Windows 7 and general bitching about OSes

[Lupin]

isn't this thread about windows 7?

[iindigo]

isn't this thread about windows 7?

It is, the subject just sidetracked off of what Microsoft should and shouldn't do in Windows 7.

[Xenor]

I think that Microsoft should give up on Windows 7. For me Windows Vista and Windows are very similar with Windows Xp.

[nastyness]

I think that Microsoft should give up on Windows 7. For me Windows Vista and Windows are very similar with Windows Xp.

I hate Vista taking things back to basics and not hiding everything under a flashy GUI will be much better.

[AceHigh]

That's true to some point, but some of the Windows UI conventions really keep people dumb. Perhaps the #1 thing is installers and how they put shortcuts on the desktop and start menu. Despite the message that appears that says otherwise when deleting the shortcut, an astounding number of Windows users think that simply trashing the desktop and/or start menu shortcuts removes the application from the computer.

Are you blaming Windows because idiots are idiots? It clearly says that it will delete only shortcut, not the program, how much simpler can it get? If people are that stupid they shouldn't touch a computer.

[iindigo]

Well I was partially suggesting that things such as the Programs start menu submenu and myriads of desktop shortcuts simply do not need to exist. Just have a cut-and-dry "programs go here" directory and make most applications self-contained (scattered DLLs everywhere = bad). Then if you really must have a program menu, just make it directly reflect the programs directory without the pointless shortcut middlemen.

[extra2000]

Windows 7 is basically Vista SP3.
They rebranded it after some heavy modifications. It's still the same kernal.

Anything from past Windows 9x are based on the same hybrid kernel. That means 2000, NT, XP, Server, Vista, and even the latest 7 is based off the same kernel.

Yeah, NTFS is pathetic.  When you've got a filesystem that doesn't correct file fragmentation very well, combined with dynamically allocated virtual memory, it doesn't take too long for the whole system to bog down.  We shouldn't have to defrag and reboot once a month just to keep the system running and files intact.

Regardless of any file system you use, as long as the OS utilizes paging memory and you do a lot of activity everyday, the machine is definitely bound to form huge amounts of fragmentations. When you manually de-fragment a hard drive, it just relocates the files to remove the unused fragments, it does not necessarily make your system run better or make your files intact, it does that so when you add newer files, the file system can easily decide where to insert those newer files. Also, it's not only the hard drive that de-fragments, the memory also does this. Even if you don't notice it, the main memory does some sort of compaction by itself.

Driver support? None is perfect. Plug and play? If I can run DX10 games directly out of windows generic graphic drivers instead of installing the graphic card driver, then I'm impressed.

The generic drivers will just ensure that the desktop environment will be rendered properly. It is not possible to install an all-in-one super video adapter drivers for an OS because devices are different all out and graphics card manufacturers want control as well -which is why they not only provide drivers, but also application suite that consumers can use to tweak the device.

make most applications self-contained (scattered DLLs everywhere = bad).

The reason why DLL files are created is for sharing program code and making the size of the executable smaller. It will also make the execution time faster because the OS will not need to load all those parts in the memory if it already exists. That said, it also saves memory space because functions stored in DLL files are only loaded once.

Linux, and any other Unix-Like operating systems, also uses the same type of files. Shared Objects are also scattered across the \root\bin subdirectory in many Linux Distributions.

[iindigo]

The reason why DLL files are created is for sharing program code and making the size of the executable smaller. It will also make the execution time faster because the OS will not need to load all those parts in the memory if it already exists. That said, it also saves memory space because functions stored in DLL files are only loaded once.

Linux, and any other Unix-Like operating systems, also uses the same type of files. Shared Objects are also scattered across the \root\bin subdirectory in many Linux Distributions.

I am aware of this. Mac OS X does this as well in what it calls frameworks. Most frameworks that aren't already included with the system are small enough that they are typically included in each program's self-contained .app package. However, if something really needs to install a framework for system-wide use, there are one of two locations to copy to: /System/Library/Frameworks/ or ~/Library/Frameworks/. It's very clean that way, so even if an app needs to install a framework, there's no question about where it's gonna go.

Windows could do DLLs in a similarly clean fashion. Have one universal directory for ALL DLLs organized into subdirectories based on function (e.g. Network, Graphics, etc), and include small, app-specific DLLs inside of a self-contained package pseudo-EXE.

[BluePenguin]

Windows 7 is not going to make a big difference for me.  Sure it will use way less computer resources but I have a 4gig ram laptop as it is and don't have any bog down in memory usage using vista.  I have more memory than I can use anyway.  As far as I have seen they look almost exactly the same too, UI wise.  I have not really looked too deeply into the technical aspects of it, but am I missing something that will advantage me (the average use) a lot?

[mgz]

if its using less resources and is more efficient it = better battery life on your laptop

[costi]

You may not care, but many do. When you stare at a computer screen for hours and hours each day, it's nice for the interface to not make your eyes bleed.

Change or disable it then, I fail to see the problem. It can be done with a few clicks.

Windows 2000, which was intended for companies, kicked the everliving shit out of Windows 98SE and Windows ME.

These systems had nothing in common except the name, it's silly to compare them to each other.

Windows could do DLLs in a similarly clean fashion. Have one universal directory for ALL DLLs organized into subdirectories based on function (e.g. Network, Graphics, etc), and include small, app-specific DLLs inside of a self-contained package pseudo-EXE.

DLLs go in two places: Windows/system32 and the program directory where it was installed. I really fail to see the problem.

Well I was partially suggesting that things such as the Programs start menu submenu and myriads of desktop shortcuts simply do not need to exist. Just have a cut-and-dry "programs go here" directory and make most applications self-contained (scattered DLLs everywhere = bad). Then if you really must have a program menu, just make it directly reflect the programs directory without the pointless shortcut middlemen.

It's all fine and dandy up to the point where you install apps in different places and your theory falls apart

[iindigo]

Change or disable it then, I fail to see the problem. It can be done with a few clicks.

I repeat what I said earlier with how the default theme should be more practical/one-size-fits-all instead of "yay look I'm shiny". One can change themes, but it'd be nice to not have a burning need to do so.

These systems had nothing in common except the name, it's silly to compare them to each other.

True, but Microsoft really should have made ME a relabeled version of Win2K instead of branching it off of the Win9x core.

DLLs go in two places: Windows/system32 and the program directory where it was installed. I really fail to see the problem.

Both are rather messy. I hate how the system folder is a huge ball of ambiguously-named files. My suggestion would simply add some much-needed organization.

It's all fine and dandy up to the point where you install apps in different places and your theory falls apart

No, not at all. Just drop a shortcut to the software located on a different location in the programs folder. When used that way, the shortcut isn't pointless.

[per]

You mean look at it for 2 minutes before you start an actual program that you need to use... which is usually full screen.

I more or less only run games in fullscreen/maximized mode.  A webbrowser in 2560x1600 tends to be a bit too large...

Actually, if I was not playing games my computer would be running ubuntu. Oh well. :-)

[iindigo]

You mean look at it for 2 minutes before you start an actual program that you need to use... which is usually full screen.

I more or less only run games in fullscreen/maximized mode.  A webbrowser in 2560x1600 tends to be a bit too large...

Actually, if I was not playing games my computer would be running ubuntu. Oh well. :-)

Yeah, even though 1680x1050 isn't nearly as large as 2560x1600, there's still a ton of blank space left on pages if I stretch my browser window to fill the screen...

[costi]

I repeat what I said earlier with how the default theme should be more practical/one-size-fits-all instead of "yay look I'm shiny". One can change themes, but it'd be nice to not have a burning need to do so.

De gustibus non disputandum est...

No, not at all. Just drop a shortcut to the software located on a different location in the programs folder. When used that way, the shortcut isn't pointless.

That's what Windows does all the time

[AceHigh]

Well I was partially suggesting that things such as the Programs start menu submenu and myriads of desktop shortcuts simply do not need to exist. Just have a cut-and-dry "programs go here" directory and make most applications self-contained (scattered DLLs everywhere = bad). Then if you really must have a program menu, just make it directly reflect the programs directory without the pointless shortcut middlemen.

Oh, but all the joy of having a shortcut! Without shortcut I wouldn't be able to have BF2 run atright aspect. I wouldn't be able to launch mods for it or Homeworld 2. Shortcut is the greatness! you can modify the aspects and the program executable is still unchanged!

Both are rather messy. I hate how the system folder is a huge ball of ambiguously-named files. My suggestion would simply add some much-needed organization.

You hate it? Is it something you need to check on a daily basis? is your life really so boring that you care where the DLL files are?

Anyway most stupid people usually stay away from those folders when they see the mess. It's for their own good, now if you can excuse me, I need to organize my system32 folder just because I will not look in it for another 3 moths or so.

[iindigo]

You hate it? Is it something you need to check on a daily basis? is your life really so boring that you care where the DLL files are?

Anyway most stupid people usually stay away from those folders when they see the mess. It's for their own good, now if you can excuse me, I need to organize my system32 folder just because I will not look in it for another 3 moths or so.

Haha, well no I can't say it's something I enjoy doing or do regularly It's just rather annoying whenever I do have to work in there.

I've actually heard of a couple cases where less-knowledgeable people were wandering around their C: drive cleaning up files and when they found system32, they just cleared it all out since none of files within had an obvious purpose. Of course things didn't work so well next time they rebooted. It's not reason enough to organize the system32 folder by itself, but I thought it was a little funny...

[BluePenguin]

if its using less resources and is more efficient it = better battery life on your laptop

Well that is true, but I don't see it being that big of a difference.

[Lonewolf5460]

Its nice I am impressed so much lighter that vista this is what vista should have been.

Running on P4 3.0 ghz 2 gigs and an fx 5200 (with areo) and its running faster than xp or vista ever was.

Dont make fun though upgrading this month to something more respectable.

BTW cpu utilization on idle 0-2% with my normal start up items better than vistas 5-7%

edit : 540 mb of ram used on start up compared to vistas 1 gig granted with CS3 and other intensive apps I have never seen ram use go over 65%

[extra2000]

Both are rather messy. I hate how the system folder is a huge ball of ambiguously-named files. My suggestion would simply add some much-needed organization.

Microsoft might never change it for backwards compatibility. Many of the system calls performed are stored in that //system/ directory, re-organizing these system wide shared objects will just put more work on them having to re-link the objects during run-time of older applications.

The reason for putting the specific DLL inside the program folder is to share common code across specific number of applications so when uninstalling and removing the program folder, it is not going to affect the whole system.

Haha, well no I can't say it's something I enjoy doing or do regularly It's just rather annoying whenever I do have to work in there.

You can hide the directory if you want. In fact you can hide the whole //windows/ directory so you would not be annoyed. Besides, why would you work with that directory? There is no point unless you are looking for system executables or shared libraries for use with other applications.