Slashdot Mirror


Windows 8 Early Build Hints At Apple, WebOS Competitor - EWeek

Microsoft's next Windows could be a cross-platform OS in the style of Apple's iOS or Hewlett-Packard's webOS, if supposed early builds are to be believed... "Bloggers Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrott, in a series of April postings on Rivera’s Within Windows blog, have described the various features of what they claim is an early build of Windows 8: an Office-style ribbon integrated into Windows Explorer, complete with tools for viewing libraries, manipulating images and managing drive assets; an unlock screen that harkens to the 'Metro' design style already present in Windows Phone 7; an 'immersive' user interface and a built-in PDF reader they call 'Modern Reader.'"

375 comments

  1. Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1, Troll

    They should rather concentrate on improving the core OS in my opinion. Why would I want to manipulate images or read PDFs with crap software from MS...

    1. Re:Why? by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      The core OS will be unix-based if it's to be Apple style...

      Or.. Linux-based?

    2. Re:Why? by Spaseboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember that early builds from MS mean nothing. In the end it will just be Windows 7 with no 32-bit backwards compatibility and a new skin.

      --
      "I don't want more choice, I just want nicer things!"
      -Jennifer Saunders as Edina Monsoon
    3. Re:Why? by hairyfeet · · Score: 0

      I have to agree though I'm not surprised. Never in the history of the company have they managed to come out with two decent products in a row, and Windows 7 is awesome so we frankly shouldn't be surprised that MSFT is completely cocking up Windows 8. Hopefully it will bomb like Vista and then maybe they'll stop listening to the talking heads that are always pushing the new hotness (remember how they said that we'll all be using Netbooks?) and focus on the core OS business which MAKES THEM MONEY.

      And I further re-propose that the MSFT logo be changed to reflect the current situation. Old Gates has been retired for years, the MSFT Borg is old and stale. For the new logo I propose Ballmer sticking his tongue out with an "I Heart Apple!" beanie on his head, since his current modus operandi seems to be trying to ape every single move they make, even when it makes NO sense for the company! I can just imagine him trying to pep up the troops..."We're gonna make a mobile phone OS and bring it to the desktop which will make us as cool as Apple! Yes it will! it really will! STOP LAUGHING AT ME!!!"

      Just when I thought Bozo the used car salesman Ballmer might have actually earned keeping his job by bringing out Windows 7 nope, still a dumbass. Can someone fire him pretty please? Oh and to the Apple guys: A heartfelt apology is in order, we LMAO at you when the Pepsi guy was running the company you depended on into the ground, and now that the shoe is on the other foot it really isn't very funny. So sorry about all the lame Apple jokes, we learned our lesson...Can we have Gates back now? Please?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    4. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 2

      In what areas do you think the core OS should be improved?

    5. Re:Why? by iamhassi · · Score: 0, Troll

      Agreed. Even with a fresh install Windows 7 crashes far more than Windows XP did, I have to tip-toe around what programs I open and how many I open. It's Windows 98 all over again.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
      Scalability

      Modularity

      Platform support

      Window management features

      The abomination that is the start menu

      Speed

      Decoupling of the GUI from the os

      And on and on

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You must be a complete moron, stay the hell away from computers you idiot. My first windows 7 install ever was on my laptop when it came out and that install is still going strong with no problems at all. Don't blame microsoft because you are a dumbass who doesn't know how to use a computer.

    8. Re:Why? by imsabbel · · Score: 0

      Than your computer is defective.

      Check your memory or hardrive. Else, update hardware drivers.

      NO modern OS "just crashes".

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    9. Re:Why? by Undead+Waffle · · Score: 1

      They should rather concentrate on improving the core OS in my opinion. Why would I want to manipulate images or read PDFs with crap software from MS...

      What you want doesn't matter. Microsoft makes deals with places like Best Buy to make sure Geek Squad sets up ignorant computer users with a Windows Live e-mail address, bing as the default search engine, etc.

      This move is probably to prepare them to compete in the tablet market if it proves to be more than just a fad and to consolidate as much as possible between their different operating systems.

    10. Re:Why? by SpryGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's certifiably false, regardless of your experiences. I'd wager you have some dodgy hardware (memory going bad?) or a really awful 3rd party driver.

      Because Win7 is as rock solid an OS as I've seen out of MS, and it's many times more stable and solid than XP ever was or could be.

      Your experience is an abberation, and clearly the OS is not at fault here, something else is. You're blaming the wrong thing.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    11. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft will never make a Linux-based Windows. The main reason being that they will lose one of the main things that they have going for them: Applications. If they were to completely rewrite their OS (which they would have to do to make it unix-like) they would loose all compatibility with old software. Besides this, Microsoft hates Linux and would never try to emulate it.

    12. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 4, Informative

      in 5 minutes the following comes to mind: performance, efficient usage of system resources, stability, file system, decouple GUI from core, decouple apps from core, simple remote access, get rid of the sick registry, customization, documentation, adhere to common open standards, lower hardware requirements, better modularization, remove unneeded services/bloatware, provide a powerful shell, enhance security/permission features, ...

      I'm sure I can find a lot of other stuff that's wrong with windows when thinking about it...

    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, no two decent products in a row, let me think... I only began at the time of DOS 6 and Win 3.11 so I shall start there:

      Win 3.11: Decent for its time
      Win 95: I didn't really like it (I mean, this start button and stuff instead of the program manager) but I think this was their breakthrough so it must have been great to some people...
      Win 98: So many BSODs, their first really sucky OS
      Win 2K: Decent
      Win Me: Crappy from what I hear, never used it though
      Win XP: Passable
      Win Vista: Crappy from what I hear, never used it though
      Win 7: Looks nice, never used it though.

      Hmm. yeah, you might be right about never two decent releases in a row...

    14. Re:Why? by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      Stability

      Security

      Interoperability

      Add a *real* command shell ...

    15. Re:Why? by rtfa-troll · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Remember that early builds from MS mean nothing.

      Right; this is crucial to remember. The reason for any information release at this point is to block MS partners who are thinking of becoming HP partners. MS will now be feeding this into their friends in your company and whenever someone points out what WebOS can do that person will say "if we just wait six months MS will do the same thing and we won't need to migrate".

      Oh; and there will be 32 bit backwards compatibility; even if it's just through an integrated transparent hypervisor. Trust me.

      If you want to adopt WebOS, get your project going now. Make serious progress as a "demo", "test environment" etc. If asked about the new MS product just say that this will give your organization a chance to prepare. Get real customers doing real things. At the point where Microsoft backs out or fails to deliver what your customers need, that is the point to make it really official.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    16. Re:Why? by Lanteran · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that they have access to, wait for it... the source code to windows. They could easily (or perhaps with some difficulty) write a version of wine with 100% or near about 100% compatibility. I mean look how well the people at wine did through simple reverse engineering, 95% support of directx9!

      --
      "People don't want to learn linux" hasn't been a valid excuse since '03.
    17. Re:Why? by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, Wine just needs to add a couple more crashing bugs, and maybe a few exploits and they could get to 100% compatibility!

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    18. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 0

      Gotta love the MS fanbois... Where am I trolling here? Do you really expect that MS will provide better software than Adobe for manipulating images or reading PDFs?! And why should the apps be coupled with the OS?

    19. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Informative

      performance - in what way is Windows 7/Server 2k8R2 slow?

      efficient usage of system resources = How does 7/R2 fail to use systems resources in a efficient way?

      stability - I can't seam to get my systems to have stability issues, how do I reproduce this?

      file system - What is wrong with NTFS  as implemented by 7/R2?

      decouple GUI from core - Has already been done.  Server Core

      decouple apps from core - Which apps?

      simple remote access - RDP and other methods are already built in.

      get rid of the sick registry - In what way is it sick?

      customization - In what ways?

      documentation - What needs to be improved?

      adhere to common open standards - Which standards?

      lower hardware requirements - It can run on very expensive systems.  Exactly how low are you talking about?

      better modularization - Explain this please.

      remove unneeded services/bloatware - Which ones are you talking about?

      provide a powerful shell - Powershell

      enhance security/permission features - Example?

    20. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      How do I make it unstable?

      What do you recommend to make it more secure?

      Interoperability?  So broad a term as to be meaningless.

      "real" command shell?  You mean like PowerShell?

    21. Re:Why? by Junta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So I'm a linux person through and through, but it's about the flexibility the platform offers, and I no longer feel justified in criticizing MS over the 'basics' with their improvements.

      scalability

      If you refer to the OS running on enough cores, I haven't heard of a technical limitation. I think they do have various arbitrary limits on their licensing, but the software developers have done the required work. Maybe someone can point out scheduling deficiencies or poor placement decisions in a NUMA architecture, but I've not heard that. Keep in mind this discussion is on the desktop, which probably will be non-numa and no more than 6 or 8 cores.

      Modularity

      They used to be more modular in their install, but the sad reality is 99% of people couldn't be arsed to think about it, so the default experience is less customizable. Even linux installers have trended toward skipping package selection. Other than that guess, it would need some specifics to understand exactly what you want.

      Platform support

      If you mean supporting other architectures (e.g. ARM), that was precisely one goal they already announced. I personally think this is a pointless endeavor for them unless they give some magical ability to run x86 binaries everywhere without horrible performance degredation. MS has tried repeatedly to support other architectures, but the reality is x86 is where the applications are and MS doesn't have a particularly special offering that people intrinsically want if not for the x86 applications.

      Window management features

      Ok, I'll give you that one of the big reasons I stay away from Windows is the relatively incapable window management stuff, but at the same time, I have to presume they think the features 'we' would want would confuse their main target market.

      Speed

      In my experience, I haven't seen anything particularly slow about Windows. This is probably one area I've never been able to complain except for disk IO due to Vista defaults that got toned down.

      Decoupling of the GUI from the os

      The only thing they would gain here is the ability to run an systems without any video chip, which they have no hope in hell of winning. If you refer to the ability to manage them via serial console *in addition* to video, they do have serial console support to do some basic things including starting CMD/PowerShell. Sure, we love our VTs on occasion, but a very small minority of people use them except when they *have* to. Perhaps inherent capability to ssh in and get cmd/powershell would be nice, but getting rid of the GUI on VGA console won't really win them anything in the market.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    22. Re:Why? by rabbit994 · · Score: 2

      Yea, Why would any OS maker do that? Apple doesn't include PDF Reader or iPhoto for editing images. Microsoft is breaking completely new ground here. /sarcasm

      They are coupled with OS because people want them to be. PDFs have become so common that people expect their Operating system to read them and same thing with digital cameras. I would note that Microsoft already builds Photo editor called Windows Live Photo Gallery which does reasonable well for majority of people using digital cameras. People who need Photoshop will purchase it and majority will be happy with Live Photo Gallery.

    23. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 0

      lmgtfy.com

    24. Re:Why? by Junta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stability

      I can't honestly complain any more. They have even go so far as a video driver crash being less fatal for them than Linux. Linux may be able to survive a video driver crash, but anything on the UI dies, and that's not the case for MS. They have made a lot of improvements here.

      Security

      They have managed to make most people stop running as administrator, with a 'sudo-like' implementation. Now I've heard mumblings about that being trivial to bypass (though I haven't seen it), which would be a critical flaw. They don't open a lot of services by default anymore. Largely any insecure behavior is non-default and the fault of users (either enabling features or misusing them). Their NTLM hashes they store on disk are pitifully weak, which could be improved, but only relevant if that is attacked. NTLM was/is a horribly insecure network authentication, but AD is a valid Kerberos approach and NTLM *shouldn't* be used if MS is used as intended. Overall, their security isn't bad.

      command shell

      I will say PowerShell is an improvement. I do think it borders on counterproductive pride as to why they don't have anything quite as simple as plain-ol-bash. Also, why they don't implement SSH for a nice common protocol instead of their WMI crap for remote command execution.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    25. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      So you don't really know.

    26. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      1. It's an abuse of their OS quasi-monopoly in my opinion and hurts the free competition.
      2. They could very well run into legal trouble (cf. Internet Explorer/Windows bundle).
      3. I'd guess that they will again couple these apps quite tightly with their OS. Let's wait how good a third-party app will integrate...

    27. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Server Core. Haha aha ha ha. Yeah, great. Now get a unix OS and see what a real headless/GUI-less system can do. It needs SSH, for secure remote login, remote file copying and remote command execution. Of course, somebody at Microsoft is right now programming a really shit set of updates for powershell to try and copy SSH, but they'll get it wrong, naturally.

      Powershell is crap. The outrageously long commands they've created are a really bad joke, especially compared to the nice simple single-purpose commands of the Unix world.

      The same hardware running OS X (hackintosh or Apple) tends to outlast Windows 7 in battery drain tests. I.e, Mac OS X does some basic stuff so much more efficiently that it translates in to lower power draw for the same tasks. Windows 7 needs to be more efficient.

      The registry is crap, but it works. The WOW32 registry is a bad joke dreamed up by fools.

      Search is crap. It often uses >1GB memory on a 4GB system and causes huge amounts of paging. This is probably the main reason that OS X is more energy efficient. I'm a programmer, and I've spent a lot of time researching where the memory goes on my systems, and I've come to the conclusion that Windows search is the culprit. It's just shit. Apart from that, it can NEVER seem to find stuff inside files in the filesystem -- at least not as well as spotlight.

      I'll throw in a few others -- IIS, shit. MMC, shit. EventViewer, fucking hell, when did that get so slow? IE, shit, get it out of my default install, Run As user/administrator holy crap, that's bad - Windows /really/ needs a sudo clone now that the (sensible) default is to not run everything as admin. UAC is NOT sudo.

      Final thing off the top of my head -- those stupid Windows 7 screen-edge 'gestures', the Aero Alt-Tab thing and the absolutely retarded shake-to-minimize-everything-else 'gesture'. If I could turn them off, it'd not be so bad, but I can't find out where to get rid of this intrusive 'feature creep/trying to add as many things to a checklist as possible' crap.

    28. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 2

      What would be the point? The kernel for Windows is perfectly stable, barring shitty drivers.

      The UI may occasionally do odd things, but that's true of any OS. As far as the average enduser is concerned, it doesn't really matter two hoots if the underlying OS is still functioning if you can't interact with it.

    29. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      No chance Microsoft will ditch backwards compatibility. The absolute most they'd do is ditch it in the core OS and implement it in the form of an integrated virtual machine running in userland, which IIRC is broadly what they do in recent versions anyhow.

    30. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stability

      Security

      Interoperability

      Add a *real* command shell ...

      Have you used Win7? Its stability is as good as OSX or Linux distros. Security is a big subject. The winners of pwn2own claims Windows now does have better security measures than fx OSX, but is clearly attacked more. Interoperability - what is lacking? And on command shell, what in your opinion isn't *real* about PowerShell v2?

    31. Re:Why? by Blink+Tag · · Score: 0

      performance - in what way is Windows 7/Server 2k8R2 slow?

      Why don't we start with something as simple as the time it takes to wake from sleep? I can cook a meal and do the dishes in the amount of time it takes my Windows 7 desktop to wake up. Compare that with the almost instant on of my four-year-old MacBook and my iDevice. It's frustrating as hell.

      Once that's figured out, how 'bout boot time and shutdown time?

      Yes, Windows 7 is better at this than its predecessors, but it's still got a ways to go.

    32. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a fucking copout. If you aren't prepared to back up your claims, then don't make them in the first place.

    33. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Evey system I have wakes up from sleep in just a few seconds. Perhaps you have hybrid sleep enabled or something else wrong?

    34. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Again you don't know.

      You took the time to generate a list of "issues" yet refuse to support a single one of them.

      How about you just address one of them?  Why isn't PowerShell a real shell?

    35. Re:Why? by mmogilvi · · Score: 1

      Some ways Windows core OS could be improved:

      POSIX filesystem semantics, including removing/renaming open files (continue access until closed), transition away from mandatory file locking by default, transition away from carriage returns in text files (fix notepad, start changing tools to default to leaving the carriage returns out), switch to UTF-8 encoding for unicode by default for filenames and contents (instead of 2-bytes-per-character), transition to case-sensitive filenames (when most people use GUIs instead of typing names, why have the insensitive complexity in there...), etc.

      Fix it so POSIX api functions are no longer treated as bastard stepchildren - implement them in the core, and emulate others.

      Include a good, standard scriptable command line interpreter by default, where it can be counted on to be installed. /bin/sh and associated commands would be a vast improvement, and it wouldn't be hard support command line editting ala bash or zsh as well.

      I could go on for some time, but maybe you see the pattern. Summary: Keep the fancy end user GUI stuff, but fix the underlying foundation.

    36. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Decoupling of the GUI from the os

      The only thing they would gain here is the ability to run an systems without any video chip, which they have no hope in hell of winning. If you refer to the ability to manage them via serial console *in addition* to video, they do have serial console support to do some basic things including starting CMD/PowerShell. Sure, we love our VTs on occasion, but a very small minority of people use them except when they *have* to. Perhaps inherent capability to ssh in and get cmd/powershell would be nice, but getting rid of the GUI on VGA console won't really win them anything in the market.

      Really? Microsoft think they've already got a version of Windows that doesn't depend on the GUI.

      Granted, it opens a command window complete with all the window decorations you'd expect, but I can't imagine it'd be that difficult to turn it into nothing but a serial console.

    37. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      PowerShell does encrypted remoting by default. IIS? What is so horrible about it? And if you can't figure out how to turn off those screen-edge features then you really should not be using a computer.

    38. Re:Why? by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 0

      Right, nice para-trolling. Let's see:

      Security: read this and check out what Exec Shield and PaX do. Microsoft's security strategy has been, for years, reactive—no one there seems to wake up and say "hey, we can go further" when it comes to basic underlying system components. I heard once that no one person really knew the full interior of the Windows kernel because it was so big, and that Russinovich was as close as it got. Mad props to Russinovich, a lot of concern for the rest of the company.

      Interoperability: more effort into native POSIX support. Mingw32, Cygwin, SFU, [...] shouldn't have to exist; this is a consequence of too much difference, most of it deliberately engineered for vendor lock-in purposes. If you've ever written a native Windows C++ program, even console-based, you'll know it's a lot more work to interact with the kernel than on a POSIX system. Outside of the core OS, we also have the crap-fest that is SMB.

      "Real" command shell: if you think PowerShell is not a joke, then perhaps you're acquainted with its super-compact syntax? Check out this nugget:

      PowerShell:

      $a = Read-Host "Please enter your name"

      bash:

      echo "Please enter your name:"
      read name

      A much bigger WTF is the decision to use a back-tick as a line continuation indicator. e.g., if you want to insert a linebreak into an echo statement (oh wait, it's fucking called write-host . So elegant!) you do so like this:

      Write-Host `
      "This is a continuation of the line."

      No \n. Some more absurdities are move-item instead of cmd's move, copy-item instead of cmd's copy, and rename-item instead of cmd's rename. A command-line scripting language should be file-oriented from top to bottom, yet these -item suffixes are in some of the most commonly-used commands! Total bullshit.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    39. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      "Fix it so POSIX api functions are no longer treated as bastard stepchildren - implement them in the core, and emulate others." Now that is funny.

    40. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      Why should I reproduce commonly available information? I'm not paid to teach you basic OS knowledge and I couldn't care less about your opinion on Windows. Nobody forces you to believe me - everyone is entitled to his own, potentially ignorant, opinion. Doesn't really effect my salary. :)
      If your really think that Windows surpasses a proper unix OS regarding any of the points I mentioned, please give an example.

    41. Re:Why? by ibbie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      remember how they said that we'll all be using Netbooks??

      Yep. This post it being written from one, and it's really rather nice. That said, I'm running Xubuntu, as Windows 7 crawled when I had it on here. MS really does need to remember how to make a lean, fast, and usable OS. Right now they've got market share, but the only way to keep that is to stay ahead of the game. As they say, complacency kills.

      --
      The wise follow a damned path, for to know is to be forsaken.
    42. Re:Why? by iamhassi · · Score: 0

      wow the Microsoft fanboys are really in force today on /., they even have the moderators. I use to work for Microsoft in tech support, when Microsoft customers had problems and they dialed the 800 number they'd reach me, and I'm telling you Windows 7 is not as stable as XP.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    43. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in 5 minutes the following comes to mind: performance, efficient usage of system resources, stability, file system, decouple GUI from core, decouple apps from core, simple remote access, get rid of the sick registry, customization, documentation, adhere to common open standards, lower hardware requirements, better modularization, remove unneeded services/bloatware, provide a powerful shell, enhance security/permission features, ... I'm sure I can find a lot of other stuff that's wrong with windows when thinking about it...

      Lots of stuff I would disagree with here (stability of Win7 is as good as OSX and Linux, PowerShell is a powerfull shell (able to do things other "powerful shells" can't, etc.). But the decouple GUI from core is interesting. For some reason you are calling out an area Win7 demonstratebly is better than OSX and Linux. The way Win7 can automatically gracefully recover from graphic driver crash is significantly better than the others. Leads me to suspect you don't have much experience with Win7.

    44. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      To be fair to Microsoft, I'm pretty sure Powershell is partly hamstrung by the design of Windows.

      IIRC (and ICBveryW), Windows is more-or-less entirely object-oriented in design. Seriously, you can't do a damn thing without messing around with all the overhead of instantiating objects, assigning attributes or calling methods. Which means that any sort of scripting language needs to do one of two things:

      1. Be wholly object oriented. Pros: Relatively easy to develop the language. Cons: The syntax for the resulting scripting language will be somewhat verbose compared to, say, bash.

      2. Provide a fantastically rich set of shortcuts to avoid all the overhead involved in OO. This isn't a big deal in Unix, mainly because of the "each command does only one small thing" ethos. Not so in Windows. Even if you were to go down that path, sooner or later you'd need to include OO unless you wanted to guarantee that the scripting language couldn't easily interact with anything else.

    45. Re:Why? by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Because customers call all the time to tell you that their 5 year old system is still working fine, right?

    46. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 0

      You're right that PowerShell is a real shell and it may be subjective that I prefer bash because of its simplicity and in my opinion better usability, e.g. tabbing/copy-pasting.

      Some other non-subjective example points:
      performance
      documentation - man wins big time regarding technical details
      file system - ext3 is not subject to fragmentation
      enhance security/permission features - no sudo-equivalent in Windows
      lower hardware requirements
      get rid of the sick registry
      better modularization - Windows has a pretty monolithic setup compared to Linux

    47. Re:Why? by nxtw · · Score: 1

      You are definitely doing it wrong. My MacBook Pro (running Mac OS X or Windows 7) resumes from sleep in about two seconds.

    48. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      Now I really got the urge to post some examples anyway, although I didn't want to... Please see my post below for references/examples.

    49. Re:Why? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Or a slow HD.

      Seriously. I have a 128 GB SSD installed on my home machine, running Windows 7, and it's instantaneous on resume.

      On the other hand, the IBM Thinkpad with the 4200 rpm HD is so slow I want to place it in a brown paper bag, and leave it in someone's shopping cart.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    50. Re:Why? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      I think NT-passwords are not hashed, but encrypted, because the cleartext password is needed to implement the NTLM-authentication.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    51. Re:Why? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've found XP to be pretty rock solid - having used it since 2003-odd, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times it's bluescreened on me, and it's about the same amount that Windows 7 has bluescreened for my missus on her new HP home PC that she bought just before Christmas.

      Sure, it takes a couple of service packs for an MS OS to become rock solid, I'm not criticising Windows 7 for that. However, I'm mostly a Gnome user on Linux but I use XP in Windows Classic mode (I have done since 2003) and I really don't mind using it for gaming and for a few killer apps I cannot get on Linux. But I have always hated the default XP theme with a passion, it's truly awful and unusable.

      My experience of Windows 7 so far is fairly minimal, I've set up a handful of new PCs for friends and family and that's my extent of using it. I won't deny it's stable or that it will be as stable as XP when it gets to SP3 like XP did - but I think the Aero interface is awful, quite frankly. As far as I'm concerned, it's nothing more than "change for change's sake", stuff has been renamed just to make it look different without thinking of the consequences to users who have migrated to XP, and the default desktop looks cluttered and unprofessional. There is TOO MUCH going on all of the time and I don't see the point of wasting CPU cycles for eye candy that adds absolutely nothing to speed or productivity. (That's something you expect of OS X.)

      XP is now 10 years old and whilst it has some issues with supporting the very latest hardware properly, the fact that it's 32-bit and old is countered by the speed of modern PCs which means it runs pretty fast, as long as you spend time administering it and keeping it clean. For most home user tasks. 64 bit means very little anyway and there is little visible speed difference between running in 32-bit and 64-bit mode.

      I didn't use Vista at all but I can understand why a lot of Vista users welcomed Windows 7 when it came along - but I see absolutely no reason whatsoever to move my last couple of Windows XP machines too it, and when Microsoft stop supporting XP to the point where it's no longer updated and full of security holes, then I see myself moving fully to Linux as Windows 7 does nothing for me.

      I'm not a "Linux v Windows" zealot by any means, I really don't care whether it's Windows or Linux that runs on most desktops, I'd rather people sat down carefully and thought about what OS they want to use before finally choosing it. But if Windows 7 is a success then it's mainly because Microsoft has foist it on people by making it the default OS on many new machines and ensuring XP's retirement by not porting DirectX 10 or Internet Explorer 9 to it. People are not migrating from XP to Windows 7 in their droves, over 50% of the world's desktop PCs still run XP - that's because for most people it's good enough.

      So, yes, I accept Windows 7 is better and liked more than Vista and that it will be as stable as XP ever has been. It may also be a better OS for newbies because they don't care to carry out proper administration on XP PCs like I do to ensure that it stays malware free (and it does, if you spend time with it and take a little care). But to say it's "more so" makes no sense.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    52. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've just started up powershell and you know what; echo works, as does copy. Hell I can even ls!

    53. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      You're right that PowerShell is a real shell and it may be subjective that I prefer bash because of its simplicity and in my opinion better usability, e.g. tabbing/copy-pasting.

      Some other non-subjective example points:
      performance
      documentation - man wins big time regarding technical details
      file system - ext3 is not subject to fragmentation
      enhance security/permission features - no sudo-equivalent in Windows
      lower hardware requirements
      get rid of the sick registry
      better modularization - Windows has a pretty monolithic setup compared to Linux

    54. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      A nearly 2 and a half year old performance benchmark that counts the number of mouse clicks required to install as an important metric?

      man?  As long as it is up to date and they developers have bothered to write it.

      ext3 can get fragmented.

      sudo?  In Explorer shift right click.  In the CLI use runas

      You link to an article about Vista pre SP1 to show hardware requirements?  See modern GNOME / KDE.

    55. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      It is much faster if you disable hybrid sleep. http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-vista/disable-hybrid-sleep-mode/

    56. Re:Why? by Junta · · Score: 1

      The SAM database does indeed store poorly salted hashes. If you need to do NTLMv1 and v2, you need two hashes (if the server had access to the cleartext, it wouldn't need both hashes to do the two). All that said, NTLM is just a horrible horrible protocol that should have been retired approximately 5 seconds after the release of Win2k, when they finally caught up to the *nix world in capability.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    57. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      nice trolling...

      performance:
      1. Windows 7 is benchmarked. Who cares whether it is more than a year old? Please back up your non-existing performance improvements.
      2. You didn't even bother scrolling down. Ubuntu wins also in boot time I/O performance.

      man:
      Yes, but Linux devs care for documentation in compratison to MS devs, who don't. Only thing that matters is that it's better in practice.

      ext3: OK, let's be more clear. It's a lot less effected by fragmentation than NTFS.

      sudo/CLI: Just LOL. You have no clue what you are talking about... RUNAS != SUDO The RUNAS command is equivalent to Unix SU, not SUDO. The reason SUDO is superior to SU is that it allows privilege escalation based on the userâ(TM)s own identity, and most importantly does not require use of a shared password. Using RUNAS to access a privileged account requires distribution of a password to an admin-capable account, a security weakness that SUDO does not have. I believe that SUDO has not previously been ported to Windows because Windows does not have SETUID capability.

      Vista vs GNOME/KDE: Who talked about GNOME/KDE? No one forces you to use a bloated window manager in Linux.

      As you're just trolling and have no clue what you're talking about I'll stop the conversation with this post.

    58. Re:Why? by Junta · · Score: 1

      I knew of core, and it doesn't count as decoupled IMO, but instead GUI with one terminal, but the EMS console is indeed a true serial console. You can still start notepad in a core edition. If the core edition did not have a GUI, it couldn't do some third-party software, which really is the heart of Microsoft's hold on the market.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    59. Re:Why? by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      The core OS will be unix-based if it's to be Apple style...

      Is that what the summary means by "cross platform"? That it's unix based with a Windows front-end?

      Is that how iOS is considered "cross platform"?

      I'm not sure I understand everything that the summary is hinting at.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    60. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      nice trolling...

      performance:
      1. Windows 7 is benchmarked. Who cares whether it is more than a year old? Please back up your non-existing performance improvements. 2. You didn't even bother scrolling down. Ubuntu wins also in boot time I/O performance.

      man: Yes, but Linux devs care for documentation in compratison to MS devs, who don't. Only thing that matters is that it's better in practice.

      ext3: OK, let's be more clear. It's a lot less effected by fragmentation than NTFS.

      sudo/runas: Just LOL. You have no clue what you are talking about... RUNAS != SUDO The RUNAS command is equivalent to Unix SU, not SUDO. The reason SUDO is superior to SU is that it allows privilege escalation based on the userâ(TM)s own identity, and most importantly does not require use of a shared password. Using RUNAS to access a privileged account requires distribution of a password to an admin-capable account, a security weakness that SUDO does not have. I believe that SUDO has not previously been ported to Windows because Windows does not have SETUID capability.

      Vista vs GNOME/KDE: Who talked about GNOME/KDE? No one forces you to use a bloated window manager in Linux.

      As you're just trolling and have no clue what you're talking about I'll stop the conversation with this post.

    61. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Informative

      Security: read this [wikipedia.org] and check out what Exec Shield and PaX do

      Windows has full NX bit support. It also has ASLR, and a far better implementation of it than either Linux or OS X (as evidenced by pwn2own results).

      What desktop linux distros ship with PaX?

      Interoperability: more effort into native POSIX support. Mingw32, Cygwin, SFU, [...] shouldn't have to exist; this is a consequence of too much difference, most of it deliberately engineered for vendor lock-in purposes.

      The reason why Win32 is not POSIX-compatible is not due to anything "deliberately engineered" - it's a consequence of backwards compatibility applied to the extreme.

      That said, SUA (the new name for SFU) is native POSIX support. It does that by completely ditching Win32 subsystem, and using a POSIX subsystem implemented directly on top of NT kernel (unlike Cygwin, which tries to implement POSIX on top of Win32 - which is very hard due to many mismatches).

      Mingw has nothing to do with POSIX at all, it is simply a port of gcc to Win32.

      "Real" command shell: if you think PowerShell is not a joke, then perhaps you're acquainted with its super-compact syntax [stevex.net]?

      Do you realize that all common commands have short aliases out of the box, most of them in fact taken from Unix shell? Sure, you can write "get-childitem", but you can also write "ls" - and all sane people do. Long names exist because PowerShell has a strict naming guide for all commands to improve discoverability (you can often guess the name of command you need by looking at the names of other commands that you know), and this is applied to common commands such as "cp" for the sake of consistency.

      Oh yes, "write-output" is aliased as "echo", and "write-host" is aliased to "write". And "write-host" is a very different thing - it writes directly to the host (PowerShell can be used as a scripting language; host is the program that does so). Normal shell scripts should use "write-output" (i.e. "echo"), which writes to stdout as God intended.

      A much bigger WTF is the decision to use a back-tick as a line continuation indicator. e.g., if you want to insert a linebreak into an echo statement (oh wait, it's fucking called write-host . So elegant!) you do so like this ... No \n.

      What does "\n" have to do with it? In Unix shell, line continuation would be \ followed by end-of-line. "\n" is when you want to insert a newline in the output. In PowerShell, you write "`n" for the same.

      The obvious reason why PowerShell does not use "\" as escape character is because it is used as the path separator by OS. They had to use something else simply because otherwise writing out paths would be very painful (and they can't just use "/" for that because that would be inconsistent with other applications - you couldn't copy/paste a path from, say, Explorer into PS then). Even so, other than the different escape character, all escape sequences are the same as in Unix shell.

      Some more absurdities are move-item instead of cmd's move, copy-item instead of cmd's copy, and rename-item instead of cmd's rename. A command-line scripting language should be file-oriented from top to bottom, yet these -item suffixes are in some of the most commonly-used commands!

      See above regarding consistent naming. As well, PowerShell is not file-oriented - it's object-oriented and object-tree oriented. Files are objects, directories are lists of objects, and filesystems are trees of objects. This lets it deal with any hierarchical data structure in the same way.

      As well, "copy-item" is aliased to "cp", "rename-item" is aliased to "ren", and "move-item" is aliased to "mv"

    62. Re:Why? by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Selection bias, much?

    63. Re:Why? by JonJ · · Score: 2

      It also has ASLR, and a far better implementation of it than either Linux or OS X (as evidenced by pwn2own results).

      This is a complete and utter lie. In 2008 the only system left standing was Ubuntu, and since then no GNU/Linux has been in the contest. So you need to remove Linux from your list there, cowboy. As for your other points, I wouldn't trust a liar like you about anything.

      --
      -- Linux user #369862
    64. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Informative

      By that argument, all version of Linux are just the previous version of Linux with a new skin.

      There was actually a lot of under the covers changes in Windows 7, and the kernel changed substantially. Those aren't things you can see though, so you look at it and say "It's just windows with a new skin" because the skin is all you can see.

    65. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Performance is highly subjective, and depends on the chosen task. If we take anything with heavy 3D, for example, and a decent graphics card, Linux will lag behind real bad.

      Documentation - man sometimes wins on details, but only when you have a man page for something. Is there a man page for, say, apache? For Samba? For KDE? On the other hand, if you take PowerShell, it does have a very man-like system...

      File system - ext3 is subject to fragmentation, it just deals with it as it goes, same as any other sane filesystem. NTFS does the same. Fragmentation was an issue with FAT simply because FAT is a very, very primitive filesystem in terms of data structures.

      Sudo equivalent in Windows Vista+ is UAC. It does precisely the same as sudo - it lets user authenticate his identity to get admin privileges. Yes, by default it doesn't ask user for password, but simply pops up a "ok to go ahead?" dialog. This is intentional - UAC is implemented on kernel level, and kernel can pop up a confirmation dialog in such a way that it cannot be intercepted by any other running process, and only accepts real user input - which is enough to ensure that user consciously chose to elevate himself. Sudo has to ask for password, because if it didn't, any random app running under user's account could do sudo and get admin privileges, and sudo has no way of popping up a simple confirmation prompt which another process couldn't hijack and auto-answer.

      Lower hardware reqs only makes sense in the context of features. When you compare a modern Linux DE to Windows, they are just as slow and consume just as much if not more RAM. If you compare something like Openbox, sure, it's fast, but it misses lots of features. If you don't need those features, it's a viable choice for you, and then you could say that Windows loses on this comparison. But most users want them (as evidenced by the fact that most Linux users use Gnome or KDE, and lightweight WMs are in minority).

      Registry is a mess largely due to back-compat, but the fundamental idea is nowehere near as bad as it's purported to be. From Unix perspective, it's really just a filesystem for efficient (compact and fast-lookup) storage of very small files, mounted via loopback from a file on NTFS. The real annoyance with registry is that it has its own APIs for access; it would be much better if you truly could treat it as any other FS - cd'ing through keys, directly editing values, and so on.

    66. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 0

      Windows 2000 and Windows XP were both pretty good products in a row. In many ways, XP SP2 was almost a complete redesign of the OS, so you could almost say 3 products in a row.

      Windows 2000 Server and Windows 2003 Server were good products in a row. Windows 2008 R1 was actually pretty good as well, since nearly all of Vista's failings were in the desktop technologies. SQL Server 7, 2000, 2005, 2008 and 2008 R2 have all been very good products.

      IIS 6 proved to be a VERY good product, and IIS7 and IIS7.5 even better.

      There are lots of cases of connected products being quite good. It's only in the desktop OS department that Microsoft has had some failures, but to be fair, those were products that were either shipped as stopgaps (Windows ME was never planned, it was done because WIndows 2000 slipped and wasn't going to be Windows 9x replacement. Also, Vista ended up being shipped as a pain point, to deliberately make breaking changes, so that the next version could be much better).

    67. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      IIRC (and ICBveryW), Windows is more-or-less entirely object-oriented in design. Seriously, you can't do a damn thing without messing around with all the overhead of instantiating objects, assigning attributes or calling methods.

      Uh, what? The vast majority of Win32 API is plain C. You don't need to create any objects or assign any attributes to read a file, open a network socket, or display a window.

      The reason why PowerShell is object-oriented has nothing to do with Windows design, and everything with being more flexible. In Unix, "ls" lists contents of a directory, printing it out as a series of strings. In PowerShell, "ls" lists child objects of the current active objects, producing the result as a collection (items of which can print themselves if asked - e.g. if streamed to stdout). The result from user perspective is the same, except when you start piping things - in Unix you always pipe a byte stream, and each program in the pipeline has to interpret (i.e. parse) its input, and then format its output. More often than not, you end up using intermediate steps like sed to extract the data you need, and then the script will break if new version of the app changes its output format. In PowerShell, there's nothing to parse - commands accept objects as input and produce objects as output, with properties filled with strongly typed data that is readily queryable, filterable etc; it only becomes text when you pipe it to a plain app that wants a text stream for stdin, or for the last step in the pipeline.

    68. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has made a lot of scalability improvements in Windows 7, particularly in the areas of multi-core support. But, because this is under the cover, most people don't see these changes.

      Microsoft has also been improving modularity. IIS7 and IIS7.5 for instance have gone completely modular compared to IIS6. They've decoupled the UI from the browser. They've made a lot of changes that improve things.

      Window management has improved greatly with the DWM.

      I don't find the Gnome menu or the K menu any better than the Start menu.. i don't know what would be better.

      The GUI is already decoupled in a lot of ways. Windows server 2008 supports "core" mode that doesn't use a GUI.

      Much of what you ask for is there.

    69. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      PowerShell is a very "real" command shell. I can't remember the last time my OS has crashed. Security is also highly improved.

    70. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You really can't see how you could be considered to be trolling? Let me reply, as a mod who marked several of your posts as trolling. I'm doing this because I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming from your username you have a strong bias and are not actually that familiar with windows.

      Several of the reasons you gave were factually incorrect, demonstrating your ignorance which could be a mistake, or could also be seen as an attempt to incite a meaningless flamewar.

      The issues you gave that were not entirely factually incorrect were vastly negatively exaggerated, so as to be almost entirely inaccurate.

      The remaining issues you mention tend to be subjective, yet you still arrogantly write as though your subjective opinion is objectively correct.

      Then, when asked to backup your ridiculously incorrect claims, you make excuses, that you're too busy or too tired or whatever. Well kiddo, I'm sorry, but that just isn't how civilized debate works. If you make an argument that relies on a bunch of claims, none of which are commonly accepted, then the onus is on you to back up your argument. If you can't do that, you should at least explain your reasoning.

      All you have done is slander the latest Windows incarnation, and poorly. There is room for improvement, but in most of the areas you mention, Windows is vastly ahead of 'Desktop Linux'. Stop and think about that before rpelying with yet another ill-informed rebuttal. Thankyou.

    71. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      POSIX filesystem semantics, including removing/renaming open files (continue access until closed)

      This is there, actually, but it's subject to sharing flags used by the application which opened the file. If FILE_SHARE_DELETE was passed to a CreateFile call, then file can actually be renamed, moved or deleted while it's open, with almost the same semantics as in POSIX (there is a subtle difference with delete).

      transition away from mandatory file locking by default

      See above. It's only a matter of passing the correct flags. FILE_SHARE_READ | FILE_SHARE_WRITE | FILE_SHARE_DELETE will let any other app do anything to a file that you've opened.

      Why is it not the default? Because it's not always safe. Imagine that you have created a new file, filled it with data, and are now invoking an external process to do something to that file and give you the result (ironically, that's how "Unix way" is supposed to work, isn't it?). If another app can rename the file that you're writing, by the time you get to running that process, you're going to give it a wrong file name.

      transition away from carriage returns in text files (fix notepad, start changing tools to default to leaving the carriage returns out), switch to UTF-8 encoding for unicode by default for filenames and contents (instead of 2-bytes-per-character), transition to case-sensitive filenames (when most people use GUIs instead of typing names, why have the insensitive complexity in there...), etc.

      You're basically asking to throw away all backwards compatibility in Windows just so that Unix users would feel more comfortable - but Windows is not Unix. Can you explain why you care about the physical encoding of filenames (UTF-8 vs UTF-16), so long as it's Unicode? You know there's an UTF-8 multibyte locale in Windows, right? And why do you care about case sensitivity of filenames?

      On a side note, OS X has case insensitive FS (by default; but then NTFS can also be switched to case-sensitive mode if desired), and also uses UTF-16 for filename encoding. And yet it's certified Unix.

      Fix it so POSIX api functions are no longer treated as bastard stepchildren - implement them in the core, and emulate others.

      You can't emulate Win32 on top of POSIX well, just as you can't emulate POSIX on top of Win32 (see various problems Cygwin has for an example). You can usually get the semantics right with various hacks, but then you sacrifice performance.

      The way Windows does it, there is the kernel - NT - with some basic primitives that can be used as building blocks; and then there is Win32 and POSIX (SUA) running side by side, both on top of NT. Both are equally native.

      When you're saying that you want the kernel to be POSIX, you are again saying that you want to throw backwards compatibility out for ideological reasons (because POSIX "is better")

      Include a good, standard scriptable command line interpreter by default, where it can be counted on to be installed. /bin/sh and associated commands would be a vast improvement, and it wouldn't be hard support command line editting ala bash or zsh as well.

      PowerShell is in the stock install since Win7/Win2008R2. Late to the party? For sure, but better late than never.

    72. Re:Why? by WilCompute · · Score: 1

      I LIKE the fact they targeted the netbook market, this is one reason that Windows 7 runs so well on older hardware. Of course, preparing it to run on more than 64 cores might have helped, as well.

      --
      NDxTreme Content on the Edge.
    73. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's an abuse of their OS quasi-monopoly in my opinion and hurts the free competition.

      Given that competition (Adobe Reader) is free, and does not derive any profit from additional copies of their software being distributed, how is it hurt?

      They could very well run into legal trouble (cf. Internet Explorer/Windows bundle).

      The trouble back in the day was that Netscape was paid software, so free bundled IE was undercutting it. This is not the case here.

    74. Re:Why? by WilCompute · · Score: 1

      Technically Windows 2000 and Windows ME happened at basically the same time. And Windows 98 was much less buggy than 95, its just more people were using 98, so we received more complaints. They were over the same issues again and again.

      --
      NDxTreme Content on the Edge.
    75. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Your entire argument boils down to "I don't like the way they did this or that". Not that the tools are bad, or suck, or can't do this or that.. but just that you don't like the WAY they do them... which boils down to "it's not bash".

      \n is a convention, it's not an unchangable constant of the universe. PowerShell has verbose and compact syntax, plus aliasing. Don't liek "Write-Host" change it to something else. Oh, and echo works just fine. It's all about your personal preference.

      Both Vista and Windows 7 come with full SFU built-in (in the enterprise and ultimate sku's).

      Exec Shield? Windows has had NX support since XP SP2, not to mention stuff like ASLR and other technologies. PaX? That does stuff that Windows already does, by default.. but you typically have to enable it on Linux because it interferes with too many other tools.

    76. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      WMI is just the windows implementation of the Common Information Model (CIM) that many Linux systems also support. It's an industry standard. I think you mean Remote Management, which uses industry standard Web Services, such as WS-Management.

      SSH doesn't support the kind of ACL security that Microsoft feels are needed.

    77. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 0

      Generally: I never said that windows completely sucks in all these regards (it surely improved a lot with 7 and they do quite some things in a good way!), just that they should concentrate on improving their core instead of building fluffy stuff.

      Performance: of course Windows has advantages, but nevertheless Linux wins regarding boot time and I/O performance. I didn't want to say that Windows performance is bad overall, but that they should rather focus on areas where it isn't instead of building PDF viewers or image manipulation software.
      Documentation: true, but overall I'm a lot more satisfied with man/apropos than with Windows documentation.
      File Systems: Yes, what I really meant is that ext3/ext4 is practically a lot better regarding fragmentation than NTFS. In practice defragmentation may not be needed at all. On another note, look here for a performance comparison. We can see that NTFS loses by a pretty big margin.
      UAC/SUDO: Basically UAC simply grants you full rights for one particular action right now, whereas sudo can grant you a wide range of rights for X amount of time for Y numbers of actions. You can argue about them, but they are not the same.
      Hardware: By default sure, but you can customize linux to run on *very* low hardware in comparison to windows. And I'm not forced to use a bloated window manager.
      Registry: Here's a pretty good summary of what's wrong with the windows registry.

    78. Re:Why? by WilCompute · · Score: 1

      How about really rethinking the default UI. I currently have my start menu on the right, and the tabs of my browser on the left, because that is where I have more space thanks to the new 16:9 screen ratios that the industry has standardized on. Why not have the Title bar on the left or right, or at least customizable to be. They finally have Windows Update usable, after 15years of working with it, so why not let other companies, such as Adobe, use that technology for their updates, for a price, of course. Why not have a screen when you first start the computer that will walk you through choices of antivirus, and anti-malware. Oh yeah, when are we going to get a Mac OS like, as in the functionality, quick bar, with out having to rely on these things that can't work with windows explorer.

      --
      NDxTreme Content on the Edge.
    79. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      OK, good point regarding the legal aspects. As long as third-party apps for viewing PDFs/manipulating images/whatever can easily replace the MS alternative and integrate nicely with the OS I don't really have an issue with it.

    80. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Your list of "issues" provides no support. You claim it's "common knowledge", but it's not.

      For example, Windows is VERY efficient at using system resources. It's designed to use all the resources you have free to improve speed and performance, and giving up those resources when apps need them.

      Most people look at Windows 7 running on a 4GB machine and complain that it's using so many resources. This is the wrong way to look a it. You want the OS to use all those resources, not leave them idle doing nothing... so long as they're available for apps when they need them. What good does extra memory doing nothing do? Likewise, Windows purges uncommonly used memory to make more room for things like disk cache and other buffers, because those provide real immediate performance improvements at the cost of having to page in some less commonly used resources on occasion.

      All performance optimization is about tradeoffs.

      Windows also comes with PowerShell, a shell that is arguably more powerful than bash (but that's because bash tends to use external progarms for many tasks). It's object based approach makes it far more flexible and modular, while providing a standardized information pipeline.

      Windows has very simple remote access builtin, be it a remote management shell, or remote desktop.

      Windows can be highly customized, it just doesn't include all the customizaiton tools with the OS. There's lots of hooks there for almost any kind of customization you want to do.

      Lower hardware requirements? Why? Even the least powerful computer you can buy today is more than enough to run windows well. Windows minimum "requirements" are for using all the features, if you choose not to use high end features that require lots of resources, then you can run Windows on very low end hardware.

      You really don't know much about Windows, or what it's capable of. You just perpetuate stereotypes.

    81. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is a complete and utter lie. In 2008 the only system left standing was Ubuntu

      The quality of ASLR implementation is not the sole factor that decides who wins the contest, so looking at winners is not giving you any information. But if you read the interviews with participants, they did explain some aspects of making attacks easier, and ASLR was specifically covered. For example, here is one from 2009, and I quote:

      "ASLR is also very tough to defeat. This is the way the process randomizes the location of code in a process. Between these two hurdles, no one knows how to execute arbitrary code in Firefox or IE 8 in Vista right now. For the record, Leopard has neither of these features, at least implemented effectively. In the exploit I won Pwn2Own with, I knew right where my shellcode was located and I knew it would execute on the heap for me. ...
      And just so that our readers know, ASLR is implemented in Windows Vista (but not XP) and Vista SP1 is required for the full ASLR. Leopard had some binaries placed randomly, but Snow Leopard is rumored to introduce full ASLR. On Linux, kernel 2.6.12 has a weak form of ASLR like Leopard does, but PaX and ExecShield will implement Windows Vista-like ASLR."

      and since then no GNU/Linux has been in the contest.

      Which basically means that we don't know how it really stacks up against Windows and OS X. By the way, do you know why they don't do Linux? Quote:

      "Linux is not an operating system that has widespread use with any one particular distribution, flavor or configuration. In general Linux is still a server-based operating system, people do use it on the desktop, but you can't go to BestBuy and buy Linux with a specific distro on it that everyone uses that has widespread market share. If we were to include Linux, we'd have even more controversy and we just don't want to deal it."

      So it's not because it's somehow magically invulnerable.

      As for your other points, I wouldn't trust a liar like you about anything.

      Fanboi much? You don't need to "trust" me on anything - you've got Google to check facts, and (hopefully) brain to check conclusions. Use them.

      Of course, if you want to stick fingers in your ears and go "Lalala I can't hear you, Linux is the best OS in all respects because how could it possibly be otherwise?", then you're welcome to do so - you can join the company of creationists and other similar religious fundies over there.

    82. Re:Why? by benjymouse · · Score: 1

      I will say PowerShell is an improvement. I do think it borders on counterproductive pride as to why they don't have anything quite as simple as plain-ol-bash.

      The reason why they would not run with something like bash is quite obvious when you think about it: Windows if almost entirely object-oriented, especially when you look at it through the various APIs: COM, .NET, WMI etc. Even Win32 with its handle-centric approach fall into this category.

      A primary task of a command shell is to interface with the operating system and with the applications which run upon in. When all those applications expose their functionality as OO APIs, it makes a lot of sense to make the command shell object-oriented as well. That the OO nature of the shell then also drastically improves on the original paradigm of piping is just an extra.

      Also, why they don't implement SSH for a nice common protocol instead of their WMI crap for remote command execution.

      PowerShell can actually run over telnet or ssh or whatever. But once you look into the remoting capabilities of PowerShell v2 even SSH starts to look a little archaic. Compared to SSH it is so easy to step in and out of remote sessions, juggling several active remote sessions at the same time - even scripted - and issue commands which relay back not only the results is a seamless fashion but will even relay back progress indicators and input requests. The PowerShell fan-out remoting feature lets you issue the same command (e.g. "backup") to ten or hundreds of hosts *simultaneously* and have each one report back the output *objects* consolidated in the command result, each indicated with the host. I'm not missing SSH one iota.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    83. Re:Why? by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      They should rather concentrate on improving the core OS in my opinion. Why would I want to manipulate images or read PDFs with crap software from MS...

      My answer would be "who cares, until we actually see the finished or near finished product?"

      Keep in mind Thurrott and Co have proven time and again that they are in all probability, simply paid Microsoft shills. No, this isn't trolling. Simply dig up their old articles on other pre-release OS versions from Microsoft, where the shit is so deep that you'd need a bulldozer to wade through it.

      Start here and work yourself backwards. That particular "article" is actually pretty "decent" - other than downplaying the fact that there were so many bugs in Vista that it should have been delayed - but Microsoft decided to release it anyway. Surely not a good thing - but that's not the way the article is written.

    84. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I would expect the app to simply use the stock APIs to register as a default opener and previewer for PDF filetype, same as Adobe Reader does today when you install it on Windows. Probably also a search filter to index contents of PDF files - also public API.

      On a side note, even the much-touted IE "integration" into Windows is largely overblown. IE engine is really just a bunch of COM components for the data model (can be instantiated standalone), and an ActiveX renderer control. Most Windows apps that need an embedded browser for any reason - including stock apps - just instantiate those. Now, this being COM, this is usually done via CLSID (a class GUID). From there, the OS looks up the ID in the registry to find the corresponding DLL, and loads it. Since the table is public, you can easily change the corresponding entry to point to your own DLL instead of the stock IE one. Furthermore, the COM interfaces implemented by those components are also public and documented.

      So, in theory, it's quite possible to tear IE out and replace it with your own. The big problem there is not technical ability to do so, but ensuring compatibility. Many programs that use IE rely on its non-standard way of rendering HTML, especially in the absence of doctype declaration (usually not deliberately - it's just that few people validate HTML when it's embedded in the app, and all testing is of course done on a non-hacked system where embedded browser is always IE). So you'd need to have your rendering engine be bug-for-bug compatible when it comes to rendering - and given that non-standard IE behavior is usually poor documented, this would be a major undertaking.

    85. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why? Because it most likely will be better than Adobe's. Have you NOT ever use Adobe's reader?

    86. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      A few quick googles found the answers to the problems you can't seem to figure out. Took all of 10 seconds.

      http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/windows-7/disable-the-mouse-drag-window-arranging-feature-in-windows-7/

      IIS is a very good web server. It's secure, has has almost zero vulnerabilities (and what few there have been have not been critical), and performs well. What is so "shit" about it? No, Search does not use > 1GB of memory. In fact, you can disable search and see that's actually pretty minimal. Your search results are probably from not knowing how to use search functions. But, I'll admit that it's not as powerful as it could be (but that would us a lot more memory. Funny how you complain about mutually exclusive things).

      Most of WIndows 7's memory goes to system cache and the DWM (Display Window Manager), but DWM has become a lot more efficient in windows 7 if you are using a a decent driver that supports WDDM 1.1 (a lot of people still use older drivers for some reason, and that's really stupid). WDDM also supports driver crash recovery without killing your GUI apps, something X11 can't do.

      No, UAC is not Sudo, but it's 90% of it. There are some philosophical differences between the way UAC and Sudo works, largely because Microsoft has to deal with morons that will click "yes" to anything.

      Windows already has built-in secure remote access, both with Remote Desktop and Remote Management (remote command shell). PowerShell already has this built-in. But you wouldn't know that because you don't even know what powershell can do.

      The problem with running Windows and OSX on the same hardware is that what you mean is, Windows running on a Mac uses more power. And the reason for that is that Windows doesn't have optimized drivers for the Mac's hardware. This is something Apple guards very closely. They WANT windows to be worse on Mac hardware. And there is absolutely no way that a Hackintosh runs more efficently, because of the emulation required, not to mention the fact that MacOS doesn't support most power management hardware natively in standard PC's.

      Event viewer is slow, i agree with you. But it's also a much more powerful tool with advanced searching, categorizing, and management features. I don't like how they did it either, but it's very powerful. Sometimes that level of flexibility reduces performance.

    87. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Are you confusing sleep with hibernation? My windows systems are instant-on from sleep.

    88. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Better is in the eye of the beholder. It takes 15-20 seconds for Acrobat reader to initialize. It may do more functions, but a simple, full fidelity reader that starts instantly would be very appreciated over Adobe's click and wait approach.

      You're confusing "coupled" with "installed by default". Most Linux distros ship with far more crap.

    89. Re:Why? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      I have far less trouble with Win7 than I did with XP; frankly, it even edges out the last linux distro I had.

    90. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Powershell is crap. The outrageously long commands they've created are a really bad joke, especially compared to the nice simple single-purpose commands of the Unix world

      Translation: 'it isn't exactly like bash, and I don't like learning new things'.

      Yawn.

    91. Re:Why? by benjymouse · · Score: 0

      Server Core. Haha aha ha ha. Yeah, great. Now get a unix OS and see what a real headless/GUI-less system can do.

      Mature. Nice. oh by the way: You obviously has little clue about core.

      It needs SSH, for secure remote login, remote file copying and remote command execution. Of course, somebody at Microsoft is right now programming a really shit set of updates for powershell to try and copy SSH, but they'll get it wrong, naturally.

      Obviously you know as little about PowerShell as you do about Server Core. PowerShell does remoting fully encrypted and integrated with your directory (if you so wish). And you don't even have to "jump into" the remote machine to administer it. You can just issue commands for remote machines, like e.g. icm myserver {ps} to get a list of processes running on myserver (icm is a built-in alias for Invoke-Command)

      But you can *also* start sessions with any number of remote machines to and issue commands to them at will without leaving the sessions. The state of each session (think env vars etc) are preserved between command invocations. This can only be done with bash with some not-some-simple juggling and suspending.

      A single command can be trivially set to execute on any number of remote hosts and consolidate the results back icm host1,host2,host3,host4 {ps} will bring up a list of all processes running on the 4 hosts. On top of that PowerShell does remote jobs. Yes, you can start jobs on remote machines and interact with them like they were jobs on the local machine, i.e. fill in the requests for console inputs, poll for partial results or progress or simply wait for completion.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    92. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      That said, SUA (the new name for SFU) is native POSIX support. It does that by completely ditching Win32 subsystem, and using a POSIX subsystem implemented directly on top of NT kernel (unlike Cygwin, which tries to implement POSIX on top of Win32 - which is very hard due to many mismatches).

      This sounds suspiciously like the earlier "Posix subsystem" on NT that was purposely designed so that nobody would use it but they could tick off the "POSIX compatibility" check mark.

      Basic question on SUA: can the Posix API open EVERY file on the system, no matter what it is named? And is the name something obvious (the UTF-8 version of the 16-bit filename is the only possible answer here, so don't lie). Is it possible to copy a filename from a Windows app, paste it into the Posix app, and it opens the same file every single time, with minimal direct conversion during the paste that does not involve looking for the file on the disk? How about the other direction?

      If not, then this is like the subsystem and is designed so they can check things off while actively discouraging interoperability.

      Then again, there are smart people at Microsoft, some of them with a conscience, so I can believe it is possible that they did this right.

    93. Re:Why? by westyvw · · Score: 1

      Win 7 performance when doing more then one task at once is really poor. Admittedly, this is on machines that do have full anti virus running, so that is an additional load, but in general once several tasks are running, it is not very responsive. Far better then XP however, particularly with network operations, and clearly the kernel space is separated from the user. But I cant just leave applications running like I do on the production Linux boxes, and this seems to be across a variety of software. Some of the slow down could be due to the huge reliance on .NET in many of the windows applications, and I am not saying that .NET is slow, but that the framework may make it a little to easy to slap together apps using a lot of libraries at run time.
      I have discovered several memory leaks in Win7, for example the Sidebar.exe. Powershell is dreadfully slow as well, several tests have confirmed that it is 20 to 50 times slower then a .NET C# app doing the same thing. For this reason I still use Bash on Windows.
      System resources are wasteful, the requirements are going through the roof on the server side, although if the requirements are met, the server performs fairly well.

    94. Re:Why? by rolfwind · · Score: 0

      IMO, shitty drivers should not bring down a computer.

    95. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Can you explain why you care about the physical encoding of filenames (UTF-8 vs UTF-16), so long as it's Unicode?

      UTF-8 is a superset of UTF-16, in that the byte sequence can have ERRORS. What is needed is a well-defined conversion INCLUDING ERRORS from UTF-8 to the UTF-16 that Windows uses, perhaps programs should call this, but it would be trivial for it to do it EVERY TIME when using the older 'mb' or 'a' API to the filesystem, and thus remove a huge reason i18n does not work (because programs use about a thousand different converters right now and the result is that only ASCII filenames work). The fact that you actually think the physical encoding of filenames does not matter proves you have never worked with this and do not know what you are talking about.

      And why do you care about case sensitivity of filenames?

      Because it is really stupid that there is this enormous complexity in the algorithm to determine if two filenames will collide. Windows is supposed to be all GUI-centric, and in the GUI users CLICK ON FILES. They could not care less about case insensitivity, probably far less than users of command shells do, and so it is idiotic that you continue with this. Also despite all your claims about being politically-correct with UTF-16 and all that, the case conversions show an extreme bias toward English as they only reliably convert latin letters.

      On a side note, OS X uses UTF-16 for filename encoding.

      BZZT! WRONG! It uses UTF-8. Now how am I supposed to believe anything you say.

    96. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      You know there's an UTF-8 multibyte locale in Windows, right?

      Yes I know that. You know it is IMPOSSIBLE for a program to force this to turn on? Maybe want to explain that little detail to us?

    97. Re:Why? by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      I can have a compile going in VS 2010, Security Essential running, a video playing and multiple other monitoring apps running at the same time with no slow down. Sounds like your are either memory constrained or IO limited. "Several tests have confirmed that it is 20 to 50 times slower then a .NET C# app doing the same thing" Without any hint as to what it was doing that is a nearly useless statement.

    98. Re:Why? by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      If your really think that Windows surpasses a proper unix OS regarding any of the points I mentioned, please give an example.

      Why should I give you an example ? The information is freely available, taught at universities and/or indexed by Google.

      MS simply doesn't care, because average Joe doesn't and they rather build fluffy stuff.

      Which really highlights your ignorance. *By far* the largest volume of changes in Windows are invisible to the end user.

    99. Re:Why? by MBraynard · · Score: 2

      I always appreciate software assessments from people never used the software.

      Thanks.

      Also, why does Slashdot ignore my first paragraph break? It has been doing this ever since I joined the site.

    100. Re:Why? by linux_geek_germany · · Score: 1

      You, sir, win the internets.

    101. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On another note, look here for a performance comparison. We can see that NTFS loses by a pretty big margin.

      NTFS in Windows XP. Please don't tell me you actually think thats still relevant?

    102. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a pretty uninformed opinion regarding each and every meaningful OS in existence but it is an opinion nevertheless.

    103. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Basic question on SUA: can the Posix API open EVERY file on the system, no matter what it is named?

      I don't know what the limitations are. If you can come up with some test cases that would be particularly interesting, I can test them and report the results.

      I do know that Win32 API cannot open every file on the system for sure, because it has certain restrictions on names of files which are not present in the underlying NT layer. As NT layer is still exposed to userspace - even though undocumented - it is possible to create a file using it with a name that Win32 layer will then refuse to accept. This is, in fact, used by some viruses to create "undeleteable" files (since cmd.exe, and most file managers, use Win32). I wouldn't be surprised if there is a similar mismatch between NT and SUA.

      And is the name something obvious (the UTF-8 version of the 16-bit filename is the only possible answer here, so don't lie)

      As on Unix, for the likes of readdir and other multibyte (rather than widechar) functions, it uses the current locale to encode filenames. For SUA, the current locale is defined by a setting in "Regions & Language" titled "Language for non-Unicode programs (system locale)". This is the same setting that is used by Win32 applications when they invoke non-Unicode versions of Win32 APIs (e.g. FindFirstFileA rather than FindFirstFileW). If your system locale is set to UTF-8, I believe it will feed you UTF-8 (mine is set to CP1251, and for some mysterious reason it requires a reboot to change, so I can't check this for sure - sorry).

      Is it possible to copy a filename from a Windows app, paste it into the Posix app, and it opens the same file every single time, with minimal direct conversion during the paste that does not involve looking for the file on the disk? How about the other direction?

      Quite obviously, Win32 paths with drive letters and backslashes are not immediately usable in POSIX. Overall, SUA sees the filesystem somewhat differently - like any Unix, there is a single root, with the usual /bin, /etc, /usr and other stock folders underneath. The root corresponds to the base SUA folder on NTFS partition (normally C:\Windows\SUA). Actual partitions are auto-mounted as /dev/fs/C, /dev/fs/D, and so on.

      So, converting an absolute Win32 path to a SUA path is always straightforward - remove ":" after the drive letter, replace all "\" with "/", and prepend "/dev/fs".

      The other way is trickier because it can be a /dev/fs path or not (even for the same file - e.g. on my system, /dev/fs/C/WINDOWS/SUA/etc is the same as /etc), so there are two different transformations to consider. Still, both are purely mechanical.

      A minor annoyance there is that, while SUA hardlinks are true NTFS hardlinks (and therefore respected as such by Win32), SUA symlinks are its own custom ones, implemented on top of FS, despite the fact that NTFS has supported symlinks since Vista. So a SUA path which includes a symlink cannot be directly converted to a Win32 path - it needs to be resolved first.

    104. Re:Why? by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You like the other poster are "cherry picking" and mixing and matching corporate and consumer which NOBODY did before XP. if you are gonna mix both then you need to count WinME which came after 2K and sucked hairy donkey balls, and both 2K and 2K3 server frankly sucked until Sp2, which was SOP for MSFT at the time. I remember how many wouldn't touch NT 4 until SP3 either, and when you look at the HUGE number of patches we are talking it has gone from mere bandaids to pretty much gutting whole subsystems. Also check out XP pre SP2, it was a buggy badly behaving insecure POS.

      And Vista should be looked at as a giant DON'T DO THAT which they are gonna fail to heed with Windows 8. What we saw with Vista is that PCs have reached good enough that if people don't like it they'll simply stick with what they have, it isn't like the Win9x days where you really had to upgrade to support the latest tech or software. XP is going on 12 years old now and any corp would frankly be nuts not to have support for XP in their products, and Windows 7 has FINALLY, finally after all these damned years, given then a product that works on BOTH the business and consumer desktop that folks like and are willing to use.

      Look I've been selling the things since Win 3.x, so I know of which I speak. there was about a year where my #1 money earner was killing Vista dead, people hated it THAT much. The things that keep folks on Windows are software and games, which makes them 180 degrees in opposite of Apple which has been able to go through no less than 3 CPU changes and still keep people buying. If MSFT tries to stick a WinPhone style OS in front of people and call it Windows folks will just ignore it and stick with XP and 7. Windows 7 gets extended support until 2020 (which they can't drop thanks to contracts) so it isn't like folks HAVE TO jump on board.

      With Win 7 they finally have a UI where those like my dad can find new things and figure things out intuitively without bugging the living shit out of old hands like myself. Why fuck up a good thing? I'll tell you why, and this is from someone who makes their living selling MSFT products: it is because they have gotten too much of a hard on for Apple, that's why. you look at what has happened since Ballmer took over and it has been nothing but "Lets copy Apple and then we'll be hip too!" while ignoring they have completely different demographics.

      Kin, Zune, WinPhone, everything Apple does will have a MSFT version less than a year later. They have a hit in the X360, they have a chance at making Win 7 as big a hit as XP, why cock it all up chasing a demographic that will NEVER ever buy your stuff? Apple is a hipster boutique label, it would be like expecting Ferrari owners to suddenly start buying Mustangs.

      It is stupid, it is pointless, it will piss off the customers, and I bet if MSFT goes for this "Web 2.0 Cloud Extreme WinPhone OS" idea for Win 8 I'll be wiping it to put on Win 7 just as I wiped countless Vista installs to put on XP. The folks that buy Windows just aren't gonna jump on a cloud based PhoneOS for their desktop, it just won't work. To make it lean enough they'll have to destroy completely backwards compatibility, and if I'm gonna have to start from scratch anyway why not just go Mac or Linux?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    105. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've found XP to be pretty rock solid - having used it since 2003-odd, I can probably count on one hand the amount of times it's bluescreened on me,

      Which brings into question of just how much experience you actually had with the OS at the time - since it was well known to be as temperamental as Vista back in the day. But alas a lot of people have forgotten the junk that was XP until its Service pack updates.

    106. Re:Why? by howardd21 · · Score: 1

      The reason for the PDF software is to show the APPX platform for development; a new XAML based environment.

      As far as the core OS, if you mean stability I think it is fine. I run it on a Tablet PC from Fujitsu with a ULV processor, and it is excellent. I reboot about every few weeks, and that is a machine that on a daily basis is out to sleep, moved, docked at two different locations, etc. It is extremely reliable. As reliable as the MacBook Pro I also own that I am posting this from.

      Now if you mean the UI, so it is more useful in a table with a touch interface, then yes they need to address that.

      --
      no comment
    107. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      UTF-8 is a superset of UTF-16, in that the byte sequence can have ERRORS. What is needed is a well-defined conversion INCLUDING ERRORS from UTF-8 to the UTF-16

      An UTF-8 string that contains encoding errors is neither a string nor it is UTF-8 - it's simply a byte sequence.

      That said, NTFS file names aren't really UTF-16 on FS level - they're simply sequences of 16-bit values (UI may interpret them as UTF-16, but stock APIs do not attempt to ascribe any meaning). Thus, it is possible to do a transformation of an arbitrary byte sequence to an NTFS file name such that it is completely reversible.

      Of course, if you have such strange requirements, you have to implement it yourself - why do you expect the OS to aid you in such matters?

      Windows is supposed to be all GUI-centric, and in the GUI users CLICK ON FILES. They could not care less about case insensitivity, probably far less than users of command shells do

      You forget about thousands of legacy applications which are written in the assumtion that filesystem is case-insensitive. Changing that would break all of them, sometimes in very non-obvious ways.

      Note that you can remount NTFS volume as case-sensitive in Windows. It's just not an officially supported scenario for the reasons above.

      (OS X has a similar problem, by the way.)

      lso despite all your claims about being politically-correct with UTF-16 and all that, the case conversions show an extreme bias toward English as they only reliably convert latin letters.

      That is false. NTFS implements a locale-invariant conversion, because, well, having different rules for what filenames are considered the same depending on system locale would be sheer insanity. That locale-invariant conversion obviously can't do some culture-specific case conversions right without knowing the culture (e.g. deal with Turkish I, or losslessly roundtrip German sharp S, or Greek sigma). However, for all cases where the conversion is unambiguous, it is done. E.g. Cyrillic is properly handled, and so is Greek with the exception of sigma (it always lowercases capital sigma to non-word-final position).

      BZZT! WRONG! It uses UTF-8. Now how am I supposed to believe anything you say.

      I'm not an expert on HFS+ internals, so I may be wrong. My knowledge comes from Wikipedia, which says:

      HFS Plus is an improved version of HFS, supporting much larger files (block addresses are 32-bit length instead of 16-bit) and using Unicode (instead of Mac OS Roman or any of several other character sets) for naming the items (files, folders) – names which are also character encoded in UTF-16 and normalized to a form very nearly the same as Unicode Normalization Form D (NFD) (which means that precomposed characters like are decomposed in the HFS+ filename and therefore count as two characters[5] and UTF-16 implies that characters from outside the Basic Multilingual Plane — often seldom used and characters from ancient writing systems — also count as two characters in an HFS+ filename). HFS Plus permits filenames up to 255 UTF-16 characters in length.

      Looking deeper to verify this claim, they reference this technical note from Apple, which says:

      HFS Plus Names
      File and folder names on HFS Plus consist of up to 255 Unicode characters with a preceding 16-bit length, defined by the type HFSUniStr255.

      struct HFSUniStr255 {
      UInt16 length;
      UniChar unicode[255];
      };
      typedef struct HFSUniStr255 HFSUniStr255;
      typedef const HFSUniStr255 *ConstHFSUniStr255Param;

      UniChar is a UInt16 that represents a character as defined in the Unicode character set defined by The Unicode Standard, Version 2.0 [Unicode, Inc. I

    108. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      OSX uses an 8-bit api to pass filenames to the kernel and thus to the filesystem drivers.

      It is quite possible the filesystem does UTF-8 to UTF-16 conversion when looking up files. That is irrelevant, except for the fact that this same feature is needed for Windows to correctly support POSIX.

      It does appear Windows is going to continue to be broken, as you say it uses the "current locale" to translate the filenames from POSIX into the ones on the disk. This is unlike OSX and also totally incompatible with any 8-bit filesystems and with Unix. Unix relies on a given string identifying the same file no matter what the "locale" is.

      This is trivial to fix by forcing the "locale" to be UTF-8. The fact that Microsoft does not do this, and seems to distinctly avoid providing an interface so a program can decide to do so (I don't think it requires a reboot as you say, but it does need a new shell created), indicates to me that they are still, on purpose, making sure portability is impossible.

    109. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It's impossible to turn it on programmatically for a single process via setlocale for reasons beyond my comprehension. MSDN docs word this limitation as follows:

      The set of available languages, country/region codes, and code pages includes all those supported by the Win32 NLS API except code pages that require more than two bytes per character, such as UTF-7 and UTF-8. If you provide a code page like UTF-7 or UTF-8, setlocale will fail, returning NULL.

      Sounds like there is some ancient code in there written under the assumption of a max of 2 bytes per character for multibyte encodings.

      However, this is a limitation of VC++ C library only - indeed, even from the text above, it is clear that "Win32 NLS API" supports UTF-7 and UTF-8. So the problem is with the compiler (or rather the accompanying libraries), not with the OS - and, of course, VC++ is not the only C/C++ implementation for Win32.

      Note also that you can always set the non-Unicode locale globally, system-wide, rather than programmatically. I'm actually curious about what VC++ C library is going to do if that is the case, and the program does setlocale(LC_ALL, "") - on one hand, it's required to use system locale, but on the other, it's explicitly documented as not supporting UTF-8...

    110. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      As on Unix,

      Wrong. Unix returns the 8-bit data UNCHANGED from the disk. The locale does not alter what filenames are seen.

      for the likes of readdir and other multibyte (rather than widechar) functions, it uses the current locale to encode filenames.

      Okay then the answer is NO. It is not possible to name every file. Therefore this SFU is useless.

      If your system locale is set to UTF-8, I believe it will feed you UTF-8 (mine is set to CP1251, and for some mysterious reason it requires a reboot to change, so I can't check this for sure - sorry).

      You have now identified the obvious solution. However from everything I have tried, it appears to be impossible for a program to force the API to UTF-8. You have to set a registry or something and start a new login. The fact that this is impossible leads me to believe that Microsoft is still actively trying to prevent compatibility. It is also likely that "UTF-8" locale will throw exceptions, crash, or do other strange stuff when the UTF-8 byte stream contains errors, this makes it extremely unreliable.

    111. Re:Why? by gig · · Score: 0, Troll

      > There was actually a lot of under the covers changes in Windows 7

      Yeah, but they didn't fix anything, so who gives a fuck? If it still has viruses and needs guys like you to make excuses for it, then what is the point?

    112. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      This is not a limitation of the compiler. You cannot set UTF-8 with GCC either. The actual system API refuses.

      The LC_ALL and similar environment variables should not effect how filenames are stored on disk. That would be incompatible with POSIX. Although I think it would be best to ignore them entirely, if you wanted to make the POSIX subsystem obey them they must limit themselves to changing printf and scanf functions.

      If POSIX "open()" maps the the "mb" api in WIndows then the Windows "locale" MUST be set to UTF-8 with a mode such that errors turn unambigoulsly into UTF-16 errors without throwing exceptions (it is not necessary that these files actually open, only that they return the same type of error that other invalid characters do). Any other situation makes this POSIX api useless.

    113. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      OSX uses an 8-bit api to pass filenames to the kernel and thus to the filesystem drivers.

      It does? Given that NSString is also UTF-16 encoded, this sounds like a waste if one uses Core Foundation to work with files (NSFileHandle etc) - you're basically saying that they convert to UTF-8 just to pass it to the kernel, which converts it back to UTF-16.

      It does appear Windows is going to continue to be broken, as you say it uses the "current locale" to translate the filenames from POSIX into the ones on the disk. This is unlike OSX

      Does OS X really do that? It seems to be using UTF-8 locale by default; are you sure it's not just that, and if you change it, it won't change filename treatment accordingly?

      If so, then it's broken in a different way, namely: you can't take an output of any locale-aware ANSI C or POSIX function, and pass it to fopen() and friends expecting meaningful results.

      Unix relies on a given string identifying the same file no matter what the "locale" is.

      It's true, but that only works because Unix does not ascribe any interpretation to filenames at all - it just treats them as byte sequences, 8-bit-clean. This has other lovely consequences - for example, mounting an USB stick created on a Linux system with KOI8-R as the system encoding, you'll get any Cyrillic file names completely messed up on a system with UTF-8. Nowadays it's much less of an issue because everyone sane is just using UTF-8 for encoding of everything.

      This is trivial to fix by forcing the "locale" to be UTF-8. The fact that Microsoft does not do this, and seems to distinctly avoid providing an interface so a program can decide to do so (I don't think it requires a reboot as you say, but it does need a new shell created), indicates to me that they are still, on purpose, making sure portability is impossible.

      It cannot be forced, because it would break any existing non-Unicode applications - many of which assume either a specific locale inherited from the system (e.g. a lot of legacy Russian software expects CP1251), or at the very least non-multibyte encoding.

      As I noted in another post, the OS itself does allow the process to set its locale to UTF-8 (codepage 65001), and you can also do the same system-wide by tweaking a single registry switch. It's the VC++ runtime library that doesn't handle this properly, which is most likely a case of legacy code dating back to pre-NT days, and never properly rewritten simply because UTF-8 is not used much on Windows, native encoding of Win32 APIs being UTF-16 - so it's not a priority to fix (compared to the multitude of other things that need improvement).

      You are, of course, free to believe in conspiracy theories for world domination if you want.

    114. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Unix returns the 8-bit data UNCHANGED from the disk

      Really? What if you mount an NTFS or HFS+ volume on Unix?

    115. Re:Why? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      Just when I thought Bozo the used car salesman Ballmer might have actually earned keeping his job by bringing out Windows 7 nope, still a dumbass. Can someone fire him pretty please?

      I'm surprised but happy to see there's one thing upon which we can agree.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    116. Re:Why? by symbolset · · Score: 1

      I think you're doing great and the proposed changes have me positively giddy. Please do keep up the good work. You seem to be on course for achieving everything for Microsoft that I might hope for, faster than I had believed was possible.

      --
      Help stamp out iliturcy.
    117. Re:Why? by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand what you've seen. Not surprising, since you seem to misunderstand most everything else you talk about.

      The "Windows Phone 7" interface is not for WIndows 8 desktops, it's only for use in tablet interfaces (which are just giant smartphones anyways, without the phone). It's not going to be used on desktops, so pretty much your entire rant is moot, since you completely understood what you were being told.

      Besides, it's still way early. Microsoft floats technologies like this out there to get feedback on them. If the feedback is bad, it will change.

      It's funny how you say XP sucked pre-sp2 when at the time sp2 was released, everyone said SP2 sucked and they were sticking with SP1. People hated having more security, which was the #1 problem with Vista. They hated having to approve things, and not just let whatever write all over the OS.

      And don't talk about patches.. every OS has tons of patches after being out there for a long time. Linux, OSX, everything. That's a function of the long release cycles, not how secure the OS is.

    118. Re:Why? by jbplou · · Score: 2

      If they are going to support ARM SOC they will be 32bit there so I doubt they will drop 32bit x86 since intel still produces ATom for Netbooks and some other devices.

    119. Re:Why? by clang_jangle · · Score: 2

      I don't think implementing some choice backward compatibility via a wine-like scheme or vm is a bad idea though. Windows started as a GUI shell running on DOS, then it was basically ported to NT. There's really no reason microsoft couldn't take a bsd-licensed OS and modify it as Apple (via NeXT) did and end up with a winner on their hands. It could be that in a few years the only real objection left against windows is ideological. They certainly have the potential to deliver, so it won't surprise me if they finally do.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    120. Re:Why? by QuantumRiff · · Score: 1

      I've often wondered how the registry can still be used in its current state? I mean I can query a multi-GB database on a server in a second. It can take minutes to search through the 20MB registry... And why not have a transaction log or rollback functionality? (something like Juniper's "commit/confirm" would be fantastic too..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    121. Re:Why? by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      ...you need to count WinME which came after 2K and sucked hairy donkey balls...

      I know someone who insists on using only ME. He knows everything about it, and has it installed on a laptop and a desktop. All he does is simple web and email use, but he has to spend a couple of days every week resolving crises caused by his choice of OS. It's kind of like watching a drug addict, but without the money problems or physical deterioration.

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    122. Re:Why? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The idea of "object-oriented shell" is idiotic to begin with. Text can be parsed by anything, "objects" can only be handled by "objects" derived from them, turning software development into incest.

      The whole idea of shell (and IPC, and network protocols, and even things like dbus) is to allow communications between completely unrelated pieces of software. Powershell design completely misses this (and underlying OS does not help, either).

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    123. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      This is not a limitation of the compiler. You cannot set UTF-8 with GCC either. The actual system API refuses.

      Bleh, you're correct :( I have always assumed that SetThreadLocale(65001) would do that, since CRT goes to great lengths to validate that a locale is not UTF-8 (and I reasoned that, why would they, if they could just get an error from SetThreadLocale if it didn't support it?). But I went ahead and wrote a test app, and it's true - the call fails. I apologize for my mistake - should have verified it rather than relying on common sense.

      So I googled around to see if there's any explanation. The closest that it gets is the comment from Michael Kaplan (who is the Microsoft i18n guru, so to speak) on his blog post, which goes:

      Adam Tue, Jul 4 2006 12:32 PM
      Just wondering - is MS planning on making any version of Windows use the UTF-8 codepage (65001) by default (ANSI and/or OEM) at any point in the future?

      Michael S. Kaplan Tue, Jul 4 2006 12:43 PM
      Hi Adam,
      This is not in the current POR, due to the fact that the various "A" functions are simply not built to handle a stream that can be up to four bytes per character....

      Adam Tue, Jul 4 2006 1:21 PM
      Why? Don't they use MB_CUR_MAX (or MB_LEN_MAX for static buffers)?

      Michael S. Kaplan Tue, Jul 4 2006 1:55 PM
      Adam, are you kidding? These functions were written ten years ago, some even longer. It is lucky that even DBCS is supported here!

      Revisting thousands of legacy functions to make them solidly support UTF-8, working in both user and kernel mode, and asking the test team to run tens of thousands of new test cases in all of them, is simply too huge of an effort to ask of the Windows team.

      And then he wrote a separate post, where it's plainly said:

      And it is still true that UTF-8 (code page 65001) cannot be an ACP ("ANSI" code page") for a locale.

      Apparently, 65001 is an "NT code page", whatever this means. So far I could find two actual uses.

      First, you can set it as an input or output encoding for the console (which is separate from process or thread locale) - e.g. via chcp. This is really only useful if you have an 8-bit-clean program streaming UTF-8 data, and you want to view that in the console.

      Second, 65001 is accepted by MultiByteToWideChar and WideCharToMultiByte (CP_UTF8 is #defined as 65001).

      I suspect that if you forcibly set system locale to 65001, you would see the aforementioned breakage in *A functions if you try feeding them UTF-8 strings with 3-byte chars, but not before that. On the other hand, so far as I know, most *A functions in Windows actually call MultiByteToWideChar and then the equivalent *W function, so it's interesting what broken legacy code still remains there...

      Assuming that a considerable amount still does, the explanation as to why it all works that way sounds plausible. Originally, Windows codepages were 8-bit (back in Win 3.1 days). The first time they had to deal with something else was during the first attempts to port it for Chinese and Japanese market (Win 3.2, IIRC?); and both of those encodings are double-byte, so the code was written with that in mind. I don't recall when UTF-8 codepage was added, but I'm pretty sure it was not any earlier than Win2K. On the other hand, UTF-16 was used as the system encoding since NT 3.1 (1993), and by the time UTF-8 was even introduced as a codepage, the plan to deprecate *A functions altogether was already at full steam. From that perspective, not rewriting the legacy *A code to handle anything more complicated than DBCS makes sense.

      Although I think it would be best to ignore them entirely, if you wanted to make the POSIX subsystem obey them they must limit themselves to changing

    124. Re:Why? by cavreader · · Score: 0

      Are you in a competition to see who can display the most idiocy in the shortest sentence? Criticism is one thing, spouting unsupported BS is something else.

    125. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The idea of "object-oriented shell" is idiotic to begin with. Text can be parsed by anything

      Only if you know the format, and if said format is stable.

      "objects" can only be handled by "objects" derived from them

      I re-read this several times, and it still doesn't make any sense. Please explain.

      By the way, PowerShell does not preclude non-PS-aware applications from participating in pipelines. If such occurs, the stream of objects coming out from the previous step will be converted to string representation and streamed as such; and the output will be treated as a String object (which can be parsed by the local analogs of sed into an object stream). So text is still the lowest common denominator. If you don't want to deal with objects, you don't have to.

    126. Re:Why? by drsmithy · · Score: 1
      Wow. Your sources don't inspire much credibility.

      A performance comparison that measures pointless things like install times and number of clicks ? That has no serious explanation of the methodologies and whose authors have so little technical understanding they say things like "obviously Windows does have to worry about some things that Linux doesn't, namely DRM checks [...]" ? The only benchmark there that's even remotely meaningful and believable is the Python one.

      What documentation do you find lacking on MSDN ?

      Ext3 does fragment. It also lacks features like transactions, encryption and compression, which since fragmentation has no meaningful performance impact outside of corner cases, are _vastly_ more useful.

      Windows's sudo equivalent is UAC. Its su equivalent is RunAs.

      Ignoring that similarly featureful (or at least as much as it can be, given its less capable display system) Linux systems have essentially identical requirements, when even the cheapest bottom of the barrel PC is fast enough, it's irrelevant.

      Someone who starts an article about the Registry talking about reverse-engineering its format rather than using the published APIs, clearly has an ax to grind.

      Do not conflate "booting without a GUI" as "modular".

    127. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because .toString is so damn hard to use.

    128. Re:Why? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      PowerShell is in the stock install since Win7/Win2008R2. Late to the party? For sure, but better late than never.

      With bash, I can pipe any command line utility to any other one whether they were made to work together or not as long as they take and receive text from standard in and out. How do I do that with power shell if my utility doesn't output an object as most don't? That's where the flexibility and power of bash comes in.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    129. Re:Why? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Given that competition (Adobe Reader) is free, and does not derive any profit from additional copies of their software being distributed, how is it hurt?

      Reader might be free but Acrobat sure isn't. Reader exists for the same reason the flash player exists. To justify the existence and price of adobe's content creation tools. If everybody is using ms's version of pdf viewer then people won't be able to use the advanced features of adobe's software since nobody will be able to read the output. That's how it hurts. Less features for the end user and less money for Adobe.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    130. Re:Why? by CokoBWare · · Score: 1

      Uhm Office 2007 was a decent product, and came out before Windows 7. So is Office 2010. You put those in the list, and now you have 3 products in a row that customers love. Seriously, people love Office 2k7, Win7, and Office 2010. I think this breaks the "never two decent releases in a row" theory.

    131. Re:Why? by micheas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What would be the point? The kernel for Windows is perfectly stable, barring shitty drivers.

      That would be the point, IIRC over 95% of linux is device drivers. There was one computer that windows xp was crashing on every hour or so, Out of curiosity I installed linux on the machine. I had never seen linux spew so many warnings about out of spec hardware and features being disabled. Linux was stable, but really, windows could have been just as stable, if they would have been willing to say, these features disabled because the hardware is lying about having them. But, if Microsoft had done that, it would have been Microsoft vs Foxcom (or who ever made the crapware) and it would have turned into a pr war. With Linux the hardware was tested, and people reported that it did R when it said it would do A, ergo, mark it bad, until someone comes up with a workaround.

      Microsoft has a lot of baggage that makes people willing to take the crapware manufacturer seriously, the Linux developers are viewed as impartial reporters about the state of hardware.

      Rants like the one here http://fxr.watson.org/fxr/source/pci/if_rl.c are unlike to make it into the windows kernel, no matter how true.

    132. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about that. Microsoft has had a history of getting bitten by not seeing the next big thing coming, or under-estimating such things - until the last couple years. Lately, they've been on top of or at least abreast with the 'trend changers': virtual technology, increased push for remote/cloud applications and desktops, and the various gaming advances.

      Also, there's been a great deal of talk (below the waves) for a number of years about Windows on ARM. Microsoft knows they missed the bus for the mobile market with Kin and Windows Phone 7, and they don't like that situation. Windows Mobile 6.x has all but been abandoned by the (previously burgeoning) home-brew communities. That horse is dead, but W7 could, I suspect, be leveraged (refined?) to be a fairly effective mobile platform (particularly when you consider the fact that, given a head lead, application developers might be able to rewrite some of their not-standard-library stuff to work on the other platform). This is all the more true, now that mobile devices often have more RAM than a common desktop did 5 or so years ago (256Mb), and that Windows 7 works better on a 512Mb RAM machine than XP does.

      Yet, there is still a lot of demand for a decent "enterprise" mobile platform. iPhone on its own doesn't cut it, and neither does Android (incomplete Exchange communication, poor document reading/management/editing abilities, lack of SAS compliance, etc.). Furthermore, the 'other side' of the mobile equation - full-featured apps which can exchange data with the mobile version, like OneNote - are almost completely lacking on the other platforms.

      I'm not being a shill, here; aside from typing this on a W7 machine right now, I spend 99% of my computing time on Microsoft-free devices. The simple fact is: Microsoft has what it takes to make it happen, and they've been working for the better part of a decade to clean up their Windows code base to make it portable, best I can tell. Saying it'll just be a facelift with a nip and tuck is ingenious; Windows 7 and 2k8r2 were huge departures/improvements over vista and 2k8 in every regard, and aside from the irritating UI changes and 'very beta' implementations of various modern-concept architecture, Vista was quite the improvement over XP as well.

    133. Re:Why? by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      Given that most of windows OS services are in a userland server process (csrss.exe), one could argue they are already doing that.

    134. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Then the file system driver translates the 16 bit filenames to an 8 bit encoding. At no point does the kernel or runtime api see anything other than 8-bit encodings.

      I strongly suspect that there are equally idiotic people writing these drivers as it sounds like there are at Microsoft, and the translation may depend on the "locale" rather than being forced to UTF-8. In that case I suspect Linux is going to be nearly useless reading these disks until they fix that, for the same reason this SFU stuff is going to be useless on Windows.

    135. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Feeding an invalid UTF-8 string to the api should result in exactly the same sort of result as feeding an invalid UTF-16 string to the Windows wchar api (a UTF-16 string can easily be invalid by having an unmatched surrogate half).

      I am reasonably certain that Windows will go and create the file despite the invalid UTF-16. In fact they never test for this, because they are well aware that it would be a total pain in the ass for anybody programming to have to make sure an array contains some magical pattern before it can be used as a filename.

      However these very same people will often then think that UTF-8 must be treated special. They will literally say an array is "not UTF-8" because it has invalid sequences in it (you did above, for instance). This is like saying an newspaper is not in English if there is a mispelled word in it. Technically true but pretty useless and it is far better to treat it as English than to define some new language for it. An easy way to see if they are either hypocrites or (more likely) the idiot savants is to see what the same programmers do about invalid UTF-16. They will often act completely different, proving their total illogical stance.

      Due to the unfortunate use of 16-bit strings in a lot of apis, the best solution so far has been to preserve UTF-8 as long as possible, then do the lossy conversion by taking each error byte (which will always have the high bit set) and encode at as a high-order surrogate half character in the range 0xDC80-0xDCFF. This is therefore invalid UTF-16 so on the off chance the system actually produces an "invalid encoding" error, they will get one for UTF-8 as well. I think Windows does not do this, so it will instead create a file.

      This whole thing is far from perfect but we have to live with a bunch of politically-correct idiots who thought wchar was the solution.

    136. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      PowerShell automatically converts objects to text if the app is not PS-aware, so that it can treat it as text on its stdin. Whatever it writes to stdout is then treated as a String object. Thus, you can mix and match PS cmdlets and text-based apps in the pipeline freely.

    137. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Then the file system driver translates the 16 bit filenames to an 8 bit encoding. At no point does the kernel or runtime api see anything other than 8-bit encodings.

      But how would the driver know what encoding to translate to?

      Actually, never mind that - I should have remembered all that mess from my Linux days (back when KOI8-R was the defacto standard for Russian distros). At least for NTFS driver, there was a mount option to specify encoding, which you had to manually specify. And it would normally be set to match your locale for reasons described below.

      I strongly suspect that there are equally idiotic people writing these drivers as it sounds like there are at Microsoft, and the translation may depend on the "locale" rather than being forced to UTF-8. In that case I suspect Linux is going to be nearly useless reading these disks until they fix that

      On a non-UTF locale, it would be rather useless if it were forced to use UTF-8. Consider what would happen to "ls", for example. Say it does readdir(), and then puts(dirent.d_name). That would just print some garbage if d_name is UTF-8, because terminal would treat it according to locale encoding. Sure, ls could transcode - but how would it know when to do so? The name could just as well be coming from a non-Unicode, 8-bit-clean filesystem!

      It seems to me that, so long as filesystem itself stores filenames in Unicode, the only meaningful way to deal with it is by means of Unicode (widechar) APIs. It's too bad that POSIX doesn't provide them, as Win32 and Core Foundation do.

    138. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Does OS X really do that? It seems to be using UTF-8 locale by default; are you sure it's not just that, and if you change it, it won't change filename treatment accordingly?

      Yes the locale for libc is set to UTF-8 on OSX. It is on Linux as well.

      If so, then it's broken in a different way, namely: you can't take an output of any locale-aware ANSI C or POSIX function, and pass it to fopen() and friends expecting meaningful results.

      You seem to have a weird idea of what is a "meaningful result". For me I expect that the exact same array of bytes will open the exact same file every single time!

      Anyway I have OSX here to check, it appears to work the way I expect. I made filenames with 2, 3, and 4 byte UTF-8 characters in them (mostly by cutting and pasting from web pages into the terminal). They list correctly, but when I set the locale to "C" they then display 2,3, or 4 '?' characters (not one if there was some kind of locale-aware conversion from UTF-16). I wasted some time trying to get them to display as ISO-8859-1 bytes, but it appears Terminal only understands if the locale is UTF-8, all others it prints all high-bit bytes as '?'. Feeding the output of ls to od also shows that the exact same bytes occur no matter what the locale is. I did some experiments in tcl as well, all showing that the filenames report the same number of bytes, the number expected for UTF-8, no matter what the locale is. So far I have been pretty happy with OSX, they seem to have their brains together and don't assign magical properties to strings, considerably better than the morons writing a lot of Linux and Windows.

    139. Re:Why? by ChatHuant · · Score: 1

      The idea of "object-oriented shell" is idiotic to begin with. Text can be parsed by anything,

      Parsing text was ok in the seventies. The world has moved on since those times. Modern applications use and exchange really complex data structures; passing them between applications via text requires designing complex formats, writing hairy and difficult to maintain serialization and deserialization code, and wasting lots of time. Passing objects between apps is much, much more powerful, no matter how much you may like your yacc and awk.
       
       

      "objects" can only be handled by "objects" derived from them, turning software development into incest.

      That statement makes no sense; seriously, do you know anything about OO? Objects can expose interfaces; anybody who needs to do something can query the object, and, if it supports the required interface, they can just use it. The user doesn't need to know more about the object (indeed, he can use a wide variety of different objects, as long as they implement the proper interface). Whether an inheritance relationship exists between the two is absolutely orthogonal to this process
       
       

      The whole idea of shell (and IPC, and network protocols, and even things like dbus) is to allow communications between completely unrelated pieces of software. Powershell design completely misses this (and underlying OS does not help, either).

      That's emphatically not true; in all your examples the two sides need to agree on a protocol (or IPC, or text format, etc). The exactly same rule applies to Powershell objects, for example via the above mentioned interfaces. The mechanisms used by Powershell are more powerful; objects can implement multiple interfaces, allowing applications to use as much or as little as they need from the object's contents, you can use reflection to examine the capabilities of objects, and so on. Since Powershell is built on .NET, Powershell scripts and any .NET application can interoperate extremely easily (or PS scripts can just instantiate COM and WMI objects directly, as needed).

    140. Re:Why? by westyvw · · Score: 1

      No it's not memory, I have checked (as I watch apps that DO leak memory....), it might be IO. Typical load: VS, SQL Studio, Firefox (20 or so Tabs), 2 instances of CAD, Outlook, Several word docs, Excel, Lightweight Linux Distro in a VM with a few small apps) and Antivirus.

      Change this around to a the same machine but run a Linux box: 20 or so tabs in Firefox, a VM with Win7 (VS and SQLStudio), several Libre docs and calc sheets, a few PDF's, Kmail and Kontact + Amarok, nice widgets (not crappy Win7 ones) full desktop effects, Digikam photo software and the Gimp, 4 workspaces ... you get the idea.

      Win 7 just pauses from time to time, opening apps, right clicking menus always seem slow.

      Powershell slow? Go ahead its easy to pick a simple task, write it in powershell (maybe a sort or nested loop counter?) then write it in C#. Even just launching powershell is enough to make me want to use bash (or make a .NET app). For general tasks that you dont care about the time it takes, then it doesnt matter. Also it is easy to make a powershell script that functions but is not the most efficient, but that is not what I am talking about here.

    141. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. You can do Unicode by making all the api's be UTF-8. There is no need for UTF-16 (which is just another variable length encoding, have you heard of non-BMP characters?).

      Absolutely the correct thing for a Linux NTFS driver to do is to convert the filenames to UTF-8. Yes if they echo on a terminal that is translating byte streams to glyphs using the rules of KO18-R or whatever, they will display as mojibake. That does not mean the filenames are bad, in fact if the user carefully types the exact same mojibake in they will name the file, proving that it is in fact the name of the file.

      What does break is lossy conversion. You CANNOT translate NTFS filenames to any non-Unicode encoding, because you will lose characters that were in them and therefore it is impossible to name all the possible files!

      Another lossy conversion is to attempt to convert UTF-8 to UTF-16. You cannot do this (at least not while preserving the conversions done by most programs from UTF-16 to UTF-8). Therefore you certainly do NOT want to make a "wchar" api in POSIX, it would be VERY VERY VERY BAD!!!! OS/X tries to fix this by rejecting invalid byte encodings for filenames so there cannot be a file that has a name that cannot pass through their 16-bit api, but I consider this a rather stupid movement of code that should be very high level down into the driver. As there are lots of filesystems that allow an arbitrary byte stream to be a filename, you cannot use any "wchar" api for these.

      Actually you can see the problem in Windows when it attempts to show remote Unix filesystems using NFS. Instead of displaying the filenames as UTF-8, it displays them as ISO-8859-1. This is the typical broken response that I have seen programmers resort to when they are finally hit by the clue-by-4 and realize that there is no magical part of the computer that forces bytes to always be valid UTF-8. Microsoft is not doing too bad, I certainly have seen ones that discard *all* high bit bytes. Yuck.

    142. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes the locale for libc is set to UTF-8 on OSX. It is on Linux as well.

      On Linux this used to vary by distro, though I haven't seen anything other than UTF-8 out of the box for some time now.

      You seem to have a weird idea of what is a "meaningful result". For me I expect that the exact same array of bytes will open the exact same file every single time!

      For me, I'd expect that file names coming from a Unicode file system are printed out correctly, no matter which locale I have active (best effort, obviously - if there's no way to print out a given symbol in this locale, that's too bad). Are you suggesting that this should not work as described if I, say, mount an Joliet ISO volume with Cyrillic filenames on it, and my locale is ru_RU.KOI8-R?

      Feeding the output of ls to od also shows that the exact same bytes occur no matter what the locale is.

      Yeah, I've also experimented a little bit after you've mentioned that OS X always encodes names as UTF-8 - using fopen() and readdir(), both expect and return UTF-8 regardless of LANG, LC_ALL, setlocale and whatnot.

      So far I have been pretty happy with OSX, they seem to have their brains together and don't assign magical properties to strings, considerably better than the morons writing a lot of Linux and Windows.

      OS X has the luxury of disregarding backwards compatibility (much as most other Apple stuff). From Unix side of things, it has always used UTF-8 as the default locale, so any apps running on it that would even be locale or encoding aware in the first place expect to see it. From Foundation & Cocoa side of things, they've been using UTF-16 NSString from the get go. So for them, "always convert filenames to UTF-8 for POSIX non-wchar APIs" is perfectly meaningful, and so is only supporting UTF-8 in Terminal. If you muck around with encoding part of the locale, you're in unsupported territory.

      For Linux, this is not the case simply because it has historically been used with non-Unicode locales a lot. I believe this is still the case for most Japanese, in fact, who prefer Shift-JIS over any kind of Unicode, and also for some Chinese. In practice, it's not an issue as such on Linux because typical filesystems there don't ascribe any encoding to filenames in the first place, and just store whatever is given to them. This almost works, except for the whole issue with removable media (filenames on which then become unreadable if mounted on a system with different encoding), and various other filesystems which standardize the encoding used (NTFS, HFS+, Joliet etc).

      For Windows, it is the same - legacy software from Win9x era expects to deal with non-UTF8 (and often non-multibyte) char* strings. And then it is further compounded by the fact that default FS is Unicode-aware. The approach chosen there was to assume that any code using non-wchar APIs is legacy code, and therefore use behavior that most closely resembles what it used to be in Win9x - which is to respect locale codepage. That way old software can be made to work.

      But yeah, it seems that no consideration was given to the fact that newly ported Unix software would want to use multibyte APIs with UTF-8 rather than widechar APIs, even if only because most portable calls do not have widechar versions. That is a deficiency.

    143. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. You can do Unicode by making all the api's be UTF-8. There is no need for UTF-16 (which is just another variable length encoding, have you heard of non-BMP characters?).

      Yes, I know. Personally I strongly dislike UTF-16 because all it does is let more programmers be complacent about encodings. With UTF-8, it's only English-speaking (since all of their charset is single-byte), but with UTF-16 it's a good part of the world - and it's always too easy to disregard stuff above BMP as "not important".

      Absolutely the correct thing for a Linux NTFS driver to do is to convert the filenames to UTF-8. Yes if they echo on a terminal that is translating byte streams to glyphs using the rules of KO18-R or whatever, they will display as mojibake. That does not mean the filenames are bad, in fact if the user carefully types the exact same mojibake in they will name the file, proving that it is in fact the name of the file.

      Congratulations, you have just broken Unix for everyone not using ASCII charset and not wanting (for whatever reason) an UTF-8 locale, because they'll get unreadable output in the shell. What does it matter that I can copy/paste the byte sequence and it'll open the file correctly? I want to know what the name of the file actually is, in my native language!

      Another lossy conversion is to attempt to convert UTF-8 to UTF-16. You cannot do this (at least not while preserving the conversions done by most programs from UTF-16 to UTF-8). Therefore you certainly do NOT want to make a "wchar" api in POSIX, it would be VERY VERY VERY BAD!!!! OS/X tries to fix this by rejecting invalid byte encodings for filenames so there cannot be a file that has a name that cannot pass through their 16-bit api, but I consider this a rather stupid movement of code that should be very high level down into the driver. As there are lots of filesystems that allow an arbitrary byte stream to be a filename, you cannot use any "wchar" api for these.

      This boils down to the fact that filenames on some file systems are effectively arbitrary byte streams. I still don't think that it's correct to call them UTF-8 strings (if it is something that I cannot meaningfully do string operations on, such as substring - and how would I, if I don't even know how many chars are in a string due to invalid byte sequence? - then it's not a string, IMO; it's a byte sequence), but whatever.

      But don't you have the same problem with converting invalid UTF-16 names into UTF-8? Imagine if OS X did not reject invalid surrogate pairs for filenames. What would happen, then, if you'd have a file with such an invalid pair, and then did a readdir() on it - what would you expect to see in d_name after it converts to UTF-8?

      (On a side note, NTFS does not fail on invalid surrogates, so that is not a hypothetical scenario.)

      It seems to me more and more that 8-bit-clean and encoding-aware filesystems just don't mix well, since userspace doesn't know what to expect, and you can't come up with a meaningful API that would handle both transparently.

    144. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a bunch of fiddly bullshit. I think i'll just use bash, thanks. There isn't anything power shell does that bash doesn't except live only on Windows. As far the other argument you've used saying what if the input or output of some command changes for bash, well, whoopdey do. I've been using bash for many years and I can't remember when last time a core utility changed and if it did, it would take what, 2 minutes to see what changed and just keep going? I think I can handle that every few years. The whole idea of using objects in the shell is just plain stupid and introduces unneeded complexity for very dubious benefit. No thanks. Furthermore, wake me up when windows grows a competent terminal program that can even compete with konsole or terminator. How about gnu screen? What does PS have as an answer to that? That's what I thought. You click and droolers have a long way to go to get to Unix status. See you at the top.

    145. Re:Why? by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I didn't move from Windows 2000 until XP had reached SP1, I think that was around 2003 but don't quote me on the actual year.

      I also hated (and still do) the default XP interface and it wasn't until I discovered that there was a Windows Classic theme that I even contemplated upgrading from Windows 2000 to it. After I did, I never really looked back - because Windows 2000 was the direct descendent of NT4, the whole issue of buggy drivers hadn't been sorted out by then and although Microsoft created real problems for hardware compatibility with XP, the fact that they took greater control of hardware drivers in it turned out to be the right move in the long term because that helped XP's stability overall.

      I can only speak from experience and from what I have seen of friends and colleagues who also use(d) XP - yes, it has design issues when it comes to OS security but as long as you are aware of those and know how to deal with them, you can work around them. But it has been a stable and well-liked OS for some years now and deservedly so - high praise indeed from someone who proclaims himself a mostly Linux user! :-)

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    146. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, they managed to carry quite a few bugs with them... Even though it was re-written, re-engineered, re-designed, and re-cycled... or re-arsed.

      To big to innovate meaningfully. (though this PowerShell thing intrigues me, I have not yet had time to look away from my happy Perl to explore it's perverseness.)

    147. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      PS is a shell, like bash. It doesn't have an "answer to GNU Screen" just as bash doesn't.

      For that matter, you don't need Screen if you're using a decent terminal emulator in the first place. On Windows, that would be Console2.

      Anyway, I hope you're enjoying your year of Linux on the desktop. Peace.

    148. Re:Why? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      IIS a decade ago was TERRIBLE. It had more security holes than swiss cheese. IIS 3 and 4 tarnished its image for the poor saps who had to use it over Apache/Unix. However, under the same token many Linux users love to bash rpm files just because Redhat did a terrible job implementing dependencies a decade ago too even though with YUM rpms are superior to .deb files with apt-get. These people do not forgive past mistakes easily.

      Powershell stems from the problem that not everything is a file. However, it is sweet to use the .NET framework. At that point that you might as well whip a whole program out. In Unix you can parse processes, logs, and system config files because everything is a file and can be run from the command line. In Windows it uses the horrible registry and you have to interface with WMI (I assume I never used powershell) with some .NET api, and programs do not leave text files for configuration. In Unix you run a shell script with awk or sed or even Perl if it is a newer script and could take care of most anything. That makes it rock for a server.

      Windows search was crap under Vista. It kept killing my battery life and used a ton of disk usage on my old Toshiba with a 4200 RPM drive. I had to disable it regardless of the features it provided. Windows 7 seems much better but the bashing for it is much deserved unless MS did a whole rewipe of it. I use a fast desktop with Windows 7 so I do not know.

      I wrote a post bashing Linux saying Windows 7 is better for desktops so I am not taking either side other than pointing out the pros and cons of both. I agree with you with UAC and remote management. But Windows does have its downsides and the only good thing going for it as a server is active directory. It is not bad but just not as good as Linux in my opinion for I.T. professionals.

    149. Re:Why? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Windows Vista was a large rewrite. I wonder how much code percentage was from XP is even still there?

      My guess is Microsoft wanted to be the first to include DRM at the driver level and come out with software audio and nice but crippled aero graphics. The move was to have hollywood ditch the macs for the pc. They are big enough where they can write their own kernels.

      Windows 7 is not that bad as much of the older XP code was removed from Vista which slowed it down. It is more pure and its kernel is smaller and more modularized. It is not ideological more than practical to have full control and know how it works. MS is starting over and the compatibility is left for the "run as is" where Windows loads up old dll files from Windows old but they are only linking to that one program that needs it. Kind of semi virtual there

    150. Re:Why? by oakgrove · · Score: 1
      Bash runs in screen. They work hand in hand. So, I ask again, what is ps's answer to that?

      For that matter, you don't need Screen if you're using a decent terminal emulator in the first place. On Windows, that would be Console2.

      Console2 is comparable to gnome-terminal (albeit less powerful). It is a completely different program from screen with a different purpose. Screen allows me to share a terminal for demonstration or a collaborative session. Screen lets me to detach and resume my session on another computer and a whole lot of other unique things none of which are not at all dependent on the particular console program it is running in. I think you are confused.

      Anyway, I hope you're enjoying your year of Linux on the desktop. Peace.

      What are you trolling me, now? I couldn't care less about linux on the desktop. Works great on the Xoom I'm posting this on though . Not to mention my cellphone, my router, my dvr, and this website we are both posting on.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    151. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with YUM rpms are superior to .deb files with apt-get

      What the fuck am i reading? This isn't even vaguely true.

    152. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Bash runs in screen. They work hand in hand. So, I ask again, what is ps's answer to that?

      PS is a console application, and as such will also run in Screen, provided you get it to run on Win32 (apparently Cygwin has it these days; I've never tried).

      What are you trolling me, now? I couldn't care less about linux on the desktop. Works great on the Xoom I'm posting this on though .

      Are you using bash and screen on Xoom?

      (FWIW, I also own one. It's a good device, but it reminds me much more of Windows of early 2000s than it does of Linux - down to fairly frequent crashes of stock applications.)

      What are you trolling me, now?

      I answered a rude ("bunch of fiddly bullshit") AC in kind. If you feel that this is trolling, then so was the original post.

    153. Re:Why? by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      Are you using bash and screen on Xoom?

      Yes. I have Ubuntu in a chroot and screen makes it pretty easy to run multiple console apps like rtorrent and vi side by side considering it features split screen both horizontal and vertically.

      PS is a console application, and as such will also run in Screen, provided you get it to run on Win32 (apparently Cygwin has it these days; I've never tried).

      Yeah that sounds like a lot of fun to set up and use. Or maybe I will just install ubuntu and have the real thing.

      (FWIW, I also own one. It's a good device, but it reminds me much more of Windows of early 2000s than it does of Linux - down to fairly frequent crashes of stock applications.)

      It isn't perfect. The only app that crashes for me is the browser and that's fairly rare. Otherwise, I think it's pretty good. Hopefully, Google will get off of their asses and ship some quick updates.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    154. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he meant OS releases, not product releases. There's many more things MS releases, makes no sense to count these all too, you could start making a huge list of every game they released and get subjective and stuff.

    155. Re:Why? by benjymouse · · Score: 1

      Powershell slow? Go ahead its easy to pick a simple task, write it in powershell (maybe a sort or nested loop counter?) then write it in C#. Even just launching powershell is enough to make me want to use bash (or make a .NET app).

      Ingenius! Because PowerShell is slower than C# for tight inner loops you would rather use bash? Why am I not surprised that you have problems with Windows 7?

      How about horses for courses? Use PowerShell for admin tasks you want to automate, like you would use *sh on Linux/Unix.

      And when comparing command-line interpreted languages PowerShell may not beat Python, but it sure holds its own against bash (on my old rig with an AMD x2 5000+):

      PowerShell (Windows 7):

      measure-command {for($i=0;$i -lt 1000000;$i++) {$a=$i-$a} }

      Execution time: 4338.4254 ms

      bash (Ubuntu 10.10):

      time for((i=0;i<1000000;i++)); do a=$((i-a)); done

      Execution time: 0m19.105s = 19105ms

      So, bash is 5 time slower for tight inner loops. I guess that on Linux you will use C instead of bash any time - even for automating sysadmin tasks, right?

      Get real. Tools like PowerShell and bash were never meant to be fast in tight inner loops. Thus even this comparison is unfair and totally irrelevant. Bringing up topics like this is evidence of someone who needs something to attack - no matter whether it is relevant or not. In short your reasoning technical skills makes it perfectly clear why you may believe you have problems with Windows 7.

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    156. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have used 3.11, 95, 98 and XP. I have tons of first hands experience of the amount of BSODs one got in the 98 era compared to the 95 era (probably just less because games and software were simpler) and the 2K and XP eras after that (because they managed to get it a bit more stable). I have seen vista and 7 for short durations of time. I've seen how slow things like moving files is in vista and how you can't even see it in action for 5 minutes and already see annoying windows in which you have to type your password (I use Linux myself, and know I have to type a password too to do admin stuff, but for inexplicable reasons this implemented in a much less annoying way than the thing I saw in Vista). Of 7, I just find they've done a good job of the design and looks, that's my impression from the few hours I've been come into contact with that (by testing software in production that had to be tested on that platform too). I don't understand why in Windows you need to click an area first before the scrollwheel of the mouse works in it though, that annoys the craaaaap out of me.

    157. Re:Why? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      IMO, shitty drivers should not bring down a computer.

      Good job they don't in Windows 7 then, I've had both network and graphics drivers crash on me and in both cases there was a brief interruption then normal service was resumed with a "Shit broke, we recovered it" notification in the notification area.

      Linux is great, but if you think Windows 7 isn't also great you're deluding yourself.

    158. Re:Why? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      PowerShell can actually run over telnet or ssh or whatever. But once you look into the remoting capabilities of PowerShell v2 even SSH starts to look a little archaic. Compared to SSH it is so easy to step in and out of remote sessions, juggling several active remote sessions at the same time - even scripted - and issue commands which relay back not only the results is a seamless fashion but will even relay back progress indicators and input requests. The PowerShell fan-out remoting feature lets you issue the same command (e.g. "backup") to ten or hundreds of hosts *simultaneously* and have each one report back the output *objects* consolidated in the command result, each indicated with the host. I'm not missing SSH one iota.

      Throwing objects (or even arrays of objects) through a pipe is awesome, it's going to take years for the idea of a useful command line to filter down to the average Windows admin (at the moment I still find it's only the good ones that "get it") but it's good kit by any standard.

    159. Re:Why? by benjymouse · · Score: 1

      Powershell stems from the problem that not everything is a file.

      Uhm. Not quite. Arguably the scripting capabilities of Windows left something to be desired before PowerShell. It was hard to write robust scripts just with .cmd files. There was WSH with VBScript which was almost a real programming language, but also quite verbose. At the same time Windows has had superior policy-driven configuration for some time. Many task which on Linux/Unix would require you to run a script locally on a server/workstation to configure some local cfg file can on Windows be accomplished through group policies. And when GPs are applicable they are much more robust. Moving a machine between OUs may mean that other GPs take effect, and GPs may have actions defined (many pre-defined) to be taken when a policy is rolled off a machine. GPs do not remove the need for scripts entirely, but it is important to understand why Windows admins were able to put up with cmd.exe or VBScript for so long: It was sufficient.

      But you may also be missing the big picture here. Most people who haven't spent time exploring PowerShell don't really appreciate the depth of it. PowerShell is a potent scripting/automation tools indeed, but it is also a hostable scripting engine which will interface with your native COM or .NET application in-process.

      Why is that important? Because it is the first time we have an common tool which will actually help re-use functionality between GUI admin tools and CLI admin tools without requiring authors to duplicate functionality. Consider a GUI admin tool which implements actions using best-practice command design pattern. An "command" in that pattern is a class and it is executed by 1) instantiating it, 2) injecting command parameter values and 3) calling "invoke" or something similar where the actual processing goes on. Guess what - that is almost precisely the definition of a cmdlet. By implementing a few extra general steps (hosting a PowerShell engine) you can implement the command as a cmdlet instead. Because cmdlets can operate on rich in-process objects you don't need to serialize to text and back in order to use the commands. Voila, your application is now also scriptable from the command-line. The same cmdlets can be used from a stand-alone PowerShell engine.

      This is what MS did with Exchange 2007 and 2010, SQL server etc. and are continuing to do. This is what VMWare is doing. Because the admin GUI creates cmdlet instances (or indeed entire pipelines) before executing them using the resident PS engine, they can also tell you what the pipelines/scripts look like. What you are seeing is a unification of the GUI and CLI - not a move away from GUIs.

      In Unix you can parse processes, logs, and system config files because everything is a file and can be run from the command line. In Windows it uses the horrible registry and you have to interface with WMI (I assume I never used powershell) with some .NET api, and programs do not leave text files for configuration.

      PowerShell exposes the registry as just another "location type". You can jump into the registry and navigate it like a file system. Indeed, this model is extensible and you can administer AD, Exchange and SQL Server by navigating them as "directory" trees. The "files" (now generalized as "items") may be users, mailboxes, SQL tables. And you use the familar cmdlets such as rm for removing items.

      In Unix you run a shell script with awk or sed or even Perl if it is a newer script and could take care of most anything. That makes it rock for a server.

      Yes, it is robust and it has indeed served Unix well. However, those scripts will typically need to run *at* the server, which is a minor inconvenience. More importantly perhaps, is the fact that config files change with versions of the software. Which makes text-manipulation of config files brittle. It breaks enc

      --
      Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
    160. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Right... but what would be the point?

      It'd cost a fortune in developer time, and you'd be replacing a perfectly stable kernel with another perfectly stable kernel. Oh, and you'd need to rewrite a lot of userland stuff or run almost the whole lot through some sort of compatibility layer.

      Seriously, Windows is a mature product these days. It's far from perfect, but the old days of being horrifically unstable were on their way out in the days of Windows NT, and were more-or-less complete when the '9x line was finally killed off and XP was introduced. There were still annoyances back then (the absence of a firewall would have been a much smaller problem were it not for the number of broadband ISPs who supplied USB modems and refused to support anyone who used a firewall of any description), but to talk about Windows like it's still stuck in the days of Windows '9x and would benefit from Microsoft doing an Apple and introducing a whole new OS based on a Unix kernel is spectacularly ignorant.

    161. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      This is part of the problem - Microsoft have essentially been hoist by their own petard. They developed such a reputation for a lousy product back in the 1990s that many people's automatic assumption when they see a system that's unstable today is to blame Microsoft rather than investigate deeper.

      The important question is do Microsoft care?

    162. Re:Why? by jimicus · · Score: 1

      Thanks for clarifying, as I said I wasn't certain I was right. Sounds like Microsoft are essentially skipping over the paradigms in shell languages like bash and looking straight at languages like Python.

    163. Re:Why? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Well, in truth, it is mainly being used as a scripting language on Windows (for Exchange and SharePoint primarily, to automate admin tasks), more so than a general-purpose better shell. Whether the design reflects this deliberately, I do not know. I certainly find it useful in a shell, as well - it's a bit like the concept of "everything is a file system", only it's more flexible because the "files" can have different sets of attributes (aside from name) depending on where they come from; but cd, ls and other basic navigation and querying commands still work the same.

    164. Re:Why? by TempeTerra · · Score: 1

      I had a lot of trouble recently with VS2010 hammering my dev workstation. It was pretty complicated actually - when running VS I was getting way too much disk IO which was making my system almost unusable - even when just having a few editor tabs open in VS.

      The problem seems to be that I had only 2GB of RAM in the box (blame someone else, I didn't provision it), and while VS wasn't really using much itself, it was spawning a whole lot of threads which were processing in the background (IntelliSense and so forth), modifying lots of memory, and because my RAM was semi-full the changed memory was getting written out to the swap file constantly. And then of course the virus scanner was going nuts looking at all the disk IO. The disk IO became the system bottleneck and brought the system to its knees when it wasn't even doing any useful work.

      Adding a gig of RAM completely fixed it. Even though my system wasn't exactly running out of RAM, the extra head room stopped it from thrashing the disk all the time for trivial writes. FYI, the system resources page was showing 1GB 'in use' and the other GB full of 'cached, just in case you want it again' when I was having the trouble to start with, which initially made me think that RAM wasn't the problem.

      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
    165. Re:Why? by Lennie · · Score: 1

      So they keep the hashes and use that in the protocol-calculations, interresting. Thanks.

      --
      New things are always on the horizon
    166. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's spectacularly ignorant to talk as though windows is as good as a *nix. Anyone can see it's a huge ball of fail next to any *nix, which won't be running any windows-like malware STILL, in spite of all the geniuses who insist malware is a function of market share (thoroughly debunked). Shill.

    167. Re:Why? by bondsbw · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your insightful comment. Indeed, Windows should be fully expected to solve an undecidable problem like antivirus. Linux has never has a virus written for it because it is so secure. Nor has Mac OS X, nor has any other OS other than Windows. Windows is the only OS that has ever has viruses. Viruses were probably created by M$ because they are so evil.

      And don't fool me with UAC or full-disk encryption or any of that smoke and mirrors. UAC is a hack that never works, and the only time it pops up is when a virus ISN'T running. Just installing IE 7/8/9 brings thousands of viruses. Windows is so broken even Firefox and Chrome can't help!

      </sarcasm>

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
    168. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      I think you are starting to understand.

      Your example of Joliet on the legacy Russian locale: the correct result is that the 16-bit filenames on the disk are converted to UTF-8 by the filesystem driver. If the program that prints on the terminal is aware that the terminal is going to interpret these as 1-byte russian encoding, then it is that program's responsibility to convert the names again, although it is likely nobody is going to complain much if it does not do so and the terminal produces mojibake. 90% of the programs those filenames are going to will produce the correct output, because they only understand UTF-8. Browsers, for instance.

      Now if the filesystem has 8-bit filenames stored in that Russian locale, the filesystem should return them unchanged. It can't do any better, it really should have no idea of any "locale" and I don't think it should attempt to convert to UTF-8. The reason it is safe to always convert 16-bit filenames is because currently 100% of them are in UTF-16 (or UCS-2 which only differs in unassigned Unicode points anyway and can be converted with the same code as UTF-16) and UTF-16 to UTF-8 conversion is lossless even for invalid UTF-16 so there is no problem with the "wrong locale" being used. That is not true of 8-bit encodings, they can be in any number of locales and the raw bytes are much more useful than the incorrect recoding. It is true that these strings will display "correctly" if the terminal happens to be using the same encoding, but this is just obsolete implementations that should be fixed. Due to the design of UTF-8, those Russian names are almost 100% likely to be invalid UTF-8, so a correct program could check for this, and if it looks like invalid UTF-8 (and ONLY then) it can use some legacy code to figure out what encoding it probably is and print it. Or, more likely, it can just print it as UTF-8 and produce the *same* mojibake that 90% of the software in the world will produce, which would be an awful lot more use friendly than the current behavior, and would quickly get everybody switched to UTF-8 and rid us of "locale" forever.

      On Windows what I use for all filesystem access (in fltk) is a converter from UTF-8 to UTF-16 that converts all error bytes as though they are in the CP1252 encoding. This is lossy but not that bad as I already have to deal with "case independence" so conversion to a filename is lossy anyway. The reverse conversion from UTF-16 to UTF-8 is lossless (unpaired surrogates turn into the obvious UTF-8 encoding) so any result of readdir will work, have all the filenames different, and those filenames can be used to open the files. The problem is that these functions are not "fopen()" and so on, but of course have different names, as they are not part of libc. This greatly limits usability of them as I cannot deal with any libraries that open files on their own.

      For Windows to do POSIX correctly it must implement this at a low level so all the POSIX calls and everything that calls them goes through the same code. I think the easiest way is to change the "mb" (and probably the "a") apis to be forced to use this conversion, as this useful feature would be available to Windows software too. Changing just the POSIX api to do this means the POSIX programs could not call Windows libraries that don't use this when opening files which would make portability much harder. It would also help considerably for access to remote filesystems that use 8-bit filenames if there was a "tunnel" that sent the 8-bit text unchanged, this is because the conversion UTF-8 to UTF-16 and back is lossy. I can understand Microsoft balking at that idea, and it probably is livable without it.

    169. Re:Why? by spitzak · · Score: 1

      Imagine if OS X did not reject invalid surrogate pairs for filenames. What would happen, then, if you'd have a file with such an invalid pair, and then did a readdir() on it - what would you expect to see in d_name after it converts to UTF-8?

      I would expect to see the unpaired surrogate halves each converted to the correct 3-byte UTF-8 encoding for that code point.

      This really isn't that hard. Yes 8-bit systems are a mess of legacy encodings, so my recommendation is that the problem be ignored as much as possible, moved as close to final interpretation on the display as you can. All other solutions just perpetuate these problems by making it impossible to change them to UTF-8. And as you are well aware, any text that is not UTF-8 is going to display wrong in a huge number of programs no matter how you set the locale.

      16-bit systems do not have this encoding mess, as they are virtually 100% UTF-16 or UCS-2 which have identical and obvious and lossless conversions to UTF-8, therefore there is no reason for the filesystem to not do this.

    170. Re:Why? by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I've been using Win7 since release and according to the log have had zero crashes. Which is a record, since I've managed to get OS X to crash several times, and have even managed to bring my Linux boxes to their knees in the same period. So far Win7 is the most stable OS I've run, followed closely by various Linux distros. But then again I've also never encountered serious problems with Vista, and even grew a bit fond of it towards the end of its life. My biggest complaint was how hardware hungry it was, and how slow some things were (like sharing over a network), and its nasty wifi on wake behavior (which Win7 also has, to a lesser degree, and only with USB adapters). The only thing I'd like Win7 to have is a modern file system, NTSF is long in the tooth, and pretty much inferior to every other system out there now.

      My girlfriend got Win7 the same day I did, and so far has had around 40 blue screens. The first culprit was bad RAM, the second was a video driver that had a bad install.

      But if Windows 7 is a success then it's mainly because Microsoft has foist it on people by making it the default OS on many new machines and ensuring XP's retirement by not porting DirectX 10 or Internet Explorer 9 to it. People are not migrating from XP to Windows 7 in their droves, over 50% of the world's desktop PCs still run XP - that's because for most people it's good enough.

      Actually Win7 was the first MS OS that I've ever been excited about, or at least since Win3.11 when I was young and silly and using some the the worst GUIs ever developed. I actually ditched one of my Linux boxes for it (mostly because Linux makes for the worst HTPCs I've ever seen, though). I LIKE Win7. Imagine that.

      But then again I think the OS-wars is stupid, and anyone who actually is a "fan boy" of a corporate product is a drooling moron. All of the major OSs are mature now, and pretty much do the same stuff, and do it all just as well. Notice how the main debate going on right now is about niche features, like Powershell, which 90% if end users don't care one iota about?

      Also... I have had a virus, worm, or other malware, on any OS or Windows Platform in more than 8 years (and that was one case, and almost completely my fault not securing myself better before hopping on a college network). None of the computers I maintain in my household (7 at the moment, with one more on the way) have had a virus in the last five. Granted this isn't a work environment with hundreds of users, but 99.9% of modern infections are user caused, and not due to massive flaws in OS architecture. If malware producers focused on other OSs as much as they do Windows, then I'm sure they would have the same problems. Users are idiots.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    171. Re:Why? by makomk · · Score: 1

      That statement makes no sense; seriously, do you know anything about OO? Objects can expose interfaces; anybody who needs to do something can query the object, and, if it supports the required interface, they can just use it.

      Which surely means - because of the way interfaces are actually defined - that one utility can only usefully pass information to another if they both link to a library defining a suitable interface to the objects being passed? That basically limits you to either passing stuff that can be described by interfaces defined in the system libraries or sticking with utilities from a single source. (Unless you want to write adapter classes - which is like the text mangling you'd have to do under a more traditional approach, except even more annoying.)

    172. Re:Why? by westyvw · · Score: 1

      Why the hate? It was an example, albeit a simple one, just something for it to do. And how long for powershell to start up? The real world examples I have are things like parsing, sorting, logging, and using functions like tail. Fact is wget, awk, sed, tail, grep are all pre compiled. Using the .NET libraries to perform what appears to be simple tasks, can often hurt performance considerably, which also was my point. I ran into this using get-child item and get-content, there were better ways.
      Finally, why so defensive? Win 7 is measurable better then XP, from security to usability, gone are the days when the whole screen would just go away because a network drive went off line.
      In the end it doesnt matter, if it is slow and uses gobs of resources for me, then it does. Period. If I get better performance putting my windows apps in Wine or running Win7 in a VM while still running a complete suite of tools then it is that way for me.

    173. Re:Why? by zdepthcharge · · Score: 1

      Huh. Win 7 Ultimate runs like a slippery fish on my netbook. In fact it runs so well that I'll not even bother installing a linux OS. Not trolling, just saying. Of course when I bought the netbook it ran like shit. Then I wiped XP and all the HP bloatware and installed Win 7. I was going to make it multi-boot, but since it runs so smoothly (and on 1 GB of ram) it's just not worth the hassle.

    174. Re:Why? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      There's really no reason microsoft couldn't take a bsd-licensed OS and modify it as Apple (via NeXT) did and end up with a winner on their hands

      There is a reason. That reason (I am typing this on Slackware Linux BTW) is that the Windows NT kernel and the Executive for the matter is one of the most modern and best designed platforms in wide use. They don't need take a BSD licensed OS or anything else for that matter and port win32 to it. What they need to do is first FIX their libraries which is where all the vulnerabilities always are. Second they need make better and correct use of what are actually very strong, reliable, and finer grained security capabilities than exist elsewhere, which are in many cases not exposed to end users.

      Architecturally most of WIndow's problems are in the upper layers. The good news is from a design standpoint these are the simplest to fix, the bad new is from a political customer acceptance stand point these are probably the hardest to fix. Apples problem was completely different it was their underlying platform that was unworkable so finding a replacement and migrating their user land to it was a good call. Microsoft's problem is their user land and simply putting it on *BSD won't make it more secure or stable, actually it might make it less.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    175. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enhance security/permission features - no sudo-equivalent in Windows

      runas

      better modularization - Windows has a pretty monolithic setup compared to Linux

      linux is monolithic by definition

    176. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in 5 minutes the following comes to mind: performance, efficient usage of system resources, stability, file system, decouple GUI from core, decouple apps from core, simple remote access, get rid of the sick registry, customization, documentation, adhere to common open standards, lower hardware requirements, better modularization, remove unneeded services/bloatware, provide a powerful shell, enhance security/permission features, ...

      You could say pretty much exactly the same thing about Android...which is...*gasp*...a linux system!

    177. Re:Why? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      POSIX filesystem semantics

      Fix it so POSIX api functions are no longer treated as bastard stepchildren - implement them in the core, and emulate others.

      Why? Break application compatibility to turn windows into a POSIX system? What's wrong with all the existins POSIX OSes?

    178. Re:Why? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      If a .deb installation fails it leaves files all over your volume. If you uninstall a deb package it wont restore the original config files in /etc either. RPM deals with all of that and is very scriptible too and great for unattended upgrades.

    179. Re:Why? by juasko · · Score: 1

      Windows up to Win XP was never decent for it's time.

      Win3.11 was utter crap for it's time. But for a windos user I guess your right.

    180. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The astroturfers in this discussion have shown that probably the only real reason microsoft won't ever "deliver" is that they're in love with their own ideas. Which means they're screwed!

    181. Re:Why? by juasko · · Score: 1

      I would agree that this would make sense but wp7 is for phones, MS is going Win8 for tablets...

    182. Re:Why? by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      The "sides" do not "agree" on anything. In Microsoft world one side produces an interface, and only a compatible implementation that uses a piece of code provided by the person who wrote the interface, and uses the same infrastructure, can safely use it.

      Everyone else has the interface described in a human-readable manner -- one can refuse to look even at a single byte of code written by one side of the protocol, and be perfectly capable of communicating over it. There is no obligation to use the same infrastructure, the only thing that is required is understanding of the format, that is purposefully kept simple, so it can be a part of clearly designed interface. Servers, clients and peers can be replaced by different, unrelated implementations, and everything still works.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  2. App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by Iamthecheese · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TFA is full of empty speculation and even if Microsoft were trying to do this their extensive history of withholding key, drastic hardware control level features at the last minute argues against the idea they could carry it off. There will be no pan-fundatio Windows 8.0

    --
    If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    1. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you argue against speculation with more speculation. Nice.

    2. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      "Pan-fundatio"? That even confused Google.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you argue against speculation with more speculation. Nice.

      You mean "fitting", I'm sure.

    4. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      pan-FUDatio is what first come to mind on a MS thread.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    5. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps:
      pan- : across
      fundatio : fundamentalists?

      So, 'across multiple fundamentalist things' (presumably referring to the various fanatical proponents of their respective platforms)

    6. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "fundatio" is the Latin root of "foundation". Across foundation? Or maybe bread foundation? Hmm, that sounds tasty.

    7. Re:App X, Ribbons, and hogwash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fellatio?

  3. Preparing for the previous war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    By the time Windows 8 comes out, the rest of the market will ahve moved on. Again.

  4. Flaming by Jorl17 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I be flaming.

    Microsoft should just keep pushing good stability features for their crappy OS. Every single OS release is an "oh we got this new x and that new y (both available in other decent OS for ages, except for the occasional innovation)" moment, instead of a "We have increased security and enabled you to fully control your computer. If you are not a computer expert, this OS is great, as it always has been, but if you are a computer expert, then now we have given you the ability to fully manipulate your computer" kind of thing. That's what Windows should do -- add powerusers to their marketshare (I mean real powerusers). Also, it isn't FLOSS (I just had to troll :D)

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    1. Re:Flaming by Cinder6 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft is usually damned if they do, damned if they don't. Let's say they added multiple desktop support, a la every other worthwhile OS. Everyone would laugh at MS for being late to the party. If they don't add it, then people will mock them for its omission.

      I use a Mac and Win 7. There are some damn nice features that 7 has I wish my Mac would copy. Namely: snap to sides. Unfortunately, I doubt that Apple will ever add this, because they seem to refuse to admit to anyone else ever having a good idea. (We did get Spaces eventually, though, so perhaps there is hope.) I also really enjoy how the new start menu works. It's sort of an enhanced dock with the ability to preview and close windows without having to open them. Apple already does have similar functionality (sans the closing windows bit, and it's a little more cumbersome), but there are aspects of the Windows implementation that I prefer.

      You could look at how Apple handled Snow Leopard. For the most part, it was an "under the hood" update, which is basically what you're asking for. And yet, even though it technically did bring a lot of new features, there were a lot of people who were mad at Apple for producing a "weak" update, even though it only cost $30.

      You just can't please everyone.

      --
      If you can't convince them, convict them.
    2. Re:Flaming by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      Or anyone, for their matter.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    3. Re:Flaming by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Microsoft should just keep pushing good stability features for their crappy OS. Every single OS release is an "oh we got this new x and that new y (both available in other decent OS for ages, except for the occasional innovation)" moment

      The Windows 7 graphics stack is still more capable than anything in Linux when it comes to features like switching between GPUs and replacing GPU drivers without closing programs, logging out, or rebooting. This feature greatly reduces the impact of graphics driver crashes, as the graphics driver can be restarted without losing any work, and reduces power usage on laptops with discrete GPUs, as low-power integrated graphics can be used when high-power graphics are not needed.

      The audio system is also more stable and more capable than Linux's.

      Linux can't get video and audio working with the features and stability seen in Windows or Mac OS X in the mid 00s, let alone today.

      That's what Windows should do -- add powerusers to their marketshare (I mean real powerusers).

      Of course we all know that No true power user would use Windows right now, right?

    4. Re:Flaming by nxtw · · Score: 1

      There are some damn nice features that 7 has I wish my Mac would copy. Namely: snap to sides.

      This feature is in BetterTouchTool, which I recommend if you use a Magic Mouse or a mutlitouch trackpad on a Mac (even without the snap to side feature).

    5. Re:Flaming by jkabbe · · Score: 1

      Microsoft has too many "partners" to sneak in a new version 18 months after the previous version (like Apple did with Snow Leopard). As a result, they'll probably be tied into their recent 3-4 year schedule.

      I think the sadness over Snow Leopard being weak was due to the fact that Apple had been shipping major new releases every 12-18 months for four straight upgrades. And then along comes Snow Leopard on the same schedule, but mostly under the hood. So yeah it was disappointing, but necessary (so no complaints here).

    6. Re:Flaming by Brett+Buck · · Score: 0

      instead of a "We have increased security and enabled you to fully control your computer. If you are not a computer expert, this OS is great, as it always has been, but if you are a computer expert,....

              Huh? If you aren't a computer expert, Windows is absolute fucking garbage.

    7. Re:Flaming by xlsior · · Score: 1

      Let's say they added multiple desktop support

      They already did, a decade or so ago - see Virtual Desktop Manager.... Except it's an optional (free) powertoys download,and not bundled by default.

    8. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Mac App Store you'll find Cinch, which duplicates the "snap to sides" behavior of Windows 7. I think it cost me somewhere around 5 bucks.

    9. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Namely: snap to sides.

      Linux Compiz could snap windows to the the borders years ago.

      > Everyone would laugh at MS for being late to the party.

      Yet again.

    10. Re:Flaming by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      Actually, this may amuse you: the APIs have been present since Windows NT 4, and fully functional, but no official UI existed until the XP PowerToy came out. LiteStep virtual desktops have taken advantage of native VDM support since forever, IIRC.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    11. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Namely: snap to sides. Unfortunately, I doubt that Apple will ever add this, because they seem to refuse to admit to anyone else ever having a good idea

      Actually, I HATE this functionality in Windows 7. 99% of the time I'm just trying to drag a window out of the way and it suddenly takes up half your screen. I hate the fact that if you shake a window all other windows minimise (as someone who has motor skill issues this is a major gripe of mine with Win7). I sincerely hope that Apple never implements this in MacOS.

      Just because a feature is good for you, doesn't mean that it's good for everyone else.

      btw. if you miss these features so much in MacOS-X, maybe throw a few dollars at third-party developers? I'm sure they'd love you for it.

      Cinch [http://www.irradiatedsoftware.com/cinch/] ($7)
      Zooom/2 [http://coderage-software.com/zooom/index_green/index.html] ($19US)

      > It's sort of an enhanced dock with the ability to preview and close windows without having to open them

      HyperDock for Mac [http://hyperdock.bahoom.de/] ($9.95US) -- I use this, its great.

    12. Re:Flaming by gig · · Score: 1

      You can get a 3rd party "snap to sides" for your Mac if you want it. Very few people do, so it is a perfect.

      Very few people complained about Snow Leopard. The vast majority are just happy that their Macs work great, don't crash. Mac sales are way up again, as usual. And while Apple did Snow Leopard, they also did iOS 3 and 4, so they continue to make progress with OS X.

      Microsoft, on the other hand, the big celebration is that Windows 7 now has more users than Windows XP, the 2001 version of their system. But only in the US.

    13. Re:Flaming by gig · · Score: 1

      >> That's what Windows should do -- add powerusers to their marketshare (I mean real powerusers).

      > Of course we all know that No true power user [wikipedia.org] would use Windows right now, right?

      The average selling price of a Windows PC is $450, which is almost $200 less than an iPad ($625) and $200 less than an iPhone ($650). The Mac has 90% of high-end PC's. There is no market for a high-end Windows. What is needed by the Windows market is a $49 Windows that has the features of Windows XP but is immune to viruses and doesn't crash. Part of the problem with Vista was it was made for $1200 PC's and finally shipped into a market where almost all the $1200 PC's were Macs, so it ran really badly on $450 PC's.

    14. Re:Flaming by rsborg · · Score: 1

      I use a Mac and Win 7. There are some damn nice features that 7 has I wish my Mac would copy. Namely: snap to sides.

      You can achieve this using both Cinch (shareware) and BetterTouchTool which does the same using only keybindings (free). I use both, as sometimes the keybindings and ALT+CMD is faster, while the drag is visually nice when doing demos.

      Yes, I also doubt Apple would copy this, and do find the features useful.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    15. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate the snap to sides feature. Trying to move around and resize windows so I can see multiple windows is a absolute pain when you accidently hit the side/top/bottom and windows automatically maximises the window in that direction. And then on top of that, when you undo that maximisation, the window returns to its original spot which means you have to try it again...

      Good thing for w7 that you can turn it off, it'd be enough to drive me away completely (except for games, damn you directx, games companies and everyone else who wont support modern games under linux)...

    16. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a linux-loving sysadmin who doesn't touch a Windows machine unless one of those guys fucks it up and can't figure out how to fix it, let me just say this: MS tools have gotten a hell of a lot better and more powerful for people like me. Tuning options are better, and less necessary (due to systemic design improvements over the last couple years). Sure, it's still Windows, but the latest releases aren't crap like 2k3 and prior were.

      For remote management, I can't really say "SSH is better" than the MMC shit anymore. It's pretty solid, and a headless Windows machine is actually quite the tenability. I don't like the lack of plain-text configuration files, but between VSS and the myraid of associated services, I'd say things have come along quite nicely from the days of Ghost and Hope-To-God-Backup-Exec-Worked.

    17. Re:Flaming by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Windows is very rock solid. It is no longer the POS it once was. I recently wiped Linux off my system and switched to Windows because of bugs as well as Chrome and Firefox sucking goatballs on it.

      Linux is a reliable server and the kernel stays up but X, my ATI drivers, Gnome, and web browsers are buggy and unreliable. Firefox 4 sucks on Linux and is why. Go to www.msnbc.com under Windows 7 with Firefox 4 or Chrome? Now do the same under Linux? My 3 year old laptop freezes up on it now.

      If you can think of an OS that is as stable (user app wise) then please tell.

    18. Re:Flaming by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry to hear that coming from you, but I'm glad you're ok now. For me it is a fundamentalist moral position -- I need Free Software and I need to be able to fully control my software (that includes access to source-code). Sure I run about 3-4 proprietary crap, but Linux hasn't sucked on me for ages, since I properly learned how to use it. Maybe my hardware was just more compatible than yours, but all the issues that I had when I started using Linux have just gone away. Nowadays I run gentoo in my machines, without gnome or kde or xfce (just plain old little apps that I either made or compiled), and NVIDIA binary drivers, which is great to run some apps through Wine that run far faster than they did in Windows in the same machine (Vanilla Windows). But, like I said, I do this because I have a fundamentalist moral position, not because I want it to be necessarily better.

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
    19. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Let's say they added multiple desktop support, a la every other worthwhile OS. Everyone would laugh at MS for being late to the party. If they don't add it, then people will mock them for its omission.

      there is a solution for that: don't do it in the same way. Do it in a better way. If, at this point, you can't do it in a way that forces people to acknowledge your abilities, then you deserve the ridicule whether you add it or not.

      > You just can't please everyone.

      i reject the false dichotomy you are implying as applicable in this situation.

    20. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re window snapping. on the Mac.

      Get and install BetterTouchTool

      This gives you the windows snapping feature + a whole lot more, for free, with better customisation and control.

    21. Re:Flaming by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Microsoft is usually damned if they do, damned if they don't. Let's say they added multiple desktop support, a la every other worthwhile OS. Everyone would laugh at MS for being late to the party. If they don't add it, then people will mock them for its omission.

      That's true for any feature. And the moral of the story is, don't be late to the party. Their chances of being mocked and laughed at are significantly reduced if they keep up. Instead of sitting on their market share until they noticed the world has passed them by. Again and again.

      Microsoft has enough developers to populate a small town. They have shown (usually in Proof of Concept) that they can innovate. Where they repeatedly screw up is in execution.

      > You just can't please everyone.

      That's true, but they could please more people by leading instead of noticing we've marched past, running to the front of the line, and pretending they've been leading all along.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    22. Re:Flaming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be interested in Cinch, it is a utility by irradiatedsoftware that gives you the snap to sides that Win7 has. It's available from their website or via the Mac App Store.

  5. wtf summary...? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    if supposed early builds are to be believed... "Bloggers Rafael Rivera and Paul Thurrott, in a series of April postings on Rivera’s Within Windows blog, have described the various features of what they claim is an early build of Windows 8: an Office-style ribbon integrated into Windows Explorer, complete with tools for viewing libraries, manipulating images and managing drive assets; an unlock screen that harkens to the 'Metro' design style already present in Windows Phone 7; an 'immersive' user interface and a built-in PDF reader they call 'Modern Reader.'"

    Northing here is about why it should be a cross-platform OS.

    I may be kind of drunk right now, but I sure know when I read a bad summary!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:wtf summary...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Platform has a lot of meanings.

      By the standard that Windows 7 runs on X86/AMD64 and Server 2008 runs on IA-64, it can be argued today that Windows is multi-platform.

      By "multi-platform", I believe the writer is trying to express the difference between a laptop or desktop OS running with an Intel chip, and a tablet or phone running with ARM. I'll agree that it's an inelegant way of expressing it, but those are two hardware platforms.

    2. Re:wtf summary...? by MurukeshM · · Score: 1

      There's something bit further down about AppX, which is used for development in WP7, being used to mike W8's PDF viewer. Hence the cross-platform thing.

    3. Re:wtf summary...? by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the goal is to provide the ability to write a game once and it'll run on WIndows desktops and laptops, the XBox console, and their phone OS.

      Which is almost doable right now, but I guess they hope to broaden the class of apps with which this is possible, and lessen the differences between these various platforms.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    4. Re:wtf summary...? by Blink+Tag · · Score: 2

      Sounds like the goal is to provide the ability to write a game once and it'll run on WIndows desktops and laptops, the XBox console, and their phone OS.

      Wait ... you're saying their new OS will allow you to write code once for both desktops AND laptops if both run Windows? No way! That would be so cool .....

      [/snark]

    5. Re:wtf summary...? by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      Apparently English syntax is something you're new two. Here's a hit: notice the comma placement.

      "desktops and laptops" are one class. Then there's "The XBox console". And finally their Phone OS.

      Snark is only funny if it's not patently ignorant.

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
  6. Change for change sake by Wowsers · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    More changes for changes sake. I use Linux but I had to buy Win7 for testing. It is even more annoying than WinXP in so far as something small as the file manager in Win7. You can select the files, it tells you how many you selected, but it no longer says how many MB / GB of files you selected. It's stupid little things that Microsoft have take away that have made Win7 even more maddening for ex-WinXP users.

    Why can't Microsoft just fix Windows first then worry about everything else?

    I am glad I have a choice and stick with Linux and KDE4.

    --
    Take Nobody's Word For It.
    1. Re:Change for change sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am glad I have a choice and stick with Linux and KDE4.

      Yeah, because KDE4 NEVER had any problems...

    2. Re:Change for change sake by Rockoon · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It works for me.. it works for the other guy.. it must be something specific to your situation, and I think I know what it is...
      Clearly you are experiencing the notorious PEBKAC bug.

      Win7/64 Home Premium:

      6 items selected Size: 369KB
      Date created: 1/7/2011 7:25 PM - 2/26/2011 2:04 PM

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:Change for change sake by kdsible · · Score: 0

      I think Wowsers meant "folder" not files. The stupid things i hate are hiding RUN and Network. I suppose they are trying to move towards a smoother presentation.

    4. Re:Change for change sake by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you select more than 20 items, size does no longer appear.

      Its apperantly for performance reasons. The same reason why it does no longer show the size of the curren directly in the status bar.

      That is for me the only thing i hate on W7. And its so useless a restriction, too.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    5. Re:Change for change sake by fotbr · · Score: 1

      It fails if one of the items you select is a "shortcut" or "internet shortcut".

    6. Re:Change for change sake by BonquiquiShiquavius · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you select more than 20 items, size does no longer appear.

      Technically correct, except you forgot to mention that a link then appears, which you can click to "Show Details". The total size then appears.

      Its apperantly for performance reasons.

      Lemme guess...if MS had allowed you select 20+ objects, requiring a few seconds each time to calculate the total size each time you did that, you would be the one screaming how slow and laggy W7 is. Some people you just can't please...especially the ones who have decided to hate you no matter what you do.

    7. Re:Change for change sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More changes for changes sake. I use Linux but I had to buy Win7 for testing. It is even more annoying than WinXP in so far as something small as the file manager in Win7. You can select the files, it tells you how many you selected, but it no longer says how many MB / GB of files you selected. It's stupid little things that Microsoft have take away that have made Win7 even more maddening for ex-WinXP users.

      Why can't Microsoft just fix Windows first then worry about everything else?

      I am glad I have a choice and stick with Linux and KDE4.

      Mine Win7 do tell me the size of files selected, by default. Not sure what you have done to yours to not have that.

    8. Re:Change for change sake by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:Change for change sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not like firefox 4 hatred, where you lose the features because the bleeding edge download is free *cough* statusbar default GONE *cough*. At least with firefox we can quickly install the old release a month prior to the screw-up, and be up and running in at15 minutes if you fancy rebooting between version changes. No such luck with an entire OS shortchanging you on the expected values from its own previous version --which I thought is what made Vista repel all XP users.

      No. We are talking the engagement of an entire OS, best served cold (re-formatted) where you'll pay hundreds of dollars for either the DVD or new OEM hardware/OS bundle... after ardously backing up your prior partition's data, of course. At which point you find that you need to wipe and reinstall just to get your trusty old OS behavior, or be stuck with it if the new new PC has zero XP drivers. So it's not hatred for hatred's sake. We have a choice of not getting FOSS like Firefox, but no choice in avoiding Windows, because there is a hefty pricetag attached and a soon will have zero chance of a downgrade bailout as XP's compatibility begins to slip the way Win98's did.

    10. Re:Change for change sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And its so useless a restriction, too.

      Useless until you're accessing a network share via SMB via VPN and roundtrip times now prevent Windows from retrieving this information in a reasonable period of time.

      Please don't design software.

    11. Re:Change for change sake by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      How long does it take a computer which can perform billions of operations a second to add up a couple of dozen numbers?

    12. Re:Change for change sake by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      You can enable the Run command in the Start Menu settings. However, it is likely that they noticed that most of thier users never use it - and a fair number can use the searchbox as a pseudo-Run.

      You can also enable Network in the Start Menu settings.

      Yes they did remove them from the default. I doubt many non "power" users were actively using either (maybe Network, but that is a stretch, and the new idea is for that group to be using Homegroup instead - and yes, Homegroup sucks, quite hard, in its current incarnation), and "power" users should be capable of right clicking in the taskbar, hitting "Properties," navigating to the "Start Menu" tab and hitting the "Customize" button.

    13. Re:Change for change sake by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      When there are more than 15, metadata is hidden, since a lot of it involves doing "deep" file inspection which can be slow. That said, they could have made size always visible since that it part of the FS metadata and is generally fast to access regardless of what is selected - like they do with the number of items.

    14. Re:Change for change sake by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would it take "seconds" to re-calculate size?

      if (objectSize.click = add ) {
      $size + $more = $size
      return $size
      }

      or whatever. Just playing devil's advocate here - there really is no reason why they shouldn't be able to retain this feature.

      For those who actually want to use their computers and not have them do shit for them, there's always still Alt-Enter.

    15. Re:Change for change sake by webnut77 · · Score: 1

      So contrary to what I frequently heard, and the ladies will agree with this, size DOES matter!

  7. PDF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this outdated, insecure format still in use? I hope that much modern and better open XPS format will supersede PDF.

    1. Re:PDF? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      Is this outdated, insecure format still in use? I hope that much modern and better open XPS format will supersede PDF.

      That was meant as a joke, right?

      It isn't PDF that is inherently insecure; it's just ADOBE's implementation of the PDF spec that is wildly insecure.

    2. Re:PDF? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Obvious troll is obvious, but I'll bite.

      So, pray tell, what's more open, more secure, or more modern about XPS compared to PDF?

      I suspect that by "modern" you mean "it has XML in it"...

    3. Re:PDF? by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that - the PDF spec, with its multitude of Turing-complete runtimes, ability to hide absolutely arbtrary byte streams, have access to the filesystem and ability to *invoke commands outside of the PDF viewer* is a pretty big security hole. You must be thinking of some of the ISO PDF variants which omit these "features."

  8. So... by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... basically, according to Thurrott and Rivera, Microsoft's "vision of the future of Windows" is - OS X?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:So... by the+linux+geek · · Score: 2

      How did you get to that conclusion? Does OS X have a tablet mode similar to Windows Phone 7's UI, or a ribbon interface?

      What a strange troll...

    2. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft's "vision of the future of Windows" is - OS X?

      If you want a badly designed clusterfuck of an OS, you don't need to wait for them to finish copying OSX. Any of their OS's will do. The vividly colored default UI (theme) of todays MS Windows as mis-matched, unappealing visual puke is a fine metaphor for what's going on with their OS in general.

    3. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... basically, according to Thurrott and Rivera, Microsoft's "vision of the future of Windows" is - OS X?

      And this is a shock how? Vista was an OS Tiger knock off. It was one of my biggest complaints about Vista. I actually likely XP better than Mac for graphics work but Vista adopted the worst of OSX and ignore the cool things it does. Microsoft has been copying Apple in some ways all the way back to the first Windows release. I just wish they'd copy the cool parts and leave the annoying parts alone. Back ups and drive partitioning a chimp can do in Mac but they are still a pain in Windows. The one thing OSX blows Windows away in is making it all about the software and not the OS. If you want to tinker switch to Linux. I'm into software and not BS about my OS can beat up your OS. Other than the updates which are pretty seamless in Mac I rarely deal with the OS where as it's still a constant pain on my Windows machines. If fixing Windows means becoming more like Mac then the war is over and Mac has won.

    4. Re:So... by kdsible · · Score: 0

      Thats not so far fetched MS. Windows has come a long way, OSX has definitely influenced MS design.

      Trying to be unique yet providing an equal or greater experience. COPY them if you can't beat them. Now thats MS history.

    5. Re:So... by Servaas · · Score: 1

      If you can't install Windows 7 on a modern computer you really are over your head here and should travel back to 2011. Windows doesn't need fixing. Windows won. Even Jobs admitted that years ago.

    6. Re:So... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

      "Does OS X have a tablet mode similar to Windows Phone 7's UI"

      Yes, they call it iOS.

      "or a ribbon interface"

      I still don't really see how a "ribbon" is different than a toolbar. OS X has lots of those.

    7. Re:So... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The default UI theme of Win7 is basically light grey, with light translucent blue selection, and heavy use of "glass effect" transparency which is simply colorless. It's less "vivid" than the stock OS X theme, in fact. Unless you have some kind of acid trip wallpaper for the background.

  9. Dear GOD no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Office-style ribbon integrated into Windows Explorer

    If it has this, it can get the hell out.
    RIBBON IS AWFUL.

    They say they created this crapfest of a UI for touchscreens, yet most of the stuff in it tends to be a clusterfuck anyway!
    Not only that, it is usually inconsistent as well. Huge buttons for single features, like Bold, but then they add complex features in to tiny little buttons for god knows what reason.
    No, an IDIOT designed Ribbon, then used that as an excuse for the huge stupid looking buttons.

    Hopefully they will still allow for classic Windows theme as well, the one they added in Vista was terrible. The one they added in XP was terrible.
    I don't want silly shiny buttons for the sake of being shiny. I don't want to use my god damn GPU to minimize a window.
    Interfaces aren't more useful when they are constantly animating like in EVERY FILM EVER, it gets annoying real fast, more so when the interface has deliberate slowdowns for "aesthetics". No, just NO!
    If nobody knows what I am talking of, I mean menus having delays because ~instant changes are daunting to people~. (not even joking, it is a paraphrase, but that was one reason)

    Hopefully they got rid of whatever idiot designed the UI for Vis7a, they never had a damn clue.
    They couldn't decide between touchscreen and desktop.
    Maybe they should have TWO separate UI settings for both and stop crippling either of them. Touchscreen UIs are anti-desktop friendly, and vice versa. (unless your eyes are made of melons and you need a window in front of your eyes in order to see anything, in which case I would suggest laser surgery since it is really cheap now, safe, and works)

    1. Re:Dear GOD no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, you know the basic ui in windows is kinda configurable right? Not like X configurable, but still..

  10. i hate ribbon by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It is the most terrible difficult and unintuitive development in ui I have ever seen. Give me my damn menu's back, he'll I would prefer vi over ribbons.

    1. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't agree more. We have the ribbon for the sole facts that it subjectively looks cool to whatever focus group Ms uses to come up with this crap and it's different. Of course, the fact that it is different is because it is a stupid nonintuitive idea for a menu paradigm is lost on the marketeers at microsoft. When OSS copies this abomination, a sad day we will have.

    2. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you taken into account that the reason you don't like the ribbon interface is BECAUSE it is different? Humans really suck at change - if we're used to something, we don't want to see it changed, even if that change is for the better. My background is HCI and, when the ribbon came out, I performed a study for my company on the use of the ribbon paradigm. You are correct in one sense - those individuals not familiar with the ribbon (but are familiar with menus) have a tougher time moving to the ribbon. In most cases, this actually tends to be intermediate to power users. Those users are so attuned to where things are (even if they don't make sense) that it becomes a change they can't get past.

      However, people who are not as computer savvy and are not as familiar with the menu system, quickly pick it up and are much more comfortable performing various tasks.

      So, yes, I agree that the ribbon represents change and change can be difficult. But, I firmly believe that Microsoft has come up with something better, despite the "differetness" of it.

    3. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ribbons = Glorified Tabs

    4. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you taken into account that the reason you don't like the ribbon interface is BECAUSE it is different?

      Wow, I feel almost honored to have caught the attention of such a pretentious astroturfing shill. It probably costed Ms something like 50 cents or so to pay you to respond to me? Condescending and presuming is a tad tired and boring though.

      However, people who are not as computer savvy and are not as familiar with the menu system, quickly pick it up and are much more comfortable performing various tasks.

      Bull. The size and prominence of buttons and the tabs on the ribbon are way too arbitrary to be purposeful for anything other than pure aesthetics. The definition of form over function. A traditional menu and configurable toolbar are vastly superior.

    5. Re:i hate ribbon by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      Office used to be better on Windows until MS came out with their flouncy bouncy ribbon thing. On the mac they weren't able to get rid of the menu bar and so the mac version has the best of both worlds while the Windows version has the worst. It seem MS may be trying to spread this mistake through the rest of the OS.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    6. Re:i hate ribbon by John+Allsup · · Score: 1

      With the previous menubar system we could do alt key shortcuts with visual feedback as to where our keystrokes went. MS has destroyed this with the ribbon. Toolbars were easy to customise and this could be done via macros when necessary, again MS has messed this up. You cannot use the 'difference' argument as a defence against the fact that a number of great features of what was Office 2003's (and before's) interface have been removed in the name of progress. The ribbon may improve somethings but it should have been kept in MS's labs until they came up with a better 'different' way of doing things.

      --
      John_Chalisque
    7. Re:i hate ribbon by krenaud · · Score: 2

      I've used every Word version since 3.0 for DOS and I think that the 2007/2010 interface is the best yet. It requires some relearning, but one that hump is done it is easier to use. Learning keyboard shortcuts is easier - just press ALT and the key combinations light up and if you are used to ALT-whatever+Letter menu shortcuts from 2003 and earlier they still work.

    8. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus Christ, if you're going to lie, at least go with something not so verifiably false. Everything out of your dick sucking Linux shithole is wrong.

    9. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ribbon is really a love/hate thing. I know many attribute it to the power user divide, but I considered myself to be at least a highly proficient user of Office, and found that my productivity jumped way up once I got used to the ribbon. Granted, it's not perfect, but it's much easier to find features that you may not have discovered previously--which is the entire rationale behind the ribbon paradigm. Love it or hate it, it does do its job. Maybe a more customizable "most frequently used" tab would help?

    10. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the ribbon but I'm still using Word 2003 because, in 2007/2010, the insertion point keeps blinking while you type. In fact if you type fast, it's barely visible. Can't yet used to it, so distracting. And to my dismay, it behaves the same way on the Mac.

    11. Re:i hate ribbon by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Couldn't it be argued that if since there have been (and still are) a helluva lot of XP users, then doesn't that tell you as the OS creator that a lot of people are very comfortable with the current interface - and that if you want those same people to pay out more money for your new OS, then one of the worse things you can do is change what they are comfortable with to something different?

      Again, I like XP a lot, even as a mostly Linux person these days, but Windows 7 strikes me as just changing stuff around a bit to make it "feel" like something new without taking into consideration what people are already comfortable with?

      I've no reason to upgrade to Windows 7 at the moment but I've set up a few new PCs for friends and family and I *HATE* the new interface - and I've therefore been put off from even wanting to evaluate its good points for that reason alone.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    12. Re:i hate ribbon by colinnwn · · Score: 2

      Well I'd say I'm somewhere between intermediate and power user. I've been using Office 07 and the ribbon menu for about a year now in Outlook, Word, and Excel. We're still on Access 03, and I infrequently need to use PowerPoint. This amount of time is generally sufficient for computer savvy people to adjust to a new layout and recover any lost productivity or unlock the new features' potential.

      I still hate the ribbon interface and feel like I am slightly less productive than before. More than half the time, I need features that aren't offered in the ribbon. So I need to use keyboard shortcuts, or pop out the old options box from the bottom of the menu option group. Since I don't see the keyboard shortcuts in the drop down menus anymore, I am starting to forget some of the ones I use less. I also frequently get confused about what is in some of the ribbon groups like "Page Layout", "View", "Review" or whatever, because conceptually they are so close, even if they group different types of visual layout actions.

    13. Re:i hate ribbon by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      You may think the Mac has the best of both worlds. I think they've merely combined crap and trash. Both approaches are UI disasters, and having mixed paradigms in the same software for that sort of thing just doesn't work well, which is why I stuck with my old copy of Office 2004 for Mac while trying to make the transition to using iWork. I'll take one broken paradigm over two any day, and iWork is great, though I've been so used to doing things the MS Office way for so long that it's taking a lot of habit breaking to use it. I still can't stand Numbers, but Pages and Keynote already get more use than Word and Powerpoint. I'm hopeful that by the time Lion comes out, which will kill my ability to run PowerPC programs (which Office 2004 is) on Intel, I'll have transitioned over to using iWork for everything.

    14. Re:i hate ribbon by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Nice catch. What's funny is that stock OS apps don't do that (e.g. Notepad). Indeed, stock OS textbox widget doesn't do that - the cursor is always visible for as long as you type. Smells like a bug in Word - they should be consistent.

    15. Re:i hate ribbon by ZosX · · Score: 1

      Really? Windows 7 is hardly any different than XP. There is some bling here and there, but other than that its more or less functionally the same. The start bar is a little different, but not drastically so. There are so many reasons to run windows 7 over xp if your hardware can support it. better security is a huge one. You can also run a classic windows theme and make it look like windows 2000. I mean you like XP but hate 7 because of the interface? I just don't see how it is so fundamentally different. In fact it seems like a vast improvement in a lot of ways.

    16. Re:i hate ribbon by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      Given that the Ribbon works with Alt-based mnemonics, and provides quite a bit of visual feedback (which is better than the old menu system because you have nice tooltip-style popups, rather than trying to scrounge around for the underlining of a character) and are just as customizable as toolbars and menu bars (in the Office suite of applications, at least) I am having a hard time grasping what features of the interface itself (menus and toolbars) have been removed. The only one I can think of is moving and docking the toolbars.

    17. Re:i hate ribbon by owlstead · · Score: 1

      The problem becomes what to do when complexity starts to kick in.

      * You can choose to stick with your previous "solid menu's", but then you get all of the options always, and you will have tens if not hundreds of options. Not a good idea. A way of reducing this is to remove the ones never used "personalized menu's" in Windows (for those non-office users, they are not personalised at all, they just remove the ones you did not use lately, with an option to display all).

      * You can make everything context specific. Many menu items don't make sense with the items you are trying to review/edit. The problem with this is that the options may keep shifting around, which make them harder to find. Of course, the right click menu is the most common context specific menu. Another way of creating context is asking the user what he's doing. Debugging environments in IDE's are a good example - you would not necessarily need all the editing options, but you do want debugging options displayed.

      * You can simply remove functionality. One way of doing this is to create a modular architecture where you can add options yourself. Or you can simply dumb down you application enough (most iOS and Android apps).

      In the end, the ribbons are just a visual way of the right click context menu's. If you keep most buttons more or less at the same place, you still have some visual clues. I'm not a big fan of them, but it beats doing nothing.

      A very good example of a good UI design using components and context specific menu's is Eclipse 3.0 (preferences with a search option, context specific options even within dialog screens etc.). They have given in to complexity in later versions. If you leave too many options open, you get menu's that don't fit in 1080 pixels. Too little context.

    18. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny. When Microsoft was performing usability testing on Office 2007, testers were reporting back how impressed they were with the new features that MS was putting into Office. Those features had all been present in Office 2003, it's just that the users had no way of easily discovering and understanding them.

      I put it to the test with my own doubting Thomas, when I was discussing how much better the ribbon was. He challenged me to perform a certain task I hadn't ever done before (admittedly simple in this case, change the default bullet points to custom smilie faces), and I did it in three clicks, without having to rely on anything but a cursory look over the controls.

      So I found it both incredibly easy and intuitive, and apparently MS's usability tests did too, because it's sticking around.

    19. Re:i hate ribbon by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Menus are trees. You get an order o' magnitude more options with a single added layer of depth.

    20. Re:i hate ribbon by lennier · · Score: 1

      ++++++++ this!

      Where's the Like button?

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    21. Re:i hate ribbon by lennier · · Score: 1

      When OSS copies this abomination, a sad day we will have.

      GNOME 3.0 and Ubuntu Unity are already on it. Two abominations with Bad Idea frosting (it's chilli vodka turnip flavoured!) coming right up...

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    22. Re:i hate ribbon by lennier · · Score: 1

      On the mac they weren't able to get rid of the menu bar

      Yes. This feature (application developers can't remove the menu) is the first thing that's made me sit up and take notice of the old Apple menubar-at-the-top design, and go 'hmm, actually that was a pretty good idea'.

      Pity Apple are going, like Microsoft, in the direction of 'let's remove all hard-coded GUI elements so that the user has to remember a new UI for every app'. Wonder how long it will be before the menu vanishes on OSX as well as on iPad.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    23. Re:i hate ribbon by exomondo · · Score: 1

      With the previous menubar system we could do alt key shortcuts with visual feedback as to where our keystrokes went. MS has destroyed this with the ribbon.

      What are you talking about? Are you just an anti-MS troll or do you not know what ribbon is? Using the alt key shortcuts continues to work and gives even *more* feedback than the menubar system.

      Toolbars were easy to customise and this could be done via macros when necessary, again MS has messed this up.

      Given the utter nonsense of your first comment it's probably pointless to even ask exactly what you're having trouble with in regard to customising ribbons, because AFAICT they are just as easy and just as customizable.

    24. Re:i hate ribbon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ribbons = Glorified Tabs

      And people love tabs, 'nuff said.

  11. Different from mine by MasterOfGoingFaster · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is even more annoying than WinXP in so far as something small as the file manager in Win7. You can select the files, it tells you how many you selected, but it no longer says how many MB / GB of files you selected.

    Odd - mine shows the size of the selected files at the bottom. I'm running Win 7-64bit Ultimate.

    --
    Place nail here >+
    1. Re:Different from mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, same here. I'm sure he just didn't see it in the exact same spot it is in XP and decided it was horrible, refusing to even try to learn anything.

    2. Re:Different from mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ditto

    3. Re:Different from mine by rfuilrez · · Score: 1

      On mine (Win7 64 Ultimate) it shows different stuff at the bottom depending on how much, and how diverse what I selected its.
      A few mp3s for example show a bunch of information related to ID3 tags.
       
      The entirety of my WoW folder however shows "30 items selected. Click for more details" If I click it, it shows just that 30 items were selected, and the range of dates they were modified.
       
      If I select the entirety of the folder, excluding the sub folders it shows "20 items selected. Click for more details" When I click it, it shows ranges for Date Modified and Date created, but also the total size.

    4. Re:Different from mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "Show more..." only appears after you've selected more than 15 files (not folders). Fifteen files or less and it will always show the size and date created.

    5. Re:Different from mine by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      So if he's running Windows 7 Home (Something), how much would he need to pay to upgrade to Windows 7 Ultimate just so he can see how big his folders are?

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    6. Re:Different from mine by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Nothing, as all Windows 7s show the file size at the bottom. The jackass who stated that it doesn't clearly can't read what's on his screen.

    7. Re:Different from mine by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      I believe it shows the total only up to 15 files. It's very annoying. There is apparently some software called classic shell which can add it back in and gives you the "up" button back too.

    8. Re:Different from mine by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Clearly you are unable to imagine that anything outside your experience is possible. 7 does not show the file total for more than 15 files. Do you need a screenshot?

      It also doesn't show the disk free space. There's quite a few complaints about it out there on the web.

    9. Re:Different from mine by Gadget_Guy · · Score: 1

      7 does not show the file total for more than 15 files.

      It does on my system, which runs Home Premium. However, I have seen it just display "XX files selected" before.

      Oh, I just managed to recreate it. I went into a folder that had over a hundred files in it and did a Ctrl-A to select them all. It just displayed the number of files (with no click for details message). I noticed the green progress bar going across the address line as it scanned the rather large video files to get their resolution. Once this was done it showed those details as well as the total file size. This was on an external USB drive, so it is not as fast as my internal drives.

      I just tried it in my Windows\System32 folder on nearly 3000 files. I got the "Show more details" message. When I clicked it the green progress bar showed again and it eventually just shows the file date ranges. I tried just selecting the files and not the folders and it showed the file sizes. Hovering the mouse over a folder still shows the folder size.

      Try that folder for yourself and see what happens. Pay attention to the address line.

  12. Paul Thurott?!? Hahahahaha!!! by macs4all · · Score: 0

    Read what this popular blogger has repeatedly pointed out about Paul Thurott's talents and track record.

    What a tool.

    1. Re:Paul Thurott?!? Hahahahaha!!! by thomst · · Score: 2

      Read what this popular blogger has repeatedly pointed out about Paul Thurott's talents and track record.

      What a tool.

      What I read (the top result in the Goggle search string you provided) was nothing more than an extended ad hominem rant against Thurott by an unabashed Apple fanboy. It's entirely opinion-based, utterly biased, and highly inflammatory - and includes absolutely NOTHING in the way of actual evidence that Thurott is anything other than a Microsoft fanboy.

      So, in sum, "Boo for the other team's cheerleaders."

      Mind you, I am in no way, shape, or form defending or promoting Thurott here. Instead, I am merely and exclusively commenting on the "popular blogger" whose critcisms you seem to think are so compelling. They're not. His observations are opaquely colored with his own bias, and COMPLETELY unobjective.

      "The problem with pissing contests is that everybody gets wet, and everybody smells bad afterward."

      --
      Check out my novel.
    2. Re:Paul Thurott?!? Hahahahaha!!! by theskipper · · Score: 1

      Protip: Have everyone drink lots of water a few hours before the contest. It clears out the bad stuff (smelly) and provides plenty of fuel for the festivities. Joy all around.

  13. Works for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just tested this on 32-bit Windows 7 -- it does indeed tell you the total size of files that you selected.

  14. Ribbon... but why? by DavidR1991 · · Score: 1

    I think the ribbon is O-K. It's not fantastic (not the amazing revolution MS seems to think it is) but it's usable. I think it works OK in Office 07 at least. But... why in explorer? Explorer isn't complex enough to justify it. Office warranted it because it has oodles of menus and features. Explorer is comparatively simple though, which makes me think this is just overkill.

    1. Re:Ribbon... but why? by Servaas · · Score: 1

      I havent seen any screen shots of both Office 07 or Win 8 but do the ribbons replace the right context menu? So you need only one finger...

    2. Re:Ribbon... but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the ribbon is O-K. It's not fantastic (not the amazing revolution MS seems to think it is) but it's usable. I think it works OK in Office 07 at least. But... why in explorer? Explorer isn't complex enough to justify it. Office warranted it because it has oodles of menus and features. Explorer is comparatively simple though, which makes me think this is just overkill.

      Oodles of menus & features = oodles of ribbony crap. Ribbon is just a different way to organize it. I've had to work with the kind of dork that comes up with this kind of crap. Mostly wierd guys who are all talk & no content. Too bad...

    3. Re:Ribbon... but why? by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      They do not replace the right context menu in all cases - but I would imagine that MS would simply use the old click-(tap)-and-hold paradigm they had since the stylus days for alternate-click.

  15. I can't wait for Windows 8! by hsmith · · Score: 1

    Please, give me oversized text that stretches off the screen so I can't read it - such a great feature of WM7!

    1. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      Sounds like someone adjusted the font dpi and doesn't know how to change it back...

    2. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      He's referring to Windows Phone with the "text cut off" UI design element.

      That said, I wonder if GP has actually used a WP7 phone, or just seen the screenshots. It doesn't cut off useful data - the effect is there only to show the user that he can flick sideways to see a different pane etc. It's actually surprisingly unintrusive when using the device.

    3. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No thats WM7. Which it and all its apps will be obsolete and useless if and when WM8 hits the market.

    4. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>Please, give me oversized text that stretches off the screen so I can't read it - such a great feature of WM7!
      Personally I like this indication of more information to the left or right with this. It's very natural.

    5. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, on Windows phone 7 there is text on the home screen that stretches off the screen. This is an usability hint to the user, that there is more screens off the sides.

    6. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by oakgrove · · Score: 1

      I've had the occasional graphics driver cockup to where the screen would be set to 800x600 whilst the desktop was at 1024x768 or something. If I pushed the mouse to the screen edge, the whole desktop would scroll. Let me tell you, it was supremely annoying. Every time I've used a window phone 7 phone, it reminded me of that.

      --
      The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
    7. Re:I can't wait for Windows 8! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the GP talking about the Metro UI as seen on Zune and Windows Phone 7. One aspect of the UI is that top level titles across the top of a screen are usually written in a font so big that half the title gets cut off. Many folks, myself included, find it quite annoying.

  16. integrated software functionality by lkcl · · Score: 1

    the list of functionality sounds like a perfect recipe for absolutely every major software company under the sun to begin anti-trust lawsuits, to me. oh, and patent infringement cases, too...

    1. Re:integrated software functionality by zigmeister · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My personal crystal ball says: eventually windows will be surpassed as on OS by one that does everything out of the box without the user dicking around on the net installing adobe, firefox etc. MS can never do this for fear of anti-trust suits, it's not like they have the functionality sitting around they can push as an update so when it happens they'll be 3 years behind and playing catchup. After that we'll suddenly realize how we screwed them over. I don't have a particular affinity for the company but ya... Also that's to say nothing of whether or not MS would've ever pulled their head out of their ass and made this kinda stuff happen regardless of lawsuits. I mean you have that many resources, income employees etc and you can't just make stuff happen seriously?

      --
      Failure formatting five FAQs of financial facts.
    2. Re:integrated software functionality by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is, as soon as that OS gets a commanding marketshare, the floodgates will open, and its manufacturer will be sued into oblivion (or at least into creating dozens of "ballot" screens)

  17. Last True Desktop Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This will be the last version that resembles a desktop OS, expect future offerings to be some sort of virtualized cloud offering.

  18. Indeed by Kupfernigk · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As far as I can see the sole purpose of the ribbon is to keep all the training companies that train office workers on Microsoft products happy, and to make it harder to change to Open Office for people used to the ribbon.

    But this is the company that has made Wordpad an unusably over-complex piece of garbage - and I say that even though Windows 7 is a vast improvement over XP; installed on my laptop because XP was giving up with too many programs open, and now all those programs run nicely together.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
    1. Re:Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can see the sole purpose of the ribbon is to keep all the training companies that train office workers on Microsoft products happy, and to make it harder to change to Open Office for people used to the ribbon.

      Uh, the Ribbon is more touchscreen friendly than traditional menus...

    2. Re:Indeed by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Ever tried to edit a text document ob a touchscreen?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    3. Re:Indeed by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      No but I have posted on slashdot ob a touch screen.

      I stll hate ribbon.

  19. ribbon = rubbish by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

    Does anybody apart from Microsoft, actually think the ribbon is a good thing? I would consider removing it to be a feature.

    1. Re:ribbon = rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I LOVE the ribbon. I don't get why people don't love it. You can get to everywhere with less clicks. Everything is nice and organized. You click on a picture, and you get access to the picture tab. You click on a Table, and you get the Table tab. The ribbon makes features much more obvious. Before the ribbon, you didn't know what most of the features were. If I want to do something related to my references, I click on the reference tab. There are buttons to insert captions, and buttons to insert a cross reference. You can add a table of contents. Everything is only 2 clicks away with a ribbon. The Ribbon is larger, so you get more buttons then you used to on the Home tab. Now it's one click to superscript and subscript.

      What is wrong with the ribbon? Have you tried using it on a high resolution screen?

    2. Re:ribbon = rubbish by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      As far as I can see it's basically the same as the dockable toolbars in previous versions of Office except that it's permanently docked and takes up a lot of real estate that could be better used for the actual document you're working on.

      I guess if previous versions of Office for Windows didn't have context sensitive toolbars it would be an improvement.

    3. Re:ribbon = rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the office staff I speak to love it. I've had some tell me, without even having to ask them, how much the love the ribbon and don't miss being stuck fighting through the menus

    4. Re:ribbon = rubbish by Lokitoth · · Score: 1

      You can hide it so only the tabs are visible at any given point of time - though you would have to make an extra click to access any of the functionality. That said, pixel-wise it is not using that much more space than the default menu + 2x toolbar that office applications typically started out with on modest-sized displays.

    5. Re:ribbon = rubbish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For an app with a shit-ton of commands like most of the office 2010 suite, it actually makes sense. What it lacks, though, is a search feature. There should be an instant search bar on every ribbon app that finds commands for you when you don't know where they are, and maybe highlights them like the System Preferences dialog in OSX, or puts them in a big list. But anyway, the toolbars and menus were getting way out of hand on previous versions of office. Another aspect of the ribbon is that a truly conforming ribbon interface is supposed to also give live previews of effects on hover, which is nice. I think when MS folks talk about "the ribbon" they are including aspects like this that are actually kind of orthogonal improvements, whereas others just think of a glorified bar full of buttons.

    6. Re:ribbon = rubbish by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      My main screen is 1920x1080, so I don't think that's my problem. My problem is that I can't find anything - I spend far too long searching for options - and I've been using it since not long after it was introduced. Everything is two clicks away - apart from the stuff I use (e.g. sub/superscript in Powerpoint).

      Seriously, I have not spoken to a single real-person-standing-in-front-of-me who likes the ribbon. I am genuinely surprised by reports from people who like it. As a GUI element I don't see how it's different to tabs and buttons. As a GUI design, I think it's poorly laid-out.

      With menus it is easy to present a lot of options in a tree structure, several layers deep if needed. The ribbon is effectively two layers deep. Maybe it would be useful for often-used options, alongside a menu bar, but not instead of it. I'm used to complicated packages (I also use stuff like Solidworks) - I just like to be able to see what's available.

  20. Like OS X? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple is able to do this because they have a very lean core, and can scale back to just the items necessary to customize each version of OS X to the device it is running on (phone, pad, computer). I get the feeling this is simply a tablet interface tacked on top of the full windows install? I'm sure MS will market this as having a "real" OS or similar, but seems like it would lead to either bad battery life or bad performance. They are actually doing some nice work on the WP7 OS based on Zune, why not extend that upstream to tablets instead?

  21. What!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Replace your hard drive and\or memory. It is obviously defective.

  22. The OS is becoming irrelevant by elteck · · Score: 1

    Apple and Microsoft make us believe that the GUI defines the OS, oh well... I think the OS will become irrelevant. Why do so many computers still run an old system like XP? Because there's simply not enough need for "yet another great OS". It's the new hardware and slowly the newer software that drives the move to windows 7, while the recession slowed down investment in new hardware. But the time that you had all your information stored on a PC and maybe some backup drive, is becoming history. We don't want have our data and it's associated applications tight to one location. We want have it on the road, at home, everywhere. Which is why I think the "cloud computing" trend is real, and that means that the OS for many applications will become totally irrelevant.

  23. If they want to stay relevant... by mario_grgic · · Score: 0

    They should get on with the program and scrap the pile of shit they call Windows and build something around the UNIX kernel and run legacy apps in VM like they virtualize XP now.

    UNIX has won for pretty much anything from phone to big iron servers and only people who don't know better still use Windows in this day and age and willingly pay licenses (for Windows, SQL server and development tools) to their direct competitor (Microsoft) to stay in business (yeah I know, it sounds really dumb). Meanwhile everyone else that matters in post Microsoft world uses open OSes, leveraging their investment is stable APIs, great free tools and go on about innovating with the only cost being hardware and (usually smarter) people.

    --
    As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    1. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blah blah blah. Predictable, tedious slashdot comment slating anything MS.

      Also, patently untrue. Visual Studio anyone?

    2. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by rossjudson · · Score: 1

      Except for those people who like Mac, and don't mind paying to get a better product, right?

    3. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if they wanted to, this will never happen. Too much third party software exists for their current platform for them to consider doing that. Sure, a VM solution might be fine in the business side of computing where someone could get by just running Office 2011 in that way, but for the consumer market, it just can't happen. Ever consider what would happen if you tried running Crysis 2 in a virtual machine? Probably nothing good. They could even try running separate business and consumer platforms like they used to, but considering the consolidated both of those when they released Windows XP, I don't see that in Microsoft's future.

      Add in the fact that Microsoft has always pushed their own solutions over standard solutions, even if they aren't nearly as good as what is available (kinda like WINS, even though DNS is prioritized before WINS on their systems today).

      As far as this supposed "market dominance" UNIX has in the server area of things, I believe that to be a myth. Unix gets popular use as a web server, some special applications where high scalability that a proprietary system can't offer, and that's pretty much it. Windows and its army of wizards work to uncomplicated many things that Unix makes more complicated than it needs to be (Active Directory is a good example of that).

      Unless the open source world can pick up the slack that Microsoft keeps taught (consistency, support, etc.) I just don't see Microsoft and any of its solutions fading in the near future.

    4. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by nxtw · · Score: 1

      They should get on with the program and scrap the pile of shit they call Windows and build something around the UNIX kernel and run legacy apps in VM like they virtualize XP now.

      And what is so different about a modern Unixlike kernel compared to the Windows NT kernel?

      • Most device drivers run as part of the kernel
      • Processes on both kernels run in their own virtual protected memory space
      • Processes can have multiple native, independently-scheduled threads that share the same memory space
      • Both kernels are written in C
      • Both kernels support C as the primary development target
      • Processes interact with the kernel via system calls or native calls using C function call semantics
      • Processes belong to users and groups
      • File system handling (including security enforcement) occurs in the kernel using a common API, regardless of the underlying filesystem type (direct attached disk filesystem, network filesystem, fake filesystem like FUSE etc.)
      • Users and groups have rights to access certain resources and files, both via traditional ownership and more complex ACLs
      • Networking is handled by the kernel in a layered fashion, with the device driver at one end and, sockets API at the other, and others in between
      • File and network APIs use a file handle or descriptor to identify a resource and write/read to it
      • File operations can occur by reading/writing arrays of bytes or memory mapping files
      • File operations can also be performed on block or character devices
      • Multiple facilities exist for inter-process communication, including message passing, shared memory, domain sockets/named pipes, etc.

      The major differences are in the kernel level APIs. The Windows API is a lot more verbose (

      POSIX can be implemented on top of Windows (as in Services for UNIX or whatever they call it now, and as in Cygwin) because Windows NT isn't that different in functionality than Unix. All of the major kernel level operating system features are in both.

      Meanwhile everyone else that matters in post Microsoft world uses open OSes, leveraging their investment is stable APIs, great free tools and go on about innovating with the only cost being hardware and (usually smarter) people.

      The Windows API is one of the most stable for certain types of applications. The same Windows graphics APIs used to build basic applications are still supported a few decades later and still get new/additional features (without breaking backwards compatibility). Compare to the many toolkits for X over the years; the switch from Gtk+ 1 to Gtk+ 2; switches between the various versions of Qt...

      Windows's device driver interfaces are also much more stable, and better yet, the old interfaces don't get removed when new interfaces are made (allowing old drivers to be used even when the APIs have been replaced). Compare to Linux, which considers unstable kernel APIs a good thing.

    5. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      I like OS X and Mac (writing this post from one), it's a good platform to develop certain types of software, but no one, I mean no one ever, anywhere uses Mac OS X to deploy their software on Mac or OS X, virtualized or otherwise. Most people who develop on Mac, deploy on some kind of Linux.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    6. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about kernels here. We are talking about the whole package. Yes kernel is obviously important, but so is almost everything else. Yes, I know you can run Cygwin or a product a company I work for develops (MKS Toolkit - http://www.mkssoftware.com/products/tk/commands.asp?product=tkdev, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKS_Toolkit). These are valiant efforts to bring some of the flavor of UNIX to Windows, and our product enables you to port your UNIX POSIX API based software to Windows, you get X-Server etc, but still you are in the end working on Windows and you still have to buy Windows license etc.

      Honestly, these things are completely unnecessary now, because desktop is not where it's at. Your comment and thinking is still stuck in the 90s desktop mentality (kind of like entire Microsoft). I'm talking about the Web 2.0 startup world, where Microsoft is literally dead (in the sense that no new Web startup is afraid of Microsoft or is worried Microsoft is going to destroy them).

      You would be a complete idiot to go buy lots of Windows server licenses to deploy your solution, you'd be an idiot to buy Visual Studio or any Microsoft tool. You will use open free tools that are often superior anyway to anything Microsoft has to offer (UNIX and supporting toolchain is the best IDE ever created). Of course Microsoft's goal is to keep you ignorant. The less you know, the more likely you will keep buying their crap. But you won't see Google or Facebook or any new Web startup deploying on their tools or OSes.

      I'm 40 now, I learned my way around UNIX 25 years ago and kept at it. I bet you 20 years from now I'll still be leveraging my investment while Microsofties will be learning whatever it is Microsoft is shoving down their throats (which has everything to do with what they think is best for them and nothing to do what's good for you as a customer or person building something of value). But sure, go ahead live in Microsoft world and keep re-inventing the world poorly.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    7. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      What about it? At best mediocre IDE (for C or C++ development it's downright primitive). But for people that live in MS world they can only use and know of Visual Studio (and majority of them could not program their way out of paper box without it).

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    8. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by nxtw · · Score: 1

      Who's talking about kernels here.

      You are. You said:

      They should get on with the program and scrap the pile of shit they call Windows and build something around the UNIX kernel

      You backpedaled quickly when I called you on something you must have known was wrong. There's nothing Microsoft could implement on a Unix kernel they couldn't implement on a Windows kernel.

      You are dishonest, arrogant, and deluded.

      Honestly, these things are completely unnecessary now, because desktop is not where it's at. Your comment and thinking is still stuck in the 90s desktop mentality (kind of like entire Microsoft).

      Did you read the first half of my comment? I mentioned modern OS features used by all kinds of systems - whether it be a iOS device, desktop computer, web server, whatever - and described how these are not exclusive to Linux at all.

      I'm talking about the Web 2.0 startup world, where Microsoft is literally dead (in the sense that no new Web startup is afraid of Microsoft or is worried Microsoft is going to destroy them).

      Outside of Netscape and Opera, who has ever had this fear?

      But you won't see Google or Facebook or any new Web startup deploying on their tools or OSes.

      Of course not. But they do that because there are better and cheaper alternatives - not because Microsoft tools are fundamentally uncapable of running modern applications, and not because the unix way is the only way to run modern applications.

      I'm 40 now, I learned my way around UNIX 25 years ago and kept at it.

      I think your narrow focus on UNIX has blinded you.

    9. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by ZosX · · Score: 1

      A UNIX only world is as bleak as a Windows only world.

    10. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, If I am reading you right, no one deploys software for Mac. Therefore all the software that my mac runs, just magically appeared? Even Mac OS X? How did it get there?

    11. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by spongman · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about the Web 2.0 startup world, where Microsoft is literally dead

      so, the 35,000+ BizSpark startups are just a figment of someone's imagination?

      I'm 40 now, I learned my way around UNIX 25 years ago and kept at it. I bet you 20 years from now I'll still be leveraging my investment while Microsofties will be learning whatever it is Microsoft is shoving down their throats

      or, to paraphrase:

      "Unix hasn't improved in 25 years, and it's probably not going to in the next 20 years. Microsoft will continue to innovate its technologies for its developer community."

    12. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      Why are Microsoft developers so decidedly stupid? No, what I mean by stability is ls or cat or find etc has not changed in 30 years. And they don't need to. They did it right the first time and these tools benefit greatly from stability. The BASH scripts from 1991 still run perfectly fine. Does that mean innovation has stopped. Hell no. Things can change, kernels can change, user facing APIs and toolkit can change, there are virtually dozens of filesystems users can choose to install depending on their needs, but do I care. No, you see my script from 1991 still runs on them. Look at Mac OS X, it does nto look like any other UNIX but fire up Terminal and you will never mistake it for one.

      Saying Microsoft and innovation in the same sentence? Seriously? Seriously???? Damn kids today. Learn your history. Microsoft is dieing exactly because they never could innovate. They can steal and outright buy ideas and companies. But innovate they can't. I don't know nor care why any more (probably something to do with their culture and the fact that their reputation is so damaged that really smart people refuse to work there).

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
    13. Re:If they want to stay relevant... by mario_grgic · · Score: 1

      No, no one runs their web server on Mac OS X or their database, nor their LDAP server nor their application. Sure, there are desktop apps, it's a great client OS for consuming and it's great for creating content too and like I said certain type of development. But, haven't you heard the news, desktop is irrelevant. Only companies whose core competency is software that happened to run well on the desktop still develop for it. But even they see the tides of change and Adobe is trying to put Photoshop in the cloud. Eclipse is trying out developer IDE in the cloud.

      But don't feel bad, even Microsoft doesn't know desktop is old news. Because of their desire to shove Windows and office on it down everyone's throat, they married themselves to it.

      --
      As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
  24. Interesting to see that they're fine with catch-up by zullnero · · Score: 2

    Out of the gate, they're already behind. That is, if this isn't just some pathetic attempt by Microsoft to drum up some stock interest with a paid blogger doing a PR puff piece.

    Both iOS and webOS have made a lot of strides over the past few years. A big part of how they do things is user experience...Microsoft gets too geekily technical about some details, and the fact is, those details aren't as popular with the wider population than they'd like to admit. It's been the same story since Microsoft first ventured into the mobile space years ago.

    Personally, I really, really like how fast and accurate the built in search is on webOS. I know a lot of other guys who left the platform and came back because once you get the bug, it's hard to give up. Especially if you figure out how to really use the platform well. Instead of swiping and scrolling through silly little screenspace consuming icons, you pull out the keyboard, type a couple letters, and it'll give you contacts, apps, you can mod it to do a wikipedia lookup, imdb, whatever. It's pretty sweet. It's like taking all the best things about a CLI and all the best things of the standard GUI and putting them all together. That's something, to me, I can deal with using 2 year old hardware on a day to day basis when I know there's better hardware out there...and I could even get it for free. And unless my provider would let me install webOS on that other phone and all my apps work, I'm not going to switch hardware. I'll duct tape my first gen Pre together if it comes down to it, and if that doesn't work, I'd be spending plenty of time trying to make it work on other hardware.

    The reason I say all that is that if you're releasing a new mobile OS, you aren't going to "get me" to give up my apps, my preferred workflow, my cash, just to switch if you're playing catch-up. Just because you're Microsoft or Apple or Google doesn't impress me. Its whether or not your stuff does what I want, and if your software can't do it like I want, then either you pay me to use your stuff, or give me some features I can't live without. And no, I'm not going to switch just to "get" with a paid third party app something I already have well-integrated and free on my current platform of choice. Plus, it's all got to work well with what I currently have, or it's not happening. Not only that, but I stopped writing software for Windows Mobile about 3 years ago. You know what I really liked about it? It was a fairly powerful (if not a little quirky) platform to code for. I like .NET. It's something that Microsoft did very well. Unfortunately, in their effort to "be more like the other guys", I feel like they're abandoning a lot of the consistency of development between Windows apps, Windows web applications, and Windows mobile applications. They're still using ".NET technologies" to do things, but the basic design philosophies and approaches are getting really scattered and confusing, while .NET itself keeps jumping all over the place in basic application design philosophy with each new incarnation. They really need to find a few basic approaches to developing applications for their platforms and stick with them. Unless I'm using Silverlight as my standard, out of the box presentation layer for desktop applications as well as web applications...and that's all I'm doing from now on, then fine. But pick one approach and stick with it, you know?

  25. Midori/Singularity by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

    They should just make that work and release it :)

    1. Re:Midori/Singularity by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      Singularity is open-source, available for download today for free. http://singularity.codeplex.com/

      Mind you, it has no real compatibility with Windows user-mode code, much less drivers (despite what people seem to think, even Vista could run ~95% of XP drivers without a hitch). It is best run in a VM, where the "hardware" is simple and it's easy to mess with things without breaking everything or needing another machine on hand. Remember, it's a research project, not a production OS.

      Midori... nobody outside of Microsoft seems to know anything about it, but most of the speculation could be succintly described as "stupid" because it just doesn't make sense to have on OS that is going to break backward compatibility so hard when that same compatibility is one of Microsoft's greatest assets. There's nearly 2 decades of work in the NT kernel, and despite what Slashdot likes to have to say about MS software in general and Windows in particular, most of the core of NT is very, very good. Throwing all that away for something that wouldn't be able to run the majority of Windows software would be silly.

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    2. Re:Midori/Singularity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should just make that work and release it :)

      why? midori is a kernel and a console... thats it... why not just install yourself a dos system and go huddle in the corner?

    3. Re:Midori/Singularity by kangsterizer · · Score: 1

      I very well know the state of affairs. Maybe you were looking for free karma :P
      actually these OSes have great technical advantages, and for compatibility they can run everything in a VM. If you ever wondered what XPMODE is really for, it's just a test to see if things work out.
      Apple has done this trick twice in the past, once via VM once via so called fat binaries (for backward compat - else its still forward compat via emulation)

  26. More Windows! by AlfaMike · · Score: 1

    Microsoft has for so long depended on it's Windows monopoly for business and now that platforms that aren't Windows-required for regular people to want it are showing up (read not x86 PCs) they realized they have a lot of trouble competing regularly. The solution? "More Windows everywhere of course! It's how we know to play the game."

  27. Microsoft software always looks best... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 2

    ... before it is released. Once the software is released, it rarely lives up to the pre-release hype.

  28. The Ribbon Sucks by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The Office Ribbon GUI is one of the worst GUI changes ever forced on a significant number of people.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:The Ribbon Sucks by bloodhawk · · Score: 1

      IT is the worst change for a small portion of users, for the majority it is one of the best, revealing features and functionality average users never knew even existed but constantly requested.

    2. Re:The Ribbon Sucks by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Yet it hides other features. And crams in some other existing features in a way that's so inconsistent it's hard to find them again. There are too many clicks. Too many modes. Too much screen consumed by widgets not being used.

      Just changing the mediocre Office GUI style to a different one with bigger buttons wasn't an advance. Dumbing down an already watered down interface wasn't an advance. It was all at best lateral, and a step away from consistency and what so many had already learned.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  29. Built in PDF reader... Great. by niw3 · · Score: 1

    We must enjoy our last few years before MS adds new "extensions" to PDF, which are of course in compatible with the rest of the PDF readers in the world, and integrate them into MS Office, making other PDF readers look bad, eventually breaking universal compatibility of PDF documents.

  30. Who cares? by James_Rolevink · · Score: 1

    Who cares about windows or Microsoft anymore? Their time has come, and gone...

  31. True Cross Platform Windows Would Be Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A true cross platform windows 8 would be brilliant. If you could run: MS Office, MS Excel, MS Powerpoint from your phone it would it would blow the Iphone out of the water, as well as any android phones. It would be incredibly doable with the next level of components coming out for smartphones.

    If the phone had a slide out keyboard, a touchscreen, 64 GB of space, decent phone quality, and a decent camera, it would blow everyone else out of the water. It could work like windows, on almost ANY compatible phone. Software would fly out of the woodwork for it, the number of applications would dwarf anything you could get from another platform. What you purchased would work on your desktop and your phone, and could transition between them. Doing work on your phone, pausing it, and then continuing on your desktop or laptop could, in theory, happen seamlessly. They would make boatloads of money, and destroy android and the iphone. It would own the smartphone industry..

  32. Ribbon makes things faster for the power user by Randyll · · Score: 1

    While many people find the inclusion of the Ribbon in Windows Explorer debatable, I don't think the Ribbon is a failed concept. It's excellent for its purpose, and that is to provide a) an accessible user experience for new users b) versatility for experienced users and c) swiftness for really experienced users.

    Point a), given the intuitive interface, is more or less a given. Point b) is the most common source of disagreement among users, others say it hinders their ability to work and the others say it makes it easier, because they find features they have never seen before. The latter makes sense, as that was one of Ribbon's purposes. The former is a matter of getting used to, and in fact, I will elaborate on point c) in this regard. Point c) is about key bindings. Yes, key bindings.

    I mostly do text editing and programming with vim. So I live and breathe keybindings. The Ribbon UI is designed to provide dynamic keybindings for everything. You simply press Alt and the keybindings will highlight above the buttons and tabs, highlighting subgroups dynamically as you go, sequencing tab groups. For example, in a hypothetical Ribbon program, if the 'Insert' (I) tab group had the subgroup 'Image' (M) and 'From File' (F), one would press Alt+I+M+F to access this option. This is extended to every control in the application, and it allows everything to be keybound, requiring no mouse input, which I find slows me down. So if anything, this will make using Windows Explorer faster for the experienced user, provided he is willing to learn keybindings (or just watch the labels).

    Another strong point about the Ribbon is that it can be hidden. Towed away, able to be called back with a keybinding. Thus if one finds the Ribbon obtrusive in anything, one can effectively minimize it -- making any Ribbon UI more minimalist than its previous non-Ribbon incarnation!

    So speaking as a "power user" of applications I, for one, find the addition of the Ribbon to Windows Explorer a pleasant surprise. While I do not feel its inclusion to be completely warranted--what does one need from a simple file manager anyway--it will make using the program a lot faster for someone used to having keybindings for everything. I'm sure most of you can relate to this sentiment.

    1. Re:Ribbon makes things faster for the power user by spitzak · · Score: 2

      I think the general complaint is that the "ribbon" really isn't new. There have been "tabs" for a long, long time, including in Microsoft software. And some toolkits (not sure about MFC) consider the "menubar" to be a normal widget and therefore can be put inside a "tab". Furthermore many toolkits have considered a "menubar" to not only contain "submenus" but also "buttons" (often as a submenu title with no children). I certainly did this in a toolkit that is now almost 20 years old (see fltk).

      Like a lot of Microsoft stuff, a lot of the angst is that Microsoft pretends they have come up with something *new* when in fact it can be a decades old idea. Also that they absolutely refuse to use any existing term for that idea, in order to defeat searches for prior art (ie the term "ribbon" rather than "tabs" which is certainly the keyword all previous versions used).

      Conversely I think the anti-Microsoft crowd is to blame. They sit on their duff, scared to death of being "hard to use" or the dreaded "inconsistent" and thus refusing to actually incorporate any of these new ideas into actual end user products. So nobody actually sees these except for the programmers at Microsoft who examine the code and decide what to steal. And then when Microsoft comes up with it, they try to project their own fears onto them and try to say "oh Microsoft is being inconsistent and hard to use!!!"

  33. Wither the Ribbon? by ALeader71 · · Score: 1

    If M$ plans to ditch the current interface and Windows Phone-ize the interface, it will be the most disruptive change in the business world since the adoption of the GUI.

    Attractive as a cross platform OS might be, this isn't an OS that scales well. M$ has made a few mistakes in the past - Vista, ME, etc - let's hope M$ doesn't go the wrong way again. What will happen to the PC gaming industry?

    --
    Only the dead have seen the end of War. - Plato
  34. Who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Look this stuff is so obvious as hardly worth commenting on. As portable devices increase in power they can support a full scale OS like Windows. It makes no sense for MS to to keep Windows CE or its derivatives like the phone OS when normal Windows is ported to ARM hardware. If I were on the Windows CE team I would jump ship as fast as possible. As far as the UI goes Microsoft can knock one out every six months or so as easily. as Google.
    I suspect OEMS will heavily customize the UI anyway. We are approaching the age where phones and tablets, like desktops today are commodity devices. Everyone will sell the same product at least as far as functionality is concerned. So lets skip these silly impassioned debates like is there a ribbon bar? or should the power button be on top or on the front and other trivialities.

    1. Re:Who cares by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      It does makes sense to re-write things, because even if the capability increases, you'll still get better performance and battery life if you design with efficiency in mind.

      The main problem is that Windows is designed for a mouse and keyboard. They can add all the touchscreen layers of functionality onto the OS they want, but there will still be many apps that will need to be re-written to take advantage of the tablet form. I doubt MS will ever release an iPad-style tablet with a desktop OS again -- at least if they get a clue.

  35. Riiibbbibbbbon -- GAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Please, oh please, let there be a "classic" mode. At least provide it as an option, unlike the lack of choice in Office.

  36. And it's still not worth my time or money by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Cute feature list. Too bad my Linux machine does everything I need it for, at the cost of only the hardware. Microsoft has given me no reason to consider spending money when the free options fill my needs, from normal end-user stuff to web design and system administration.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  37. Vista and 7 are bad enough by fox171171 · · Score: 1

    They don't need to make it even more crappy!

  38. Yeah, nice try by JoeCommodore · · Score: 1

    They've tried that by buying PC emulators, only to mess em up, I don't think them trying to rewrite their code would go much better.

    --
    "Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
  39. Re:Interesting to see that they're fine with catch by gig · · Score: 1

    iOS has that kind of search as well. The search screen is the very left-most one, or you can push the home button twice in a row. Staying on an ancient phone to get search and run Web apps (which also run on iOS) is a little strange.

  40. Re:Why? Documentation???? by jbplou · · Score: 1

    I can see how people could argue for the other potential problems you listed but how can you say there is a documentation problem. Windows comes with extensive help, they maintain online libraries of all products and API's. They reLly have three different sites of documentation between microsoft.com, technet, and msdn. Plus they have paid staff that answers questions in their forums. If you think documentation is lacking you haven't beeem reading it.

  41. Finally by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    Microsoft, bringing their success in the cellphone market to the desktop...

  42. NT Version? by ace123 · · Score: 1

    Are they going to stick with naming Windows as a single confusing number? Windows 7 was NT 6.1, not NT 7 (look at the version when you open a command prompt).

    Is Windows 8 going to be NT 6.2 or NT 7?

  43. vi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, I *do* prefer vi (actually vim) over any other way to enter text.

  44. could be?? by chord.wav · · Score: 2

    Microsoft's next Windows could be...

    I stopped reading right there. It could be a lot of things. I was expecting a more informative "going to be"

  45. huh? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

    Windows 8 is a platform. How can it be "cross platform"? And how is iOS supposed to be "cross-platform"?

    Are they saying that it supports multiple CPU types? Or are they saying that it supports multiple device types? Operating systems have done both for a long time.

    1. Re:huh? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 will be an OS. "Platform" has had a pretty standard definition for many years now - it means the hardware.

      iOS is an OS, not a platform.

    2. Re:huh? by t2t10 · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 will be an OS. "Platform" has had a pretty standard definition for many years now - it means the hardware.

      That's nonsense. A "platform" can be anything you build something on. Java is a platform, so are different operating systems.

      And even if you mean "hardware platform", what "hardware platforms" is Windows 8 supposed to be "cross-platform" for?

    3. Re:huh? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      "Platform" has had a pretty standard definition for many years now - it means the hardware.

      Yeah right...who standardised this definition and where can i buy this Java platform hardware? Or this .Net platform hardware?

    4. Re:huh? by RocketRabbit · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "runtime."

    5. Re:huh? by exomondo · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "runtime."

      Nope, when you're talking about writing software for a particular platform that platform is the specification of the layer your software is running on top of and that can be hardware or software. It isn't the runtime, for example the .Net runtime is the CLR, MS's runtime implementation of the .Net platform (the Common Language Infrastructure) and if you develop for the .Net platform (the CLI) you can run on the CLR or Mono runtimes.

  46. Ribbon vs Menu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liking the Ribbon is well correlated with the dim-bulb crowd. No doubt it is a step backward from efficient menus and short-cut keys. But MS must keep the tier 2 providers like trainers happy and the tier 1 happy with massive upgrades. It is interesting that since the Mac has made material inroads into homes and biz there has not been the predicted support problem and real viruses. Just maybe the design is better at the core?

  47. Sounds awful by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Good thing I'll be migrating my gaming PC to Linux after Windows 7. Then all my computers will run Linux.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  48. If tablets are a fad, as MS believes... by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    why build a tablet OS? Whatever happened to "Windows Everywhere", other than complete repudiation in the marketplace beyond the PC? MS cracks me up. In the last 2 years, they have announced several times that tablets don't matter, that they already do tablets, that their new tablet is due "later this year", that tablets are a fad, and that their new OS will be just like a tablet OS. Things look a little scrambled back at the Home Office, Balmer. Why don't you get your story straight then present your customers with a clear path to the future?

  49. Answer to GNU screen by benjymouse · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a bunch of fiddly bullshit. I think i'll just use bash, thanks. There isn't anything power shell does that bash doesn't except live only on Windows.

    Sure about that?

    As far the other argument you've used saying what if the input or output of some command changes for bash, well, whoopdey do. I've been using bash for many years and I can't remember when last time a core utility changed and if it did, it would take what, 2 minutes to see what changed and just keep going? I think I can handle that every few years.

    Yeah, and when your scripts you rely on for configuring a server farm (because it is all text based in config files) fails in a silent but subtle way and takes the farm down? When your script is executed on another system with another version or (more likely) with another system locale or even just other bash defaults?. When the sort order suddenly changes or when dates are parsed wrong due to time zone or locale settings? When you never anticipated that users may use non-printable characters in names, when columns are offset because of encoding mismatch.

    Text serialization and re-parsing is brittle and error-prone. Passing along actual objects is superior to passing an error-prone text serialized format which is vulnerable to all kinds of external conditions.

    The whole idea of using objects in the shell is just plain stupid and introduces unneeded complexity for very dubious benefit. No thanks.

    You sure sounds really competent on the subject. Are you sure you know what an "object" is?

    How about gnu screen? What does PS have as an answer to that?

    Uhm. How about PowerShell ISE? Multiple sessions in multiple windows, even remote sessions.

    But PS can do even better: How about being able to script multiple simultaneous sessions, coordinating execution of commands on several remote computers at once. Think GNU screen, only scriptable. Then you will *start* to grasp what PS has to offer in the multi-session, remoting department. Now add on the ability to also control *remote jobs* while still interacting with them and forwarding *remote events*. Not that I believe you will grasp those concepts at all.

    That's what I thought.

    No, that was what you hoped for. In your ignorance you equate your own incompetence with product weakness. Guess what, just because *you* don't know about a feature doesn't mean that it cannot be there. I suggest you work on this, otherwise you will have a problem keeping up with the tech business as it moves forward.

    You click and droolers have a long way to go to get to Unix status. See you at the top.

    Mature.

    --
    Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
  50. Re:Why? Not the OP but I will try by DarkOx · · Score: 1

    performance - in what way is Windows 7/Server 2k8R2 slow?
    Server seems fine, but Windows 7 is a PIG if you are actually doing anything. As soon as your process allocates most of the available memory all of Window's fat UI stuff keep the system paging things in and out like crazy! There are ways fix it, but the system is not configured that way out of the box and all in all its harder to make the system behave well than it was are XPSp2+, most Linux distributions and OS X.

    efficient usage of system resources = How does 7/R2 fail to use systems resources in a efficient way?
    See above

    stability - I can't seam to get my systems to have stability issues, how do I reproduce this?
    Fair enough its solid

    file system - What is wrong with NTFS as implemented by 7/R2?
    Nothing is wrong with it

    decouple GUI from core - Has already been done. Server Core
    AHAHAH you are kidding right! You realize all that happens is the shell is set to cmd.exe, well ok a few other things happen but for the most part that is it, all the GDI and every all component of the GUI layer is still there. They big difference is they have command line utilities now that enable you to get all the settings you would needed the Explorer shell for previously.

    decouple apps from core - Which apps?
    ???

    simple remote access - RDP and other methods are already built in.
    check

    get rid of the sick registry - In what way is it sick?
    Its opaque mainly; and the efficiency gains of a binary configuration storage system don't make sense on modern machines. Even MS knows this hence DotNets aggressive encouragement of storing things in app.conf XML files.

    customization - In what ways?
    no real problems here honestly

    documentation - What needs to be improved?
    I have to agree here to, Windows is probably the best document platform in existence.

    adhere to common open standards - Which standards?
    They have been improving at this to the point its not an issue anymore

    lower hardware requirements - It can run on very expensive systems. Exactly how low are you talking about?
    There is NO good reason why client windows can't run on an Netbook with a gig of ram, but it won't comfortably at all. Again Its mostly the shell.

    better modularization - Explain this please.
    who knows what the poster was thinking

    remove unneeded services/bloatware - Which ones are you talking about?
    I think more should be OFF by default

    provide a powerful shell - Powershell

    enhance security/permission features - Example?

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html