ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes
Home / News & Blogs / Hardware 2.0

I like Win 7, but I've already drawn up a Win 8 wishlist

By | December 8, 2009, 12:22pm PST

Summary: As I’ve said before, I like Windows 7. In fact, I like the OS a lot. It reminds me a lot of the good ol’ NT4 days. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I’ve fallen in love with Windows again because times are different and I enjoy a polyamorous existence where I use several different OSes. But Windows 7 has reminded me of the fact that when Windows is done right, it can be a cracking OS.

As I’ve said before, I like Windows 7. In fact, I like the OS a lot. It reminds me a lot of the good ol’ NT4 days. I wouldn’t go as far as to say that I’ve fallen in love with Windows again because times are different and I enjoy a polyamorous existence where I use several different OSes. But Windows 7 has reminded me of the fact that when Windows is done right, it can be a cracking OS.

But all this emotion directed at a big pile of 0s and 1s doesn’t mean that I don’t see room for improvement. In fact, I’ve already drawn up a Windows 8 wishlist, which I’ll share with you here.

Custom installer

Look, it’s the 21st century. Installing the OS on one drive and setting it up so that the data is stored on another drive should be a trivial matter that’s handled during setup. The current installer is simply prehistoric and I hope to see dramatic improvements in Windows 8.

Better support for compressed file formats

There are are a number of very good, free, open source tools for handling compressed files out there. My favorite is 7-Zip and it’s capable of handling all sorts of exotic archives. However, I’m still sort of surprised that apart from supporting .ZIP archives, Windows still can’t handle any other commonly used compressed file format.

Combined antivirus/antispyware/firewall

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Microsoft should bring all the security software under one application in the next incarnation of Windows.

Updated Task Manager

The Windows Task Manager is a very useful tool. However, it’s very long in the tooth and overdue for a revamp (apart from some minor additions, it’s the same Task Manager that was present in NT4). It doesn’t need to be as complex and fully-featured as Sysinternal’s Process Explorer, but more features could be useful.

Software install center

Microsoft has a lot of cool, free software on offer but unless you know where to look for it, you’ll never find it. Linux distros such as Ubuntu have a Software Center where users can download new stuff from. Microsoft needs something similar, along the lines of how it delivered Ultimate Extras to users.

End to 16-bit/32-bit support

There a time and a place for dumping legacy support and moving on. Windows 8 should be that time.

Reboot-free updates

If you can already update certain Linux distros without requiring a reboot, we should be able to do the exact same thing in the next version of Windows.

.ISO support

Yes, Windows 7 allows me to natively burn .ISO files to disc, but why do I have to scrabble around like a raccoon in a dumpster looking for a tool in order to be able to create and mount these files? Again, the next version of Windows should be able to handle .ISO files natively.

Thoughts? What do you think should be added to the list? Should anything be removed? I look forward to hearing from you!

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Hardware 2.0”

Topics

Operating System, ISO, Microsoft Windows, Microsoft Windows 7, Operating Systems, Software, Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

227
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: I like Win 7, but I've already drawn up a Win 8 wishlist
wrcousert 26th Jul 2010
1. The ability to upgrade from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows (or downgrade) without reinstalling your apps.

2. Merge 32-bit Windows and 64-bit Windows into a single product. You should be able to decide which version you want when booting up.
3. Install software once for both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. Software installed in one mode should work in the other, unless of course it's 64-bit only.
4. Same applies to 128-bit Windows if/when that is ever released.
5. 16-bit software (DOS and Windows) should be supported forever through emulation.
6. Plan for the post Windows era. I sincerely hope we're not using Windows of any kind 20 years from now. Microsoft needs to start on the next generation OS.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Amen, but won't happen
bmgoodman 8th Dec 2009
Surely a modern OS will let you decide what drive to use for your user data. Just not Windows. I'm sorry, but the Registry, backward-compatibility, and the mount/junction points tells me that relocating user data is beyond Microsoft's programming ability. They've already got their house of cards so fragile a small breeze will topple it.
0 Votes
+ -
What do you mean by
John Zern 8th Dec 2009
will let you decide what drive to use for your user data.
0 Votes
+ -
I think he means...
Economister Updated - 8th Dec 2009
drive/partition. This has been a pet peeve of mine for LONG time. I always store my data on D:, whether it is a physical drive or partition. I always have to spend time after installation to change this. Every application should likewise read your Windows data defaults and let you customize from there.

I sometimes wonder whether the programmers use their own stuff?
0 Votes
+ -
Got it. Good idea
John Zern 8th Dec 2009
Maybe during installation it would ask you that so that all programs would save your data there.

I also split my OS and data on my machines between two drives, makes for easy backups and what not.
0 Votes
+ -
Already been offered in Windows
Joe_Raby 9th Dec 2009
Windows XP already supports this option. Just FYI: this is how they do Folder Redirection on domain setups with Windows Server so that folders like the Desktop, and My Documents are stored on the server and the desktop only keeps an offline synced copy in case the network connection is cut or the server is offline - that way, you can still access your files.

In Windows Vista/7, you can go into your "Home" folder (click your user name in the Start Menu), and right click on "Documents" or whatever folder you like. Go to Properties, and then click on the Location tab, and change the folder. That's all there is to it.

In Windows Vista and Windows 7, user folder links are virtualized. What you see in the "Users" folder on your drive are not real folders, but are treated as such. In XP, they ARE hard-linked folders in the Documents and Settings folder, so you need a program like TweakUI or a Group Policy Object to change the user profile links to those folders.

All of these settings can also be customized during deployment using an unattend script in any version of the OS.
0 Votes
+ -
but not in the install
jmgroft@... 9th Dec 2009
You are correct, Sir, but I don't think that's the point. I think the point the author is making is that there is no "Where do you want to put your data?" prompt in the Windows install. It places the default folders on the C: drive and you either need to redirect after the install or customize the install. Either way, it doesn't ask you up front.
0 Votes
+ -
Not a valid option for a typical end-user
Joe_Raby 9th Dec 2009
If you're that knowledgeable, you should read through the docs for WAIK. Creating an unattend script allows you to customize a lot of baseline features of Windows, including storage locations of folders. Microsoft streamlined the Windows installation process so that there are very few options presented to a typical end user doing their own install. Less options up front is preferable overall, and too many options can be confusing. The idea is to get a basic install on the system first, then worry about customization options later. That's why the OOBE in Windows 7 is quicker and has less screens than previous versions. Windows XP's OOBE options were atrocious by comparison.

Have you ever tried installing a Linux distribution recently? Do you realize how complicated it is to partition a file system with multiple drives is, and how frustrating that is for users that don't understand a *nix FS? There are a lot of Linux distributions that are cutting out that whole section of the install just to increase adoption rates because of lack of general knowledge of Linux filesystems. One single file system with drives mounted under paths might seem like a good idea, but I actually think that drive letters is more logical overall. Try to explain the difference to a typical user and they won't understand anything outside of the hardware. That's why Microsoft hasn't deviated from drive letters since DOS. It's easy to understand where something is stored by the hardware it's on. On Linux, you have the root file system, and let's call them "sub-drives" under folders. If the root is on the primary hard drive, why is the CD drive mounted under a folder on the hard drive? I'm just being rhetorical here, but have you ever tried explaining that to a typical computer user?

Ok, so now let's say someone you know is installing Windows and they're prompted for where they want to store their data folders. How do you explain to them WHY they would want to deviate from the defaults? It's not an easy thing to answer without having them bring up more questions. For instance, they might say "Where SHOULD I store my data?", or "Why should I store them on a different drive from Windows?", or "Why shouldn't I store my data on a USB thumbdrive instead of the internal hard drive?". It's a support issue. Simplifying end-user experiences is tricky business.

As I said, if you want to get advanced into Windows deployment, you should be using unattend scripts. That's the way it's done. You can customize anything that IS customizable in Windows during install. Windows System Image Manager (WinSIM) gives you easy access to the install catalogues for Vista/7. Take a look.
0 Votes
+ -
Here's a sample unattend.xml file
Joe_Raby Updated - 9th Dec 2009
Stick this on a USB stick when you install from the DVD. Make sure the USB stick is in during install:

-------




component name="Microsoft-Windows-Shell-Setup" processorArchitecture="





cpi:offlineImage cpi:source="catalog:


-----

FYI: Don't include the bold lines at the start and end. The sections with bold type (including the BOLD 's) need to be replaced with the appropriate settings of your choosing.

Also (very important): due to problems with the board post, I had to add spaces around the . You need to remove those for every tag! e.g. should not have spaces between the .

Hope that helps!
0 Votes
+ -
There is another reason why they don't support this
Joe_Raby 9th Dec 2009
In-place upgrades don't recognize any deviation from the default profile path of %SYSTEMDRIVE%\Users , so there's another reason why it's not a good idea for users to be prompted for it.
0 Votes
+ -
Are you saying fix it for the brain dead? How?
sfaid 9th Dec 2009
People that can think have always been able to handle this. Heck, I have had multiple partitions since we had >32meg disks in order to keep cluster size down. Do not bother explaining that to a "lay person", just a waste of time. So you expect the OS to do it for them? I guess some day we can IDIOT PROOF an OS, but not in the near future. An OS is designed to accommodate the biggest group they plan to sell to. One offs are not a big deal. So today Best Buy, Tiger Direct, HP, Dell sell a generic PC, and Windows designs to it. Or is that visa versa? Does MS say this is the way it is and they design around it? Anyway, in the foreseeable future people will have to have the ability to think, and explore options in order to have a premium functioning piece of hardware.
0 Votes
+ -
Believe me...
JCitizen 9th Dec 2009
the hardware OEMs would love this, as they are already looking for good excuses to sell at least two hard drives with every PC. Many of do already; more models show up every quarter with two drives in them.

The backup software vendors would have a cow, because many folks wouldn't see the need for backups - even though they still need to.
0 Votes
+ -
maybe I'm missunderstanding, but...
paladin2 9th Dec 2009
It takes less than 60 seconds to move the My Documents folder wherever you'd like it to be. That's where most of my data resides and I could probably beat the 60 second mark by half, so what good would another GB of MSCrap (that's probably how big their 'solution' would be). I'd really like to see a Windows 8 that takes 5 or less GBs on my machine. I could fit 3 of my XP installs in the space my one Windows 7 Ultimate takes and I'm still looking for all the 'improvements' all that space should afford them. And it's just not there.
0 Votes
+ -
MS should learn from OS X
prof123 9th Dec 2009
The latest version of OS X (Snow Leopard), Apple
managed to shrink the OS footprint by about 7GB (about
40%). MS, on the other hand, is going the opposite
direction, creating larger and larger OS. Simplicity is not
in their genes.
0 Votes
+ -
er... There's a reason why osx shrank by 7 GB...
Wolfie2K3 9th Dec 2009
... They took out ALL support for PPC based systems. Removing all that duplicated code would tend to reduce the footprint significantly...
0 Votes
+ -
Different partitions on same drive --> forces extra head movement
Patanjali 9th Dec 2009
I know some laptop manufacturers put two partitions on a single HDD, but it forces the heads to travel between the two partitions more than if it was all on one drive. This is not an issue for SSDs.

The ideal situation is for the data to be on a separate drive, where two heads are faster than one.
0 Votes
+ -
A partition or hard disk
bendib 8th Dec 2009
for your /home folder, the windows equivalent of C:\Documents and settings, or some users use just their account, like mine is /home/ben, on a different hard disk.
0 Votes
+ -
You can use the Move feature...
Spatha 9th Dec 2009
You can use the Move feature *after* installation, to move Libraries such as 'Documents' to a different drive. And many applications will automatically find the new location. Though I agree it should be an installation option, and you should be able to specify the drive for any or all folders, under the Users folder, at one time.
0 Votes
+ -
You can do it, unfortunately it's not easy...
s_southern 9th Dec 2009
I've done it a number of times using junctions/symlinks. Unfortunately, the process is very clunky & manual... it would be nice if during the install you could simply select volumes/partitions to mount wherever you want (ie c:\Users)... just as Unix/Linux/etc have done forever.

I don't think this is too big of a priority though, since it's only for Home & SOHO users... any business with servers stores all of their data on the servers... right?
0 Votes
+ -
Not Easy? It takes just a couple clicks.
jmiller1978 9th Dec 2009
Right-click on Documents, Properties, Location Tab, Move. What symlinks are you referring to?
0 Votes
+ -
I wish that when W7 is stable, they'll force alpha W8 on OEM's.
fr0thy2 9th Dec 2009
And that the marketing department will step up to the plate with posters like "I'm the HUGE HUGE HUGE cheese."

Wait! That's exactly what will happen!

So all over again people can pay to go backwards. Excellent. Three cheers for Microsoft.
0 Votes
+ -
Wow. Talk about "stable"
John Zern Updated - 9th Dec 2009
You probally haven't been that since before your first post.

As a matter of fact, all your posts tell us anyway is that you're fearfull, and can offer nothing but FUD

Now, go throw some chairs around screaming "Microsoft, Microsoft, Microsoft" then go back to hiding in your closet. (or have you moved under the bed now?)

HAHAHA! happy
0 Votes
+ -
Fr0thy2 is always the voice of reason.
PlayFair 9th Dec 2009
We all know that no other software company releases Beta's that cause computer issues as only Microsoft does.

Wait, what?

https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/karmic/+bugs

Well, that's just Linux.

I'm glad Snow Leopard didn't have issues any.

http://www.tgdaily.com/software-features/44594-apple-update-fixes-critical-snow-leopard-bugs

Dang. I was wrong again? Could it be that there has never been an OS released that was perfect and never needed to be patched or updated?
0 Votes
+ -
"relocating user data is beyond Microsoft's programming ability"
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 9th Dec 2009
Actually, it's not Microsoft's programming ability that's at fault here - it's the MANY ISV's who ship products that assume user data is stored in hard-coded locations like C:\Users\... etc.

If it wasn't for those ISV's and in-house app developers' poor practices, MS would have been able to make user data more mobile YEARS ago.
0 Votes
+ -
Relocating
zdnet-gregc 9th Dec 2009
Yes, hardcoding disk locations is bad.

It's been a long time since I did any filesystem level work, but I think the problem is exacerbated by the use of drive letters in the first place. I don't fault Gates et. al. too much for that; back in the day PCs were single user machines with floppy drives (who uses A: any more happy and little else.

The folks who developed Unix in the pre-PC days didn't fall into the same trap--everything hangs off a single root (/) and IIRC disks/partitions/devices are given user-friendly names using simple (hard) links.
0 Votes
+ -
Really
TardHugger@... 9th Dec 2009
Which modern OS does this?

Great idea, MS et'al should implement, but what back-handed comment did you just make?

if it's beyond MS' programming ability, then it is for 99% of the modern world... and don't tell me a free for all dev is better than one that works for money, if he was that good he would work for money or is too out of touch / socialist to get a job.

Here's your hug
0 Votes
+ -
RE: I like Win 7, but I've already drawn up a Win 8 wishlist
nothingness 8th Dec 2009
But then people will complain about bloat.
0 Votes
+ -
Great list, but...
Cylon Centurion Updated - 8th Dec 2009
Combined antivirus/antispyware/firewall

This seems like a no-brainer to me. Microsoft should bring all the security software under one application in the next incarnation of Windows.


I would LOVE to see this. Embed MSE in by default and allow the end user to uninstall this should they wish to. BUT, would OEMs go for this? Would the EU go for this?

People (It seems to me anyway) buy an off the shelf PC, see the 'Norton' icon on the desktop and figure they're protected. 60 days later it expires, but little realize this. I then get a call some time later and asked why the AV is mis behaving (To put it politely). Norton and Mcafee seem to be the worst offenders and the best example of crapware that destroy a perfectly good system.

End to 16-bit/32-bit support

There a time and a place for dumping legacy support and moving on. Windows 8 should be that time.


I agree with you here as well. At least with 16 bit compatability. I don't know anyone who still uses anything 16 bit.
32 bit, however, might still be tough to get rid of. I know there was a rumor for a bit that Windows 7 was going to be all 64 bit, but that turned out to be false. Which was good, I myself, still have a number of 32 bits apps that I run.
0 Votes
+ -
That's what Apple does
stano360 8th Dec 2009
Let's face it, with the increase in attacks now coming to Mac's, security software is just part of the OS. But, due to the government, we will never see that with Windows.
0 Votes
+ -
Nawww
Cylon Centurion 8th Dec 2009
Macs don't get viruses! wink
0 Votes
+ -
Not without the issue between the seat and keyboard at least [nt]
nix_hed 9th Dec 2009
0 Votes
+ -
to be honest that is true for windows
bobiroc 9th Dec 2009
too these days. Granted you need a anti-malware suite but if you go looking for trouble it will find you. The only Windows based computers I see infected these days are ones that had no anti-malware protection or it was expired and the person clicked on some stupid fake email link or was downloading p2p or some other source of infection. Using your computer in a safe way is the best protection and the days are long gone where a windows machine can get infected by just having an internet connection and it all requires some user action to get the infection. The downside is more malware is written for windows because it is the most popular OS
0 Votes
+ -
We have Windows Defender
jpgeorgia 9th Dec 2009
Vista (and presumably Windows 7) has Windows
Defender. It works fine on Vista. I stopped using
Norton and McAfee. Norton was a memory hog.
0 Votes
+ -
Government ...
zdnet-gregc 9th Dec 2009
Microsoft is so wildly successful that they have achieved monopoly status, whereas Apple has not. If the situation were reversed the regulators would be going after Apple instead of Microsoft.
  • Flagged
0 Votes
+ -
Need consistency in regulations
Patanjali Updated - 9th Dec 2009
Yes, while Microsoft can be considered almost monopoly for OS (almost because not 100%), they are not in all product ranges. Are they still considered a monopoly in those other areas.

Also, what happens when a minority company makes a product, that for an almost monopoly would bring regulatory scrutiny, but which goes on to become an almost monopoly product? Are they meant to hobble it then? How were they supposed to know how successful it would be when they designed it?

Rules should be consistent, regardless of market share. Principles evenly applied make it easier for all to do business, rather than deciding a product feature set by its projected market share.

One in, all in. One out, all out.

Monolopy legislation needs to address behaviour, not product features.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree
nccastle@... 29th Dec 2009
I agree completely. This is something that has always bothered me. Apple is allowed to install quicktime, iLife, iTunes and Safari without any regulatory issues, but MS isn't allowed to bundle Windows Media Player or IE8 in the EU, and it is very clear that if MSE was included, they would be sued by every security company in existance. In a perfect world, MS would include Windows Live Essentials, a starter version of Office, MSE, a browser, and a small software store. Then, they would forbid OEMs from installing junk. They would be able to control the user experience and offer something that is much closer to what Apple can do, without having a crappy os like OSX.
0 Votes
+ -
But as soon as they did
bobiroc 29th Dec 2009
they would get sued to high heaven like you said. People love to blame MS for what OEMs and third party companies do the OS by installing crapware but since MS still wants people to have a choice and does not want to dictate to it's customers like Apple does they get a bad rep. Windows is not perfect and has some downsides but if you run a safe system and are aware of what you do and install on your PC Windows is a wonderful operating system. Outside of the rare hardware problem I have not experienced a BSOD, crash*, or virus in over 7 years through XP, Vista, and now Windows 7.

*excludes some minor glitches that Windows recovers from smoothly usually caused by something third party if you read the event log or research the problem. I cannot tell you how many websites have poor code or are experiencing issues that cause a browser to lock up and that includes Firefox or Chrome too not just IE.
0 Votes
+ -
a-v/a-m/firewall & 32-bit support
M.R. Kennedy 8th Dec 2009
I seem to recall that when Vista was pre-RTM, certain large A/V and A/M vendors (their names rhyme with Shamantec and ClickAfee) pitched a fit when Microsoft publicly mused about including their own A/V and A/M software with Vista, not to mention the carping and whining about Vista's proposed security model interfering (read as: excluding) with their existing product packages.

Threatened with complaints to the Goobermint, Microsoft backed off and allowed those vendors (among others) to have direct access to the Vista kernen, chipping away at the built-in armor that Vista was *supposed* to have.

And let's not even start discussing what the EU would say if Microsoft started "bundling" such products with Windows 8. It's not worth the time since we all know what their reaction would be.

As for ending 32-bit support, I don't see that happening any time soon, even with Windows *Nine*. ISVs tend to be lazy penny-pinchers in that respect, and rewriting their cash cows to be 64-bit applications will take time and money that they don't want to expend.

16-bit support? Yeah, that needs to go the way of the dodo, and should have with either Vista or Windows 7.
0 Votes
+ -
Kernel Patch Protection is still inclued
Cylon Centurion 8th Dec 2009
Microsoft never backed down from that. Kudos for them doing that too. I grew very tired of crappy over zealous AV suits hijacking my system, causing it to crash as a result.
0 Votes
+ -
Backing down
M.R. Kennedy 9th Dec 2009
Um, yes, they did. The two companies I mentioned (among others) essentially forced Microsoft to open up *direct* access to the Vista kernel, instead of standing firm and forcing *them* to rewrite their bloatware to work properly with the original security model. But the "easier road" was exactly that, and it provided a way for malware authors to screw things up for the rest of us.

Oh, and if you don't think that the "security suites" that Symantec and McAfee sell aren't bloatware...
0 Votes
+ -
The EC is starting to get under my skin...
edwards.wb 9th Dec 2009
I totally agree with everything you just said about security.

I like that microsoft came out with "microsoft security essentials". It's in version 1.0 and I'm sure there's room for improvement in terms of heuristic analysis, better catch rates, etc. What I like most about MSE is that it works with the firewall, malicious software removal tool, and security measures built into windows instead of trying to replace them with new ones. It feels like it was meant to be there and I'm sure it would be if it weren't for entities like the EC.

What further frustrates me is that at the same time that just about anyone following tech news knows the kind of hissy fit the EC would pitch about "bundling" basic security, the EC is also the same organization that is trying to regulate software companies in a manner which would make them liable for damages caused by vulnerabilities in software. I think that a bold move for windows 8 would be to include and tightly integrate MSE.

When I think about ending 32bit support I do hope that he's referring to x86 hardware support, but I don't think that 32bit application support should, or will be ended with windows 8.

Microsoft won't end 32bit application support for the fact that their most profitable market is the enterprise, to end support for custom line of business applications, no matter how dated they are, is going to cause the same feelings about windows 8 that were felt about windows vista. Microsoft learned a tough lesson with that one, but finally made an effort to get things right with xp mode; most home users probably won't use it, but for those that need it, it's there.
0 Votes
+ -
16bit...
PollyProteus 8th Dec 2009
Unfortunately there are still many businesses out there running 16bit applications and won't come out of the stone age.

Mostly because it will cost too much money to get their software re-written to work in a 32bit or 64bit space.

And since businesses tend to be Microsoft's biggest customers, Microsoft isn't going to shun them like that. At least not any time soon. Why do you think they came out with XP Mode? So that people who demand to still live in the stoneage with those 16bit apps can remain wearing flea ridden animal skins and scraping their heads on the stalactites.
0 Votes
+ -
Ugh
Cylon Centurion 9th Dec 2009
Why? Just why, would anyone still be using 16 bit?


Microsoft needs to find a way to help these idiots out of the stone age. No wonder there are so many businesses falling victims to vulnerabilities.
0 Votes
+ -
16 Bit
ted.mccarty@... 9th Dec 2009
I'll tell you why, I am setting up an XP computer to use a program from 1996 that is no longer available with no 32 bit or 64 bit replacement in site that can do the job. Not to mention that most of the computers in business use today do not have processors that support XP mode in Windows 7. There still really is a real world out here folks, not everybody lives in an ivory tower and in case you haven't noticed money is a little tight right now.
Ted
0 Votes
+ -
Totally agree...
aeriden 9th Dec 2009
But let's not forget - only 32 bit Windows Vista and Windows 7 supports 16 bit (the same applies to Windows 2008). 64 bit editions do not... So the move is already happening in a nice "controlled" manner (by the time the 32 bit client OS is expired, virtualization will be very available to most, if not all, hardware). Windows Server 2008 R2 doesn't support 16 bit since it only comes as 64 bit.

But, there are a lot of 16 apps developed many, many years (and some 32 bit apps use 16 bit installers). They will be with us for a while.
0 Votes
+ -
Fix Windows NT 6.1 (Win 7)
XArt 9th Dec 2009
Lets not all forget that some 32bit / 16bit code can be faster than
64bit code, and also forget OS being 64bit what about the EFI ooops
sorry BIOS yes your old 70s based tech that startup all PCs today, lets
see 64bit EFI in PCs and 64bit Kernal like the Mac, lets face it the PC
with Windows NT 6.1 (Win 7) is old and clinky and just made to look
modern.

Reg... get rid off it
shortcuts, fixxem
shortcuts should behave like the actual file it is pretending to be,
like links/alias in UNIX
file type handerling, upgrade needed to behave like Mac, on Mac we
can have one html file ipen with firefox and another open with Safari
when you double click it, on Windows they all open with the same
app, I say bug bug buggy
0 Votes
+ -
Uh.. It already does most of this...
Wolfie2K3 10th Dec 2009
1.) Windows 7 already supports EFI booting as well as BIOS based systems.

2.) Microsoft has taken a lot of positive steps with the registry. Apps just aren't allowed to write willy-nilly to it any longer.

3.) shortcuts already have the ability to be opened by ANY app registered to handle them. Right-click on a text file, select Open With... and you will see a list of apps that can handle them - Notepad, WordPad, Word, etc... This feature's been available for quite a LONG time now.

Might help if you were up to date on your talking points...
0 Votes
+ -
16-bit app doesn't exist...
ITBusinessman 9th Dec 2009
Ted - what's the name of the app? Do you know the size of the customer base?

Wondering if a stouthearted developer could quickly recreate and make a bit of profit.
0 Votes
+ -
16 bits...
Wolfie2K3 10th Dec 2009
Actually.. Windows 7 (32 bit) still has support for 16 bit apps - if only in a limited way. They have a generic icon instead of the native icon. I was able to play Castle of the Winds (1 and 2) without any issues. Never burped or crashed (unlike on XP)...
0 Votes
+ -
There's no need to deprecate 32-bit yet
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 9th Dec 2009
MANY apps will actually perform better if compiled as 32-bit rather than 64-bit.

The reason for this is that 64-bit code & data is bigger, takes more room on disk, takes more time to get from disk to memory, takes more space in RAM and less of it fits into the CPU's caches.

If your app doesn't need to access more than 2GB RAM, then there are few benefits to porting it to 64-bit.

If, however, your app does/may need to access more than 2GB data, then porting to 64-bit will most likely generate significant perf improvements when run on 64-bit machinery & OS.

There are many apps that claim a need to manipulate data in excess of 2GB, but which in reality, do not. While they may need to access > 2GB data in total, they only ever need to access a small portion of that data at any moment in time.

Music playback apps are a great example of this: It's better to read blocks of audio data in from a stream, discarding what you've alread played compared to loading a potentially huge audio file into memory in its entirety before reading it.

However, the same cannot be said for image manipulation tools which DO need to read in and cache large images in their entirety in order to display and manipulate them.

Just because you CAN port your app to 64-bit doesn't mean you should - in many cases, your app would benefit more from judicious optimization of memory usage than from allowing your app to eat even more RAM.
0 Votes
+ -
64-bit isn't just about big addresses...
dave@... 18th Jan 2010
You can actually get 4GB of RAM addressed by a
32-bit app running in a 64-bit system, if it's
"large memory" clean (eg, proven to use
unsigned pointer arithmetic, which is needed,
and why the default is to 2GB max).

There are other advantages to 64-bit. For
anything particularly floating point intensive,
it's worthwhile, simply because of the much
improved FPU model. A little improvement in
regular code, thanks to twice as many general
purpose registers (16) and twice as many XMM
(128-bit SSE) registers (also 16), but yeah,
sure, some slowdown to larger addresses to
manipulate... so it's code dependent.

Of course, the large benefit (and the original
reason for developing 64-bit CPUs) is the
extended addressing.

Music playback apps are a good example of those
that don't benefit from 64-bit code in any
significant way. But a good MP3 player uses so
little CPU, it's lost in the noise on a modern
processor. On the other hand, if I'm rendering
1080p AVC video for Blu-Ray, a 15-30%
performance improvement is a very big deal.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: I like Win 7, but I've already drawn up a Win 8 wishlist
wrcousert 26th Jul 2010
1. The ability to upgrade from 32-bit Windows to 64-bit Windows (or downgrade) without reinstalling your apps.

2. Merge 32-bit Windows and 64-bit Windows into a single product. You should be able to decide which version you want when booting up.
3. Install software once for both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. Software installed in one mode should work in the other, unless of course it's 64-bit only.
4. Same applies to 128-bit Windows if/when that is ever released.
5. 16-bit software (DOS and Windows) should be supported forever through emulation.
6. Plan for the post Windows era. I sincerely hope we're not using Windows of any kind 20 years from now. Microsoft needs to start on the next generation OS.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix