Windows 7 discussion(61 posts)
***** Quoted From ScottW *****
I'm with BobJam on this one -- backward compatibility causes bloat and inhibits progress. I'm all for burning bridges. There's a relatively easy solution to backwards compatibility.
First, remove all (well, most) of the backward compatibility mess so that the OS is lean and fast. All well-behaved programs that use the established APIs will run just fine and those developers will get a gold star. When a user must run a program that is not well-behaved and compatible, they then have to install the "Compatibility Package". This runs as a virtual machine on the primary OS and contains all of the legacy code. The old programs will run just fine here, but the users will start to see that they are devoting tons of resources to the Compatibility Package just for a few poorly written programs. They will start looking for alternatives that run native and the gold star developers will win more customers. The forums will fill up with questions such as, "what's a good alternative to (some program) so I don't have to run that stupid Compatibility Package?"
In Microsoft's case, they already have the Virtual Machine technology and a fairly stable OS in WinXP to run as the compatibility platform. As an alternative to VMs, they could implement a hypervisor-based OS and logically partition the user's machine. With new CPUs having multiple cores and logical processors, there is plenty to go around. MS has hypervisor technology as well.
***** Quoted from ScottW *****
That is actually one of the best views I have heard about backwards compatibility. It would allow users to use programs that will never be updated, whatever the reason. I was thinking of companies that have went out of business. It would though, encourage people to use new software or newer versions of their software.
I am against companies forcing you to upgrade things, and I think many people are, so this would be perfect because it would allow the user to make their own decision, and would not bloat the new OS.
***** Quoted from raphoenix *****
Went directly from Win98SE to Win2K because there was rumor on the net that MS would start using PA if one didn't early adopt Win2k.
***** Quoted from raphoenix *****
What does PA stand here? I know it isn't Pennsylvania. Also, I would like to make my avatar rotate on a vertical axis (similar to your avatar). Do you know of an image editing program to make that happen? All the ones I find need multiple images to create a gif.
PA stands for MS Product Activation when using Original Full MS O/Ses on CD/DVD (OEM & RETAIL) or other MS Software such as MS Office, etc, etc.
Google (resize animated gif on-line) WITHOUT () for several free sites.
Animated Avatar can be a 50x50 Pixels, NO Greater Than 1024KB Animated Gif File Uploaded on HTG Profile Page.
See HTG Instructions on Profile Page.
To be fair about product activation, it really isn't that bad in Windows XP and Windows Vista SP1. Both will bug you to activate until you do so with a popup balloon but you can still use the computer during that time and activating isn't that hard to do. Just a quick internet activation or phone call to Microsoft.
I have heard of those making mistakes but a quick call to Microsoft should sort the problem out with the exception of a Microsoft activation server failure. Fortunately with Windows Vista SP1, the OS will still function in the case of another Microsoft activation server failure.
Now, Windows Genuine Advantage and Windows Vista RTM product activation are a different story then the two above. Both will nag at you a lot until you validate and lock you out of features if you don't do it in time.
The good news is that the bad design of product activation in Windows Vista RTM has been fixed and Windows Genuine Advantage is only used on optional products like Internet Explorer 7.
The bad news is that Windows Genuine Advantage is annoying, especially when you use Firefox and need to restart the browser to install the plugin just to download something.
You are just PLAIN WRONG !!!!
I use only (Genuine) MS Software on each individual machine with its own Full Copy of XP Pro.
Each Machine will (NOT) Product Activate over the the net any longer after a clean install.
I MUST CALL MS EACH AND EVERY TIME I DO A CLEAN INSTALL AND PRODUCT ACTIVATE MANUALLY ALL OF MY MS SOFTWARE.
THIS NOT BECAUSE OF AN MS SERVER FAILURE OR BAD LINE CONNECTION.
IT'S MS POLICY.
Don't Post that MS "BS" about how easy it is to PA because you don't know what you are talking about.
As a MS Partner, it (infuriates) me to hear MS propaganda from those who do (not) know how MS really operates.
@raphoenix: Ok, well I was only refering to the first install of Windows done and hardware changes after that.
That it is based on my experiance with Windows XP Home on my computer and only one or two clean installs.
Also when I've needed to reinstall Windows XP Home on people's computers I work on. Both seemed to activate just fine.
[ Partial Post Removed by request of poster ]
Sorry about the misinformation, I should have been more clear about my limited experiance with Product Activation before.
Posted for Windows 7 Info.
December 30, 2008 (Computerworld) Downloads of a new build of Microsoft Corp.'s upcoming Windows 7 operating system have soared in the past two days, with thousands of systems now pulling pirated copies from BitTorrent sites.
Searches today on the Pirate Bay BitTorrent site, for example, returned multiple listings of Windows 7 Build 7000, which Microsoft identifies as a beta candidate in the file name. The torrent is a disk image of the 32-bit version of Windows 7 Ultimate; a 64-bit version is not yet available.
The most heavily trafficked Windows 7 BitTorrent on Pirate Bay showed more than 4,300 "seeders" — the term for a computer that has a complete copy of the torrent file — and about 7,500 "leechers," or computers that have downloaded only part of the complete torrent. Less popular BitTorrents of the file on Pirate Bay claimed an additional 1,000 seeders and more than 3,000 leechers.
On Saturday, a day after the first copies of Build 7000 appeared on BitTorrent, Pirate Bay's prime listing showed less than half as many seeders as it did today.
Similar increases could be seen on other BitTorrent sites. For example, Mininova listed almost 20 Windows 7 BitTorrents — some of them duplicates of the ones that appeared in searches of Pirate Bay. Two of the torrents on the Mininova site had more than 4,500 seeders each.
Why is it so difficult for Microsoft to show the discipline to incorporate backward compatibility into the OS design? The need for backward compatibily is almost universal, except for first time computer users, who are a definite minority. If backward compatibility were set down as a design requirement, system programmers would be a little more restrained about swinging wild and loose with new code, and Operating Systems would evolve rather than go through revolutiomary trauma. Expand the capabilities all you want, MS, all you think you can sell, but leave the hooks that the legacy software needs. XP refined and matured the W9X line without leaving much legacy software in the dirt. Vista is a revolution instead of evolving from XP. Each new version of an operating system is not a legitimate opportunity to completely revolutionize system design. Sorry I cannot agree with those who want the systems designed for the minority users.
Spacegold, You are absolutely right in terms of program compatibility. There must be overlap between versions - usually with a compatibility interface (although you don't want to support stone age stuff). But for the rest, I prefer revolution if it really advances the system. Legacy is the biggest enemy of progress and it is that which bloats the system more than anything else. I bet you 75% of the Vista code need not be there - if it was not for legacy. Of course, an inherent reason is that they do not get around of rewriting it so fast. In my 35 years in software development I saw nothing more detrimental to progress than backward compatibility. But I guess the world moves slowly and people don't want to change - that is the main problem. Protecting an investment in a large program library is one thing, keeping people from having to learn new things is another thing.
Yes, "people don't want to change" seems to be a perpetual curse on the human race. When we get comfortable with something, any change seems unnecessary. The thinking is "Geezzzz . . . it was working fine until you guys 'improved' it!" Nevermind that we thought the exact same thing for the previous "change" until we got used to the "new" change, and then that became what we were comfortable with (the "minority" becomes the "majority"). Reinforcing the reluctance to change is the fact that a lot of us want to "protect" that "investment in a large program library", as you put it so well. Also reinforcing the reluctance to change is that some of these changes actually ARE worse.
VISTA is a good example. While some people have adjusted to it and come to think of it as better than XP, a lot and maybe more have not. Thus the "improvement" to VISTA has only confirmed for many of us that change is worse.
As far as backwards complatibility, I agree with you that there is "nothing more detrimental to progress than backward compatibility" and "legacy . . . bloats the system more than anything else".
This topic has been closed to new replies. Please create a new topic instead.