Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Considers "Instant On" Windows
Barence writes "In what might be a glimpse of things to come in Windows 7, Microsoft is asking customers whether they would be interested in a new 'Instant-on' version of Windows. 'We would like your feedback on a new concept,' the Microsoft survey states. 'The Instant On experience is different from "Full Windows" because it limits what activities you can do and what applications you can have access to.' Sounds interesting but hardly new: Asus and Dell have produced laptops that provide swift access to apps and data using Linux subsystems."
In all honesty, I love the multiple minutes it takes to bring up windows now. Instant on would be a detriment.
ANYTHING that Windows wants to do to improve sucks and linux has already done it, done it better, cured cancer, etc.
/. that isn't a "me too, me too" Microsoft sucks, Linux is good person?
Seriously is there anyone on
Jesus this is like Digg more and more everyday.
OK bitches mod me down now.
Certainly there must be a way to offer these "instant on" apps while the rest of the subsystems load in the background. And if that's true then there's no need for an option, just always do it. It sounds like it's only an all-or-nothing proposition because they're copying the way others are currently doing it.
Developers: We can use your help.
Instant on is useless if you can't do everything you want; which is what this is.
How about an don't need to reboot version?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Why is it that Microsoft has no original ideas of their own?"
One could very well ask FOSS the same question. Any takers?
"The worse part of this whole thing is, Microsoft convinces the public that their idea is something new!!!"
Like Apple?
Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
But I can think of plenty of reasons to turn a notebook off. For example, a kernel update (we get those a lot in Fedora). Or a hardware upgrade. Or a low battery. Or extended storage. Or, if you are using a dual-boot system, to switch OSes.
Palm trees and 8
The very fact that Microsoft as an organization cannot see that an "instant on" operating system would be a really, really major boon for them (my god, its so obvious my CAT is nodding) casts the entire company in a very, very bleak light.
The only practical way this will ever work is coercing hardware manufacturers to stick to more specific standards. In practice, ACPI hasn't solved it.
People always claim that FOSS (usually they just mean Linux, and in particular the KDE and GNOME desktops) just copies Microsoft and/or Apple, so "where's the innovation".
Well, this is where. FOSS made it possible for Asus and Dell to think about instant on computing. With Windows, you'd only have it if Microsoft came up with the idea. With Linux, anyone is free to come up with the idea. Even people not associated with Linux development per se.
That's what open source innovation is about. Providing the freedom to innovate. Yes Linux is still playing catchup (to a limited extent these days) in matching mainstream desktop functionality and in keeping up with all the closed de-facto 'standards' that keep appearing due to the fact that the marketplace is still a heavily distorted Monopoly dominated one.
So don't expect a new desktop paradigm (which most people probably don't even want). But expect a host of new devices (EeePC, Android, TiVo, etc) made possible by the true open source innovation - freedom to reuse.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
I imagine in most cases it's the login rather than the boot itself that takes the time....
After reading your journal entry, I'm a little confused on how you believe Microsoft "intentionally sabotaged" power management under Linux? Of all the evidence presented in the Iowa case, surely you have something more specific than an email that proves nothing at all other than Bill Gates' reluctance to release something for free?
Also, if your claim that Microsoft somehow crippled ACPI (and/or APM) to hurt Linux... how come ACPI works as well (or as badly, depending on your hardware) as it does on Windows? Specifically, if Microsoft, *BSD and Linux all implement the same open standard, how is that intentional sabotage by "M$"?
And, going back to your journal entry, I see you never did reply to any of the posts that challenge your interpretation of this problem. Why is that?
Web2.0: I love when people Flickr my cuil and digg my boingboing until my google is reddit and I start to yahoo