OSNews

Too much Windows 7! Too much Ubuntu! Too much OS X! Too much whining! If you don't want to read an article DON"T READ IT! Windows 7 is news, get over it. I'm interested in it, many people are interested in it. Just because you are not, doesn't give you the right to try to limit what other people want to read, please, just don't read the article.

Man, you'd think that this site should change it's name to Complaining News, people complain about the articles, the mod system, the editors, even people complaining about the complainers! (that's me, for those in the cheap seats)

Edited 2008-11-03 22:26 UTC

I'm interested in Windows 7 but I'm not interested in making love to it.

It would probably turn you down anyway, even Windows has standards. :-)

Come on, 2 weeks ago, we got one article to tell how they would call it and one article to tell why they called it Windows 7. This is not what people expect from news aggregators. Now this article is actually interesting, but this should have been the only one. I know you get dollars by posting Windows articles but this is too much. I expect no more than one article per month for an OS that is not available but 1 article out of 3 talk about Windows 7 these days! If you want to know everything that is going on about Windows 7, Read the blogs on Microsoft sites, register to mailing lists but there is no need to post 3 article every single day with new screenshots.

Seriously though, the number of Windows 7 articles lately is quite staggering. It makes the flood of Ubuntu and OSX articles that happens on occasion look like a small forest stream.
And this for an OS that is not even remotely close to being released.

//Just because you are not, doesn't give you the right to try to limit what other people want to read.//

Please explain how the hell his posting a comment "limits what other people want to read."

It doesn't, but it is an attempt. That's the point of complaining, isn't it?

So his post does NOT limit your ability to read the article ... but yet you complained about his post ... and noted "it is an attempt" (without clarifying what "it" is, since his post is NOT limiting anything).

Got it. Crystal clear, thanks.

"So his post does NOT limit your ability to read the article ... but yet you complained about his post ... and noted "it is an attempt" (without clarifying what "it" is, since his post is NOT limiting anything)."

That is the most circular logic I have ever heard. Try to Follow me here:

1. ) Strim was complaining about the amount of Windows 7 articles.

2. ) That is an attempt to get the editors to stop posting so many articles about Windows 7. you complain about things you don't want to happen anymore.

3. ) If the editors decide to listen to people complaining about those articles then they would have limited the amount of articles on a given subject.

4.) therefore denying me my right to decide what I read, and the editors to decide what they want to post.

So while his post may not limit postings on it's own, if the editors decide to stop publishing things based on people complaining, it then very well may.

So I spoke up to say, no I disagree with you, and to do a little complaining of my own. I like this site because the editors post a lot of articles on all sorts of stuff, which allows me to get a lot of different viewpoints from 1 site. I've been coming here for about 5 years. I just don't read the articles that don't interest me.

If people don't want to read an article, they can not read it. If an article is not published, then I may not even get the chance to decide.

That's why it is an attempt to limit what is posted, therefore limiting what I can choose to read.

Any clearer?

Edited 2008-11-04 22:03 UTC

Ah, my comment spawned ridiculous discussion! Let's pretend that I'm just evil troll.

Here's something for you: http://xkcd.com/386/

:)

I'm a big fan of ridiculous discussion, it's what the internet is about

Others people dosen't necessarily want to read more about it. I don't.

Love it or loathe it, it will be the next incarnation of the most widely used desktop OS and as such, is important and worth knowing about.

Personally, I don't think "overjoyed" is a healthy reaction to any operating system.

And the game begins again.

Microsoft: "We screwed up with our last release but dont use something else we have something up our sleeves. The next Windows will do everything better, you can even cook your mother in law with it"

Press: "Lets praise the glorious geniouses in Redmond and hail to the glory of the next Windows"

Users: WTF


After the release: Worst Windows ever...

Hokay.

Don't buy Windows 7 then. For the rest of us, the "lipstick" is actually quite damn useful. If the new Windows 7 UI makes me more productive, why is it mere lipstick?

Seems like a pretty important feature to me.

I doubt this time we'll see anything different than the previous Windows releases. Most likely, it'll be disappointing, and MS will soon start talking about Windows 8. Everybody will say "aaah well, windows 7 wasn't that good, but I'll stay on it 'cuz the NEXT windows will be good!"

for those of us with internal builds (legaly) i can say that 7 will not disapoint. the only thing i wish was different is i wish clasic mode was still there, at least as an option. but trimming it out got the intal size down another 8 megs haha, and size does matter. plus the new UI makes this sooooooo much easier to use, puts apples dock down a peg or 2 on the usability scale (i love apples dock so i am not knocking it, but this is simply better at the time).

The best part will be when the former Vista anti-fanboys do an about-face and start bleating about how much worse the current version is. In the same way that XP was "OH NOES DRM!" and 2k was "OH NOES 500K BUGS!" when they were first released - but as soon as the next version was released, both XP and 2k suddenly became the OS that all the cool kids use.

Even though you have a point, you also willfully ignore the servicepacks here...

I hate when people talk all the time about productivity. It isn't that you get even more productivity with each OS release, unless you were previously so damn unproductive with the OS that you need to switch; which makes me wonder, why did you use the previous version? Stop talking about productivity already; if you wanted it, you would be using Mac OS X (no, i'm not a Mac user or fanboy, I prefer Linux actually).

The quality of the user interface matters a lot - and, from what it seems, this seems to be the biggest departure since the Win 3.x-Win 95 transition. And it is change in the right direction.

Now, if users don't think the gains in productivity is worth the sticker price on a nice Windows 7 box, so be it. But your suggestion (switching to Mac OS X) is a tad daft. If the productivity gains isn't sufficient to justify buying a OS upgrade, I fail to see how the productivity gains would justify switching to Mac (especially when it involves buying an actual new computer, plus all the associated software). So the choice is not analogous. It is far easier to assume that there is a market for people wanting a better user interface than Windows XP/Vista.

The way *I* use a computer is very different from the way I use it some 15 years ago, or heck, 5 years ago. Clearly, a user interface that is designed for today's use would be a marked improvement.

Your argument is about as dumb as you look in your picture.

Does that include free chicks?

No, you get chicks for free only if you play the guitar on the MTV.

Or you could've learned to play them drums.

I really like accelerators in the IE8 beta,

they used to be called activities. You can have them for firefox as well.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/6777

I dunno... I've used Vista (w/SP1) and didn't have any issues with it. Though Vista was more about under the hood changes, looks like Windows 7 is going for the outer layer. As for me, I don't really care. The main draw to Window is (and always has been) what I can run on it, so as far as I'm concerned, XP is still perfectly adequate, and probably will be for the entire life cycle of Windows 7. That's not saying that I won't upgrade, but it's not like XP users are gonna be shit outta luck anytime soon, so they don't have to move if they don't want to.

Edited 2008-11-03 23:20 UTC

Judging by the numberof articles lately that praises an OS that is in its very early stages and years away from production they've fooled a lot of people.

That's not a very profound statement, since the same could be said for any series of OSes. OSX Puma is what OSX Cheetah should've been. And that's literally true, as OSX Cheetah was literally beta-ware, and totally abysmal in terms of speed, stability, and polish. OSX Puma was the first usable version of OSX, yet OSX Jaguar is what Puma should've been. And on and on. Your statement that OS version N+1 is what OS version N should've been is almost an axiom and as such adds nothing to the conversation.

Edited 2008-11-04 07:37 UTC

Windows Vista isn't what XP should have been though.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that. When I saw the "panel" at the bottom of the screen, I thought it looked like KDE with a few Gnome icons thrown in (the volume control icon, for example).

http://www.kde.org/announcements/4.1/screenshots/desktop.png

Doesn't look very similar (unless you're saying KDE was the first to have large icons). There is still a difference between application launch icons and opened windows in KDE 4 (in KDE 4, opened windows have an icon-plus-text button similar to Windows 9x/2k/XP/Vista). And, something that hasn't change for Windows and remains different, the Windows/Start-button icon is distinguished from the other icons on the the taskbar in Windows 7. The Start menu resembles more a cleaner version of Vista's than KDE 4's take on it.

I'm not saying Windows 7's taskbar is the height of creativity and innovativeness, but to say it resembles KDE 4's Plasma is stretching it.

Very unlikely, given that Windows 7 uses the Vista kernel.

Hands up all those who think that Windows 7 will be more secure than OpenBSD. No-one? I agree - it won't even come close.

Hands up all those who think that Windows 7 will be more robust than Linux and the BSDs. No-one again - agreed again. Can't wait to see the first Win 7 BSOD...

Edited 2008-11-04 06:58 UTC

Do you mean commercial OS for mass consumption should be designed to be less secure ?

Mass consumption & security are totally orthogonal.

Quite simply, OpenBSD is secure because it is used by users that can keep it secure without feeling annoyed. If Windows users already feel extremely annoyed of UAC, I don't think OpenBSD's approach would fly here.

I'm not saying it is impossible to have a certain level of security with a mass consumer OS. But after a certain point, there is a trade off.

Windows doesn't have to be more robust than Linux, it just has to be robust enough not not crash under normal use. My Ubuntu machine is no more or less stable than my Windows XP machine. There are things I can do to reliably hang my Ubuntu desktop every time. Sure those things are technically the 'fault' of things like graphics drivers or compiz or Xorg or whatever, rather than Linux as in the kernel, but from an end user perspective it really doesn't matter. I can't remember the last time XP hung on me under normal use, while with Linux it was yesterday. The whole Linux is a more stable desktop OS than Windows is largely a myth at this point.

Linux with a robust minimal WM, running only robust well tested apps and drivers with no 'exotic' features enabled I'll agree is very stable. Linux running with all the latest bells and whistles that your typical Ubuntu insall provides cannot really make that claim. Exactly the same is basically true for Windows as well.

Are you sure it wasn't X that crashed, and not the whole kernel?

If you'd actually read the two sentences above the one you quoted you'd have seen that I already covered that point.

And I'm sure you'll get around to explaining why that means Windows 7 will be identical to Vista... any minute now. (waiting...)



And since neither point has made a single whit of difference to the successes of previous versions of Windows, it's clear that either:

A) Windows is so fantastic that people will use it anyway. Or...
B) No one gives a damn.

Excellent argument, color me convinced.

There's precedent for what you're saying because Apple did make OSX Puma free to OSX Cheetah users. But that's because Cheetah was betaware, much worse than Vista RTM was. The Puma fixes were required to make OSX usable, which is why it was free.

As for Vista, Vista SP1 is what Vista should've been, and SP1 *is* free to Vista users. It could be argued that SP1 is required to make Vista usable, and so should be free, which it is. But only the most rabid Vista haters would maintain that Windows 7 is required to make Vista usable. Vista SP1 is quite usable as is, so there's no need to make Windows 7 free. That being said, Microsoft always provides upgrade pricing, so Vista users won't pay the full amount for Windows 7.

BTW, I would argue that Windows 3.1 should've been free to Windows 3.0 users, since 3.1 is what 3.0 should've been, not just in the colloquial sense, but literally, almost in the same way that OSX Puma is what Cheetah should've been.

Why Should they? No one here seems to mind that Apple has charged price for a beta OS along with its five glorified service packs (and counting).

I agree. It's almost like Microsoft is saying, "Sorry about Vista."

The whole Windows Seven hype that is going on is just a version of Microsoft saying "sorry about Vista".
Why would they start developerblogs, spaming the internet with all these glorius "windows Seven" ( The Psycopath serial killer OS ) articles years ahead of any realese date???
Why dont we see Ubuntu already talking about 10.04 ???
Debian talking about 6.0? and so forth...

Edited 2008-11-05 09:43 UTC

I'm going to mod you up as funny because there's no way you're being serious.

I don't know, I found the changes to be quite a step forward in productivity.

They've reduced the number of clicks substantially to perform operations, that is always good.

Do you have a specific issue? Have you used Windows7? I mean, I know people will always flame no matter what, but I'd like to believe you actually have some merit in your complaints.

Where is the killerfeature for Win Vista or Win 7 ... I just see no reason why anyone should buy a new product which has no real improvements over the previous one. I want Microsoft to surprise me, to create something new, to be creative. I want to WOW about what I see.

Win Vista and Win 7 look to me like a reaction to what Apple and Linux WMs, Firefox etc does.

Microsoft should use it's resources to create, to be creative. They have great potential (biggest userbase, widely known and used product..) they are just not using it in any way.

Regards

Edited 2008-11-04 20:16 UTC

Windows 7 is an incremental update to Windows Vista. It improves on the foundations laid out by it's predecessor and provides some pretty neat changes.

You need look no further than the article to see an early example of some changes coming to Windows 7 I personally think they are exciting.

And as a KDE team member, you know a thing or two about hype. *Cough*KDE 4.0*cough*.

Sorry Jos, couldn't resist . You may smack me.

And as a KDE team member, you know a thing or two about hype. *Cough*KDE 4.0*cough*.

Sorry Jos, couldn't resist . You may smack me. "

Ofcourse the key difference being, that Microsoft are the ones hyping their crappy useless piece of garbage up, whereas the overhyping of kde 4.0 is from users that couldnt understand a simply versioning scheme even when explained countless times..

"Ofcourse the key difference being, that Microsoft are the ones hyping their crappy useless piece of garbage up, whereas the overhyping of kde 4.0 is from users that couldnt understand a simply versioning scheme even when explained countless times.."

Now this confused me..

The general accepted versioning scheme is that when something hits a .0 release it is fully ready for consumption. .1-whatever fix bugs and add minor features. kde 4.0 was not ready for general consumption at 4.0, and was barely ready for developers. You can explain it all you want differently, but it does not change how a versioning scheme works.

So yes, it was overhyped by people that expected something, and then told that it was more or less a developers release. Whoever forbid that a .0 release should actually *be* a .0 release.

I don't fully agree with Redeeman on that the users were responsible for the hype surrounding KDE 4.0. To a certain extend we, as KDE marketing team, certainly are to blame. Mostly in the wording of the release announcement. We've learned our lesson, and the 4.1 announcement was much more carefully worded.

But your claim of a .0 release being fully ready for endusers is not entirely true either. Neither Mac OS X 10.0 nor Gnome 2.0, linux kernel 2.6.0 (!) or Windows Vista were fully ready. KDE 4.0 certainly wasn't that much worse compared to those, and we're approaching feature-parity with 3.5 faster than the others did as well.

It's ok, keep blaming the users. That strategy seems to be working nicely for desktop Linux.

The development cycle for Windows7 is radically different than that of Windows Vista. Compare PDC08 to PDC03 and the difference is night and day.

Microsoft basically allowed everyone's science project into the Longhorn build that went out at PDC03, which resulted in them promising the world and delivering a fraction of it.

Now, more importantly is the new aim they've taken in development. They are indeed being very hush-hush about this whole thing, the way they develop the entire Operating System has been streamlined to be much more productive. It shows.

Windows 7 is extremely stable, and from my experience it is faster than Vista. This is Pre-Beta1 mind you, and I think the level-headed approach they're taking this time around is refreshing.

In comparison to everything else they showed at PDC08, we actually saw very little Windows7 and more Windows7 platforms. We saw Direct2D, DirectWrite, the new C#/.NET4, actually programming the APIs for the features in Windows 7, the new audio capabilities, etc.

All of these things are impressive in their own respect, and incredibly mature, I don't think this is something to sneeze at.

Hmmm. That sounds positive. Let's see if they can deliver.

What have you been smoking?

I'll believe Window 7 is great when I try it - but a skinned Vista with extra bloat and a clumsy dumbed down interface won't cut it.

Maybe MS can get it right this time we'll see but I'll evaluate on my user experience not hype.

He's obviously been smoking sarcasm weed. But you knew that. Right?

its a pre beta, not of that has been desided yet. that kind of stuff happens latter. they more then likey left in testing stuff.

again: *pre-Beta*

-Nex6

Sorry to say it, but if you have a pdf reader capable of dealing with protected documents, you have been DRM infected.

Only solution is to throw your computer out the window, douse it liberally with gas, and then set it on fire (only way to kill all the DRMs)

Sorry to say it, but if you have a pdf reader capable of dealing with protected documents, you have been DRM infected.

Only solution is to throw your computer out the window, douse it liberally with gas, and then set it on fire (only way to kill all the DRMs)

I use OpenSource software only. The only reason I have a Windows box is for gaming. No DRM on my Linux system, never has been, never will be.