Slashdot Mirror
What To Expect With Windows 9
snydeq writes: Two weeks before the its official unveiling, this article provides a roundup of what to expect and the open questions around Windows 9, given Build 9834 leaks and confirmations springing up all over the Web. The desktop's Start Menu, Metro apps running in resizable windows on the desktop, virtual desktops, Notification Center, and Storage Sense, are among the presumed features in store for Windows 9. Chief among the open questions are the fates of Internet Explorer, Cortana, and the Metro Start Screen. Changes to Windows 9 will provide an inkling of where Nadella will lead Microsoft in the years ahead. What's your litmus test on Windows 9?
Deal with it.
Unballmering Windows
Seriously, give me transparency, name it whatever you want, just give it to me. I don't want your flat color bs.
Haters gonna hate, but I think it looks awesome. Love my two touch screen ultrabooks; they are truly awesome. Hate the Surface RT (sucks balls), and love my two Windows 8.1 desktops (home and work). A better working start menu is most definitely welcome for lots of people I know. It sucks that I have to post anonymously here because there are so many fan girl haterz.
then it may be worth taking a serious look at. After all, MS seems to get every other major version right.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
Speed and stability. All the drama about new features, missing features, start menus and other preferences are all just nonsense. Just make it fast and stable.
How my users react to it. I demoed 8 to my users, and got a resounding "HELL NO", due entirely to the start screen. They weren't buying it, and I don't blame them.
Given the leaks so far, I expect my users will be onboard with the new version ( possibly with some grumbling about the "look" ). But I won't really know until I get it in front of them for some feedback.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Rather than creeping you out by peering over your shoulder waiting for you too blunder so he can offer unsolicited advice instead He just sits there and serenades you with the Beatles song "Number Nine" until ask him a question
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Basically sounds like the OSX keychain, but using your name/credentials/etc to login to public wifi spots automatically - I wonder what kind of coverage they'll have?
Other than that, though - seems like they're de-mobilifying the desktop OS part. Such a waste of money, attention and marketshare - all because Steve wanted to be more like the other Steve.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Windows 9 will be interesting, and will break all kinds of things like every other upgrade does.
But Server 2012 is unusable. R2 improved it, but they clearly hate their customers.
1. Why does a Server install have boxes called "this PC" to click on. Just bring back "My Briefcase" and get it over with you lazy pieces of crap.
2. Why does it have a snazzy new front end that then puts back up screens we had in Windows 3.1?
3. I will cut the bitch that decided to use URLs for error messages, but not have them as active links so you could follow them.
I wasted hours of my life trying to make .Net3.5 install on 2012 because a vendor swore they wouldn't support R2, but had to have 3.5. I finally just did R2 and told them it was that or no .Net. If Microsoft didn't want me to install .Net 3.5, they shouldn't have made it the top feature in the list to install. Hide it. Make it separate. Something. But top in the list, incapable of installing saying it can't find media no matter what you do with copying files locally, powershell/DISM/whatever? Bite me you no-testing-code-shipping pieces of crap!
But I'm not bitter.
My mom says I'm cool.
More restrictions, more driver problems, more money needed to buy, more powerful hardware required, more "shove down your throat" on pre-built machines. Strangely enough, that also means more people make games/apps/stuff on it.
Over all I'm enjoying windows 8/8.1... The start screen isn't my cup of tea, but then again I use it the same way i use the start bar in Win7, hit the windows key and type a few letters then enter to select the app I want. Only difference is I can see the weather and maybe a news headline at the same time. One thing I love about it though is the new theme, it's like Win 3.1 done right, its simple, elegant and out of your way. So with pretty much instant start up time, great battery life, clean lines, and built in hyper-v Windows 8 is my choice, so I'm sure I'll enjoy 9 as well.
... nothing since adds anything. 7=bloat, 8.0=wtf, 8.1=really?, 9=nfw
One word answer: "Disappointment"
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Anyone that does freelance IT work knows that this means $$$. Hell I'm still counting the money from WinXP's death. Yehaa!
Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
I've used workspaces extensively since discovering Linux in the early 2000's. I find it rather interesting Microsoft is /finally/ introducing native, proper, workspaces.
Any time I try to explain it to someone who has never used them, they always ask me "Why would I use/want that?" and then they always jump on the multi-monitor mantra and say "Why not just get X number of screens?"
I personally have 8 workspaces configured. I use them all. I have my pager configured in 2 rows of 4 grid. My window manager is configured to 'skip' to the corresponding workspace by dragging the mouse pointer to the edge of the screen (with a configurable amount of resistance), so its as close to physical screens as it can get without the cost of buying 8 screens, video cards, plus power costs.
I've argued this in the past on Slashdot here, but I honestly don't see the appeal of physical screens. Maybe Windows people will finally 'get it' when Win9 comes out.
A: Not much
Table-ized A.I.
Must have: Useable start menu, (a button to dump us into the "start screen" was just plain insulting) a useable desktop, and the ability to not run any metro (or whatever it's called) apps whatsoever.
Important but not a deal killer: Put all the control panel functions back in the control panel. You can keep the charms bar for tablet compatibility, but I'd want some way to turn it off on a desktop. In fact, I would like a way to turn off all hot corners, hot sides, and swiping gestures while on a KVM machine. Registry changes to do this would be fine, as I would intend to do it once and never revert back.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
I evaluate new software primarily based on two areas.
1) What do I gain with the new software? Currently running Windows 7, what do I get that helps make my life more productive with Windows 9? Thusfar, I see nothing. From Windows 8 to 9, yeah, I can see the improvement, but so far it is simply "improved" to the point of reverting back to what 7 already has.
2) What do I lose with the new software? From the current leaks, Windows 9 is just as ugly as Windows 8 desktop mode. The Win8/9 UI looks like Windows 3.1. They've switched back to centering title bar text from the previous decade+ of left-align title bar text. They've taken the UI from the clean and modern Aero Glass and turned it into flat colors just like Windows 3.1. The OS as a whole is simply less visually appealing.
So, the question still remains: WHY SWITCH!?
My Windows 7 laptop does everything I need for Windowsy stuff, so I won't be replacing or upgrading it unless I win the lottery.
Sadly, my 10+ year old 3.8GHz Pentium-pre-Core2 box is finally dying, so I'm in the midst of shifting my development and personal stuff over to the laptop. I've used Windows for years as a developer so it's not *too* painful, but I'm going to miss Linux. Linux just *works* without getting in my way; I can't say the same for Windows, even on trivial issues as to which widgets get auto-focused when you open them up (who is the brilliant idiot who came up with the idea that the file browser should focus on that damned library panel instead of the list of files?)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Now if only they could make the OS worth buying rather than forcing it on people that buy non-OSX prebuilt systems.
You do realize desktop Linux distros have been unbelievably easy to install (or even run from a Live CD) for the last decade or so don't you? Nobody has been "forced" into using Windows just because it happened to ship as the default for a very long time.
Good for you. However, you won't be too happy when you get a new machine that doesn't come with anything other than 9. Or when your windows 7 drivers need an update to fix a bug or add a feature and the only available ones are for Windows 9. Or you want that snazzy new program and it's minimum requirements are Windows 9.
Like it or not, the world moves on. If standing still works for you then more power to you.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Metro Apps aren't particularly good or useful. They haven't seen mass usage by the Market or Developers, why keep it around on the desktop? It's a design clearly meant for touch interfaces. The design insist on hiding things in a submenu of a hidden side-menu - all that's visibly left is padding.
There might have been a reason for it a couple of years ago, when the world thought all laptops were going to have a touch screen but that's clearly not going to happen. The use cases are thin - and they're just plain uncomfortable to use. What the world really needed was better trackpads.
MS should remove Metro from the desktop and license WP8.1 for tablets.
Windows needs to have windows. With "windows" being rectangular application client areas on the screen, ideally resizable with UI elements common across the system for closing, moving, and resizing.
Hierarchical start menu.
I've JUST started using 8.1 for a project at work, and I'm constantly blown away at how much of a compromise the Metro Interface is. The defaults make it hard to find the things I'm used to, like the control panel, while the new interfaces are lacking in the features I need. Getting to basic features now takes more time than in WIn7. There are no advantages to the interface, and big detractions.
Just as companies held onto WinXP for a LONG time, I think they will do the same with Win7- there's just no huge incentive to upgrade. Home users are already turning towards iOS. MS has a hard road ahead of themselves if they want to regain what they once had.
"However, you won't be too happy when you get a new machine that doesn't come with anything other than 9."
That will not happen for a long time. I can buy lots of brand new business class machines with windows 7 on it right now and Dell will not stop doing it as long as 90% of all the corporations are demanding it.
Windows 7 will be available on a new machine sold by competent PC makers for a few more years at least.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Likely because he is a Linux user. Linux doesn't have much in the way of malware so you can be a complete idiot and install whatever you want and run whatever you like as root and still not get infected. However when the same idiot uses Windows then due to the popularity of the platform they end up installing and running malware.
The intelligent approach is to be careful about what you install and run making sure it is from trusted sources no matter what operating system and not just rely on the fact that you aren't a large target.
The biggest problem in terms of security is the user allowing malware to run and Linux is no better than Windows in that regard, we are often told how Linux users are "smarter" however if that were the case they wouldn't have so much difficulty with Windows.
I don't mind the start screen too much, but a proper start menu is a good start, and bringing Metro apps to the desktop is a start. The library for metro application actually has a long of good ideas in it, so expanding it beyond touch applications is a good idea.
The toughest part is that Windows 8/8.1 came with some really noticeable kernel and userland performance improvements. The switching between metro and the desktop is pretty smooth on all the hardware I've used. If they get back the power user desktop functionality, it's a good start back.
You put your grubby mits on my nice clean monitor and you're pulling back a bloody stump.
Are you fucking people blind? Smears and fingerprints drive me nuts!
Metro apps running in resizable windows on the desktop.
So, desktop apps. What's the difference now?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Yet another year of windows 7 on the desktop to be precise.
Well, Unix systems had virtual desktops for around 20 years now. I wonder what other old tech they've put into it and crowing about inventing it.
Microsoft tried it already with 8. REALLY really tried it with 8, removing 7 from everywhere it only could.
It was a disaster. PC sales crashed. As we discovered, forcing 8 on people did result in marginal increase of sales of 8, and a massive reduction of sales in PCs.
Finally someone important at microsoft realised that in winning the battle of 8's adoption over 7, they were losing the war of keeping PCs being the primary customer computing platform, and 7 was quickly pushed back into OEM chain. I think that this particular lesson was painful enough for microsoft not to even think of trying it again for at least a few years.
Something is wrong with either your machine or whatever is controlling the switching. I have never, ever had anything like what you've mentioned and my system has been running for months on end as well. You sir, most likely have non-Windows related problems.
Is that the new shill angle? Because I suggest you folks rethink your strategy if it is, since it looks even less like 7 with that ridiculous flat look.
Standard issues for any usable operating system that has the largest market share of the home users.
9 will be more like 7 than 8 was, so it will be 7sp2.
Have you seen the screenshots? 9 is just 8.2, but 8 is now a dirty word like Vista, so 9 it is.
What about industrial businesses? My company is just finally minimizing XP to only a handful of lab computers and ones necessary for legacy support such as our single remaining Windows 2k system. We are struggling to get one more system moved to Windows 7 (under the guise of a faster computer and therefore less time waiting on the computations) and the application just doesn't work on that OS yet. The vendor is working with us to find a solution, but it may take several months (if ever) because they licensed the software from someone else.
The computer is a tool to do RF measurements and calculations and prepare presentations. I just got my first VNA with no floppy drive and more than one USB port! That is a big event.
I see nothing but potential. You have potential, and you have potential... Oh boy.
I can buy lots of brand new business class machines with windows 7 on it right now and Dell will not stop doing it as long as 90% of all the corporations are demanding it.
And when these 7 boxen come off lease you can scoop 'em up for a song.
Now if only they could make the OS worth buying rather than forcing it on people that buy non-OSX prebuilt systems.
You do realize desktop Linux distros have been unbelievably easy to install (or even run from a Live CD) for the last decade or so don't you? Nobody has been "forced" into using Windows just because it happened to ship as the default for a very long time.
And yet it doesn't stop them from charging you for it.
Ideology: A tool used primarily to avoid the bother of thinking.
You do realize desktop Linux distros have been unbelievably easy to install (or even run from a Live CD) for the last decade or so don't you? Nobody has been "forced" into using Windows just because it happened to ship as the default for a very long time.
That's like telling someone that "a space shuttle is really easy to use, someone on the ground actually presses the "launch" button for you!"
Sure, automated initial installs have been all wrapped up in little wizard-like packages. That's not the point, it's the ongoing installation and management of packages and versions and such that you have to keep up on.
I get Linux, I do. I have used it on spare PC's before. But I just don't have time to use it on my main machines, because while I'd love that much time to tinker around and do all kinds of clever things with it to hone it to be the ultimate OS for me - I just don't have that kind of time to spend on it consistently. You have to "keep up" with Linux as a hobby way too much for folks that just need to get tasks done on a PC when they sit at it (especially with tablets in the picture, as for a lot of us we spend a lot less time tied to larger machines since we do a lot of consumption that way now).
It's one of those things that I'm glad it's there, I wish I had time - and maybe someday, but since I don't install crap on my PC and I don't go to sketchy websites (well aside from this one LOL), and I take a modicum of security precautions, I do OK with Windows. I never have to ask if I can run something on my machine, why I buy a product that can connect to a PC via USB or network (camera, Blu-ray, etc.) I never have to wonder if the driver software will work for me or if I'll have to spend hours hoping to get it working with whatever I can scrounge up, I never have to search out solutions around how to do what I want, etc.
In the end, yeah, Windows, yuck, but deal-able, and it's really disingenuous to pretend that because they have dumb downed the initial install package to Windows levels, that the actual ongoing user experience of Linux is nearly that plug and play for most folks, so to speak.
You get to buy metro apps from the Microsoft Store, so they can track everything you do!
Windows 9 will be the next the Windows 7, if you believe in markov models..
Windows 98: Good
Windows ME: Sucked
Windows XP: Good
Windows Vista: Sucked
Windows 7 : Good
Windows 8: Sucked
Windows 9: GOOD
"Recursive bipartite matching"- try it!
Why is every thread about Windows infested with Linux enthusiasts? If you've got nothing to say about Windows 9, WTF is the point of even commenting on this?
Prick.
Correct. I have a good experience on Windows too, with both 7 and 8.
Really? Fewer driver problems on Linux? Seriously? I mean WHAT?
What you are talking about is the difference between those that see computers as appliances and those that take an interest in the workings of that appliance. And with today's distros being geared to making the install as easy as possible (for whatever level of literacy you have) it is making Linux easier for those that see it as an appliance.
To put this into the proper slashdot car analogy it is the difference between the guy who always puts new gear and tricks out their cars and their wives who get into it, toss the kids in the back seat and goes. That wife really doesn't appreciate the work done by her husband until something goes wrong.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Just like every linux article is 'infested' with windows apologists..and apple fags too. Welcome to the tech crowd. We're a heterogeneous bunch.
Good for you. However, you won't be too happy when you get a new machine that doesn't come with anything other than 9. Or when your windows 7 drivers need an update to fix a bug or add a feature and the only available ones are for Windows 9. Or you want that snazzy new program and it's minimum requirements are Windows 9.
Like it or not, the world moves on. If standing still works for you then more power to you.
XP still works for me. There is no downside. Snazzy new features don't improve my efficiency at work.
I agree, when a computer breaks and we have to get Windows 7 because we are forced to, a painful upgrade period occurs because the software never seems to work on the new OS. There is no advantage except for the newer hardware computation power. Who cares about Windows 9?
Holy crap. First I've heard of Cortana. Googled it.. Is that for real??? It looks like Seven of Nine got fucked by Bob and this is the offspring. I can already see the protests from middle America. "Electronic boobies from Satan are sending us to Hell". How could anybody think that's a good idea?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
You know there are several alternatives that do not involve Microsoft, right?
I want an OS that:
1) Doesn't attempt to hide the workings of my computer from me -- in particular, don't hide the way that paths and directories really work. (As a bonus: remove the spaces from system directories, dammit, because I get real tired of escaping them when I access my NTFS partition from a real OS.)
2) When something goes wrong tell me what the fuck it was. "The internet connection has limited connectivity" doesn't tell me a damn thing. "DHCP timeout" tells me something. Include both messages, by all means, for the benefit of Grandma -- but Grandma likely can't fix her internet connection on her own anyway.
3) Don't be patronizing. Copying .mp3's to a phone shouldn't give a "Your phone might not be able to play this file, copy anyway?" message, and there are a thousand things like that in Windows.
4) Get rid of file locking, or at least allow an override. I can decide whether a file is sufficiently "in use" that I shouldn't delete it.
5) Don't attempt to push other MS products (cloud services, "stores", and the like) on me, and don't keep spewing Windows Media Player etc. icons around after I delete them once.
I find it funny that MS is now the only major OS vendor that isn't running on a UNIX base. Seems like an uphill struggle as the world passes them by. They should do an Apple and virtualise the old Windows code in a classic environment and switch to a UNIX base. Or just stop trying to make operating systems altogether and focus on software.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
The problem with Window 8.x (and Office 2013 / VS 2012 etc) is how they are breaking established UI conventions for no good reason and with very little payoff.
The Windows 8 Start screen, for example, takes the focus in a big way. The Start screen in Server 2012 is even worse; if I right-click to run a program as administrator, the context menu appears at the bottom of the screen. Talk about breaking context!
With Office, not only do we have the screen-stealing ribbon (not completely bad, but still...), all the tab titles are uppercase. The Microsoft style guide says this is a no-no; yet the Office team do it. The VS2012 menus are the same.
I'll agree that Win 8.x has probably the best Windows kernel ever. The UI is a turn off.
I'm hoping that Windows 9 brings back some vestige of Windows 7 UI whilst keeping the best bits of Win 8. Heck; if that's impossibly I'll gladly settle for a Window 98 UI. At least it was consistent, and didn't obscure the screen with useless tat.
Yes I agree, but that's not what I was rebutting, I also restated it to try and avoid confusion which is that nobody is being "forced" into using Windows just because it is what ships with systems. You seem to be saying the issue is lack of viable alternatives, perhaps that's true.
And yet it doesn't stop them from charging you for it.
So people use it simply because they paid for it?
The Amiga had virtual desktops in 1985.
I expect Microsoft to continue to use 'My' when the correct word is 'Your'. The way people talk to two-year-olds.
Says a lot about how Microsoft views their customers.
No. It is because people are treating a computer as an appliance. If it works out of the box they keep using it. Also, people won't go out of their way to replace a working product especially one they paid money for.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
So what's the problem?
Many reactions will depend on the actual version number in Win9... will it be 6.3, 7, or 9?
Lets face it, people buy computers like a fridge or TV, and 99% of them wont change the OS it came with. That is why Microsoft fought nail and tooth with PC makers to only include DOS and later Windows in the default installations.
...it won't have a single thing I need.
-Styopa
Totally different APIs. WinRT for metro. Win32, WinForms, and WPF for desktop. DirectX can be used in both metro and desktop apps.
WinRT has less features because it needs to run in a secure sandbox. WinRT is also more energy efficient due to async nature of most api calls.
WinRT, at least when using XAML for the ui, is similar to WPF (and Silverlight). Very nice M-V-VM architecture.
It will be interesting to see how they handle resizing. Devs could always count on min resolution of 1024x640 or 384x768 in split mode (split mode was only supported if res was >= 1366x768). Now these apps that were never designed for odd resolutions will have to deal with it. Maybe they will just look for special metadata that describes resize capabilities and if metadata not present (old 8.0 and 8.1 apps) the app will not be allowed to be resized too small.
Captain cloud services is now CEO of MS and they were already headed down the wrong path. So get ready for a cell phone and Xbox-live level of ongoing nickel and diming. Buy it and forget it? HELL NO! That died with Windows 7. And then 6 months later, Linux will explode and MS will make half the stuff they tried to charge for free (see Windows 8.1 patch, lol).
I can't figure out if I'm just too old and grumpy or if operating systems are just desperately uninspired. I remember how exciting a new OS used to be. Couldn't wait to learn about it. To get your hands on it. To install it. To customize it. To get things just right. It has been a good decade since an OS -- OSX, Windows, Linux, etc -- made me do much more than groan and think "maybe I can skip this one and the next one will be interesting". The most thought I find myself giving any of them, now, is to wonder just how much stuff they're going to fuck up that I'm going to have to learn to deal with.
I think the last thing I ever got excited about, OS-wise, was when I gave up on everything and said "I'm sticking with XFCE as much as possible" -- and that was less glee than exasperation.
Missed opportunity. Windows 8 tried to tell users what they were supposed to want. 9 would be a good chance to give users what they actually want (hint: a usable desktop that 'just works' goes a long way)
I presume you installed a 10+ year old Linux version so that it would be a fair comparison with XP?
Of course they do and if they work they'll not bother to change it. They could quite easily change if there were a reason to but there isn't so they won't.
all I want to know is will I be able to buy a retail copy for less than $50 without having to play the OEM/System builder/school edition/illegal download copied to a disk to look like the real thing/whatdidImiss game?
It's interesting. I've been to many customer sites in the last few years and every one has macbooks. There was one rogue windows lenovo user. I'm sure that here are many windows users and in fact while talking to out customers they have boo koo (s) amount of windows users but it seems that always the admins/managers have macbooks. Always. again, Always. In fact, I can't even remember If I have ever seen WIndows 8.1. Maybe at a best buy?
Zoid.com
Hello,
Driver support, which was mature under XP because of its longevity, took a hit when Microsoft released new models for Vista and was late in delivering its DDK. On the other hand, driver support in Windows 7 and up have been pretty mature. In the case of Windows 8 to 8.1, my employer was able to get away with little to minimal updates of our software, which uses filter drivers, for compatibility with the new version of the operating system. The level of compatibility had previously been rare in Windows for us.
As far as hardware goes, the difference between specifications for Windows Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1 has been pretty small. A 1 GHz CPU, 1GB RAM and some disk space were the basic minimum requirements for each, if memory serves. Don't expect it to run great on that kind of systems for all uses, though, but it will run.
And, yes, a new version of Windows usually means new features, both in terms of hardware and software. So, it's not a bad idea to try and time your hardware upgrade cycles to coincide with Windows releases if you want the latest shiny bits, which, as you noted, third-party devs are developing for.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
Dexter is a good dog.
There is no problem. I could care less if other people run Windows as long as I don't have to. If somebody buys a computer with Windows pre-installed and then decides to run Windows because it's an appliance mentality, no skin off my nose. If they're happy, great.
The primary problem for me, though, is in being forced to pay for Windows. I build my desktop machines from components so it's not an issue there. Laptops ... it's an issue.)
The secondary problem is friends and relatives asking me for help with their Windows computers, but I can happily tell them I don't run Windows and sorry, can't help; however I'd be happy to install Linux for them.
"In the end, yeah, Windows, yuck, but deal-able, and it's really disingenuous to pretend that because they have dumb downed the initial install package to Windows levels, that the actual ongoing user experience of Linux is nearly that plug and play for most folks, so to speak."
I don't disagree, and the average Jane won't be able to maintain Linux (although I wonder if the average Jane can maintain Windows, either, if something goes wrong).
But consider this situation: I set up a Linux machine for my wife to use (she likes to click on, well, everything, and I figured it would be safer). I do updates every so often. I support it for her. But it's not like it needs much support.
She doesn't even know it's not Windows. She has no idea what she's running and doesn't care, as long as she can browse, do email and Facebook, etc.
If I look at it's UI and think, "1990's AOL called and wants its interface back"... I'm not interested.
I! Tego Arcana Dei.
If you experience up-times lasting longer than four hours, seek medical attention.
Windows 7 Pro 64 bit is hard to beat. We migrated all of our workstations at work from XP to 7 last year and I doubt we will do another mass migration for 6 to 8 years. At home 7 Pro is pretty bad-ass too. I hope they don't pull the plug on it.
I'm still using my XP and Win98, I bought a Win7 laptop couple years ago and hearing all about Win8, I sure glad I got Win7. I know some people that when Vista came out, they immediately abandoned their XP but saved their files (which most were no good under Vista). Then Win7 came out, they did the same thing again (which I don't blame them for doing so). But they also abandoned Win7 for 8 and suffered problems. Win7 is fine and can do everything (these people are not developers, mostly use Office and surf the web). I don't get it, why do some people do that? I can somewhat understand about getting a new car that has various gadgets to impress the chicks. But a computer?
mfwright@batnet.com
Windows had this too, it was just never a default part of an official release. It was a part of PowerToys or some such as I recall. It didn't work that well at times but it just needed some evolving.
Remember; if you can't polish a turd, roll it in glitter.
Life is not for the lazy.
[......] they fail to achieve the other 10% which is the most important part!
It's the most imprtant part for Microsoft, too - it's their marketing strategy. That other 10% keeps the suckers coming back for more - always hoping for the missing 10% and never getting it.
Installation is not the problem. It's mostly driver and software compatibility that holds it back.
it is making Linux easier for those that see it as an appliance
Which is to say to someone who would like a stroll on a hilltop (99% of all users) that it is easier to climb K2 than Mount Everest.
You've got plenty of time to run something down with comments that were barely accurate way back when you had to install Slackware from floppy disks. Drivers come with linux instead of having to be downloaded like on MS.
Can't we just start talking about Windows 10 already, and how it will fix the problems with Windows 9?
And will it have minecraft as the default user interface? (it should, get 'em while they're young)
To use more memory. Admittedly you can solve that with the 64 bit XP if you have hardware it supports, or you can get server 2003 which is similar to XP, or you can roll back to Win2k to get away from the fucking stupid memory ceiling in XP if you have more than one core (I've still got a 6GB Win2k machine lurking in storage to run some legacy software every couple of years).
If you don't need more memory, as with a couple of receptionists computers in my workplace, XP does the job up to at least MS Office 2010.
Matrox had one back then that was half decent but it got broken by later versions of MS Windows. Nvidia still has a multiple desktop thing packaged with Quatro cards which has gone in cycles from perfect to flaky and back again. The MS one was proof of concept and may have worked initially but it turned into a certain blue screen timebomb a while after it had become abandonware. There were various others that worked for a while but nothing you could use for the long term.
It's almost as if it was a purchase requirement for a sale and abandoned later, but I suspect it's more a series of projects that were not maintained.
2015 will be the year of the Android x86 desktop. Not for everybody, but for all the 'relatives' that are unable to keep their installations clean and sane.
I get Linux, I do. I have used it on spare PC's before. But I just don't have time to use it on my main machines, because while I'd love that much time to tinker around and do all kinds of clever things with it to hone it to be the ultimate OS for me
IOW, you are saying that Linux is only a toy; that you for your condescending attitude.
For your information, I use Linux exclusively because I don't have time to tinker around with Windows. There are things that Windows is good for - apparently it is a good gaming platform, but then I don't play much - but there are so many things where Windows is simply not worth the hassle. And of course, in Windows you have to go out of your way to use open source - every time I've had to install Windows, it seems to come springloaded with incentives to buy applications for things you get for free in Linux. And the reason to use Linux is even stronger in a professional setting - unless you are working exclusively with non-technical administration, Linux (or any UNIX, really) is a must. Just one example: installing databases like Oracle or DB2 on a network of UNIX servers. The installers invariably require X - which is not the slightest problem for Linux; you just connect from your X based desktop with 'ssh -X' and you're set. In Windows you have to first realise that there is such a thing as X, then you have to figure out how to get it to work in Windows, etc. In effect, if you run Windows, you are faced with an uphill struggle.
I haven't used Windows at all for the last 15 years, give or take, except for when friends and family run into problems - again. Every time I have to fix things, it turns out that large parts of the interface have changed, the control panel calls things something new and puts the old things in new boxes etc; it doesn't help make it easier. In UNIX these don't change much over time, and they are pretty much the same across different platforms too. I suppose Windows is OK if all you do is inside the walled garden of MS Office.
You just need to buy the right FIAT :)
Every time you cry "shill" because you disagree with someone, you end up looking like a pathetic child lashing out. Grow up, please. You are embarrassing yourself greatly.
What I want for Windows:
- the possibility to delete files even if they are in use
- Unix tools available (find, grep, ssh, rsync, gpg, git) out of the box
- support for Linux file systems (ext2, ext3, ext4, brtfs)
- support for Lvm and dm-raid and cryp LUKS
- sshfs to mount file systems over ssh
- get rid of device letters
- CUPS
- virtual desktops
- software updates that do not take 2 hours and require x restarts
- repository for hardware drivers, so I don't have to hunt down drivers from vendors
- a terminal emulator that does not was ported from 1991 DOS
- dialogs that can be resized, all the time
- boot manager that supports alternative systems (GRUP can start Windows and Linux, and have auto-setup)
- possibility to re-assign keyboard keys without registry hacks
- get rid of the registry
- possibility to just copy Windows to a different computer
- recognition of my second hard disk in Windows Install (seriously, I cannot install Windows 7 to my second hard disk)
- get rid of the System-Partition
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
I fixed windows on my system, I forked out $$ and installed Directory Opus. Now I'm happy with Windows, much more so than with Mac.
I never understood the focus on file managers. Is moving files around really such a big part of your computer use?
Nah. It took a long time to get used to the flatness of Windows 8 (and still looks boring), but the level of transparency in W7 is in my opinion too high (after getting used to 8). Pity they went nuts fixing it.
It is what it is.
Why does it matter whether Windows 9 will be acidic or alkaline?
I'm not sure I follow you. Is your complaint that Windows doesn't have X for you to remotely run an installer for a different machine running UNIX?
No - that was just an example. I was replying to the OP which seems far too smug and condescending for my taste. Especially the idea that Linux somehow is just a toy, not fit for real work. My point is that from where I sit, "real work", when it comes to IT, is done on UNIX - and now-a-days mostly Linux - whereas Windows is mostly a hindrance, at least in the server room. It all depends on what your job is.
Does your flavour of UNIX happen to come with Windows remote admin tools installed by default?
How would I know? I hardly ever touch Windows, and only wearing gloves :-) Do you mean rdesktop? Remote access to Windows was added as a sort of afterthought, and it still doesn't have very good support for multiuser timesharing. UNIX, on the other hand, was always built around that concept, and even X is mostly a networking protocol.
That is another thing about Windows: you always have to use specialised tools for doing anything. That's why you even ask the question about remote admin tools; in UNIX you just log on to a command line session and edit the relevant files etc. There is rarely any need for specialised tools beyond a text editor, and the idea of having remote admin tools is a bit alie.
for Windows 10 of course.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The primary problem for me, though, is in being forced to pay for Windows. I build my desktop machines from components so it's not an issue there. Laptops ... it's an issue.)
Even though I do use Windows as my desktop, I absolutely agree that listing the price of Windows as "$0" or "included with system" is extremely misleading. Pre-built systems from companies like Dell should list the OS as a line-item price just like every other optional feature. At the very least, if Windows is the default, you should be able to subtract it for some kind of credit.
Of course, then we'd get into situations where Linux distros installed on such systems would be priced as much or more as Windows as an "installation fee".
The secondary problem is friends and relatives asking me for help with their Windows computers, but I can happily tell them I don't run Windows and sorry, can't help; however I'd be happy to install Linux for them.
Thats what I do after supporting Windows in my dayjob since 1991. Now that I'm retired, I don't need that kind of aggrievation. I've converted quite a few friends/neighbors over to Linux, after telling them all the malware they attracted when using Windows won't be there anymore.. One friend, who seems to love to click on anything/everything, who I converted over to Linux about a year ago, called me a while back with a weird error he was getting in his email client... Turns out he picked up one of the spams that carry cryptolocker, and the odd message was cryptolocker trying (and failing) to encrypt his files... This was before the current "easier" way to remove/unencrypt cryptolocker infections. He was, dare I say, happy about THAT...
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Sure, automated initial installs have been all wrapped up in little wizard-like packages. That's not the point, it's the ongoing installation and management of packages and versions and such that you have to keep up on.
I find that management of packages on Linux is far easier than Windows.
With Linux, I just apt-get upgrade or yum update and the OS and all my applications are updated to the latest version. Windows Update only does this for the OS itself (and some select Microsoft apps), so all the other apps need to either be manually updated or you need to have dozens of auto-updaters running (either as services or scheduled tasks). I know that there are some websites that give you a one-stop updater for a lot of popular software, but there's still a lot of other software that they don't support.
I have Windows and Mint also. (Primarily windows, though that's a practicality thing for me, not a preference.) - Windows doesn't stay running months on end unless you don't patch. That's not an indictment of Windows, it is just the reality of maintaining a system well in that environment. - Why do people assume that if they don't experience a problem that the person that does is simply wrong/crazy/imagining/stupid. - If you don't run Windows routinely and keep it updated (which sounds like the case in the GP), then when you do boot it, EVERYTHING wants to update* and your experience is horrible until it all completes. Also not an indictment of Windows, just reality. * (unless you convince yourself that you can do it better and smarter than various manufacturers and lock down all automatic updates, which I posit is a bad idea generally for non corporate systems...and particularly those where someone boots into the OS out of protest once in a blue moon...)
--- Mercutio was right.
In Windows you have to first realise that there is such a thing as X, then you have to figure out how to get it to work in Windows, etc. In effect, if you run Windows, you are faced with an uphill struggle.
I use Windows as a desktop, and Linux on servers every day, and I think you have been blinded by the fact that you only use Linux.
Anyone tasked with "installing a database" on Linux will know about X-Windows, and if they use Windows, they will also know that there are dozens of X servers available for Windows. Cygwin takes all of 15 minutes to install and configure to have an X server running. This also gives you bash, ssh, git, etc. I interact with our git repositories solely on Windows...it's no different from using Linux.
And, I use Windows as a desktop because I don't want to "tinker with GNOME/KDE/whatever". Putting a shortcut to just about anything (program, folder, host, URL, etc.) anywhere on my Start Menu is a whole lot easier than the last time I used an X desktop manager: right click on the item, choose copy as shortcut, open the Start Menu to the folder where I want the shortcut, right click and choose paste. It may now be this easy with modern X desktops, but it's been this easy with Windows for 15 years. And, don't get me started on the lack of universal clipboard under X. It's gotten better, but there are still some apps that you can't even copy and paste text between because they don't use a common clipboard interface. For graphics, it's a complete crapshoot.
On the other hand, Microsoft has no clue how to do user elevation correctly at the GUI level, despite the fact that the Windows security model is far more robust than the simple POSIX owner/group/world system. I also think MS is going down the "pretty but not functional UI" rathole fairly quickly, and if it keeps up, Linux may end up being easier to use for even casual users.
Remote access to Windows was added as a sort of afterthought, and it still doesn't have very good support for multiuser timesharing.
Windows Terminal Services is a complete implementation of "multiuser timesharing". It's only a "server" product, so you don't generally see it unless you are an admin. Linux doesn't really separate out "server" vs. "workstation" versions, so that may be where you are confused.
On the other hand, every Windows version has support for running programs in different user security contexts at the same time, just like Linux, and because of this there are free (as in beer, at least...some also libre) add-on products that give you many of the "server" features you are used to in the POSIX environment. For example, it's trivial to add sshd functionality to Windows because the security model allows multiple users to log in at the same time.
All I care about is- can I finally create a path+filename+extension location longer than 256 and still have Windows Explorer work? Or is this bug still dictating the names I can give my libraries?
It's a simple question.
I am *quite* sure the answer is no, \so what do I care about Windows 9?
Answer- I don't.
Windows 7 is still humming along, thanks.
To me, modern Windows has been a breath of fresh air compared to the brokenness of Linux desktops.
AMEN to this.
I gave up on Linux years ago. Too many choices. Too many problems.
Android seems to have it together. One OS, make it consistent and make it work.
The irony is Linux on the desktop has failed where Linux (Android) on a tablet seems to be doing fine.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
i doubt Nadella will fix the biggest problem at Microsoft: high licensing fees.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
I noticed you are struggling to deal with it. Perhaps I can help.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
You don't even have to do that much on most distros anymore. There's GUI front ends that make it even easier. With packages that aren't included in the GUI, you can just download them and double click them like any other executable. Easy.
Speaking for people who think Linux is hard that is. For the most part I'm with you, I prefer using the command line.
Can bored 12 year olds still hack into them? Bored 12 year olds want to know.
What I expect, nay demand, is that Microsoft give Windows 9 away for free as way of apology for forcing that abomination upon us.
Why would you? You *could* compare to Windows 7/8 *IF* they supported that old hardware, but chances are you'd run into an issue finding drivers for the sound or possibly LAN devices.
So what's the OS that gives you much of the latest goodies *AND* works well on the old hardware? If it's Win7/8 then feel free to install that, but if it's a modern version of Linux you'd be an idiot to install an old version.
Windows 9 changelog New and exciting in this release -IE replaced with Firefox -Notepad replaced with notepad2 (please use Notepad++ for power users) -Office is deprecated, consider switching to Libreoffice -cmd is deprecated, to be removed in a future release. Please consider using Conemu -7-zip is the default for archive handling -A new POSIX subsystem to gradually replace win32 crap 100% compatible with cygwin. Cygwin is expected to fly performanwise. -Process hacker has replaced windows system monitor. - Visual studio for other languages other than D is deprecated. A new release throws away all the crap, make the Shell thin and usable with D. -C# is deprecated, use D (not Java, they are competitors). We will re-introduce C# through mono. We failed. -Gnu guix is supported -If you want to use C/C++ consider moving to mingw. We have already moved. -Get your updates faster through portable apps. -Paint is here to stay -Windows media player leaves. VLC is the default player. -SEH patents have expired. Who cares, new in this release DWARF-3. -The GatesBot will build latest versions of over 1000 FOSS apps/libraries nightly for your pleasure. Get them through msys2. -We love FOSS, we have more recent versions than Linux distros. Have a nice day.
One of the fun things with a Linux install, it's fairly portable across hardware so long as you're using a generic enough kernel. If you want to install the exact same thing on 5-6 machines you can just do one, get it where you want it, and then clone the drive (or copy the files and reinstall GRUB). Heck, you could have it all on a thumb drive and move between machine with that.
The only place I've really run into issues is sometimes when switching between systems that use an nVidia VS ATI binary driver.
I can buy, right now, a Core 2 Duo machine with 4GB of RAM from my local uni surplus, for $60. Up to 75% less, if I get lucky and they're still there long enough after the sell-on date. They even come with a Win7 license.
You're definitely doing it wrong.
Karma: Poor (Mostly affected by lame karma-joke sigs)
Maybe I am, maybe not, it depends on what you want. The PC is a short term solution, and I want it gone, will give it away in a short while. The house is small and it takes valuable space in the living room. The purpose was to repurpose it, and I was talking about that Linux was easier to install on it, rather than Windows, remember?
No. They'll just switch to shorter support life cycles so consumers will have fewer choices.
"Do you want 8 or 9?"
"I want 7!"
"I'm sorry, we officially supporting 7 last month. Your choices are 8 or 9."
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
I think this is going to finally be the year of the Amiga desktop!
planet texture maps and more
And brantondaveperson's comment was that the ease of the Linux install was due to the newness, and had you installed an equivalently new windows (7 or 8.1) you wouldn't have had as many problems. Conversely had you tried to install Debian 3.0 or 3.1, or a similarly aged Linux distro; I would expect you to have similar problems to the XP install.
As to system requirements, most performance tests I've seen indicate that if you meet the minimum requirements 7 is faster than XP and 8.1 is faster still.
However, you appeared to have the constraint of "low cost", and if you had the XP license it's not a surprise that's what you went with. Just be aware you aren't comparing apples to apples.
He effected a bored affect.
I'm not managing a datacenter here. Just a local web application development shop. :-)
I personally use XFCE, which allows upto 100 workspaces.
You should look into System Center 2012 Configuration Manager and User State Migration - we migrated 1200+ desktops from XP to 7 in about a month.
Dear friendly helper person, please help me make Win 7 explorer look and act more like win2000 explorer. I gave this search up a long time ago but you have breathed some new life into my quest. I've been using Win7 for so long I kind of forgot how much I hated the new file explorer when I migrated from W2K.
Please share, my good man!
I don't think you "get Linux". Linux you just install once and then it runs and runs, regardless of any updates. Case in example, I installed Fedora 19 for my mother. After a few months I make an update, that was over 300 packages. Download in the background, updates in 20 minutes, restart, finish. No problems. New Fedora 20 comes out, I just make a distribution update. That was over 1000 packages. Download in the background, updates in 40 to 60 minutes, restart, finish. No problems. And Fedora 20 is a so called "bleeding-edge" distribution. If you use Ubuntu LTS or Debian Stable you have even less of a hastle.
I used Linux now for over 6 years. Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Fedora. And I never "tinker around and do all kinds of clever things with it to hone it to be the ultimate OS for me". Just install it, finish, and it works.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
I think it's software more than drivers, but that's an issue to take up with software vendors. Desktop Linux is technically a great operating system, even Windows Phone, webOS and Meego are technically a great operating systems but ultimately they all fail as operating systems from the point of view of being able to run applications and that's the primary job of an operating system, that's all anybody cares about.
Linux you just install once and then it runs and runs, regardless of any updates.
I wish I lived in your world.
Sandboxing and automatic updates. Those are two of the most critical features of the "Windows Store" apps.
All store apps run with extremely low privileges, and are only given access to the resources that they specify at installation. They can't read, much less wrote, most of the file system. They can't open arbitrary device handles. They can't enumerate running processes, much less open handles to them. They can't log your keystrokes (while the app lacks focus) or record your network traffic (except for the traffic to or from the app). They can *never* have Administrator powers.
All of this has two important effects. First, you can be sure that the apps are pretty safe to install, because there just isn't much that a Trojan app could do. Second, you don't have to worry much about the app being compromised by a remote attacker, because even if the attacker gets arbitrary code execution within the app there's basically nothing serious they can do with it. Worst case, you can uninstall an app (and guarantee that you get all of it).
The other key difference is the ability to do automatic updates. It's long been noted that while Linux's software repositories and package managers make keeping all your software current an easy process, on Windows you have practically every single app installing its own update mechanism... or not having any update mechanism and hence people run all manner of outdated versions. It's an extra burden on the developers and an inconvenience for the users. The store offers a built-in way to publish updates, notify users of updates, and even install updates automatically in the background if the user so desires.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
1) Use the command line, if this is important to you. Graphical shells for Linux sometimes do this too; it's not a Windows-exclusive thing. It's mostly just a way to implement symlink-like behavior (put your pictures on the external drive, but make them still reachable from your user profile) without actually exposing a symlink interface (which NTFS actually supports, BTW). It's not like you can't find the real paths easily, anyhow.
2) I mostly agree, though there's basically always a way to find out what the actual error was. For example, the built-in network troubleshooter will tell you what it finds (and whether it was able to fix it or not), although it takes a while to run. Worst case, check the event log. All kinds of stuff winds up there but you can often find what you're looking for with only a little filtering.
3) That message appears when a Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) device does not report that it supports a file type and you try to copy it anyhow. Since MTP allows reporting supported file types (among other things, this allows automatic conversion of media files by sync utilities), it really is the responsibility of whoever wrote the device's MTP implementation to report its supported file types correctly. In the case of a smartphone, that may just be everything but the PC doesn't know that. For the record, copying an MP3 to my phone does *NOT* give that warning, although copying an EXE does.
4) Never going to happen. File locks are an OS-enforced security feature. Yes, it would be nice if the OS wee to go check what process has the handle open and tell you (starting with Vista, Windows will do this under *some* circumstances but it could really be more common). Ideally, it would then (assuming you have sufficient privileges, which may be as-is, may be Administrator, or may be something like SYSTEM) offer to close the handle for you, unlocking the file. Of course, this risks crashing the process that had the handle open - an obvious example would trying to delete the executable of a running process - but it would also be an acceptable option to just kill the process (again, assuming you have privileges). Sure, Linux gets by with its file access system, which has no way to lock a file (you can change the permissions on it if you own it or are root, but that won't stop somebody else who already has an open file descriptor from reading or writing to the file) but file locks have been a part of the Microsoft file system access paradigm for practically as long as they've been writing operating systems, and developers in the Windows world use them and rely on them. Changing that behavior in some drastic way would have a major impact on the security (and sometimes the simple correctness) of software written for Windows.
5) So what, MS should just assume that everybody who might ever want to store files in something like Box or OneDrive should already know about them, have downloaded and installed them, and that MS should never offer to integrate one of their products with another of their products unless you explicitly tell them to? Do you also object to Android automatically adding your Gmail account if you sign into it when setting up the phone, or to KDE opening AmaroK by default when you double-click a FLAC file? Oh, and if WMP is "spewing" its icon about, you have a definite case of PEBKAC. The only WMP icons on my machine are for launching the program itself (in Start or ont he taskbar, probably on the program binary too); all of my media files have icons from my preferred media player and have had those icons ever since I set the file association to that media player. Are you telling WMP to re-associate itself with its playable file types? Because it does not do that automatically...
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
Except that user-friendly Linux distros do work nicely as appliance computers. What I really want is an appliance-like OS that runs all the neat Unix tools I like natively, and I can get that with Linux.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
"Okay"
PC sales crash again.
P.S. 7 is supported until 2020.
I used Linux now for over 6 years. Ubuntu, Debian, Suse. On at least 6 different laptops. Just install it, finish, and it works.
Sure, sometimes you have problems with drivers because the hardware vendor does not support Linux. But that have nothing to do with Linux itself.
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
The only trouble I had was with Debian Sid, because of the rolling-release updates. The updates were broken some of the time. But the system was still running fine, it just meant that I had to wait a few weeks so that the updates were fixed.
Compare that with Windows updates, and the news that update X broke the system.
http://www.howtogeek.com/17962...
http://threatpost.com/microsof...
http://www.sevenforums.com/win...
http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
And the only pro feature I wanted (the Unix prompt)
What are talking about, Powershell? You can install that on any version of Windows. If you are talking about an honest-to-goodness Unix prompt then install cygwin or something that gives you bash or some other Unix-style shell.
Or is there something else I'm not aware of?
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Flip a couple bits in the registry, make a SKU and charge and extra $100. They've been doing that for 20 years.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.