Printable View
First look at Windows 7 beta 1
The most interesting part of the article is this: "Judging by the quality of this build, I expect Windows 7 to be released June/July of ‘09. I really can’t see Microsoft dragging out the release a year." Since I just made the switch to Vista, I'm going to be a little annoyed if 7 is ready that soon. But if it is significantly better, I guess it will be worth it. And then I can do a reformat and have a super fast computer again I guess. Thoughts?
I'm so skeptical about windows now. I got burned by WinME back in the day. I was glad to stick with XP and not give in to hype and get Vista instantly... but again, once bitten... twice shy you know?
If Microsoft will release it soon, I'll still likely wait a year to upgrade various comps at home.
There's a link in the above article to a more in-depth review. Quoting from the review:
In other words, Windows 7 isn't adding any new features as it goes along... in fact, most of what will be new features to a Vista user are probably things that were originally planned to be in Vista.Quote:
It’s unusual not to be faced with heaps of new features with each build - it’s almost as though Microsoft had a plan for Windows 7 right from the start, baked these features into the early M3 build and have since been working on refining these features. This is an interesting approach that seems to have resulted in the best beta build of an OS from Microsoft that I’ve ever seen (and I’ve seen a LOT of beta builds!). Wow!
Step 1: Teach people to use the mouse instead of the keyboard. Step 2: Invent weird and wonderful ways to accelerate people's use of the mouse. Why can't I just press Alt-F10 to maximize a window? That's the CUA standard keystroke. On Windows, that's not available, so the most efficient way to keyboard a maximize is Alt-Space, X. Aero Snap may be a good feature, but with a miniscule fraction of the work, they could have given us standard keyboard shortcuts. Probably less disruption from false positives, too - I can't think of any Windows application that uses Alt-F10 for its own purposes (not to say there aren't any, of course), but there are many times when I want to put a window at the top of the screen and not have it maximize itself.Quote:
Aero Snap is a simple little feature that I find myself using all the time. This is a gestures driven method of organizing Windows. Drag a window to the top of the screen and the app is maximized.
This is what Microsoft is good at. Eye candy.Quote:
If you like to customize your Windows experience then you’ll appreciate some of these changes. Not only does Windows 7 come with several ready-made themes that include specific background images, colors, sounds and screensavers, there are also themes that make use of a desktop slideshow to continually change the desktop image.
What a surprise. What a surprise.Quote:
Internet Explorer 8 will be the browser that Microsoft wants you to use with Windows 7. It’s far better than earlier incarnations of IE but still falls short when compared to other browsers.
Is it just me, or is there something fundamentally wrong here? Apart from MAJOR MAJOR changes (like from Windows 95 to Windows NT, where one's built on DOS and one's built on OS/2, or from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X, where one's built on Mac OS and one's built on Unix, or perhaps moving to a 64-bit version of the OS), moving from one version to another of the same operating system should not ever break applications. With MS-DOS, they had the right idea. DOS 5 would run any app written for DOS 3.3, DOS 6 would run anything written for DOS 5, and all of them would still handle an ancient DOS 1 program that used FCBs and had no concept of directories. (Yes, there were odd differences between MS-DOS and PC-DOS and DR-DOS, but that's like the differences between MS Windows and Wine. That's not different versions of the same thing.) Moving from 2000 to XP to Vista to 7 should be a simple progression. If a program says "Requires Windows 2000 or XP", it should run without trouble on Vista or 7. Why isn't it?Quote:
I have run across some software issues (which I believe are related to UAC - User Account Control - changes in Windows 7) but since developers haven’t yet seen a beta these sorts of issues are to be expected and I’m sure most will be fixed within weeks of beta 1 being officially released.
It's all very well to say that software developers will get the beta and solve the problems. What happens to people who've bought one version of a program and don't want to buy an upgrade? My brother, for instance, has Adobe InDesign 2.0, or CS2, or something, I'm not sure what, but since he can't get any support for it, he's looking at pirating himself a more recent copy. He owns a copy of the old version. It should work.
This is slightly different, though. Drivers are so closely tied to both hardware and OS that I can well accept that there should be drivers dedicated to the precise OS that you're using. Also, the monetary issue doesn't usually come into it; hardware manufacturers sell you a physical object, and then let you download the drivers for free, so if I get a bluetooth adapter that comes with XP drivers, I can probably download Vista or 7 drivers.Quote:
I’ve had no noteworthy issues relating to hardware, although drivers that officially support Windows 7 are still a while off so I’ve been sticking with Microsoft drivers. I expect hardware vendors to start getting Windows 7 drivers out soon after the official release of Windows 7.
People have been talking about Vista as the version to skip, due to the close proximity of 7 and the repeated extensions of XP's EOL. My personal guess is that Windows 7 will be enough of an improvement over Vista to be worth upgrading; whether or not it's worth moving from XP to 7, we'll all have to wait and see, probably. The trend I see as most worrying is the progressive lockdown under Microsoft's control of everything you do. At the moment, driver signing is an optional thing; an end user can install a piece of hardware, load a driver that hasn't been signed, and simply answer "Yes" to a little warning dialog. Suppose MS made it so that ordinary users simply CANNOT use unsigned drivers? They could sell some kind of special Windows licence for developers that would allow unsigned driver use (perhaps a monthly subscription to their Device Driver Development Forum or something), and then everyone else in the world is caught in the trap. Also, if Windows Update is made mandatory (same as activation is - you get beyond 30 days without updating, your access is curtailed), then they could apply these changes post-release and guarantee that everyone would use them.
So if you're thinking about chucking XP in favour of Vista, don't. Wait for 7, then make your decision. If, like Ari, you already _have_ installed Vista, it's probably not worth ripping it out, but you may well want to switch at some point. However, unless you're particularly eager to reformat (malware-filled hard drive, etc), the usual principle of waiting a while after the first release is probably still valid, in spite of the above reviewer's comments that the beta was looking release-worthy.
Ultimately, it's all going to boil down to applications. If the apps you want won't run on XP, then upgrade, and if they want more memory than 32-bit Windows will do, then upgrade. Unless you're particularly eager for DirectX 10 or something, then skip Vista.
Yeah, that mouse gesture thing sounds like something I'll be turning off immediately.
We went with Vista recently for two major reasons: 1) support for 4+ gigs of ram and 2) 64 bit program support. We wanted both of these things and Vista was the only way to go. But I certainly cannot say it is something I am terribly excited about.
I don't know what to say or think about 7, but the first looks sound like a lot of fanboy talk "I'm sure this will be fixed." What makes them so sure?
And everything you say about activation, driver signing, etc. are real concerns.
This is the inherent problem with something as incredibly important as the dominant computer OS not being an open source project. But until Linux can run games and other cutting edge applications, it just will never be a true desktop contender.
Funny you should say that, because if you google for 'windows me vista', you'll find a lot of people have suggested that Vista is going the way of Me.Quote:
Originally posted by Pae
I'm so skeptical about windows now. I got burned by WinME back in the day. I was glad to stick with XP and not give in to hype and get Vista instantly... but again, once bitten... twice shy you know?
If Microsoft will release it soon, I'll still likely wait a year to upgrade various comps at home.
Doesn't XP-64 provide those features? I've never done any 64-bit coding; 4GB of addressable memory is enough for the things I do, so I'll leave the extra complexity and cost for the people who do video editing and such. (Even a 4GB _file_ is unusual on my system, though far from unheard-of. It is interesting, though, to discover what copy utilities are simply unable to cope with files that large, even if the file systems involved are both happy with big files.) According to my notes, Leshrak used to use XP 64, but that was almost two years ago now (20070217, alpha 4 of RosMud). He might be able to advise.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
We went with Vista recently for two major reasons: 1) support for 4+ gigs of ram and 2) 64 bit program support. We wanted both of these things and Vista was the only way to go. But I certainly cannot say it is something I am terribly excited about.
I believe it will get there. The trouble is mainly lock-in: game developers are accustomed to coding for DirectX, and the only change they want to do is move up a version to get more speed (or performance or whatever). Switching to OpenGL or another engine would be just way too much work. Porting DirectX itself to Linux would run into copyright issues. Writing a wrapper to let a D-X program funnel through to OpenGL would probably have serious performance issues, AND might still get slammed by the Microsoft legal team.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
But until Linux can run games and other cutting edge applications, it just will never be a true desktop contender.
However, as more people move to Linux for their business apps ("hey, why should I pay $XXX for Windows when I can pay $0 for Linux and still run Open Office?"), the incentive to write games for Linux will grow. And if lots of people play their favorite games in Wine on Linux, and especially if the developers start testing in Wine, there'll be people saying "Why bother with this layer? Let's code for Linux!". And that's what's going to drive the final nail in the coffins of both Windows and Microsoft... although they'll linger for a long time even after their deaths are confirmed.
I like mouse gestures! screw keyboard shortcuts, I need that hand to shake angrily at the screen.
I think the best solution, from the point of view of an operating system (or application) developer, is to provide both and let people use either. Sometimes it's handy, for instance, that you can right-click and select "Copy" and "Paste" - I can lean over to someone else's computer, grab only the mouse, ignore the keyboard, and do things. But other times, it's way more convenient to use the keyboard exclusively. And there are myriad times when it's possible to get the most amazing performance out of you and your computer by using a combination.Quote:
Originally posted by Blog
I like mouse gestures! screw keyboard shortcuts, I need that hand to shake angrily at the screen.
However, development time has to be balanced against utility. If Aristotle spent two solid weeks reworking Threshold so that you could use the mouse to navigate (and that's not purely hypothetical - I know what would have to be done to both server and client, and it probably would be of that order of work), you would rightly say that it wasn't worth the coding effort; but when I spent maybe half an hour adding a feature to RosMud whereby you could click on a URL as well as typing "url" to browse it, that _was_ worth it. Mousing is all very well, but I wouldn't put too much effort into it unless there's very good reason.
I have never heard of XP-64.
And I am pretty sure XP supports a max of 3.2 gigs of RAM, no matter how much more you stuff in there.
Oh, and no DirectX 10 for XP either. Another downer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows...4-bit_editionsQuote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
I have never heard of XP-64.
And I am pretty sure XP supports a max of 3.2 gigs of RAM, no matter how much more you stuff in there.
Oh, and no DirectX 10 for XP either. Another downer.
The 64-bit editions do support more than 4GB of physical memory, but there's some nasty caveats listed there, including a strange 128GB limit. Also, I don't like the idea that DOS programs aren't supported... although I guess DOSBox will probably do the job.
DirectX 10 for XP, from what I've heard, *could* exist, but MS chose not to make it available. I don't know about DX 10 for Wine.
XP Pro 64 has a lot of issues with running apps, and with the availability of Vista, XP64 really isn't a viable alternative to most users.
While there is a lot of fuss about Vista, it's not nearly as bad as it's made out to be. A lot of the complaints are from people who are trying to run it on systems that don't have the recommended specs or who tried to install it as an "upgrade" to older versions of Windows. If you try to do an upgrade, you will get some freaky problems, but if you do a clean install, things are much different.
As for eating up memory, it only takes a few adjustments to turn off those extra things in Vista that do so. There are claims that Windows 7 will have a smaller memory footprint, but all of the independent benchmark tests that I have seen comparing the latest build of 7 to Vista suggest this really isn't the case. The kernel for 7 is taking up about the same, perhaps a little more RAM than Vista.
I'm not going to go on a praise Vista thing here, because there are many things about the OS that could be a lot better. However, even if 7 is out sometime this summer, I don't really think it's going to be smoothed out for another year. That's why I went ahead and bought a Vista machine, and I have absolutely no regrets. I've used quite a number of operating systems - yes, even Linux distros, Mac, Amiga, DOS, GeoWorks, OS/2, UNIX, and so on - and Vista just isn't the demon that people make it out to be. People like to hate on Microsoft, whatever. Again, Vista isn't as great as it could be, but it's not a bad decision to invest in it now. The waiting game for a stable version of 7 is fine if you want to wait 1.5 years - and that's even if the initial release is just 6 months down the line. That is one thing that I will agree with the crowd about on MS - it does normally take them about a year to come out with all the patches and whatnot to calm a new OS down. That's where Vista is today - WAY better than it was when first released.
I agree with this completely.Quote:
Originally posted by Aristotle
But until Linux can run games and other cutting edge applications, it just will never be a true desktop contender.
What baffles me is why the business world hasn't adopted a reverse sentiment of, "Until Windows can offer the highest levels of security and stability while using a minimal amount of resources, it just will never be a true enterprise solution contender.
Right on. I had both my PC's crash in September of last year (and my phone, but thats beside the point). For my laptop i just wiped it and reinstalled xp. For the desktop I went with a new build and got Vista Ultimate. I worried over it for a long time after I pulled the trigger and went to Vista because I really wanted to wait for windows 7. But, as you said, it takes a while for MS to bring its new products up to speed so after considering that I think I made a great choice and Vista runs like a champ. With the new build, it runs flawlessly and efficiently for what i need it for. Vista isn't for upgrades or old PC's but for a machine that can handle it its great.Quote:
Originally posted by Deokoria
Again, Vista isn't as great as it could be, but it's not a bad decision to invest in it now. The waiting game for a stable version of 7 is fine if you want to wait 1.5 years - and that's even if the initial release is just 6 months down the line. That is one thing that I will agree with the crowd about on MS - it does normally take them about a year to come out with all the patches and whatnot to calm a new OS down. That's where Vista is today - WAY better than it was when first released.
We had Vista Basic at work; it took me six months to get it running smooth-ish. Every non-vital operation disabled, every "service" turned off, hours and hours searching through the task scheduler to find and disable yet Another indexing call. Plus driver instability. Plus update horrors. Plus the computers would "sleep" instead of being shut down, but then wouldn't reboot. Did I mention back-ups? No, cause it didn't have backup software. If I went back to the job and spent a few minutes kicking the damned computers to bits, I'd get a standing ovation.
I'll be buying Win7 (aka Vista rc 2) sometime in 2010. The visuals are tolerable (more theft from Mac) and it might finally be stable, but I'm still dreading another season of disabling all the crap; widgets, indexing, task schedulers, firewalls, user alerts, etc. I'm hoping to order a European version for home use, just to avoid WMP, but I'm not optimistic. If Win7 is as bad as Vista was, I'll be kicking the MS habit for good.
If anyone wants to try the beta they can get it here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...-download.aspx
It's not too bad so far, it runs everything that I need it to run, at the very least it's not any worse then Vista.
My browser just ate it after I typed up a big huge response to Deokoria, but before I posted it-- I'm not going to spend 20 minutes writing it again, so I will sum up my points here.
1) I've been using xp64 for 2-3 years now,-- I started with the beta build and upgraded to the full build more recently, and I have never had any problems running apps that were able to be run on xp32 (The single exception to this is antivirus/firewall software, the xp64 kernel is the same as Server 2003's, and as such xp32 AV/FW programs don't run, since major AV/FW devs didn't plan on xp64 getting a big customer base), nor have I had any (that I can recall) issues running 64 bit apps.
In addition to this, xp64 manages RAM and memory far more efficiently than xp32 does (and MUCH better than Vista); it runs faster and for far longer than my xp32 laptop does without requiring a reboot or giving quirky errors. I've had this rig literally running for 2-3 months without rebooting it.
2) Vista is bloatware, plain and simple.
There is absolutely no reason that an OS designed and geared for the average user should require you to go in and disable 57 things to get it functioning optimally, NOR is there any reason that the OS should require a 2.2ghz processor, 512mb gfx card and 4gb of RAM to run smoothly and efficiently.
3) If this beta build is as great as the original author of that article claims it is, and will be released in a similar fashion to how he's testing it, it is really nothing more than "Vista Service Pack 2", and leads me to question MS' moneygrabbing motives in the face of Apple's continued increases in market share. It also leads me to question their motives for rushing Vista out unfinished-- it seems to me as if Vista was pushed out the door, unfinished (just like ME and XP were), in order to ratchet up profits.
Why the fuck don't they take their new OS', make them as good as they possibly can and THEN release them?
Is it because, if they do that (make an OS that runs exceptionally well), people won't upgrade to the latest and greatest thing when it comes out? Is it because they're very aware of the sinking ship that is their company and just want money? Both? More reasons?
4) Dropping $400 for vista now is silly, in my opinion, especially with the impending 7 release.
From the bloatware link:
WHY not just give users the streamlined fucking version in the first place??? It's all about a) money and b) control over what users can and can't do on the computer... deals with record and software companies? This is one reason why there is so much "hate" for MS.Quote:
For example, with reference to the most recent version, Windows Vista, Microsoft engineer Eric Traut commented that "A lot of people think of Windows as this large, bloated operating system, and that's maybe a fair characterization, I have to admit." He went on to say that, "at its core, the kernel, and the components that make up the very core of the operating system, is actually pretty streamlined.".
Windows releases are already incredibly late. Windows Vista Beta 1 was released July 2005... official release was Jan 2007, and SP1 (when pundits started saying it was kinda maybe what it ought to have been at release) wasn't till Feb 2008. If MS had waited till early 2008 to release anything but betas (nothing wrong with prerelease betas to willing customers), people would have given up waiting and gone with Linux, or Mac OS, or something. There's only so long that you can delay a promised release before people start hating you.Quote:
Originally posted by Leshrak
Why the fuck don't they take their new OS', make them as good as they possibly can and THEN release them?
And WHY are Windowses always late? Partly it's just a consequence of Microsoft being a huge company. The bigger the company, the bigger the overheads. Also, Windows doesn't divide cleanly into separate projects. For comparison, look at two ready-to-use computers. One has Windows, the other has Linux.
* Kernel: Windows, Linux. (Let's suppose, Ubuntu. That's a Debian kernel.) This is clearly something that should be (and usually is) independant of everything else listed here.
* Shell. Windows: Explorer. Linux... let's suppose you're using KDE.
* Web browser. Windows: Internet Explorer. Linux: Firefox.
* Jukebox: Windows: WMP. Linux: VLC.
Each of these, on both sides, will have its own development team. The Linux kernel geeks are completely separate from the Firefox geeks (although it's quite possible a number of people do both). MS techs working on Media Player quite possibly are completely separate from those working on the next version of the browser. But the separation isn't nearly as clean in Windows as it is elsewhere. The kernel and the apps are far too tied together (look through the Windows API for evidence of that), and the browser and the shell have heaps of common code. So any change made to the shell might well require notifying the IE developers, if only so they can take advantage of it. Every bit of liason like this has the potential to slow things down.
The other thing that majorly delays Windows releases is compatibility. Unfortunately I can't cite a reference for this, but ages ago I was reading in a dead-tree book about the release of some Windows, I think 95; and during their testing, they discovered that SimCity for Windows didn't work. Investigation proved that it was Maxis's fault (they were breaking the rules of memory usage), but MS's thought was "People will buy the latest Windows, play their games on it, and find that they don't work. Since they used to work, it must be Windows's fault!", and so they deliberately created bug-compatibility with the older Windows. For another prime example of bug compatibility and the headaches it causes when done badly, look up MB_SERVICE_NOTIFICATION_NT3X - it's programmer stuff though, so I won't bore you all with the details.
Ultimately, Microsoft's biggest problem is that they're living with a huge pile of history. When IBM and Microsoft originally began work on OS/2, it was designed completely new (and maintained support for DOS programs via emulation modes). This gave them a chance to wipe the slate clean and start fresh - named API calls instead of interrupts, for one thing. It's time Windows did the same thing. Over the history of Windowses, a large number of problems have accumulated (mostly a consequence of poor design decisions), and have had to be dealt with, inevitably imperfectly. It's time to throw all that out and have a simulation environment; maybe this would tie in nicely with virtualization technologies - simply don't support old Win XP programs (let alone Win 95), and allow a virtual XP session to do them all for you.
Actually, a number of people are saying that Microsoft needs to do the same trick Apple did. Grab a Unix or Linux kernel and build their GUI on top of it. I think it'd be a Good Thing... but it's unlikely Microsoft would do it. Mind you, I wouldn't have thought Apple would, either, and they did - quite successfully. So maybe it will happen, who knows? It'd certainly make cross-platform work a lot easier.
Giving people only the streamlined kernel means...Quote:
Originally posted by Leshrak
WHY not just give users the streamlined fucking version in the first place??? It's all about a) money and b) control over what users can and can't do on the computer... deals with record and software companies? This is one reason why there is so much "hate" for MS.
* No Internet Explorer
* No fancy graphical shell with Aero and all the other eye candy
* Probably a command line interface only, which would suit some people but not others
It'd be well suited to an embedded server, but not to an end-user desktop. Your average user wants to point and click, not run a command line. Unfortunately it's really hard to switch shells in Windows (not like you can in Linux or OS/2, where a change of one simple configuration option will give you either a command line boot or a graphical shell, with potential options for each). Microsoft is not in the business of selling kernels - they're in the business of selling entire packages, suites, turnkey solutions where you just go "Okay, I have the latest Windows, now I can use teh interwebs and teh Word". And people want - or at least, Microsoft expect that people want - eye candy. Certainly reviewers notice the "cool" factor, and that translates into a lot of popularity, ergo uptake and sales.
Would be nice if MS could make it feasible to write a replacement Explorer, but I don't think it is. Oh well.
An interesting article (since I'm a conservative at heart, instinctively loathe change, and already hate Win7's taskbar without even using the beta):
Paradigms Lost: The Windows 7 Taskbar
That was a pretty good article. I used Vista a bit, and didn't hate it like I expected to. I only stopped using it because it didn't present a clear advantage over XP to me.
Add in some neat features, a bit of polish, decent performance and good driver support... well now it starts to sound useful. I've liked messing around with the beta so far, at least. As a natural keyboard junkie, I like stuff like this:
Less mouse use required --> Happy Talsek.Quote:
For keyboardists, the story is even better. Microsoft has finally decided that it would be a good idea to have keyboard shortcuts to minimize and maximize windows. No more alt+space, N or alt+space, X menu-based shenanigans—we now have Win+Up Arrow to maximize, Win+Down Arrow to restore or minimize. This is a window management godsend. The docking to the left and right is available too, with Win+Left Arrow and Win+Right Arrow. Peeking at the desktop can be done with Win+Space. For those with multiple monitors, there are also shortcuts to move windows between displays; Shift+Win+Arrow will move the current window to a different display. It makes me wonder why it took them the best part of 20 years to add, but I'm ever so glad that they have.
Here, hold on a minute! Aren't there CUA standard keystrokes for these? Why can't we have Alt-F10 to maximize, Alt-F5 to restore, Alt-F9 to minimize?! ARGH! They finally recognize the value of the keyboard, but they have to do it with the Windows key!!Quote:
we now have Win+Up Arrow to maximize, Win+Down Arrow to restore or minimize
and a few hiccups surface.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/windo...source=NLT_SEC
What insanity possessed them to flag rundll32.exe as trusted?!??Quote:
Originally posted by Riek
and a few hiccups surface.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/windo...source=NLT_SEC
Love that.Quote:
Microsoft's Jon DeVaan sings, "La la la, I can't hear you":
Larry Seltzer cures your indigestion: [You're fired -Ed.]
Another thread I have come to late. I seem to be making a habit of that lately.
I use XP32, Linux (Ubuntu 8.10) and Vista32. My order of preference is Ubuntu, XP32 and Vista32. This is despite all the fiddling I have to do to get things working in Ubuntu.
Forget (almost) getting games up and running in Linux try making it easier to understand. Ubuntu has gone a long way but if you look for help you have to wade through forums full of geek speek and command line instruction with very little and usually no explanation. I just spent two weeks tracking down how to get my mic working so I can use it in Skype. I have it working but I still don't understand how. I finally found an article somewhere that said do this, now type this in a terminal, do this now, type this adjust that ... well you get the picture. It worked but I have no idea how or why.
If stuff like this was easier, I think, a lot more people might experiment and the impetus would grow and the games will follow. For now I have Mushclient and Guildwars running under wine and I am happy.