Thread: Any one running Win7 yet?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Windows demonstrates the fundamental flaw with capitalism, quantity over quality. Both OSX and Ubuntu are far superior operating systems from a technical and UI standpoint, but Microsoft's monopolization of the market in the 90s means people got comfortable with Windows and getting someone to change is hard, even to something better and cheaper.

I don't know, the GUI in linux (I've used both KDE and Gnome) always felt much slower than the windows GUI to me. Even when on the same computer.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It's still stupid that there are multiple versions of Windows. An OS should come with everything you need.

Yes, that is true.

Originally Posted by khh

I don't know, the GUI in linux (I've used both KDE and Gnome) always felt much slower than the windows GUI to me. Even when on the same computer.

Turn down the glitz. I'm not talking about the skinning engine, I think Ubuntu uses Compriz, which is terribly done and requires a mother of a graphics card. I'm talking about X by MIT. X is the gold standard in Window management.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Turn down the glitz. I'm not talking about the skinning engine, I think Ubuntu uses Compriz, which is terribly done and requires a mother of a graphics card. I'm talking about X by MIT. X is the gold standard in Window management.

I've never used Compriz or Beryl or any of those things. But X11 in itself is getting old, and it's not as snappy as it ought to be. That's my impression.

The last major revision of the X Window System protocol was 1987. 1987. Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is fantastic. But it seems as if developers are throwing thing after thing on top of old code. X needs another major revision. X11R7.5 was a step in the correct direction with the removal of some of this old code. But for the most part, developers should undertake a re-write and moderniztion of X. It lacks a professional touch normally seen with corporate window systems such as the one used in OS X.

Originally Posted by mini0991

The last major revision of the X Window System protocol was 1987. 1987. Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is fantastic. But it seems as if developers are throwing thing after thing on top of old code. X needs another major revision. X11R7.5 was a step in the correct direction with the removal of some of this old code. But for the most part, developers should undertake a re-write and moderniztion of X. It lacks a professional touch normally seen with corporate window systems such as the one used in OS X.

Sorry, but this is bollocks

X is a protocol, it's age is utterly irrelevant
The TCP/IP protocol spec was issued in 1982
do you want the networking protocol to be scrapped for something else?

The "protocol" of designing a car with foot operated levers, a gear stick and a big wheel for steering is hundreds of years old - you want a complete re-write of the operation of cars?

X is one of the most actively developed projects in the free software world, with significant contributions from Redhat, Intel, Nokia, HP, Sun and Motorola
In terms of code refactoring, you can't get much better than x.org

But saying that
What's wrong with old code anyway?
It's not organic, it doesn't go mouldy

Originally Posted by Ynot

X is a protocol, it's age is utterly irrelevant
The TCP/IP protocol spec was issued in 1982
do you want the networking protocol to be scrapped for something else?

Actually, yes. TCP cannot handle out of order packets, it simply disregards them and asks they'd be retransmitted, and it seems exessive to send a "packet received" packet for every single data packet. I remember hearing about drafts for more efficient networking protocols, but TCP is so widely supported that replacing it won't be easy.

Originally Posted by Ynot

The "protocol" of designing a car with foot operated levers, a gear stick and a big wheel for steering is hundreds of years old - you want a complete re-write of the operation of cars?

When automatic car guidance is a viable alternative, or if an efficient neuro-interface alternative is developed, then sure. New technology means new possibilities, and new possibilities means you need to rewrite the old standards. Also, it's quite possible that someone just have a better idea.

Originally Posted by khh

TCP cannot handle out of order packets.

yes it can
each packet has a sequence number, and the receiver will reorder packets based on that number, but anyway...

Originally Posted by mini0991

The last major revision of the X Window System protocol was 1987. 1987. Don't get me wrong, Ubuntu is fantastic. But it seems as if developers are throwing thing after thing on top of old code. X needs another major revision. X11R7.5 was a step in the correct direction with the removal of some of this old code. But for the most part, developers should undertake a re-write and moderniztion of X. It lacks a professional touch normally seen with corporate window systems such as the one used in OS X.

X uses modern code design, protocol for window handling hasn't changed much since the early 90s. Aqua is better integrated with everything, but that in itself causes problems. Aqua doesn't have network transparency, which is X's biggest asset.

The last major revision to UNIX was in 1982 and it's still the best OS out there by a wide margin. There have been minor revisions and lots of implementational upgrades (just like X,) but System V was the last major one.

Perhaps it's the implementation rather than the protocol that I should constructively criticise.

The implementation of X, used on Ubuntu for example, lacks professional touches. At times, when the system crashes or boots up, the title bar disappears off all the windows. Why does this happen? Also, there seems to be a lack of a de facto window manager. All these different window managers serve to just confuse. It's small things like that that need to be ironed out before Unix/Linux can become a true alternative to the more polished commercial Windows and OS X.

X does the window management, those other things are just decorators, big difference. And as for the title bar, again, that's the decorator, not X. Unless you work with the windows on a low level, people don't realize that the "Windows" on the screen, are not the only windows. Technically, almost everything is a window on all systems. Text inputs are windows, buttons are windows, choice boxes are windows... They all inherit the window base class.