Windows Hopes For Lucky 7 With Windows 7.0
|
In a return to their roots, Microsoft announced that they are shaking the OS naming conventions they have employed for the last decade and releases of their operating system, and returning to a numbering convention. The last number we saw from a Microsoft OS was 3.11 Windows for Workgroups (not counting the Windows NT brand of Server OS) before they switched to the likes of either year releases (95, 98, 2000) or catchy-coded names such as ME, XP and Vista. Catching up to this version, which really is Windows 7, it looks like Microsoft is trying to distance themselves from their latest OS debacle that is gaining as much acceptance in the marketplace as OS2/Warp did back in the mid 90's. Another interesting twist on the Microsoft OS game is that, this time, the pre-beta releases of the new operating system do NOT have code names. Chicago? Win '95. Memphis? '98. Longhorn (aka in certain circles as the product that was 4 years late)? Your pally new friend, Vista. Yet, now, the MSFT is calling this one Windows 7 from alpha all the way through product launch. Reading various sources on the web, the spin is that Microsoft is looking to ground itself in the mentality of the users and nerds like me from inception to product. Yes, it's a nice try, but if you remove the spin it's Microsoft basically saying that they are sorry for giving us a cool name and not much more. With their OS under attack from the likes of Apple, compounded with the fact that Open Office 3 just launched with a powerful suite of tools for the whopping price of...free...they are attempting to re-establish themselves as an OS of the people. For their sake, I hope that 7 is lucky for them. Addition 11/2: I stand corrected...Christian writes- |
Comments (1)
15 suggestions for Windows 7. Mostly for navigation and speed. I now run Vista HB, dual booting with XP
1. Change the default folder view to Details, and allow one to set what one chooses under that to every kind of folder (i have hundreds, and know "apply to all.." is spssd to do it. Fixes for this do not stay - Google for threads).
2. Fix the problem with Vista not remembering Windows sizes (again, Google for problems with fixes)
3. Put the Up arrow back. It is often faster even after one learns the breadcrumb menu, and is needed when using folders without the navigation pane, which is helpful to eliminate due to Vista not rembering folder sizes. See free QTTab bar for this and more options worth incorporating.
4. Allow moving of Task Bar buttons, and choosing different colors, as well as saving sessions, just like Firefox allows for tabs (Colorful Tabs extension for the color). Then copy more things from FF for IE. Or retire it. (doing research, I usually run 2 instances of FF concurrently, one of Sea Monkey and 1 of others if needed, and find IE the least to be preferred)
5. Allow right click to copy whole path in the address bar of folders (ctrl and c will do it now). And allow the same for copying things for 3 d boxes.
6. easily allow hot keys for fast launching (with free AutoHotKey you can make scripts to launch one, or even many many apps, etc. simultaneously - closest thing to a session saver)
7 Provide a master list of everything in the Control Panel, etc, (things like C:\Windows\System32\powercfg.cpl) for faster access. Stat menue should seldom need to be used.
8. Greatly improve Speech to Text (and vice versa) and commands to do the above (and turn on, off PC, etc.) so you can just say things like , "Go to ..."
9. Improve ability to see incoming and outgoing Internet traffic.
10. Can UAC, and use something like Winpatrol.
11. Add options to clipboard, to remember all (like clipboard diary)
12. Improve clock (colors, cpu load, free ram stats, etc.)
13. Allow changing file type icons on even basic versions of OS.
14. Put "copy to" and move to" as default options on right click menus (I have this).
15. Make it faster than Vista, which on a Dell E520 (3ghz cpu, 2.5gb ram) is slower than my W/98 (650mhz, 320mb ram) on basic tasks (navigating, opening folders), and slower than XP on the same PC. Even after tweaking and spare ram and low cpu load. (I do thank God for both, with Vista being overall better and more mature than XP)
Posted by daniel hamilton | January 27, 2009 8:38 PM