|
| | | 
Senior Forum Advisor
 
Group: Senior Advisor
Last Login: 7/1/2008 7:44 AM
Posts: 877, Visits: 1,010 |
| I dunno. Honestly all of the features mentioned so far for Windows 7, could easily be added to Vista simply through a service pack. Oh wait, isn't there one due out very soon? <- Pointing out the heavy sarcasm. Hopefully new pics featuring a possible UI change will come out soon.
I want to see something innovative outside of the GUI. something actually user friendly.
Like for example:
- a completely backwards compatible OS. One that doesn't need new drivers for everything after installing it.
- an OS that doesn't require you to get a new top of the line computer, since the old one pretty much blew up after installation, or ran slower than a computer you bought it back in 1992
- an OS that has the same sort of system architecture as the last, so power users (like many of us senior members) can easily make changes without having to relearn where those changes can be made
I want to hear what the folks at tweaks.com have to say about the up coming OS, and what they'd like to see in it.
Acer Ferrari 4005WMLi
[CPU]AMD Turion 64 Mobile ML-37 Dynamic 2.0Ghz
[HDD]100GB 5400RPM Seagate Momentus
[RAM]2GB SDRAM DDR400
[GFX]ATI Mobility Radeon X700 PCI Xpress 128MB
[DVD+/-RW]Matshita DVD-RAM UJ-845S
[XTRA]Wireless b/g, Bluetooth, IrDA, 5 in 1 Card Reader
[OS]Windows XP Professional SP2
Confucius says: use google before posting, saves a lot of time and space on the boards. |
| |
| | | 
Forum Advisor
Group: Advisor
Last Login: 8/9/2008 11:13 AM
Posts: 677, Visits: 1,319 |
| I want to see something innovative outside of the GUI. something actually user friendly.
Like for example:
- a completely backwards compatible OS. One that doesn't need new drivers for everything after installing it.
- an OS that doesn't require you to get a new top of the line computer, since the old one pretty much blew up after installation, or ran slower than a computer you bought it back in 1992
- an OS that has the same sort of system architecture as the last
Gujusouljah is there any money in that, is that good business?
 |
| |
| | | 
Forum Advisor
Group: Advisor
Last Login: 7/23/2008 9:45 PM
Posts: 311, Visits: 792 |
| Well, for starters, I've had my hands in computers for as long as some of our members have been alive. I've seen some great things happen in all those years, (how many of us remember when hard drives actually became affordable?) as well as total product flops. (remember Bob?) Each year computer hardware becomes more and more advanced and cheaper in price because of mass production and competition, something that hasn't always been around. It's good for the consumer as well as business. If a product is well liked, it will sell well. If it isn't...well, you get the idea.
Backwards compatibility. That's a whole other can of worms, so to speak. I, personally, would love it to an extent. It would mean that all your programs and hardware that you put forth your hard earned dollar (or Pound or Sterling, and so on) would still be alive and well working for you on your computer. It's good for the consumer, but bad for business. But then again, it's bad for the consumer and good for business. It's bad for the consumer because of all the extra DLL's and files that have to be included in an operating system to make those old programs run. And any "old timer" to computers, knows that the more your hard drive has in it, the slower and less reliable your machine becomes. Think of your hard drive as your garage. Over the years, the more stuff you put in it, the harder it becomes to find what you want. The same for real life. The more that you put in your garage, the longer it takes to find what you want...and eventually, rummaging and moving through it, something is gonna "crash" down, just like your computer.
You use your product for years and years, but the company that made it only sees the initial purchase and doesn't make any more money off of it. Good for you, bad for them. Then the business thinks..."what if we made something like what they have now, BUT let's change it around a bit. AND make it so that they have to have a "top of the line" computer to run it. AND make their old version not run anymore because we're gonna kill backwards compatibility." (this is sounding more and more like Vista, isn't it?)  Either love it, or hate it. I stand divided since I bought my laptop. A Sony Vaio with Home Premium OEM installed. It's nice...it looks good...it runs great..the Vista Glass is a plus for me. In the three weeks since I bought it, I've already hacked the uxtheme and installed multiple styles and themes just to suit me and my tastes.
Which leads me to the internet browser. If anyone knows me, I use Firefox and ONLY Firefox. I stay as far away from IE as possible. It's just a personal choice, not a religion. Since my early computing days, I've always used the alternative browser. I started with Mozilla, then to Netscape, then finally to Firefox. Sure, there's times when an activeX must be used to see the website, but that's as far as it goes and then I'm done with it. I know the security risks associated with an activeX browser and using scripting, so I use those only on trusted sites with IE. It's rare if I ever have an issue with my machine messing up to the point of having to reinstall the operating system because of some piece of nastyware got into it and wreaked havoc. I see it all the time on other friends' computers, as well as some of my clients' machines.
As far as the architecture of the operating system, that would be a personal choice. Different products that have the same functions are normally in different places. That's just the way the world works. It's the way business works. I can't help it, you can't help it. It WOULD be nice to see the same features in the same place in different architectures, but that would call for a special meeting with the "people in charge" that would have to call a special secession to call a special "standard" that billions of dollars would have to change hands over tens of years..by then we've all forgotten what we were fighting for, and business moves forwards. (I'm speaking in extreme sarcasm there, of course)
Maybe I see life a little bit differently than most others do. Maybe I don't. I DO know it's late and I'm going to sleep now. (WHEW! what a rant)
Goodnight!
___________________________________________________
 |
| |
| | | 
Forum Administrator
Group: Administrators
Last Login: 8/9/2008 6:13 AM
Posts: 8,207, Visits: 16,485 |
| | I've always viewed the primary function of the OS to be nothing more than an interface between the HW & the user. All that's ever been important to me is for the OS to work as seamlessly and transparently with as many hardware components and software applications as possible "out of the box", yet be flexible enough to work with whatever wasn't around when it was designed with little or no "tweaking". To that extent I agree with much of what Gujusouljah and Ctrl_Alt_Del said. The ability to "skin" or personalize the interface is nice, but has never been important to me. And if there are a lot of additional features that's fine, but then the ability to "tweak" - or enable/disable - them is important. For better or worse, as software has become more complex and as hardware has become more technologically advanced and as "online" has become less of something one does while on the computer and more of a way of life, demands on the OS increase almost daily and the need for it to take more of an active rather than passive role increases. The OS needs to be more and more robust and lines of code increase exponentially. And what we often lose sight of is that the operating system needs to be every bit as effective and efficient for the power user as it does for the recreational surfer or sophisticated gamer (is that an oxymoron? ). Catch-22: in order for the operating system to be as "simple" and all-encompassing as we want it needs to be more advanced and comprehensive with each release and actually puts more demands on the hardware, causing the hardware to be more expensive and complicated so it can work comfortably with the OS. In the end, I'd still like Windows to "be there, but not be there" - but with every new technological innovation and software revelation I believe that becomes more and more difficult - and unlikely.
________________________________________
|
| |
| | |
Senior Forum Advisor
Group: Senior Advisor
Last Login: 7/1/2008 7:44 AM
Posts: 877, Visits: 1,010 |
| To Chilly Willy: In regards to there being business in it, it depends heavily on the target market. As Ctrl_Alt_Del mentioned hardware vendors would be at a loss. But since when has Microsoft cared about the hardware vendors, other than maybe Intel. (Which got them into a mess anyways)
The unanimous consensus is that Vista was a flop on so many levels, mainly due to the fact that most computers were just not ready for it. I'm gonna guess that the good majority of Microsofts target market pretty much has 2 uses for the computer, office and the internet. Media and gaming come next to the rest. The first two require just the basics, with media and gaming users tech savvy enough to know how much power their gonna need out of their computer. Unfortunately even with prior releases of Windows, the consumer never really had a choice of what OS was to be installed on their new computer. It's usually just the latest one, so business for microsoft is always good.
Fortunately users like us CAN tolerate Vista, but to the rest they HAVE to tolerate it. We have the choice of saying 'what is this useless annoying part of Vista/XP that is making the veins in my forehead bulge?'....'I TWEAK YOU INTO NON-EXISTENCE'. Or even 'WHY ARE YOU SO SLOW?!!!'
.....tweak tweak tweak hack hack hack....result = computer on steroids.
Talking about affordability, my dad just recently got a laptop for $499 with Vista, 160G HDD, 2G Ram, 1.8Ghz Processor, a webcam, and dvd-writer with a FREE wireless optical mouse, and he uses it to watch cricket in bed. 
IMO Microsoft is trying too hard to match the feature list presented by the Mac OS, by introducing overly exaggerated minor features like Flip and Flip 3d , or extremely robust and useless to 95% of users like Windows SideShow.
Acer Ferrari 4005WMLi
[CPU]AMD Turion 64 Mobile ML-37 Dynamic 2.0Ghz
[HDD]100GB 5400RPM Seagate Momentus
[RAM]2GB SDRAM DDR400
[GFX]ATI Mobility Radeon X700 PCI Xpress 128MB
[DVD+/-RW]Matshita DVD-RAM UJ-845S
[XTRA]Wireless b/g, Bluetooth, IrDA, 5 in 1 Card Reader
[OS]Windows XP Professional SP2
Confucius says: use google before posting, saves a lot of time and space on the boards. |
| |
| | | 
Senior Forum Advisor
Group: Senior Advisor
Last Login: 8/8/2008 7:33 PM
Posts: 1,391, Visits: 775 |
| I can say they definitely need to improve on the first release of Win 7. I upgraded this OLD pc to Vista back in April, yet only see the true speed of my pc since SP1 was installed. I must agree with Allan in that I want my pc to do what I need it to do, period. Its a shame that the new WOW only appeared after a service pack. Makes me feel like a paying beta tester. Hopefully Win 7 will not put us thru that debacle again. 
________________________________________________________________
 |
| |
| | | Junior Member
Group: Forum Members
Last Login: 7/31/2008 5:21 PM
Posts: 133, Visits: 350 |
| Good day lads!
Alright, I think that Windows 7 needs serious speed improvements over Vista and like Gujusouljah said, it should be a backward compatible OS so, I can play old outdated games like Need For Speed II etc .
And finally, I hope that Windows 7 will follow what users have been telling Microsoft like make it faster, no more WGA stuff.
  |
| |
| | | | |
|
