Windows 7: If it were my idea
Like previous versions of Windows, Windows 7 supports legacy software written for previous Windows releases, including Windows 95.
(Credit: Screenshot by Dong Ngo/CNET)I remember the first time I ran into Windows in 1995. It was in one of the few small computer shops in Hanoi, Vietnam, where you had to pay money to use the machines. Being a high school student with absolutely no money, I made friends with the owner and helped him clean up the place just so I could use the computers after-hours. And I spent many hours using them.
Compared with what I had known, namely MS DOS, Windows 95 was truly revolutionary. I loved the support for long file names and marveled at the Start menu, the Taskbar, and the Control Panel. Everything made so much sense then, as it still does to this day.
Now, after having used Windows 7 exclusively for about four months on my PCs and even on my Mac, I realized that the impression Windows 95 made on me was far stronger than that of Windows 7 (or any other Windows).
Don't get me wrong. This is not a Windows 7-bashing article. Windows 7 is undoubtedly the most advanced and probably the best Windows ever. However, after 14 years, I think it's time Windows offered something more original than just improving and thriving on the success of Windows 95.
This is why when I saw the "I am a PC and Windows 7 was my idea" ads, I just wanted to jump into panel to ask the presumptuous-looking guy, "What is your idea, dude, really? What's really new?" (And speaking of original, come on Microsoft! You can do better than imitating Apple's painfully old and goofy, "I am a Mac, I am a PC" ads!)
So, strictly from a user's point of view, here are my ideas for how Windows could be better.
Cut down on the compatibility
Compatibility is one of Windows' biggest strengths--so much so that it has become a weakness. If you have a Mac, Snow Leopard can hardly run any software designed for the OS 10.0, let alone OS 9. (This is the complete and horrible lack of compatibility, by the way, not a good thing). Windows 7, however, can run natively (or almost natively) most software applications designed for Windows 95. Prior to this article, I tried Norton Commander 95 and a few other old applications written for Windows 95 and they worked well on Windows 7, including Windows 7 64-bit.
You better just believe Windows 7 was this Asian dude's idea, else he looks like he can actually convince you the hard way.
(Credit: Microsoft)This backward-compatibility comes with a heavy price: performance. To support legacy software, the OS has to have layers of supports, emulation, and exceptions in its kernel. Take Windows 7 64-bit for example. To support 32-bit applications seamlessly (or almost seamlessly), it needs the WoW64 subsystem, which, depending on the hardware, adds another layer of support to the OS.
The support for legacy software does not only harm the OS, especially as you use it over time; it also limits the innovation and creativity from the software vendor side. Again, who needs to write 64-bit applications when 64-bit Windows can run 32-bit applications just fine (or not so fine but fine enough)? Why do you have to make it better when the old one supposedly work on the new OS?
Ten, even seven or five years ago, even the best developers couldn't write software that's guaranteed to work problem-free on new (future) hardware, so Windows 7 should just ditch them completely and only support new software (version) made specifically for it.
Forget about the editions and go 64-bit only
This is the most annoying thing about Windows starting with Windows Vista. There are just way too many editions. Windows 7 Home Premium Edition, for example, is basically just a stripped-down version of Windows 7 Ultimate. And as it's likely becoming the most popular edition, it's very sad that it doesn't have "Remote Desktop," a very useful feature that I personally use a lot.
This multiple-edition release also puts a lot of stress and confusions on users as well as vendors when it comes to getting to know an OS and supporting it. Think about it: you will likely use the Home Premium edition at home but the Professional edition at work. They are mostly the same, yet very different. It's like you have the same task but two different tools at two different places that are supposed to be the same tool.
Personally, I've seen a lot of people buying a new computer running the Home Premium edition (of Windows Vista) for their office and later finding that it can't be hooked to a centralized server. Such a pain and waste of time.
If it were my decision, there should be only two editions of Windows 7: Windows 7 32-bit and Windows 7 64-bit.
The 32-bit version will take care of all the messy legacy support while the 64-bit is a clean 64-bit-only OS. This is a good opportunity to make Windows (64-bit) a completely new and clean OS from the scratch. And yet, if you still absolutely need to run 32-bit applications in Windows 7 64-bit, there's the XP Mode. Currently, why do you need XP Mode when Windows 7 64-bit can run 32-bit apps out of the box?
Better control of drivers
I am not a fan of control freaks, but this is an area where Microsoft needs to exude much more quality control. Windows, believe it or not, is a very stable OS. Crashes, including the notorious Blue Screen of Death, are most of the time the result of bad drivers.
Drivers are software that make hardware components work with the OS and they play a crucial role in keeping the system stable. It took Microsoft until Windows Vista 64-bit to enforce a digital signature for drivers (so that the developer can be identified) but even now with Windows 7, you can still easily find and use drivers that are not signed.
I am not sure what exactly can be done, but there should be very strict guidelines to ensure that only well-tested and stable drivers can be released to the public.
A lot of built-in applications in Windows 7 now use the Ribbon interface instead of the traditional drop-down menus.
(Credit: Screenshot by Dong Ngo/CNET)Give me my traditional menu back
OK, I was kind of wrong to say Windows 7 doesn't offer anything original. It's the first Windows OS that enforces the new Ribbon interface, first introduced in Office 2007.
Unfortunately, this makes life harder for a lot of folks. The success of the Windows GUI relies on the fact that it has been the best one for mouse and keyboard-based user input. The Ribbon interface is, however, best used with a touch-screen user input method. I use WordPad and Paint applications a lot, and now all the keyboard shortcuts I've used for years no longer work in the new versions of these apps in Windows 7.
Windows 7 should give users the option to pick either of the interfaces, the regular drop-down menu or the new Ribbon, instead of forcing all of us to use the new and very mouse-dependent latter.
Add product de-activation
Starting with Windows XP, Microsoft has implemented software activation to fight piracy. I don't know how effective it is, as piracy still runs rampant in Asia last time I checked. What I do know is it has been pain for a lot of users and it is going be the same with Windows 7.
While testing Windows 7 for CNET Reviews, I had to call the Microsoft Activation center many times to reactivate the product. Almost each time I replaced one or two hardware components (RAM, hard drive, CPU, motherboard, and so on) Windows wanted to activate again, and unlike the initial activation, it needed to be activated via phone.
Now I wish there was a way to deactivate Windows on a machine so that you reactivate it again on another or after the same hardware has been replaced. That would significantly reduce the pain for savvy users who upgrade their hardware frequently.
So there go my ideas. They obviously missed the chance to be part of the 1 billion ideas that made up Windows 7 like the ads claim, but they likely could actually have made Windows 7 an even better operating system. How about you, what would your ideas be? Please share them in the comments section below.
Dong Ngo is a CNET editor who covers networking and network storage, and writes about anything else he finds interesting. You can also listen to his podcast at insidecnetlabs.cnet.com. E-mail Dong.
I also hate the ribbon, and product activation. Activation does nothing against piracy. MS doesn't even validate your version: all they do is give you a new code. Its just meant to scare people that don't know any better, and only effectively punishes people that build their own machines and own legal versions.
I disagree, however, on backwards compatibility. There might be some points about vendor innovation, and whether you need to run Win95 applications; however, I run many older applications and I think backwards compatibility is a most. Apple really doesn't care how many copies of their OS they sell: Its about hardware for them. No backwards compat means people will likely not upgrade if they have older software; especially older games they may play.
* Remove the DRM - you're not going to stop the pirates, or even slow them down, and it only throws obstacles in front of legit users anyway.
* Cut the cord. OSX did it easily enough from Mac OS 9. Unless Microsoft does it too, they'll always be dependent on Moore's Law to save them. Then again, they likely don't want people being put into a position where they can start fresh...
* Force all drivers to be WHQL tested and signed, else reject them. That oughta solve the whole drivers issue, since that's who Microsoft keeps blaming for the failures and pratfalls.
1) Cutting compatibility only hurts MS's customers, and hence hurts MS. You only suggest it because you know it's a bad thing for MS. Tell me how the wow64 mode for 32-bit apps hurts you, and then you just might have a valid argument. Until then, MS actually deserves kudos for not taking the easy way out. The move to 64-bit will happen eventually, on it's own, when people are ready. No need to shove stuff down their throats. And in any case, if MS tried to do that, you'd be the first one yelling bloody murder.
2) Again -- all drivers on 64-bit win7 already need to be signed -- so you can check that. MS tried to do that for win32 as well, but the antivirus vendors complained to the DOJ because that would thwart some of the rootkit-like things they were doing when installing their products. MS compromised with them by making the change 64-bit only.
Further -- you cannot *force* drivers to be WHQL certified. You can only have a WHQL certification program, and if drivers test out ok, certify them, and if not, don't certify them. This already happens -- so I have no idea why you have to use your passive-aggressive "since that's who MS keeps blaming" line.
The reason you can't force WHQL certification -- because not everyone cares about it. For example, custom made drivers for accessibility reasons (there are people who do that sort of work for charity for example). WHQL certification is expensive. Obtaining a signing certificate is cheap. So requiring drivers to be signed makes sense. *Requiring* WHQL certification before loading a driver does not.
And need I remind you again -- if MS were ever to actually add such a restriction ("win7 will only load WHQL certified drivers") you will be the first one out with your pitchfork. So stop pretending like you care.
1. Not everyone cares (see the example I pointed out)
2. It puts too much control in MS's hands as to what modules you can or cannot load into your kernel.
MS does not want to be in the business of telling you what drivers/programs/etc. you can and cannot use. That's why they use 3rd party CAs (certificate authorities) for authenticode signatures (code signing), and driver signing.
The difference between WHQL and driver signing? WHQL certification says "we've tested this driver -- you should be ok if you use this". A signed driver means -- if this thing turns out to be a POS, or malware, you can track down the dude who wrote it. It also means, if this module gets altered by malware, or if you have downloaded it from some warez site and it contains malware, well, the signature won't check out, so the OS won't load the driver.
They're going to have to do it sometime... as it is now, they're already having to spin out VM-like solutions to insure maximum compatibility (XP Mode and XP Mode Streaming servers). How much more convoluted will things have to get in future releases, before it becomes obvious that they simply cannot continue down the path they've chosen?(incidentally, as it is you can only get XP Mode in Win7 Pro and greater, so a whole lot of people are about to find out the hard way that their shiny new computer isn't quite going to run all of their favorite old apps...)
It has nothing to do with wanting to see Microsoft "hurt", it's just common sense. They're becoming stuck between a rock and a hard place, and apparently their solution to the problem is to just wedge themselves in tighter.
Apple had to do theirs when OSX was released - their solution was similar: a VM-like "Classic Mode" (which quite frankly sucked, but was workable). They also had the Carbon libraries, which they are still slowly phasing out (and there's no 64-bit Carbon to be had in Snow Leopard).
Microsoft is, I believe, trying to have it both ways - they want the shift-over, but without the clean break. This will hurt them much more in the long run than any imagined fanboy desire ever could. If, as you assert, I wanted to see Microsoft do badly, I would be among the first to demand that they keep compatibility at all costs, since that's their biggest pain point right now.
So... what else you got?
"Again -- all drivers on 64-bit win7 already need to be signed -- so you can check that. MS tried to do that for win32 as well, but the antivirus vendors complained to the DOJ because that would thwart some of the rootkit-like things they were doing when installing their products. MS compromised with them by making the change 64-bit only"
Understood - but two problems with what you wrote:
1) 32-bit Windows 7 Home Basic will still be the most likely prevalent version sold, since it will also be the cheapest (not counting Starter). So, QED, they're still going to get hammered.
2) blaming A/V vendors is a strawman, since they do not build or sell hardware, and the OS can easily allow exceptions. As countless malware writers already know (and happily bypass), WHQL certification checks are no obstacle to a decent rootkit.
". You can only have a WHQL certification program, and if drivers test out ok, certify them, and if not, don't certify them. This already happens..."
...and yet who got the blame for Vista's woes by both Microsoft and their legions of fanboys? The drivers. Microsoft can cure that problem in one fell swoop, if they chose to.
"if MS were ever to actually add such a restriction ("win7 will only load WHQL certified drivers") you will be the first one out with your pitchfork."
1) I have been among those to call for Microsoft to pull itself out of the past (and have consistently done so), so I have no idea where you get these assertions from (well, I have ideas, but they're not germane to the discussion).
2) this has no technical bearing on whether they should or should not do so - unless you think that I somehow hold some sort of vast power over a certain multi-billion-dollar corporation in Redmond, WA.
==
"Not everyone cares (see the example I pointed out)"
- about the drivers? Then why was Microsoft (and of course the fanboy crowd) so busy blaming drivers for Vista's failings?
"It puts too much control in MS's hands as to what modules you can or cannot load into your kernel."
Fair point, but there's a small flaw in the assertion: You said earlier that, for a fee, Microsoft simply checks to see if the driver loads, that it doesn't break anything, calls it good (assuming it works as advertised), and signs it. Are you saying that Microsoft would somehow abuse that process? If so, how, exactly?
>>> Eventually yes. Too many 32-bit apps in active use right now.
"...XP Mode..."
>>> *Nothing* to do with wow64. Running 32-bit apps on 64-bit OS (thunking), vs. virtualization for XP apps that won't run at all on Win7 (32 or 64) is totally different. XP Mode uses downloadable components - so no bloat. Having the *option*, is awesome.
"It has nothing to do with wanting to see Microsoft "hurt", it's just common sense. They're becoming stuck between a rock and a hard place"
>>> Define the rock/hard place. What *problem* are you trying to solve by dropping 32-bit apps on 64-bit win?
"Apple had to do theirs when OSX was released"
>>> You're vastly oversimplifying Apple's route, their advantage of low marketshare and near-zero enterprise users. And there *was* pain (ask Adobe). Apple and MS operate in different worlds. One size does not fit all for MS.
"Microsoft is, I believe, trying to have it both ways"
>>> What both ways?? Their users have many existing 32-bit-only apps. What didn't you get there?
"since that's their biggest pain point right now"
>>> Define the pain. You never detail it. What *problem* are you proposing to solve?
"32-bit Windows 7 Home Basic will still be the most likely prevalent version sold .. QED, they're still going to get hammered."
>>> I already see some OEMs offer 64-bit Win7HB. This will only go up. People/OEMs/enterprises will transition when they're ready. No need for MS to force it. In some years the transition will be completed on it's own in an organic way and 32-bit apps will become rare/non-existant. Then, MS can drop 32-bit support. Until then, they're easing the pain greatly.
"blaming A/V vendors is a strawman" ... "WHQL certification checks are no obstacle to a decent rootkit."
>>> http://news.cnet.com/Windows-defense-handcuffs-good-guys/2100-7355_3-6104379.html
' nuff said. That aricle as usual has a sensational but inaccurate headline and gets some of the technalities wrong, but hopefully you get the point. Nobody said anything about WHQL cert preventing rootkits -- even you can't be that daft.
"...and yet who got the blame for Vista's woes by both Microsoft and their legions of fanboys?"
>>> *rolls eyes*
Vista initiated the move from XPDM to WDDM graphics drivers. Few drivers were available at launch in spite of the OEMs getting lead time, access to pre-release builds. It caused pain for users. MS learned their lesson (backwards compatibility is important). At least know when you're arguing against your own case.
"I have been among those to call for Microsoft to pull itself out of the past "
>>> They're not in the past. Your call for the 'future' is another way of trolling.
Me: "Not everyone cares (see the example I pointed out)"
You: "- about the drivers? Then why was Microsoft (and of course the fanboy crowd) so busy blaming drivers for Vista's failings?"
>>> Jeez.. must I explain every tiny detail?? Not everyone cares about *WHQL certification* for their drivers.
A disabled person that needs custom drivers for input devices won't care about WHQL certification. A kid/hobbyist developing a mouse driver might want to use the driver she developed.. why would she want WHQL approval? Etc.
"Microsoft simply checks to see if the driver loads, that it doesn't break anything"
>>> They do much more, but I think that isn't your point, so moving on..
"Are you saying that Microsoft would somehow abuse that process? If so, how, exactly?"
>>> It gives them the *ability* (and they don't want it). Actual abuse will happen if they have retarded policies and apply said policies retardedly. Apple's app-store shows how bad things can get. Drivers and Apps aren't the same thing, but the overall point remains -- Apple has absolute responsibility/power to decide what can/cannot run on their platform, and they're unable to use this power with any sort of clarity.
MS Office (MS's second largest revenue source) is currently only available as a 32-bit app. Even if 2010 was released _today_ with a 64-bit version, it's completely unrealistic to expect world+dog to run out and buy it immediately (or even within the next 5 years). No - they have to support running 32-bit apps on their 64-bit OS for a pretty long time. MS Office is just one example -- the inventory of programs that people need to run, and won't upgrade, I promise you, is too large to even imagine. Think of all the 32-bit enterprise apps that companies can't afford to spend money upgrading etc.
Now, if they follow your suggestion and release a 32-bit only version and a 64-bit only version, nobody would move to 64-bit windows. Because 64-bit windows won't run office (and many other programs). And because 64-bit windows is so uncommon, developers won't feel the need/pressure to upgrade their apps to 64-bits. OEMs won't feel the need to release 64-bit drivers for their apps.
In other words -- the way to have a smooth transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is not to shove it down people throats, give them all-or-nothing type options etc. The path MS has chosen is hard for sure -- but it's been chosen because it makes sense for users.
Regarding drivers - look up the WHQL requirements -- they are pretty strict. And as you said, only signed drivers can be loaded with 64-bit Win7 -- so they're on the right track there. Even better -- the #1 cause for crashes isn't just drivers -- it's graphics drivers. In Win7, WDDM drivers can no longer cause a crash (they can, but it's much more difficult). More often than not, if your graphics driver does something crash-worthy on Win7 -- your screen will merely flicker for 1 second while the driver is reinitialized -- and then you'll get a message in the system tray notifying you what that flicker was about. I can send you a screenshot of what that looks like if you want.
[QUOTE]"the way to have a smooth transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is not to shove it down people throats"[/QUOTE]
Show me a 32-bit machine for sale right now!
Maybe you can dig one up from some podunk website, but AFAIK most, if not all of the new machines on the shelves of big name stores right now *are 64 bit*... and where do the common folk shop?
Surely not at some U-Pick computer parts-r-us company, assembling the parts to throw together some 32-bit jalopy themselves.
Upgraders? Yeah that's right... UPGRADE > most old hardware can't run this new WinBlows crapware anyway.
The average life expectancy of hardware (MTBF) is 5 years... this is 2009 !
32-bit machines, pata drives, certain memory types and pretty much all the old architecture is being phased out as you bicker.
64-bit is HERE NOW and 128 is on the way.
Jeez, talk about kicking a dead horse.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-128bit-next-generation,8827.html
[QUOTE]"the way to have a smooth transition from 32-bit to 64-bit is not to shove it down people throats"[/QUOTE]
Show me a 32-bit machine for sale right now!
Maybe you can dig one up from some podunk website, but AFAIK most, if not all of the new machines on the shelves of big name stores right now *are 64 bit*... and where do the common folk shop?
Surely not at some U-Pick computer parts-r-us company, assembling the parts to throw together some 32-bit jalopy themselves.
Upgraders? Yeah that's right... UPGRADE > most old hardware can't run this new WinBlows crapware anyway.
The average life expectancy of hardware (MTBF) is 5 years... this is 2009 !
32-bit machines, pata drives, certain memory types and pretty much all the old architecture is being phased out as you bicker.
64-bit is HERE NOW and 128 is on the way.
Jeez, talk about kicking a dead horse.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-128bit-next-generation,8827.html
"Show me a 32-bit machine for sale right now!"
>> Check out the following machines:
- HP Mini 311 (uses an 32-bit Atom 270).
- Dell Mini (Atom n270 or z530 -- both 32-bit processors)
Is that mainstream enough for you? Or do you consider HP and Dell podunk?
"Upgraders? Yeah that's right... UPGRADE > most old hardware can't run this new WinBlows crapware anyway."
>> Are we supposed to take you seriously when you spout rubbish like that?
"The average life expectancy of hardware (MTBF) is 5 years... this is 2009 !"
>> MTBF is not the same as life expectancy. In any case -- that has no bearing. I've already pointed out some mainstream 32-bit machines to you, so your main point itself is invalid.
"32-bit machines, pata drives, certain memory types and pretty much all the old architecture is being phased out as you bicker."
>> Who's bickering? Do you understand the difference between hardware and software child? The reason for supporting 32-bit modes, is that a lot of *software* is not yet 64-bits.. For example MS Office and Firefox just to name a few. Even when 64-bit versions become available, people aren't going to run out and buy them immediately. They cost money, you know..
"64-bit is HERE NOW and 128 is on the way."
>> What's with the caps lock? You think by shouting your point will sound less idiotic? Are you running out of addressable memory on your 64-bit processor? Do you even understand the cause-and-effect for such transitions?
"Jeez, talk about kicking a dead horse."
>> Suffice it to say -- you do not know what you're talking about, and you did not make one iota of sense in your post.
"http://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-7-128bit-next-generation,8827.html"
1. Pure speculation
2. IA32/IA64 are VLIW processors so a 128 bit word-length actually gains something. Same is not the case with the x86/amd64 instruction sets. So if MS were to move to 128-bits this early (and especially targeted at the IA platform, it will almost certainly be for server or compute cluster machines -- it has absolutely no bearing on the machines consumers use, for the foreseeable future.
3. The primary (though not the sole) driver for increasing the word-length is addressable memory. 32-bit processors peak at 4 GB. 64-bit processors will peak at 16 PB (peta bytes). Do you even grasp that number? Not even Tera Bytes -- Peta Bytes.
I don't mean to put you down.. but try not to sound so cocky next time you post on a topic you barely understand.
>> See here:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16883103228&cm_re=acer_aspire_revo-_-83-103-228-_-Product
(or any desktop/nettop built on an Atom platform).
"So to say 64-bit is uncommon is a bit of a stretch"
>> Nobody said it's uncommon. Merely pointing out that 32-bit machines do still sell.
"for the very few legitimate flash sites, where it's actually needed and which I actually need to access - I got the 32-bit IE somewhere)."
>> And you would not have this option at all if the wow64 mode didn't exist.
"So in my opinion - the change is too slow, it's really a waste to run all those ancient apps on modern machines."
>> So complain to the application authors. I don't understand how you fail to see this. The majority of software is still 32-bits, so there's no option but to support 32-bit apps. You yourself are trying to go the full 64-bit route but failing to do so because of Flash. Without wow64 64-bit would be totally out of the question for you -- so stop complaining about it. 32-bit windows exists, but you don't have to use it if you don't want to - so quit complaining about that. Be specific -- what problem are you facing that would be solved by going 64-bit only.
"BTW, graphics drivers are all 64-bit, all signed - no problem whatsoever with those."
>> Exactly. So what's the problem?? A large part of this is Microsoft's effort with WHQL certification -- for Win7 WHQL certification requires that 32-bit and 64-bit drivers are both available. Windows 7 is 100% 64-bit ready -- what part of this the author and some commenters on this post don't understand, I'll never figure out. The wow64 mode and 32-bit availability is to help customers with older systems (think P4s and Athlons), people with netbooks and atom-based desktops, upgraders from 32-bit OSes that don't want to do clean installs, and people that have 32-bit-only software that they want to run on 64-bit machines. All this is done to make your life easier. It does not hinder you in any way. What's the problem you're trying to solve??
Why not just block the apps that rely on undocumented behavior?
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/12/24/45779.aspx
The real cost of compatibility is not in the hacks; the hacks are small potatoes
http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2007/07/23/4003873.aspx
As he notes, you really can not ask(or convince) the people to upgrade to a new version of windows if they need to upgrade 100 different applications to use it the way they are using their current version of windows. Same goes with Windows 64 too..
for that matter any thing in any industry.. (well except for mac probably)
Initially when Intel had a thought about coming up with a new instruction set for 64bit (IA-64) platform.. It failed badly because it did not support any code written for 32bit. At the same time AMD came up with x86-64 platform which can run any code written in 32bit or even 16 bit processors. That made Intel to switch to x86-64 platform soon.
If you as a vender offering a new thing, and if you expect your customer to buy it, you can not expect them to spend more than what they are paying you..
And Apple knows that their OS is used >90% for general music, browsing for which they are providing built-in software, and rest 10% software either they will support it or their fan boys will spend extra to get future versions. Windows family has millions (if not billions) of applications, and their strength lies in backward compatibility, be it supporting Win95 applications in W7 or 32 bit applications in W7-x64
So in nut shell if Windows-7 was your idea I would stick to Windows Vista, thankfully its not..
You do realize that Apple took the risk of losing the users (and more pressing, the applications developers) they did have, right?
OS9's limitations were so apparent though (no protected memory, no pre-emptive multitasking -- pretty basic stuff) that Apple couldn't possibly continue to use it.
Win7 (32 bit or otherwise) has no such problems.
MS is merely managing the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit, and doing it in the most unobtrusive manner possible. There is nothing in common between the two transitions.
Again I stress that removing legacy support in the Mac OS, had a negligble effect. Also, people seem to forget that most iterations of Mac OSX, still support the old Power PC Mac systems. Snow Leopard is the first iteration of Mac OSX with absolutely no support the Power PC systems. So I don't even know how Apple became an example of dropping support.
This quote is talking about software compatibility. If Microsoft would have done this everyone would have freaked out. It is like the PS3 not supporting PS2 games. People freak out and you know they would have gone nuts if Windows 7 would have done that. So this argument is nonsense.
Do you really need keyboard shortcuts in 'paint' and 'wordpad'? I'm sure that any work that you need good productivity in will be done in Office anyway, so just get Office 2003 if you really want it.
For what it is worth, here are my ideas:
1) To start off: The OS, (whether it is Server, Desktop or Mobile), should be free to both private and corporate users. -- (WHAT!?) -- Let me explain:
-- The number one reason/excuse that the victims of piracy always exclaim is that "You can't compete with free." -- Which is why they resort to ridiculous, and expensive, (not to mention highly unpopular), DRM solutions like the SONY/BMG debacle. My answer is: Of course you can compete. You compete with free with free and legitimately free. So how can Microsoft make money? They would then make money by licensing the API technologies that come with the new OS to software developers. Now, they already do that to an extent. But, not far enough. Once millions of users around the world start upgrading to the new and *free* OS from Microsoft's own servers, software developers will line up to pay for the new API licensing fees. (You betcha.) And since Microsoft would be offering its OSes for free, there is no need for backward compatibility. For those that absolutely, positively still have to use the old legacy stuff, they can stick with the old OS -- at least until the end of that legacy OS' product life.
2) Separate the OS from the GUI.
-- The truth is, non-IT users couldn't care less about what OS they use. What they want is ease of use and accessibility with regards to their apps and their documents. If Microsoft's GUI isn't your bag, then the user should be able to switch to another on the fly -- whether it is free, or not -- whether it's from Microsoft, or not -- without affecting the underlying workings of the OS. Currently, Theme switching is all they have and it only changes the look, but not the feel of getting around. Being on-the-fly switching, tech support can still switch to the more familiar default GUI for troubleshooting.
3) Absolute, draconian enforcement of driver signing.
-- I don't understand Microsoft's softness in this area. Every time a bad driver causes a BSOD, it only makes Microsoft look bad. 99% of all users, including sysadmins, blame Microsoft for the crash and not the h/w vendors who wrote the crappy drivers in the first place. If a hardware vendor cannot go through the trouble of certifying their drivers, then they deserve to be at a competitive disadvantage.
It takes more than turning over a few rocks to change an entire ecosystem. But, an ecosystem cannot be transformed without turning over some rocks.
Although I am not privy to the source code for Windows 7, I have to imagine that support for legacy applications is isolated to a somewhat small number of software modules, say a hundred out of thousands that make up Win 7. So the overhead of supporting legacy apps may simply be a few megabytes of memory out of the typical 2GB system, actually not a bad price to pay. But Microsoft has paid the price by expending resources developing and testing, instead of making other parts of Windows better.
I concur that to offer all these versions of Windows 7 is confusing and a brain-dead decision.
Microsoft hoists itself on its own petard with drivers, because it routinely changes the driver model and API from major release to major release of Windows. As a result, independent hardware vendors (IHVs) need to do substantial rewrites of drivers or simply drop support for a hardware product in a new Windows release. The consequences are too many driver BSODs and lots of hardware rendered obsolete due to lack of driver support. (I have made a few bucks working around the problem of lack of drivers for an older highly reliable piece of hardware, mostly printers.)
Product activation and re-activation has cost people thousands and thousands of lost man-hours running activation menus, calling on the phone, and downloading again and again and again Windows Genuine Advantage garbage. Almost every day, I talk to people who are thinking of buying a Mac, because they are tired of this anti-piracy harassment plus all the security issues that arise from the defective Windows architecture... Ben Myers
This is all well and good if you're talking about consumer level support...but unfortunately, businesses are still using applications that were written back in the DOS 3.3 days! In fact, a Major East Coast County only just now upgraded from NetWare 4.11 to an AD infrastructure!
In fact, some of the desktops I have to support are Windows 2000 machines...that makes for some really interesting troubleshooting situations (yay VMWare!)
So, just *dumping* support for legacy applications is nice to sy, but in practice, it could spell disaster!
ed
web/gadget guru
By now, Windows 7 should not have to support any application for Win95/98/Me and older. My goodness those are like 300 years old in people years.
For the users that still have those programs, they can stick with Vista for the next 5 years or MS could also allow the XP mode for all users that are unwilling to upgrade their apps, they can suffer the overhead of XP mode, while everyone running the latest apps don't have any overhead.
When Windows 8 comes out, it should dump Windows 2000/XP support and only support Vista/Windows7 apps at that point. By then Vista will be 6 to 10 years old (200 people years)
I do believe that right now Windows 7 64-bit needs to still run 32-bit apps. That maybe something to tackle in Windows 8. We'll have a lot more native 64-bit apps in 3 to 5 years.
MS is merely managing the transition from 32-bit to 64-bit, and doing it in the most unobtrusive manner possible. There is nothing in common between the two transitions.
Hardware is advancing faster than developers can write code to support it.
Oh and the PC v. MAC thing... Jeez people... pssst.... PC stands for Personal Computer.
Aren't Macs PC's?
Give that up already too.
Want freedom from the totalitarian / DRM'd worlds of Microsoft & Apple??
Want to breath new life into that Old hardware?
Try LINUX!
It's FREE
It's STABLE & SECURE with Tons of FREE apps and NO Viruses.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/
http://www.ubuntu.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH9WLrcsrx8
Great article.
-
by elopez17
November 15, 2009 7:55 AM PST
- All have good points, the article indeed start to go where no man have gone before, it is time after 14 years of the same view and operation to change the way windows and computer workings changes.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (47 Comments)Its is time to change icons , web browsers ( all in the markets this day are the same, a copy of IE).
I have no idea what I want but I fell tired of the same, what we got this days is a copy of the same with some improvements thats all and the illusion that is faster than before. What we are making are bigger and bigger program each year, if this trend continue what we see in the future (if we pass 2012), computers with 20 or 40 MB of memory to be able to run our normal daily programs with the same old fashion Windows or Mac programs.