Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 RTM Reviewed & Benchmarked
An anonymous reader writes "The code is final, and CNet has reviewed the final version of Windows 7, with benchmarks to support the case that it's not only the fastest version of Windows to shut down, but also looks like 'the operating system that both Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for.' The review continues: 'By fixing most of the perceived and real problems in Vista, Microsoft has laid the groundwork for the future of where Windows will go. Windows 7 presents a stable platform that can compete comfortably with OS X, while reassuring the world that Microsoft can still turn out a strong, useful operating system.'"
Pull the plug!
Seriously.... they claimed all this same stuff for vista. and we all found out they were full of crap.
7 might be better than vista. but i still dont believe it's the fastest ever or any of their other bs.
This isn't news. it's an ad.
> fastest version of Windows to shut down,
Was that ever a problem? start shut down, and turn out the lights, It will be down when you come back in the morning.
How about boot up time?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Hmph.. No comments that even remotely imply having RTFA'd, but sure enough there's an "astroturfing"-tag. Classy..
Just FYI-- the claims of better gaming performance from 7 than Vista or XP have not materialized (not on my machine at least). It's just as slow as Vista.
That said, it's still worth having (like Vista) with UAC turned off, simply because the aggressive prefetching loads frequently used programs into RAM. Stuff opens faster.
but it's not bad...It's not great, but it's not bad. It's an improvement over Vista, but it's not as intuitive as XP was. I'm happier with my OS X machine, but that's just my personal preference. I can see where they've tried to reduce some of the more egregious dumbassery that Vista introduced, but in a lot of ways, for the average end user, it really is just a Service Pack for Vista, with some bells and whistles and cleaning up. It's what Vista likely should have been. YMMV.
"split the clouds and divide the sea and show those evil guys how nasty the Tiki gods can be."
FTFA: "Importantly, it won't require the hardware upgrades that Vista demanded, partially because the hardware has caught up"
Yes, but how does it do on my old hardware that struggled with Vista in the first place? I know Mac OS 10.1 > 10.2 > 10.3 > 10.4 gave me better performance on the same hardware. It wasn't until I moved to Leopard that I REALLY noticed my PowerBook 1Ghz PPC chip was at it's limit.
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
What in a OS could be taking up 16GB for a minimal install?
Exactly. And this is where 7 wins. It "FEELS" extremely quick, because it responds to user input better. If you need to take a minor throughput hit for that, so be it. Most people multitask these days anyway - some fractional of a percentage point difference in throughput loss means jack shit if you can actually use the computer while its doing stuff in the background...
I've been running the RC since it came out, no way I'm going back to XP or Vista for Windows stuff.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
The stuff you can't see with the benchmarks, that people actually notice and care about in reality. Like UI responsiveness. Seriously, the RC is still available, go download it and check it out rather than speculating wildly.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
Uh huh...and pull this leg, it plays jingle bells! Seriously, how many times have you had to go CLI in the past month? The past week? Hell most Mac and Windows users don't even know there IS a CLI interface, and they sure as hell don't want to be using it!
Look, I'll be the first to admit that Linux rocks on servers. It is rock solid, secure, a real tank of an OS. But we are talking Windows 7 here, which is most definitely NOT targeted at servers. It is targeted at home users. Home users, I might add, who often can't even find their way around control panel without someone holding their hand. Windows is quite good at that BTW. But Linux? You better be bestest friends with Mr. CLI if you want to play in that sandbox. It seems like every time there is an update something breaks and requires CLI. Sound broke? Ooops..CLI. Monitor isn't showing the right resolution? CLI baby. Which you can understand as the big money being spent on Linux is by the likes of IBM, Red Hat, Novell, and it is all going to server support. And server admins live and die CLI and hate GUIs, as they just suck precious resources.
I know this will get me modded to hell, and I don't care. Being a fanboy is one thing, being delusional is another. I can make an example that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Linux isn't ready for home users. Ready? Remove Bash. That's right, no Bash, no Korn, no Bourne, no shells of ANY kind. Do that with a fresh install and see if it will run six months, with allowing updates, without any access to CLI. But I bet not a single Linux user would dare to do that. Because they know without CLI they are boned. But Windows home users will NEVER use CLI. Let me repeat that: Windows home users will NEVER EVER use CLI. In fact most power users don't care for it either. They don't like it, don't want it, and if you make them use CLI you might as well say "please have someone go install Windows for you" because that is EXACTLY what will happen. I truly hope that a day comes when you can actually remove CLI from Linux and still have a usable machine, but I won't hold my breath.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It's well past Windows in terms of usability and elegance
Get off my lawn. You were referring to OSX in that sentence... right? Or was this a joke/troll that was lost on me? Ok I'll bite:
What I have to point here is much to the disdain of a acute microsoftus haterii patient, we all know Linux is not elegant or stunningly usable by any reasonable and pertinent definition. Maybe you were more impressed with wobbly windows than most of us, but while there is an outstanding choice to customize and make it beautiful it just not pretty out of the box. I have yet to see a elegant Linux distribution that doesn't have amateurish desktop and default themes. Don't get me started on the ugly fonts. Multimedia is still broken on Linux. Usability is a very mixed bag, but I will concede that is getting very good.
I'm using Win7 RC to write this, which has been my main desktop OS when I'm not in a bash shell.
Linux is the far superior workhorse, OSX and Windows are better show ponies, don't get the them confused. Mod me down for saying it I don't care.
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
"Remove Bash. That's right, no Bash, no Korn, no Bourne, no shells of ANY kind. Do that with a fresh install and see if it will run six months, with allowing updates, without any access to CLI."
That's an absurd thing to say and betrays your ignorance here. The shell is an integral part of a Unix system. If you remove /bin/sh, the system will not even boot. Any Unix system will be this way, including OS X, because this specific interpreted language is part of what makes Unix Unix.
As far as not using the shell for day-to-day tasks, you can do that with Linux now. Ubuntu has all those point-and-click controls you love, and you're free to use them instead of the shell if you like. You'll get things done more slowly, because GUI configs suck, but that's your choice.
What may make you believe it's impossible to go without using a shell in Linux is the fact that Linux people tend to suggest typing shell commands when people ask how to fix problems on a forum. This is because the shell is the best, fastest way to fix problems in Linux, even when other options are available, and we won't suggest an inferior solution unless pressed for it.
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
It's no longer 2002. Install Ubuntu and you will NEVER have to use the CLI. That's right. NEVER. I like it because you can do some neat things with it, but then I use CLI in windows too. But is it required for normal operation? No. It's not.
Do I think Linux is retard-friendly on the level of windows? No. But It's come a long way. And the old CLI complaint has officially died. Buried next to driver support qq and native-app woes.
Don't like? Fine. But leave your FUD at the door please.
to come back to your laptop after a few hours, which you thought was off or on standby, only to find it warm and with 8% battery remaining, displaying an unresponsive Windows desktop?
I find it's less about superiority of the shell when I suggest a solution. Saying "Open the terminal and type..." is a lot easier than "See that thing there? Click on that, and then in the menu find..."
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
That's a good point, but I consider the ability to easily communicate shell-based directions to be a legitimate shell advantage. After all, what you're basically doing when you say that is giving the user a script -- even if it's a script written with the human as a preprocessor since you didn't have enough info to actually write it out yourself :)
vi ~/.emacs # I'm probably going to Hell for this.
Go play with Cocoa / Xcode / Interface builder, and you'll get a bit of an idea as to why Linux is even now, still trying to catch up to NextSTEP 1991.
This is why there is a lack of high quality applications.
Don't get me wrong, Linux is great and I'm trying to get into OpenStep development myself (so i can do OS/X -> Free unix cross platform application development), but the state and lack of standardization on toolkits on Linux is quite apparent.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
That's not true. I've installed Ubuntu on three different computers (two laptops and a desktop) and with pretty much every major update (8.10->9.04 for example), I needed to use the CLI to fix crap. Hell, even recently I (in vain) attempted to get my ATI card to work properly with hardware acceleration in 9.04 and had to drop into CLI to fix my now-broken X.org.
Look in the forums of any distro (even Ubuntu) and I bet you'll find the vast majority of the fixes don't start with "goto System->Preferences/Administration ..." but "open a terminal, and paste this into the shell".
Since when is checking SMART info a standard task in Windows?
Wow, your anecdotal evidence is rock-solid, ergo he must be an idiot. If only there were a counter-point... Oh, here is an anecdote "proving" that you are an idiot!
I installed Ubuntu on my Vaio laptop. I've had to use the CLI to...
Guess what? In Windows, all of those features *just worked*. No CLI. No sudo apt-get update/install/whatever. In Windows, when I hit the power button the machine suspends. Click here to see the instructions on how to get it to *maybe* work on Linux. Sure, you could edit all those conf files and write the scripts without using the CLI but we're still talking about a decent amount of scripting.
Of course part of this is due to the machine being intended to run on Windows, but there's no need to call someone an "idiot" just because you survived 4 weeks without CLI.
More importantly than how many times you've had to run CLI in the past month, can you tell us how many times you had to use the CLI when you first configured your machine? Did everything work right out of the box?
You have an operating system with buttons or icons you can click to fix any sort of problem you might ever encounter? Must be an insanely cluttered GUI then...
Also I don't see how 'Open the control panel, click on the hardware icon, open the driver panel, click on the devices tab, find small icon with the plus sign before it that reads audio devices, expand it, find the audio card in the expanded list, which would probably be the one that doesn't have the word codec in it, see if it has an exclamation mark before it, right click it and pick properties, go to the resources tab, write down all the values in the list of ports/interrupts en post them here' would be easier than to say 'open the terminal application from the menu and first type 'dmesg' and copy paste the results here, then type 'lspci -v -v -v' and post this output here as well'
Point is, the CLI is much more efficient for many, many tasks. Maybe not the common everyday ones, but that's what we have GUI apps for. Linux is no exception. If you have system problems or have to do crazy stuff to fix something at least in Linux you are able to do that through the CLI and to post instructions for other people to help them, even though they have no idea what they're actually typing. In Windows you're generally stuck unless you know a friend or relative you can offer a beer to fix it (which would be the guy I used to be for half of my family and friends until I finally ditched Windows for OS X and Linux. Now officialy "I know nothing about Windows PC's" anymore ;-)
Who cares if it's standard? It still doesn't require a command line in Windows.
A good operating system is discoverable and user-centric. At the moment, the desktop environments available for Linux are somewhat discoverable (but the second you drop to the command line, you've thrown discoverability out the window) and process-centric* rather than user-centric. Windows is not perfect at either task (OS X is much better), but Linux is really, really bad at it.
*: Process-centric operations don't focus on what the user wants to do, they focus on what the computer needs to do to accomplish the task. Frame everything around the user or you'll lose them.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Is this article a joke? I clearly see that vista beats Win7 in 3 out of 5 benchmarks, and XP beats Windows 7 in all but one (how can we forget the all-important "shutdown time" benchmark.
Yet CNet is telling me that *this* is the version of Windows I've been waiting for?
reboot = shutdown + boot
So every time you reboot, you shut down.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
> "...but also looks like 'the operating system that both
> Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for."
Lets see...
The first officially released version of MS Windows was released way back in 1985 (1.01) - two years after Apple released its first version of the MacIntosh and 12 years after Xerox developed the Alto.
Microsoft has subsequently re-released it 21 times.
Windows 1.0
Windows 2.0
Windows 2.1x
Windows 3.0
Windows 3.1
Windows 3.11
Windows 4.0 (marketed as "Windows 95")
WindowsNT4.0
Windows 95A
Windows 95B
Windows 95B USB (included basic USB support)
Windows 95C
Windows 98 (original release)
Windows 98 ("Second Edition")
WindowsNT5.0 (marketed as Windows 2000)
WindowsNT5.1 (marketed as WindowsXP)
WindowsNT5.2.x (marketed as Windows Server 2003)
WindowsNT5.2.x (re-released and marketed as Windows Server 2003 R2)
WindowsNT6.0 (marketed as Windows Vista)
WindowsNT6.0 R6002 (marketed as Windows Vista Service Pack 2)
WindowsNT6.1 (marketed as Windows Server 2008)
WindowsNT6.1.7600 (marketed as Windows Server 2008 service Pack 2 and also as Windows 7)
Now this review of Microsoft's most recent re-release of Microsoft Windows describes it as the "operating system that Microsoft and its consumers have been waiting for".
That is truly a _long_ awaited piece of software that is neither original nor innovative!
MS Windows is crippleware - in that the full version is always installed, but features are crippled depending on how much $$$ has been paid. Not even this fact is innovative.
Please feel free to contribute additional facts about the history of MS Windows.
Windows Vista and up automatically checks the SMART data for you and will display a warning to the user in case SMART data reports critical status.
I've found SMART to be almost useless, though. But that's another story.
Try reinstalling that VAIO with a different Windows version, one that hasn't been customized by Sony, and then post your luck getting all the right hardware drivers and configuring the system. You're comparing a PREINSTALLED version that has all the kinks already worked out by some guy at Sony, to a MANUALLY installed operating system you have to configure yourself. It's like saying how much easier it is to just drive that new car you just bought from the dealer to buying the same car and then swapping the engine yourself.
As a counter-example: I once bought an HP pavilion laptop with XP home on it (which I couldn't remove or have upgraded to another XP version by the way because HP tied the license to the machine and didn't offer anything but XP home). Because I needed to logon to a Windows domain, I upgraded to XP pro. After that, I didn't have 3D acceleration, the TV-out stopped working, no wifi until I installed drivers from directly from the card manufacturer and it took 4 months before HP finally released downloadable drivers for the ATI chip that was in it, the stock ones didn't recognize the card because HP screwed with the PCI ids, and the only way to get the machine to work fully was to do a full system recovery. Using the XP home recovery discs...
The other problem with KDE is "everything" is named starting with a "K" which makes it harder to scan to find stuff quickly.
This drives me absolutely batshit insane...
RUGBYRUGBYRUGBY
"Also I don't see how 'Open the control panel, click on the hardware icon, open the driver panel, click on the devices tab, find small icon with the plus sign before it that reads audio devices, expand it, find the audio card in the expanded list, which would probably be the one that doesn't have the word codec in it, see if it has an exclamation mark before it, right click it and pick properties, go to the resources tab, write down all the values in the list of ports/interrupts en post them here' would be easier than to say 'open the terminal application from the menu and first type 'dmesg' and copy paste the results here, then type 'lspci -v -v -v' and post this output here as well'"
As a Windows user, I definitely prefer the former. Precisely things like 'lspci -v -v -v' are what's keeping me from using Linux - I don't _want_ to remember 500 different console commands.
Never having seen a Windows PC before, using common sense and your ability to read, you can figure out how to get (almost) anywhere. On Linux, if you don't know the console command you're looking for and don't have anywhere to look it up, you're SOL, because the GUIs don't fucking work half the time (yes, using Linux _has_ frustrated me)...
"It's no longer 2002. Install Ubuntu and you will NEVER have to use the CLI. That's right. NEVER. I like it because you can do some neat things with it, but then I use CLI in windows too. But is it required for normal operation? No. It's not."
Bullshit. Even setting up display resolutions and refresh rates (don't get me started on xorg and nVidia's proprietary driver) or sound on my setup required CLI in 7.10 and 8.04...
Sure, it's great when everything works out of the box for some people, but everyone else is fucked.
Right, I choose to do most of my file management from the command line just because it's usually the quickest way to go about it.
There's only one situation I can think of where the GUI is better, when I need to select a number of arbitrary files from a directory. Since globbing or find can't be used to quickly match the files you want I find control-clicking a bunch of icons is quicker than typing out a bunch of file names. That's the exception though, the rest of the time the CLI is better.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
As an IT contractor I've made a very good living from Microsoft's shoddy OS. With the impending release of Windows 7, I can forsee green shoots rising once again. :)
I want to meet the guy who invented beer and see whats he's up to now.
You have obviously never done tech support over the phone.
Wait until you are trying to figure out what the person on the other end of the phone is looking at and where they clicked wrong and you will understand why tech support people love the shell.
When I am helping people fix osx over the phone I am more likely than not to wind up telling the person to type commands into the terminal.
Work bio at MMWD
On the one hand I agree with you, obviously downloading and installing a RC version of an OS does have overhead, but before passing judgment better to see the beans first. But also I think a healthy dose of skepticism when confronted by pre-release hype is not only understandable but a prerequisite for maintaining sanity in this marketing saturated world of ours!
Hell most Mac and Windows users don't even know there IS a CLI interface, and they sure as hell don't want to be using it!
You're so mad that you're bordering on saying nonsense.
How come you know that the users don't want to use something they don't even know about?
Are you the god thinking for all these people?
What did strike such a nerve into you? Seriously. It's hatred at this level.
Look, I'll be the first to admit that Linux rocks on servers. It is rock solid, secure, a real tank of an OS. But we are talking Windows 7 here, which is most definitely NOT targeted at servers. It is targeted at home users. Home users, I might add, who often can't even find their way around control panel without someone holding their hand. Windows is quite good at that BTW.
I agree with everything you say, even the part where you say that Windows is quite good at making people unable to find their way around control panel.
Me too, I always have problem finding the correct option in control panel, usually I have to parse all of them. Just because they're inconsistent. It's sad really, after all these years.
But Linux? You better be bestest friends with Mr. CLI if you want to play in that sandbox. It seems like every time there is an update something breaks and requires CLI. Sound broke? Ooops..CLI. Monitor isn't showing the right resolution? CLI baby.
Now you're really looking like an ignorant fool. You didn't use Linux in the latest 10 years, right ? You shouldn't talk about what you obviously don't know about, seriously.
And server admins live and die CLI and hate GUIs, as they just suck precious resources.
This shows clearly that you have no idea what the CLI is in Linux and Unix OS. ... interface.
You seem to believe CLI in these OS is just some kind of, well,
Which shows just how ignorant you are about it.
These are shells, and are much more powerful than DOS.
Being a fanboy is one thing, being delusional is another.
Yet you are both.
I can make an example that will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Linux isn't ready for home users. Ready? Remove Bash.
Now you're retarded. You just said "remove the OS".
I hope you didn't believe you were smart. Seriously...
Go learn what Linux is before talking about it, you're not qualified, at all.
But Windows home users will NEVER use CLI. Let me repeat that: Windows home users will NEVER EVER use CLI. In fact most power users don't care for it either. They don't like it, don't want it, and if you make them use CLI you might as well say "please have someone go install Windows for you" because that is EXACTLY what will happen. I truly hope that a day comes when you can actually remove CLI from Linux and still have a usable machine, but I won't hold my breath.
LOL. Repeating wrong things won't make them true. But I agree this part is done like a good fanboy coupled with a delusional guy. You know also perfectly well what people want and what they hate. But do you have any evidence of what you're saying?
Actually there are tons of really nice sites with these things called "reg files". I know, its a concept. damned shame that Linux don't have anything like them. You see, lets say my customer has a classic Windows problem that I have found with certain Realtek and Creative sound cards-the dreaded "no device" even though they have the driver issue. You know how I fix it? I send them a reg file that resets the Windows audio server, tell them to reboot and voila! Problem go bye bye.
I have literally hundreds just like that tucked away on a DVD and on a folder on my work drive. Takes all of 30 seconds to fix. And the most important part? NO CLI. That's right, none at all. Zip zilch nada baby,yeah! That is how Windows users LIKE it, and until Linux guys accept that "Open up Bash and type" should ALWAYS be followed by "please get someone to install Windows for you" then Linux will NEVER EVER get better. Because I repeat: Windows Home users will NEVER EVER IN A MILLION YEARS USE CLI, I don't give a crap if you think it is the best damned thing since sliced bread. They don't like it, they don't want it, and they won't use it PERIOD.
And as for the Power users? Well they don't get bugs and their games play nice, why should they want Linux? Answer: They don't. If you can't get the home users Linux will stay at single digits. If you want to stay a niche, fine and dandy. It is a free country after all. But do NOT expect the world to change to how you want them to behave, because it is just delusional. If you want the home users, then it better be all GUI and nice and easy, with lots of hand holding. Have you used Windows 7? It holds your hand through every little thing. A little too much for this user, but hey, I can get past them. easier to get a power user to ignore wizards than it is a home user to RTFM or use CLI.
Look guys, if Linux rocks your world, great. I'm really happy for you. But Linux requires CLI, and that won't fly with home users. I should know, I deal with them 6 days a week. Sorry, that is just reality. And that is why until CLI is killed by fire then Windows will continue to rule the market, with Apple taking the high end. Because both of those OSes know that CLI=FAIL.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Whilst removing the shell is obviously going to break the OS, and therefore nonsensical, I think the spirit of this post is worthwhile. Can a user survive without the CLI in Ubuntu, for example?
My experience is: not really. It's not that far off, but it's not perfect. People who argue that Linux users spend all their time configuring things on the commandline are exaggerating, but equally it's unrealistic to say that a GUI can be used for all configuration.
In my current Ubuntu install, I've had a wireless problem that I've fixed with a small amount of messing around in the shell. Besides that, I've not been forced to use it. Having said that, previously I've had X Server issues that have required lots of CLI use to resolve.
I'm not interested in "my OS is more user-friendly than your OS" arguments, but I'd prefer it if people didn't big up / write off Linux on the basis of exaggeration.
RS
Uhhh...dude? Its Windows we are talking about here. I know it makes Linux guys shit puppies but NOBODY uses limited user in Windows,okay? Hell I have been building, fixing, and networking Windows boxes since Win3.11 for workgroups. Do I run limited user? Nope, admin all the way. Why? Because too damned much Windows software breaks horribly and takes three fricking forevers to fix if ran as a limited user.
So there is actually a GOOD reason why they didn't put that in Windows XP Home, it is because home users never fuck with permissions. hell most wouldn't even know what that was, and if you gave them control of it they would just fuck shit up so bad they could even access their own stuff. MSFT knew this, which is why the left permissions to XP Pro, where there is more likely an admin that is controlling permissions. That is why power users run XP Pro, because XP Home is for home users.
I think though by accident you have pointed out why it is so damned hard to get Linux guys to "get it". It is because they expect folks to think like them, and they don't. The average IT guys thinking is as alien to them as any martian. Believe me, of this I know. I have had guys throw me $20 to make a problem go away that would have taken maybe five minutes, if that, of me gently walking them through a couple of simple tweaks. The second I mention "control" panel this or "device manager" that they just get a glazed look on their eyes and break out their wallet. And THAT is why Linux don't work for home users, it is because you have to think like THEM and build it so it is easy for THEM, even if you think their way is nuts. I have been in the trenches for 15 years and therefor know how to pull it off.
Linux guys think "open up bash and type" is easy because it is easy FOR THEM, but for the home users CLI=total failure. I can promise you if the choice is ten minutes of CLI or $89 for XP Home? They would have their wallets out so damned fast your head would swim. Accept that, and maybe one day Linux will have a shot. But I won't hold my breath.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I would say that windows don't have a standard GUI application development platform either.
But how do you define standard anyway, and in what way is QT less standard then the "roll your own gui, because Win32 sucks" that so much software(Including anything from Adobe and microsoft office*)
And what is non-standard about QT? I have not seen QT break anything since between the switch between QT3 and QT4. (Unlike MacOS X where an upgrade suddenly required some gui callback methods to be reentrent, breaking lots of software.
*Just take the ribbon interface as an example. They developed an entire new gui system, just for office.
I'm a "sophisticated" user, installing client PCs for just about everyone around me, including some small companies. I'm having a very hard time getting into Linux on the desktop.
I just managed to install Linux for the first time 4 days ago. All other times (about 10), installation failed, due to MB drivers I suppose. That was very disappointing, the PCs were very vanilla, with no expansion cards, and XP installed without a glitch on them.
I don't mind using a bit of CLI since I'm a nerd, but, believe it or not, I can't find how to mount a windows networked share via fstab. I can do it in the graphical thingy, but it mounts it only after I've clicked on it. I need it mounted sooner, and.. I need to know where it gets mounted... I did find how to install VNC, but could not make head nor tails of how to install an RDP server on the linux PC.
My question about it in the forums has been answered by the usual 'you're an idiot', or "you don't need it with our wonderful graphical interface". I'm not an idiot, and I need it outside of Gnome. And remember, the hardest part of any problem is asking the right question, so yes, I didn't ask clearly the first time around.
So, again, I think Linux needs
- more and better drivers. It's progressing, but still. Having to turn off the compositing thingy to be able to use VLC sucks, too. Then again, Aero in Vista causes problems with many games, too.
- better documentation. there's lot of good stuff and how-tos, but out of date.
- nicer community attitude. Yes, I'm an incompetent idiot that not only does not know how to do things, but doesn't even know where to look for the answer nor how to ask the question. I'm trying to change !
The Cloud - because you don't care if your apps and data are up in the air.
If by discoverable you mean click everywhere until it works, then yes. That's how I find most folks "discover" stuff on Windows.
The difference is in windows, you can look around if you don't know where it is. Hand over a fresh install of windows and tell the user to adjust their resolution. It might take a while the first time, but they'll dig through the right folder/menu/tab eventually. Now fire up a command window and tell them to do the same, and they'll have no idea where to even start looking.
Organising the start menu by software manufacturer name is user centric? Sometimes windows seems easy to use *because you have been using it for decades.* I hope they haven't, yet again, shuffled around the *user centric* control panel. Every time I get asked to help someone fix their windows computer it gets harder to find anything now.
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
IMHO that's usually better than staring at a blank screen prompt not even knowing what command you're even looking for, let alone what options you need to actually use it.
RTFM then :-p
Win32? The gui system which don't even have a split pane. (Yes I have developed for Win32, an interesting job but not one I care to repeat).
I can not mention a major application released within the last 4 year, with an interface based on pure win32 widgets. Not even microsofts own software. Win32 miss far to many things. (Even the toolbar in Microsoft internet explorer 6 is different from the Win32 toolbar).
Here is an other example: The menu that popup when you press the right mouse button: Does it come when you click or release the button? Answer: That depend on the application, because win32 don't even handle that stuff.
So if the only standard interface for windows is win32, then I can't mention any major application released within the last 5 years which have used the standard windows interface. Nothing released from Microsoft. Nothing released by Adobe. Not a single 3D editor, nothing released from Apple. Not a single browser. Well nothing (Except google earth, that is the only pure major win32 application I can mention).
Would you call MFC* part of the windows interface? If yes, then how does it differ from Qt? Developers who use MFC/QT both have to download MFC/QT, and both does a static link to (part of) the library, so the user don't have to download anything.
MFC is not part of windows. It comes with Visual studio and you are not allowed to static link to it, unless you have a license to Visual Studio which is in no way part of Windows.