Wow. There was a lot of stuff on that article that makes it seem like the write has no idea what she's talking about - especially that whole tirade on signed code and absolutely everything on the page about batteries.
[citation][nom]Anonymous132098u[/nom]Wow. There was a lot of stuff on that article that makes it seem like the write has no idea what she's talking about - especially that whole tirade on signed code and absolutely everything on the page about batteries.[/citation]
I'm not sure what this guy is talking about, but I thought most of the points were pretty valid, and need serious attention from M$.
For example, hasn't Linux already moved to an update process that almost never requires a restart?
As for UIs, M$ should hire the people behind the Rainmeter Omnimo 3 UI. It's super impressive.
2.) Are you nuts? Microsoft isn't Apple and 99% of us want it to stay that way. I REFUSE to pay 25 bucks for the right to make a program, and I REFUSE to let go of any old program that isn't. Besides, Windows 8 is still going to ask me if I'm sure I want to scratch my butt (I mean, open that deliberately-downloaded program).
7.) Ever heard of Splashtop Linux, which does exactly that? I guess not.
Also, UFEI won't take that long, and neither do most BIOSes.
A long wait = old hardware that your mainboard doesn't like.
8.) Two things- RDP is slow (so there's noticeable lag when you start things in XP mode), and the My Documents backup is already performed by Windows Backup (and is also movable by power users).
11.) Recycle Bin contents are transferred during upgrades. If you deleted it from the Recycle Bin, why do you need to recover it? Why did you delete it in the first place? That's what 500 GB hard drives are for!
I also don't trust Windows. If I don't want/need a backup, I don't want Windows doing it for me.
12.) Windows already does all of that. Also, you can have my Core i7 notebook when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. The only thing is that, well, you can't predict the future (when you're going to use a program).
Other than that, some of these are reasonable expectations, but some of them aren't going to be ready for release even within this decade.
I was thinking that some of these things would get M$ right back in court the way they were in the EU with "including" IE and then having to give users a "choice".
As was stated in a previous post - there's a REASON most of us can't stand Mac's - we WANT to be able to do things our self. Here's an idea - have at the Install a couple choices:
1) I'm a novice and want Windows to handle everything.
2) I'm an expert and will make all the decision on my own.
3) Let me see each choice and decide.
4) Etc. etc.
As for the "signing" thing - why can't there be a check-box in the properties that I can tell Windows that "Yes, I approve this program." so that it doesn't ask me every single time I want to open it if I "Approve". I downloaded it, and installed it - I WANT it. Yes that first time, sure, but then make it "Approved" after that. Same thing for Programs that have to run with Admin rights (especially for us Gamers and Vent/TS - because they run in the background). If it GAVE it Admin rights (and had to "Approve" that), then - by golly - I actually do want it to run as Admin every time I open it!
Meh, most of these things sound good, but I can't think of very many that would affect me. Gestures seem like an annoying way to do something that I can do with a mouse and keyboard. I don't trust the cloud enough to sync all my documents with it. I don't need Windows to organize documents for me, I'm already used to organizing everything myself because that is the only good way to do it currently.
The fixing of update nagging would be a good thing. The biggest thing for me that isn't in the list is the implementation lf a system like the software repositories in Linux OSes. While doing thngs on Linux can sometimes be annoying, the software repository is brilliant. Ever tried keeping Windows applications up to date? You have to have applications that notify you themselvex or you have to periodically check yourself whether there is a new version out. It is a real pain in the butt.
Touch interface is a big one. Tablets running smartphone OSes just don't cut it for me. There are so many more programs for x86 Windows and an OS like Windows is so much more versatile than iOS or Android. You can't quite bend it to your will like a BSD or a Linux OS, but I don't know many people that need that level of customization. If Microsoft can get a version of Windows made that is tablet friendly then companies can start making tablets that a truly functional devices instead of smartphone/laptop hybrids.
More and more I stumble upon such consumer-oriented articles here on Tom's which I don't welcome since I always regarded Tom's to be oriented towards enthusiasts and people who know their stuff. I don't like this trend and I hope Tom's won't become just another Engadget or something like Gizmodo.
With that said, why does the author promote "user stupidification" agenda?
1) why would Windows have to store documents from Google Docs in my local My Documents folder? If I create something on the cloud that's where it should be until I download it (where I want to), not scattered around *automatically* god knows where. It's like replacing folder/directory paradigm in the OS with "search bar". People should be organized, not expecting for their files to magically appear where they randomly need it.
2) if code signing gets enforced, there couldn't be any free programs (from individuals at least) and hobby programmers would be screwed: what if I create some super useful program and I can't distribute it on the net to those who need it (and who trust me)? We would be confined to running capitalistically created software only (similar to Apple AppStore). For me, it's just another nail in the coffin of the liberty. They do it all to help the "layman" people out of the trouble with the computers, but what about rest of us? It's not fair to limit us enthusiasts by designing the systems for "layman" which becomes trend nowadays.
I dont like that programs are bundled into the word "app"
Having an App list with a phone GUI is one way to copy apple. The start menu is fine, why change it for a graphical interface if it doesn't need to be?
There is a difference between app and programs.
Apps are 1 shot items like a weather monitor, but programs are things like firefox or Word. Using the same word to describe that fart app that you downloaded on your phone to describe a productive program makes them seem useless.
You've put together a lot of the major problems with Windows at the moment.
I think there is progress on a lot of these with Vista and various parts of .NET so there is a chance of seeing better implementations with Windows 8.
All Microsoft need to do is please please improve file copying, just look at ubuntu. If u try more then 2 or 3 copies at once windows 7 has a fit and basically freezes, it needs a simple queue system for copy processes
[citation][nom]DavidC1[/nom]Is the author an idiot? Please educate yourself before making an article with such nonsense.Do you understand that ARM chip + GPU + chipsets = System on a chip? Here's a VERY challenging question for the author. Why is it called "System on a chip?"[/citation]
Dude i dont get your logic of where you got the idea the author said ARM = system on a chip with that quote.
System on a chip processors use less power than the usual combination of CPU, GPU and extra chipsets
Great to see so much discussion on this piece; it's a really good demonstration of what the Windows team often say - with such a wide range of users, it's impossible to please everyone with every feature ;-)
@Anonymous - I don't mind you calling it a tirade about signed code; I certainly feel strongly about it ;-)
@LuckyDucky - it's your right not to want to pay $25 to sign one app that you write or a hundred apps that you right (you don't need a different certificate for each app) but it's my right to refuse to run any app that isn't signed; and while I'm expecting that every Tom's reader can make that choice for themselves, I think there are a lot of mainstream users who would not be as savvy (witness the spread of adware and malware and remember that 95% of all copies of Windows are sold on new PCs - if people who are prepared to upgrade a computer make up only 5% of the market, the majority of Windows users probably aren't technically advance; nor should they have to be) and making signing mandatory would be a valuable protection. Re download warnings: IE 9 doesn't ask you if you want to run files unless they're files it's never come across (no-one has ever downloaded it before and they're not signed by a known certificate) - for common files you just get the Open/Save dialog, for the rarities you get a dialog asking you to confirm. Around 40% of those unknown, unsigned files are turning out to be malware. That stat alone makes me even more convinced that code should be signed. I'm impressed with the AppRep service in IE9; I'd be interested in your views if you check it out.
I'm very familiar with Splashtop; that's exactly what I expect Microsoft to be targetting with an instant-on feature (check out the Direct Experience patent Microsoft has for some interesting options). I'm going on Microsoft's figures collecting average boot times across all Windows users that show that while Win 7 starts on average in 12-17 seconds, the POST can take that long too; UEFI can be faster but often it doesn't seem to be and I see a lot of slow BIOSes on the PCs I test - they don't have to be as slow as they are, but system makers have to put the pressure on BIOS companies to shape up.
Not sure what your 12 comment is about (page 12 is battery life and I want a lot more than I get). Core i7 is awesome if you need 8 threads but for most things my Core i5 tablet is the ideal balance of performance and acceptable battery life (I've tested Core i7 notebooks with a massive 60 minutes of battery life, and even the 2-3 hours of many Core i7 models makes me feel that for many users Core i5 is a better choice).
@amigafan I don't think a $25 certificate puts development out of the reach of hobby developers (and one certificate covers all the apps you want to sign). Certificate prices have dropped a lot in the last ten years and they could certainly get cheaper, but it's not out of the reach of the majority of people who have the time and ability to code. If you have an app you probably have a Web site and you pay for the domain and maybe the hosting; you're making the investment of your time and knowledge to do the coding. Think of it like the fee to get your driving licence or passport.
I don't want to have to be organised; I want the computer to do that hard work for me ;-)
@ almost everyone: there are lots of things that it would be very hard for Microsoft to do if it made them closed and proprietary but that would be very valuable if they were done in an open and standardised way. Replace tying your Windows account to your LiveID with tying it to your Facebook ID or your Google account or any other online identity... The permissive Windows and controlling Apple argument is something I certainly agree with, but there's no reason anything ehre except enforced code signing has to be done in a way that takes choice away.
@DavidC - I'm sorry it wasn't clear that when I said SoC processes use more power than ARM, I meant the SoC x86 processors I'd been referring to; Intel is bringing the power usage down, but still not to ARM levels or even to ARM+package levels. Although ARM does produce its own MALI graphics unit many devices use ARM plus a combination of other graphics processors; I'm dubious about calling those packages SoC because they bundle from multiple sources so I tend to think of them as integration solutions, but I didn't get into that nitty gritty because my comparison was with x86 SoC solutions.
@Slite - I'm expecting a lot more simple functionality 'apps' to come to Windows, especially for tablets and for this to make up a lot of the rumoured Windows app store, although I agree - it's the rich and powerful apps that I use Windows for.
@mayanleoboy - that update allows you to run XP Mode without hardware virtualisation, but it doesn't make it fast or efficient enough for you to use it as the basis of Windows. We need hardware VT (and it needs to be enabled on all the machines that have it on!)
Thanks again, everyone. If I missed anyone and you'd like a reply, just holler. Please keep the comments and your own wishlists coming!
[citation][nom]amigafan[/nom]More and more I stumble upon such consumer-oriented articles here on Tom's which I don't welcome since I always regarded Tom's to be oriented towards enthusiasts and people who know their stuff.[/citation]
Then you're on the wrong site. I think you meant to go to http/www.tomshardware.com. Tom's Guide has always been consumer-oriented. IMO the similarities in the two names (Tom's Hardware is also referred to as Tom's Hardware Guide) doesn't help to distinguish their two very different target audiences, but the fact is they both serve totally different purposes. Have you ever seen a video card review on Tom's Guide? No, I didn't think so.
Anyway, I'd like to make a point about Wishlist item #2. How dare Windows, a dumb piece of software that should exist to facilitate my work, tell me what I can and cannot install on my computer! I'm all for sane defaults, and Windows' target market may indeed need hand-holding to protect them, but I will never support the complete locking out of developers who choose not to pour cash into Microsoft's coffers just so that people can run their software. Microsoft is the enemy of many FOSS developers, and I honestly don't see them wanting to pay. It could kill off a lot of these projects, or at least their Windows ports. The only winners in a system that forces all software to be signed are Microsoft and proprietary application developers/publishers who have cash to burn.
Force signing by default, sure, but give me the option to disable it as I can any other obstacle to me using my computer. After all, it's my computer (or is it?).
Oh, and I certainly agree about the restarting after updates issue. XP was a real nightmare because the "Restart Later" button actually meant "Ask me again if I want to restart in 5 minutes". At least Win 7 (and Vista?) give you the option to postpone up to 4 hours, but even that is missing the important "shut up until I tell you to restart" button which should have been there from the start. People are busy, and the OS shouldn't get in the way of work. Having Windows nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag, nag about updates every few minutes/hours is not doing anyone any good, it just distracts you and causes a reduction in productivity as the brain has to constantly switch focus.