows.
"Why is it still possible to create an application that can only be run by Admin?"
??? People shouldn't do this, but the fact that it's possible only means that there's such a thing as Admin. If nothing can run as Admin, then there is no such thing as Admin and user is the new Admin.
"Why isn't the entire Windows directory structure completely segregated from the application space which is in turn completely segregated from the user space?"
"Why is it even possible for an application to install ANYTHING in your taskbar?"
I don't understand this question.
"Why can't the user have a formal list of launch items to prevent all non operating system elements from loading on login and still have all applications works exactly as intended?"
This exists, except of course for the Halting Problem behind "and still have *all* applications work exactly as intended".
"The very core of Windows is completely broken."
I wish people would define what they mean by this so I could either agree or disagree (DRM is not by itself a definition).
"the now failed experiment with UAC was an attempt to dress up pig [...]"
Looks like the experiment hasn't failed yet. And honestly, it's doing the opposite of dressing up a pig. It's pissing people off in order to fix the "very core of Windows". It's undressing a pig.
1. Windows 1
2. Windows 2
3. Windows 3 / 3.10 / 3.11
4. Windows 95
4.1 Windows 98
4.9 Windows ME
Windows NT (Started at 3 to be on parity with regular windows at the time)
3. NT 3.1 / 3.5 /3.51
4. NT 4
5. Windows 2000
5.1 Windows XP
5.2 Windows XP 64 / Server Edition
6. Windows Vista
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
You're not counting correctly. You missed windows 98, and windows 98SE, which would make windows 2000 windows 7!
however, when you look at the version number reported in XP it is 5.1 2000 was 5.0
vista is likely to be 6.0 so they could make the next one 7, although from what they've said about it so far it should really be 6.1
One thing oddly absent from the screenshots: the Windows build number, visible in the lower right corner of the desktop (for pre-release builds) or the winver program.
It's definitely a Windows 7 build no more than a couple months old, though.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
This is Microsoft we're talking about.
This is a deliberate and orchestrated part of Microsoft's marketing campaign that will gradually intensify up until the time when it is foisted onto the general public as the next "most secure version ever" release (together with several increasingly crippled "home" or "business" versions) of the next iteration of WindowsNT (WinNT7).
Do not be fooled by this "leaked" bullshit.
The problem of these screenshots is that they show us nothing that wasn't there in Windows 95. Of course, I'm talking functionality, not looks. The Windows 95 dull beveled style interface is more usable too, I'm afraid. Beveled is the most usable interface style in history, ironically because it is boring, and outrageously because it offers more depth than UIs developed for higher resolutions, with their flat buttons and all.
The problem of MS is that the desktop metaphor works. You have a desktop, you have icons on it, you click an icon to launch a program. From an UI point of view, there's not much too it. So how do you sell a new cycle of your product when you're unable to offer true new stuff like a history machine or database file system?
These screenshots show nothing but that same ability to launch the same old programs in windows. With one exception: the ribbon (or tabbed toolbars or whatever you want to call it). There even seem to be mini ribbons on things like IE8. This, I think, is an interesting development, as MS seems be be targeting differentiation from Linux and Mac style UIs. I for one think both the old menu style is kind of broken (but easily fixed if the standard lineup is updated to our times) while the new ribbon style also has many problems. Problems are: abandonment of all the sweet we got from IBM Common User Access standards (less consistency throughout applications-but better, optimized usability for single programs you mastered), less screen estate for the content, too many options in view for basic users (by adding lots of icons/functionality to the normal view, it weirdly seems for power users - yet then they remove the menus from standard view to reduce complexity). One of its strongest points is context-changes. The weakest that one app will have ribbon, the next traditional menus, and it's a mess now with two systems. Overall, it has some advantages and disadvantages, and it will be interesting to see MS pursue this idea and use it on their user base, and see what happens. Me, as a View->Toolbars option I'd never object to it, but I'm not sure about defaulting it because I rather dislike CUA being lost. I don't like the mess with the hiding of tradional menus/alt key, perhaps they should go for a single topbar on the desktop, Mac OS style.
Overal, I'm not entirely convinced yet this is a real improvement, or just another alteration to defeat the problem of the 2nd paragraph, which reminds me too much of football teams slightly changing their kits every season, to sell "new" kits to their fan base. But I applaud MS for at least trying to combine it. I guess this is one of the good side-effects of MS becoming less relevant. They will have to innovate.
Usually, very early beta releases tend to use the interface from previous versions, so in terms of "look and feel" there won't be significant changes. Microsoft usually does the interface changes starting with the second beta releases, if the experience from the Windows XP and Vista beta testing is anything to go by.
(If I remember correctly, Windows 95 was probably the only Microsoft OS that had the new interface right from the first beta test versions, mostly because it was such a radical change in the interface compared to the MS-DOS 5.0/6.0 and Windows 3.1x combination.)
I know everyone likes eye candy these days, but really, does the look of the Windows UI really make much difference? One of the biggest things I think Microsoft got wrong was to assume that people only cared about what Windows looked like, and really didn't care about how it worked. Now, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people don't care about how it works, as long as it does.
Any fool can talk, but it takes a wise man to listen.
You don't count correctly.
NT 2000 and XP have the same major version number (5.0 vs. 5.1), in the same vein as XP and 2003, or Vista and 2008.
The Win95-WinME line have nothing to do with this, because they don't run under the NT kernel. And anyway WinME was Windows (non-NT) 4.9, less than Windows 2000 (5.0).
From my brief experience with Vista and then seeing this, I am not sure they are really changing anything. Take a look at the new "Mojave" advertising campaign. They rename the product, display a few stable elements of the OS, and fool few sheeple into thinking it is new. Then we have screen captures of "Windows 7" which look amazingly similar to Vista. Yes, the GUI is one of the last things developed but why not use something less memory intensive if you are still in the core development areas? Why not use just a basic (think Win98)and functional GUI until you are sure the thing runs like it should? This leaves me wondering where I have seen this before... oh yeah, WindowsME. You know. The one where MicroSoft took one thing, repackaged it, made a few "improvements", and basically created some abomination that was seldom seen as an improvement of it's predecessor. I can't help but get this strange feeling that Windows 7 is nothing but Vista 1.2.
Sigh. No matter how much you try to repackage and redesign a turd, it will still be a piece of shit when you're done.
Looks like I need a larger monitor with a higher resolution just to tone down the large user interface and get my screen estate back. What's the use of a 1280x1024 resolution if you only get to use 800x600 of it, with reset wasted to larger buttons and filler.
Correct.
WinNT6 = "Vista"
WinNT5.x = 2000/XP/2003
WinNT4.x = WinNT4.x
WIN4.9 = WinME
WIN4.1 = Win98/SE
WIN4.0 = Win95/a/b/c
Nothing prior to this matters as the release prior to this was the first generally usable version of MS Windows.
I suppose I'd agree with most of what you said, but why did you have to go all out there and throw in outright lies to support your statements?
And before you know it all the people are clustered around the tiny tiny pastures of green in a desert of grey, saying 'wowser, check that colour scheme out'. Such a pity that they can't click to discover that the buttons don't do anything, but that's someone elses job and Bob is on an extended five year coffee break.
How does this correspond to the fact the screenshots don't show significant UI changes? Microsoft isn't trying to wow anyone with UI at this point. This was the Vista strategy and they botched it.
Windows 7 has completely different purpose, which is to take the Vista stack and make it mature, more efficient, lean, and modular.
And the buttons, if you click them they "work". Those are not concept screenshots, they're screenshots from the current M3 build, which will be in the hands of the entire world less than two months from now.
Don't get too excited people. Remember that Microsoft is incapable of shifting an OS in the timescales that we've seen casually prognosticated.
You've missed two things: the Office release deadlines were never missed. The guy who handles the Office releases (Sinofski) is managing Windows now, and he was extremely clear that Windows 7 will be out Q1 2010, no setbacks, no delays, no messy communication, end of story.
By the beginning of 2010 Vista will have hit its sweet spot in terms of hardware, and the drivers will be mature. That would be the worst time of all to introduce Vista2. Look to about 2012 for the next version, once Vista has peaked.
For all practical purposes, Windows 7 is Vista SE, it uses the exact same driver model and has the exact same API-s, with the addition of some more (like multitouch) and eventual better support for virtualization.
If Vista's drivers will be mature in 2010, then Windows 7 drivers will be mature too, as they are the SAME drivers.
Visual updates and changes to inconsequential applications does not a solid basis for a new OS make.
I would like to see at least one --just ONE-- new piece of technology. WinFS much Microsoft!!!
I'm reminded of this comment from somewhere: 'Google isn't interested in Microsoft's 90s era technologies'.
Since you've been using Windows for so long, clarify for me if you share the same experience with explorer?
Do you find that with mapped network and optical drives, that essentially the 'pauses and hangs' or nuances of the OS's seem essentially identical (in some regards) to previous versions? Almost down to the millisecond, it honestly feels like the same code to me.
is it loaded with drm to its neck like vista ? will it come in 500 indistinguishable shitty flavors ? does it require min. 8 gig ram ?
Read radical news here
What's happening with Slashdot these days - I've always relied on it to keep me informed of technology and interesting news before anywhere else...
What the hell? What is the point of that? In what possible way could knowing something before others do improve your quality of life?
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
I think the delay in mapped network drives must be somewhere in the network stack--it's waiting 1/x seconds for the file server to respond. You're right, it could definitely survive just fine in another thread, somewhere nice and out of the way. It's an act of sheer braindeadedness that this component still acts like NT 4.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Chicago changed enough times that it makes up for the same effect. Also, 2000/Me, and 98 were really just different colour schemes; that might be so minor as to fall below the radar.
For kicks, here is a collection of them: ToastyTech's GUI Gallery (Windows page.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Who cares?
Apple (who is even more proprietary than Microsoft) has seen amazingly significant growth in their user base.
Desktop Linux (this is the year! again.) is growing.
People don't want to pay $200 for their operating system and another $400 (or more) for application software, just to write a few letters, surf the web, balance their checkbook and (maybe) run spreadsheets or create presentations. That's just not worth $600.
Ubuntu, Fedora, or what have you, and you get all this for free.
Vista (the OS that nobody wants) is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Windows 7 will suffer the same fate.
there are 3 kinds of people:
* those who can count
* those who can't
I don't want to put you down, but...
"having worked" implies (to me at least) that you are currently not working on that project anymore. You also state that there is both a 2000-XP kind of difference and a refined-version-of-vista difference. That, together with the fact that the product will not ship for some time (if MS' release history is kept in mind one could argue this would not happen before 2010), leaves me unimpressed.
Win7 might change considerably before being released.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
you're doing it wrong then.
Seriously - why do you need sudo 50 times a day?
If you do, then you're not exactly a beginner user - just go ahead and sudo -i and carry on as root if you know what you're doing enough to need root that often.
The problem with UAC isn't that it comes up when you change a setting - it's that it comes up at seemingly bizarre times, there's no grace period in which it remembers your authorisation, and it's often the final straw in a stream of (non UAC) "are you sure?" dialogues.
Advanced users are users too!
No. It brings to mind the vision of a middle-aged tea-lady with saggy brown stockings and curlers, smelling of stale bread and mildew, holding a large brightly-coloured banner saying "NEW!", while she coughs, spits, scratches her arse, and then falls down dead.
The question I'm waiting for the answer to is why should I upgrade from XP to Vista or Windows 7? Let's be honest, the main reason we all upgraded from 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 2000 to XP was because each successor in that line was more stable. Once we all upgraded to XP, it was very stable. Daily random blue screens, invalid page faults/general protection faults and applications hanging the machine infinitely to force a hard restart almost completely disappeared. On top of that, we could perform all major tasks with reasonable performance including connecting to the internet, use office productivity software, organize and access files in a reasonable way and don't forget about playing games. ;)
Now Windows Vista and 7 rolls along and as far as I can tell it doesn't offer me any significant enhancements to justify the upgrade. In fact, with the severely increased system requirements, it seems like I have to have a more powerful machine to do the same thing I could do yesterday. So, I pose the question to you, so-called Microsoft employee, why should I upgrade to Windows Vista or Windows 7?
I can understand that the simplified user interface is appealing to a broader market of people who are relatively computer-illiterate, so I can see why they would want this OS pre-loaded on their new Dell computer instead of XP to alleviate the learning curve. However, I can't see why any business who relies on using Windows XP would want to upgrade to either Windows Vista or 7 to increase worker productivity. It just doesn't make good business sense especially when you factoring in the cost of upgrading the PC's to run the OS. So, I leave it up to you to sell me on the product. Show me the flaws in my perception of Vista and 7.
We'll make great pets
The only thing they've really changed is to simultaneously improve and destroy the start menu.
Improve by adding a search function - destroy by creating that horrible scrolling monstrosity in which its possible to get utterly lost in a maze of scrolly, embedded menus until you give up and just search.
If they wanted search to be the main way to start programs, they should have just removed the "all programs" link entirely.
Cascading menus are MUCH easier to navigate and find things in than scrolling ones - even (or especially) if they cover the whole screen.
Advanced users are users too!
No matter how much you try to repackage and redesign a turd, it will still be a piece of shit when you're done.
You'd be surprised.
I know Microsoft is only producing Windows 7 because Vista has such a bad word of mouth, but I think they should just release Windows 7 as a new service pack for Vista. Obviously the leaked images look very similar already. That way I won't have to buy a new OS. ;)
You clearly don't work in Marketing.... ;-)
when the asus ee came out it heralded a revolution in computing - a genuine low cost device that would perform all the simple tasks asked off it with a long battery life and portable.
The original eeepc (pre-atom) does not have a long battery life. To get through a school day I spend all my time in a tty with vim with nearly everything else disabled. No X, no sound, no wifi, et al. (To preview LaTeX stuff I use imagemagick to convert it to a jpg than use ZGV to see it without X.) This is fine for me, but for Joe Sixpack the real-world hour-and-a-half battery life is pretty bad. Don't get me wrong, I love my eeepc - it's just that it's battery life is not one of it's strong points.
in the same way I like linux as it removes the vast majority of the worthless eye candy from a modern operating system.
Not really. Maybe most Linux distros don't actually focus on that, or require the disk space be wasted (is it possible to not just disable but remove Aero completely?), but Linux definitely has the worthless eye candy. When I don't care about the battery life, I can get my eeepc to show off bunches of worthless eye candy. I can get it to mimic Vista's Aero quite smoothly, for instance.
vista (for me) is the sum of everything I hate about modern operating systems - far too much eye candy and not enough substance.
Vista's marketing focus(ed) on Aero largely because that's what Joe Sixpack can understand. There was a lot of under-the-hood work with Vista. Many new security improvements, for instance. You can certainly make an argument about whether or not the under-the-hood improvements justify the high system requirements (even with Aero disabled), but don't act as though they are not there.
the newer aus ees and sub-notebooks are once again in a performance and features war. now 10" screens, now HDD not flash, battery life is shortening. and the price is rising.
The newer Asus eeepcs and other sub-notebooks are filling in other niches. The dirty-cheap original eeepc is still available for sale. Give the tech improvements some time - it's inevitable that the 9" screen eeepcs will have the same price as the original 7" with better performance across the board. And no, the battery life is not shortening significantly - the move to Atom improved the battery life. If you don't want the HDD Asus has higher-end eeepc's available with flash. The HDD is not required.
also the new distros have the same issue - I'm sure that KDE4 is the mutts nuts, but to me it is more eye candy that will slow my PC down and get in the way of what I want to do.
KDE4 actually lowers system requirements, even with the eye candy. There was an article on /. a ways back claiming 40% less RAM required, if I remember correctly.
if you do not like the WM then simply install another. with MS you get windows shoveled down your throat if you want it or not.
Okay, here I agree with you. Unix(-like) OS's have a lot more options for things like WM's.
for all the new technology and better software I would much rather see the focus on delivering more stable, faster, leaner systems that run on cheaper hardware more reliably on longer. I am totally disinterested in eye candy, effects, and features that add nothing in the way of functionality yet remove a lot in the way of performance. I just think their focus is seriously wrong.
The focus isn't on the eyecandy, just the marketing. As much as I dislike MS, I'll give them this: they're at least trying to improve things other than the eyecandy.
I agree with what you're trying to say - eyecandy should take a backseat to functionality and system requirements. It's just that nearly all of your individual points are quite a bit off the mark.
"A witty saying proves nothing." - Voltaire
If you're not interested in screenshots you probably shouldn't read articles about screenshots. Just a thought.
Windows fanboy Paul Thurrott has a Windows 7 FAQ, which says there will be complete support for touch-screens (Bill is still all about them tablet PCs), a new Explorer UI, virtualization out of the box and once again they are talking about file system improvements, but I'll believe that when I see it. Basically this release looks like a more limited, like Windows XP, rather than a major update like Windows 2000 and Vista.
Yeah, for those that want a bitch of an OS. :-P
home
Hmm, it looks like more turd polishing and the problem is that underneath it is still Vista. As far as desktops go, I prefer KDE.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I love it when people rail against the word "blog" while commenting on one. Do not realize that /. is a blog? Or were you actually of the understanding that blogs were just emo's cutting themselves with text online?
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
In fact I probably type sudo then my password at least 50 times a day.
You're an idiot for not running as root. There, I said it.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
"The cancel or allow bullshit comes up, in general, because some crappy program is trying to do something which really does require elevation."
Disclaimer - Limited use if Vista here, supporting 3rd parties. Hence disabling UAC isn't really an option.
Have you tried viewing the devices in Device Manager (I was doing this to see whether a wireless card was being detected on a laptop)? This elicits not one but TWO UAC prompts. And this is without actually making a change to any of the config - just to view what's connected. Not a third party app, but a core MS tool.
If MS wanted some sanity, device manager would be launched read-only without prompting, and you'd only be prompted if you wanted to make changes to the machine's config. There's no reason that I can think of that any user (and in particular any user with the new admin-lite credentials Vista introduced) shouldn't be able to read the properties of their hardware.
Another UI pain that I've encountered on a couple of occasions is the redesign of the networking control panels. Don't get me started on configuring static IP addresses on the bl00dy thing. Christ, it was easier to drop to command prompt and use netsh than find where they'd hidden the properties.
I'm aware that people who just use the machine are probably able to go months without seeing a UAC prompt. For me (who is normally asked to fix things when it all goes wrong) the whole thing is an unmitigated irritation.
Just my £0.02.
"Overall, the screenshots show a distinctly Vista-like interface..."
Anyone else thinking that Windows 7 is another Mojave?
It *is* an improvement, but could arguably be described as a refined and matured version of Vista, with a couple new features. It's a bigger change, especially from the user perspective, than XP RTM to XP SP2, but much smaller than XP SP2 to Vista.
Well, thats my point, really. Because of the stigma around Vista, instead of releasing some good service packs for Vista, they're rolling them up, adding a few new features they were working on that don't belong in a service pack (like the UI changes), and calling it a new release... Because at this point the Vista brand is hopeless, and they need to move on.
I'm not criticizing that as a business decision. It's a logical thing to do, from where they are. I'm just astounded that they've screwed up their PR and marketing of Vista so badly that they've had to resort to this. Normally they manage to pull off their overpromise and underdeliver cycle smoothly enough that after some initial backlash (Protesters at the 98SE launch come to mind...) people calm down and just buy it. Not this time...
Looks like the screenshots have been removed. If you follow the link from the PC Authority article you get a 404, and they are nowhere to be found from the direct link.
You can easily set sudo to not require a password: /etc/sudoers
# Members of the admin group may gain root privileges
%admin ALL=(ALL) NOPASSWD: ALL
Problem solved. Also lets not forget that Linux doesn't have a bazillion EULA dialogs and what not, UAC adds annoying clickery on top something which is already terrible annoying.
So let me ask you, what would you, in all your wisdom, do if you woke up tommorow as the product manager of Windows tommorow?
Heroin.
But to make this problem go away for good, I'd support doing this. The brand is screwed, and they just have to move on. Getting a real, significant release out would be better, but MicroSoft's never been able to get their major releases out quickly, so they have to ship a stopgap.
I don't think it's a bad decision from a business perspective, given where they are. I'm just surprised their marketing guys let them get into this mess.
"UAC by default now elevates without prompting for Microsoft-signed executables"
Say what????
You mean that if somebody can figure out how to forge a microsoft signature or infect a signed file they can get carte blance access to your machine.
Wouldnt a more sensible policy be to allow users to install programs in a sandbox area and then have a "program firewall" of sorts in windows filter the requests the programs make to keep bad behaving programs out of sensitive areas.
They kind of have: They've said that the system requirements are pretty much going to be the same as Vista. http://www.google.ca/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=windows+7+system+requirements&meta=
So, even if Vista was targeting current (2006) machines and wouldn't work well on old ones, then Windows 7 will work ok on machines up to three or four years old when it's released.
- ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
They've had a takedown notice, as it seems did YouTube:
http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2281
What's the difference between vista and windows 7?
Lipstick.
I seem to recall Microsoft like that idea so much that they paid their former CEO a huge amount of money to look at you, wag his tail, and walk away.
Delicious!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the entry on the screenshots on http://www.thinknext.net/ blog has already been squelched at the behest of Microsoft minions.
Are we ever going to get that?
I could give a shit about the GUI bells and whistles, that's for stroke artists with the see-through computer cases that glow in the dark.
But booting from USB sticks or drives would be a really worthwhile feature.
1) 64 bit operating system for all versions- We need an operating system that will support more than 4 gigs
2) built in 32 and 16 bit "virtual machines for dummies" for backwards compatibility- You wanna run some cool DOS game from 1996 okay...we'll run it in a virtual machine with all hardware calls emulated. With virtual machines there is no reason for any software to be abandoned.
3) You wanna make your system look like XP or 2000 or windows 3.1...we can do that.
4) Proper Multi-core thread management, windows assigns background processess to its own core, leaving other cores free to run programs at full speed.
5) Clear and honest system requirements... 2gb of memory , at least a dual core 64 bit processor, a graphics card with at least 128mb of memory.
Microsoft doesnt seem to understand if they give people a reason to upgrade, they will upgrade.
One other thing microsoft ought to do,
discard vista completely and resume sales of Windows XP with proper system updates, perhaps even a "Windows XP2" they can even sell the upgrade for $20 like they did with Windows 98 SE. make it modernized for netbooks and lower end machines with newer tech that wont wont run Windows 7.
You mean that if somebody can figure out how to forge a microsoft signature or infect a signed file they can get carte blance access to your machine.
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no concept on how certificates and signing works.
Read up on certificates and signing code, then come back and say you're sorry.
So when MS promises hat the next version of Windows will have X, I can take that to mean that in thirteen years it will have most of X?
Good to know.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
But /. is so unlike the typical blog that nobody would think of it as one if not for the FAQs.
But does it still support DRM (Trusted Computing or whatever)? Because so long as it does, I'm never going to switch, nor recommend anyone I know to switch from XP.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
This would require for Microsoft to make regular people and not big Media Corporations their Customer again though.
"So, as I said, I'll stay with Ubuntu, because if nothing else, at least it runs on my machine with only 512 MB of ram. (I'm poor, and it works, why would I upgrade?)"
TinyXP is nice for those who don't need all the extras. There's also a Vista version.
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
From someone who doesn't hate Vista this looks interesting. Until some public beta testing really begins (not the release) then the tell tale sign will begin. I use Vista 64 bit and love it. Of course I built my spec'd machine to run it. An no I am not a M$ fanboy as I also use Linux at work and home as well. Kubuntu linux is my favorite Linux desktop. I won't be in any hurry to update windows to 7. Vista now that SP1 is out and the latest updates has really run well for me. I game on it with no issues but will not jump at the next windows OS. Took me almost a year to jump to Vista and at first with the 32 bit basic edition on a single core cpu and a gig of ram hated it.
Ah you mean the Snappy Teh For Unix!?
I doubt whether it was originally intended as such, but I'm betting that the utter failure of Vista is going to mean Windows 7 will be rushed into production long before it's ready, and in a completely different form that what was originally conceived.
In short, I suspect Windows 7 will wind up being The Pig That Is Vista with lipstick...probably eye-liner and blush, too.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Actually, the basic "look and feel" of the early Windows Chicago alpha versions from late 2003 didn't change much to the final Window 95 version that came out August 2005. Microsoft was actually taking a huge risk here because it was such a radical change in regards to the GUI interface compared to the MS-DOS 5.x/6.x and Windows 3.1x combination.
I just put Vista SP1 on an older tablet and I am really, really happy with its performance and stability - no bugchecks, no major appcompat issues, only minor difficulties tracking down drivers. With the OEM's XP/Tablet PC 2005 install, I had significant problems with the input panel, suspend/hibernate, and offline files - all of which are working perfectly in Vista on the same hardware. I can't get the light sensor or the fingerprint scanner to work, and the built in STAC97 audio device won't switch off the laptop's speakers when I connect headphones - but for real work, this tablet is working much better with Vista than with XP.
We could both rant about bloat, but hey, this is Windows - seriously, what do you expect? If I wanted light, lean, and mean, I'd run FreeBSD, with none of that X Windows crap, either - GUIs on Unix are for weenies. ;)
At work, I'm pushing to upgrade just because of UAC. I would have revoked admin rights from our XP users if Run As wasn't such a total pain in the ass. Of course, driver hell isn't worth it, so we're only going to phase Vista in as we replace hardware.
Of course, this is all just my opinion.
I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage
Desktop Linux will not continue to grow until somebody gets the UI out of diapers.
The UI isn't the problem these days. The problem is the software installation model. And going with the Windows installer model isn't going to help... Windows and the traditional UNIX models both share a huge bundle of problems that Linux distros try to avoid by having installation driven from a central repository, and Microsoft solves by brute force: monitoring the system and forcing shared files to the "right" version when installers override them. Going with the Microsoft installer model won't cut it, because not only does that require more brute force than any distro can afford to spend, but there's no central authority that can decide on the "right version". Yes, versioned libraries reduce the problems to some extent, but there's no consistent versioning model for executables and other shared files... so you still have to deal with the fact that EVERYONE can't be /usr/bin/perl.
THe NeXTstep application model, where the applications and libraries are distributed in directories, with shared files resolved at run time wherever those appdirs are found, is a more practical path for the long term. It's what OS X inherited and it's a big part of why OS X has a working software ecosystem. It doesn't matter whether it inherited the Mac OS user base or not, if application developers had to deal with DLL Hell or RPM Hell that would have dried up long since.
But it kept asking me 'if I really wanted to do that, then it asked for my admin password, then it asked if I really wanted to enter my password, then it told me I needed to authorize my admin account to approve admin tasks, but first I had to validate my activation.
when I did finally get a chance to see it, all that was there was a giant blue screen...asking for permission to crash. I clicked yes.
What's really sad is...I'm a Microsoft fan (duck).
ed duval the very last person
Tip: With ram at around $20 a gig, the people running around screaming that Vista won't run on ten bucks (512meg) of RAM should probably not be considering a $200 OS. It doesnt run on the free toy you get with a happy meal either.
The problem with that logic is that there are competing operating systems which will happily run on "ten bucks of RAM" and do everything Vista will do. Its not that RAM is expensive, its that Vista wastes the RAM it has on stuff that users don't want. I don't want a bunch of trusted computing threads watching to make sure I don't dare watch a movie I paid for on a monitor I paid for. I don't want threads making sure the audio I listen to is being played on Microsoft Approved High Security DRM+ Speakers. I want the OS I buy to use the hardware I buy to do the things I want it to be doing. That's why I switched to Debian years ago and haven't looked back.
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
I hope all the minor glitches in classic mode have been fixed. I've read here (but now can't find the link) about classic mode having inconsistencies with icons lining up etc which makes it annoying.
taking a page out of Linux's/Open Source's play book, what's their point? To make windows soooo less bloated as to scream past industry would-be critics? Compared to Linux/Open Source, users/installers ALWAYS have the choice of what and how much and which versions of any given app to install or defer until after initial installation. Best of all, while not all L/OS apps are necessarily functional, nor world-calls, nor commercially-polished, many get scrutiny beyond the walls of their creators, and run on MULTIPLE dozens of variations of Linux, some even having OS-agnostic counterparts.
I wonder if w7 will come weighing in at under 500 MB, or still be 7 GB, most of it being registry cubbyholes for as-yet/not-yet-created twinkle-in-the-eye windows apps, for virtualization/security/national security apps.
OTOH, this *might* be an attempt to "look like" "Commercial Open Source", to look like they know how to evolve, while at the same time trying to "pull a Stanford Graduate School Of Business-like" compete with Open Source and deny O/S entry into the market...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
But you still have a PIG!
Great - Windows 7 - (It's Vista with a new look - we just changed the name!)
The Truth is a Virus!!!
It doesnt run on the free toy you get with a happy meal either.
Then what OS should an ultra-low-cost PC run?
iAbacus !!!
It's all I use
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire.
tell me it doesn't NEED antivirus
What would prevent a virus running in your user space from modifying all the programs that you have installed to your user space? The only solutions I can see are 1. code signing, which discriminates against free software and low-budget proprietary software, and 2. creating the equivalent of a separate user for each program. I know the Wii game console's operating system does both 1 and 2; are you recommending that Windows do the same thing?
Well that's just it. I *like* Vista's design. I love the tools included, my only real complaint is in stupid little things. 4GB RAM limit For instance, I mean geesh, 32-bit Linux has addressed more for over a decade now. The DRM, absolutelty unecessary in 90% of the cases I bump into it. Shoot, I develop hardware for fun, I am not shelling out several hundred each time I tweak an FPGA.
If I could buy Vista w/o DRM and which allows me full access to my RAM, I'd be a happy camper. Most of the other issues have been fixed with updates.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
I agree with most of your ideas, I did wish they had application install like OS X. And vista does have a menu for changing startup programs without having to type msconfig. start->control panel->performance information and tools->manage startup programs.
Well, as a small business owner, I use "treacherous computing" to do full drive encryption, and it locks anyone out of the bios or booting from another drive/device. So I would rather they didn't take it out. If you don't like it so much, contact your favorite laptop manufacturer, but most add it as a feature, not as a spy device.
A) I agree, but right now I am using a Sony rental laptop with vista with 1 gig of ram and it is painfully slow.
B) It still activates way too much
C) I meant in general, as any new OS should implement at least some security updates
That's fairly debatable: I'd say that the decision to integrate the start buttons into one, completely changing around the titlebar widgets, and the removal of launcher capability from the task bar itself (some screenshots show what appears to be an empty text box where the task list would normally be) might constitute a fairly considerable change. It's certainly not the same as Whistler's Watercolor scheme being replaced by XP's Luna scheme, or Longhorn's Plex being replaced by Aero, but it a considerable reworking of their approach towards the user experience took place during that period. (Also note some screenshots with diamond-shaped radio buttons and others with an extra black outline feature on the start button.)
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Apple's look-and-feel lawsuit was lost, giving Microsoft a free pass to copy as much of Apple's design as they wanted.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
That's maybe a little bit nuts. I would say that the blame lies with NetBIOS and timeouts inappropriately high in SMB.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I was a summer intern. I was implying that XP is also basically just a refined 2000; aside from the look and feel, it's a remarkably similar OS overall. In particular, the biggest differences that come to mind at XP's release time were the fast user switching and system restore (there were others, of course, but it's hard to remember much else that was very new and exciting).
We (the team I was on) were running Win7 on most of our machines, including production boxes, by the end of my internship. I won't claim it's ready to ship yet, but it's easily within a year. It certainly may change in several significant ways before release - there was a substantial (if behind-the-scenes) feature cut while I was there - but for the most part it's already usable and entering the heavy bug-fixing stage, rather than still in the feature development stage.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Forging the MS code-signing signature would mean determining their secret key, which even if they use the older key length which is being phased out right now would probably take thousands of CPU-years.
Modifying the binary on disk won't work either. The hash would change, which would make the signature invalid. (In fact, forget UAC; Windows will complain bitterly if you modify its system files.)
Exploiting a signed binary would work, but between DEP, ASLR (both of which are always enabled for system binaries), and intense manual and automatic code review, that's been very difficult and rare in Vista.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
apache can no more wipe my home directory that a user can wipe apache's dir (or even read from it!).
Then how does the webmaster authorize the system to copy files into Apache's directory?
[A web browser] needs to save files in a scratch space that nobody cares about (so deny executable status there) and possibly have a download location
How would the user authorize other applications to read and write the files that IE has downloaded? And in the other direction, how would the user authorize a web browser to upload photos that belong to the image editor's virtual user?
The IE program itself DOES NOT need to run those downloaded programs. That's for the user or for a library function that IE can call to decide.
IE already calls a library function to start executables: ShellExecute(). How would you restrict that? Besides, what would prevent the user from downloading and choosing to run a harmful web browser extension such as CWS?
(oh no, the malware might read my saved bookmarks)
Except that's exactly what people want to block spyware from doing.
And the users automatically get a *real* Add/Remove Programs - one click and not only the program but *all* its files, all its processes, etc. are gone.
And you'd lose all the images you ever edited with Paint Shop Pro, Photoshop Elements, or GIMP before trading it in for another image editor.
Well, since code signing is part of Trusted Computing, I can assure you that part is still present. As for *media* DRM, I can't say - but I've used Vista for years, as a gamer and as somebody who likes music and movies, and I've had no DRM-releated issues in the least.
Peter Gutmann's article, which I'm guessing you've read and based the above opinion on, was full of crock. It was blatantly obvious when he wrote it that he had never even tried to do his research properly - some of the stuff he described as outright impossible due to DRM worked just fine (unified video drivers for different GPU models, for example), and other things he claimed would happen never did (all audio and video getting downgraded just because you're playing a .mp3 through a non-protected path). He's revised it a few times, removing some of the more patently false BS, but it still reads like BS anyhow.
To reiterate my above point: I've had NO issues stemming from DRM on my system. I don't have Blu-Ray or anything REALLY badly DRMed, but XP won't play those anyhow. The key issue is that everything I tried to do in XP also works in Vista.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Full access to RAM: you need to enable PAE. The reason it is disabled by default (on Windows and on every Linux distro I've tried - over a dozen by now - in the default kernel) is that many 32-bit drivers assume that they're operating in a 32-bit address space, and die in unpleasant ways when there are over 4GB of addressable RAM.
To enable PAE, look up bcdedit (command lone tool for setting Vista's boot parameters, equivalent to editing grub.conf to change the init or kernel parameters on Linux). You don't need a new kernel, though I think the home editions won't allow PAE. Out of curiosity, if you've got so much RAM, why not run 64 bit? PAE is a godawful hack anyhow, and if you need to run 16-bit apps there's DosBox or virtualization...
What DRM have you run into? I can't say I've hit that one at all, and I've used Vista (including listening to and ripping music, watching movies, and playing games) for over 2 years now.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
(...) there was a substantial (if behind-the-scenes) feature cut while I was there.
It seems your being there did not result in any behavioural change within the company; feature cuts are commonplace within MS before it seems to be able to ship its OSes. Did the feature cut by any chance include that ol' slashdot favorite, winfs?
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
it will remain an inferior interface, even compared to OS 9 -- in fact 9 beats X in a few interface aspects.
I believe the phrase that comes to mind is "lol". Mac OS 9 had the worst goddamn user interface I've ever seen. I sincerely hope that whoever designed some of those things (like the fscking drop-down menu to switch which application has its menu bar showing, not to mention that having only one menu bar is horrible UI design all by itself) never has a job doing anything with computers again.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
64-bit doesn't support a lot of drivers as of yet, so no point migrating till I can run my hardware. As for DRM, if you lack a rights-signed driver, in the 64-bit version of Vista you cannot install the driver. And the cost for a signature is not within the reach of the hobbyist.
I run into it precisely because I build hardware for a hobby.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Hm, maybe you should read up a bit :)
http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0104.html#7
It happened in 2001... doesn't mean it can't happen again -- the attack was purely social engineering.
Well, I misread the title as "Windows 7 blue screen shots leaked" and I thought "Oh, man, that's not a good sign..."
I don't read articles about screenshots, and I don't care about Windows very much, in fact; I am just bombarded by it from sites such as Slashdot and OSNews. But, out of curiosity, I do wonder what else will be new in Windows, because these articles keep talking about GUI, that's all. So - thanks for this info.
Apologies, it looks like the original picture which I linked has been removed, I'm sure the Windows 7 images are floating out there somewhere or have been linked in another thread here.
Either way it was the explorer view, essentially identical and as convolouted as Vistas one :/
Good point. If people don't have enough memory to run WoW after the operating system loads, they'll go apeshit.
Quiet fool! If they can't flog this dead horse, they'll just find something else.
Celebrity worship is a poor substitute for Deity worship and costs more to boot.
You're saying that Microsoft is going to get tricked into giving out their self-signed root certificate to an untrusted third party and then not revoke it in time to prevent a disaster?
Yeah, and Steve Jobs will be the next CEO of Microsoft.
The social engineering scenario really only applies if you involve third parties, if you write the OS, and you self sign, you pretty much own the entire process. You would need a massive security breech at Microsoft, and in that case, you might as well just pump the malware down through automatic updates, the cert signing won't matter.
So basically:
You mean that if somebody can figure out how to forge a microsoft signature or infect a signed file they can get carte blance access to your machine.
...is not happening.
Actually, if you read the link I posted, it mentioned that there was no revocation mechanism in place for that particular scenario.
"LOL" indeed comes to mind when you regard the single menu bar as an error, althought it clearly is the superior design.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Wow. Linking to a source that tries to break UI design down into universally applicable rules is an instant fail. UI design is like art, it's highly subjective, and what works for one person does not work for another... and better still, because of that subjectivity, no one can be wrong, and there are no universal rules.
The single menu bar, I'll say again, is terrible design in my opinion. It's highly confusing, because you work in the window, not the "window+this area at the top of the screen". It's far clearer what's going on if the window is self-contained. Apple fails, basically.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Isn't that what Apple's doing with 10.6 too? Maturation...?
It's not confusing at all, and makes perfect sense if you try to see the "desktop metaphor" more literally. I mean, imagine the whole screen as an art desk; on it there are cups with pens, erasers, rulers, and other tools - the menus and other palletes. Put a sheet of paper on the desk - that is a window. Now, how do you draw? The Mac way, you pick each tool as needed, then return it to its place; or the Windows way, you pick all the tools you may need and put them around the paper sheet.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Uh... I'm no artist, so I won't speak to that, but the Windows way, as you describe it, is actually how I work. I grab any tools I think I'll need, spread them out on my work area, and go to town. If I need more, I grab more, and leave those sitting on my work area as well. So, if anything, you're lending support to the statement that the Mac way is awful for the way certain people like to work.
"16MB (fuck off, MiB fascists)" - The Mighty Buzzard
Then don't purchase and attempt to play content which requires protected media path. DUIIIEEE.
I don't use those features either. I'm kinda happy they are there - I know at some stage I'm going to end up with a blu-ray super DRM++ disk in my hand, and I'm going to be able to play it, with x% overhead because of some shitty DRM system.
Sounds like when your hot friend comes around with "this, like, totally cool movie I want to watch with you", then you are going to give her a lecture on the evils of DRM, and how Debian is more Free.
I, on the other hand, will be giving her a seat on the couch, some popcorn, and my cock.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Ah!
64-bit drivers have actually become far more common, to the point where anything on my system and all the peripherals I use even once a week have them - I'm sure there's still some stuff you'd like to use which doesn't, though.
I suppose the driver signing restriction is sort of DRM, but not what I think of when somebody refers to DRM. In any case, I believe you can get around this by importing your own root certificate into the certificate store, then signing all your drivers with that cert (or one derived from it). I can't say I've tried it, though.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
The main "must have" UI feature in Vista (for me) is the instant search. I literally can't stand to use XP anymore due to it lacking this - there are various installable search tools but none are as well integrated.
The primary *important* reason to upgrade is the security. Not only has Vista proven far more robust than previous versions of Windows (not immune, but no OS is), but it's finally possible to use NT like the multi-user OS it is, applying the principle of least privilege to user accounts without needing to do all manner of truly stupid shit with RunAs.
The best performance reason to upgrade would have to be SuperFetch - my programs load much faster, with little to no disk thrashing, on Vista then they did on XP.
As for "so-called Microsoft employee" I was a summer intern and am now back at school, but while there I worked in the Win7 group.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Based on moderation, looks like Microsoft's PR department is also modding things down on Slashdot again.
I don't want a bunch of trusted computing threads watching to make sure I don't dare watch a movie I paid for on a monitor I paid for. I don't want threads making sure the audio I listen to is being played on Microsoft Approved High Security DRM+ Speakers.
I'm not a MS fanboy, but I have been using Vista for over a year. Vista doesn't stop me from watching anything, or burning dvd copies for that matter. Vista has no idea about what sort of speakers I normally use, but it is actually smart enough to switch audio output to my usb headset when I plug it in.
It does the things I want to do on the hardware I want it to. Do you have a real-life example to the contrary? I'm not being snotty, just curious.
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
I'm baffled as to why anyone would care what Windows 7 may or may not look like. It's vaporware. But even when it gets close to shipping, why would you care? Windows is junk. I'll be honest... I'm not a Windows fan. As of about a year and a half ago, I abandoned Windows and now never use it by choice. Of the major operating systems (Windows, OS X, Linux, Unix) Windows is the worst in every way. Why use it when you have better options?
Your original claim:
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no concept on how certificates and signing works.
is full of smugness about the strength of certificates and public-key crypto. I agree that *if* a public-key crypto scheme is implemented 100% securely, it is in fact likely to be unforge-able during our lifetimes.
All I am pointing out is that Microsoft has made horrific gaffes in this space in the past. Your confidence that "they screwed it up once, they learned from it, and then they battened down all the hatches and sealed it up correctly" seems overwrought. I don't know why you are so confident that Microsoft can build an uncrackable system. Crypto is notoriously difficult to implement correctly, and Microsoft has a history of introducing bugs into their code. Not that I can necessarily blame them--they build *huge* systems, so bugs are bound to creep in there. But the bugs are real and they have real effects on end-users. The fact that you're calling it "not your typical PKI setup" makes it sound like there's even more potential for bugs -- if there isn't a robust implementation already tested for years, then how do they know they've implemented it 100% perfectly?
Maybe you will consider me too much of a skeptic, but I've seen enough stupid bugs in enough products that I can't be anything else, especially when it comes to crypto.
(Hell, just yesterday we saw someone who managed to dump the contents of his USB key into an installer disk. How do we know that the "microsoft-priv.pem" file won't share a similar fate? If it even takes 72 hours for Microsoft to discover the problem and revoke the key, that's enough for potentially hundreds of thousands of people to be infected without their knowledge. Likely? Not really. Possible? I can't rule it out.)
Vista doesn't stop me from watching anything, or burning dvd copies for that matter.
I don't have personal experiences with it as I switched completely to Linux long ago. However, there are numerous examples on the web:
A good technical overview of the stuff your computer is doing *other* than what you want it to do: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html
A real-world example of that stuff hurting a real user: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/01/03/2339248
Vista DRM breaking apple content: http://www.saschameinrath.com/2007feb04windows_vista_drm_turning_ipods_into_doorstops_since_2007
A quick google for "vista drm" will show many more.
I'm glad you haven't yet run into problems and its true that some users never will. However, Vista is still using your hardware to watch what you do at the expense of using that hardware for what you are trying to do. Even if you never run into a file you can't play, the cost to you in efficiency or in monetary terms is far above zero.
The price you paid for Vista included the cost of developing the DRM schemes that are only used to limit you. The ram and cpu Vista uses enforcing those schemes is ram and cpu that you could be using to do a useful task.
Its sort of like your neighbor stealing your bandwidth via wifi.You may not notice that you aren't getting your full bandwidth, but that doesn't mean it isn't making you wait a few seconds longer for that download, or get a little more lag playing the latest and greatest game. In this case, your nosy neighbor is watching everything you do so they can stop you if you do anything they don't like - and you are paying them for the privilege.
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
Then don't purchase and attempt to play content which requires protected media path.
Once again, your logic is clearly flawed. You assume that users who choose not to purchase certain content won't be affected. The reality is that users have absolutely no say over what the system decides to block. Its closed source and Microsoft could change the rules or completely pull the plug at any time. Here is an example of a user with every right to view their content not being allowed to do so because of Vista DRM: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/04/vista.drm.and.netflix/
I'm kinda happy they are there - I know at some stage I'm going to end up with a blu-ray super DRM++ disk in my hand, and I'm going to be able to play it, with x% overhead because of some shitty DRM system.
We disagree there. I'll be able to enjoy the same content, but without the overhead. DRM is, by definition, broken. Read up on the fundamentals of encryption and DRM. Besides, you have no such guarantee. What you mean is that you are going to be able to play it so long as Microsoft decides to let you. They could decide tomorrow that only Microsoft's implementation of HDCP is to be trusted and require that all users by Microsoft flat panels at a 200% premium over other manufacturers in order to view some format.
Such things don't concern me as I have complete control over my computer. Microsoft has control over yours - they just let you use it sometimes.
Sounds like when your hot friend comes around
...
My wife uses Linux. Besides, I'm not willing to sacrifice my principles for sex. If you are, then I suggest you reconsider your position in that regard.
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
Your original claim:
Spoken like someone who has absolutely no concept on how certificates and signing works.
is full of smugness about the strength of certificates and public-key crypto. I agree that *if* a public-key crypto scheme is implemented 100% securely, it is in fact likely to be unforge-able during our lifetimes.
My original claim was a direct response to:
You mean that if somebody can figure out how to forge a microsoft signature or infect a signed file they can get carte blance access to your machine.
Which is not going to happen.
The Verisign/Microsoft fiasco has no bearing on the design of Microsoft to sign binaries and allow signed binaries access. They both used certificates, that's about it and it's not relevant to this topic.
The setup Microsoft is proposing is not a traditional PKI (Public Key) because there's no key authority outside of Microsoft. There is no third party, it's Microsoft along the entire certificate chain. I don't see how anyone could consider this a potential security hole. If someone is going to get in, they'll get in through another bug. They're not going to fake a signature, nor are they going to modify a signed binary without altering the signature.
Did you RTFA? The user was never able to play HD content. The content he purchased required a protected media path to play in HD. He purchased a new television which did not support HDCP. He then attempted to play the content on a non-PMP setup, and acted surprised when he couldnt.
This was not a Vista problem. The user should have chosen to purchase non-DRM content.
Aside from your paranoid ramblings of how MS might choose to stop just putting in the minimum level DRM to keep the content owners happy, and go with some crazy take over the world scheme, and somehow get their keys revoked for all future hi-def releases...
I doubt you ever exercise your "control". I have never, in the entire time I have used Windows or Linux been slightly tempted to make modifications to the source code (and I contract for a large enough company that we have access to the Windows source as well). My time is worth more than that.
Your "control" is a warm fuzzy blanket that undoubtably helps with your unjustified paranoia that Microsoft is the big bogeyman that is out to get you. You think a company that size is going to listen to a bunch of loonies over probably 99% of their home customers want the option of playing the latest HD movies?
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Did you RTFA? The user was never able to play HD content.
Exactly. He had a computer capable of playing it. He had a monitor capable of displaying it. DRM prevented him from doing it. This is a classic example of your computer doing something against your best interest.
I doubt you ever exercise your "control".
Wrong. I compile stuff from source regularly and occasionally tweak them to fit my needs. Just the other day I modified SiPie as I prefer to record streaming Sirius to disk rather than listen to it as SiPie receives it. I am dabbling in Microcontroller programming and having low-level access to hardware can be beneficial there.
Your "control" is a warm fuzzy blanket that undoubtably helps with your unjustified paranoia
Remember that when MS decides its no longer profitable to support Vista's activation servers and your $200 operating system becomes a coaster.
You think a company that size is going to listen to a bunch of loonies over probably 99% of their home customers
No, but I do believe that a company that size will listen to other megacorporations over probably 99% of their customers. MS controls 90+% of the home user market. If they wanted to stand up and fight for users, they could do so. However, as a company, their goal (rightfully) isn't to provide users with the best experience. Their goal is profit, and that sometimes means diminishing the users experience for the sake of corporate interests.
Users do not want DRM. It does not benefit them in any way.
Microsoft is the big bogeyman that is out to get you.
Not at all, actually. Microsoft is out to make money. I don't fault them for that, I simply choose to put my interests ahead of theirs. If Microsoft were to provide an open source product tomorrow that was DRM free, I'd check it out. If it was a good fit for one of my needs then I would have no issue paying for it.
I am not trying to convert you. If you are happy living within the box Microsoft defines, then I wish you well. I'm not happy living within that box, so I chose open source.
The key point here is that you appear to think you understand the parameters of that box, have enough faith in Microsoft to trust that they won't shrink it or end it, and are deciding to accept the box in whatever form they choose. You are well within your rights to make that choice - I just happen to think its foolish.
The typical user, however, doesn't even know the box exists. They don't get a clear warning when they buy their shiny new PC that it will obey the MPAA before it obeys them. Even if they did, the fact that its closed source means that Microsoft can change the rules any time they want. That is the total lack of control I choose to avoid.
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
Very informative. Thanks for the info!
What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
I completely agree that DRM is a terrible idea. I don't choose DRM media. I do have an OS that is capable of playing it, but I don't use that feature, as it plays non-DRM content quite well (thank-you TPB).
The parameters of the box that I'm in are fairly well defined, and I do have faith that MS won't shrink it (for commercial reasons). (When it comes to "playback of hi-def movies" MS controls a tiny tiny percent of that market, btw).
The main point is that at any time I can change to a new box, open or otherwise. I'll be picking the platform that gives me the lowest friction when I use it, frankly none of the Free alternatives I have used in the past have lasted longer than a week before I had to delve into a config file (and yes, I'm a programmer, I just prefer to do that at work, when I'm getting paid).
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.