Windows 7: Straight from the VPs Mouth

[ijm]

[citation][nom]knipfty[/nom]Strip out all the 32 bit code and make a 64 bit OS only. Package a virtual machine to run 32 bit XP compatible apps.[/citation]

I agree with this entirely. This will force hardware and software companies into supplying 64 bit software and drivers and take the market forward.

Now here's another idea. Include an XBOX/XBOX360 virtual machine and allow us to run XBOX games on PC. I am worried by the demise of PC gaming and don't want a console. So this would be a great solution.

 

[gigosaga]

You're right, most everything bad with Vista has come about because of trying to make things more user friendly, or appear nicer and they went about it the wrong way.

"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."
-- Albert Einstein

They made things "simpler" than needed. All the annoying things in Vista are small, minor, UI junk. The OS itself operates great. Things like the User Access Control, new Explorer functions, new Explorer folder layout, those are all junk. There are at least 4 things I do not like about the new Explorer and only 1 thing that is useful.

 

[seatrotter]

In terms of customizability (of the core/kernel), MS pushed their idea of what/how Vista is customizable. When it comes to what modules can be installed, especially during the initial stages of installation, the user should have been able to pick/tweak. Want to start a setup w/ minimum memory footprint? Sure, just remove some of the "non-essential" (obviously differs from one user to another) modules. Don't want the DRM module, even if it means one can't use the standard/some 3rd party playback? No problem, remove it, I don't care/don't want to view such content. Instead what users got was Home, Business, Ultimate, etc. A simple warning would have sufficed to inform/deter typical users from making a mess/ruining the initial experience.

True, it's nearly impossible to completely isolate each module w/o negatively impacting the system (such as performance, security, etc). But who knows? Did they even try to explore such system?

 

[chaohsiangchen]

UAC is actually a good idea, the only problem is that the implementation sucks. It doesn't have to lock up the whole computer user interface. Just lock up the process under UAC lock. Spybot did a better job for UAC then Microsoft, so far.

I don't have problem with UAC, since you have to su anything that require root power in *nix since ancient times.

 

[spaztic7]

Hey Spaz,

good name.

LOL... Why thank you! Fits me well.

 

[NightLight]

I don't understand why people have to degrade vista. It runs smoothly and without problems. An OS doesn't suck just because you don't like a few features of it. If you are a bit of a power user, you can disable or enable most of the features to your liking. I remember having the same discussions when xp came into play, and people were sticking to 2K. Those are the same people that now swear by xp. Just move on, and don't look back. Read a book on how to customize vista. It DOES allow for it!

 

[spaztic7]

NightLight is right. +1 for them!

 

[martel80]

Every person should do some research and ask themselves the question:
"Do I really need Vista/Win7 over XP?", "and if I do, why so?"
I guess it is not people needing the new OS (just for the sake of it being "new") as much as Microsoft needing to push/sell a new product and make money, touting "innovation" all along the way. Unfortunately, DX10 is a deciding factor for like under 1 per-cent of PC users. Many people will switch UAC/prefetch/indexing/aero off to prevent needless work of PC HW - what's left of Vista then? Linked IPv4+IPv6 stack comes to my mind (not that many people actually cared about this).
MS should innovate the OS where it matters. They should really ask the two questions I proposed and deliver a product worth answering "yes" for majority of PC users. They failed at this with Vista, IMO.