backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 129 comment(s) - last by nomagic.. on Sep 27 at 6:09 AM
It appears testers will have to wait longer to get their hands on Vista's successor

Windows 7 is one of the hottest topics in the tech community today.  Set to debut in late 2009 or early 2010, Microsoft's latest version of Windows promises to make up ground in areas Windows Vista lacked, by offering a leaner build, innovative user interface technology such as touch inputs, and better hardware partner support.  With regular blogs streaming from Microsoft's Redmond, Washington Windows 7 development team, the company is in full swing preparing for the release.

Fans, developers, and customers are eagerly awaiting the release of the first beta candidate of the new OS.  Initially speculation was that Microsoft would roll out beta 1 at its late October Professional Developers Conference (PDC), or at the latest, at its early November Windows Hardware Engineering Conference (WinHEC).

However, it appears that the release has been pushed back.  ZDNet cites inside sources as saying that the earliest the beta 1 might be released would be mid-December.  A scant few already have their hands on the new OS.  Some hardware partners and a select group of customers were given access to the two milestones -- alpha builds of sorts -- M1 and M2.  The Windows team is supposedly in the process of wrapping up M3 for release.

The slip has led many to speculate that Microsoft may release an interim Community Technology Preview (CTP) build for release to a broader group of testers.  However, if it has such plans, Microsoft is leaving its customers and hardware partners in the dark about them.  Most reticently believe that Microsoft will not release Windows 7 previews to a wider audience until it’s nearly feature-complete.

One thing that is known is that Microsoft is collecting testers for the eventual beta release through its Connect site.  A post on the Windows 7 Engineering blog by Christina Storm, a program manager on the Windows Customer Engineering feature team, states:

When we release the Windows 7 beta we will also be collecting feedback from this (Windows Feedback) panel and asking for participation from a set of Windows 7 beta users.Our current plans call for signing up for the beta to happen in the standard Microsoft manner on http://connect.microsoft.com. Stay tuned!

If the beta 1 does drop in December, it will mean that there will be less than a year between it and the targeted release to market date (late 2009).  Some speculate that this may be because Windows engineering chief Steven Sinofsky routinely delivered short betas for the Office team he once headed.  While some are speculating that this could be a significant mistake, leading to Vista-like compatibility issues, its virtually set in stone that Microsoft is going to take things at its own pace.  In the meantime, the rest of the tech community is left to patiently wait.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Broken Promises...
By SectionEight on 9/12/2008 10:48:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Microsoft's latest version of Windows promises to make up ground in areas Windows Vista lacked, by offering a leaner build, innovative user interface technology such as touch inputs, and better hardware partner support.


I've never seen a piece of software use less space and resources than its previous version. And 'innovative inputs' is going to end up code for unused inputs. My tablet has touch as well as pen input, and I turned off the touch feature because I never use it. I suspect most people will choose keyboard/mouse or touchpad control over a smeared screen.

Hopefully the designers will get it through their heads this time that tablet and other features that represent a small fraction of the market should not be enabled by default in every copy of Windows.




RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 10:52:59 AM , Rating: 3
Thank you, so sick of this touch screen garbage. It is a fun novelty for some things, but hardly a useful way of inputting information. Windows has become pretty serious bloatware lately. Vista could have been a lot better, and that's not to say they didn't make a more secure kernel, cause they surely did, but they just love packing things in. Meanwhile, they are still using NTFS, WHY??!!! Update the friggin' file system already, it is a pile of junk, and not compatible with anything else.


RE: Broken Promises...
By zombiexl on 9/12/2008 10:56:44 AM , Rating: 5
I agree on the touchscreen crap, but windows adds more bloat with each version for a reason.. Customers like extra crap for free. BTW the last linux distro I installed was way more bloated than the one's I used 8-10 years ago..

Why is NTFS a pile of junk?


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 11:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
Have you not noticed the problems with fragmentation? It is slow by comparison to the newer file systems, and also not compatible with anything but Windows. They can't afford to not be compatible anymore, we see that by how well Mac has started doing, unfortunately. It has a habit of chewing up hard drives with corrupted sectors rather quickly as well when you are doing large amounts file moving/writing. Saying that you have none of these problems is no excuse, even though it is the common reason for the MS proponents. Clearly many people do, yet I see none of these issues with tried and true Unix file systems.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mindless1 on 9/12/2008 7:53:51 PM , Rating: 2
Your corrupted sectors are not an NTFS fault. Find cause and fix it. Plenty of people move massive amounts of files around so explore the other variables.

You wrote not compatible but we know they will not adopt a unix filesysem so their next proprietary one would be even less compatible than NTFS across the most widely deployed PCs - running older versions of windows. Would they back-port it to those? They didn't with NTFS on win9x.


RE: Broken Promises...
By jtemplin on 9/14/2008 6:25:25 PM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure he was referring to HFS+, the OS X file system. He went on to say that MS (NTFS) proponents might use file corruption as a reason as to the superiority of NTFS.


RE: Broken Promises...
By jtemplin on 9/14/2008 6:26:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saying that you have none of these problems is no excuse, even though it is the common reason for the MS proponents


RE: Broken Promises...
By GoodBytes on 9/12/2008 11:10:06 AM , Rating: 4
Actually NTS is being updated...
The version from Windows 2000 is different then the XP, and the XP one is different over the Vista one.
So far NTFS works perfectly, why change something that works well?

Anyway, ok so let me get this straight. If Microsoft did not add new features you would say: "Man I stick with the old version, I mean it's the same thing! As for bugs fix, I can live with them and save 300$". Already Vista had a hard time selling because it has nothing really new over XP Media Center. Vista goal was a new core, and improvement at different levels on the current features. They are some new features, like Superfetch, and a working Prefetch, but it's nothing visible for the end-user, so it's not seen as features.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 11:26:02 AM , Rating: 1
Right, and explain to me how this is a good way to update something? They could have just updated Windows XP with security updates, but this wouldn't have made a better kernel, so I consider the Vista jump to be needed, along with more jumps. You will be the person who praises MS for changing the kernel for Vista, and call anyone who says they should have just patched XP an idiot. Meanwhile, I say they need to update NTFS, and you go in super defense mode for your love and savior Microsoft, and say they update it. It needs a complete overhaul, I'm talking redo it completely. You can add features without making them integral, make it a choice to add them. That way if you need something, add it, if not, don't clutter it with bloat.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/12/2008 11:54:58 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Meanwhile, I say they need to update NTFS, and you go in super defense mode for your love and savior Microsoft, and say they update it.


It is because you give no meaninful reason why Microsoft should abandon a prefectly fine feature-rich file system that enables far greater security than most other widely used file systems.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/08, Rating: -1
RE: Broken Promises...
RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 12:14:07 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs

So does ZFS, along with so many other features, not only is the security point moot, it mops the floor with anything NTFS dreamed of doing. And this is from a file system that has been around for less than 3 years. Sun is more innovative than MS time and time again.


RE: Broken Promises...
By SeeManRun on 9/12/2008 2:10:15 PM , Rating: 4
It's easier to innovate when your audience is much smaller. Movies are a good example. If you are going to spend 200 million on a movie you better make sure it appeals to lots of people. If you make a movie for 50 thousand then it doesn't matter that much if only 2% of the population are into it because you make your money back.

MS can't use some file system that offers more features very easily because it would be installed on so many computers that any problems will be a disaster. They obviously know there are issues with NTFS, but have chosen to stick with what works than risk breaking it. The evil you know is better than the evil you don't know.

Think about this kind of stuff before you post, please!


RE: Broken Promises...
By icanhascpu on 9/12/2008 7:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
That kind of buisness attitude will be the downfall of Miscrosoft if they continue it.

BS like touchscreen wont keep them going when linux an other OS continue to improve. Right now it seems like MS is brute forceing market share.


RE: Broken Promises...
By murphyslabrat on 9/12/2008 7:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
What do you want them to do? Politely ask customers to buy Windows?


RE: Broken Promises...
By icanhascpu on 9/12/2008 7:38:15 PM , Rating: 4
I want them to take time to improve their code. They did what in seven years? They did so little, becuse they can. What they did was good, but it was brute forced and unfinished. Service packs be damned. They are just more bandaids over issues they should of already addressed in those seven years.

I like the stability, I like the UI, but it simply feels unfinished, and slow. The old arguement about getting a faster system never really was relevent and its another brute force option. Its NOT a solution to code bloat.

Do they need a half dozen differant versions of the same OS? No. The bright ideas at that company are overcast by the fear of the people in charge thinking this and that wont sell. I mean this bloat goes so far that networking got a extra irrelevent new step in an otherwise perfectly fine process.

All they really needed to do was come out with a tighly coded OS with a quick UI not skinned over the decade+ old one that worked with the GPU better. 3 billion instructions per second and it takes too long to do simple things anymore. Hardware is not improveing as fast as software like this is bloating. At some point there has to be a change.


RE: Broken Promises...
By jonmcc33 on 9/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/12/2008 12:18:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What security would you be referring to, that is inherent to the file system?


How about Access Control Lists and Encrypting File System?

Just a cursory look at NTFS vs ZFS at wikipedia shows that NTFS lists 16 features of the file system while ZFS lists 10.

And a question for the readers... please raise your hand if you have file coruption at the drop of a hat while using NTFS... anyone? hello?


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 12:25:52 PM , Rating: 2
Yet you completely ignore the fragmentation and slow portion. I call that selective reading, how about you? ZFS is a new file system, I would have to say it does pretty well in that respect. And the number of features doesn't really thrill me, it is the actual features themselves. If you don't find them at least somewhat intriguing, I would venture a guess you aren't much for tech. Storage pools are great, the copy on write and snapshot/clone abilities are amazing, and should be very desirable. Check summing of everything is great, adds overhead, but also stops corruption.

Now, obviously it was meant for server side mainly, but you can't tell me many of these features wouldn't be nice for a day to day system.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/12/2008 12:56:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
snapshot/clone abilities are amazing, and should be very desirable.


Yeah, volume shadow copy is awesome, i've been using it for the past year and a half since I installed Vista.

Your comments regarding fragmentation and performance are one in the same, and quite frankly a silly argument. You assume that because fragmentation occurs it causes the system to slow down. However every installation of Vista has the disk defragmenter set to defrag every wednesday, so any system has only up to one week of fragmentation. Hardly a concern.

Furthermore there are no performance comparissons between file systems. This is because the file system alone doesn't dictdate performance. HDD speeds, system drivers, OS Architecture all play a role.

So you can go ahead and cry all you want that your file system of choice is faster, however you'll never have any creditble comparisons to back you up.

I ignored talking about 'the fragmentation and slow portion' because it is irrelivent.


RE: Broken Promises...
By cochy on 9/12/2008 1:42:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Furthermore there are no performance comparissons between file systems.


Good post. Except you can definitely compare File system performances. Given base line hardware, file systems all have strengths and weaknesses. As an example, one of the big selling points of ReiserFS was how well it performed on operations consisting of lots and lots of small files.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 2:09:02 PM , Rating: 2
Please point to where I stated speed was directly related to the fragmentation? I stated the file system is slow. Now this is not to say that fragmentation doesn't slow down read/write operations, cause it does, and if you think otherwise, then we might as well stop debating.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles/ntfs/index3.htm...

"The most fundamental feature influencing the performance of any file system is the structure of data organization and storage. So, in this part we will analyze the aspect of physical working with structures and data of the file systems."

No, nothing about the file system has to do with speed, clearly. /sarcasm The speed of course is affected by hardware access, but this is a separate issue entirely.

Also, you have been using a feature that is not the same as ZFS uses, it is not as rich or full featured. It merely keeps a copy of the previous file around, but ZFS does much more. Even better, is you tout the fact you have been using it for a year and a half, even though it has been out in Solaris for almost 3 years. The NTFS version of it is archaic by comparison. But blindly follow MS and their "innovations", I use the term quite loosely, cause clearly they just take and kinda make it their own, usually making it worse in the process.

Remember, I am not stating it slows down the whole system, that would imply it somehow slows down cpu cycles, and everything else. It slows down read/write cycles, which are what we are currently debating, lets not put words in mouths.

And lastly, the posting has automatic spell check, please pay attention to it, as it will correct many of the errors you make in the posting.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Motley on 9/12/2008 4:57:52 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Also, you have been using a feature that is not the same as ZFS uses, it is not as rich or full featured. It merely keeps a copy of the previous file around, but ZFS does much more. Even better, is you tout the fact you have been using it for a year and a half, even though it has been out in Solaris for almost 3 years. The NTFS version of it is archaic by comparison. But blindly follow MS and their "innovations", I use the term quite loosely, cause clearly they just take and kinda make it their own, usually making it worse in the process.


Except VSC has been in Windows for over 5 years. First released with Windows XP SP1 and Windows Server 2003. In addition while SUN description of their feature would be part VSC (Volume Shadow Copy), and part SIS (Single Instance Storage) although it is not nearly robust, because while NTFS can use both, it's automatic, while ZFS requires a complete rewrite of the underlying I/O calls of every application to take advantage of it -- each program must support ZFS's "clone on write" capabilities. I would hardly call that more robust by any means, and to deliver a less robust feature set 2 years after Microsoft, does not constitute "Innovation".

In fact many of the great things you've mentioned about ZFS are already a part of a normal Windows environment running on NTFS. Like journalling. You did know NTFS was a journalling file system too, correct? And journalling doesn't prevent fragmentation? NTFS has a I/O priority pipeline to counter ZFS's "pipelines", but it's again, it's much more robust because it's automatic, not something an application has to be coded for.

Here's a feature (NOT!):
"There are no arbitrary limits in ZFS. You can have as many files as you want; full 64-bit file offsets" Boy... Just like NTFS of 10 years ago. No innovation there.

Lastly ZFS's corruption prevention is redundantly solving a problem that has already been solved by almost every hard drive made in the last 20 years. Each block is fully checksummed, and if data is found to be corrupted, it is self-healed, and moved to a new sector. The data corruption was detected in the very first ST-506 drives in the original IBM PC. The "self-heal" was introduced with the very first IDE Hard disks. Doubling the checksum in the OS layer is redundant, and is so exotically rare that it's practically useless. 99% of all data corruption isn't caused by what ZFS attempts to solve (Which even if it helped, it would most likely be on the magnatude of .00000001% or less of all data corruption would be helped by ZFS, yeow!) The "data corruption" you typically see in NTFS etc, is caused by logic corruption, not some random bit changing on the medium and not being detected and self-corrected.

Lastly, even for server environments, ZFS lacks transaction support. Like databases, it is often important for multiple things to happen "at once", or appear to happen as one atomic change. ZFS lacks this very important feature, NTFS does not.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 5:37:20 PM , Rating: 2
According to what I see, the NTFS VLC is not as fast or featured. From what I have seen, ZFS keeps common portions of the file and uses this portion for all access, then, depending on what incarnation of the file is requested, it uses the corresponding portion, effectively cutting back on the space used for this backup, and speeding up the process. From what I have gathered, while SIS is similar when matched with VLC, not the same or as integrated. Once again, this is what I've gathered, if it is otherwise, I would love to see the source explaining this further.

I never said journaling has anything to do with fragmenting, it would have more to do with problems when there is a power loss, or crash. Fragmentation clearly is an issue, and more related to the algorithms the file system uses, which are there, but clearly not doing their job as well as others.

quote:
Here's a feature (NOT!): "There are no arbitrary limits in ZFS. You can have as many files as you want; full 64-bit file offsets" Boy... Just like NTFS of 10 years ago. No innovation there.


Not sure I get what you are saying in this one, or where the quote is from, since you didn't say.

How would a hard drive run checksums? Last I checked there is no logic in a hard drive, the controller would be the only possible way to do this. I would be interested in seeing something about the checksumming by the controller, if this is the case, as I can't find anything on it. If the ZFS checksum was truly redundant and useless as you say, I'm pretty sure Sun engineers wouldn't have wasted their time with it.

From what I am reading, I see transactional support for ZFS, again, if this is not the case, I would be curious enough to read any sources or information you post about this.

I find dynamic striping as a pretty neat feature, which NTFS does not share. I find RAID-Z pretty useful as well, also something NTFS doesn't share. While it is still in it's early stages, it surely seems a great idea, since RAID has become a common place.


RE: Broken Promises...
By BikeDude on 9/12/2008 7:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fragmentation clearly is an issue


I have been using NT since 1993. Throughout all these years, I have seen countless debates concerning fragmentation. Some made similar claims as you do, others say that the loss in performance is minimal. NTFS is (as I recall) loosely based on VMS' filesystem. And (again IIRC) the first defragmentation product that became available was Disk Keeper (from Executive Software, again IIRC) which existed in some form on VMS as well (where similar "defragmentation isn't needed" claims were made).

I have never seen anyone bothered to actually benchmark this "serious" fragmentation issue. I have even tried to come up with a benchmark of my own, but how do you bench such a thing? Deliberately cause fragmentation, run a test, defrag, reboot (to clear the cache...) and then run the test again?

Which brings us to the next problem at hand: How much time (and when) do you want your system to spend on defragmentation? At what point should you simply cough up more memory for your file cache instead? Or buy a bigger disk, thus reducing fragmentation.

Finally... How does a filesystem look anyway, that avoids fragmentation? If you install an application that occupies 1GB worth of space, how does the filesystem guess that these datawrites are related, before the files have even been committed? Why (or how) should it strain itself to make sure the application is given a 1GB continuous space on the partition? The filesystem certainly can't cache all these writes -- what would happen in case someone yanks the power cord? (oh... I know: in the world of Linux, nobody bothers much with such trivia... fsck to the rescue)

Or is the trick that it should only make sure every file isn't fragmented, regardless of that file's relationship with other files? (kinda disappointing in the world of Windows where dynamically linked libraries is heavily encouraged -- and loading those DLLs scattered all over the drive causes considerable seeks unless the DLLs in question are located close to eachother -- which kinda requires quite a bit of knowledge of the apps in question, which is where Vista's SuperFetch shines)

In short: I have never seen anyone make a coherent case for the need for defragmentation. I have certainly never bothered with defrag utils, despite running my old SCSI drives full to the brim with data (admittedly mostly pr0n where you really do not want just the fragments).

quote:
Last I checked there is no logic in a hard drive


With the advent of IDE drives, most of the controller logic was moved to the hard drive... They even have their own cache... Come on, this is common knowledge. I think even floppy controllers would do CRC checks on their own accord. (check the error codes that the controller could return, I am pretty sure you'll find a "bad CRC" among them -- you couldn't easily get at the CRC code, regardless of the OS, because Int 13h that you used to communicate with the controller in real mode would only take you so far...)


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 11:03:53 AM , Rating: 1
Again, fragmentation would depend highly on the machine being a high write cycle machine. This would mean it would most likely be a business that is writing and moving lots of files. For example, they would be writing contracts, altering contracts, and moving them about the drive to multiple sub-folders for organization. This causes pretty severe fragmenting rather quickly in a NTFS system, I've seen it, and I've dealt with it, and it slows things down to a crawl. In fact, I have had to do it many times just to make PCs involved in this type of work usable.

If you think file systems don't avoid fragmentation, I would direct you here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ntfs#Internals

"The Master File Table (MFT) contains metadata about every file, directory, and metafile on an NTFS volume. It includes filenames, locations, size, and permissions. Its structure supports algorithms which minimize disk fragmentation. A directory entry consists of a filename and a "file ID" which is the record number representing the file in the Master File Table. The file ID also contains a reuse count to detect stale references. While this strongly resembles the W_FID of Files-11, other NTFS structures radically differ."

Algorithms help this, it seems in this case, they are a bit poor, and need to be changed to compete with file systems that clearly don't have as much of an issue with this. I agree with it being complicated in many cases, like the example you gave with a 1GB program, but clearly it can be done, otherwise fragmentation would be just as common a problem across all file systems. MS really has no reason to change their file system in that way at the very least, cause people just live with it, since it occupies a large market share. Rather than complain about it, since it is clearly an issue. Just cause something isn't an issue for you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I play Steam games here and there, and the fragmentation is common, and has to be done every few months it seems. Just ran a defrag analyze on my drive, and it is 13% fragmented. Even if the speed reduction is negligible, the hard drive head will still have to move excessively, causing premature wear and tear, and a catastrophic failure becomes more of an issue.

While it might be a but commercially backed, this seems to sum it up nicely:

http://files.diskeeper.com/pdf/HowFileFragmentatio...

This seems to drive home the point nicely as well:

http://www.biznix.org/whylinux/windows/fragment.ht...

SCSI drives are quite a bit faster than most drives, this is a generalization, I know there can be faster drives depending on when the SCSI drive was made, but chances are they will be quite fast. You might not notice the degradation of the speed, since it is already quite fast. On top of that, if it is just a storage, and after you write said files, the rest of the time is spent reading, then there is not going to be any serious fragmentation.

I understand CRC exists, but I have a feeling a problem was seen with the 32 bit length, cause it appears the ZFS checksum is 256 bit. I won't claim to be a developer and know exactly what the method was to the madness, but in the same way I wouldn't say Sun engineers are idiots, and I would say the same for MS engineers. But that doesn't mean there isn't a reason for what they do, on both sides. I wonder about MS motives, cause a lot of the time it is for the reason of keeping things proprietary, or leveraging something in some way, so they can take more control. Since Sun has opened most of their code, and are letting anyone use the file system, I would see less of a motive in that sense, and more of a design motive.

As for the CRC on drives, the controller seems to do the actual CRC check, from any reading I can find, and then gives the go and writes the data. It would seem the micro controller I believe was being referred to is more related to the disk buffer, but I would be perfectly open to information to the contrary.

I'm not quite sure why everything has to be a pissing contest, but I have no problem recounting things that might have been incorrect. I honestly want proof though, cause I don't take just the word of someone I don't know as truth, and I can't seem to find anything that would clear it up one way or another. It seems to be commonplace to pick one area of my post, and speak of that, but ignore everything else. I try to hit every point someone makes when responding directly to them, and if I miss an area, it is purely by accident. It becomes an attack, more than an actual debate. I am admittedly don't 100% know everything on the subject, as I pursue networking more than hardware/software.


RE: Broken Promises...
By MrBowmore on 9/12/2008 8:02:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Not sure I get what you are saying in this one, or where the quote is from, since you didn't say.

How would a hard drive run checksums? Last I checked there is no logic in a hard drive, the controller would be the only possible way to do this. I would be interested in seeing something about the checksumming by the controller, if this is the case, as I can't find anything on it. If the ZFS checksum was truly redundant and useless as you say, I'm pretty sure Sun engineers wouldn't have wasted their time with it.

From what I am reading, I see transactional support for ZFS, again, if this is not the case, I would be curious enough to read any sources or information you post about this.

I find dynamic striping as a pretty neat feature, which NTFS does not share. I find RAID-Z pretty useful as well, also something NTFS doesn't share. While it is still in it's early stages, it surely seems a great idea, since RAID has become a common place."

But Pleeeeeeeease just stop there!
Why, for god in heaven sakes are you arguing for? You clearly don´t know squat, Are you possibly a leaf coder for Sun MS?
Give it up, just walk away with about an oz of pride left, while there still are any. GEEEEEEEEZ!


RE: Broken Promises...
By Arribajuan on 9/12/2008 1:32:11 PM , Rating: 3
"Now, obviously it was meant for server side mainly, but you can't tell me many of these features wouldn't be nice for a day to day system. "

Isn't this kind of thinking what makes newer versions of software bloated? It is designed for servers, but what the heck, put it all in home versions.

"If you don't find them at least somewhat intriguing, I would venture a guess you aren't much for tech"

Translation: So if you do not think like me, you are probably an idiot...


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 2:16:58 PM , Rating: 1
A file system makes an OS bloated? Wow, this is an amazing statement. You don't have to use the same logic for everything, that is why it is logic, and not a formula. Updating a file system, and adding silly crap that not everyone will use are quite different. Most of the features involved in ZFS help to stop corruption, and automatically back up data, 2 things which EVERYONE can use, cause no one wants corrupted or lost data.

So, the only people who are not idiots are techies? Odd, my understanding was there were tons of fields in which people study, and love, and if you are not interested in a new aspect of said field, then you probably aren't interested in it. But sure, put words in my mouth, I'm not so childish as to resort to calling someone an idiot just cause they don't like something I do, cause that would be baseless. I merely was pointing out that if you aren't interested in a clearly useful technology, then you probably aren't that interested in the particular field. I'm sure no one cares about new mop technology that much to get all hyped about it, but that doesn't mean there aren't people who don't, and it doesn't mean everyone who doesn't is an idiot. Why are you so defensive?


RE: Broken Promises...
By Oralen on 9/12/2008 3:57:20 PM , Rating: 2
THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER IS ReiserFS!

The new version comes with a box of blood stain-remover, and a free subscription to "russianbrides.com" !

(Sorry. Could'nt help myself)


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 4:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, I have to say, that was quite funny, will be chuckling about that for a while.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mmntech on 9/12/2008 11:05:48 AM , Rating: 2
Windows doesn't want NTFS to be compatible because they want to force people to use Windows Server. However, to say its not compatible with anything is false. Linux can now read and write to NTFS drives. The monthly defragmenting is the biggest issue, which journalled file systems don't need. I can't imagine defraging multiple server drives.

I think the problem with Vista and its bloat issues was the huge jump in system requirements. If I did use Vista, I would buy Home Basic simply because it is the leanest. Home Premium and Ultimate are loaded with a lot of useless bloatware. Of course an OS is not going to get leaner as it evolves but Vista is huge RAM pig, more than it needs to be.

My advice to MS, make the OS as light weight as possible. Remember the KISS rule. Thoroughly ensure driver compatibility with major hardware companies before releasing it. Release Windows 7 in just two versions, desktop and server. Sell it for the same price as Apple sells OS X. Return Windows to its flexibility (its biggest advantage in the past) and stop catering to Hollywood garbage.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 11:11:52 AM , Rating: 1
Of course you can read and write to NTFS, that doesn't mean they made it compatible, that means the Linux developers made it compatible on their own. Hell, I write and read from Linux to my Windows drive all the time, doesn't meant it is compatible, just a work around. I agree with the rest.


RE: Broken Promises...
By jvillaro on 9/12/2008 11:51:50 AM , Rating: 2
Oh sure your totally write, they need to make it compatible with the 5% (or something like that) of the market...

Linux developers needed to make it compatible. Microsoft is not in in a position (yet) in which they have to make it compatible.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 11:57:59 AM , Rating: 1
You're maybe? How do you find market share of something that can be downloaded, shared, given, and move for free? That is quite the skill to go computer to computer the world round, and somehow come up with this amazing figure. MS has anti-competition built throughout it's business model, always has. This is not legal in our country, nor is it kosher with capitalism. If they competed properly and legally, they would either no longer exist, be completely different as a company, with more innovation, or have a small piece of the market. Take your trite garbage elsewhere.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Spivonious on 9/12/2008 12:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, Linux marketshare is much lower than that. It's more like 2% http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 12:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
Neat, how does one go about getting the market share for something that is not 100% commercially sold? Oh, that's right, you can't. On top of that, Solaris, Mac, freeBSD are all Unix, or based on Unix, which is where Linux is based as well. Nice try though, the world is a big place.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mezrah on 9/12/2008 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
Did you even read the website? It has nothing to do with sales figures.

"This report was generated 08/31/2008 based on the last 45,358,549 unique visits to all tracked websites at that time. W3Counter's sample currently includes 14,376 websites"


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 2:47:58 PM , Rating: 1
Did you notice how the Internet Explorer percentage is showing about 58%? This is off by all other stats by like 20% or so, so how can I trust that site? Second, Linux is used on servers more than home PCs, and I'm pretty sure they aren't using those to surf the net. Third, a large part of people surf the net with computers that aren't theirs, ie library, internet cafe, work, which usually use Windows. These are things you don't take into account, which HEAVILY flaw this data. No one has a clue about how much of a market share Linux/Unix uses, in fact, they clump everything as Linux, does this account for Unix systems other than Linux? The Windows XP and Vista shares are probably pretty accurate, as are the OS X.


RE: Broken Promises...
By MonkeyPaw on 9/12/2008 3:45:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Second, Linux is used on servers more than home PCs, and I'm pretty sure they aren't using those to surf the net.


This doesn't really help your argument. Servers aren't what we're talking about, and they aren't what everyday people are using for everyday computing.

quote:
Third, a large part of people surf the net with computers that aren't theirs, ie library, internet cafe, work, which usually use Windows


Huh? Why do you assume people use the internet more in public than at home? Before you challenge one set of statistics, you better prove your own. I bet most people use the internet the most at home, second at work, and a distant third is some public place. Even then, I'm sure more people in public places will be on their own notebook connected via hotspot. Regardless, public places are way more likely to have linux than a home PC, since most people own OEM PCs that shipped with Vista/XP. Ultimately, that doesn't matter at all, since what people use is what they use, and by-and-large, they're using Windows PCs to get the job done. I don't know many people who own PCs and don't connect them to the internet.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Broken Promises...
By bhieb on 9/12/2008 1:27:54 PM , Rating: 3
Ok so what is it then 10,15,20% even IF why would MS cater to 1/5th of the market, and loose more market share to a competitors product. They have every right to use a proprietary system (even a subpar one), if it is bad enough they will loose market share and evolve or die out. Isn't capitalism fun.


RE: Broken Promises...
By v3rt1g0 on 9/12/2008 6:52:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
your totally write


Sorry, I can't stop chuckling.


RE: Broken Promises...
By jvillaro on 9/13/2008 4:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah sorry about that, I saw the error after I posted. English is not my native language anyway...


RE: Broken Promises...
By yuchai on 9/12/2008 2:27:57 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can tell in the wikipedia article, it's the same situation with ZFS & Linux using FUSE as a "work around".

I still don't really understand your hatred towards NTFS. I've used ext3, reiserfs and xfs before and honestly I think NTFS is on par with with all three. They all have their good and bad points.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/08, Rating: 0
RE: Broken Promises...
By Segerstein on 9/12/2008 6:16:30 PM , Rating: 2
Fragmentation is becoming less important, since SSDs are coming -:)


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 6:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
True, but by the time that is widespread and affordable, I'm sure they will start writing file systems specifically for them, as many of the issues just won't exist anymore.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mindless1 on 9/12/2008 7:57:55 PM , Rating: 2
They'll do what they always do, think the advantages of SSD give them more breathing room to write sloppy solutions that usurp the gains and slow things down again.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 11:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
Yea, now that I think about it, you are probably right, unfortunately.


RE: Broken Promises...
By jonmcc33 on 9/13/2008 11:30:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Thank you, so sick of this touch screen garbage. It is a fun novelty for some things, but hardly a useful way of inputting information.


It can be useful for certain businesses but really, I'm not going to be smearing up my LCD screen anytime soon.

quote:
Windows has become pretty serious bloatware lately. Vista could have been a lot better, and that's not to say they didn't make a more secure kernel, cause they surely did, but they just love packing things in.


Every new Windows release has used more and more resources. Not sure where you've been the past 15 years. But over time storage and space has gotten cheaper and cheaper. 2GB RAM cost $270 three years ago. Now you can get 4GB RAM for $70. So stop complaining.

quote:
Meanwhile, they are still using NTFS, WHY??!!! Update the friggin' file system already, it is a pile of junk, and not compatible with anything else.


At what point is it a pile of junk? It offers security and encryption and I've never had a problem with it. How is it not compatible with anything else? Everything since Windows 2000 can see it. Even Linux distros can access it.

You sound like an uneducated fool to be honest.


RE: Broken Promises...
By aegisofrime on 9/12/2008 10:56:23 AM , Rating: 3
The easiest solution would just be to have a tablet edition, which will be the only edition to contain the touch input code, so as to save the rest of us desk-bound users the extra bloat.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/12/2008 11:44:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And 'innovative inputs' is going to end up code for unused inputs.

You are so very wrong about the multi-touch interface.

Do you think the keyboard/mouse will be around forever? Just because you don't use a feature now, doesn't mean you wont use it later. Furthermore this will be the first itteration of the technology. The goal of the first itteration is to expose people to it to better understand how they will use it and what it's potential will be.

For instance, Vista has a very capable voice recognition interface. I'll admit that for everyday uses it is a bit of a novelty, but regadless, it is a very cool novelty and it works very well. It's pretty fun to say 'Open Windows Update' and see windows update open. Then say 'Check for updates' then 'install updates.' It works all very well.

I still don't understand why people come to tech websites and belittle new technology just because they don't see a benefit to them.


RE: Broken Promises...
By fishbits on 9/12/2008 12:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
"I still don't understand why people come to tech websites and belittle new technology just because they don't see a benefit to them."
Because it is painful to hear development time and dollars (that you will end up paying for) are going towards something that you will use rarely, if at all. That, when other things that would benefit more people go unaddressed.

This is setting aside that the implementation of undesired features often hogs system resources and clutters up UIs and workflows. Picture Clippy, and its loathsome behavior. Now picture having Clippy-related prompts and dialogs throughout the OS.

Now take touch/multi-touch, which has been far more a fad and fashion. "Gee, we'll be wearing wetsuits and HUD monocles and thrusting our arms about to move files around and browse, just like in the sci-fi movies. How cools is that?!" Way cool, for 5-15 minutes, til you have actual work that needs done. Then you realize that it sucks for typical tasks.

What's driving this is that it would be a good (if bogus) selling point to be the only OS in town able to make cool looking commercials with touch in action. So everyone will have to include it to neutralize the issue. Yeah, it's possible for multi-touch to be implemented well for some users in some situatons. Instead the legitimate fear is that the feature tail will wag the OS dog at the users' expense.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/12/2008 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because it is painful to hear development time and dollars (that you will end up paying for) are going towards something that you will use rarely, if at all.


The technology is going to be developed and researched regadless if they put it into windows or not. All of you armchair critics that seem to know, better than Microsoft, what is better for Windows. I hear it all the time, and it's silly. "Microsoft needs to rewrite windows from the ground up!" "I can't believe Microsoft is adding THAT to Windows!" "Microsoft should be spending that $300M on improving Windows insted of throwing it away on stupid Signfield ads!" "Vista is so slow and bloated, they need to release a version that I can install on my 486, like Linux!"

Trust me, if you knew better than Microsoft you wouldn't be wasting your time here posting your psuedo-intelectual drivel. Microsoft can afford the best and the brightest, none of which are armchair critics.

You know the mouse was considered silly at first too, why would you use a mouse with a DOS prompt? A GUI, ptf! a command line is so much quicker! Heck, we still see these arguments today, in 2008!

If you can't stand to have new features in your OS then vote with your wallet and let those of us who do like to see technology advance play with and talk about our new toys.


RE: Broken Promises...
By fishbits on 9/12/2008 1:39:57 PM , Rating: 2
Your response indicates your belief that:

a) Microsoft is infallable and should not listen to its users' desires and concerns.
b) Expressing doubts about one yet-implemented input technology means the people that voiced them must be against all technological changes.

The substance to vitriol ratio there is too extreme for me to do anything constructive with.


RE: Broken Promises...
By ZmaxDP on 9/12/2008 4:03:42 PM , Rating: 3
I could say a similar thing about your comments as well. However, I'll pass on the destructive criticism opportunity...

Innovation requires failure. The entire point of innovation is to try something that you don't know will work. If you knew it would work, it's more than likely everyone else has figured it out too. Those are what we call evolutionary changes.

Real innovation requires a willingness to fail, horribly in some cases. I'm inclined to agree that a keyboard and mouse are still the fastest way to get "real work" done. (I don't understand your hubris here, what exactly constitutes "fake work"???) However, I doubt anyone would dare to suggest that it is the fastest possible way to get work done. As such, it is inevitable that we will eventually develop some kind of human interface technology to improve upon what we've got right now. I don't know if multi-touch screens are it, and neither does Microsoft or anyone else. But, they're trying it with a willingness to fail. I call that innovation. Good for them. I'd prefer they do that then try and provide me with a slicker looking (but similarly functioning) task menu.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 4:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is a stretch to say innovation REQUIRES failure, at least in the sense you are saying. You may fail in researching or testing something, but not when you put out something you call a finished product. MS is the king of releasing crappy products, and cleaning them up later. Last I have checked, Linux has had touch screen support for years. It hasn't really gone anywhere, but it is there. Go on youtube and you can find plenty of videos of people with touch interface Ubuntu boxes, I'm not impressed.

I'm sure that some day they will find a way to have neural impulses as input, but until they get anywhere near that, talking to your computer is noisy and not an option for most situations. Touching the screen is not really an option, as it is slower for most everything, and smudges screens like crazy. Neither of these "innovations" are useful for business, which is the driving force behind computing anyway.


RE: Broken Promises...
By JustTom on 9/13/2008 12:33:29 PM , Rating: 2
Innovation requires the CHANCE of failure. Most new products fail. And most are heavily researched beforehand. Anytimeyou introduce something that is truly new in the marketplace there is a high likelihood of failure

While I doubt I would use it touchscreen input has obvious applications. And the 'coolness' has even more obvious marketing utility. I know lots of people think marketing is a bad word but it is an important part of business. It does not matter how polished, inexpensive, or unique your product is if you cannot successfully educate the market on those advantages.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 2:09:39 PM , Rating: 2
You are pretty much saying exactly what I said. It seems you agree with me, cause I agree with you. Of course there is a chance of failure, but it isn't required. I just don't see any advantages to a touch interface for anything short of skimming through picture/music collections.


RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/12/2008 4:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Well put ZmaxDP.


RE: Broken Promises...
By icanhascpu on 9/12/2008 7:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
"Microsoft can afford the best and the brightest, none of which are armchair critics."

Funny, i have yet to see a programmer programming while jogging.

Also, its kind of hard to use Vista and all it features while playing soccer. One is usually sitting. =p


RE: Broken Promises...
By japlha on 9/12/2008 2:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Gee, we'll be wearing wetsuits and HUD monocles and thrusting our arms about to move files around and browse, just like in the sci-fi movies. How cools is that?!" Way cool, for 5-15 minutes, til you have actual work that needs done.

lol. Good stuff.
At least they will get some exercise.


RE: Broken Promises...
By icanhascpu on 9/12/2008 6:23:02 PM , Rating: 1
"Do you think the keyboard/mouse will be around forever"

YES.

Why?

1. We've had very accurite voice regognition for years.
2. Lifting your arm upto the screen < laying your arm on the desk with the mouse
3. Even if they developed eye optical input, that would be a novelty. You can imagine the strain on the eyes when they arnt being used to oversee what the mouse is doing, but they have to take a roll of working? Hello eye-strain?

What MS SHOULD be doing is working on ways to enhance how the mouse interacts in the UI/OS itself. You can touch your screen all day and still have the retarded issues of some asshat process somewhere taking over your system and not letting you bring something you want into focus. What MS should be doing is focusing on where the mouse pointer is. Where i move my mouse, I want the OS to be damn reading to instantly put thye next click i give 100% attention and DO IT.

Untill we have simple shit like that, it doesnt matter what apendage you use on your computer.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 6:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can touch your screen all day and still have the retarded issues of some asshat process somewhere taking over your system and not letting you bring something you want into focus.


This made me laugh, a lot. I still think they could make a better interface with direct neural interface (I'm not sure if you thought I meant eyes when I said this earlier, but I would be referring to neurons pulses in the brain, which would be picked up and translated to the corresponding action), but I'm sure this is a long ways away.


RE: Broken Promises...
By icanhascpu on 9/12/2008 7:12:47 PM , Rating: 2
Actualy they did that already, with a monkey.

Amazing as that is, that wasnt the most atonishing thing. The monkey (or chimpanzee) was hooked to this system through finger inputs and into its brain. It slowly learned that it didnt need to move its fingers at all to get things moveing in the program they were running, and started to understand that all it needed to do was think, and a command would be given.

Forgot where i saw this but its around somewhere still. youtube probably.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Belard on 9/12/2008 1:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've never seen a piece of software use less space and resources than its previous version.


Not from a Microsoft product...

Growing up on the Amiga, yeah - the developers did an amazing job of actually FREEING up resources between major versions. AmigaOS 1.x > 2,x = Added features and visuals, yet used slightly less memory. AmigaOS 2.x 3.0, on the same computer, it allowed me to double my desktop experince as it used even less memory and resources... and yeah, it was even a bit faster.

If you look at Windows Lite versions, those programmers stripped out the fat from Windows. Less memory, faster operations, etc.

No other OS is as bloated as Windows. Even back with Windows95 using up 400mb of HD space (compared to 3~4mb for an AmigaOS) it was sloppy. WindowXP = 2GB, MCE = 4GB.... Vista = 8~12GB depending on flavor.

Hmmm... yeah, thats why Best Buy is selling 4,5 and 6GB PCs nowadays. Why does HP configure a 5 GB PC is beyond me.


RE: Broken Promises...
By icanhascpu on 9/12/2008 6:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
What language was used to code Amiga?

Anyway there is one good thing for MS making horribly bloated and slow software; it pushed the hardware industry to push out more powerfull and more efficiant hardware, faster.


RE: Broken Promises...
By JustTom on 9/13/2008 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the Amiga was originally programmed in BCPL, followed by C in later versions. Time critical areas were coded in assembly.


RE: Broken Promises...
By omnicronx on 9/12/2008 4:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
When will people like yourself learn that windows is not developed just for you. Just because you don't use a feature, does not make it bad or unneeded for that matter. OS's like OSX might be nice to look at, but Windows can be used by anyone, in any industry for just about anything. As such, you may obviously get a bunch of features you may not use, but it is the price you pay when you have 85%+ market share, you have to curtail to everyone.

p.s anyone who has used Windows server 08 as a desktop OS has already seen firsthand that it uses less space and less resources than windows vista. As Windows 7 is based on Server 08, I expect them to make good with their promises.

As for your first remark, that's just untrue, you ever heard of optimizing code? There is almost always a way to make things run efficiently and smoothly, many times software releases are nothing more than bug fixes and code optimizations.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/12/2008 4:32:34 PM , Rating: 2
That is not the point, the point is that they can reduce the bloat by making features optional at install, or even removable. No one asks that it be made personal and just for them, they ask for a seamless OS, that is used to run programs.

Last I checked Vista was based on Windows Server 2008 as well, built on the same kernel. So Windows 7 being built on the exact same kernel doesn't give me any warm and fuzzies in the hope of it being more streamlined.

Optimizing code is great, and everyone loves the idea, I don't think anyone is disillusioned about it.


RE: Broken Promises...
By omnicronx on 9/13/2008 2:01:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That is not the point, the point is that they can reduce the bloat by making features optional at install, or even removable.
Ever heard of add remove programs? This includes almost all base programs that are installed with windows, you can pick and choose which software you want.

quote:
Last I checked Vista was based on Windows Server 2008 as well, built on the same kernel.
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and server 08 are based on the same kernel (Windows NT), that does not make them the same OS.

Server 08 is directly based off of Vista, which should be pretty apparent as it was released after it. Several reviews online will also show how much faster it is than Vista when used as a desktop OS.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 11:13:36 AM , Rating: 2
Many of the bloat features I am speaking of can't be removed in this fashion. If they could, would be a lot less of a problem.

Of course the server is faster than the desktop version, because they strip down a server version. Are you new? What do you think server versions are for? If you somehow think they will just revert back to running baseline background programs, and leave everything else to the user to install, you live in a fantasy land, or just ignore MS and their past. By that same logic, every Unix system shares the same kernel since inception. I understand they are based on the same kernel, in the most general sense, but the newest kernel revision was for Vista/Server 2008.


RE: Broken Promises...
By omnicronx on 9/13/2008 1:07:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many of the bloat features I am speaking of can't be removed in this fashion. If they could, would be a lot less of a problem.
What bloat? Can you name one thing besides indexing and superfetch that are running in the background? Everyone always uses the word bloat, but i have never seen in the same post as to what you mean by it.
quote:
Of course the server is faster than the desktop version, because they strip down a server version. Are you new? What do you think server versions are for?
What I was talking about was not merely Vanilla server 2008. You can essentially turn on everything that is in Vista (including Aero, DX, etc..) thats in vista, but then end result is a faster and more stable OS.
quote:
By that same logic, every Unix system shares the same kernel since inception.
Thats my point, the original linux kernel was vastly different than the one we see today. It has been shown that the server 08 does have slight differences from the Vista kernel and it does seem to be faster.

Windows 7 is going to surprise some people, if Server 08 is any indication.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Gzus666 on 9/13/2008 2:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://icrontic.com/articles/vista_not_ready_for_g...

An example, 125 processes installed with installation, somewhere around 4 times that of XP.

Fair enough about the server portion, but I haven't really seen anything showing it is faster with everything running, or even anyone suggesting so.

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/03/11/windows-server-...

http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/03/12/windows-s...

Now, it seems to me like they put a lot of work into making sure the additional bloat isn't installed, while having the features. I don't really consider the eye candy stuff bloat, as I will play with Compiz Fusion on Linux as well, it is kinda fun, and some of the features can be useful.

I would be interested to see where the kernel is different, everything I can find shows it to be the exact same as the Vista SP1 kernel.

If Windows 7 is in fact faster, then I would be happy, that means competition finally made MS make their product better all around, rather than just whatever they want to rush out the door to make a profit and keep complaining to a mimum. If it is better than Vista, I will surely eat my words, but I have a feeling it will be a continuation of their usual business.


RE: Broken Promises...
By tallguywithglasseson on 9/18/2008 3:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
Vista SP1 and Windows Server 2008 SP1 use the same code base.

That's why they called the initial release of WS08 "SP1".


RE: Broken Promises...
By iheartzoloft on 9/12/2008 5:34:28 PM , Rating: 2
As with most other MS releases, many will likely take it a tad more seriously after the first sp. The day sp1 for win7 is out sign me up for 2 please.


RE: Broken Promises...
By Quiescent on 9/12/2008 10:17:00 PM , Rating: 2
Indeed, because if a business, the only serious customer of the touchscreen uses, were to use a touchscreen it would be as follows:

A. They would have a POS that has linux on it, and a monitor with touchscreen capabilities, for instance: Pizza Hut uses Suse on their POS units.

B. If they go the Windows route, it's already an OEM install with touchscreen capabilities.

Or C. Laptops with touch screen capabilities, also have OEM installs, but what I hear is that because of this, the drivers are a pain in the butt, and most likely than not it is harder to do a clean install on these precious items.

Since A and B&C are pretty saying Linux or OEM install of Windows, then this crap about how these useless features are enabled in all of the Windows installs, which is another out of a hundred reasons why I prefer an nLited install of XP, is completely retarded, and bloatware.


RE: Broken Promises...
By piroroadkill on 9/13/2008 9:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
XP boots quicker than 2000
98 was quicker than 95


RE: Broken Promises...
By mikefarinha on 9/13/2008 3:03:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
XP boots quicker than 2000
98 was quicker than 95


That depends on the hardware.


RE: Broken Promises...
By piroroadkill on 9/16/2008 4:35:29 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, only to a small degree.. XP loads drivers on boot in a quicker way than 2000 I believe, but I haven't got any hard facts, but certainly 98 is quicker if only for the reason that it offers FAT32 over FAT16


Good News!
By Bender 123 on 9/12/2008 10:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
Based on the running history of Windows, this will be the one to keep in the vain of the 95->98, ME->XP, Vista->7.

I, for one, have not had a pleasant time with Vista, but it got a lot better with SP1, more stable than XP, even (Watch it Applebois...I remember OS X when it was first released and it wasn't that great either...light years better now, though).

I just think Microsoft needs to get past Vista's PR problems as quickly as possible and move on to 7, but I am happy to know they aren't rushing it out the door and creating a new problem in the process.