Hi!

How can I send these Windows 7 suggestions to Microsoft?

Henri.

---

Manned mission to Mars in 2019 Petition <-- Sign this, please.

Hi!

How can I send these Windows 7 suggestions to Microsoft?

Henri.

..ehrmm.. by airplane ?? hehehe
Hei Henri ;-)

---

Hei, AriZonaMoon! ;)

..ehrmm.. by airplane ?? hehehe

Maybe it's more "green" to use e-mail. ;)

Henri.

---

Manned mission to Mars in 2019 Petition <-- Sign this, please.

Try this....Microsoft forums

On many of their forums, the posters do get listened to & improvements have been made which were suggested.

---

Hi!

Try this....Microsoft forums

On many of their forums, the posters do get listened to & improvements have been made which were suggested.

Thanks, Sirius B! :)

Henri.

---

Manned mission to Mars in 2019 Petition <-- Sign this, please.

One suggestion I can think of is Less security fixes!!

I know windows 2000 had at least 100 +

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

One suggestion I can think of is Less security fixes!!

I know windows 2000 had at least 100 +

I thought security was a good thing? Its awful hard to make a perfectly secure OS the first time around, which is why fixes are offered.

---

One suggestion I can think of is Less security fixes!!

I know windows 2000 had at least 100 +

I thought security was a good thing? Its awful hard to make a perfectly secure OS the first time around, which is why fixes are offered.

Let me reword it Less flaws than the OS before windows 7 :o)

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

One suggestion I can think of is Less security fixes!!

I know windows 2000 had at least 100 +

I thought security was a good thing? Its awful hard to make a perfectly secure OS the first time around, which is why fixes are offered.

Let me reword it Less flaws than the OS before windows 7 :o)

It would be nice, but its unrealistic. Windows is expected to run on such a large variety of hardware, and is supposed to support a large range of software that there are bound to be problems found in hindsight. There's not an OS out there that could do better. ;)

One suggestion I can think of is Less security fixes!!

I know windows 2000 had at least 100 +

I thought security was a good thing? Its awful hard to make a perfectly secure OS the first time around, which is why fixes are offered.

Let me reword it Less flaws than the OS before windows 7 :o)

It would be nice, but its unrealistic. Windows is expected to run on such a large variety of hardware, and is supposed to support a large range of software that there are bound to be problems found in hindsight. There's not an OS out there that could do better. ;)

True, windows seems to have more of the lions share of flaws than other Operating systems.

Windows is more user friendly than other Operating systems I have used. :o)

---

LETS BEGIN IN 2010

"Performance-wise, Windows 7 appears to be in the Windows Vista ballpark. It certainly boots up more quickly than its predecessor, and it is a spirited and lively system in use, with one familiar exception: File copies, especially network-based file copies, are still often surprisingly slow. I have a feeling Microsoft still hasn't fixed what appears to be an endemic issue with the Vista-era networking stack."

Quelle: Windows 7 beta leaks to Internet

---

With each crime and every kindness we birth our future.

Let me reword it Less flaws than the OS before windows 7 :o)

It would be nice, but its unrealistic. Windows is expected to run on such a large variety of hardware, and is supposed to support a large range of software that there are bound to be problems found in hindsight. There's not an OS out there that could do better. ;)

Sorry, but those arguments are very lame and lacklustre.

There's a big difference between general bugs and blatant "security flaws"...

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

Cheers,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Let me reword it Less flaws than the OS before windows 7 :o)

It would be nice, but its unrealistic. Windows is expected to run on such a large variety of hardware, and is supposed to support a large range of software that there are bound to be problems found in hindsight. There's not an OS out there that could do better. ;)

Sorry, but those arguments are very lame and lacklustre.

There's a big difference between general bugs and blatant "security flaws"...

Its hard to have blatant "security flaws" when any other OS of choice other than Windows isn't being exploited by the entire hacker community as it has been deemed 'not worth it'.

Then again, I find your arguments that Linux doesn't suffer from 'flaws', or when they do they are immediately patched (which is to say nothing about those who actually apply those patches), or that somehow Linux will never suffer from malware to be quite lame and lackluster.

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

The hardware range shouldn't make a difference, but the drivers used to make that hardware work can. A likewise, any other piece of software can have adverse affects as well.

It's hard to make any software that consists of a billion lines of code + totally secure - there's always something that doesn't get tested either in the alpha or beta test process...

That said, Micro$oft should do a better job at testing anything that is open to the I-net, (buffers, etc) at the very least - ensuring that you can't overrun any buffer, for example.

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

That said, Micro$oft should do a better job at testing anything that is open to the I-net, (buffers, etc) at the very least - ensuring that you can't overrun any buffer, for example.

Agreed.

There's a very good Microsoft blog called Engineering Windows 7. It has been going into some detail about the various software engineering decisions - and process improvements - that are going into this new OS. It's a very good read, and worth checking back to every week or two to see if there's a new post.

---

. . . Microsoft has nobody in there ;)

Thanks for that Link btw . . .

There's a very good Microsoft blog called Engineering Windows 7. It has been going into some detail about the various software engineering decisions - and process improvements - that are going into this new OS. It's a very good read, and worth checking back to every week or two to see if there's a new post.

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Let me reword it Less flaws than the OS before windows 7 :o)

It would be nice, but its unrealistic. Windows is expected to run on such a large variety of hardware, and is supposed to support a large range of software that there are bound to be problems found in hindsight. There's not an OS out there that could do better. ;)

Sorry, but those arguments are very lame and lacklustre.

There's a big difference between general bugs and blatant "security flaws"...

Its hard to have blatant "security flaws" when any other OS of choice other than Windows isn't being exploited by the entire hacker community as it has been deemed 'not worth it'.

Then again, I find your arguments that Linux doesn't suffer from 'flaws', or when they do they are immediately patched (which is to say nothing about those who actually apply those patches), or that somehow Linux will never suffer from malware to be quite lame and lackluster.

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

8 bit - Windows version 1, 2
16 bit - Windows version 3.0, 3.1 (the first really successful Windoze version, BTW - or, at least, the first version that didn't take a half hour to load!) Win 3.1 also ran in "real Mode", an 8-bit mode... post-Win95 newcomer?

The hardware range shouldn't make a difference, but the drivers used to make that hardware work can. And likewise, any other piece of software can have adverse affects as well.

---

.

Hello, from Albany, CA!...

The range of hardware supported should make no difference to 'security'. One exception is for 8-bit and 16-bit systems that don't have any sort of 'protected mode' but then again, I don't know of any Windows system that runs on those...

8 bit - Windows version 1, 2
16 bit - Windows version 3.0, 3.1 (the first really successful Windoze version, BTW - or, at least, the first version that didn't take a half hour to load!) Win 3.1 also ran in "real Mode", an 8-bit mode... post-Win95 newcomer?

Actually, that's incorrect.

Windows v1 and v2 are both 16bit "real" mode, as well as Windows 3.x. All MS-DOS and Windows software started out as purely 16bit, running on IBM's new PC built around the first 16bit Intel processor with an 8bit data bus, the Intel 8088. Protected Mode refers to a capability built into the Intel 80286 processor and all later CPUs.

Also note that Windows v1 and v2 both loaded in less than a minute, which is/was far quicker than Windows v3, so I wouldn't call Windows 3.1 to be the first version to load in less than half an hour.

Of course, most techies would agree that Windows v1, v2, v3, Windows 9x and Windows ME were all shell programs built to run on top of MS-DOS and thus not real OSes to begin with. The Windows NT era of OSes are the only true Windows OSes that do not require MS-DOS to be running underneath.

. . . i 'genuinely' appreciate havin' my External USB Floppy drive [@ Ozz] ;)

comes in mighty handy @ times dos, dos, dos . . .

Happy New Year - btw

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .