Windows 7 it is...now for my wish list

Monday, October 13, 2008 by Frogboy | Discussion: Personal Computing

So it's official, the successor Windows Vista is Windows 7.

Windows 7 is designed to be all the things Windows Vista wasn't including:

  1. It's faster. MUCH faster.
  2. It's cleaner. The UI has been cleaned up a lot.
  3. It's easier to use. A lot of the functionality is more streamlined
  4. It's richer. The ribbon seen in Office becomes part of the OS allowing app developers to have a standardized way of taking their apps to the next generation UI (I love the ribbon).
  5. The UAC is...a little bit better.  I still think Microsoft should have a setting to allow signed applications to be always okay'd by users if they want.
  6. It apparently has a new Start menu and taskbar.
  7. The included applets are modernized
  8. It may come with native VHD (virtual hard disks) support
  9. Better system tray handling

 

That's all well and good but I have a few other things I'd like to see added to the list:

  • Make it 64-bit only. PLLEEASE!
  • Give us better and cleaner access to manage the junk that loads on boot-up. (Stardock TweakWindows 7 will certainly do this otherwise)
  • Make it a LOT easier to share drives over the Internet

 

Let me talk about 64-bit a little bit.  A lot of people don't realize just how much effort developers have to go through to support 64-bit and 32-bit.  It's a mess.  Windows 7 is a great opportunity to cut the umbilical cord on legacy 32-bit.  Most modern PCs are already 64-bit. They're just running a 32-bit OS which is a shame. Drivers, desktop enhancements, and all kinds of other things have to do special versions for 64-bit because most people run 32-bit OSes on their 64-bit hardware.

Memory is incredibly cheap and yet we're still stuck with a 2 gig limit on program memory use (a pain for game developers trying to have lots of rich textures).  My next PC is going to have 16 gigs on it minimum.

Moreover, the handle issue of 32-bit NT OSes pretty much goes away at 64-bit.  It's just a vastly more robust experience.

I'm typing this on a Thinkpad T400 which is running Vista 64 and the experience has been phenomenal (and it only has 4 gigs but I end up with an extra gig of disk caching).

Consider the performance ramifications of a system that has massive amounts of memory. You leave your PC on long enough and you could end up with massive amounts of it stored in a huge disk cache.  Windows is using 2GB for caching my system right now and the performance difference is noticeable - very noticeable. If I could get 8GB for this machine, I would.

So hopefully, we'll see Windows 7 get a lot more 64-bit users.

First Previous Page 6 of 7 Next Last
CobraA1
Reply #101 Monday, December 1, 2008 12:17 PM

and right now im talking about rlly old games like starcraft, red alert 1 etc.

I haven't tried either game, but I'd wager that if Red Alert 1 doesn't work, would be because it's a 16 bit ececutable using a 32 bit extender and is thus not a "true" 32 bit application. But I haven't tested it.

So what you'd be seeing is not that 64 bit Vista doesn't support 32 bit applications (it does), but rather that 64 bit Vista does not support 16 bit applications.

32 bit applications work perfectly. Unless the application is designed to specifically detect a 64 bit OS and complain, I have yet to encounter any issues running 32 bit executables in 64 bit Vista.

They should work using a virtual machine, however. A virtual machine will allow you to run 16 bit applications. I can run Windows 3 in a virtual machine.

the only good example i can come up with...

Transport Tycoon, currently Openttd / TTDPatch & more

it's a great game, still is specially with improvements made, tough the basis is still just the old Transport tycoon,

alot of "new" tycoons were made after that particular game... some trying to mimic it... none ever catched as good as TT

Ooh - I love that project. In fact I created a patch for it (the aircraft queueing patch) . Even though I no longer maintain that patch . I *think* it works in 64 bit Vista, but it's been so long since I've tried it.

And while Java is technically cross-platform, in practice making a Java program run on Windows is not much easier than developing for .NET 2.0 and making the .NET program run on Mac OS X.

As a student writing Java applications in 64 bit Vista for homework right now, I have no troubles at all. Everything seems to work as expected. Can you describe the troubles you are having?

Leauki
Reply #102 Monday, December 1, 2008 12:31 PM

As a student writing Java applications in 64 bit Vista for homework right now, I have no troubles at all. Everything seems to work as expected. Can you describe the troubles you are having?

Does your program run on Mac OS X? If not, it's not a very good comparison.

The issue here is that writing a Java program that works on Mac OS X and Windows is not easier than writing a .NET program that works on Mac OS X and Windows. And in both cases you have to install the runtime on one of the target systems.

I don't know much about the current state of Apple's Cocoa bindings for Java, but I think they were deprecated. OTOH Cocoa bindings for .NET are up and coming. On the Windows side .NET can use both Windows Presentation Foundation and Win32 (Windows Forms).

Java has two or three GUI toolkits if I recall correctly, one of them (Swing?) doesn't use native widgets.

 

CobraA1
Reply #103 Monday, December 1, 2008 4:01 PM

Does your program run on Mac OS X? If not, it's not a very good comparison.

Never tested it on Mac OS X, but theoretically there should be no troubles.

Java has two or three GUI toolkits if I recall correctly, one of them (Swing?) doesn't use native widgets.

It has two officially supported toolkits, although I have seen other toolkits available by other developers.

The two toolkits are AWT and Swing. AWT is the older one, and has closer ties to native widgets.

Swing is the newer toolkit, using the MVC architecture, allowing for pluggable "look-and-feel"s. The look and feel can be totally custom, or it can include native components to make it look like a native application.

One of the biggest issues the Java team had with AWT was that different OSes sometimes offered features in their native interfaces that others didn't. This meant that the AWT toolkit could only really support features that all OSes had, and features that only some of them had were ignored.

This meant that AWT became a lowest common denominator toolkit with only the most basic controls available. The designers of Java wanted to overcome that limitation, and Swing was born.

Swing's controls totally separate out the application code from the drawing code. This allowed the Java developers to add as much functionality as they wanted to their controls without having to worry about OS limitations or differences.

Java distributions for most platforms also include a native look and feel, which attempts to make Java applications look native to the OS.  In the past, yes, they were largely drawn using Java's own 2D APIs, but starting with Java 5 they are increasingly using native controls when possible.

Microsoft and Apple created their own native bindings - which breaks Java's "write once, run everywhere" philosphy. But with newer versions of Java using hardware accelertion for Java 2D and newer versions of Swing using native controls when possible, the differences between using Swing and using a native toolkit is becoming less of an issue.

Leauki
Reply #104 Monday, December 1, 2008 5:01 PM

Never tested it on Mac OS X, but theoretically there should be no troubles.

Now we have "theoretically". In practice there are many caveats. And it is the same for .NET.

 

This meant that AWT became a lowest common denominator toolkit with only the most basic controls available. The designers of Java wanted to overcome that limitation, and Swing was born.

I understand that AWT uses native controls on each platform while Swing draws controls itself. That makes AWT programs look more native while Swing programs always look the same (and never quite native).

.NET has the following GUI toolkits:

Windows Forms - uses native Win32 controls on Windows and draws itself on Linux and Mac OS X ("Linux" represents here Linux and any X11-using UNIX)

Windows Presentation Foundation - uses native Vista/XP controls on Windows and doesn't work on Linux and Mac OS X

GTK# - uses native controls on GTK-based Linux and draws itself on Windows and Mac OS X

Cocoa# and other Cocoa bindings - uses native controls on Mac OS X and doesn't work on Linux and Windows

The common denominators are Windows Forms and Gtk#. Those programs look nice on Windows and Linux respectively but not so nice on Mac OS X.

 

CobraA1
Reply #105 Monday, December 1, 2008 6:36 PM

I understand that AWT uses native controls on each platform while Swing draws controls itself.

AWT draws contols natively, yes.

Swing is skinnable, and each skin is written in Java. Most downloads of Java include the Metal skin and a skin that looks like the OS. In recent versions of Java some Java skins that look like the OS are using native APIs to render their controls.

. . . and most Java devs will use the term "look and feel" rather than "skin." Don't ask me why, that's just what they do.

Anthony R
Reply #106 Tuesday, December 2, 2008 7:22 AM

As soon as 7 is available, I will line up with other crazed consumers on"blitz lines" and trample some poor security guy to death in an act of Darwinian consumerism.

Zargon
Reply #107 Friday, December 26, 2008 10:23 AM

Businesses are going to be hard-pressed to upgrade all their equipment and software to accomodate a 64b-only OS. I don't see it happening for a long, long time. There is zero incentive for me to abandon what not only works, but is necessary for critical business functions. The app vendors are going to expect big bucks for upgrades that I can't afford & won't buy.

Did you know that all hardware manufatured in the last three years supports 64-bit?

Why would users want to upgrade to Windows 7 if their PC is over three years old?

I second the 64-bit only wish.  It is a must for software developers to produce quality software at a low price.  Otherwise the price will reflect testing on Windows 7 32-bit which only a small number of people are even going to use going forward.  If your PC supports 64-bit and you are upgrading, why would you upgrade to 32-bit?

 

Daiwa
Reply #108 Friday, December 26, 2008 10:38 AM

Since the business OS of choice will remain XPP for some time to come, long enough for hardware to cycle, won't matter.  So 64-bit only should be no problem for W7.

jpmurph1
Reply #109 Friday, December 26, 2008 10:58 AM

When is the target date for Windows7?? anyone know, also yes i will make the switch, one of the reasons i didnt purchase another copy of Vista in 64 bit, even with my pc being a couple of months old, i will just wait for 7, I do know all my hardware is 64 bit ready, but i couldnt justify spending the extra dough on a 64 bit copy of Vista, i did contact microsoft as i had heard for a small fee they would give you a 64bit copy, but as i had purchased an OEM version, it disqualifies it, they told me to contact the manufacturer of my pc, so i had to contact myself, (Windows Vista Home Premium 32 bit is what i am running) even though a copy of 64 bit is like 89 bucks OEM at MicroCenter, that is 89 bucks i could use on some other gadgets or hardware

DrJBHL
Reply #110 Friday, December 26, 2008 11:12 AM

@jmurph1

The target date per M$ is 1/2010. Sooo...probably will be later than that judging from Vista and XP.

Leauki
Reply #111 Friday, December 26, 2008 11:14 AM

There appears to be an Itanium version of Windows 7:

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=66646156-f3e6-48d7-be22-de1772dd1884&displaylang=en

 

Luckmann
Reply #112 Friday, December 26, 2008 3:06 PM

I wasn't expecting a new windows so soon after Windows Vista. I haven't even had time to upgrade yet (because frankly, there hasn't been a reason to do so).

I usually let a few years pass by before updating to the latest windows, so that it's actually stable and.. y'know, usable.

Oranisagu
Reply #113 Saturday, December 27, 2008 5:26 PM

hurray, another hype to follow and be disappointed by

personally I just dislike M$'s way of abusing pretended technical problems as marketing strategies. I have a linux box with 16 gigs ram. 32 bit. no problems. another box with a 4 tb raid5. no problems again. there ARE no technical limitations as microsoft likes to put it. sure, in the beginning the magical 2 gig ram limit was there - linux solved it rather fast with PAE, in windows it is solvable too, but why? you can simply get the users to buy another full version of another useless OS (probably a new UI and the former limitations being raised a bit)


apart from that - I kinda look forward to 7 too

32 bit doesn't bother me that much. sure, if 64 would be enforced, maybe strange companies like adobe would finally start porting too - like bringing a fully working 64 version of flash. but until then, I probably stay with 32, its just so much easier (yeah yeah, says the linux-freak *g*)

 

lbgsloan
Reply #114 Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:26 PM

I wasn't expecting a new windows so soon after Windows Vista. I haven't even had time to upgrade yet (because frankly, there hasn't been a reason to do so).

I usually let a few years pass by before updating to the latest windows, so that it's actually stable and.. y'know, usable.

 

That's because Vista was more or less DOA.  The poor performance, lack of support, and DRM concerns compared to XP resulted in it being shunned by most people and businesses.  Even MS had to openly admit Vista was a failure.  Businesses simply aren't going to move to Vista at this point, so MS has no choice but to present an entirely new OS.  Even if it's just a better optimized Vista with some new paint, they needed a new OS that wasn't named Vista, and they needed it soon.

 

As for a 64-bit standard, I'd be in favour of this.  4GB RAM is more or less the standard these days, and it would make things easier for developers.  If I were forced at gunpoint to get new machine with Vista, I'd certainly pick the 64-bit version.

Alfonse
Reply #115 Tuesday, January 20, 2009 3:57 PM

As for a 64-bit standard, I'd be in favour of this.  4GB RAM is more or less the standard these days, and it would make things easier for developers.

Maybe lazy developers who don't know how to manage their own memory. But few are the single applications that honestly need more than 2GB of RAM. And I've never seen a game that is actually doing enough to justify taking up that much space.

Developers just want the freedom to allocate memory and forget about it. Gone are the days when programmers were responsible about this sort of thing.

mrakomo
Reply #116 Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:12 AM

You are not quite right. Yes, most software should work with < 32 MB RAM, but it requires more than 2 GB. However there are some applications, that in principle need huge amount of memory. AI applications, image/video processing and many others.... I do use 32 bit systems, but if there is a new operating system, the fewer versions it has, the better it is for us programmers (and users). So 64 bit Windows 7 with support of old 32 bit applications would be great. Many versions of the same system = mess.

AG3
Reply #117 Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:51 AM

I'm not sure what Microsoft has to gain from making a 32 bit version of Windows 7. Is it to address compatability issues with older software for people who stuck with XP instead of going for Vista? Seems a bit unlikely, since they most likely would be power users who could easily just opt to dual boot XP 32 bit and Windows 7 x64 (which I will be doing).

I just don't see a point in a new 32 bit OS at this point. More sales from people with dirt old computers and software? Frankly I think it'll only hold the software and game industry back by forcing them to either program for both systems separately, or make them stick with programming for 32 bit and thus never take proper advantage of the new hardware we have.

LOLCHRIST
Reply #118 Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:35 AM

I believe the 32-bit version is to run on Intel Atom based computers. (Probably already been said earlier in the thread).

Regarding Java GUI frameworks, there are a whole load of them designed to address issues with Swing (i.e. that most things built with it look ugly). SWT (used in Eclipse) uses native components and I'm pretty sure it has a Mac implementation. I expect you're meant to be using JavaFX now though.

On the Java versus .NET thing in general, I don't think there's any chance of .NET overtaking Java in overall share. Ok, you can use slightly outdated versions of .NET on Unix machines now, but you can find the JVM on just about anything with a microprocessor. In terms of actual merit rather than just popularity, I reckon it comes out fairly even honours. C# is better than Java overall*, but then Scala is probably better than either, and you have hundreds of language implementations on each platform by now. .NET has better Windows GUI tools, generics information at runtime, tail recursion. and Visual Studio. The JVM has, well, it has all the masses of tools and libraries built for it during ten years of being the dominant language. Plus, a lot of these are free and open source. Frankly, as long as no-one tries to make me use pointers again, I will happily work with either platform.

*C# should rip off Java's enums though, they're really very good. Also, generic WeakReferences in the platform library please.

Leauki
Reply #119 Thursday, January 22, 2009 9:39 AM

On the Java versus .NET thing in general, I don't think there's any chance of .NET overtaking Java in overall share. Ok, you can use slightly outdated versions of .NET on Unix machines now, but you can find the JVM on just about anything with a microprocessor.

You can run .NET (and Silverlight) code on an iPhone, but no Java.

 

GCFL
Reply #120 Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:10 PM

Just when I was getting ready to purchase a new shiny family PC (HP Touchsmart) a new OS is coming AND it supposedly has better touchscreen functionality.  I gues I will wait rather than having to "upgrade" the OS.

 

unless of course it is really 2010 or so...Don't want to wait that long

Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

  • Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
  • Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
  • Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
  • It's simple, and FREE!



web-wc01