Microsoft has been keeping its promise on releasing more frequent builds of Windows 10, but this is not stopping private versions to leak onto the web. Windows 10 build 10056 was just spotted outside the walls of Redmond, and it shows significant cosmetic changes and various improvements coming to the operating system.
Whether you like the changes or not – I personally do – it’s interesting to see Windows 10 evolve this openly.
And still no tabs, despite this being one of the top requested features for Windows 10 on their own site the last time I checked. Come on, Microsoft… some of us have to use this piece of crap app at work. The LEAST you could do is make it suck a little less …
worknman, have you tried QTTabs? Not built in but uses Explorer and is a pretty nice solution for now.
I think he wants something built in, since in many work environments you have no permission to install anything whatsoever.
There’s a portable version of Total Commander, that doesn’t require installation. Might be of use to you.
Yeah, there’s a portable version of a lot of things that I’m not going to risk getting fired for running. Otherwise, I’d run Directory Opus and be done with it.
Out-of-topic, but if you get fired because of doing that very simple thing, think if you do not deserve a better boss.
It is not my boss that is the problem. It is his boss’s boss. No external software not approved by the company; they’ve been very adamant about that.
Yeah, and that’s surely the way to ask for such a feat, very useful tone!! 😛
Maybe I lack some kind of enlightenment, but why on earth I would want tabs on a file explorer?!?
Those drag-and-drop operations between tabs are really great.
Not exactly sure what everyone’s usecase is, but it might be useful for mine. I often work on different tasks at the same time that require file system manipulation in different areas, but not necessarily requiring interaction between the two areas of the file system. So it might be useful to have just one explorer with different tabs to separate the two tasks.
For a quick and dumb example: browsing a music folder, while working on a collection of documents for tax purposes. No reason to move tax documents into the music folder or visa versa, but I might have two different file browsers open for those two areas. I can see how some people might prefer just one with two tabs. But, I really don’t see that as a killer feature that I can’t live without.
Sounds like a way to use multiple desktops, personally– although really, there’s no reason you can’t have both windows open and alt-tab between them. I realize that MDI is no longer “cool”, but it’s a perfectly valid solution.
While I’m a huge proponent of tabs in a browser, that’s mainly so I can read an article (or news site) and spawn off tabs with links I want to look at later.
Of course, to pull out my soapbox, you could have a shortcut that when you open it, opens up your tax records, your billing / tax / AR software (as appropriate), and then shuts it all down when you close that shortcut– and another one for music. Add a function to switch quickly between “environments”, and you have something that’s somewhere between OS/2 work folders, and KDE activities.
I think the current browser integration as either SDI or MDI is cool, and what some people want to see in a file browser. I do like that for browsers. I’d actually like it to be even better with the same browser window with the same view of the same website that’s kept in sync with another tab in another window. Too often in virtual desktops I end up needing to access something like a web calander or task manager in a tab. So I have to create a new tab and get to the same spot another tab is in in another window in another virtual desktop. They end up out of sync with each other causing me a little confusion. when switching between virtual desktops.
Drop onto the tab which is labelled appropriately?
Which is a great from UX point of view.
It’d be great for someone who wanted to use it, you could simply choose not to use and breeze along happily.
But are there really enough people who want something like this for Microsoft to actually do? I’m guessing not.
They have tabs in other software, so it’s not as if they don’t have anyone in the Microsoft organisation who can code tabs.
How hard can it be to ask the Internet Explorer team for some help?
I want to be able to pin individual windows to top when I use anything on one monitor. It’s one of the most ridiculously useful features I miss in Windows.
That does look horrible. Makes you wonder where it’s going to end. Personally I prefer Win95 to that mess.
Don’t worry, they’ll add shadows in Windows 11.
Needs a lot more than shadows to improve that look. My Amiga Workbench 3.1 from 1992 looks better than that crap. Perhaps Microsoft should pony up and resurrect Commodore so they can give them some design guidance!
At the rate it’s getting worse, we probably don’t want to know.
I think that there are people who will appreciate the aesthetic qualities of Windows 10. (although I have some doubts on how many)
There are people who like Gnome 3 (ducks), and if I were on a tablet I would probably prefer Gnome 3 to my usual choices.
I personally think a themed set of terminals is the coolest looking system ever, but it is too much of a pain in my rear end to try to live there.
On a laptop or desktop I probably won’t give up the three menus made famous by Gnome 2 (Application, Places, and System) as I have come to find it very usable. Others would probably hate that layout.
The thing that stinks about Windows is if they make it too customizable then corporations would have a fit when all their users want their settings from home. Then their IT staff either can’t function or resorts to memorizing all the .cpl applets and launches them from a run prompt like I did with Windows 8. (stupid charms menu won’t show up when you mouse over it but pops up randomly)
Edited 2015-04-15 03:54 UTC
Wow. Looking at those screen shots, and reading the descriptions, I only now realized that Windows 8 has window titles centered.
I guess it’s because So much software has (stupidly) done away with normal title bars.
Well, that, and my smallish screen resolution pretty much mandates that much of the software I use is maximized, when even more software makes it that way.
I just want the g-d- tiles GONE.
Is this build already Linux/Unix-based or is that change still in development? I would like to get rid of all the clumsy 3rd party shells and tools needed to make Windows almost usable in general software development.
Edited 2015-04-14 06:58 UTC
Actually if you trace back the lineage, it’s VMS based.
Not really. Inspired perhaps.
Yes really.
They hired David Cutler and his team from DEC. Mr. Cutler designed VMS.
Read this, it’s very interesting:
http://windowsitpro.com/windows-client/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-stor…
Not really. Linux was Unix inspired but not based on Unix.
Which is well known as is the fact they took a lot of ideas for e.g. the virtual memory system from VMS.
Still doesn’t mean that it is based on VMS, there are a lot of differences between the systems too even ignoring the multiple personality support of NT.
Threads anyone? HAL? Portable code? Implementing important subsystems in user space? Differences in device driver model?
Which lists as similarities things that is/was standard implementation for modern operating systems.
Those who stare at the sun won’t see it.
Call it what you want. NT has it’s roots in VMS, and is largely based on it, whether you agree or not.
The whole linux is not unix is not unix is not … and gnu is not unix is not unix thing is more for copyright than anything else. GNU/Linux started life as a unix clone, plain and simple.
In the words of W. Pauli… “that is not only not right, it is not even wrong.”
Maybe you should elaborate instead of making hit and run statements?
Excerpt from wikipedia:
“In June 1994 in GNU’s bulletin, Linux was referred to as a “free UNIX clone”, and the Debian project began calling its product Debian GNU/Linux.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Linux
Gnu:
“GNU is a Unix-like computer operating system composed wholly of free software.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU
Already posted the links to the windows NT stuff.
I guess this must all be massive coincidence.
Here, from the horse’s mouth:
http://kernelbook.sourceforge.net/pdf/ch-intro.pdf
Also, claiming Windows NT is based on VMS, because Dave Cutler worked on both projects, is a bit of a stretch. Using that same “logic” one could argue NT must be based on Mach, since Richard Rashid was a lead in both projects. Which is clearly nonsense.
There are a couple of similarities here and there. But overall, by the time NT shipped its design and implementation had little to do with VMS. In fact in many of the important technical aspects, the 2 systems are diametrically opposite.
Any and all commands/binaries on a gnu/linux system work nearly identically to their unix counterparts. The systems are largely source compatible.
That whole discussion has been going on for quite a long time. This isn’t coincidental.
I never claimed they used unix source code.
You are arguing semantics.
In fact, if you’d change the shell from the posix shell to bash on say HP-UX, a normal linux user would get around just fine for a lot of tasks.
Windows NT IS heavily based on VMS’ design. Arguing that it has features that VMS didn’t is pointless.
Again, they didn’t use the VMS source code, but rather tapped into the brain of the guy that built it.
The same can be said of cygwin. NT must be based on Unix therefore.
That’s due mainly to POSIX compatibility. Being POSIX-compatible and UNIX-based/derived are two very different things. I know of plenty of code that is source compatible between VMS and Unix, does that imply VMS is based on Unix too then?
I never claimed you claimed that. Your point?
Usually those words tend to be a tacit admission of a faulty argument.
The same can be said of just about any Unix-like system, a Bash shell on QNX for example. But you would not claim the main difference between Unix and QNX is just a matter of copyright, would you?
I did not argue NT has features that VMS doesn’t (you seem love strawmen for whatever reason). I simply said that in many areas, NT and VMS are diametrically opposite in terms of design and implementation. I.e. NT is/was a microkernel(ish), VMS is a textbook monolithic kernel. Their systems language, toolchains, API, executable object format, etc, bear little relation. The Network stack was integral to NT’s design, and an afterthought (originally) in VMS, etc, etc…
They also tapped into the brain(s) of some of the principal architects of MACH and key people from OS/2.
Yes, in a few details NT and VMS may bear some resemblance, but the same can be said about MACH, OS/2, and other systems, even Unix. Which is why claiming NT is based on VMS (or derived from) is IMO not quite correct. By the time NT shipped, any resemblance between the two systems was minimal (almost coincidental). Even less so by the time Windows 10 ships.
Surely, you’re just trying to be funny, right?
It’s not. Windows was supposed to be POSIX compatible through their posix addons.
Good luck compiling something like, say, samba on it without modifying the source, very carefully setting up a build environment, etc, etc
Granted, things like cygwin fixed that.
Must have been what you thought i meant by “based on”.
Miss
You are twisting my words.
I never said the only difference between linux and unix was copyright. I said they named it in such a way to avoid copyright lawsuits. You know, like the one from SCO?
And my argument is that they share a lot of design specifics, even down to the terminology.
There is a LOT of information on the subject, all over the internet.
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/07/30/readers-write-how-microsof…
http://windowsitpro.com/windows-client/windows-nt-and-vms-rest-stor…
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/docs/Windows-NT_is_VMS_re-implemen…
But i guess you must be right, and all those people must be wrong.
Windows definitely bears more resemblance to VMS than any other platform.
Whatever, man. There is enough material supporting this all over the internet. You don’t agree. That’s fine. Goodbye.
I was simply following your own argument’s logic, which even to you seems to be ridiculous.
It seems you did not quite comprehend what I wrote in the paragraph you’re responding to, perhaps?
Huh? This is actually what you wrote:
“The whole linux is not unix is not unix is not … and gnu is not unix is not unix thing is more for copyright than anything else. ”
And my argument is that what you mean by “a lot” is highly debatable.
Nice fallacy you got there.
Due to its pedigree NT resembles a lot of platforms, VMS being one of them. For whatever reason, you seem to be emotionally vested in VMS being the platform NT resembles the most, more than Classic Windows even. Which is a bit silly, but whatever floats your boat…
Sure thing. FWIW your falsification of your own words should have been a hint that your argument was not as good as you though. Anyway, cheers.
I’ve made that reference too, but really, it’s just that some of the same software architects worked on both operating systems.
Sure, if you shift the letters “V”, “M” and “S” one character down, you get “WNT”, but really, having used VMS and Windows NT, if there are any actual similarities, they’re buried so far down no mere mortal will ever encounter them.
Don’t care much for it.
And for all the “new” stuff, you’ll still need to fire up good old regedit when it goes wrong, lol.
The Start Menu in Windows 10 is the worst thing I’ve ever dealt with. It’s even worse than the full screen tiles in Windows 8.
Some changes in Windows 10 are for the better but it’s as if Microsoft set out to make the start menu as bad as possible so people would ask for it to be removed, then they could say “told you so”.
And it’s sad, too– The fix was pretty easy. Bring back the Windows 7 start menu, tune it up a bit, and let us put live tiles on the desktop.
What a mess.
Oh god how much I hate those (___O) toggle switches that Apple started and everybody just had to put in their OS.
Somebody at Microsoft apparently understood that those toggles are inherently ambiguous and added a label to make it clear if its on or off. Too bad they weren’t brave enough to just use checkboxes. Speaking of which, what do you suppose it means when a checked checkbox has red background, like in one of the screenshots? Is it an error state? Has the program failed to do what it’s supposed to do when the checkbox is checked? I bet it means absolutely nothing.
It means it’s extra important?
Let me know when it looks like an adult designed the UI instead of a toddler with a box of crayons.
But it’s FLAT! The UI’s gotta be flat! If it’s not flat, then you’re only modern, you’re not postmodern, and all NeXT like!
The Wheel of UI turns… Next up, they’ll add gradients… then reflections… then transparency… And then everything will jump up in resolution, and go flat again.
*sigh*