I'd also like for them to upgrade it with a command search that highlights where to go so that you may learn, not one (like the add-in from Office Live) that just brings you matching commands.
That's actually a superb suggestion, and frankly, they'd be a fool to not offer something like that in Office 2010.
Thankfully they still support most all of the keyboard commands you've memorized over the years, but I remember the first time I sat down with Word 2007, how frustrating it was for me to find where "options" were (to turn off all that automatic formatting crap that never does anything but get in the way), and how to convert text to a table (my first thought wasn't that it would be under the 'insert' tab, since I wasn't in my mind 'inserting' anything, but converting or formatting). It would have saved a lot of frustration if there was some simple, easy, direct way to have it show me some stuff up front, or a better (i.e. faster) help system at any rate.
Now that I'm more or less used to the ribbon, I actually like it a lot. About the only thing I don't like is that sometimes it FEELS like there are more clicks involved in doing certain things (having to switch back and forth between two tabs to access two separate commands that I am applying frequently in sequence), but if I think about it, it really isn't much different than going to two separate menus. But the Perception or "Feel" is definitely different for some reason, and it'd be interesting if they could figure out a way to address that.
Its' really not a ton of settings... it's just a couple. The only complication is if you are on a domain, there's an extra (completely unintuitive) step to ensure things work.
But you basically have all the options that make sense:
1) You're an administrator, period. You have all the access you want. No UAC to bug you.
2) You're an administrator, but you run as a Limited User. UAC bugs you every time you try to do something that requires admin privs, but you don't have to type the password, you just have to approve the action. (and this is VASTLY improved in Win 7, with not nearly as many nag dialogs)
3) You're a limited user, and if you try to do something that requires admin privs (always acknowledged with the windows 'security' shield next to the button or option), you'll have to get an administrator to type in the password for you, or give you the password. Otherwise, access denied.
4) You're a limited user. You can't do anything that requires admin privs: access is just denied or the option doesn't even present itself. No UAC prompts to bug you.
Augmenting option 2 is the ability to set properties on short-cuts and applications to "run as administrator", thus eliminating any UAC prompts or security issues while the app runs. I have my command console and windows explorer set to run in that mode, for example. I have my laptop running as a limited user. The UAC prompts were annoying when setting up and configuring, but once you get over that hill, you barely notice it any more.
My point: It really isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. And it's vastly improved in Win7 and not nearly as obtrusive as in Vista (and there are more levels than just the 4 above, and the settings are all centralized in one obvious place... with the remaning exception of that extra step if you want to do option 1 or 2 when you're on a domain in an enterprise setting).
I've used Vista for two years or so now. Before SP1, it pretty much deserved the bad rap it go. Since SP1, it's really perfectly fine. That, and I've climbed the learning curve, and gotten used to where things are now (and honestly, it does make sense in most cases)... going back to XP now honestly does seem like a huge step back to me now. This list of things that bug me about Vista is now down to about five notable things. Unfortunately Windows 7 only adresses a few of them, but the whole is still vastly superior to XP.
I'm a developer. I never want to see UAC prompts or get access denied messages. And I don't. I ensure I'm a member of the administrators group, and I turn off UAC.
For limited users, you can turn off UAC, and they'll get access denied messages.
What you want is possible. It doesn't sound like you investigated very much in order to make it work the way you want.
I loathe not being trusted on my own machine. So I simply made it so I was. End of problem.
The "Professional" version of Vista does not include Media Center.
The "Professional" version of Win7 does.
Microsoft fixed a serious problem with their Vista version scheme by ensuring each 'higher' version has ALL the features of the 'lesser' versions... it's a strict hierarchy now. Starter Home Basic Home Premium Professional Ultimate/Enterprise
Further, only two versions are actually going to be seen much: Home Premium, and Professional. The others are OEM versions or Enterprise versions.
But that's just it... most people won't take that extra effort with XP.
Vista and Win7 forces the issue.
This makes the entire ecosystem more secure... providing people get the hell off XP.
It's laughable as most people seem to have such short memories. Everyone HATED "XP" when it was released. I stayed on Win2000 for years after XP was released.
It wasn't until XP hit SP2 that it started getting any real traction, and people stopped hating on it.
Vista is "new and different", and due to the major security fixes, it's distruptive. Of course people aren't going to love it out of the gate. But it IS better in many respects (and worse in only a few respects... respects that Win7 fixes a lot of, such as memory use).
I am hoping against hop that Win 7 is a major success. Not for Microsoft's sake, but for the users's sakes. Getting off of XP/IE6 to Win7/IE8+ will make the whole computing universe safer. The machines are also easier to manage from an Enterprise perspective (in spite of the XP VM, which of course, can be disabled if not wanted or needed).
Just for the record, I've used Vista at work since it was released (doing.Net development and Database work on SQL Server).
Before SP1 was released, it was a pain in the ass. Since then... not so much.
In fact, I'm now used to Vista, and like it's extra features and perks, and find going back to XP annoying. I miss too much (the instant search everywhere, for starters, the snipping tool for another, I could go on and on) when I'm forced to use XP. And XP is so much less secure than Vista. Vista has proven to be remarkably stable and I haven't had ANY issues with viruses or trojans (not so, every XP install I've had over the same time period). It performs well, but of course I do have 4GB of memory, and wouldn't dream of saying anyone run Vista on less than 2GB.
The trash-talking of Vista is, at this point, mostly habit based on old info. It's ridiculous. ANYTHING that will help get people off XP and onto the newer more secure OS's (hopefully Win7) is a GOOD THING.
Hopefully most people won't need to use this new virtual XP VM in a regular way, in perpetuity. It can be and should be used as solely a stepping stone to get people on Win 7 and off XP, giving time for any software that refuses to run on Win7 to be updated or replaced. Mostly, the "XP Compatibility Mode" works well. For those apps that are just so badly written and so insecure and obsolete that they can't run even under that, this new XP VM provides a solution.
Of course, if software had been written correctly in the first place, then it'd run on Win7 correctly without issue.
Of course, one of the more laughable things is that SQL Server 2000, Microsoft's own product, won't run on Vista or Win7. Of course, it's a crappy database and nobody should be using it at this point... but there you go:-)
I use Virtual PC to run XP under Vista right now, and have for a year. And it works.
I find it difficult to believe that MS would release this solution in any state that is less functional than what currently exists under Vista.
It was just announced and is in beta (likely lagging behind Win7... since it ships as a separate download there's no need for it to ship at the same time as Win7, which itself is six months away at the least). There's time.
The main reason Windows has such massive market share is the backward compatibility.
It's because BUSINESSES rely on it, and Business is where Windows pounds most other OS's in use. Of all my friends, well over half use Macs (50+% market penetration), yet over-all, Windows has 90% market share (give or take). That delta is all about business.
And most businesses are very slow to upgrade, and have custom apps that cannot be easily rewritten. It's EXPENSIVE to rewrite something for a new OS just because the OS upgrades.
The backwards compatibility of Windows is both its biggest benefit AND it's biggest draw-back.
It really seems to me like they're setting the stage to use VMs to solve this problem going forward. But even then, they'll still need to retain backward compatability with the last few releases... you don't want to end up with every app runing in VMs because nothing is written for the new OS.
I find this development really interesting, though. I think it's a smart move.
Vista was a 'pain' because it NECESSARILY had to break applications in order to add much-needed and much-over-due security to the system. Applications for so long have been written assuming everyone was running as admin, which is part of what made UAC so annoying. As developers write to run on Vista, things are getting a lot better (that, plus Vista SP1, which fixed a lot of performance and other issues). I now run Vista full time at my place of work, and not only have no problems, but am now starting to be annoyed when I go back to XP and am missing all my wonderful search featurs and other Vista bells and whistles (like the snipping tool). Vista was a necessary break from the past... and would have been a lot better had IT had this XP virtual machine to run ill-behaved apps.
I think Windows 7 is going to be a success, because it seems Microsoft is really listening and really doing the kinds of things they need to in order to move forward. Hopefully with Win 8 and beyond they'll be able to junk a lot of the legacy support that is bogging down windows, and deal with apps by just running them in a VM hosting the neccessary OS.
Mac OS X is as "clean" and nimble as it is, precisely because they've made the decision to break with the past and just go ahead and break apps, get everyone to move over, and then move forward. They can do that because 1) they own both the hardware and the software, and 2) they don't have a huge presence in the Business Enterprise market. It's worked out really well for them, actually.
The Windows strategy of trying to run as much as possible from the past with each new release had worked well for MS up until recently, but now the house of cards is too big, the code-base is too unwieldy, and it's harder to move forward. That was one of the huge problems during Vista development, which required them to do a complete reset/restart, losing YEARS of development time, and enabling XP to become so entrenched that it's proving difficult to move people forward into better OS's.
Now MS is working hard to get out of this pit it's dug itself in, and this looks like a really smart way to go. I'm really, really looking foward to Win7.
But given this feature will be targeted at businesses, I'm half-wondering if I should try to get Windows Professional on my next home (not work) PC, or whether Windows Home Premium will be "good enough" for me (given I make my living developing for Windows).
Actually, I don't see this as any different from a lot of other companies.
The whole point here is to practically give away a very, very low cost version of Windows, and to then entice them to upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium (which will upgrade in place over the internet, and which won't affect performance much, if at all). That way the entry price is way-low.
How many companies do you know that give away limited free versions, and offer upgrades or more fleshed out versions for a given price? Thouands. It's completely standard and accepted practice. Let people try before they sink a ton of money into it.
A 3-app limitation isn't a huge one for low-power users, and if they find themselves bumping into that limit often enough to be frustrating, well, they're just a click and a credit card number away from eliminating it.
Calling it a "deliberately crappy product" is propagandistic spin. I have half a dozen "lite" versions of apps on my iPhone that were free or low cost. They let me try it before sinking more money into the full version of the app. Many software comanies give you 30 day trials for free as well. Again, how is this any different? Are ALL these companies guilty of making a "deliberately crappy product"??
Hell no. It's just smart marketing. Even drug dealers use it: First taste is free!:-)
It's universal, and if anything, I can't believe it's taken MS this long to offer such a deal. I guess the rise of Netbooks gave them their first real incentive.
Students and kids, and individuals with VERY tight budgets, might find this version completely satisfactory. Most people won't bother with it, or will upgrade soon after. So what's the big deal?
I don't see how the ends or the means are any different here. I don't see how you are managing to single MS out as being some huge evil with THIS as your evidence. (god knows, there's plenty of other real evidence out there... this isn't even close).
I meet up with a long-lost friend or co-worker, and we're both standing there with iPhones, and there's no way to exchange contact info.
Basically it ends up looking like this: I open my contacts, hit "add new contact", and then pass my phone over to him, and he types in all his info.
Why can't I just hit a button to mail my contact info to him? That way, I only have to type in an email address. And if he emails me HIS contact info, why can't I just "select" the contact info (or have the iPhone simply recognize the info) and then hit a button that says "Add to contacts"?
Even copy/paste won't help too much on this one. There really just needs to be better dynamic contact sharing ability.
Another scenario: A friend of mine has contact info for a mutual friend. I currently have to laboriously copy it in. Why can't he just send it to me, and voila, it's in there? Like a text message, just... boom, it's done?
Beyond that, I have all the standard requests: Copy-Paste, Event Notification framework, better way to organize apps, better landscape support, a way to 'lock' the screen to keep it from slipping into landscape when you are, for instance, using the iphone while lying down, MMS support, tethering support, flash support in Safari, video support (and frankly, i'd like the video player stripped out from teh iPod button, and treated more like the 'photos' button, with the 'camera roll' equivalent for video right at the top, and then better categorization and organization of videos below), options for editing the typing dictionary, mark-all-as-read in email, ability to use maps without a connection (cached image), ability to turn-off or hide pre-installed apps taht you never use (like 'stocks')...
And one I'd like personally, the ability to send an option to add a confirmation before it calls a number you've touched. I can't count the number of times I've accidentally called someone and had to scramble for the 'end call' button before the person on the other end got the ring... ugh.
Windows 7 is not becoming MORE need and intrusive than XP. Far from it. It's FAR LESS NEEDY AND INTRUSIVE THAN XP.
The "needy" state isn't new to Vista or Windows 7. The point of this change is that they tweaked the neediness down so much that it was difficult for users to realize that something needed or wanted attention.
Already in Vista, most apps don't steal focus any more. That's one great reason to use Vista over XP. It still happens, but FAR, FAR less often. And certainly never because a file download completed (god I hated that in XP).
All they're talking about now is the flashing of the task bar icon (which XP does as well). Personally, I'd be okay with 3 flashes and then staying in a highlighted state so that if I was away from the keyboard and missed the flashing, I could notice when I came back. Seven flashes won't bug me. They're relatively subtle and don't interrupt my flow.
Windows 7 actually has several new features and behaviors to help reduce the intrusiveness of the OS, even from Vista (which aside for UAC, was far less intrusive than XP).
In short, I think you over-reacted and completely misunderstood what was being said.
The result is something far less annoying than OS X's "jumping like a jack russel terrier" icons. Now THAT is annoying as heck. A subtle flashing of a task-bar icon is vastly preferable.
I hate how Outlook manages to steal focus like that.
I especially hate how it gets into a weird state on Vista/Office 2007, where the notification window pops up (announcing a meeting or other calendar event), does NOT steal focus, but DOES become the top window, getting in the way of things. And there's no way to get it to go to the background without clicking on it. You can try to bring your own application up to the top as much as you want, and it will stubbornly stay behind that stupid Outlook notification window.
UGH.
I wish they'd make Windows 7, Office, and all apps behave and play by the rules. NEVER steal focus. NEVER pop a window over what I'm doing. EVER. That's what the tray icons are for... to notify me when something else needs attention and to let me get to it in my own sweet time.
Vista and Windows 7 are VASTLY more secure than XP.
Much of the pain of Vista was due to all the security changes they made underneath the covers (as well as in your face, with UAC).
So it's not like they haven't been working on security issues at all. But those aren't really sexy to users. This list was just to show that they're taking user feedback about the user experience seriously, and trying to polish and incorporate things for usability reasons.
Windows Media Player is vastly superior to QuickTime in just about every imaginable way. When I click on a wmv file or other file WMP can play, it starts right up and plays. When I lick on a mov file or that QT media, there's a huge lack where nothing happens, then after a long time the QT player appears, and then it just sits there until you hit Play. Never mind that WMP also remembers my screen size and all my other preferences, while the QT player always seems to start up in 'actual pixels' display size.
Bleh. I loathe QuickTime. Only thing worse is RealPlayer.
I've never understood the animosity directed at WMP though. It works peferfectly for me. The UI is clean and functional. Other than the fact it can't play enough video and audio formats, I'm not sure what everyone's problem is. I don't use it to manage my liberary of MP3s or anything, I just use it as a player.. and to rip CDs (I've yet to come across anything I like better for CD ripping).
Can someone please explain to me what all this alleged problem is with activation and WGA?
I've used half a dozen computers, most on XP, some on Vista, for years and years, and have never once had even the slightest problem. It's never taken more than a couple of seconds of my life in any given year.
I can't even imagine what you're complaining about.
The version of IE8 in the Win7 beta is truly beta. Since then, IE8 RC1 has been released, and it is notably more stable with most of the rendering issues taken care of.
The WMP MP3 bug was patched very early on, so that's already fixed.
Since Win7 has been receiving patches and updates, I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's being rushed... the wide beta has given MS a lot of data and info, and has been 'upgraded in the field' with a few patches for serious issues like the MP3 bug. The "RC" release will be far less wide, but will be pretty wide (to developers and resellers). There is a core of people that will get many post beta and post RC builds before the final version goes GA.
Unlimited budget? The PC I'm running Vista on is a Core 2 quad CPU with 4GB that cost, sans monitor, $600-$700. That's hardly anywhere near the requirement of an "unlimited budget", don't you think?
For all the way people are clinging to XP like Linus to his blanket, it really isn't a very good modern OS. It's very, very insecure.
I've been using Vista for almost two years now, and for all the hype about how bad it is, it's pretty damn solid. After getting used to the new UI, it's pretty usable (and this is without the new very nice usability enhancements in Windows 7). I have plenty of CPU and Memory so performance isn't an issue for me with Vista. And the biggest thing? I've been running it, attached to the internet, for two years without having an anti-virus program installed, and NO ISSUES. I don't think I could do that with XP for even a single day.
The fact is, Vista, and Windows 7 to come, are simply easier to use, and far FAR more secure. Hardly perfect, of course, but then neither is any other OS out there (and much of their "security" tends to be "security through obscurity", given they don't have critical mass to make writing viruses and worms "worth-while"). But XP to me now feels a lot like IE6... a flawed, insecure, somewhat crappy solution that everyone should just get over and move on from.
Having used Vista for a while, I can say I find going back to XP really annoying. Lack of the start-menu search is huge, for one thing. The "Luna" UI is ugly and distracting (just as I thought it was when trying to move to it from Windows 2000).
Basically, I think the resistence to Vista is over-hyped, and not based on any current reality (it's more based on the huge "Vista-Ready" snafu of Microsoft and Intel, where upgrading existing hardware resulted in really crappy performance, along with the GA release of Vista not having nearly the driver and application compatibility necessary... Vista SP1 pretty much resolves those issues). And since Windows 7 is receiving rave reviews, and doesn't have the major problems that affected the initial perception of Vista, I don't think there will be a serious issue of people NOT upgrading to it.... or getting it on a new PC and wanting to "down-grade" to XP.
Vista was a necessary and painful step for Microsoft to go through. The fundamental underlying changes they made were painful to users, but necessary for security. Windows 7 refines a lot of them to be less painful (UAC), while "time" has smoothed out the other pain points (updated drivers and applications).
I really don't think there will be any huge resistence to adopting Windows 7 when it's released.
Seriously, Microsoft is right about one thing: if you set people down in front of Vista and dont' tell them it's Vista, they love it. Tell them it's Vista, and they hate it.
People are PRIMED to hate the OS based on the name and based on really over-blown and inaccurate Apple ads, and really bad experiences SOME users had in the first year (due to the "Vista Capable" debacle mostly).
Since SP1, Vista has been very usable. I've been using it almost since it came out, and it's a perfectly decent OS. In fact, I sorta hate going back to XP now... I miss too many good things about Vista, like the instant search features, new Start menu, and just some of the look and feel.
Nobody seems to remember how much people HATED the old "XP" when it first came out. It didn't really become popular until SP2 was released.
Most of the anti-Vista sentiment is simply irrational and baseless.
Are there some things not to like? Sure. I turn off UAC immediately. There are a few quirks in the new Windows Explorer that I don't like (and which seem to be unchanged in Windows 7). But really, beyond that? It's much more stable, and full featured than XP, and it looks a hell of a lot better. Yeah, it's a memory pig, but I run with plenty of memory for my needs, and have no problems. And after 2 years of use, it's "slowed down" far less than comparable XP machines have (the old "Windows Decay" problem).
Am I looking forward to Windows 7? Definitely. It seems to fix the memory-pig and performance issues that Vista admittedly does have (a bigger issue on laptops than my desktop), but the fact will remain that it's little more than Vista with some spit and polish... and everyone will love it because it's "not Vista".
Vista-hate is getting to be tedious and facile, and it really is more psychological than real.
You've obviously never heard of 'morning people' and 'night people'... or people who don't have the flexibility (in this economy especially) to just "go out and get a new job".
I don't care what anyone says, what any statistics say, I wish we'd do away with standard time all together.
It gets dark WAY too damn early, and it gets light in the morning WAY too damn early.
I'd rather it be on "Daylight Savings Time" year round. Despense with the setting of the clocks twice a year, and all the headaches that result from it. Just let us go to Daylight Savings Time next year, and then STAY THERE. Forever.
I can't imagine any valid reasonable reason not to.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd also like for them to upgrade it with a command search that highlights where to go so that you may learn, not one (like the add-in from Office Live) that just brings you matching commands.
That's actually a superb suggestion, and frankly, they'd be a fool to not offer something like that in Office 2010.
Thankfully they still support most all of the keyboard commands you've memorized over the years, but I remember the first time I sat down with Word 2007, how frustrating it was for me to find where "options" were (to turn off all that automatic formatting crap that never does anything but get in the way), and how to convert text to a table (my first thought wasn't that it would be under the 'insert' tab, since I wasn't in my mind 'inserting' anything, but converting or formatting). It would have saved a lot of frustration if there was some simple, easy, direct way to have it show me some stuff up front, or a better (i.e. faster) help system at any rate.
Now that I'm more or less used to the ribbon, I actually like it a lot. About the only thing I don't like is that sometimes it FEELS like there are more clicks involved in doing certain things (having to switch back and forth between two tabs to access two separate commands that I am applying frequently in sequence), but if I think about it, it really isn't much different than going to two separate menus. But the Perception or "Feel" is definitely different for some reason, and it'd be interesting if they could figure out a way to address that.
Its' really not a ton of settings... it's just a couple. The only complication is if you are on a domain, there's an extra (completely unintuitive) step to ensure things work.
But you basically have all the options that make sense:
1) You're an administrator, period. You have all the access you want. No UAC to bug you.
2) You're an administrator, but you run as a Limited User. UAC bugs you every time you try to do something that requires admin privs, but you don't have to type the password, you just have to approve the action. (and this is VASTLY improved in Win 7, with not nearly as many nag dialogs)
3) You're a limited user, and if you try to do something that requires admin privs (always acknowledged with the windows 'security' shield next to the button or option), you'll have to get an administrator to type in the password for you, or give you the password. Otherwise, access denied.
4) You're a limited user. You can't do anything that requires admin privs: access is just denied or the option doesn't even present itself. No UAC prompts to bug you.
Augmenting option 2 is the ability to set properties on short-cuts and applications to "run as administrator", thus eliminating any UAC prompts or security issues while the app runs. I have my command console and windows explorer set to run in that mode, for example. I have my laptop running as a limited user. The UAC prompts were annoying when setting up and configuring, but once you get over that hill, you barely notice it any more.
My point: It really isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be. And it's vastly improved in Win7 and not nearly as obtrusive as in Vista (and there are more levels than just the 4 above, and the settings are all centralized in one obvious place... with the remaning exception of that extra step if you want to do option 1 or 2 when you're on a domain in an enterprise setting).
I've used Vista for two years or so now. Before SP1, it pretty much deserved the bad rap it go. Since SP1, it's really perfectly fine. That, and I've climbed the learning curve, and gotten used to where things are now (and honestly, it does make sense in most cases)... going back to XP now honestly does seem like a huge step back to me now. This list of things that bug me about Vista is now down to about five notable things. Unfortunately Windows 7 only adresses a few of them, but the whole is still vastly superior to XP.
I'm a developer. I never want to see UAC prompts or get access denied messages. And I don't. I ensure I'm a member of the administrators group, and I turn off UAC.
For limited users, you can turn off UAC, and they'll get access denied messages.
What you want is possible. It doesn't sound like you investigated very much in order to make it work the way you want.
I loathe not being trusted on my own machine. So I simply made it so I was. End of problem.
The "Professional" version of Vista does not include Media Center.
The "Professional" version of Win7 does.
Microsoft fixed a serious problem with their Vista version scheme by ensuring each 'higher' version has ALL the features of the 'lesser' versions... it's a strict hierarchy now. Starter Home Basic Home Premium Professional Ultimate/Enterprise
Further, only two versions are actually going to be seen much: Home Premium, and Professional. The others are OEM versions or Enterprise versions.
It should simplify things a lot.
But that's just it... most people won't take that extra effort with XP.
Vista and Win7 forces the issue.
This makes the entire ecosystem more secure... providing people get the hell off XP.
It's laughable as most people seem to have such short memories. Everyone HATED "XP" when it was released. I stayed on Win2000 for years after XP was released.
It wasn't until XP hit SP2 that it started getting any real traction, and people stopped hating on it.
Vista is "new and different", and due to the major security fixes, it's distruptive. Of course people aren't going to love it out of the gate. But it IS better in many respects (and worse in only a few respects... respects that Win7 fixes a lot of, such as memory use).
I am hoping against hop that Win 7 is a major success. Not for Microsoft's sake, but for the users's sakes. Getting off of XP/IE6 to Win7/IE8+ will make the whole computing universe safer. The machines are also easier to manage from an Enterprise perspective (in spite of the XP VM, which of course, can be disabled if not wanted or needed).
Just for the record, I've used Vista at work since it was released (doing .Net development and Database work on SQL Server).
Before SP1 was released, it was a pain in the ass. Since then... not so much.
In fact, I'm now used to Vista, and like it's extra features and perks, and find going back to XP annoying. I miss too much (the instant search everywhere, for starters, the snipping tool for another, I could go on and on) when I'm forced to use XP. And XP is so much less secure than Vista. Vista has proven to be remarkably stable and I haven't had ANY issues with viruses or trojans (not so, every XP install I've had over the same time period). It performs well, but of course I do have 4GB of memory, and wouldn't dream of saying anyone run Vista on less than 2GB.
The trash-talking of Vista is, at this point, mostly habit based on old info. It's ridiculous. ANYTHING that will help get people off XP and onto the newer more secure OS's (hopefully Win7) is a GOOD THING.
Hopefully most people won't need to use this new virtual XP VM in a regular way, in perpetuity. It can be and should be used as solely a stepping stone to get people on Win 7 and off XP, giving time for any software that refuses to run on Win7 to be updated or replaced. Mostly, the "XP Compatibility Mode" works well. For those apps that are just so badly written and so insecure and obsolete that they can't run even under that, this new XP VM provides a solution.
Of course, if software had been written correctly in the first place, then it'd run on Win7 correctly without issue.
Of course, one of the more laughable things is that SQL Server 2000, Microsoft's own product, won't run on Vista or Win7. Of course, it's a crappy database and nobody should be using it at this point... but there you go :-)
I use Virtual PC to run XP under Vista right now, and have for a year. And it works.
I find it difficult to believe that MS would release this solution in any state that is less functional than what currently exists under Vista.
It was just announced and is in beta (likely lagging behind Win7... since it ships as a separate download there's no need for it to ship at the same time as Win7, which itself is six months away at the least). There's time.
No. Not in any way.
The main reason Windows has such massive market share is the backward compatibility.
It's because BUSINESSES rely on it, and Business is where Windows pounds most other OS's in use. Of all my friends, well over half use Macs (50+% market penetration), yet over-all, Windows has 90% market share (give or take). That delta is all about business.
And most businesses are very slow to upgrade, and have custom apps that cannot be easily rewritten. It's EXPENSIVE to rewrite something for a new OS just because the OS upgrades.
The backwards compatibility of Windows is both its biggest benefit AND it's biggest draw-back.
It really seems to me like they're setting the stage to use VMs to solve this problem going forward. But even then, they'll still need to retain backward compatability with the last few releases... you don't want to end up with every app runing in VMs because nothing is written for the new OS.
I find this development really interesting, though. I think it's a smart move.
Vista was a 'pain' because it NECESSARILY had to break applications in order to add much-needed and much-over-due security to the system. Applications for so long have been written assuming everyone was running as admin, which is part of what made UAC so annoying. As developers write to run on Vista, things are getting a lot better (that, plus Vista SP1, which fixed a lot of performance and other issues). I now run Vista full time at my place of work, and not only have no problems, but am now starting to be annoyed when I go back to XP and am missing all my wonderful search featurs and other Vista bells and whistles (like the snipping tool). Vista was a necessary break from the past... and would have been a lot better had IT had this XP virtual machine to run ill-behaved apps.
I think Windows 7 is going to be a success, because it seems Microsoft is really listening and really doing the kinds of things they need to in order to move forward. Hopefully with Win 8 and beyond they'll be able to junk a lot of the legacy support that is bogging down windows, and deal with apps by just running them in a VM hosting the neccessary OS.
Mac OS X is as "clean" and nimble as it is, precisely because they've made the decision to break with the past and just go ahead and break apps, get everyone to move over, and then move forward. They can do that because 1) they own both the hardware and the software, and 2) they don't have a huge presence in the Business Enterprise market. It's worked out really well for them, actually.
The Windows strategy of trying to run as much as possible from the past with each new release had worked well for MS up until recently, but now the house of cards is too big, the code-base is too unwieldy, and it's harder to move forward. That was one of the huge problems during Vista development, which required them to do a complete reset/restart, losing YEARS of development time, and enabling XP to become so entrenched that it's proving difficult to move people forward into better OS's.
Now MS is working hard to get out of this pit it's dug itself in, and this looks like a really smart way to go. I'm really, really looking foward to Win7.
But given this feature will be targeted at businesses, I'm half-wondering if I should try to get Windows Professional on my next home (not work) PC, or whether Windows Home Premium will be "good enough" for me (given I make my living developing for Windows).
Actually, I don't see this as any different from a lot of other companies.
The whole point here is to practically give away a very, very low cost version of Windows, and to then entice them to upgrade to Windows 7 Home Premium (which will upgrade in place over the internet, and which won't affect performance much, if at all). That way the entry price is way-low.
How many companies do you know that give away limited free versions, and offer upgrades or more fleshed out versions for a given price? Thouands. It's completely standard and accepted practice. Let people try before they sink a ton of money into it.
A 3-app limitation isn't a huge one for low-power users, and if they find themselves bumping into that limit often enough to be frustrating, well, they're just a click and a credit card number away from eliminating it.
Calling it a "deliberately crappy product" is propagandistic spin. I have half a dozen "lite" versions of apps on my iPhone that were free or low cost. They let me try it before sinking more money into the full version of the app. Many software comanies give you 30 day trials for free as well. Again, how is this any different? Are ALL these companies guilty of making a "deliberately crappy product"??
Hell no. It's just smart marketing. Even drug dealers use it: First taste is free! :-)
It's universal, and if anything, I can't believe it's taken MS this long to offer such a deal. I guess the rise of Netbooks gave them their first real incentive.
Students and kids, and individuals with VERY tight budgets, might find this version completely satisfactory. Most people won't bother with it, or will upgrade soon after. So what's the big deal?
I don't see how the ends or the means are any different here. I don't see how you are managing to single MS out as being some huge evil with THIS as your evidence. (god knows, there's plenty of other real evidence out there... this isn't even close).
Things still inexplicably missing:
Video recording (Cycorder on Jailbroken phones does it just fine)
Voice Dialing
"Try before you Buy" App Store sales model
Flash support for the Safari Browser
This is what is really maddening to me.
I meet up with a long-lost friend or co-worker, and we're both standing there with iPhones, and there's no way to exchange contact info.
Basically it ends up looking like this: I open my contacts, hit "add new contact", and then pass my phone over to him, and he types in all his info.
Why can't I just hit a button to mail my contact info to him? That way, I only have to type in an email address. And if he emails me HIS contact info, why can't I just "select" the contact info (or have the iPhone simply recognize the info) and then hit a button that says "Add to contacts"?
Even copy/paste won't help too much on this one. There really just needs to be better dynamic contact sharing ability.
Another scenario: A friend of mine has contact info for a mutual friend. I currently have to laboriously copy it in. Why can't he just send it to me, and voila, it's in there? Like a text message, just ... boom, it's done?
Beyond that, I have all the standard requests: Copy-Paste, Event Notification framework, better way to organize apps, better landscape support, a way to 'lock' the screen to keep it from slipping into landscape when you are, for instance, using the iphone while lying down, MMS support, tethering support, flash support in Safari, video support (and frankly, i'd like the video player stripped out from teh iPod button, and treated more like the 'photos' button, with the 'camera roll' equivalent for video right at the top, and then better categorization and organization of videos below), options for editing the typing dictionary, mark-all-as-read in email, ability to use maps without a connection (cached image), ability to turn-off or hide pre-installed apps taht you never use (like 'stocks')...
And one I'd like personally, the ability to send an option to add a confirmation before it calls a number you've touched. I can't count the number of times I've accidentally called someone and had to scramble for the 'end call' button before the person on the other end got the ring... ugh.
You completely misunderstood.
Windows 7 is not becoming MORE need and intrusive than XP. Far from it. It's FAR LESS NEEDY AND INTRUSIVE THAN XP.
The "needy" state isn't new to Vista or Windows 7. The point of this change is that they tweaked the neediness down so much that it was difficult for users to realize that something needed or wanted attention.
Already in Vista, most apps don't steal focus any more. That's one great reason to use Vista over XP. It still happens, but FAR, FAR less often. And certainly never because a file download completed (god I hated that in XP).
All they're talking about now is the flashing of the task bar icon (which XP does as well). Personally, I'd be okay with 3 flashes and then staying in a highlighted state so that if I was away from the keyboard and missed the flashing, I could notice when I came back. Seven flashes won't bug me. They're relatively subtle and don't interrupt my flow.
Windows 7 actually has several new features and behaviors to help reduce the intrusiveness of the OS, even from Vista (which aside for UAC, was far less intrusive than XP).
In short, I think you over-reacted and completely misunderstood what was being said.
The result is something far less annoying than OS X's "jumping like a jack russel terrier" icons. Now THAT is annoying as heck. A subtle flashing of a task-bar icon is vastly preferable.
I hate how Outlook manages to steal focus like that.
I especially hate how it gets into a weird state on Vista/Office 2007, where the notification window pops up (announcing a meeting or other calendar event), does NOT steal focus, but DOES become the top window, getting in the way of things. And there's no way to get it to go to the background without clicking on it. You can try to bring your own application up to the top as much as you want, and it will stubbornly stay behind that stupid Outlook notification window.
UGH.
I wish they'd make Windows 7, Office, and all apps behave and play by the rules. NEVER steal focus. NEVER pop a window over what I'm doing. EVER. That's what the tray icons are for... to notify me when something else needs attention and to let me get to it in my own sweet time.
Vista and Windows 7 are VASTLY more secure than XP.
Much of the pain of Vista was due to all the security changes they made underneath the covers (as well as in your face, with UAC).
So it's not like they haven't been working on security issues at all. But those aren't really sexy to users. This list was just to show that they're taking user feedback about the user experience seriously, and trying to polish and incorporate things for usability reasons.
I couldn't disagree more.
Windows Media Player is vastly superior to QuickTime in just about every imaginable way. When I click on a wmv file or other file WMP can play, it starts right up and plays. When I lick on a mov file or that QT media, there's a huge lack where nothing happens, then after a long time the QT player appears, and then it just sits there until you hit Play. Never mind that WMP also remembers my screen size and all my other preferences, while the QT player always seems to start up in 'actual pixels' display size.
Bleh. I loathe QuickTime. Only thing worse is RealPlayer.
I've never understood the animosity directed at WMP though. It works peferfectly for me. The UI is clean and functional. Other than the fact it can't play enough video and audio formats, I'm not sure what everyone's problem is. I don't use it to manage my liberary of MP3s or anything, I just use it as a player.. and to rip CDs (I've yet to come across anything I like better for CD ripping).
Can someone please explain to me what all this alleged problem is with activation and WGA?
I've used half a dozen computers, most on XP, some on Vista, for years and years, and have never once had even the slightest problem. It's never taken more than a couple of seconds of my life in any given year.
I can't even imagine what you're complaining about.
The version of IE8 in the Win7 beta is truly beta. Since then, IE8 RC1 has been released, and it is notably more stable with most of the rendering issues taken care of.
The WMP MP3 bug was patched very early on, so that's already fixed.
Since Win7 has been receiving patches and updates, I'm not sure it's fair to say that it's being rushed... the wide beta has given MS a lot of data and info, and has been 'upgraded in the field' with a few patches for serious issues like the MP3 bug. The "RC" release will be far less wide, but will be pretty wide (to developers and resellers). There is a core of people that will get many post beta and post RC builds before the final version goes GA.
Unlimited budget? The PC I'm running Vista on is a Core 2 quad CPU with 4GB that cost, sans monitor, $600-$700. That's hardly anywhere near the requirement of an "unlimited budget", don't you think?
For all the way people are clinging to XP like Linus to his blanket, it really isn't a very good modern OS. It's very, very insecure.
I've been using Vista for almost two years now, and for all the hype about how bad it is, it's pretty damn solid. After getting used to the new UI, it's pretty usable (and this is without the new very nice usability enhancements in Windows 7). I have plenty of CPU and Memory so performance isn't an issue for me with Vista. And the biggest thing? I've been running it, attached to the internet, for two years without having an anti-virus program installed, and NO ISSUES. I don't think I could do that with XP for even a single day.
The fact is, Vista, and Windows 7 to come, are simply easier to use, and far FAR more secure. Hardly perfect, of course, but then neither is any other OS out there (and much of their "security" tends to be "security through obscurity", given they don't have critical mass to make writing viruses and worms "worth-while"). But XP to me now feels a lot like IE6... a flawed, insecure, somewhat crappy solution that everyone should just get over and move on from.
Having used Vista for a while, I can say I find going back to XP really annoying. Lack of the start-menu search is huge, for one thing. The "Luna" UI is ugly and distracting (just as I thought it was when trying to move to it from Windows 2000).
Basically, I think the resistence to Vista is over-hyped, and not based on any current reality (it's more based on the huge "Vista-Ready" snafu of Microsoft and Intel, where upgrading existing hardware resulted in really crappy performance, along with the GA release of Vista not having nearly the driver and application compatibility necessary... Vista SP1 pretty much resolves those issues). And since Windows 7 is receiving rave reviews, and doesn't have the major problems that affected the initial perception of Vista, I don't think there will be a serious issue of people NOT upgrading to it.... or getting it on a new PC and wanting to "down-grade" to XP.
Vista was a necessary and painful step for Microsoft to go through. The fundamental underlying changes they made were painful to users, but necessary for security. Windows 7 refines a lot of them to be less painful (UAC), while "time" has smoothed out the other pain points (updated drivers and applications).
I really don't think there will be any huge resistence to adopting Windows 7 when it's released.
Only the 1st gen Zune 30's crashed. And it turned out to not be an MS issue, as it affected other devices as well.
My Zune 80 -- a wonderful device that is superior to the iPod Classic in every way except 3rd party ecosystem -- was just fine, thanks.
Seriously, Microsoft is right about one thing: if you set people down in front of Vista and dont' tell them it's Vista, they love it. Tell them it's Vista, and they hate it.
People are PRIMED to hate the OS based on the name and based on really over-blown and inaccurate Apple ads, and really bad experiences SOME users had in the first year (due to the "Vista Capable" debacle mostly).
Since SP1, Vista has been very usable. I've been using it almost since it came out, and it's a perfectly decent OS. In fact, I sorta hate going back to XP now... I miss too many good things about Vista, like the instant search features, new Start menu, and just some of the look and feel.
Nobody seems to remember how much people HATED the old "XP" when it first came out. It didn't really become popular until SP2 was released.
Most of the anti-Vista sentiment is simply irrational and baseless.
Are there some things not to like? Sure. I turn off UAC immediately. There are a few quirks in the new Windows Explorer that I don't like (and which seem to be unchanged in Windows 7). But really, beyond that? It's much more stable, and full featured than XP, and it looks a hell of a lot better. Yeah, it's a memory pig, but I run with plenty of memory for my needs, and have no problems. And after 2 years of use, it's "slowed down" far less than comparable XP machines have (the old "Windows Decay" problem).
Am I looking forward to Windows 7? Definitely. It seems to fix the memory-pig and performance issues that Vista admittedly does have (a bigger issue on laptops than my desktop), but the fact will remain that it's little more than Vista with some spit and polish... and everyone will love it because it's "not Vista".
Vista-hate is getting to be tedious and facile, and it really is more psychological than real.
You've obviously never heard of 'morning people' and 'night people'... or people who don't have the flexibility (in this economy especially) to just "go out and get a new job".
I don't care what anyone says, what any statistics say, I wish we'd do away with standard time all together.
It gets dark WAY too damn early, and it gets light in the morning WAY too damn early.
I'd rather it be on "Daylight Savings Time" year round. Despense with the setting of the clocks twice a year, and all the headaches that result from it. Just let us go to Daylight Savings Time next year, and then STAY THERE. Forever.
I can't imagine any valid reasonable reason not to.
As of this moment, it's up to #2, nearly 10,000 members.
That's good to see.