Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Sets Loose Windows 7 Public Beta At CES
CWmike writes "The rumors turned out to be true. Microsoft will release a public beta this week of its next desktop operating system, Windows 7, hoping it will
address the problems that have made Windows Vista perhaps the least popular OS in its history. Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer will launch the beta during his speech at the start of the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas on Wednesday. Preston Gralla reviewed Windows 7 beta 1, noting 'Fast and stable, Beta 1 of Windows 7 unveils some intriguing user-interface improvements, including the much-anticipated new task bar.' MSDN and Technet subscribers should be able to get the public data tonight. The general public will have to wait until Friday."
...or doesn't it count because no one even tried to take it seriously?
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
So the bulk of the article gushes all over the taskbar, with a bit of Aero thrown in...
Are the pundits so brain dead that they don't know the difference between an OS and a UI? A taskbar is not an OS.
The koolaid must be good.....
I want to hear what they did with the DRM. I want to hear what they've done to make the system more stable under load. I want to hear that they now have a package manager, instead of DLL hell. I want to hear that drivers now ship with the OS, and I don't have to install 70 MB of bloatware just to "install" a keyboard.
Oh wait, but look at that icon on the taskbar..... Slurp, slurp, damn that koolaid tastes good.
I've played around with the leaked beta for a bit, and was actually pretty impressed. They've pretty much taken Vista, polished it up and threw in some nice UI tweaks so it doesn't feel like you're using Mojave. It's much snappier, and I really like the facelift given to apps like Paint and Wordpad. It won't be replacing Debian on my laptop any time soon, but it's a definite step in the right direction, which isn't something I'm able to say too often about Microsoft products.
Vista is smart enough not to spin up your disks constantly or do CPU-intensive busywork while on battery.
Then again, so is Windows 2000 and most flavors of Linux.
DATABASE WOW WOW
People with older 32-bit chip sets? Not everyone has a new computer. You do realize that most Linux distro's specifically offer 32-bit and 64-bit versions, don't you? How is that any different?
What I do know is that when I ran Vista 64 bit I was running a plethora of 32-bit applications. I do know that system-level drivers required 64-bit versions, but I had no issues finding those for my hardware. I don't anymore as I lost my MSDN subscription when my job changed, and frankly Vista isn't worth paying for when I have XP already, but it worked fine when I did.
Who the hell keeps posting this garbage? I thought Peter Guttman's paper was thoroughly debunked. But we still have some ignorant karmawhoring people who like to chant "DRM DRM DRM".
This space for rent.
You'd think so, but it's actually not true. I find it amazing myself, but UAC actually works. I work at a PC phone support center, and we get tons of calls about computers infected with Antivirus 2009/Antivirus Pro/etc. Out of the dozens (if not hundreds) of these calls I've taken over the last few months, I got exactly one call about a Vista machine that was infected. A good 99%+ of those calls we get are for infected XP machines, and I can guarantee you XP does not have 99x the marketshare of Vista, by any measurement. I also had another call where the caller had gotten a popup that would have infected her computer, and she believed the popup and pressed "scan". Only problem for the malware was, the next screen she got was a "continue or cancel" screen from UAC, and that apparently scared her more than the panic popup had, and she clicked cancel.
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
WMP would render mp3-files unusable if the meta-data is edited. Simply a bug...
Yeah, that's what I thought too. Who gives a flying crap (other than Preston Gralla obviously) about a taskbar?
I do, actually. It seems at first like a huge rip-off of Mac OS X's dock, and Microsoft is nothing if not consistent about trying to rip-off Apple.
However, after now having seen some videos of it, I've gone from fear and loathing to interest and appreciation. It looks like MS somehow learned from all the horrible mistakes of Mac OS X's dock and made their new taskbar act like the dock should have. Icons stay in place and don't dance around requiring you to hunt for things. Separation between different apps is easily visible, and the use of color makes it easy to tell what you're hovering over without having to look directly at it. Multiple windows from the same app are grouped together instead of creating clutter. There is clear separation between active apps (in the bar) and the list of apps you'd like to run (in the Start menu).
It brings tears to my eyes. I've hated Mac OS X's dock from the first day I had to use it. As a Classic Mac OS user, I missed my pop-up folders, my segregated menus, and having all my stuff stay in place so that I could click it without looking or even really thinking about it. I bemoaned how with Mac OS X and its "lickable" Aqua interface, Apple was putting flash over functionality when better UI was the whole reason I was a Mac user in the first place.
This jaded old Mac user who has moved to using the command prompt to do everything out of hatred for the new Finder and dock feels something akin to warmth for an MS product for the first time. *sniff*
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Newb,
I've been signing off my posts on all manner of forums since around 1982. Sometime last year, a couple of kids on digg suddenly decided to get bent out of shape about it, and I've never been one to comply with arbitrary demands. Go cope.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
From what I understand, Windows 7 is Vista with some GUI improvement, significant performance enhancements, and new features. It's not a rewrite. It doesn't break backward compatibility. It doesn't solve the 32-bit 64-bit dilemma that both Linux and OS X are addressing. It doesn't eliminate the behaviour of configuring user accounts to be admin/root by default. It also doesn't force application developers to break old habits.
It's definitely an improvement over Vista, but Microsoft is bound by backward compatibility requirements to keep shipping OS's that are fundamentally broken and that do not allow for 32-bit apps and drivers to run out of one 64-bit OS.
They missed a golden opportunity to fix these problems to keep their OS relevant in terms of keeping up with OS technology.
man poorly researched comments like the above are pretty common place here, But WTF, how did this get modded up to informative? I know there is a lot of anti MS stuff on here (and usually justifiably so), but come on, surely it is common knowledge even here that windows vista 64 is backward compatible with 32 bit apps? At the department I work at all of the desktops are windows Vista 64 bit enterprise and all our apps work 64 bit and 32 bit. the only reason 32 bit version is still around is for legacy hardware and some of the really ancient apps.
It happens less on linux, but it still happens. Read fighting fragmentation on linux by the same author for a clearer picture. His solution there is to defrag the drive by copying to a backup and copying back over the original data. So not only does fragmentation happen, you can defrag without fancy tools. GP is 100% correct.
that Microsoft pays its people (and associated borgified companies) to post positive comments on messageboards and such about Windows. 7 is no exception; thanks to the fiasco that was Vista (and it was horrible, only Microsoft-paid shills and people that don't know any better think differently) and their desire to keep the "buzz" up for Windows.
"The next version will be great, we promise!" We've been hearing that since the Win95/98 transition, and it's generally never the case, unless you updated from NT4 to 2000 (or 9x to 2000). Microsoft came as close as they could to a great OS with 2k, and now they're just moving far, far away from it.
Microsoft needs to pull an OSX move and make a new version of Windows that breaks compatibility completely yet is stable, secure, and great again. Sadly thanks to Microsoft's arrogance, ignorance, and irrational lust of their chaotic Windows code base, it'll never happen.
Unless the general public is REALLY stupid (and they certainly can be), 7 will be a disaster, and we should see huge migrations to other OSes soon after its release.
Microsoft, this is a wake-up call. I don't want to see you go away, just improve.
This is anonymous coward because I know the fanatic /. mods will mod this down horribly (not to mention all the paid MS /.ers with mod points).
Aero was not inspired by Aqua. UAC is not inspired by... uh, Mac OS X doesn't even have anything like it, does it?
I frankly don't know how you can even say the former. A glossy, composited windowing system with lots of transparency, animated effects, live icons, etc.? Aero was inspired not by the rounded buttons and pinstripes of Aqua but its general capabilities. Aero is to the Windows XP interface what Aqua was to the Classic Mac OS interface. It's directly inspired by what Mac OS X does and was an attempt to steal back some of the limelight for a pretty interface.
As for UAC, what do you think Mac OS X's capability-based permission dialogs are? Have you never installed anything on the OS before?
(Also, how does NeXT = Apple by any stretch? At that time, Jobs was nowhere near Apple, and you can't count a NeXT product as an Apple one. Fanboi indeed).
Stop it. You keep trying to put words into my mouth to claim that I'm saying that Apple invented the dock. I've tried to spell out that you're making this crap up in my last post, but you seem intent on pressing the idea. That's a typical behavior of partisans, fanboys, and anyone else who sees the world as "people I agree with v. all those people who are wrong and thus all the same in what they believe."
But if you insist, I'll take a stab at the argument since you're going to pretend I made it anyway. So here goes...
I have a hard time saying that a company that results from a merger can't take credit for the products that one of the two companies made even if they took the name of the other one. It's not like Apple bought NeXT's IP and chucked all the staff like Caldera did with SCO. It's more like NeXT bought Apple with Apple's money. They jettisoned the Copeland project Apple's engineers had worked on for years and made OpenStep the basis of their new OS, they put NeXT's lead engineer in charge of development, they replaced their CEO is NeXT's CEO, and they kept on almost all of NeXT's development staff. Really, what more do you want? Does Apple have to call itself NeXT to earn credit?
Eh, that's my best shot at it. There. I've set up a nice straw man for you. (Aren't I a sweetheart?) Now feel free to ignore the rest of my post and rabidly attack it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
From what I understand, Windows 7 is Vista with some GUI improvement, significant performance enhancements, and new features. It's not a rewrite. It doesn't break backward compatibility.
This is a very good thing, they got the rewrite done with Vista, now they need to optimise it.
It doesn't solve the 32-bit 64-bit dilemma that both Linux and OS X are addressing.
What dilemma? Microsoft has done an outstanding job addressing 32-bit under 64-bit compatibility. This isn't new. The compatibility layer has been in place since the very first amd64 releases of Windows, and several Itanium ones as well. It's called WoW64 (Windows on Windows for 64-bit), and effectively involves a near complete install of 32-bit Windows system files alongside the 64-bit installation. When a 32-bit program is run, the OS transparently redirects requests to the 32-bit system files it expects, and the program runs just like it would on a 32-bit system. Generally speaking, the only things that will NOT run, period, are programs that try to plug 32-bit code into the kernel, for obvious reasons. This can include old virus scanners, firewalls, drivers, etc... Everything else should run as expected, with rare exceptions.
It doesn't eliminate the behaviour of configuring user accounts to be admin/root by default.
Yes, it does. No wait, Vista did, Windows 7 just continues the approach. All user accounts now run with limited permissions now, use of Administrator level permissions requires confirmation. It's similar in many ways to sudo.
It also doesn't force application developers to break old habits.
I didn't realise it's Microsoft's job to dictate how developers code their applications. Further, previously you talk about the importance of backwards compatibility with 32-bit applications, now you advocate something would would destroy backwards compatibility with an enormous number of applications, including some 64-bit ones.
Once you've had Mac [apple.com], you can't go back!
I couldn't help but notice your tag. You might be interested to know that both Linux and Windows are miles ahead of Mac OSX in terms of 64-bit support and have been for a very long time. Mac OSX still runs a 32-bit kernel, even in the latest release (10.5). This is meant to be addressed in 10.6, which still isn't out, and has for some reason gone very quiet. I usually wouldn't mention this, but what with all your talk of 64-bit operating systems, I thought it amusing that your tag reflects the OS that out of the big 3 I would suggest lags the most in adopting 64-bit systems.
An echo chamber, to be sure. But what of competition?
In a world where all the applications worked seemlessly across operating systems (something similar to that of the PC hardware side), then competition would take hold and customers would get more choice.
How about if the DoJ breaks up Microsoft into 3 companies? One of them continues to support and update Windows XP. The others do likewise, except with Windows Vista and Windows Seven. They all compete to offer the best features, performance, and value to customers while maintaining application interoperability.
I think that would be interesting to see which survive, and which thrive.
And if we extended this to *nix, Mac, et al? More competition, more choices. A better tomorrow?