backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 149 comment(s) - last by DeepBlue1975.. on Jun 25 at 6:46 PM


Both Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates were on hand for the Windows 7 demonstration.  (Source: Microsoft)

Julie Larson-Green, Microsoft VP of Windows Experience Program Management, debuted Windows 7 at D6, including showing off its new touch capabilities.

Larson-Green shows off the multi input touch abilities of Windows 7 on a Dell Latitude XT, during the demo.  (Source: CNet)
The new OS made a surprise appearance that's got everyone talking

While Apple is known for stealing the show and anticipation has been building at a giddy pace for the new 3G iPhone, its long time rival Microsoft is not afraid to steal a bit of spotlight of its own.  After months of tight-lipped silence, even as recently as last week, about Window's Vista's successor Window 7 which is set to debut in 2009, Microsoft finally unveiled the work in progress to the press.

The place was Carlsbad, California at the sixth edition of the D Conference, known only as D6.  Julie Larson-Green, Microsoft's VP of Windows Experience Program Management gave a tantalizing brief demonstration of the new OS, which is showcasing strong support for the touch technology.  Steve Ballmer downplayed the demo as the "smallest snippet of Windows 7", but the crowd obviously knew the significance of the event.

The new OS was demonstrated on the Dell Latitude XT, a current model notebook with touch screen capabilities.  Julie said that touching is "super important" to the new interface.  And she knows what the customer wants.  She made a name for herself at Microsoft when she delivered the well received 2007 Microsoft Office UI, which featured marked improvements over past implementations both in style and feel.

"You will be able to do these things in Windows 7," Julie commented as she drew a picture in Microsoft Paint using only her fingers.  Further, she showcased how the system can accept multiple finger inputs, hence the "multi" part of the "multi-touch" technology title.  The new multi-touch technology will deploy on "all sizes and shapes of computers" according to Julie, but you would need the appropriate digitizer hardware.  Touching is "not complete replacement of the mouse", rather it’s a way to further your experience, she says.

Among other revelations is Microsoft's preliminary statement that Windows 7 will feature little if any general architecture changes from Vista.  Also the new OS featured, in the demo version, an OS X-like dock, unlike Vista's more traditional Windows UI, albeit prettied by the Aero Interface.  Other details on the new services remain scarce, but Microsoft promises big things in addition to its newfound touch abilities and UI.

Some note with curiosity the date that Ballmer reaffirmed for Windows 7 to ship -- 2009.  Previously, Microsoft had stated that the OS would like ship in 2010, giving Vista a 3 year window.  However, Microsoft Chairman and founder Bill Gates surprised the media this spring by announcing that it would likely ship in 2009.  With a confirmation from Microsoft Chief Executive, this seems to be an increasingly sure proposition.

The timing of the debut struck some journalists as a bit unusual, as Apple and Linux now have time to mount OS counteroffensives and work on some touching of their own.  Also some note that the continued trickle of news may only further many companies' "skip Vista and wait for Windows 7" mindset.

Despite its proponents' well-stated defenses of Vista, the likely reason for the debut is that Microsoft realizes that its current OS has fallen short.  For a company like Microsoft modest sales, failing to surpass your previous product, are not a victory but a loss.  Microsoft is eager to put this in the past by pushing out Windows 7 earlier than expected and generating a buzz with its strong push into emerging tactile technologies and more service to be unveiled in coming months.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Touch
By Spivonious on 5/28/2008 11:14:08 AM , Rating: 3
So we'll all have to buy new touch sensitive monitors now?

I think Microsoft really needs to just dive into the Win32 API and clean it up. Throw out the old 16-bit compatibility, and really streamline things at the most primitive level. New interfaces are nice, and easy to generate press about, but once that novelty wears off, we're still stuck with the designed-for-386 API functions.




RE: Touch
By 67STANG on 5/28/2008 11:21:22 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. However I believe that touch-screen technology is really mostly useful for notebooks and kiosks. Workstations I think would rarely benefit from this, barring the engineering software like solidworks that already allows you to draw components on special monitors.

I hope that this isn't the reason they say we need to upgrade, because to me... it's really a blah feature anyhow. What scares me is that they say the touch feature as "super important" to the system...

I hope they focus on slimming up the kernel like a previous article stated and actually go backwards in terms of system requirements from Vista.


RE: Touch
By Ammohunt on 5/28/2008 1:55:11 PM , Rating: 3
Touching a monitor all day doesn't make sense no howver think of the surface of your desk as a touch sensitive display!


RE: Touch
By retrospooty on 5/28/2008 4:55:42 PM , Rating: 4
Its a feature, for those that want it... You dont have to buy a touchscreen and you dont have to use it.


RE: Touch
By hr824 on 5/28/2008 5:50:47 PM , Rating: 5
I advise buying stock in windex and paper towel now.


RE: Touch
By noirsoft on 5/28/2008 6:29:32 PM , Rating: 5
Given how porn is still the #1 moneymaker on the internet, that's been a safe investment for years now.


RE: Touch
By saiga6360 on 5/28/2008 8:15:49 PM , Rating: 3
Sounds... messy.


RE: Touch
By Captin Crunch on 5/28/2008 8:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
I am an Industrial Designer, and for me the Multitouch revolution is brilliant idea with lots of potential. For anyone using Alias Sketchbook Pro, etc it will hopefully mean the capabilities of the Wacom drawing tablets built into the base unit. http://www.wacom.com.au/price/price.php obviously this is only one example, but its an important one. Also I am a PC/MAC user with a Multitouch MBP, Multitouch has changed how I interface with the computer, and I now prefer the track-pad over a mouse. Really looking forward to see how W7 implements Multitouch.


RE: Touch
By PrezWeezy on 5/28/2008 9:02:12 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I hope they focus on slimming up the kernel like a previous article stated and actually go backwards in terms of system requirements from Vista.


Yeah I agree, let's just make it compatible with 1 mb video cards and Pentium II's.

I can't believe how people are bitching about Vista's hardware requirements. Think about it guys, the reality is that 1 gig of memory is 22 bucks. And hardware is only going to get better and faster, why would you go BACKWARDS? That's completely asinine. It doesn't even really take that much to run Vista. I have an Athalon 4200+ with 1 gig of memory and a $50 video card running it just fine in 64 bit mode. I don't play games on it, but I couldn't play games if it was XP either, at least nothing more than what I can now. If they don't design these systems for the future they are outdated by the time they hit the shelves. No one complains that Crysis takes a $3000 computer to run well, nor any of the other games out there. Lots of programs are hardware intensive and I don't think MS should be constantly blasted for thinking 6 months down the road. Don't run it on a POS PC, run it on a new PC and you will be just fine.


RE: Touch
By rudolphna on 5/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: Touch
By blckgrffn on 5/29/2008 9:15:11 AM , Rating: 2
Companies running P2 workstations? Are you kidding? Where?


RE: Touch
By Spivonious on 5/29/2008 9:54:28 AM , Rating: 2
We still have many 486 machines running NT 4. They work, and there's no reason to upgrade until they break.


RE: Touch
By lightfoot on 5/29/2008 11:36:31 AM , Rating: 5
By that logic, why do you even have 486's?

Did all your pencils break back in the early 90's?

What the hell are you doing upgrading your OS if you can't afford to upgrade from a 486???

I doubt that Windows 7 or Vista is even an issue for a company who hasn't even joined the internet age.


RE: Touch
By TomZ on 5/29/2008 10:09:17 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Many companies are running Pentium II workstations, and cant afford to upgrade. Thats millions of dollars.

Yeah, millions of dollars in lost productivity you mean. Unless an employee only uses the computer for a few minutes per week, or has a vanishingly small wage, upgrading the computer to a more modern one with up-to-date software will pay for itself pretty quickly.
quote:
Vista is a resource hog too. At idle, it uses over a Gig of memory, running nothing else! Its ridiculous!

Blah, blah, blah. People have said the same about every new Windows release since Windows 3.1 - so what. If a new version takes 2X the memory as the previous version, but memory costs 1/2 what it used to, then the cost is the same. Microsoft correctly anticipated that memory prices would continue to fall, and so it was able to tune Vista to use more RAM for Superfetch, etc.


RE: Touch
By ice456789 on 6/4/2008 12:20:14 AM , Rating: 2
While I couldn't even hope to debate with most of you about the technical aspects of computing, I can tell you that right now there are PLENTY of small-medium sized businesses that run on p2's or even less. I worked for an appliance company in the Southeast with over 20 locations... sales had to be entered into the computer by the salesperson. The computers were running Win98, and the software we used was a DOS emulation. The computers could not display more than 256 colors, and despite the T1 lines it took a full 38 seconds (I counted) just to load the company's own webpage. Many medium size distribution centers run systems that are 10 years old. They track all their sales and inventory on these computers. You'd be surprised how common it is.

All that said, it doesn't freaking matter. You don't design a new OS with these guys in mind, because they're not gonna buy it. It doesn't add to their productivity and neither would new computers unless they update all the software, which is a HUGE expense with questionable value especially when the existing system still works. It won't help the salesman who types with two fingers fill out a sales form any faster, and it won't help the warehouse guys manually scan inventory faster. So don't worry about those companies when designing a new OS.

If some companies use 10 year old computers, they are not going to be interested in buying the newest OS to put on them. Obviously they would rather invest somewhere else.


RE: Touch
By PrezWeezy on 6/4/2008 6:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
I'm the moron? If you are suggesting that a company can afford to buy all new operating systems, spend the time to upgrade, and not upgrade hardware, you should take a look in the mirror. I understand there are SOME places that still use old machines, as someone below commented there is no reason to run anything faster than a PII if you are typing in sales info. But there is almost 0 market for upgrades. That's part of why they are so cheap. MS knows they wont make their money there. The largest chunk of money comes from new hardware, and that's where Vista does great. No one ever suggested someone with a PII should upgrade. It would run slower than NT would anways, so it would be a huge waste of money. Think about what you are actually saying before you post next time.


RE: Touch
By mikeyD95125 on 5/29/2008 12:22:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope that this isn't the reason they say we need to upgrade, because to me... it's really a blah feature anyhow. What scares me is that they say the touch feature as "super important" to the system...


Apple seems to do well on this buisiness model.


RE: Touch
By freaqie on 5/28/2008 11:23:44 AM , Rating: 2
windows 7 and vista maybe too.. should have been 64 bit only... it would have meant only one driver had to be created from now on. and 32 bit could(should) just be emulated...

please drop 32 bit.. it's too slow. and supports too little ram etc...


RE: Touch
By JasonMick (blog) on 5/28/2008 11:25:21 AM , Rating: 5
FYI... the 16-bit compatibility was thrown out with Vista, an oft topic of debate (is it "ruining the good old times" or "about time they got rid of that antique junk"?).

I agree some baseline cleanup may be in order, but it doesn't appear Windows 7 is going to be the place with it.


RE: Touch
By Saosin on 5/28/2008 5:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
I believe 16-bit support is still there in the 32-bit version, just not in the 64-bit one.

But ya I agree, Microsoft really needs to start cleaning up the code base.


RE: Touch
By TomZ on 5/28/2008 10:55:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I believe 16-bit support is still there in the 32-bit version, just not in the 64-bit one.

Incorrect; Vista doesn't support 16-bit in either edition.


RE: Touch
By Spivonious on 5/29/2008 9:55:31 AM , Rating: 2
Incorrect again. 32-bit Vista supports 16-bit applications.


RE: Touch
By TomZ on 5/29/2008 10:16:42 AM , Rating: 1
You're right, sorry my mistake, 32-bit Vista does support 16-bit apps. The resource I was referring to was talking about 64-bit Vista but did not make that very clear.


RE: Touch
By TomZ on 5/28/2008 11:16:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I agree some baseline cleanup may be in order, but it doesn't appear Windows 7 is going to be the place with it.

As you well know Jason, major portions of Vista, including within the kernel, were re-written/cleaned-up since the prior release (Server 2003). I believe the same happened in every OS release so far for the NT-based OS family.

People have this romantic idea that somehow the OS should be distilled down to some pure essence which would be just a fraction of its current size. But the reality is that the only way that would ever happen is if you removed a substantial fraction of the functionality and requirements, which is never going to happen. Customers expect - no they demand - that each subsequent release does more, not less, than the previous release.

In fact, it is clear that one of the areas where many people believe that Vista fell short was that it was not enough of a "step up." How do you think customers would feel if, in the interests of "cleaning up," Microsoft were to cut out a lot of functionality in a new OS release? The idea is really so stupid that nobody would ever seriously think about it.

...especially when you consider continuously increasing hardware capability. Today it is cheap and easy to have a fast quad-core with 4GB of RAM and hundreds of GB of HDD. What do you think we'll have in 2-3 years when Windows 7 is released, or 4-5 years when it becomes mainstream?


RE: Touch
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 3:12:50 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What do you think we'll have in 2-3 years when Windows 7 is released
A very non-inclusive OS / another reason not to upgrade.

The concept of minimizing the footprint of an OS is far from unrealistic, but more often than not eclipsed by function. How much more functional can the OS get?

I have a plethora of 100-233MHz Pentiums/MMX + Win95 systems deployed all over the place (give em Office 95, Winamp, a few games, and an older Mozilla build) and have not heard one complaint.

Sometimes (I say sometimes...) people are satisfied having just what they need and not much else. Moving forward is not always about exerting 100% of future technologies. That's a disease.

Who actually needs and is not simply spoiled by one-third of Vista bloat? You know they could have done better.

There could always be a mainstream edition of the next OS that downloads only the required drivers at install time and leaves everything else OFF the hard drive. There could be a decent I/O scheduler coupled with a minimal base so as to not juggle 80+ processes between two to four cores. It's not simple and it's not necessary.

For so many editions of Vista, they could have tailored each for a MUCH more specific duty (and still be 98% practical to each target, believe it or not) at a much lower cost of system resources.

In twenty years, I still won't need one gig of RAM to write a paper.


RE: Touch
By LyCannon on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Touch
By allometry on 5/28/2008 11:55:35 AM , Rating: 5
If you remove support for 32-bit software, you cease to support over 90% of the software on the market.

That would not be a smart move.

Windows API is a monster; it's huge. .NET makes Windows Development nice again, since it's entirely modular and well documented. I wouldn't say that .NET needs a whole lot of work itself and maybe it's a pipe dream, but it would be neat to see .NET become native.


RE: Touch
By JAB on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Touch
By napalmjack on 5/28/2008 1:32:47 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Jack off all trades


Freud is my favorite poster.;)


RE: Touch
By HVAC on 5/28/2008 2:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
Freud certainly seems to SLIP them in ...


RE: Touch
By overzealot on 5/29/2008 8:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
I thought I was the Master of Noting.


RE: Touch
By aharris on 5/28/2008 1:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple pulled it off 8 years ago without virtualization, Microsoft can pull it off in two years with virtualization. I really want to enjoy Windows again, but Microsoft is making it very difficult by refusing to clean up their platform.

Virtualize legacy Windows, move everything up to a new 64-bit kernel, and make anything that is not core-OS modular. That's what it will take for me to love Windows again.

Until then, I'll continue enjoying my MacBook Pro and my Window XP desktop.


RE: Touch
By Screwballl on 5/28/2008 3:46:38 PM , Rating: 4
agreed....

although I have the linux preference as I cannot stand paying Apple for service packs


RE: Touch
By Pirks on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Touch
By ninjaquick on 5/28/2008 5:12:16 PM , Rating: 5
yeah.. um, it IS a service pack, the others are just hot fixes bundled into a single patch. Simmilar to a service pack only that service packs modify the actual windows in some way, adding new dirext x extensions or security software.
"New version of the OS" is actually read "New version of the SAME OS" dont get me wrong, lotsa changes were made, but youre trying to say apples and oranges in a case of a dime or two nickles. New dock with stacks is translated to stacks added to dock, maybe new theme? Time machine is really, i dunno, never used it, but i guess maybe some kids enjoy playing with it. 64bit across whole OS would really turn into what your point is, and even so, if MS wanted to, they could SP XP 32 to 64, except itd be a massive service pack, since it would have to include patches for pretty much everything in the world. Apple has it easy since anything that goes onto their OS is made or ported specifically for the OS, and apple hardware.
10.5 is a service pack man. Whole new version would be server 2003.


RE: Touch
By aharris on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Touch
By gochichi on 5/28/2008 7:51:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that Mac OS is a nice OS, and it may very well have "new kernels" but the fact of the matter is that the updates to the OS are so frequent and so service-pack-like that it really has irked me after a while. Got my laptop, three months later Tiger came out, then Leapard more recently. I would say 10.1-10.4 could have been service packs, and Leopard may just be different enough to call it an actual new OS. For instance, it has Bootcamp (not-Beta, but fully supported).

The saving grace of Mac OS X so far is not that it is UNIX, it is that you can upgrade as many computers as you want with one disk (it doesn't have crazy copy restrictions like Windows does, you can upgrade as many Macs with the one disk, so it kind of averages to $20-$40.00 per service-pack per Mac).

All of this is irrelevant to me actually, Mac OS X is worth $150.00 or whatever. THe problem I have with Apple is that I can't use real hardware with it, I have to enter their Nazi world or ubber design. I prefer less style, more economy and more processing power.

I don't understand why people can't like Vista right now based on the fact that it still has some 16-bit compatibility. I mean, I honestly don't like the GUI very well and it's a little slow (not a ton slow, a little) but I don't see too much of how worse it is than outdated as hell Windows XP (including the "for-children" look and feel). The main problem with VIsta as far as I'm concerned is that it's too Windows-like period.


RE: Touch
By Pirks on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Touch
By Alexstarfire on 5/28/2008 8:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
LOL. I know what you mean. While I'm not 100% sure of this, but pretty darn sure none-the-less, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME were all DOS based, not NT based. Windows 2000, Windows XP, and likely Windows Vista are all NT based. Not sure about Vista, but I'm pretty sure it's at least partially based on it.

Anyways, I think what he's really trying to say is that if it was a new OS then why wouldn't it go from 10.x to 11.x? I mean honestly. If it went to 11.x then I sure as hell would consider that a new OS. With Apple not changing it to 11.x that must mean that there is a LOT that they keep the same.

BTW, I've never purchased an OS from Microsoft. It's merely been forced down my throat thanks to not being able to remove it from an OEM PC during purchase/configuration. If I could have removed that option and saved $100+ I would have done so.


RE: Touch
By TomZ on 5/28/2008 11:01:48 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
LOL. I know what you mean. While I'm not 100% sure of this, but pretty darn sure none-the-less, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME were all DOS based, not NT based.

No, the Win9x operating systems were not "DOS based" - not at all. Yes, they did support DOS compatibility (for obvious reasons), but they were true operating systems that ran natively on top of only the BIOS and hardware.

ref. http://www.microsoft.com/technet/archive/win95/rk3...


RE: Touch
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 3:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
When it runs DOS natively, that could be considered DOS-based.

When it accesses real-mode memory, that also could be a sign.

Fact: The hybrid kernel had roots in both DOS and NT, so it is easily misunderstood.

@GP, Vista = NT 6.0 but you'd hardly know if it weren't for that string in System Properties.


RE: Touch
By cmdrdredd on 5/29/2008 1:27:43 AM , Rating: 2
With MacOS there are more $99 upgrades than there are Windows versions. This Vista > Windows 7 thing may be the first transition that wasn't years apart. I think this will also be the first time I sit on an OS instead of upgrading right away. Vista is perfect for what I've been doing and what I need. I'm not sure that an upgrade is necessary so soon. I don't see what the point is personally. So Businesses aren't buying volume licenses of Vista and whatever, why release a further different OS? It's not like everyone is going to rush out and buy Windows 7 now, especially if they skipped Vista. I'd work a few updates into Vista and make it a viable solution. I don't know how many people would enjoy buying a new $400 OS (Vista Ultimate retail price).


RE: Touch
By Sulphademus on 5/30/2008 9:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
The way things are shaping up it seems that Vista is the new Win95, the big new thing, and Windows 7 will be the new Win98, the perfection* of what the prior started.

* - please dont take literally.


RE: Touch
By JimmyC on 6/2/2008 12:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
Hopefully Windows 7 is closer to 98SE.


RE: Touch
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2008 5:08:49 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If Apple pulled it off 8 years ago without virtualization, Microsoft can pull it off in two years with virtualization.


Microsoft doesn't have Apples advantage of proprietary hardware and software that only needs supporting. Its easy to do things when you only have to worry about a very short list of hardware and software to work into the environment.


RE: Touch
By allometry on 5/28/2008 2:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
That's a good point you bring up.

Making Windows a completely 64-bit OS and virtualizing the 32-bit and even 16-bit portions of past API's would be wonderful. If you needed 32-bit support, the OS could fire up the necessary VM to support you. The same goes for 16-bit support.

Not a bad idea.


RE: Touch
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/28/2008 2:54:05 PM , Rating: 5
A nice idea in theory, but the work required to make it happen is staggering. Not due to the fundamentals, but the security that needs to be in place so you can't exploit 16-bit mode to hijack something in another segment, while still allowing legit functions to cross the threshold. That's the trick, and the reason 16-bit was dropped from Vista. (Security exploits on 16-bit is staggeringly high)


RE: Touch
By inighthawki on 5/28/2008 7:17:03 PM , Rating: 3
You want to get rid all all legacy software after people are complaining now about software incompatibility in Vista? Half the reason that people use windows is for knowing that their programs will still work. Take away everything they have now and starting over on a fresh sheet of paper would be throwing away a large portion of their user base and basically destroying stuff that people love to use.


RE: Touch
By noirsoft on 5/28/2008 3:11:51 PM , Rating: 3
I seriously doubt your 95% statistic. Vista Home Premium runs beautifully on an old 2.4 Ghz original Pentium 4, and I had Ultimate installed on a 3.2 Ghz Pentium D, neither of which would handle 64-bit code. My brand-spanking new quad-core running 64-bit Ultimate does not run the every day tasks appreciably faster than either of those machines.

A 64-bit CPU is not the important spec for Vista. 2 gigs RAM and a decent video card are.


RE: Touch
By djkrypplephite on 5/28/2008 7:23:55 PM , Rating: 2
All Pentium Ds and some Pentium 4's handle 64-bit.


RE: Touch
By jconan on 5/28/2008 8:21:38 PM , Rating: 1
Some AMD Athlons and Semprons are 32bit only as with some of Intel C2D are 32bit or do not support virtualization.


RE: Touch
By Spivonious on 5/29/2008 10:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
All C2D chips are 64-bit.


RE: Touch
By larson0699 on 6/3/2008 3:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
To further clarify, all Core 2-series CPUs support EM64T.

The only of these to not support virtualization are the Allendales.


RE: Touch
By xzourska on 6/13/2008 11:59:15 AM , Rating: 2
I dont remember any P4's being sold when Vista was released or any of the 32bit Core Duos. I could be wrong but the way he stated is about 95% or some number around there of all the new systems that are labeled Vista Compatible are 64bit capable. That does not mean the system you purchase the Retail copy for that meets the Vista minimum specs but a new system. That is how I saw it.

I am one who thinks Microsoft had a major opportunity to force 64bit into the world by making OEMs to only use 64bit while only allowing the retail copy to have the 32 bit option just to increase the support for older systems and legacy software support. If they allow OEMs with the new Windows 7 to use 32bit I will be extremely upset since all processors by 2009 being sold should support 64 bit including the Atom! They could also be really bold and make Window 7 multi core required for desktop and high end laptops for OEMs and only have single core compatibility with the retail copy. That would allow companies designing software to do the same thing they did when MS required a CD-ROM to install Windows and forced the death call of the floppy drive.

I know that I am ranting and saying the same things others have said and obvious stuff but if MS requires this new technology out of OEM's then we as the consumer benefit a lot more then just getting a visual upgrade and some other added features. So if we pay $200 (random number) for the license of a Windows on a new system we will be getting some assurance that now we are establishing a new minimum standard that software companies build for.


RE: Touch
By AmbroseAthan on 5/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: Touch
By mcturkey on 5/28/2008 11:53:51 AM , Rating: 2
My understanding was that Windows 7 was supposed to be a totally new OS, supporting backwards compatibility through the use of VMs. Thus native apps would run much faster and be easier to write, without sacrificing support for the millions of older programs out there. Is this not correct?


RE: Touch
By Jeff7181 on 5/28/2008 12:02:57 PM , Rating: 2
The only thing I ever heard like that was around the time of Vista's release and people were saying the next Windows OS would be revolutionary.
After Vista's release, and complaints about it not running well on a minimum spec machine, I think Microsoft decided a "refresh" was in order.
Windows 7 will no doubt be evolutionary, not revolutionary. I for one am happy about that... since it's based on Vista, the hardware requirements will likely be similar and won't require an upgrade to new hardware like people complained about when moving from XP to Vista.


RE: Touch
By Polynikes on 5/28/2008 12:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'd rather have something revolutionary. We need to dump the legacy support and 32-bit support and let VMs handle that stuff. It would make for a much more streamlined OS.


RE: Touch
By fuser197 on 5/28/2008 3:37:17 PM , Rating: 4
'Touching is "not complete replacement of the mouse", rather it’s a way to further your experience, she says.'

You're not required to buy anything.


RE: Touch
By omnicronx on 5/28/2008 4:23:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
So we'll all have to buy new touch sensitive monitors now?
Always something to complain about.. even before the OS is released.. I bet you were the guy that said 'What so now we have to buy a mouse?' when windows 3.1 came out..

quote:
Throw out the old 16-bit compatibility, and really streamline things at the most primitive level.
They did in Vista, you can now only run 16bit via a compatability layer, similar to how 32 bit programs are run in 64 bit windows.

quote:
New interfaces are nice, and easy to generate press about, but once that novelty wears off, we're still stuck with the designed-for-386 API functions.
Obviously someone did not read up on Vista.. If you read the article yesterday, it was made quite clear that these major changes like these were released in Vista and not to expect them in Windows 7. Basically don't expect to see too many big changes in regards to windows APIs as any major changes were done in Vista.


RE: Touch
By Pirks on 5/28/2008 4:49:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think Microsoft really needs to just dive into the Win32 API and clean it up
I can't understand Win32 touting necrophiles. Win32 is dead, use .NET instead. WPF is _WAY_ better than that ancient GDI #rap.


RE: Touch
By Spivonious on 5/29/2008 10:06:22 AM , Rating: 2
.NET Windows Forms is a wrapper over Win32. I've tried using WPF and it's just not ready for primetime yet. No grid control???


RE: Touch
By jconan on 5/28/2008 8:11:19 PM , Rating: 2
M$ doesn't have to throw away everything, they could make the OS much leaner and modular with plug-ins ie 16bit, 32bit, 64bit, and 512bit etc. That was one of the flaws with Vista lack of compatible drivers and programs. Probably Micro$oft would be better off with different kernel versions like the anorexic, lean, moderate, and chunky nt kernels of windows for different clients or markets.


Dock from OSX
By CU on 5/28/2008 11:49:12 AM , Rating: 5
How can it have dock like OSX, when Win 9x already has a "dock" called Quick Launch. It can be dragged to any edge, made to auto hide, become a separate window, or sit on top of the task bar like most people I know have it. OSX didn't invent the dock.




RE: Dock from OSX
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2008 1:23:23 PM , Rating: 5
Haven't you learned yet? When Apple develops a product that already exists and puts it in a prettier case, they have created a new product. One that will be rejoiced and deserves to be worshipped like the Golden Calf at Mt. Sinai(sp?).


RE: Dock from OSX
By srue on 5/28/2008 2:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, I thought I actually knew how to use my computer. Thanks for posting that - I never knew the quick launch toolbar could be used like that. I just now set it up to hide on the left of my screen (always on top so I can open it when another app is maximized), and it works great. I even moved my desktop icons over to it. Cool! This is probably the first useful thing I have learned from reading the comments.


RE: Dock from OSX
By CU on 5/28/2008 3:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
Glad I could help. You can also create more tool bars and drag them to other edges.


RE: Dock from OSX
By aharris on 5/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: Dock from OSX
By noirsoft on 5/28/2008 3:15:39 PM , Rating: 3
I seriously don't like the OSX dock, as I feel that mixing task-switching with task launching is a bad UI decision, which only enhances the typical Apple user problem of accidentally leaving apps open (you mean closing the window doesn't close the app?) and wondering why the machine runs so slow.

Adding a dock to Vista would be a huge mistake.


RE: Dock from OSX
By CU on 5/28/2008 3:41:08 PM , Rating: 5
Why do you assume my argument is full of fallacious points?

1. The article said the dock was like OSX's. No one mentioned OS9 or commercials.

2. That is what the system tray is for. All though you can empty the recycling bin from the quick launch bar, so there may be away to add functions to right click. Just most programs use the system tray instead.

3. Create a new tool bar and point it to the folder you want. You can browse the folder by clicking on the little arrows. It works just like the Start Menu. However, I would add the folders you want to browse to the Start Menu instead.

4. In Win 9x you can create multiple tool bars and put them all in the task bar split by divider bars you can even name them, and put one on each edge. Try creating multiple docks in OSX that can group in on place, become a window, and dock to any edge.

5. Drag the recycling bin to the quick launch bar. :P

Window's task bar, which includes tool bars, are far superior to OSX's limited dock, and yes I have used both since Win95/OSX 10.1. The dock is like a subset of the windows task bar.

Yes, OSX's Dock was taken from NeXT I think. They probably used alot of the same code when creating OSX from NeXT.


RE: Dock from OSX
By nitrous9200 on 5/28/2008 4:12:19 PM , Rating: 2
Try clicking on the icon iTunes for Windows puts in your system tray to do that instead. (Not that I ever would, iTunes for Windows is probably one of the most bloated and slowest applications I've ever seen)


RE: Dock from OSX
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2008 4:25:12 PM , Rating: 3
2) I don't use iTunes. I use WMP and have it minimized to the task bar that gives me all the control I need. Other programs also have mini-versions to allow basic control without taking up screen space. Being able to pause your music player by right clicking on the icon is nothing to get excited about.

5) I don't need a recycle bin on my quick launch bar. When I want to put something in the recycle bin, I hit the delete key. Revolutionary huh?


RE: Dock from OSX
By DASQ on 5/28/2008 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 3
I can 1-up your 5), I circumvent the recycle bin altogether.

Shift-Del FTW!


RE: Dock from OSX
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2008 5:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Well yes I typically just use Shift+Delete myself. But he was referring to putting things in the recycle bin. I thought about mentioning that, but didn't.


RE: Dock from OSX
By pwnsweet on 5/28/2008 9:25:06 PM , Rating: 1
This Jason Mick guy is an idiot. Every time he writes an article/blog there are mistakes/inconsistencies.


Just a second...
By KaiserCSS on 5/28/2008 11:49:12 AM , Rating: 3
I don't know about you guys, but my monitor is positioned fairly far away from my body. I do this for a comfortable viewing experience. Therefore, I wouldn't be very pleased with the proposition of reaching across my desk to tap on my monitor to do something.

I can easily see the novelty value of this kind of technology. It's apparent with the success of the iPhone that consumers like the touch-screen implementation. However, I personally prefer the tactile sensation of hitting keys and moving a mouse or using a drawpad for Photoshop. I don't think I'd be able to handle a Star Trek-type interface. It would be annoying, rather clumsy, and difficult to adapt to due to the fact that there is no sensation associated with hitting individual keys. I can see how this would cause problems such as typos and incorrect inputs.

Now, apply this technology to business and industry, and we might have something. For example, I'm all up for a coffee table at Dunkin Donuts where you could simply sit down and order your coffee and donuts straight from the table. Or perhaps instantly bring up and enlarge a security monitor by simply dragging a thumbnail of the shot with your fingers. I could even see this technology implemented in malls, with interactive clothing catalogs, or aviation, where air traffic could be deconflicted manually using such a device from a tower.

I'm not saying this technology doesn't have consumer value; obviously it does. I'm just dubious of it's value in the home setting. It seems Microsoft is targeting the average user by the sound of this article, and if that's so, I'm not sure I could adapt to the sudden change of interface too well.




RE: Just a second...
By lightfoot on 5/28/2008 12:50:25 PM , Rating: 4
Most people do dislike change. Unfortunately technology is all about change. Sadly back in the late 80's and early 90's people had to adapt to using a mouse and clicking on icons - it would be so nice to get back to a simple blinking cursor at a command prompt.


RE: Just a second...
By FITCamaro on 5/28/2008 1:21:08 PM , Rating: 2
What I love about Star Trek is how they can reprogram or bypass circuits in a complicated piece of technology with what looks like a tiny screw driver.


RE: Just a second...
By jimbojimbo on 5/28/2008 4:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
or how about the people that use their HDTV as a monitor and sit 8 feet away? I just hope it's not too tied into everything but I don't think it will be. It'll just be a neat additional feature.


RE: Just a second...
By Reclaimer77 on 5/28/2008 5:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
I think the whole touch screen thing is, obviously, a promotional attention grabber.

In practice, touch screens are never optimal. After using my friends I-Phone for a few minutes, the screen turned into a smudgy unreadable POS. Unless you plan on wearing gloves every time you go to use Windows 7, I would expect the same results.

No matter how careful I am, I still end up having to clean my LCD monitor once or twice a month. Theres no way I'm going to use some touch screen interface for my PC.

But yeah, its just optional and sort of a " geee wiiz look at meeeee " kinda thing right now. It might not even make it into live for all we know.


RE: Just a second...
By danrien on 5/28/2008 10:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
i could see some of this touch technology being used as an interesting control peripheral, i.e. you have a touch screen built into your coffee table at home that sits in front of your tv; the peripheral is treated like one of those "second screen" deals that's been implemented with Vista Media center, then certain things could be put on that screen to control your pc more intuitively then searching for everything with your mouse.

I personally envision a large start icon being put on this hypothetical desk, which would touch, would expand to have some sort of "snapshot" glance of your start menu, which you could then dig into. Meanwhile, your HDTV, which is hooked up to your PC, would be relaying the actions to the normal classic Windows GUI. That's personally where I see this technology having some merit. Also, Microsoft can contact me for the patent information on this idea.... haha jk.

Anyways, obviously the technology has much more applicability in the handheld area... but that's not to say that the ideas with this technology could not be re-implemented for the desktop in new and interesting ways.


AHHH
By Kefner on 5/28/2008 11:34:35 AM , Rating: 5
I can't stand when someone walks over and points something out on my screen, and has to touch the screen and put a finger print on it! I'll really flip when there are smearing finger prints going all over my screen!!!! Sounds interesting though :)




RE: AHHH
By Schrag4 on 5/28/2008 12:45:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah really! No more browing DT during my lunch break because it's too messy!


RE: AHHH
By Schrag4 on 5/28/2008 12:46:38 PM , Rating: 2
*brow s ing*

(sigh)


RE: AHHH
By danrien on 5/28/2008 10:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
maybe they could put an acid on the screen? altho that would probably come with its own bucket of problems... and health concerns.... :S


RE: AHHH
By fuser197 on 5/28/2008 3:43:46 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, man, I totally know what you mean, I always make them use a pen to point to something on the screen, a capped pen/retracted pen.


By Locutus465 on 5/28/2008 1:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
Windows 7 does look nifterific, I will probably hold off on switching from vista primarly because I only just recently bought a laptop, and next year is a bit soon for me to be upgrading. But yeah, if I can get an OS with vista's features set, 64bit, perhaps a little leaner and multitouch capability on a laptop then hells yeah I'm all about that. I might even go for a more traditional tablet style PC as my primary moble PC.

For the desktop, well... Who knows, Vista might live quite a bit longer on my desktop than on my mobile PC. The next coolest thing would be if you could keep multiple instances of Outlook in sync with each other automatically w/o the need for exchange server. If I had that I'd be all set between my PPC, Laptop and Desktop.




By FITCamaro on 5/28/2008 1:59:43 PM , Rating: 1
Unless you have a laptop with a touch or multi-touch screen, the touch features will be useless on your laptop. Same goes for the touch pad.


By Locutus465 on 5/28/2008 2:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
Hence I said I might hold off on an upgrade... This upgrade will basically require a hardware update (on the mobile side for sure) but probably not due to the actual requirements of running the OS (slimmer than vista sounds like it should make my laptop slightly faster) but because there'd be no point to upgrading my laptop. If I'm getting Windows 7 on a mobile PC then I want the touch functions, no questions. Which is why I would also want something like a laptop/tablet combo type PC. The kind that you can use in regular laptop configuration or fold the screen down and use as a tablet.

Such a system with Windows 7 on a laptop would be fairly killer. As far as the desktop env... Well IDK, I doubt touch will be a big deal on the desktop anyway and my desktop's HW will almost certainly eat windows 7 for breakfast (it already does so to vista). So upgrading that will depend upon whether there are enough compelling UI/system changes.


By Pirks on 5/28/2008 5:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Unless you have a laptop with a touch or multi-touch screen, the touch features will be useless on your laptop. Same goes for the touch pad.
Try to use multitouch touchpad on MacBook (two finger scroll, etc) before judging it.

As they say - "don't argue about taste of oysters with those who never sampled them".


By Locutus465 on 5/28/2008 5:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
As far as I know the mac book only uses multitouch on the touchpad, what gates and CO seem to be talking about is on screen not on touchpad. Different animal, closer to iphone multitouch than mac book if you're looking for a comparison. At least that's what I got out of this.


By Pirks on 5/28/2008 7:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I know the mac book only uses multitouch on the touchpad
And FITCamaro above argues that multitouch on a touchpad is a stupid idea nobody needs. I say FITCamaro knows $hit about what he's talking about. He obviously never tried multitouch on MacBook's touchpad.


By Locutus465 on 5/28/2008 9:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I guess i'm not going to argue the idea all that much since I have limited personal experience. All I can say is that my limited experience basically mirrors what I've read in online reviews, that multitouch touchpads just aren't as useful as having a multitouch screen, and is almost gimicky. Maybe if I used it on a regular basis I would appriciate it more than I do now, but as it is the aspect I appriciate most is that accidently having my hand on a random part of the touch pad doesn't disable normal mouse operation. Personally I'd rather have a second mouse button.

Again, I'm not trying to knock it since I don't have the day to day experience with it, but from playing around with it in a couple different apps here and there I just wasn't wowed.