Well, yeah. I don't think I've ever had an operating system "nag me" before. What does that even mean?
Apparently you've never used XP. Anyone who has used XP knows exactly what I'm talking about.
"You have unused icons on your desktop!"
"You need to reboot to apply updates!"
Constant baloon pop-ups from the lower-right about anything and everything, mostly crap you don't care about. Having to constantly wait to shut-down because the OS decided you have extra time and don't need to be anywhere right now, so it can do stuff it wants to on your time.
More clear?
Perhaps people don't want to pay hundreds for an operating system with a few improvements at best
Well, it's just a hundred for the upgrade, and there are a LOT of new improvements over XP, not "just a few at best". Clearly you've not used it, or spent any time comparing the two.
Call me when they do something revolutionary or extremely noteworthy.
Everything I said was noteworthy and real. Maybe not everything was revolutionary (though there are certainly things in Win7 that are significantly better and enable applications that just aren't possible, or at least not as easy, under XP), but it's solidly evolutionary. Device Stage, support for SSDs, faster start-up and shut-down, reliable sleep and hibernate, readyBoost, member address randomization, UAC, better isolation of programs from data, better more efficient and faster graphics subsystem, better font rendering, never mind the instant search, better and easier to use UI, full 64-bit support, media center included, "play to" functionality with media player, much better networking, vastly improved security,... honestly, it's clear you don't know what's in Win7, so your claim that XP is as good or at least good enough to not warrent upgrading, is just ridiculous and laughable.
This remains an utterly silly argument for staying with XP and avoiding upgrading to Win7... especially for, oh, say, 98% of people for whom most of these issues you raise are just esoterica.
It's certainly not alien in the universe of software (especially at microsoft) that you pay more for more advanced capabilities. You can legitimately call into question the entire practice, but my point is that this is an utterly ridiculous argument for staying with XP over upgrading to Win7.... which is the current topic.
You don't describe in what way Win7's start menu is "worse" than XP's in the case of having many applications (seriously? 5000? Who does that?)
1) XP doesn't have instant search, so you either need to painstakingly micro-manage your All Programs list, manually organizing it, or you just have to search through everything to find what you want
2) Win7 DOES have an all-programs menu that you can use very similar to XP's... I just rarely need to
I do software development, and rarely have fewer than four instances of Visual Studio open at one time, or fewer than two dozen applications running at once (well, two dozen windows). It's much easier to find and manage my windows, and my most used applications and documents with Win7... I especailly like using the Windows Explorer "Favorites" node to tuck some of my most-used, deeply-nested folders, for one-click access, and to make handy drop-targets for drag-and-drop file moves/copies.
And I have yet to run into an application that won't run at all (I've had to set the compatibility setting in properties for some of them, but they do run). My hardware is hardly brand new, but everything runs flawlessly.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're even talking about. I haven't experieenced anything like what you're describing (and can't even really follow what you're talking about)... are you talking about just blind-typing really fast into the start menu search bar and pressing enter without even looking?
I use *.cmd files all over the place, but typing 'cmd' never fails to bring up the command prompt as the first thing for me. But then I just have it pinned to my start menu, so a Win+7 brings it up, no muss, no fuss. And all my most-used things are right there in the start menu (those that aren't pinned to the task bar), and the hover-over menu of most recently used documents is also a vast improvement as well.
Almost nothing you cited is actually true. There's no 2 physical limit on processors (for the Professional and higher versions)... heck, I'm using Win7 on a 4 year old box with 4 procesors (dual CPU with hyper-threading for 4 "virtual" processors). We also use virtual machines all over the place and it works quite well... with no need to constantly 'register' them. And yeah, you have to download "Microsoft Security Essentials" separately, thanks to wanting to avoid issues with the DOJ and law-suit happy McAffee and Norton... not exactly Win7's or Microsoft's fault there. So basically all your rationalizations and justifications for why Win7 is a dog are complete bunk. Sorry.
Sorry, but that's really lame, short-sighted reasoning. Many of the features would be useful to average office workers, and the "confusion" is a very short-term thing. It's transient. It's not big enough to justify never upgrading, given all the other benefits (security, stability, easier to use, easier to support, etc, etc).
The start/all-programs menu for Win7 is vastly superior to XP, as is Windows Explorer. Have you actually sat down and tried to use them as they're meant to be used? Or have you tried to use them as if you were still using XP?
For example, I almost never use the "All programs" menu any more. No need. Everything I want or need is either on the task bar (pinned there) or on the start menu (pinned there or in the 'recently used' section), or available with just a few keystrokes typed in the search box.
I find I'm far more productive with Win7 than I ever was with XP. Going back to XP just gives me this feeling of XP constantly getting in the way... I feel utterly constrained by its limitations and annoyances. Windows 7 is a definit advance, and is definitely worth the upgrade.
I "upgraded" my XP laptop a while back (after using it at work for a while), and even though it's not a true 'upgrade', it was one of the most painless windows installs I've ever experienced (and I've done a LOT of them). Yeah, I had to reinstall my apps, but the data moved over pretty painlessly. I was up and running in under a day, easily.
I'm not sure what you even mean by the XP start menu working more "cleanly" than Win7's... the exact opposite is the case. The Win7 start menu is just vastly superior. Of course, you have to take the time to actually learn this fact.
For me, I'm just much more productive in Win7 than in XP. Win7 stays out of my way, doesn't nag me about things, has more short-cut keys for productivity, Windows Explorer has more power and features that make life easier and faster, Windows Search makes fumbling with the start and all programs menu a thing of the past, etc, etc.
In fact, I hate going back to XP, because I can't seem to find anything and it's like working with stone knives and bear skins. Honest, I just can't imagine not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 (unless you have really old hardware with really limited memory and CPU speed).
Windows 7 "just works" in a way that XP never did. It took an HOUR to install a recent HP all-in-one photo printer on XP. Same install on Win7 took a minute or so. The OS is also just much more secure, from the foundations on up. Much more stable. Much easier to use, with new and useful features. Home networking is just a snap now. Plug-n-play actually works for pretty much everything. The 64-bit support is fully baked. I could go on and on and on...
It ain't perfect, of course, but it's heads and shoulders above XP. I just don't understand the reticence to upgrade, or the unwillingness to see the obvious value in doing so.
What exactly about that post leads you to believe I'm all that fond of Democrats right now?
I mean, on the one side, you have ignorant anti-science bullies and bigots. On the other you have spinlessly naive and pathetic cowards.
But yeah, I don't like Republicans... because right now the party is completely insane and detatched from reality.
Right now, neither party has the best interests of this country, its future, or its citizens in mind. The Republcians are doing their damnedest to drive us into a plutocratic oligarchy with shades of theocracy, and the Democrats are just terrified someone might not like them, or that they might accidentally offend someone.
I really got into Borderlands... great base game, with three out of four great DLCs (the third one being the high point). Great game play, LOTS of replayability (I've been playing it non-stop for a year), and a wicked sense of humor. And multiplayer is a blast if you have any friends to play it with.
I also really liked the original Fallout 3. Fallout New Vegas isn't really grabbing me though.
Not sure 'learn' is really the right word. I've owned several cats in my lifetime. And in each case, the extent of the liter-box training was plopping the cat down in the box, helping it make a pawing gesture in the litter... and that's it. Sum-total of maybe 5 seconds.
They just instantly "get it", and never seem to have to be told twice.
That's not really "learning." It's got to be more like instinct. Or at least something so obvious to them, that they just grok it immediately, even at extremely young ages.
Dogs generally have to be trained to do this. But they certainly CAN be trained to do this. They make great 'helper' companions for this reason (seeing eye dogs, and assistant dogs for the disabled).
I've had two cats that figured out door handles on their own. But I can't imgine it being possible to train a cat to be a subservient helper to a human being. It MIGHT be possible in some rare instances, but I doubt it is worth the effort.
If you take a human being of very low intelligence, and throw a stick and ask them to go get it for you, s/he'll trot off happily, pick it up, bring it back to you, and possibly drool in the process.
If you take a very intelligent human being, and throw a stick and ask them to go get it for you, s/he'll look at you like you're daft, and get on with doing something else.
Ergo: the difference between dogs and cats, and why I consider cats more intelligent:-)
The article seems to imply that being more social implies greater intelligence. I agree there is "social intelligence"... but let's be honest here. The smartest people I know tend to be rather asocial or even anti-social. And some of the MOST social people I know are, well, kinda stupid:-) Think nerd vs party girl.
But trust me that C# is a very good language, that.Net is a decent programming environment/library/API, that VS2010+ReSharper is a very nice development environment, and that ASP MVC is actually pretty nice as well. And while ReSharper (essential, IMHO) costs money, you can get the development environment for free.
I'm a former Java developer who would now rather program in C# than ever return to Java. (and before that I did C++ and C, so it's not like I'm some VB script kiddie... I know how to manage resources and program to the bare metal, and I still love C#).
Actually, no it doesn't..Net is a decent platform, C# is a very good language, VS+ReSharper is a great development environment, and ASP MVC is a decent web development environment.
Of course, if you're looking at classic ASP.NET, I can see how you'd think it sucks. But dont' judge the entire stack because of that.
Different, dynamic UI instead of "me too" UI (static screen filled with static squares)
Honestly, I don't think you can call it a flop after just one day. Microsoft doesn't have the legion of "I'll buy anything they put out" fans like Apple does, so I never expected lines. I'm very interested in the platform myself, but won't be buying until my current contract runs out, some 18months from now. I'm sure a lot of people will look at it when it comes time to renew.
Yes, it's immature. I'll be eager to see how agressively they update. That'll be one of the datapoints I use in making my decision in the future.
Hrm. Since "conservatives" in the U.S. rung up 80% of the National Debt, and it was the "liberal" President in the 90's that balanced the budget and is the only President in recent memory to actually try and pay the Debt down... your claim doesn't seem to have much basis in fact. I mean, Reagan tripled the debt, Bush Sr nearly doubled it, and Bush Jr doubled it again.
I am liberal and have been debt free for over ten years. I am very responsible with money, as are my liberal parents, and virtually every liberal friend and relative I know. I know anecdotal evidecne isn't proof, but it sure seems to discount your blanekt characterization of liberals.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, yeah. I don't think I've ever had an operating system "nag me" before. What does that even mean?
Apparently you've never used XP. Anyone who has used XP knows exactly what I'm talking about.
"You have unused icons on your desktop!"
"You need to reboot to apply updates!"
Constant baloon pop-ups from the lower-right about anything and everything, mostly crap you don't care about. Having to constantly wait to shut-down because the OS decided you have extra time and don't need to be anywhere right now, so it can do stuff it wants to on your time.
More clear?
Perhaps people don't want to pay hundreds for an operating system with a few improvements at best
Well, it's just a hundred for the upgrade, and there are a LOT of new improvements over XP, not "just a few at best". Clearly you've not used it, or spent any time comparing the two.
Call me when they do something revolutionary or extremely noteworthy.
Everything I said was noteworthy and real. Maybe not everything was revolutionary (though there are certainly things in Win7 that are significantly better and enable applications that just aren't possible, or at least not as easy, under XP), but it's solidly evolutionary. Device Stage, support for SSDs, faster start-up and shut-down, reliable sleep and hibernate, readyBoost, member address randomization, UAC, better isolation of programs from data, better more efficient and faster graphics subsystem, better font rendering, never mind the instant search, better and easier to use UI, full 64-bit support, media center included, "play to" functionality with media player, much better networking, vastly improved security, ... honestly, it's clear you don't know what's in Win7, so your claim that XP is as good or at least good enough to not warrent upgrading, is just ridiculous and laughable.
This remains an utterly silly argument for staying with XP and avoiding upgrading to Win7... especially for, oh, say, 98% of people for whom most of these issues you raise are just esoterica.
It's certainly not alien in the universe of software (especially at microsoft) that you pay more for more advanced capabilities. You can legitimately call into question the entire practice, but my point is that this is an utterly ridiculous argument for staying with XP over upgrading to Win7.... which is the current topic.
So... if unlimited cores and two physical processors isn't enough for you, then why aren't you using Windows Server 2008 R2?
Please. This is an utterly ridiculous complaint.
You don't describe in what way Win7's start menu is "worse" than XP's in the case of having many applications (seriously? 5000? Who does that?)
1) XP doesn't have instant search, so you either need to painstakingly micro-manage your All Programs list, manually organizing it, or you just have to search through everything to find what you want
2) Win7 DOES have an all-programs menu that you can use very similar to XP's... I just rarely need to
I do software development, and rarely have fewer than four instances of Visual Studio open at one time, or fewer than two dozen applications running at once (well, two dozen windows). It's much easier to find and manage my windows, and my most used applications and documents with Win7... I especailly like using the Windows Explorer "Favorites" node to tuck some of my most-used, deeply-nested folders, for one-click access, and to make handy drop-targets for drag-and-drop file moves/copies.
And I have yet to run into an application that won't run at all (I've had to set the compatibility setting in properties for some of them, but they do run). My hardware is hardly brand new, but everything runs flawlessly.
So no, I'm not delusional at all.
Honestly, I'm not sure what you're even talking about. I haven't experieenced anything like what you're describing (and can't even really follow what you're talking about)... are you talking about just blind-typing really fast into the start menu search bar and pressing enter without even looking?
I use *.cmd files all over the place, but typing 'cmd' never fails to bring up the command prompt as the first thing for me. But then I just have it pinned to my start menu, so a Win+7 brings it up, no muss, no fuss. And all my most-used things are right there in the start menu (those that aren't pinned to the task bar), and the hover-over menu of most recently used documents is also a vast improvement as well.
Almost nothing you cited is actually true. There's no 2 physical limit on processors (for the Professional and higher versions)... heck, I'm using Win7 on a 4 year old box with 4 procesors (dual CPU with hyper-threading for 4 "virtual" processors). We also use virtual machines all over the place and it works quite well... with no need to constantly 'register' them. And yeah, you have to download "Microsoft Security Essentials" separately, thanks to wanting to avoid issues with the DOJ and law-suit happy McAffee and Norton... not exactly Win7's or Microsoft's fault there. So basically all your rationalizations and justifications for why Win7 is a dog are complete bunk. Sorry.
Sorry, but that's really lame, short-sighted reasoning. Many of the features would be useful to average office workers, and the "confusion" is a very short-term thing. It's transient. It's not big enough to justify never upgrading, given all the other benefits (security, stability, easier to use, easier to support, etc, etc).
The start/all-programs menu for Win7 is vastly superior to XP, as is Windows Explorer. Have you actually sat down and tried to use them as they're meant to be used? Or have you tried to use them as if you were still using XP?
For example, I almost never use the "All programs" menu any more. No need. Everything I want or need is either on the task bar (pinned there) or on the start menu (pinned there or in the 'recently used' section), or available with just a few keystrokes typed in the search box.
I find I'm far more productive with Win7 than I ever was with XP. Going back to XP just gives me this feeling of XP constantly getting in the way... I feel utterly constrained by its limitations and annoyances. Windows 7 is a definit advance, and is definitely worth the upgrade.
I "upgraded" my XP laptop a while back (after using it at work for a while), and even though it's not a true 'upgrade', it was one of the most painless windows installs I've ever experienced (and I've done a LOT of them). Yeah, I had to reinstall my apps, but the data moved over pretty painlessly. I was up and running in under a day, easily.
I'm not sure what you even mean by the XP start menu working more "cleanly" than Win7's... the exact opposite is the case. The Win7 start menu is just vastly superior. Of course, you have to take the time to actually learn this fact.
For me, I'm just much more productive in Win7 than in XP. Win7 stays out of my way, doesn't nag me about things, has more short-cut keys for productivity, Windows Explorer has more power and features that make life easier and faster, Windows Search makes fumbling with the start and all programs menu a thing of the past, etc, etc.
In fact, I hate going back to XP, because I can't seem to find anything and it's like working with stone knives and bear skins. Honest, I just can't imagine not wanting to upgrade to Windows 7 (unless you have really old hardware with really limited memory and CPU speed).
Windows 7 "just works" in a way that XP never did. It took an HOUR to install a recent HP all-in-one photo printer on XP. Same install on Win7 took a minute or so. The OS is also just much more secure, from the foundations on up. Much more stable. Much easier to use, with new and useful features. Home networking is just a snap now. Plug-n-play actually works for pretty much everything. The 64-bit support is fully baked. I could go on and on and on...
It ain't perfect, of course, but it's heads and shoulders above XP. I just don't understand the reticence to upgrade, or the unwillingness to see the obvious value in doing so.
What exactly about that post leads you to believe I'm all that fond of Democrats right now?
I mean, on the one side, you have ignorant anti-science bullies and bigots. On the other you have spinlessly naive and pathetic cowards.
But yeah, I don't like Republicans... because right now the party is completely insane and detatched from reality.
Right now, neither party has the best interests of this country, its future, or its citizens in mind. The Republcians are doing their damnedest to drive us into a plutocratic oligarchy with shades of theocracy, and the Democrats are just terrified someone might not like them, or that they might accidentally offend someone.
Republicans will truly be the death of this country.
And Democrats will just sit by and let them do it.
No network connection required.
http://gizmodo.com/5714462/translate-signs-and-menus-instantly-using-word-lens-crazy+amazing-iphone-app
That's all true, but the fuel (sunlight) is still free.
I really got into Borderlands... great base game, with three out of four great DLCs (the third one being the high point). Great game play, LOTS of replayability (I've been playing it non-stop for a year), and a wicked sense of humor. And multiplayer is a blast if you have any friends to play it with.
I also really liked the original Fallout 3. Fallout New Vegas isn't really grabbing me though.
Cats learn to use litter boxes.
Not sure 'learn' is really the right word. I've owned several cats in my lifetime. And in each case, the extent of the liter-box training was plopping the cat down in the box, helping it make a pawing gesture in the litter... and that's it. Sum-total of maybe 5 seconds.
They just instantly "get it", and never seem to have to be told twice.
That's not really "learning." It's got to be more like instinct. Or at least something so obvious to them, that they just grok it immediately, even at extremely young ages.
Dogs generally have to be trained to do this. But they certainly CAN be trained to do this. They make great 'helper' companions for this reason (seeing eye dogs, and assistant dogs for the disabled).
I've had two cats that figured out door handles on their own. But I can't imgine it being possible to train a cat to be a subservient helper to a human being. It MIGHT be possible in some rare instances, but I doubt it is worth the effort.
It's a different *kind* of intelligence.
...either that, or the cat is wired up to a Kinect.
I've always considered it thusly:
If you take a human being of very low intelligence, and throw a stick and ask them to go get it for you, s/he'll trot off happily, pick it up, bring it back to you, and possibly drool in the process.
If you take a very intelligent human being, and throw a stick and ask them to go get it for you, s/he'll look at you like you're daft, and get on with doing something else.
Ergo: the difference between dogs and cats, and why I consider cats more intelligent :-)
The article seems to imply that being more social implies greater intelligence. I agree there is "social intelligence"... but let's be honest here. The smartest people I know tend to be rather asocial or even anti-social. And some of the MOST social people I know are, well, kinda stupid :-) Think nerd vs party girl.
"30 times over the past three years."
That would make it obviously 1000% per year.
Okay, let me validate for you that ASP.NET sucks.
But trust me that C# is a very good language, that .Net is a decent programming environment/library/API, that VS2010+ReSharper is a very nice development environment, and that ASP MVC is actually pretty nice as well. And while ReSharper (essential, IMHO) costs money, you can get the development environment for free.
I'm a former Java developer who would now rather program in C# than ever return to Java. (and before that I did C++ and C, so it's not like I'm some VB script kiddie... I know how to manage resources and program to the bare metal, and I still love C#).
Actually, no it doesn't. .Net is a decent platform, C# is a very good language, VS+ReSharper is a great development environment, and ASP MVC is a decent web development environment.
Of course, if you're looking at classic ASP.NET, I can see how you'd think it sucks. But dont' judge the entire stack because of that.
Zune + ZunePass
Office apps and integration
XBox Live and achievements
Integrated contacts/facebook/social
Different, dynamic UI instead of "me too" UI (static screen filled with static squares)
Honestly, I don't think you can call it a flop after just one day. Microsoft doesn't have the legion of "I'll buy anything they put out" fans like Apple does, so I never expected lines. I'm very interested in the platform myself, but won't be buying until my current contract runs out, some 18months from now. I'm sure a lot of people will look at it when it comes time to renew.
Yes, it's immature. I'll be eager to see how agressively they update. That'll be one of the datapoints I use in making my decision in the future.
So... the proposal is to turn Earth into something like Pandora, with all its night-glowy goodness? Is that it?
Hrm. Since "conservatives" in the U.S. rung up 80% of the National Debt, and it was the "liberal" President in the 90's that balanced the budget and is the only President in recent memory to actually try and pay the Debt down... your claim doesn't seem to have much basis in fact. I mean, Reagan tripled the debt, Bush Sr nearly doubled it, and Bush Jr doubled it again.
I am liberal and have been debt free for over ten years. I am very responsible with money, as are my liberal parents, and virtually every liberal friend and relative I know. I know anecdotal evidecne isn't proof, but it sure seems to discount your blanekt characterization of liberals.