Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
Robin T Cox
<quote>
"The head of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows development confirmed that Windows 7
will take the unusual path of moving straight from a single beta, which was
launched earlier this month, to a release candidate. Sinofsky fleshed out
the plan today and hinted that just as there would be no Beta 2, the
company would also not provide a RC2 build. In other words, there may be
only one released build of Windows 7 before it ships, possibly much sooner
than even some of the most aggressive rumors about Windows 7. How much
different can Windows 7 really be with such a shortened beta cycle?"
</quote>
So now MS admit that they will be cutting corners on their Quality
Assurance ...
--
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free
Robin T Cox
Phil Da Lick!
Translation: the sooner Vista is behind us the better. Lets get
something - anything - out asap!
Robin T Cox
> Robin T Cox wrote:
>
>> Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
>
> http://tinyurl.com/crnhrq
Belay that.
Use instead:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127071
RonB
> Robin T Cox wrote:
>
>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/crnhrq
>
> Belay that.
>
> Use instead:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127071
Desperate times...
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Sinister Midget
Is this one codenamed Vista ME II? Maybe the official release name
should also change: Windows Vista 7 ME 3 Redux II.
--
VISTA: Volatile and Ineffective Solution That's an Abomination
RonB
<fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this one codenamed Vista ME II? Maybe the official release name
> should also change: Windows Vista 7 ME 3 Redux II.
It doesn't matter what they call it. It's still going to be a resource hog
and businesses don't have the money to buy new equipment to run it. Nor do
companies now have the resources to retool all their applications to fit a
new OS. Only the poor folks who buy retail computers and think they have
no choice will use it. Corporations might buy Vista7 licenses, but they'll
be using XP.
Just like Vista. It doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's still
a turd.
So, how soon after Vista7 flops will Microsoft release their own
distribution of Linux? And, if they do, I can already hear the fawning
press... "At last, someone does Linux right!"
Sinister Midget
>
>> Robin T Cox wrote:
>>
>>> Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/crnhrq
>
> Belay that.
>
> Use instead:
>
> http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9127071
Microsoft usually runs its operating systems through multiple betas
and multiple release candidates. It delivered two betas and two
release candidates for Windows Vista, for example, during that
operating system's trouble-plagued development.
And look what happened to that. Taking shortcuts proved disatrous. So
the plan is to take more shortcuts.
Cue the trolls to start howling that Windross 7 will kill linux; it'll
be the mostest secure and most safest (MS) OS ever in history; they've
already sold 14 trillion copies; it'll be the goodest one ever possible
for all time (until next year, when Windwoes Vista 8 III will start
development), and nobody is ever going to want anything else again.
--
Do you know why Windows' "last known good configuration" almost never
works? Because the last known good configuration was a blank disk.
Snit
PM:
> It doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's still
> a turd.
Yet, contrary to that philosophy, I bet you still comb your hair sometimes.
:)
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
DFS
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:43:46 -0600, Sinister Midget
> <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is this one codenamed Vista ME II? Maybe the official release name
>> should also change: Windows Vista 7 ME 3 Redux II.
>
> It doesn't matter what they call it. It's still going to be a
> resource hog
Maybe by the 3rd world standards of the 3rd rate crapware you pretended to
"switch" to.
> and businesses don't have the money to buy new equipment
> to run it.
Why would they need new equipment to run it - the world isn't as broke as
you, remember?
The minimum recommended specs are:
1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor
1 GB of system memory
16 GB of available disk space
Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128 MB memory (to enable the Aero theme)
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx
Even you could afford that, WRonG.
By contrast, Novell recommends a 2.4ghz processor for Suse Linux Enterprise
Desktop slow-ware.
http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/techspecs.html
> Nor do companies now have the resources to retool all
> their applications to fit a new OS.
And they don't need to do this either.
> Just like Vista. It doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's
> still a turd.
And just like Vista, Windows 7 will step all over the unpolished dogshit
called Linux.
> So, how soon after Vista7 flops will Microsoft release their own
> distribution of Linux?
No sooner than you Linux "advocates" quit your Windows jobs.
> And, if they do, I can already hear the fawning
> press... "At last, someone does Linux right!"
The first correct thing you've said in this post.
Terry Porter
* Either Windows 7 wasn't a real beta anyway, being just "Vista with a
polish" ?
* Or it was a real beta, and Microsoft don't know how to produce decent
software ?
* Or it was all a marketing ploy, to test the waters for a
Vista 'replacement' ?
Same old Microsoft tho, always something dodgy going on.
Join the winning team, and get your Free GNU/Linux/Ubuntu LIVE CD at :-
http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
RonB
> RonB wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:43:46 -0600, Sinister Midget
>> <fardb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Is this one codenamed Vista ME II? Maybe the official release name
>>> should also change: Windows Vista 7 ME 3 Redux II.
>>
>> It doesn't matter what they call it. It's still going to be a
>> resource hog
>
> Maybe by the 3rd world standards of the 3rd rate crapware you pretended
> to "switch" to.
Like the United States? We've got over a thousand machines that won't run
it. There's no plans to upgrade them at this time.
>> and businesses don't have the money to buy new equipment
>> to run it.
>
> Why would they need new equipment to run it - the world isn't as broke as
> you, remember?
>
> The minimum recommended specs are:
> 1 GHz 32-bit or 64-bit processor
> 1 GB of system memory
> 16 GB of available disk space
> Support for DirectX 9 graphics with 128 MB memory (to enable the Aero
> theme)
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx
First, the minimum requirements suggested by Microsoft are a fantasy. If
you double the specs you'll come closer to being right. Second, most of
our machines have 256 meg of memory, some have 512 Meg -- which works fine
for a client machine running XP -- even though the 256 Megs of memory is a
bit light. And third, a lot of our computers still have 20 Gig hard drives
-- they are client machines. And this is the way *MANY* corporate client
machines are set up. Small hard drives, bare amount of memory that will
run XP and default video and system memory.
Why should our company upgrade or replace our computers just for the joy
of having to retool our software? -- or replace it and work through all
the incompatibility issues? There's more important things to do.
> Even you could afford that, WRonG.
>
>
> By contrast, Novell recommends a 2.4ghz processor for Suse Linux
> Enterprise
> Desktop slow-ware.
> http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/techspecs.html
Novell is more honest than Microsoft. But we're not looking to upgrade to
Linux either.
>> Nor do companies now have the resources to retool all
>> their applications to fit a new OS.
>
> And they don't need to do this either.
You're clueless about our operation. We have stuff that is barely working
with XP -- it *would* require serious retooling to work with Vista or
Vista7.
>> Just like Vista. It doesn't matter how much you polish a turd, it's
>> still a turd.
>
> And just like Vista, Windows 7 will step all over the unpolished dogshit
> called Linux.
You live a rich fantasy life. But Microsoft's problem is not Linux on the
desktop -- it's getting corporations to sign off on Vista or Vista7. Not
happening is it? And I'm telling you why -- you just don't have the good
sense to listen.
>> So, how soon after Vista7 flops will Microsoft release their own
>> distribution of Linux?
>
> No sooner than you Linux "advocates" quit your Windows jobs.
I don't have a "Windows job." I work on a Nortel UNIX switch. The company
runs Windows on their client machines. Am I supposed to demand that my
particular computer run Linux?
What a dipshit you prove to be.
>> And, if they do, I can already hear the fawning
>> press... "At last, someone does Linux right!"
>
> The first correct thing you've said in this post.
Glad you agree. Of course the press will be lying -- just as most of them
always do when fawning over Microsoft's latest turds.
7
> Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
I read that as Windows 7 will be thrown straight into the Skip.
And then it will be fished out and sold as a Release Candidate.
Hmm...
It can't be far from the truth!
Jerry McBride
Microsoft already has it's version of linux... it's sold through Novell
--
*****************************************************************************
From the desk of:
Jerome D. McBride
18:18:48 up 46 days, 25 min, 5 users, load average: 0.07, 0.39, 1.44
*****************************************************************************
Erik Funkenbusch
Beta 1 of Windows 7 has been extremely stable, I'm running it as my primary
OS and not had a single problem. Many others claim to be doing the same.
I'm not surprised they're skipping beta 2. Beta 1 is already feature
complete and Beta 2 is redundant. Normally Microsoft issues several betas
with varying subsets of functionality, with the RC being feature complete.
This is a result of Sinofsky's brand of hard core project management. He's
been running Office as a very tight ship the last few years, and Windows is
becoming the same now that he's in charge. There are no shortcuts being
taken, it's just good process producing good code.
I really don't get you Microsoft critics. When Vista took 5 years, it was
too long. When 7 takes 2 years, it's too short. What is the "correct"
amount of time it should take?
I doubt you know... all you can do is figure out some way to twist anything
into a complaint.
Sinister Midget
> On Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:34:15 GMT, Robin T Cox wrote:
>
>> Windows 7 To Skip Straight To a Release Candidate
>>
>> <quote>
>> "The head of Microsoft Corp.'s Windows development confirmed that Windows 7
>> will take the unusual path of moving straight from a single beta, which was
>> launched earlier this month, to a release candidate. Sinofsky fleshed out
>> the plan today and hinted that just as there would be no Beta 2, the
>> company would also not provide a RC2 build. In other words, there may be
>> only one released build of Windows 7 before it ships, possibly much sooner
>> than even some of the most aggressive rumors about Windows 7. How much
>> different can Windows 7 really be with such a shortened beta cycle?"
>> </quote>
>>
>> So now MS admit that they will be cutting corners on their Quality
>> Assurance ...
>
> Beta 1 of Windows 7 has been extremely stable, I'm running it as my primary
> OS and not had a single problem. Many others claim to be doing the same.
>
> I'm not surprised they're skipping beta 2. Beta 1 is already feature
> complete and Beta 2 is redundant. Normally Microsoft issues several betas
> with varying subsets of functionality, with the RC being feature complete.
>
> This is a result of Sinofsky's brand of hard core project management. He's
> been running Office as a very tight ship the last few years, and Windows is
> becoming the same now that he's in charge. There are no shortcuts being
> taken, it's just good process producing good code.
Great spin! Are you expected to keep this up long, or can you start
complaining any time you like after it's released?
> I really don't get you Microsoft critics. When Vista took 5 years, it was
> too long. When 7 takes 2 years, it's too short. What is the "correct"
> amount of time it should take?
When it's actually done is the right time to release it. Which Vista
wasn't. Not on a fixed schedule. Not because of panic over a previous
attempt dropping like a barium-laced turd. But when it's ready for use.
I still hold reservations about 7 being done, too. I expect there to be
plenty of exploits awaiting release day. I expect a lot of people not
jumping on the wagon, partially due to being gun-shy after the last
abomination, and partly because people know any machines that haven't
been bought in the last 4-6 months will run like crap.
It's not that they're moving too fast. It's more about all of the spin
we've gotten from the Windopes over the years about why it takes the
monopoly so long to do anything. Like, say, patch vulnerabilities.
It's because of the massive testing, we've been told. It's because
they need to make sure they get it right*, the excuse has always been.
Now that they've had a bomb with Vista and it would be perfectly
understandable for them to proceed with care, they want to cut things
short to get it out the door.
But we get a different sort of spin now: it's stable, and there's no
reason to spend so much time on it (similar language that preceded
Vista); it's perfectly fine (ditto the last parenthetical commentary);
it's all because their new slavemaster runs such a tight ship (which
makes even less sense wrt quality, and more sense wrt artifical
deadlines).
As an aside, since Vista was so peachy keen in your view, why does it
seem you're in a hurry to move on? You must be since you've decided to
jump ahead to Vista 7 while it's still in beta and you can lose
anything you decide to save under it since it won't carry over. But
why?
* Which was always shown to be the spin claims like that always are
when the end product screwed the pooch as it often did/does/will do.
--
Frontpage: Allowing more people who can't design to be on the web.
Hadron
Err, and its why they are cutting the second beta. It is "done" or close
enough.
Are you mad or merely clueless about SW development?
Hint : billion of other peoples money rests on a timely release. OEMS,
retailers etc. There are MANY parameters to the equation.
Only amateurs and people that don't care about others can sit about
taking it easy and say "its done when its done". It does not work like
that in the real world.
> wasn't. Not on a fixed schedule. Not because of panic over a previous
> attempt dropping like a barium-laced turd. But when it's ready for use.
>
> I still hold reservations about 7 being done, too. I expect there to be
> plenty of exploits awaiting release day. I expect a lot of people not
Yes, but you're a clueless idiot with ZERO idea about anything. If you
hadn't denied I might still think you are High Plains Hypocrite. You're
dumb enough.
*snip more nonsense and paranoid rants*
Erik Funkenbusch
> As an aside, since Vista was so peachy keen in your view, why does it
> seem you're in a hurry to move on?
Vista has been fine for me, but I like some of the new features in 7. The
new task bar is nice, particularly the Favorites and MRU integration with
the shell.
See this:
http://www.neowin.net/images/uploaded/215509_sbar-jump-lists.png
But the single biggest reason is the live preview.
One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the UI
guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window has
which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new tab
preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct application
instance and the correct tab in one click.
Check this picture:
http://www.neowin.net/images/uploaded/215509_sbar-quick-previews.png
you just click on the preview you want and it goes to that window and that
tab, thus making tabbed browsing fit within the guidelines again, and
making it far more easy to use.
> You must be since you've decided to
> jump ahead to Vista 7 while it's still in beta and you can lose
> anything you decide to save under it since it won't carry over. But
> why?
See above.
Another feature I like is that when you are doing something like a file
copy, or downloading a file, the tab icon actually shows a progress bar.
Like this:
http://www.neowin.net/images/uploaded/215509_sbar-progress-bars.png
And, while all those things are nice.. sometimes it's the little things
that make you appreciate it the most. For instance, I spend an HUGE amount
of time in remote desktop. Sometimes even remote desktop with remote
desktop session. One of the huge "quirks" you sometimes run into is when
you have one remote desktop session open in another, you can't easily get
to the second sessions titlebar. The 7 RDP client has a new feature that
let's you "slide" the title bar from one side to the other to reveal what's
beneath it (whithout actually auto-hiding).
Also, RDP7 has other new features like multiple monitor support.
But, All this is really unimportant. You were trying to insinuate that the
only reason I could possibly want to go to Windows 7 is because Vista
sucks. It doesn't, 7 just has new features I like a lot.
DFS
> Microsoft already has it's version of linux... it's sold through
> Novell
omg... you stupid, stupid shit.
Ian Hilliard
> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window
> has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new
> tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct
> application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>
That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
the taskbar. If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for
release yet.
Ian
Ezekiel
"Ian Hilliard" <nos...@hilliardtech.com> wrote in message
news:12334929...@angel.amnet.net.au...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
>> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window
>> has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new
>> tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct
>> application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>>
>
> That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
> the taskbar.
So does IE7 running on XP.
> If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for release yet.
There much more that goes into releasing a product than this sort of
minutia.
chrisv
> I really don't get you Microsoft critics. When Vista took 5 years, it
> was too long. When 7 takes 2 years, it's too short. What is the
> "correct" amount of time it should take?
>
> I doubt you know... all you can do is figure out some way to twist
> anything into a complaint.
The proof is in the pudding, Fuddie. While M$ shills, like you, defend
Visduh as "fine", it's not a great advancement in the SOTA in PC OS's,
now is it? Indeed, people who had a choice in the matter largely
preferred it's predecessor.
It's pretty obvious that M$ spends too much of it's vast resources
worrying about extracting the most money from their customers (DRM, lock-
in, opaque file systems), and not enough worrying about what will truly
improve the users' computing experience.
Erik Funkenbusch
What does that have to do with what I said?
Let's say you have 4 copies of FF open. Each copy of FF has 5 open tabs.
Now, you need to go to one specific tab, and maybe the pages title isn't
descriptive of what site it is (maybe it just says "About" or something).
You are stuck switching to each instance of FF and clicking through the
tabs looking for the right one.
Who cares about the active tab? The active tab has some indication of what
it is, it's the non-active tabs that cause the headache.
Doug Mentohl
> What does that have to do with what I said?
"You can't tell which browser window has which tab open by looking at
Sinister Midget
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
>>> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window
>>> has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new
>>> tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct
>>> application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>>
>> That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
>> the taskbar. If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for
>> release yet.
>
> What does that have to do with what I said?
>
> Let's say you have 4 copies of FF open.
Why the hell would you do that? That's what tabs are designed for.
No wonder you don't like them. You don't know how to use them in the
first place. That and you're trying to use them on IE. You and it are
so accustomed to separate windows for everything that it's still too
braindead to deal with tabs as a replacement _for_ separate windows.
Erik Funkenbusch
> On 2009-02-01, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:02:32 +0900, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
>>>> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window
>>>> has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new
>>>> tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct
>>>> application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>>>
>>> That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
>>> the taskbar. If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for
>>> release yet.
>>
>> What does that have to do with what I said?
>>
>> Let's say you have 4 copies of FF open.
>
> Why the hell would you do that? That's what tabs are designed for.
That's even worse then. So now you have even less chance of the tab you
want being the currently active one.
I open multiple browsers to keep common tasks in the same group of tabs.
I'm sure many others do similar or have other reasons.
Typical Linux mentality, someone does something you don't, and you simply
can't comprehend why they might want to do that.
> No wonder you don't like them. You don't know how to use them in the
> first place. That and you're trying to use them on IE. You and it are
> so accustomed to separate windows for everything that it's still too
> braindead to deal with tabs as a replacement _for_ separate windows.
Are you really that stupid? Windows has had MDI, which is effectively
"tabs" since nearly it's inception. Microsoft moved AWAY from MDI because
it can be comfusing. Tabs are essentially the same thing.
Apparently you believe the only valid use of tabs is a single open window.
How about wanting windows open side by side? how about having different
windows on different monitors? How about any number of other logical
reasons that seem to befuddle you.
Hadron
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:55:00 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2009-02-01, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:02:32 +0900, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
>>>>> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window
>>>>> has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new
>>>>> tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct
>>>>> application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>>>>
>>>> That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
>>>> the taskbar. If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for
>>>> release yet.
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with what I said?
>>>
>>> Let's say you have 4 copies of FF open.
>>
>> Why the hell would you do that? That's what tabs are designed for.
>
> That's even worse then. So now you have even less chance of the tab you
> want being the currently active one.
>
> I open multiple browsers to keep common tasks in the same group of tabs.
> I'm sure many others do similar or have other reasons.
>
> Typical Linux mentality, someone does something you don't, and you simply
> can't comprehend why they might want to do that.
Yup. And then I use XMonad to tile the individual browsers or shift them
around the desktops.
>
>> No wonder you don't like them. You don't know how to use them in the
>> first place. That and you're trying to use them on IE. You and it are
>> so accustomed to separate windows for everything that it's still too
>> braindead to deal with tabs as a replacement _for_ separate windows.
>
> Are you really that stupid? Windows has had MDI, which is effectively
> "tabs" since nearly it's inception. Microsoft moved AWAY from MDI because
> it can be comfusing. Tabs are essentially the same thing.
Amazing stupidity from Gidget again. He was boasting that he frequently
uses "cut and paste" yesterday as if it was some kind of cutting edge
usage.
> Apparently you believe the only valid use of tabs is a single open window.
> How about wanting windows open side by side? how about having different
> windows on different monitors? How about any number of other logical
> reasons that seem to befuddle you.
He's still tossing himself off because he uses "tabs". The man is a
simpleton.
Sinister Midget
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009 12:55:00 -0600, Sinister Midget wrote:
>
>> On 2009-02-01, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@despam-funkenbusch.com> claimed:
>>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:02:32 +0900, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
>>>>> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser window
>>>>> has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But the new
>>>>> tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the correct
>>>>> application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>>>>
>>>> That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
>>>> the taskbar. If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for
>>>> release yet.
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with what I said?
>>>
>>> Let's say you have 4 copies of FF open.
>>
>> Why the hell would you do that? That's what tabs are designed for.
>
> That's even worse then. So now you have even less chance of the tab you
> want being the currently active one.
You effin' people swear by clicking everything. What's wrong with
reaching up to the top and choosing the one you want? Or use the
hotkey to cycle through them.
IE has hotkeys for its tabs, right?
> I open multiple browsers to keep common tasks in the same group of tabs.
> I'm sure many others do similar or have other reasons.
>
> Typical Linux mentality, someone does something you don't, and you simply
> can't comprehend why they might want to do that.
I don't care if someone wants to do something different. If they want
to different from how the thing's designed, more power to them. But to
then gripe because they're doing something nobody else ever did is
worse than pointless.
>> No wonder you don't like them. You don't know how to use them in the
>> first place. That and you're trying to use them on IE. You and it are
>> so accustomed to separate windows for everything that it's still too
>> braindead to deal with tabs as a replacement _for_ separate windows.
>
> Are you really that stupid? Windows has had MDI, which is effectively
> "tabs" since nearly it's inception. Microsoft moved AWAY from MDI because
> it can be comfusing. Tabs are essentially the same thing.
Except they aren't. If they were people would have used them, and
griped when they disappeared. I see people taking to tabs in Firefox
pretty quickly once they get past the false notion that the world is
built on IE.
> Apparently you believe the only valid use of tabs is a single open window.
> How about wanting windows open side by side? how about having different
> windows on different monitors? How about any number of other logical
> reasons that seem to befuddle you.
Then you can see the tab and window you want.
Now we've come full circle in your bitching: your tab is in a window
that might be any ol' place behind the window you have open, to you
have your windows sitting next to each other where you can see all of
your tabs at once.
Want to move it in a new direction so you can start a different line of
gripes?
--
Windows: The OS that forces you to delete things to make them work.
Ian Hilliard
How about only having one instance of the browser running and then all the
open pages will be in that browser.
Ian
Rex Ballard
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > I really don't get you Microsoft critics. When Vista took 5 years, it
> > was too long. When 7 takes 2 years, it's too short. What is the
> > "correct" amount of time it should take?
New updates to the Linux kernel come out every 6 months or so, most
distributions have the "research" distribution that gets updated as a
major release about once every 3 months, and a "Production"
distribution that typically gets released every year.
I'd love to see Microsoft adopt this type of model, if they could make
incremental improvements and maintain backward compatibility with
previous release of Windows, including Windows 9x, Windows 2000, and
Windows XP, and make sure that ALL applications ran under Windows 7, I
think they might have a nice product. Then they can make more
frequent upgrades.
The biggest concern with Windows upgrades is that new releases and
service packs often have "competition killers" or "torpedoes", changes
in lower level API implementation that kill the 3rd party
applicationts. It took almost a year to get key 3rd party
applications to work with Windows XP SP2, because torpedoes tried to
kill key products like Lotus Notes and applications written in Java.
Eventually, the 3rd party application vendors were able to adapt to
the new platform, but it was a challenge to create applications that
could run on both the new version of Windows and the older versions.
.
Microsoft would like all new purchasers of Windows to stop using
competitor's 3rd party software, and they would like 3rd party
software to stop supporting previous versions of Windows.
Unfortunately, the real world isn't subject to Microsoft's mandates
and dictates, and it takes about 2 years for everything to settle
down, and about the time things finally get stable, Microsoft puts out
a new major release of Windows, or a new disruptive service pack.
> > I doubt you know... all you can do is figure out some way to twist
> > anything into a complaint.
Some things I'd like to see in Windows 7, that don't seem to be there
yet.
Support for desktop virtualization - let me run Windows and Linux on
the same hypervisor.
Better memory management - especially garbage collection.
Better support for virtualization as a client - smaller memory model.
Smaller run-time memory footprint for applications. I don't need to
pre-load helps, exception handling, and easter eggs for every
application and every control. But that in a properties file or
database.
Modular libraries - one big monolithic library - or even 3-4, just
means lots of garbage gets loaded that isn't needed. It's like
Microsoft is just trying to find creative ways to grab as much memory
as it can.
Unix style security - with the ability to control read, write, and
execution of a file separately, so that you can prevent people from
replacing the good files with viral ones.
Shut ALL of the back doors, especially those used for "Piracy
Management". All it does is create entry points for the hackers. Use
a real license manager client/service with specified protocols,
similar to those used by Unix and Linux vendors like Sun, Rational,
and IBM.
Losen up the licence restrictions - I should be able to use the
purchased software license for mare than just Microsoft's exclusive
and anticompetitive purposes. The clauses that are deemed to be
anticompetitive, to Linux, to thin client remote access, or to 3rd
party competitors in applications, should be removed.
> The proof is in the pudding, Fuddie. While M$ shills, like you, defend
> Visduh as "fine", it's not a great advancement in the SOTA in PC OS's,
> now is it? Indeed, people who had a choice in the matter largely
> preferred it's predecessor.
It really doesn't answer Eric's question.
> It's pretty obvious that M$ spends too much of it's vast resources
> worrying about extracting the most money from their customers (DRM, lock-
> in, opaque file systems), and not enough worrying about what will truly
> improve the users' computing experience.
That may be why Windows 7 can come out so much faster. They have
discovered that these extortion tools have no valuable effect other
than to make customers want to avoid the restrictive products - hence
the rejection of Vista.
Hadron
> On Feb 1, 9:46 am, chrisv <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > I really don't get you Microsoft critics. When Vista took 5 years, it
>> > was too long. When 7 takes 2 years, it's too short. What is the
>> > "correct" amount of time it should take?
>
> New updates to the Linux kernel come out every 6 months or so, most
> distributions have the "research" distribution that gets updated as a
> major release about once every 3 months, and a "Production"
> distribution that typically gets released every year.
>
> I'd love to see Microsoft adopt this type of model, if they could make
> incremental improvements and maintain backward compatibility with
> previous release of Windows, including Windows 9x, Windows 2000, and
> Windows XP, and make sure that ALL applications ran under Windows 7, I
> think they might have a nice product. Then they can make more
> frequent upgrades.
You are comparing the Linux kernel with Windows? Huh?
The Linux kernel CONSTANTLY changes. As anyone who compiles from source
knows. I don't anymore since my Lenny kernel is stable and I trust
Debian to release as and when they see fit. It's still a lot more
frequently than 6 months.
As usual Rexx talks through his arse.
Ian Hilliard
It is however an indication of the completeness, or lack there of, of the
product.
Ian
Sinister Midget
According to Erik only a retard would do that.
Isn't it obvious that almost everybody on the planet will eventually
need to have 4 to 40 windows openat once? And that each window will
need to have 30 tabs, grouped haphazardly so there's no rhyme or reason
for the arrangements in each window? And just maybe that one truly
important tab in one of those windows right in the middle of all of it
only says something like "Hi there!" instead of "Proof that the Windows
am the Greatest because they have Space Cadet, By Gerald Holmes"? How
is anybody supposed to find just that one tab they really need in all
of that? It's Mozilla's fault for not designing things differently, I
tell ya!
It should be so apparent that saying it is unnecessary. Obviously the
best way to handle that is to have 120 windows open. Or, to use Erik's
numbers above, 20 windows. It's /so/ much easier to find things that
way, because you can figure out which non-descriptive *window* title is
the right one out of so many windows much easier and faster than to
find that same non-decription on a tab.
Tabs in a browser! Good grief. What will they think of next, butter on
popcorn??!?
--
Windows: Proof that P.T. Barnum was right.
Hadron
> On 2009-02-02, Ian Hilliard <nos...@hilliardtech.com> claimed:
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 01 Feb 2009 22:02:32 +0900, Ian Hilliard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of the reasons I disliked tab browsing so much is that it breaks the
>>>>> UI guidelines. It hides information. You can't tell which browser
>>>>> window has which tab open by looking at the button on the taskbar. But
>>>>> the new tab preview built into the shell allows me to jump to the
>>>>> correct application instance and the correct tab in one click.
>>>>
>>>> That's funny! Firefox on Ubuntu shows which site is in the active tab, on
>>>> the taskbar. If Windows 7 can't do that, then maybe it is not ready for
>>>> release yet.
>>>
>>> What does that have to do with what I said?
>>>
>>> Let's say you have 4 copies of FF open. Each copy of FF has 5 open tabs.
>>> Now, you need to go to one specific tab, and maybe the pages title isn't
>>> descriptive of what site it is (maybe it just says "About" or something).
>>>
>>> You are stuck switching to each instance of FF and clicking through the
>>> tabs looking for the right one.
>>>
>>> Who cares about the active tab? The active tab has some indication of
>>> what it is, it's the non-active tabs that cause the headache.
>>
>> How about only having one instance of the browser running and then all the
>> open pages will be in that browser.
>
> According to Erik only a retard would do that.
Thats not what he said. He said many people like different browser
INSTANCES each with their own tabs.
And I concur.
>
> Isn't it obvious that almost everybody on the planet will eventually
> need to have 4 to 40 windows openat once? And that each window will
> need to have 30 tabs, grouped haphazardly so there's no rhyme or reason
> for the arrangements in each window? And just maybe that one truly
> important tab in one of those windows right in the middle of all of it
> only says something like "Hi there!" instead of "Proof that the Windows
> am the Greatest because they have Space Cadet, By Gerald Holmes"? How
> is anybody supposed to find just that one tab they really need in all
> of that? It's Mozilla's fault for not designing things differently, I
> tell ya!
>
> It should be so apparent that saying it is unnecessary. Obviously the
> best way to handle that is to have 120 windows open. Or, to use Erik's
> numbers above, 20 windows. It's /so/ much easier to find things that
> way, because you can figure out which non-descriptive *window* title is
> the right one out of so many windows much easier and faster than to
> find that same non-decription on a tab.
>
> Tabs in a browser! Good grief. What will they think of next, butter on
> popcorn??!?
What are you talking about? IE has had tabs for ages I'm sure. As have
other windows browser.
Tabs are nice. But people frequently want 2 or browsers open for
different workplaces and/or side by side comparisons.
Your waffle here is ALMOST as laughable as when you were describing how
you "frequently" cut and paste between emails as if it was some sort of
Linux only l337 usage.
Grow up Gidget and get a clue.
Peter Köhlmann
Naturally you do. After all, someone has to defend his idiocy
Could you (any of your retards) give any valid reason to do that?
>> Isn't it obvious that almost everybody on the planet will eventually
>> need to have 4 to 40 windows openat once? And that each window will
>> need to have 30 tabs, grouped haphazardly so there's no rhyme or reason
>> for the arrangements in each window? And just maybe that one truly
>> important tab in one of those windows right in the middle of all of it
>> only says something like "Hi there!" instead of "Proof that the Windows
>> am the Greatest because they have Space Cadet, By Gerald Holmes"? How
>> is anybody supposed to find just that one tab they really need in all
>> of that? It's Mozilla's fault for not designing things differently, I
>> tell ya!
>>
>> It should be so apparent that saying it is unnecessary. Obviously the
>> best way to handle that is to have 120 windows open. Or, to use Erik's
>> numbers above, 20 windows. It's /so/ much easier to find things that
>> way, because you can figure out which non-descriptive *window* title is
>> the right one out of so many windows much easier and faster than to
>> find that same non-decription on a tab.
>>
>> Tabs in a browser! Good grief. What will they think of next, butter on
>> popcorn??!?
>
> What are you talking about? IE has had tabs for ages I'm sure.
Certainly. After all, MS innovated tabbed browsing with IE7.
Long after many other browsers had it
> As have other windows browser.
Yes. Long before IE
> Tabs are nice. But people frequently want 2 or browsers open for
> different workplaces and/or side by side comparisons.
And the reason is?
Might it be that about nobody with half a working brain would let IE7
anywhere near a system?
> Your waffle here is ALMOST as laughable as when you were describing how
> you "frequently" cut and paste between emails as if it was some sort of
> Linux only l337 usage.
>
> Grow up Gidget and get a clue.
Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
"true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
"X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar" and
"OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka
Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
--
Ignorance is a condition. Stupidity is a way of life.
Norman Peelman
No, IE has not had tabs for ages... Opera and Firefox has (as well as
some others I think). The problem is that the browser has no way to know
what tab you want from what instance. Both Opera and Firefox
(w/greasmonkey) allow the user to alter sites with user defined
javascript. So if a particular site in a particular tab isn't
descriptive enough - rewrite the title. I agree with the reasoning of
multiple windows with multiple tabs, I do it myself. Hell, there are
time when I have 80-90 tabs open... I'd like to be able to select
multiple tabs to move into a new window.
> Tabs are nice. But people frequently want 2 or browsers open for
> different workplaces and/or side by side comparisons.
>
> Your waffle here is ALMOST as laughable as when you were describing how
> you "frequently" cut and paste between emails as if it was some sort of
> Linux only l337 usage.
>
> Grow up Gidget and get a clue.
--
Norman
Registered Linux user #461062
Hadron
I stand corrected. I dont use IE. I dont use Windows. I must have been
thinking of firefox under XP a while back.
But firefox has. And the thought of having ALL in one instance is simply
ludicrous for anyone who develops SW for example.
Rex Ballard
Both systems have frequent "security updates", typically protection
against buffer overruns and the like. Much of this in Windows has to
do with successful attacks by malware, while Linux security updates
tend to be more focused on theoretical vulnerabilities that haven't
actually been exploited.
When we start talking about MAJOR upgrades, both have been pretty
stable. Linux major releases were 2.4 in January 2001 and 2.6 in
January 2003, Latest release 2.6.28 was December 2008.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel for more information.
> As usual Rexx talks through his arse.
As usual, Hadron picks a nit.
Typically, the major distributions will pick what they feel to be the
most stable and bug-free release of the kernel, test that with what
they consider to be the most stable and bug-free versions of libraries
and applications, and ship that on distribution media. Typically, one
of the first things you do after you install the distribution from
media is check for upgrades, and you typically get many nice upgrades
that have been tested with that distribution kernel.
If Microsoft could come out with Windows 7 by July of 2009 and it was
as fast and efficient as Windows 2000 and as secure as Windows XP, and
had good virtualization - I'd probably want to upgrade my XP machines,
or maybe even install Windows 7 VMs on my Linux machines.
The problem is that Microsoft will charge the EOMs $30 for the
licenses preinstalled to their specifications, but will expect me to
pay $300 for "upgrades" that I can install on my already functional
laptops and desktops.
I have 6 PCs, 4 of which are licensed for Windows XP. I have one
Vista license - but hated Vista so much that I uninstalled it. I also
have 4 Windows 2000 licenses, and 6 NT 4.0 licenses. And now
Microsoft wants me to shell out ANOTHER $$$?
I think Microsoft needs to get more realistic about it's pricing
structures. Just because they put a box out there on the retailer
shelves marked at $400 doesn't mean that Windows 7 is actually WORTH
that much to 99.9% of the people who are willing to use the $30 copy
that has been preinstalled on their computer.
Seriously, how many Windows advocates posting to this group have
actually paid FULL PRICE for a FULLY LEGAL copy of Windows for a brand
new computer that wasn't previously licensed for Windows? I'm not
talking about an educational version, an MSDN version, or an upgrade
version, but an actual RETAIL version of a FULL LICENSE?
And how many installed this $400 copy of Windows or Vista on a $500
laptop or $300 desktop machine?
If I go to a MarketPro computer show I can have a custom-built AMD
quad-core processor PC built for about $500 with 4 Gig of RAM and 500
GB SATA-II hard drive with HDMI connector to a 1080P monitor/display.
But if I want a LEGAL copy of Windows - I have to shell out another
$400? Probably not. I'll put Linux on it instead.
If Microsoft expects me to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7, I'll
want a Retail version selling with FULL LICENSE - no restrictions -
selling for $50-$80, or it's no deal. Not even on a new computer that
gives me the option of XP or Windows 7. That's why I ordered my Z-61p
BEFORE the XP version was no longer available. I wanted the 4 Gig of
RAM and the 1080p display, but I didn't want compatibility problems
between Vista and XP.
Corporate customers are looking at the same issues. I can get a Vista
desktop PC for $300 in quantity, I can install an XP image for $10,
and get it deployed for just a few hundred dollars in back-up/recovery
time. If I need to go to Vista or Windows 7, I have to add training
costs, upgrade applications, switch to new applications because the
old ones don't work, and STILL have to handle back-up and recovery
that won't handle the applications. We still have to install software
manually, because the images can't be copied universally.
The reality is that I'd be better off using VMWare Converter to save
the user's old machine to a USB drive or SAN storage, and then install
the VM to a PC running a very lightweight version of Linux.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
I have Iceweasel (Firefox), Evolution, and mrxvt running in a single tabbed
fluxbox window.
Iceweasel is tabbed displaying a number of URLs.
mrxvt is tabbed running a number of consoles.
One of the consoles has vim running it, each document open in its own tab.
And that's just one virtual desktop on my desktop.
And my desktop is one of a number of desktops running on different machines
but all consolidated locally using xdmx. Something like this:
http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2007/powerwall/
The only problem is those desktops don't have tabs. Dang.
--
tmps_base = tmps_max; /* protect our mortal string */
-- Larry Wall in stab.c from the perl source code
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron wrote:
>
>>>> How about only having one instance of the browser running and then all
>>>> the open pages will be in that browser.
>>>
>>> According to Erik only a retard would do that.
>>
>> Thats not what he said. He said many people like different browser
>> INSTANCES each with their own tabs.
>>
>> And I concur.
>
> Naturally you do. After all, someone has to defend his idiocy
> Could you (any of your retards) give any valid reason to do that?
Well, sometimes a link will pop open a whole new browser instance if you're
not careful.
>> What are you talking about? IE has had tabs for ages I'm sure.
>
> Certainly. After all, MS innovated tabbed browsing with IE7.
> Long after many other browsers had it
>
>> As have other windows browser.
>
> Yes. Long before IE
"We're Microsoft -- we're the leaders. Hey! Wait for us!"
>> Your waffle here is ALMOST as laughable as when you were describing how
>> you "frequently" cut and paste between emails as if it was some sort of
>> Linux only l337 usage.
>>
>> Grow up Gidget and get a clue.
>
> Another fine "true linux advocacy post" from the
> "true linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert",
> "X specialist", "CUPS guru", "USB-disk server admin", "defragger
> professional", "newsreader magician", "hardware maven", "time
> coordinator", "email sage", "tripwire wizard", "Pulseaudio rockstar" and
> "OSS culling committee chairman" Hadron Quark, aka Hans Schneider, aka
> Richard, aka Damian O'Leary, aka Steve Townsend, aka Ubuntu King
He's a fscking waste of space.
--
One change always leaves the way open for the establishment of others.
-- Niccolo Machiavelli
Sinister Midget
> No, IE has not had tabs for ages... Opera and Firefox has (as well as
> some others I think). The problem is that the browser has no way to know
> what tab you want from what instance. Both Opera and Firefox
> (w/greasmonkey) allow the user to alter sites with user defined
> javascript. So if a particular site in a particular tab isn't
> descriptive enough - rewrite the title. I agree with the reasoning of
> multiple windows with multiple tabs, I do it myself. Hell, there are
> time when I have 80-90 tabs open... I'd like to be able to select
> multiple tabs to move into a new window.
But I don't see you crying because there are tabs scattered across
windows that you can't find, and claiming having 80-90 windows is a
better option. Like Erik did. And like the "true linux advocate", the
one who appears more and more to have never touched linux, seemed to
agree with.
--
Windows: Malware.
Terry Porter
> http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2007/powerwall/
And Microsoft raves about using *2* monitors with Windows 7 !
SPLORF!!
One of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to Windows is you can have a wall
of LCDS 8 feet wide and 6 feet high with 8400x4200 pixels displayed if you
want.
--
If we wish to reduce our ignorance, there are people we will
indeed listen to. Trolls are not among those people, as trolls, more or
less by definition, *promote* ignorance.
Kelsey Bjarnason, C.O.L.A. 2008
Sinister Midget
See? It's the fault of the coders that linux can't do what Winders
won't even try to do.
I use tabs for browsers only, except on the blue moon when I might need
to open one on a terminal for a few seconds. For anything else I use
separate desktops and/or separate screens on a single desktop. But I
could see the usefulness of having practically the entire desktop in
tabs.
--
Bugs come in through open Windows.
Sinister Midget
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2007/powerwall/
>
> And Microsoft raves about using *2* monitors with Windows 7 !
>
> SPLORF!!
>
> One of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to Windows is you can have a wall
> of LCDS 8 feet wide and 6 feet high with 8400x4200 pixels displayed if you
> want.
MICROS~1 could do that. With 40-80 machines. All showing parts of the
same picture at the same time. As long as nothing changed on any of
them. Ever
--
Windows: Because _everyone_ needs a good laugh.
Norman Peelman
I'm not complaining... and the claim is 80-90 tabs, not windows.
Sinister Midget
Agreed But Erik's gripe was against tabs and for windows to replace all
of the tabs.
--
VISTA: VISTA Is Stupid, Trite, Anal
Norman Peelman
...and how many windows would it take to render them (titles) unreadable
in the window list?
Sinister Midget
His magic number was 20. I suspect fewer than that would do the trick
on the average desktop. Even wider monitors probably would get to
the point of only being able to show a couple of letters for each window
title.
--
'Windows for Dummies': Much more than a book title - it's
a way of life.
DFS
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> http://www.cs.uaf.edu/2007/powerwall/
>
> And Microsoft raves about using *2* monitors with Windows 7 !
Of course, you're Terry Porter - Guaranteed Wrong, and you ignorantly think
one Linux crapware box is powering all those monitors.
"Ten workstations...each workstation drives two of them..."
> SPLORF!!
Indeed.
> One of the benefits of GNU/Linux compared to Windows is you can have
> a wall of LCDS 8 feet wide and 6 feet high with 8400x4200 pixels
> displayed if you want.
http://www.9xmedia.com/products/software/video-wall-software.php
One XP system running a 12-monitor wall:
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/peripherals/wallomonitors-stacking-up-a-dozen-dells-167061.php
Porter, why do you even hang here on cola getting your ass handed to you
virtually every time you post?
Hadron
<shakes head in embarrassment> When was Port right about anything whe he
posts his ra-ra posts? He's like Liarnut but more smug.
Phil Da Lick!
> "We're Microsoft -- we're the leaders. Hey! Wait for us!"
lol!
Doug Mentohl
> Are you really that stupid? Windows has had MDI, which is effectively "tabs" since nearly it's inception ..
As used in Gosling Emacs in 1988 ..