Windows Windows 7 : Your hopes and dreams?

MS already made a big step in this: Win9x-->WinNT.

In 9x all drivers were kernel mode drivers and even a small lockup gave you a BSOD. In NT, only some drivers are kernel mode (mainly display and virtual drives and such) so there are less BSODs caused by drivers.

Agreed, it would be the next big step if NO drivers were kernel mode.

 

I expect nothing.

I will still be disappointed, probably.

 

I wish my hopes were posible but there's no point listing them because it will turn windows into a good system and that's something that will never happen, too many interests involved.

 

(Peel's back lid on can of worms)

You know half the Windows haters probably actually use it more than any other OS!

The whole Microsoft sucks things is so yesterday, I wish people would move on. Windows is fine in so many scenarios, just learn how to use it. If my 82 year old Granny can zip through XP, and you cant then step away from the keyboard.....hehe:

 

Yeah, that's why we hate it

My G/F says she can alway tell whrn I'm using windows from the screams of frustration coming from the office.

 

What do you need Windows for that another OS does not provide?

 

gaming. unfortunately.

 

nothing, at home hence no windows install, an tech i use it for the internet access in class

 

- easy to use however flexible.
- offer maximum hardware, software and peripheral device support.
- Support for the latest technologies.
- Fast support for security issues, (MacOS does not offer this, and it seams you'll probably have to pay, and Linux is a dunno, as no as there is no major attack for the it's few users... My guess is a slow fix, and a big mess as it would have several solutions as everything think differently so it would take too much time until everyone agrees (That is my guess, we all don't know for sure, until it occurs))
- Games
- Auto-maintenance, no worries


That is what is comes in mind.

 

Games
Hardware support (with REAL drivers)

but that's all, I prefer linux and would use it if my hardware performed flawlessy on it. But no such luck, My dad's pc won't even let him use sound, onboard or soundcard with linux.

 

Until yesterday, I needed it to access a dialup ISP that doesn't support anything but windows.

However, now that I have DSL in, the first thing I downloaded on it was the latest linux version, so as soon as I get a couple days off, I plan to replace my (dead) linux drive and switch back. Once that's up and running I'll do a clean install of XP64 for gaming, which will probably pretty much not get used for anything else.

@Goodbytes:

Actually, linux, or the kernel and core software anyway, has incrediably fast fixes for security issues due to the software being open source and community driven. A few years ago a boneheaded, but potentially dangerous bug was discovered in the software and the time from discovery to patching and updating the mirrors with a fixed version was something like 16 hours. The fact that thousands of people around the world, and not just a few developers, are looking at the code makes for a much more dynamic and rapid response.

 

I have to admit, I agree with this statement.

Long story short, Microsoft does not want Windows to be like Linux. Why? Because they want to make money. What I think they should focus on for a bit more than anything else is how to structure their approach to the operating system so that it works out best financially for both themselves and for the end user. A complete modularity that allows the operating system to be changed and configured as technology improves, for a fee. A computer is an essential tool in today's society, and just as before we paid the smith and the candle maker for their necessary tools, software should be supported by our willingness to part with part of our hard earned salaries as well. Conversely, the software companies need to remodel their licensing and purchasing paradigm so as to accompany a fair way of doing this. Or maybe I just need the right people to help me make an OS and I'll do it... ye Microsoft pansies!.

 

Why should i give my hard earned money to MS when someone else is offering a product that better suits my needs and style and is doing so for free? Lots of companies are making money in the open source marketplace by offering support, customized software, or add-ons such as codecs. It's a different, and admittedly more difficult market, but a viable one none the less.

 

Red Hat... considered one of the biggest Linux companies around, grossed 147 Million dollars last year, by contrast Microsoft grossed 51 billion.

If you want features in your software, you have to pay people to write them, that is why Linux is not a competitor to Microsoft and Apple is, because they have the money to pay people to write this software and only write this software. I have some strong opinions about people who want stuff for free, I'm the type of guy that downloads Fedora then donates to the project, also the type of guy that buys a coffee and leaves the change for the waitstaff, because I believe in people honoring other peoples contributions to our society and our life with more than just words. Regardless, you are free to do what you want, which is why Linux exists, even as just a "hobby" OS at times, and why Red Hat can't compete with Microsoft.

I apologize if that comes across strongly. My views are my own.

On a more practical scale, as I said before, that is why Microsoft is how they are, they produce crappy products that don't work at launch because their licensing/purchasing model does not fit the idea of widespread testing (at least not testing as widespread as their product reaches, which is every corner of the earth) or modular software with renewable income. They force paradigm changes because that is how they make their money, and until they change that philosophy, their products will become harder and harder to use/get accustomed to because they represent such large leaps in technology. If Vista had been released in a sectional manner as plugins and apps, Microsoft could have realized what didn't work for their consumers and offered an alternative route, not to mention many things we all hate about it would have been the only change, one at a time, and we most likely would have become accustomed to it and liked those features, not to mention adjusted them to work better in the end.

 

All operating systems have auto-update systems in place, and both Apple and the myriad Linux distros tend to be MUCH faster at releasing hotfixes than Microsoft for critical issues (they also occur less frequently, and tend to do less damage to affected systems). I don't know where you got the idea that Apple charges for security fixes, but you're completely wrong about it. If you're going to bash the competition, at least be informed about it.

For the day-to-day tasks of most users, all of the OSs are about equally easy to use. Obviously there's some learning curve going from one to the next, but browsing, email, and office documents are equally well-supported on all platforms (and mind you, it's stupidly expensive to use MS's office suite).

Microsoft definitely wins for hardware and games support though. That's the only area that MS exists in my life these days. I'd really like to see more developers work with the more cross-platform OpenGL but the DirectX APIs are miles ahead and have other benefits so that's unlikely to happen.

@LordLuciendar - not sure where you're going with the RedHat argument. Cthippo asked why he should buy Windows when Linux works better for him, not which company has a better business model. Of course, you're not only making an unfair comparison (MS has a lot more revenue streams than just Windows - I'm pretty sure they make significantly more from Office licenses, not to mention their entire games division, AND they come pre-bundled with almost every off-the-shelf computer out there), but Microsoft recognizes a majority of its software revenues as support-based income. Unlike with RHEL you don't have the option to get their products without support for free, but it hardly matters as most large-scale business purchases put more weight on the quality and duration of support than of the product itself (I used to work in software sales so I'm familiar with numbers and trends for the industry). And for not competing with MS, you have to also consider that Redhat is going against a company with about 90% of the market share, a tremendously larger staff, and an ungodly marketing budget. I bet the two companies are pretty close in terms of revenue-per-employee ratio, not that it's an especially meaningful measurement.

 

I never said that they are doing it, I said that if they continue their pursue in trying to make money of updates, they may soon charge for updates related to security issues. I take it as a future possibility.

 

The point I'm trying to make is why should we pay for Linux, or whatever operating system we use. If we want all of these features in an operating system, the developers need to make them, and they should be rewarded for their efforts. Microsoft wins the race because they do make money from their software so they can make new features on a regular basis and blow Linux away. However, I also said that Linux has the ability to have new features occur as they come out, allowing people to try them out, like them or hate them, and decide if they want to use them in the end. Microsoft needs to change their "lets put all these cool things in an OS all at once and see what people do" and mimic the Linux model if they wish to keep their massive lead over the rest of the world.

Simply put, Microsoft has the cash to smother any competition with the second largest R&D department in the technology field, but because of their licensing model, they can't adapt fast or smooth enough to appease the masses, they need to change it, and we need to support that change by being willing to pay for it in comparison to Linux. Microsoft isn't going to change the licensing to look like Linux when Linux is free, they'd lose customers.

 

I want to be able to trust windows7. Install it, setup as I like, and then use it without having to think/worry about anything.

Like DOS 6.22 was. Install, setup autoexec menu system for diff mem settings, and then just use it.

 

DOS was better because it had less hardware configuration possibilities, so it was easy to test. Today, we have uncountable (ok ok, calm down, everything is countable, but you know what I mean) number of possibilities and so many companies and countless products, its really hard to to test.
I mean look after billions of dollars spent on Vista, after a private and public beta of Vista, it still had issues at the end. Heck, I think that even thus you had DOS drivers, you would now have issues with it as it can support all this new technologies.

 

point taken, windows7 should have a centralized online driver archive with 1 click installation of drivers required for your system. ie install windows7, logon to site, select your pc if oem aka dell xps 1530 and then all drivers installed for you with 1 click and ONE REBOOT!!!!!!