# What do you expect from windows 7



## Monster92 (Mar 23, 2008)

What do you expect from windows 7


----------



## brian (Mar 23, 2008)

idk, i would like to have a bsod red  but it would be nice if they scratch windows and start fresh like they were trying to do with vista.


----------



## Monster92 (Mar 23, 2008)

how about a new style desktop and not just the taskbar same old place


----------



## cohen (Mar 23, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> What do you expect from windows 7



windows 7???? 



Monster92 said:


> how about a new style desktop and not just the taskbar same old place



It would be nice!


----------



## brian (Mar 23, 2008)

windows Vienna the next one from vista (2010)


----------



## Monster92 (Mar 23, 2008)

brian said:


> windows Vienna the next one from vista (2010)





no they changed the name to window 7 and it was going to be  called
Blackcomb


----------



## cohen (Mar 23, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> no they changed the name to window 7 and it was going to be  called
> Blackcomb





brian said:


> windows Vienna the next one from vista (2010)



WOW!!!!!!


----------



## brian (Mar 23, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> no they changed the name to window 7 and it was going to be  called
> Blackcomb



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows

they changed the name


----------



## Monster92 (Mar 23, 2008)

^ i know


----------



## G25r8cer (Mar 23, 2008)

2010? That sucks. By then AMD and Intel will be coming out with 8-core cpu's!!


----------



## cohen (Mar 23, 2008)

brian said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows
> 
> they changed the name



hhhmmm.... very interesting


----------



## Monster92 (Mar 23, 2008)

well the test version comes out next year


----------



## StrangleHold (Mar 23, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> What do you expect from windows 7


 
What Vista was suppost to be.


----------



## cohen (Mar 23, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> well the test version comes out next year



Wow...

isn't it a bit to soon?????



StrangleHold said:


> What Vista was suppost to be.



lol


----------



## Washrag (Mar 24, 2008)

Release date 2010? Better plan for 2013+


----------



## cohen (Mar 24, 2008)

Washrag said:


> Release date 2010? Better plan for 2013+



i would think so after what has come out of vista.

Fix vista first


----------



## voyagerfan99 (Mar 24, 2008)

I'm hoping for a more stable first release. Vista was plagued wayyy to much with issues. Hopefully it won't have 5 million different versions either (Like Vista with basic, premium, ultimate, business, etc.) 

I just look for simple to use OS's that are customizable or easily customizable through alternative methods. Maybe they'll throw in the works suite for free. (At least Word, Powerpoint, and Excel)


----------



## patrickv (Mar 24, 2008)

i want windows 7 not to be stupid like Vista..lol am kidding,
but the environment needs to be backwards compatible, meaning can run EXE's that were created in the 1998 days..

as for the look, well they should put a dock.. i know once they do this Apple will go haywire


----------



## cohen (Mar 24, 2008)

patrickv said:


> as for the look, well they should put a dock.. i know once they do this Apple will go haywire



it would be funny


----------



## Monster92 (Mar 24, 2008)

vk3fcll said:


> i would think so after what has come out of vista.
> 
> Fix vista first



what you dont even have vista you couldnt help me with my problem 


just in case you have had a go on vista 


what needs changing


----------



## ShoringFan (Mar 24, 2008)

vk3fcll said:


> i would think so after what has come out of vista.
> 
> Fix vista first



Exactly!


----------



## diroga (Mar 24, 2008)

It will come bundled with IE 8.

Hopefully they have better UI, some thing like OS X and compiz.


----------



## cohen (Mar 24, 2008)

diroga said:


> It will come bundled with IE 8.



Hopefully it will have it faults done by then!


----------



## munkyeetr (Mar 24, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> What do you expect from windows 7



The final nail in Microsoft's coffin. Fingers crossed.


----------



## cohen (Mar 24, 2008)

munkyeetr said:


> The final nail in Microsoft's coffin. Fingers crossed.



lol


----------



## voyagerfan99 (Mar 24, 2008)

vk3fcll said:


> i would think so after what has come out of vista.
> 
> Fix vista first



I know. How can they even think of releasing a new OS when Vista still has the flu?


----------



## cohen (Mar 24, 2008)

voyagerfan99 said:


> I know. How can they even think of releasing a new OS when Vista still has the flu?



Well maybe they fix the faults and add more to this new OS and then they release it.


----------



## Irishwhistle (Mar 25, 2008)

What I want it to be: A great OS that is very secure (without having security popups),  very compatible, and is very nice looking and customizable. Pretty much, what Vista was supposed to be.

What I expect from it: I expect it to be worse than Vista, which was worse than XP. It will have security popups every 5 seconds and still wont be as secure as XP. It will be even less compatible than Vista, but maybe this is a good thing because there won't be any compatible viruses. The only way to customize it will be to buy WindowBlinds for $50 (or whatever it costs) and that'll slow the system down.


----------



## Vizy (Mar 25, 2008)

Windows 7? isnt already like windows 9 or something? WTF im tripping out


----------



## Matt_91 (Mar 25, 2008)

To fix all the security problems they'd probably have to rewrite the kernel entirely to make all viruses incompatible. But then everything else will be incompatible.



munkyeetr said:


> The final nail in Microsoft's coffin. Fingers crossed.


lol, probably



Irishwhistle said:


> What I want it to be: A great OS that is very secure (without having security popups),  very compatible, and is very nice looking and customizable. Pretty much, what Vista was supposed to be.
> 
> What I expect from it: I expect it to be worse than Vista, which was worse than XP. It will have security popups every 5 seconds and still wont be as secure as XP. It will be even less compatible than Vista, but maybe this is a good thing because there won't be any compatible viruses. The only way to customize it will be to buy WindowBlinds for $50 (or whatever it costs) and that'll slow the system down.



Sadly, I can't help but agree that those expectations are probably right


----------



## vonfeldt7 (Mar 25, 2008)

patrickv said:


> i want windows 7 not to be stupid like Vista..lol am kidding,
> but the environment needs to be backwards compatible, meaning can run EXE's that were created in the 1998 days..
> 
> as for the look, well they should put a dock.. i know once they do this Apple will go haywire



I heard that they were completely starting from scratch on it, so I doubt ANYTHING will be compatible with it. (Although I guess they're trying to make a commercial version that'll contain the old libraries of code so it'll be compatible with old software...idk I'm sure they'll figure something out).



Irishwhistle said:


> What I want it to be: A great OS that is very secure (without having security popups),  very compatible, and is very nice looking and customizable. Pretty much, what Vista was supposed to be.
> 
> What I expect from it: I expect it to be worse than Vista, which was worse than XP. It will have security popups every 5 seconds and still wont be as secure as XP. It will be even less compatible than Vista, but maybe this is a good thing because there won't be any compatible viruses. The only way to customize it will be to buy WindowBlinds for $50 (or whatever it costs) and that'll slow the system down.



I don't ever get any virus' with Vista. I hardly ever run AVG. Vista seems pretty secure with me. There's only been one program that I've used that wasn't compatible with vista, so compatibility is no problem for me. 

The thing I REALLY want from the next version of Windows, is a nice GUI like Compiz Fusion. (that doesn't take 2 8800 Ultras in SLI and a Q6600 with 8GB of RAM to run).


----------



## Rothzael (Mar 25, 2008)

Monster92 said:


> no they changed the name to window 7 and it was going to be  called
> Blackcomb



Don't get hyped up on the name. Vista was going to be Longhorn. They are liable to change the name at the last second. Starting fresh is bad design. They will once again put some addons to NT and some fancy graphics and that will be that.


----------



## sakya_carya (Mar 25, 2008)

the most important one compatible with the old programs and games ,,, and dont restrict user with ms product only


----------



## Shane (Mar 25, 2008)

i cant wait to se what they come out with,BUT by then i suppose it will require alot of processing power and even more ram than vista needs today to run smooth.

i hope they dont just some new features and make it look better.

i dont think they will start from scratch,just continue from where vista is.


----------



## patrickv (Mar 25, 2008)

Nevakonaza said:


> i cant wait to se what they come out with,BUT by then i suppose it will require alot of processing power and even more ram than vista needs today to run smooth.
> .



i can imagine, most people cannot upgrade to vista cause of the price of the OS plus the moolah to buy new hardware or even upgrade a proper Core series processor.
i do hope they don't screw it up like they did with vista, way to many unneeded stuff, and that so call Aero interface,which was not needed at all in my op, am not impressed. MS in you're reading this, do make something nice and easy, not ram hungry


----------



## Shane (Mar 25, 2008)

> i do hope they don't screw it up like they did with vista



personaly i love vista,its faster..looks better and overall better than Xp but everyone has their own opinions 

i bet they will put a $$$ price tag on it though been greedy as they are.

if they do i think many people will switch to alternative operating systems.

it would be nice if somehow Linux became able to run windows software and games,there would be ALOT of people moving to linux then.


----------



## Irishwhistle (Mar 25, 2008)

Nevakonaza said:


> personaly i love vista,its faster..looks better and overall better than Xp but everyone has their own opinions
> 
> i bet they will put a $$$ price tag on it though been greedy as they are.
> 
> ...



I've heard Cedega runs most Windows games really well on Linux. With Google funding the Linux port of Photoshop, Linux just might get a lot more popular in a couple years.


----------



## JlCollins005 (May 10, 2008)

if linux could recognize filetypes and programs that windows could run it would be awesome, but as of right now we have WINE lol which if u know nothing about like myself is hard to use.


----------



## Tuffie (May 10, 2008)

I expect to still be using XP.

Tuffie.


----------



## cohen (May 10, 2008)

Tuffie said:


> I expect to still be using XP.
> 
> Tuffie.



lol.....


----------



## Dropkickmurphys (May 10, 2008)

Rothzael said:


> Don't get hyped up on the name. Vista was going to be Longhorn. They are liable to change the name at the last second. Starting fresh is bad design. They will once again put some addons to NT and some fancy graphics and that will be that.



i find this funny, Vistas CODENAME was Longhorn.... Not the OS. They do this to keep the real name of the OS hidden for as long as possible.

atm, im wondering if Windows 7 and whatever the first one was are both different codenames, or one may be the OS name.


----------



## cohen (May 10, 2008)

Dropkickmurphys said:


> i find this funny, Vistas CODENAME was Longhorn.... Not the OS. They do this to keep the real name of the OS hidden for as long as possible.
> 
> atm, im wondering if Windows 7 and whatever the first one was are both different codenames, or one may be the OS name.



well the codename for this is blackcomb!


----------



## mac550 (May 30, 2008)

brian said:


> windows Vienna the next one from vista (2010)


??? 2010, sorry but it took microsoft 7 years to make vista and it's a pile of crap, what makes them think that they will get a new OS out by 2010?


----------



## KevinKevin (May 30, 2008)

Windows 7? That preview shot looks like Vista updated. They totally need to re-vamp windows. Make something unique. Something that hasn't been tried before. If it's going to be a copy of Vista but just updated with no faults, what's the point in buying it when Vista runs great for me.


----------



## Ethan3.14159 (May 31, 2008)

mac550 said:


> ??? 2010, sorry but it took microsoft 7 years to make vista and it's a pile of crap, what makes them think that they will get a new OS out by 2010?



people said the same thing about xp when it first came out for the same reasons people say vista is a pile of crap. slow, insecure, too demanding for current pc's. just give vista some time and people will be singing its praises (maybe) in a year or so.

As to windows (nt build version) 7. I hope the kernel wont be as bloated as vista and xp were. One of microsoft's engineers did a minimalist demonstration of windows 7 and it looks promising, but you never know i guess we'll have to see what microsoft comes up with, and how much they'll bump up the cost.


----------



## Intel_man (May 31, 2008)

^^ No, Vista will still be a lump of crap and the only way I can see people buying it is when microsoft discontinues support for XP.


----------



## cohen (May 31, 2008)

Intel_man said:


> ^^ No, Vista will still be a lump of crap and the only way I can see people buying it is when microsoft discontinues support for XP.



And people are not happy with it.......


----------



## sameer795 (May 31, 2008)

minimal sys requirements!!


----------



## Irishwhistle (May 31, 2008)

I'm doubting there's gonna be a new theme as the theme that was going to be saved till Windows 7 came out early in Vista. I also read in the news that MS is gonna try and stay away from transparency...

Oh yeah, it's gonna have multi touch!  At least that's what it says in the news that Bill Gates said.


----------



## Rix (Jul 3, 2008)

First off,

Windows 7 has been in production since 2001, the year windows xp came out

Vista was just a way to keep Microsoft in the game against apple.

Vista works efficiently when it ran on the recommended specs,  People trying to run Vista home premium on a Amd Sempron 3300+ with 512mb of ram, the version of vista designed for you pc is VISTA BASIC, Vista is and always will be designed for modern computers, it was a move taken by Microsoft to get people to upgrade their computers to stop people living in the stone age and complaining of the lack of support from the new software.

For people who don't have new computers Xp is a dream o/s, for others Vista works fine, If you don't like either ever tried linux? its all open source and it has endless features if you know how to use it right.


----------



## Vizy (Jul 3, 2008)

Very well put Rix


----------



## cohen (Jul 3, 2008)

Rix said:


> First off,
> 
> Windows 7 has been in production since 2001, the year windows xp came out
> 
> ...



richard, i totally agree with you, post more often, i'll get you on MSN!


----------



## Rix (Jul 3, 2008)

Lol don't call me Richard... it might be my realname but i hate it hence why i use Rix

But thanks for your kudos


----------



## God (Jul 5, 2008)

Hmm, I hope the taskbar is in a different place, I hate it at the bottom, regardless that you can change where it goes..


----------



## Rix (Jul 6, 2008)

Windows Vista was just a bridge, to keep them in the game.... Windows 7 should put microsoft infront with flying colours but only time will tell if this is the fate


----------



## Sir Travis D (Jul 6, 2008)

I can't wait until windows 7. I hope to see regular versions supporting 8-16 gb's of ram,  and windows incorporating things like stealth mode into the os itself. Having the ability to down clock your own laptop, like you can with the m15x' bios, would be great to have in all computers.


----------



## mac550 (Jul 7, 2008)

munkyeetr said:


> The final nail in Microsoft's coffin. Fingers crossed.



well we can only live in hope!
lol


----------



## TrainTrackHack (Jul 7, 2008)

No reason. They have so much money at their disposal, they can waste a few thousand nails on their coffin just to pass time and still have enough money to buy out California and several smaller countries in Europe, before they have a reason to get worried.


----------



## darksoulfire008 (Jul 7, 2008)

i hope it can used popular than windows xp and vista


----------



## claytonr1973 (Jul 7, 2008)

Umm, I just hope it works. I could care less about this new or that, I just want something that works. Something that doesn't require lots of ram or processor power. I've always said that I could never give my money to a company like Apple but Microsoft may force me.


----------



## GameMaster (Jul 7, 2008)

I expect everything different than Vista.


----------



## tlarkin (Jul 7, 2008)

patrickv said:


> i want windows 7 not to be stupid like Vista..lol am kidding,
> but the environment needs to be backwards compatible, meaning can run EXE's that were created in the 1998 days..
> 
> as for the look, well they should put a dock.. i know once they do this Apple will go haywire



Nope, probably won't happen.  MS needs to get rid of the bloat that is backwards compatibility.  Sorry, developers need to update their products and quit acting like crying babies.  They should take care of their customers, and that also costs money so people shouldn't cry about paying for it either.  They need to totally get rid of all backwards compatibility, because that is one reason why Windows is so bloated to begin with.  If anything, perhaps make some sort of virtual environment you can run older applications in, if you choose to do so.

They are going back to a more Unix-like structure, and start to migrate more towards that model of OS.  User level preferences, perhaps no more registry, self contained applications, and actual local level administration.  Instead of power user, super user, super admin, and all of that crap that makes ACLs and other windows permissions a freaking nightmare to deal with.

I expect people will cry about the changes and whine about the hardware requirements.  Windows developers won't write proper drivers or applications and probably like a billion things will break when it is released.  Hopefully they will get more efficient at their coding and no longer require over double the hardware requirements over every other OS in existence.

Oh, and it will have things like full on EFI support and ZFS support and all that great stuff that was cut out of Vista.  Which is why when I said originally Vista was the new WindowsME.  Those of you that didn't believe me - I told you so!


----------



## EricH (Jul 7, 2008)

I agree. Backwards compatibility is the number 1 reason for the "bloat' and "insecurity" of any OS that incorporates it.

However, there is a reason.
The surveys and market analysis I've read clearly suggest that most users value their software applications and subsequent data more valuable than either the OS or computer itself.

And that is a very real and legitimate concern; thus affecting the base mentality of further OS development.

It's a shame that this causes so much problems.

But there are answers, such as a multi-boot system or virtualized environment, so if the OS vendors would push those technologies we could indeed have very streamlined, non-bloated OS's.


----------



## mep916 (Jul 8, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> ZFS support



In layman terms, can you describe ZFS? This has to do with storage, right? How does this compare to NTFS?


----------



## tlarkin (Jul 8, 2008)

mep916 said:


> In layman terms, can you describe ZFS? This has to do with storage, right? How does this compare to NTFS?



Well....to sum up the wiki page that explains it very nicely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs

It allows for virtual devices so you can merge multiple partitions into say a RAID and not have to use the whole disk itself....

The big thing I like is how it always writes new data to new blocks on the hard disk, allowing for you to go in and take snap shots for instant complete back ups.

You find ZFS on like SANs (and XSANs) and is used for giant data mining, and the fact that you can go in at any given time and take snap shots very quickly and efficiently it allows you to make full cloned block for block back ups of your hard disk.  Pretty handy if one is starting to fail and your back ups are over a month old.

Then of course you have the better checksum the better I/O so on and so forth, and again Microsoft is the last OS to adopt this technology, and they should have it in Vista given all the crashes the OS has, be nice to take multiple instant snap shots of your HD.


----------



## rydin4life (Jul 8, 2008)

Well, my pc is about 5 years old now, running xp on 512megs of ram...runs fine but I was going to replace in 09 with a new vista machine, but it seems like I'll just wait until 2010 and wait for windows 7 to hit...ideas on that?


----------



## tlarkin (Jul 8, 2008)

rydin4life said:


> Well, my pc is about 5 years old now, running xp on 512megs of ram...runs fine but I was going to replace in 09 with a new vista machine, but it seems like I'll just wait until 2010 and wait for windows 7 to hit...ideas on that?



Especially if windows 7 has full on EFI support, you will want to buy EFI compliant hardware, otherwise you won't benefit from EFI period.


----------



## Kill Bill (Jul 8, 2008)

Hmm what do I expect from windows 7. Easy! A blue screen of death.


----------



## speedyink (Jul 8, 2008)

My hopes are for microsoft to scratch everything and start from scratch.  Apple did it, and it did wonders for them, I can only imagine what it could do for Windows.  I also expect some damn nice eye candy  Otherwise the usual secure, customizable, stable, and some backwords compatiblity would be nice, but not necessary as it's needed for change. 

But for now Vista is doing just fine.  I love how people say it's broken and buggy and blah blah blah.  Thats BS, Vista is fine, if it wasn't I'd be using XP.  But I realize this is a lost cause, so bash away, cause I don't give a shit what the sheep say.


----------



## tlarkin (Jul 8, 2008)

speedyink said:


> My hopes are for microsoft to scratch everything and start from scratch.  Apple did it, and it did wonders for them, I can only imagine what it could do for Windows.  I also expect some damn nice eye candy  Otherwise the usual secure, customizable, stable, and some backwords compatiblity would be nice, but not necessary as it's needed for change.
> 
> But for now Vista is doing just fine.  I love how people say it's broken and buggy and blah blah blah.  Thats BS, Vista is fine, if it wasn't I'd be using XP.  But I realize this is a lost cause, so bash away, cause I don't give a shit what the sheep say.



Sorry, I disagree and think of myself as at least above a sheep.  Vista is a steaming pile of crap, and the UI is chunky and unintuitive, though it does look more pretty than XP.

It also doesn't really improve any technologies or securities all that much, but what it does do is take up quadruple the amount of hardware specs to run.


----------



## rbxslvr (Jul 8, 2008)

I'm hoping for a good use of processing cores.... It would be awesome if the OS could optimize already-existent programs in order to multi-thread when possible.

I expect a later release date than that which is planned.... not to mention that intel plans to release an 80-core processor by 2010, so intense multi-threading capabilities are a must.

I'd be happy with an improved version of XP, one that supports both better hardware, and is able to make greater use of that hardware.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 8, 2008)

2010?  When 2010 comes around the release date will have been pushed back until 2012 at least.  Who wants to buy a new OS every couple years anyways?


----------



## mep916 (Jul 8, 2008)

I've read that Microsoft is working on a subscription model for all their software. So, you would pay for Windows on a monthly, or yearly basis. Wonder if that would be good or bad...


----------



## rbxslvr (Jul 8, 2008)

mep916 said:


> I've read that Microsoft is working on a subscription model for all their software. So, you would pay for Windows on a monthly, or yearly basis. Wonder if that would be good or bad...


IMO... bad.

I'd rather just get it over with, and keep my software.  I don't like many commercial anti-virus software products for this very reason.


From what you've heard, is that a mandatory subscription?  or could it be like renting an appliance... you could rent one, buy one, or rent until it is paid off.


----------



## speedyink (Jul 9, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> Sorry, I disagree and think of myself as at least above a sheep.  Vista is a steaming pile of crap, and the UI is chunky and unintuitive, though it does look more pretty than XP.
> 
> It also doesn't really improve any technologies or securities all that much, but what it does do is take up quadruple the amount of hardware specs to run.



Well if you have your own respectible opinion on it thats alright, it's the people who say it because it's a fad that get to me.

I disagree with your opinion as well.  I don't see how the UI is chunky and unintuitive at all.  There are a couple of questionable placements for some options, but for the most part I find it faster and easier to navigate than XP, and definately faster than me trying to fumble around OSX or Linux.

As for not improving, it improves pretty much all the built in applications that are included in windows.  Networking is improved, laptop battery options have improved, the start menu vastly improved etc.  It has also been proven to have just under half the amount of security threats as XP in the past 6 months.  The hardware requirements are higher than XP, but seriously, whats the big deal?  I don't remember people bitching when XP ran like a bag of shit on 64mb of ram, whereas windows 98 was speedy under the same conditions.  It's a part of computer evolution, and at the declining price of computer components it really isn't all that much of an issue.  Leopard is also not all that far behind Vista with it's hardware requirements.  Plus I've seen plenty of machines completely capable of running Vista nicely selling for like $399.  Is $399 really too much for people nowadays?


----------



## tlarkin (Jul 9, 2008)

speedyink said:


> Well if you have your own respectible opinion on it thats alright, it's the people who say it because it's a fad that get to me.
> 
> I disagree with your opinion as well.  I don't see how the UI is chunky and unintuitive at all.  There are a couple of questionable placements for some options, but for the most part I find it faster and easier to navigate than XP, and definately faster than me trying to fumble around OSX or Linux.
> 
> As for not improving, it improves pretty much all the built in applications that are included in windows.  Networking is improved, laptop battery options have improved, the start menu vastly improved etc.  It has also been proven to have just under half the amount of security threats as XP in the past 6 months.  The hardware requirements are higher than XP, but seriously, whats the big deal?  I don't remember people bitching when XP ran like a bag of shit on 64mb of ram, whereas windows 98 was speedy under the same conditions.  It's a part of computer evolution, and at the declining price of computer components it really isn't all that much of an issue.  Leopard is also not all that far behind Vista with it's hardware requirements.  Plus I've seen plenty of machines completely capable of running Vista nicely selling for like $399.  Is $399 really too much for people nowadays?



399 is an outrage, and not to derail the thread but let me just give a few easy examples of why windows is totally nonintuitive.  For one, IE has its own set of internet options that will trump the system options, then why have the system level options in the first place?  If I go into control panels, or whatever and set default settings, I have to do it again in IE.  Granted, I don't use IE, but that is just scratching the surface.  Furthermore, many applications do that to the system, and it creates a confusion of where to go to configure what.  I mean for crying out loud user data is still spread outside the \Users directory, which to me is asinine.  Also, networking was broke like a hobo when Vista was first released.  SMB2 increased the amount of packets on a single connection by like 1300% and broke compatibility with all legacy connections, including SMB 1 which comes standard on NT/2k/XP and there were tons of people would couldn't file and print share at all.  sure some of it may be fixed now, but its not solid 100% fixed, you don't get that till about SP2 ish with MS.

Also, why can't the control panel be simple?  It should just list the controls and the options, on or off, or advanced.  It took me over 20 minutes drilling through looping preference panes to completely turn off that damn security message crap when I first loaded Vista.  20 minutes drilling through loop after loop of damned preferences in the same freaking control panel.  WTF were their designers even thinking, or should I ask WTF were they smoking?  Either way, I think it is a valid question.  Why aren't all preferences pertaining to networking in the networking pref pane?  I mean there are little things here and there that they do that just don't make sense.

Also, if you say, install office it automatically makes Outlook your default email client, which is annoying as hell as well.  Then you want to use IE and say use some of the built in functions like send page to someone, and if you have lets say a WAB and outlook is installed it changes all the IE internet preferences to Outlook, when a WAB is not compatible with that, you would have to be running outlook and use a PST.  So, they aren't even using any kind of database standard amongst their applications, again which is just dumb, and in a way locking you into a product.  

Where as every other OS in existence just uses open source standards, so if I don't like address book app #1 I can export and import those open source standards into app #2, and vice versa.   Microsoft does the complete opposite.  They aren't the only one that does it either, some other major mail clients do that but most of them have open source plug ins, and this is why things like LDAP exist across the board.  However, it seems MS always wants to make it their version so to speak, so their LDAP is never 100% compatible with anything else.

Also, I don't like short cuts or things on my desktop, and stacks is the answer to my prayers when it comes to that.  Every damn windows installer in existence wants to put a short cut somewhere, or it wants to install crap in a location I don't like.  No self contained apps are part of the issue.

Now add in the system requirements versus the eye candy and the fact that Aqua, Beryl and Compiz all do the same thing and are better and do it with less resources, another WTF were they smoking when they coded this.

I could go on and on and on, but I think everyone has heard my rants about Vista before.  Windows 7 will make Vista look like another windows ME, mark my words.


----------



## speedyink (Jul 9, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> 399 is an outrage, and not to derail the thread but let me just give a few easy examples of why windows is totally nonintuitive.  For one, IE has its own set of internet options that will trump the system options, then why have the system level options in the first place?  If I go into control panels, or whatever and set default settings, I have to do it again in IE.  Granted, I don't use IE, but that is just scratching the surface.  Furthermore, many applications do that to the system, and it creates a confusion of where to go to configure what.  I mean for crying out loud user data is still spread outside the \Users directory, which to me is asinine.  Also, networking was broke like a hobo when Vista was first released.  SMB2 increased the amount of packets on a single connection by like 1300% and broke compatibility with all legacy connections, including SMB 1 which comes standard on NT/2k/XP and there were tons of people would couldn't file and print share at all.  sure some of it may be fixed now, but its not solid 100% fixed, you don't get that till about SP2 ish with MS.
> 
> Also, why can't the control panel be simple?  It should just list the controls and the options, on or off, or advanced.  It took me over 20 minutes drilling through looping preference panes to completely turn off that damn security message crap when I first loaded Vista.  20 minutes drilling through loop after loop of damned preferences in the same freaking control panel.  WTF were their designers even thinking, or should I ask WTF were they smoking?  Either way, I think it is a valid question.  Why aren't all preferences pertaining to networking in the networking pref pane?  I mean there are little things here and there that they do that just don't make sense.
> 
> ...



399 an outrage?  I didn't realize people could be so cheap.  

I'm not gonna argue with you, but in my defense:

1.  Self contained settings has never got in my way.  
2.  I never had networking issues with vista, even in it's beta 2 stages.
3.  Control panel is not hard to get used to.  
4.  I like shortcuts
5.  I still think the system requirements argument is moot

I'm not trying to say that vista is technically better than other OSes, but for what I use my computers for, Vista works awesome.  It completely depends on how you use your computer, so don't push your views on me because we obviously don't use computers for the same purposes.


----------



## tlarkin (Jul 9, 2008)

speedyink said:


> 399 an outrage?  I didn't realize people could be so cheap.
> 
> I'm not gonna argue with you, but in my defense:
> 
> ...



I agree with you with the only exception is that I can do so much more with less than I can with Vista.  

Some of my rant doesn't even apply to me because I hate IE and I hate outlook, so I don't use them.  However, being in the IT field I have to deal with that crap all the time, and people don't understand it.  So, I was perhaps generalizing my point of view to the average user.  Average users have no idea that you need to set the default mail application in IE's internet settings, and they have no idea the differences between a WAB and a PST file, however they call me and complain when their systems don't work and I have to put up with petty problems like that rather than fixing or addressing more major issues.  So, to me, in the view of the average user, Vista is way clunky and unintuitive.  If it were intuivite it would just have one set of universal user level preferences, and be done with it. This is why supporting windows is a huge pain, and it is not always Microsoft's fault, some of the time it is a developer that is smoking crack.

I also hate how there is no command line application for everything like there is in other OSes, however, that is something that pertains to me personally and doesn't affect the average user really.


----------



## speedyink (Jul 9, 2008)

tlarkin said:


> I agree with you with the only exception is that I can do so much more with less than I can with Vista.
> 
> Some of my rant doesn't even apply to me because I hate IE and I hate outlook, so I don't use them.  However, being in the IT field I have to deal with that crap all the time, and people don't understand it.  So, I was perhaps generalizing my point of view to the average user.  Average users have no idea that you need to set the default mail application in IE's internet settings, and they have no idea the differences between a WAB and a PST file, however they call me and complain when their systems don't work and I have to put up with petty problems like that rather than fixing or addressing more major issues.  So, to me, in the view of the average user, Vista is way clunky and unintuitive.  If it were intuivite it would just have one set of universal user level preferences, and be done with it. This is why supporting windows is a huge pain, and it is not always Microsoft's fault, some of the time it is a developer that is smoking crack.
> 
> I also hate how there is no command line application for everything like there is in other OSes, however, that is something that pertains to me personally and doesn't affect the average user really.



Thank you for getting my point.  I understand how it can be annoying when people don't get it, but I don't mind because it keeps me employed.


----------

