Microsoft Windows 7 "Wishlist" Leaked 522
Cassius Corodes is one of many readers to point out that a recent "wishlist" of new Windows development features is floating around the net. This list was supposedly leaked from Microsoft and contains some of their key development features for the next version of Windows. Given that the next new Windows release is bound to be a long way off I would recommend seasoning this news with a hefty dose of sodium chloride.
Keep those wishes coming (Score:5, Insightful)
Back up XBOX 360 games to Windows PC - Ain't gonna happen
New PIP functionality for Media Center - PIP *.WMA/L
Infinite desktop, virtual desktop idea - Maybe they could port fvwm
Option to "Reopen Closed tabs" in IE - This will be addressed via "Are you sure you want to close this tab?"
Auto clean of Temp folders - How about including a way to define which are temp folders.
How about fixing the paging to use it's own partition, ffs!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And another chair hits the wall! I should have stock in Herman Miller.
Re:Keep those wishes coming (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe this is refering to the save files stored on the HD and not the actual games.
I Wish (Score:2, Informative)
Barring that, I wish it were XP, again.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I Wish (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they should be doing that. But you're right on the mark, it's not going to justify new OS sales if they don't "revolutionize" things every few years. Look at how slow Vista has been taking off, even with many OEM's shipping it unless you specify otherwise.
Here's what I think the next evolution of windows will be: vista with a fresh coat of paint and a few new system-intensive bells and whistles that don't add much in terms of actual functionality. The key "feature" will be a bunch of built in hooks to use pay-as-you-go subscription web applications hosted by MS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
*:(yeah, I read the PR bs about 300 new features - so are you happy about the ability to spellcheck in Danish now? Did it change your life that you can now install in Polish or Russian?)
Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:3, Interesting)
Speaking of which, why does Windows still use a variable sized swap file? I lock it down to 2x RAM or 4GB. Whichever is larger. I do not want fragmentation in the swap file. I'd prefer not to need one, but that's another story.
And how about moving IE's temp files somewhere else? Okay, you can still set permissions on the folder, but get it out of th
Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
pr0n.jpg.exe becomes pr0n.jpg, and exe files can contain their own icons and this one just happens to have an icon that looks like a jpeg file.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I've always been in the habit of making four partitions. Windows, applications, games and misc/tmp drive. It's worked well for me.
Sounds complicated. Why do games and applications need to be in a different partition?
I generally have 2 partitions - the OS, and 'everything else'. That way I only have to reserve a decent size for the OS/temp files, and never have to think "Hmm...how much of this disk will I use for games? Data? Apps?" Also, then my 'temp' folder isn't limited to whatever I thought I'd need when I installed the OS.
It makes backing up/ghosting the OS much easier/quicker. In fact, that's pretty much the only reas
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No support for files over 4gb (most common use: dvd images), not case sensitive, no support for permissions, no journaling, no symlinks etc...
I tend to use EXT3, linux/bsd support it natively, and third party drivers are available for osx and windows.
Re: (Score:2)
C:\Windows\temp was done away with back with Windows NT... IIRC. At any rate, here in XP it's a per-user folder under a user's Application Data\Local Settings
I lock my swap file down to a fixed size too, although to only 1.5gb, since I heard you should stick to 3x ram and I had .5gb ram to start... then I got 1gb more ram and I just kept the swap size.
However more recently I realized that it's not a good idea to lock the upper bound of the size... since if a program starts eating memory out of control
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This hasn't been necessary for several years now, NT usually creates a non-fragmented pagefile.
Speaking of which, why does Windows still use a variable sized swap file? I lock it down to 2x RAM or 4GB. Whichever is larger. I do not want fragmentation in the swap file. I'd prefer not to need one, but that's another story.
Again it hasn't since Win98,
Re:Am I the only person who makes a 2nd partition? (Score:5, Informative)
First of all, it's called the page file, not the swap file. This isn't Unix and this isn't Windows 3.x. If you're going to pretend to know something about this aspect of Windows, you'd do well to at least use the correct name.
Second, and far more importantly -- You do not get fragmentation in the page file unless the page file is resized, and the only time the page file gets resized is when you consume ALL your physical memory, and ALL the memory in the page file. On a system with 1 GB of memory (which will be given a 1.5GB page file), you will have 2.5 GB of memory that you have to fill up first. Windows XP & later will display a pop-up balloon when this happen.
Fragmentation NEVER HAPPENS OTHERWISE. Why is this such a major concern to you?
Third, separate logical partitions for the page file is a bad idea because it significantly lowers the performance of paging operations. Regardless of whether you use all the physical memory in your machine or not, the page file is utilised to store data that hasn't been used recently, thus freeing more physicla memory for cacheing stuff that is used more often. Performance suffers because now the disk heads have to move further into the disk in order to get the page file. On a freshly-installed Windows system, the page file gets placed near the beginning of the disk (in the fastest portion), close to the operating system files that are likely candidates for ongoing file operations.
Consider that Mac OS X doesn't use a separate partition for its swap files, either.
If you want to really understand how Windows works, do yourself a big favour and go pick up a copy of Windows Internals [amazon.com] by Russinovich and Solomon. Yeah, that's the same Russinovich who discovered the Sony rootkit a couple of years ago, so, chances are he knows what he's talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Placing your p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also having your swap on a seperate partition should at least remove the overhead of filesystem calls. It also eliminates any chance of fragmentation and lets you put it anywhere on the drive...
Linux
I've done it since Win3.1 (Score:4, Interesting)
There's nothing to it. Just save some of the drive space when you install (this is a problem with some "recovery CD's" that grab everything) and format it later. Then add a swap file to it and set the swap file on C:\ to 0 bytes. Reboot and it's set.
Do you ever notice that we seem to be re-inventing everything we've learned before? I'd prefer to put the swap drive as close to the outer sectors as possible. That's a bitch with Windows. So it ends up on the inner sectors. I sacrifice speed to reduce fragmentation. But seeing as how the speed would be awful anyway (RAM swapping to even the fastest drive sucks rocks), I'm not bothered by it.
Re:I've done it since Win3.1 (Score:5, Insightful)
I began noticing this with Windows 95. The bastards said it would run in 4MB of memory. Technically it would, if you only ever wanted to start it up. (12MB was the bare minimum to run some modest apps without paging.) I admined a Dec PDP 11/45 and learned a lot about tuning a system for performance. When you had 256 KB of memory, 2 88MB HDDs, a 4 MB core memory swap disk (anyone ever see a Megastore? :) and had to shared nicely among as many as 40 users at a time, you learned how to get the most out of it. Seems the approach these days is: Throw more money at it. Buy more RAM, bigger HDD, upgrade (why do Windows upgrades always require tonnes more RAM?), faster CPU, etc. Performance tuning at Microsoft seems blasphemy.
The company logic (Score:4, Insightful)
Where this is actually true remains to be seen.
Specially given the current trends in hardware (additional power doesn't come from more raw power but from additional parallelism, etc.) the programmers will have *anyway* to be clever, because better hardware won't be able anymore run the same shitty code faster.
As Herb Sutter puts it The Free Lunch is Over [www.gotw.ca].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The programmers cost Microsoft a lot.
The hardware costs their customers a lot.
The logic is that it's better for millions of computer users to be out of pocket by a few hundreds each, than it is for Microsoft to be out of pocket for a few hundred million.
When you're a monopoly, you can make products that suit you, not your customers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At close to 90% profit margins for Microsoft's OS and Office divisions, I don't think you can make that claim with a straight face.
Re:The company logic (Score:4, Insightful)
I run such a company. Our flagship product requires 400 MB of disk space for install on Windows, and (if you include the X11 and XCode libraries on Mac OS) about 1.5 GB on Macintosh.
I realize that this is a fair amount of disk space. I also really don't care. 1 GB of disk space represents a net user cost of about 25 cents [pricewatch.com].
A quarter.
And the software generally runs quite well on a P3 1 Ghz system that can be readily had for $50 on the used computer marketplace, even though its written in a lazy, inefficient, interpreted scripting language.
Yes, $50.
How much time do you think I spend worrying about this? None at all. Let me assure you, my clients spend much more than a quarter to buy the use of our software! How much crying would YOU do over this?
Doesn't always work. (Score:3, Insightful)
Two of those are clients -- one for HD-DVDs, and one for the web browser -- which pretty much limits us to Javascript.
The third is the server, which is somewhat based on Ruby on Rails. We host it on Amazon EC2, which means if we ever get Slashdotted, even the Ruby server(s) can simply scale up to handle the load.
For us, this makes sense. The cost of programmer time to optimize is way less than the cost of simply firing up anoth
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent several months optimizing Ruby's garbage collector to be copy-on-write friendly, so that I can save more memory in my Ruby on Rails applications. I did this because I didn't want to spend an additional $14 per month (or a one-time payment of $150) for 1 GB more RAM in my server.
I spent at least 40 hours in research and development. If I had a fulltime job that pays $12 per hour, then I would have $480. It's obvious that hardware *is* cheaper than developer time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows on the other hand has gone through many half-assed decisions, which were deemed to be design flaws and changed in later versions (while keeping the old code around too for compatibility reasons)... resulting in an ever increasing and less manageable mess of code.
As an example, password hashing on windows is done twice using 2 algorithms, neither are great but one is significantly weak
Re:I've done it since Win3.1 (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually maximizing performance means that you're not buying new hardware, which pisses off Microsoft's OEM partners. And in turn, that means you're not buying new copies of Windows as well.
Earlier this decade, even the cheapest PC you could buy off the shelf had far more horsepower than was necessary for apps of the time. With the sole exception of video cards, any El Cheapo Celeron you could buy would easily exceed the hardware standards for the latest games and apps. PC sales slowed down. The solution? Design apps and OS's that have so many bells and whistles that they use up all that excess computing power, and Voila, you have to buy new hardware.
Performance tuning? Are you kidding?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Granted, Vista is an absolute PIG. But...
I remember running Windows 95 on a 100mhz system with 8mb of ram. The thing installed off 13 floppy disks, took up about 50mb of hd space, and considering the specs of the system, ran very well. If that's not a lean OS I don't know what is.
I remember installing Win95 on my mother's business 386 with 8 MB RAM.
From the 13 or so floppies, of course, since CD-ROM drives were a) expensive, b) unnecessary for such computers and c) expensive.
It was anything but lean.
It took quite a while to boot, paged all the time and was quite horrible in every aspect.
And that was on a configuration better than the minimal one.
Say what you want about Microsoft, but try running a modern Linux distro with KDE or Gnome on an older Machine (800mhz, 256mb) and let me know if it beats out XP in speed and responsiveness.
As it happens, I am running two such machines in the students' club. One is my own, the other belongs to the club.
My machine is a
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I remember running Windows 95 on a 100mhz system with 8mb of ram. The thing installed off 13 floppy disks, took up about 50mb of hd space, and considering the specs of the system, ran very well. If that's not a lean OS I don't know what is.
I bought an Amiga 2000HD in '92. It had 1MB of memory and I added another two by populating the sockets on the SCSI card. AmigaOS 2.04 came on six floppies, uncompressed, and required about 5MB of hard drive space. Once installed, it booted in about 10 seconds and left 2.75MB of RAM free for applications.
I don't think that Win95 had a single thing that AmigaOS didn't, except maybe solitaire. Windows has always been big for what it actually did, even in '95.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And ever since Win3.1 I've been complaining about variable sized swap files. Come on, Bill!
Um, you do realize that you can set the minimum and maximum swap file size to the same size, don't you? That's been the recommendation since win95.
The thing that I would like to see make a come back is the ability to only install parts of the OS, not absolutely everything. It irritates me that I have to either install everything that MS wants, or roll my own install. Which Windows often times complains about later.
Except for a couple of built in utilities, I rarely use any of the default programs that inst
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I've done it since Win3.1 (Score:5, Informative)
If you want to do things by-the-book, you can use pagefilescript.vbs which happens to be in the %systemroot%/system32 directory in XP, 2003, and probably Vista. Info here. [wordpress.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or if that's too hard, why not make regedit part of the Computer Management MMC screen? Or for that matter, allow me to have multiple copies of regedit running. I'm finding myself comparing registry entries between computers a lot but when windows will only let you have one
Re:I've done it since Win3.1 (Score:5, Insightful)
For exactly the same reason we can't just run all our apps under Wine, or switch to another OS entirely: We use Windows for its cruft. Developers write some strange code due to poor programming skills, unreasonable deadlines, or simply because it was easier to hack together a workaround than trying to get Microsoft to fix a buggy library or API. Then Microsoft decides to update Windows, and does their best to make the new OS run all the horrible code that somehow managed to work on the old OS... Which just makes the new OS even cruftier and buggier than the last. Repeat this cycle a dozen times and you have Windows Vista.
Unfortunately, even though Microsoft's coders would love to start from scratch, and I'm sure they could put out a good OS if they wanted to, Microsoft knows we use Windows for its cruft. If Microsoft suddenly cut old legacy apps loose (or confined them to a Classic-like abstraction layer) the new Windows would lose its main advantage over *nix or MacOS. Microsoft doesn't want to compete on features, or ease of use, or really compete at all, not when it's so much easier to beat the market over the head with their Club of +1 Legacy Support.
Our only escape from this cycle is, as customers, to do our best to rid ourselves of unmaintained, poorly written, legacy apps. Make the case for open source, virtualized, web-based, or any high-agility solution that won't tie you to some arcane software or hardware down the line. Microsoft will only rethink their strategy when the market for cruft begins to die out, so do your part.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's hard to beat 3GBps on a SATAII though, and while good flash does wear leveling I'm sure it'll catch us out eventually.
Be interested in any ideas rather than spending $40 on a dedicated 40GB HDD just for a few GB of Swap.
I think its hard to beat a SATA2 for speed (at home, SCSI at work...?), but interested in any ideas...
Windows Classic (Score:5, Funny)
Just admit the mistake and bring back XP.
they wish... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:they wish... (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, but they will find some way to tell you it does!
"Windows7 - Sales up 27% over Windows Vista among one-legged, blind, ambisexual, vegetarian, wombat herders born under a full moon in a month with an R in it"
Open Source Sodium Chloride (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Quick! Where's the Open Source PH meter?!?
Re:Open Source Sodium Chloride (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, the project's on hold while the development team debates GPLv3 vs. BSD licensing. Currently it can only detect sulfuric and nitric acids, though it does have real nifty Gnome integration.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I think you meant to say 'gnifty.'
Re:Open Source Sodium Chloride (Score:5, Funny)
but Johnny is no more.
What Johnny thought was H2O
was H2SO4.
Follow-up story (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Follow-up story (Score:5, Informative)
Because modding it informative is funny.
Re:Follow-up story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Recycling (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
wheres your innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wheres your innovation? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Standard Microsoft Operating Procedure (Score:5, Funny)
Step 2: Seed the marketplace with rumours about how great the next version will be
Step 3: Sell a lot of awful product (this is the Profit!!! step)
Step 4: Develop next version, dropping cool features and instead devoting more development time to Microsoft Bob, Clippy, and meaningless user-interface tweaks
Loop around to Step 1.
My Windows 7 Wishlist (Score:5, Insightful)
No DRM
No Bloat
No Eye Candy
No ClearType
No Authentication or WGA
No Restrictions for Video or Audio Output
No Search Indexing
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My Windows 7 Wishlist (Score:5, Insightful)
Who here thinks they should just re-release Windows 2000 with longer support period and updated drivers?
Maybe they can add full disk encryption if they feel like being generous
Re:My Windows 7 Wishlist (Score:5, Insightful)
But no ClearType or Search Indexing? WTF, those are very very useful features. ClearType lets me actually read text on a monitor without gagging at his hideous it all is, and search indexing makes searching orders of magnitude faster at the cost of a few megabytes. Both are no-brainers.
Corporate development cycle (Score:5, Funny)
1. Telepathy
2. Time Travel
3. Prescience
4. Anomie
5. 4D Interface
6. Zen
7. Levitation
My three item wish list (Score:3, Insightful)
Sand-poundingly obvious things ... (Score:3, Interesting)
In explorer, I can open the favorites in the left-hand pane by clicking the "favorites" button -- but there is no way to KEEP it permanently open. I have to click the favorites button every. single. time.
Open and save dialogs highlight the entire filename in the text entry field, despite the fact that 99 times out of 100, I don't want to change the extension.
etc etc etc.
- Alaska Jack
PS Using Windows XP pro. Don't know if these have changed in Vista.
Re:Sand-poundingly obvious things ... (Score:5, Funny)
Greetings from here in 2007! How is life for you in 2012? Has Duke Nukem Forever shipped yet?
Re: (Score:2)
- AJ
Re:Sand-poundingly obvious things ... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As I alluded to above, you can come *close* to this by using the "Favorites" folder. Put aliases to your favorite folders and files in there, then open the pane by using the button. As noted, though, the pane won't STAY open.
Ultimately, of course, what I'm really talking about here what the Mac's Finder has: A pane on the left-hand side that you can drag things into and out of willy-nilly to your heart's content. I certainly find plenty to critici
What it's really about (Score:2)
2. ???
3. PROFIT !!!
I think point two is the implementation of only minor items from the wishlist and have people think they need it.
Yup, similar to longhorn "features" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yup, similar to longhorn "features" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm waiting for full read/write ZFS support to solidify in Mac OS X and Linux. Once that happens there will be no looking back for me. For the first time in computing history there will finally be a single filesystem worth standardizing on, with no idiotic file size, partition size, or filename limitations that should have been overcome a decade ago. Windows, NTFS and any other proprietary filesystem can be damned as far as I'm concerned from that point forward.
A lot of
Does this seem a bit off-topic? Well, I don't think it is. The point of all this is that if the free software community was a little more focused on providing ways to use alternative solutions from the Windows side, Windows users would already be a lot less attached to Windows and would have much less inclination to be impressed by any list of features Microsoft pulls out of their collective ass in the future. The hype machine would break down if users on all platforms could start coming together around kickass features like a cross-platform standard filesystem that works everywhere. Microsoft Office would be dead already if the OpenDocument format had been a usable specification half a decade ago instead of being finalized, what, last year? And if people knew they didn't need Microsoft Office, they would know they don't need Windows.
Microsoft may be pathetic in their inability to create quality software, but there's nothing pathetic about their continuing stranglehold on computing based on stuff like this "wishlist", a history of hyped-up phantom features that never actually get released. Something needs to be done about that instead of just obliviously continuing to play around developing for Linux and other free platforms as if they're in some private little universe that's too good to interact with everyone else.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These are examples of why I specified "high quality, well supported" as requirements for any filesystem driver. Filesystem
More to the list... (Score:5, Interesting)
My short list (Score:2, Insightful)
Who cares? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)
I care what Microsoft does on various levels. I'm not a Microsoft fan and I think Vista is a disaster, but honestly, I would *love* for Microsoft to come out with a great new OS. I'm the sort of guy who likes good software wherever it comes from.
On the other hand, I don't care about wishlists or press releases. I also don't think that Windows can continue to compete if they keep doing what they're doing. Some key things that Windows absolutely has to do if I'm going to continue using it in the future:
That's the bare minimum that Microsoft can do before I'll even look at them again.
How about a user wishlist? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. A decent license, now open-sourcing Windows would be excellent but just having it under a "you bought the copy now do whatever you want with it" would be a ton better then the usual "Microsoft owns your computer" And that is one of the reasons I switched to Linux
2. Good speed. I shouldn't need 4 Gigs of RAM just to get halfway decent performance out of my operating system, 512 MB should be fast enough and at 2 gigs it should have all the power needed for anything other then heavy gaming and major video editing
3. Non-Fragmenting filesystem, Seriously, when there is file systems on Linux that never have to be de-fragmented that have been there since at least 2000, why can't Windows in 2006 not have it?
4. Acceptance of other operating systems other then Windows. When Windows can't open up simple, free open standards by default such as
5. Security without annoyances. Seriously, what is up with UAC. So now I need to click a dialog box whenever I want to run a binary from a CD-ROM??? When I clicked on it? On Ubuntu on an under-privileged account, I don't even hardly need to type my password for anything other then major system work such as installing software or changing accounts and even then it keeps it for a bit so every time I don't need to enter it.
Its time for MS to start listing to people and make a halfway decent OS, otherwise there will be more people like me switching to Linux or OS-X.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
"Prevent System Restore Points From Being Deleted" (Score:3, Informative)
"...When Dual-Booting With XP"
I dualboot with XP... I should check to see if this is happening... however I DID disable system restore for the Vista drive from XP, and visa-versa, to decrease the chance they would mess each other up. I do thing both OSs have system restore enabled for all my common drives, except those I don't put Windows programs on since that would be useless.
Don't Worry (Score:4, Funny)
Short and sweet personal wishlist (Score:3, Interesting)
Really, that's all I could possibly want. I've got a Vista, an XP and a 2k box, and I have to say that that also happens to be the order that they give me headaches in, from most to least. In fact, it had been a while since I touched my 2k box, and upon recently turning it on I was surprised at how fast and smoothly it worked compared to XP; I had gotten used to the crippling XP bloat in the meantime and had forgotten the advantages.
Vista, on the other hand, actually introduces driver problems when I try to install it on the XP box, whether as a clean install or an upgrade. USB ports that worked fine stop functioning, and two television tuners magically turn into one.
Forget the bells and whistles. For a brief, brilliant instant, everything fell into place and worked as it was supposed to. But then XP and new versions of WMP came out and it seems to have gone downhill since. Heck, I'm finding myself wondering of NT4 gave me as many issues, was as finicky as Vista.
How about Microsoft address some of this stuff! (Score:5, Interesting)
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=304745&cid=20695969 [slashdot.org]
Then in a little bit more detail
(crosspost of a post I made on a forum not more than 24 hours ago, I finally documented precisely why Vista Explorer shits me to tears)
Warning: Bad language ahead.
Why does Windows Vista insist on a startup sound, despite me disabling all sounds, they are turned off but it does one at startup, I like quiet and what if I don't want to wake people up?
I've been meaning to make this post for a while, I may have railed on Vista for performance problems, specifically in Crysis, you do need to give a new operating system a 'pass' for a while, let it settle in (it's nearly been a year though!!!)
My beef still sits with Windows Explorer, something I use daily, a lot at work and home, I need it clean, simple and easy to get data into my face as quick as possible so I can react as quickly as possible (yes, I sorry to big note but I am, *that* quick on the keyboard and when working with files)
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh01.jpg [shackspace.com]
Apply to all folders won't let me save the options for "Computer" (My Computer) or Desktop, this is annoying.
also, fuck the breadcrumbs bar, in the ASSSSS
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh02.jpg [shackspace.com]
That motherfucker 'task pane' which is taking space up from my damn explorer view.
Sure, I found some website suggesting I shrink the size of it (yay) but I can still accidentally click the bastard, plus it still looks messy.
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/argh03.jpg [shackspace.com]
Mofo! I accidentally clicked it, see explanation of why it eats babies in the JPG itself.
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy01.jpg [shackspace.com]
Those little box pluses, I like them, why take them away? It's confusing and slowing down the amount of data I can take in per 'scene' I need info and you're witholding it, just so you can pretend you're neater than you actually are.
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/whywhy02.jpg [shackspace.com]
Ahh my boxes are back, this is good, also more cluttered shit.
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf01.jpg [shackspace.com]
You call this a save as dialogue box?
I hit shift tab twice (yes, I do often, try it people) to navigate quickly to where I normally would on XP.
I slap backspace like 10 times fast, this should ensure I'm at desktop, almost instantly (shift tab x2 and backspace x10 takes me 1 second)
Does it work? no, of course it doesn't you breadcrumb whores.
soooo I hit browse
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/wtf02.jpg [shackspace.com] oh oh
Hot jesus, make the fucking hurting stop!
This is one of the best reasons WHY I can't deal, look at it, just look and tell me that's simple, quick and easy to work with?
This picture alone is why osx is going to gain some serious marketshare in the next 5 years.
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles01.jpg [shackspace.com]
This one is a lot more subtle, this is the kind of cluttered stuff that's hard for anyone to notice is cluttered unless you analyse it.
You'll need to see all 3 JPGS to understand where I'm going with this.
Maybe I should've got into UI design? Maybe I should be a minimalist linux nerd but damnit that screams messy and awkward to me:/
http://abrasion.shackspace.com/lolsta/shambles01a.jpg [shackspace.com]
Same picture, without t
Re:Why didn't they include... (Score:5, Funny)
I'd like to see the option on boot "Load a lot of libraries you probably will never use, but will take up half your system memory, on start-up (Y/N)
Re:Why didn't they include... (Score:5, Funny)
Fixed (Score:2, Funny)
Knowing MS... (Score:2)
Re:Why didn't they include... (Score:4, Funny)
Clippy sez:
It looks like you're trying to criticize a poorly implemented slashdot meme...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
After all, everyone digitally signs their memes these days.
Re:Why didn't they include... (Score:4, Insightful)
And In Other News... (Score:5, Funny)
And in other news, the heads of Solaris users around the world exploded into what one witness described as "a lethal conflagration born out of self-righteousness and impotence."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Wow, Microsoft innovation (Score:5, Funny)