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:
- It's faster. MUCH faster.
- It's cleaner. The UI has been cleaned up a lot.
- It's easier to use. A lot of the functionality is more streamlined
- 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).
- 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.
- It apparently has a new Start menu and taskbar.
- The included applets are modernized
- It may come with native VHD (virtual hard disks) support
- 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.
 |
|
Page 7 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #122 Thursday, January 29, 2009 3:12 AM
Expect Win 7 to go 'gold' around the 4th quarter 09.
Reply #123 Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:43 PM
3rd quarter it's due to go RTM actually.
Reply #124 Friday, January 30, 2009 7:21 AM
I wouldn't expect anything... There hasn't been anything said by Microsoft considering the release of W7 afaik.
Reply #125 Friday, January 30, 2009 8:33 AM
Agree. 64Bit only.
Ever since XP 64-bit was released (2003??) I would have liked for them to shift the focus to a 64-bit OS. Most apps and major hardware works in it, and with the added shift away from 32-bit they would manage to pressure the few companies that resisted to release updated drivers as well.
They already made a major mistake with Vista and 32-bits... and now it looks as if they will do the same for Windows 7... ...
Reply #126 Friday, January 30, 2009 9:37 AM
I think the major reason for the lack of 64bit support is because of the signed-driver requirement. Imho it's a good idea, but getting a signing certificate should be free... Verification by cash is a horrible way to solve it.
Reply #127 Friday, January 30, 2009 10:18 AM
Things such as display drivers work fine in beta, IE: Nvidia drivers. And no, you don't have to hit f8 everytime to disable the signed-driver requirement to use them.
Reply #128 Friday, January 30, 2009 10:33 AM
Things such as display drivers work fine in beta, IE: Nvidia drivers. And no, you don't have to hit f8 everytime to disable the signed-driver requirement to use them.
It's a beta, obviously the requirement is disabled. We'll see if they put it in by the time it gets released.
Reply #129 Friday, January 30, 2009 10:45 AM
I'm talking about Vista here, it should be the same in Win7.
Reply #130 Sunday, February 1, 2009 12:29 PM
Things such as display drivers work fine in beta, IE: Nvidia drivers. And no, you don't have to hit f8 everytime to disable the signed-driver requirement to use them.
It's a beta, obviously the requirement is disabled. We'll see if they put it in by the time it gets released.
nVidia's drivers are all signed, otherwise they would not work in Vista 64 bit (which they do).
In addition, all of nVidia's drivers are WHQL certified, which requires, among other things, 64 bit support.
AFAIK, all of the major manufacturers are signing their drivers now. Most of them are also offering WHQL ceritified drivers.
64 bit support is very good right now - I've yet to enounter a new device that doesn't support it. I'm having troubles finding this "lack of support" you caim exists.
Reply #131 Sunday, February 1, 2009 12:51 PM
More proof that Microsoft wants Windows 7 out in 2009
elvee quietly waits to get rid of 'VistaME'
And yes...64bit
...sorry for the big text on the link...
Reply #132 Sunday, February 1, 2009 12:55 PM
No doubt. I'll likely hang with Vista64 if they dont remove the DRM crap to be honest.
Vista has that same DRM so does it really matter?
I'm not talking about the DRM for Vista activation, which does suck, but the media DRM layer M$ built into Vista for third party hardware and software.
Reply #133 Sunday, February 1, 2009 4:34 PM
Yes, thats what I was referring to.
Reply #134 Sunday, February 1, 2009 7:18 PM
elvee quietly waits to get rid of 'VistaME'
And yes...64bit
...sorry for the big text on the link...
I made a slightly more proper translation of the alleged schedule (http://blogs.msdn.com/partnerblogg/archive/2009/01/30/n-gra-h-ndelser-inf-r-lanseringen-av-windows-7.aspx) for you guys:
Some events in view of the Windows 7 launch
Questions are raised about points in view of the Windows 7 launch
I asked Michael Bohlin, product manager, here are some dates, more or less definitive.
February 26, TechNet and TrueSec med Microsoft Windows 7 Summit.
March 17-18, TechDays in Västerås, our largest Windows 7 event during springtime.
May 31, Microsoft self installed ( ?? Yeah, I didn't get what that's suppose to mean even in swedish... 
)
Early April, after CEBIT, RC released.
June, July, August, Summercheck with a lot of presentations.
RTM and business release Q3 2009 as things seem at the moment. . The average of all intenal guesses here at the office at the moment is Oct 3 11.10AM.
February 2010 - Boxed in stores
Progressive information from Michael Bohlin the 7:th each month ( lots of saturday mail). The concept is prepared based on 7 Summits.
This is the business launch. Work on consumer launch is done in parallell.
/Lotta Båth
That's the lot. I'm not a professional translator, but I'm confident it's fairly accurate. 
Reply #135 Sunday, February 1, 2009 11:37 PM
Hmmm... I would think they would want it out before black Friday. If people know a new OS is coming out just after x-mas it will likely kill sales for PCs again. Did they not learn the lesson last time?
Reply #136 Monday, February 2, 2009 8:13 AM
PC Manufacturers get it Q3 2009 according to the list, which mean it'll likely be bundled with PCs before xmas.
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!
|
|
Page 7 of 7 | |
|
|---|
Reply #121 Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:15 PM
I usually let a few years pass by before updating to the latest windows, so that it's actually stable and.. y'know, usable.
comments like these always amuse me. Why? new windows OS come out every 2 years >.< Sometimes 3 sometimes 1... XP was a freak in that it lasted more than 3 years, and that is because it was somehow stable.
Its almost as bad as people who complained because the PS3 and 360 came out so soon... their predicessor was out longer than the NES, SNES, or N64... and don't even let me mention the slew of sega consoles. so like
; 2 years... its 2 years when you should be buying new stuff. any longer and you've made your money's worth.