4 ms·

https://www.readability.com/articles/6w09uyph https://www.readability.com/articles/6w09uyph 1. Fix the file system. The company promised it would develop a dat

https://www.readability.com/articles/6w09uyph https://www.readability.com/articles/6w09uyph 1. Fix the file system. The company promised it would develop a database-style file system that would allow for easy and super-fast searches for keywords within the structure of the file. This means it should quickly retrieve every .doc file containing the words "Android OS." The biggest problem with such a file system would be the indexing costs. It is likely that a gigabyte of storage fully indexed as a real database would take 2GB or more in overhead. So what? Terabytes are cheaper than ever. You can always make this sort of file system an option if necessary for the cheapskate who thinks paying more than $300 for a PC is spending too much money. 2. Fix the Networking. How did the Microsoft networking subsystems deteriorate with Windows 7 and above? I have a legacy NAS from Cisco that no OS since Vista can access on my network. There are a few supposed patches that kind of work. Why do I need to patch anything? What's the reason these legacy devices cannot be used anymore? They don't work because nobody wants to write the code to make sure they still work. 3. Bring back the distraction games. What happened to some of the classic games that came with the OS? I'm talking specifically about Spider Solitaire. Where is it? Whatever happened to Pinball, for that matter? 4. Scale everything. This full-screen idiocy must go. I have complained bitterly about the stupidity of full-screen programs from their early pre-Windows 8 conceptualization. Full-screen programs harken back to DOS. Having a bunch of these running and switching from one to the other is nothing more than DOS task switching from 1985. Check the calendar, people. Why isn't everyone in the tech community squawking about this incessantly? Besides praising this lunacy, now some users are giddy about the new "half full screen" mode. It makes you wonder where everyone with a brain went. 5. And finally, put back the real Start menu. Microsoft can simply go buy the Classic Shell code and use that if it wants a good implementation. The reason for the Start menu was for convenience, nothing more. Taking it away was like that "Ribbon" interface—it's a way to impede an efficient use of the product. Why do this? Why encumber the user? Everything just takes longer than it should. Windows 9 will be the end of the road for Microsoft if it keeps digging the same hole to nowhere. Everything the company does now seems to be part of some unspoken weird or secret theory stemming from smartphone UIs. It is all so inappropriate for the desktop computer. Microsoft is simply ruining the industry with this tactic, as we see with PC sales. My suggestions above, if implemented properly, would stem the decline.

pixl97 13y ago
>I have a legacy NAS from Cisco that no OS since Vista can access on my network. My guess is that is a security/encryption setting issue with your NAS. Windows won't send a login request to a server that uses weak standards unless you change registry settings. This is done for your protection.
- leviathant 13y ago
  It's like complaining that you can't get leaded gasoline anymore. Complaints like that make this dude come off like a short-sighted, self-centered idiot.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  That specific example might be, but Microsoft seem to have been in denial about some adverse side effects of the networking changes in Windows 7 since about five minutes after the launch. I've seen an office with a hybrid network where numerous machines running XP, OS X and Linux all talked to each other quite happily, at the expected network speeds over wireless and wired connections, all working as you'd expect. However, most of the the Windows 7 machines (both desktops and laptops, from a variety of vendors) transferred data at a fraction of the speed the network could support for no apparent reason. At some point, you have to accept that the obvious common factor is your new operating system and you've broken something, but MS never have.
  - pixl97 13y ago
    Being that I run mixed Linux/Win7 networks with SMB filesharing and don't have speed transfer problems, it seems to be a sysadmin problem. Update your NIC drivers and make sure your processor can handle encrypted sessions at full speed. If you want to downgrade to NTLM you are free to edit the registry keys to do so. The rest of us don't want our passwords and traffic easily crackable.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      Thanks for the advice, but the company in question did a lot of work in the networking field, so it is highly unlikely that the poor performance was caused by either a lack of competence on the part of their sysadmins or simple oversights like not updating drivers. Various third party software running on the Windows 7 machines seemed to achieve the expected throughput just fine too, so the finger was definitely pointing to something in Windows being the culprit. (Really obvious example: An rsync-based tool used to copy files to a central server prior to backing up would do so at roughly the expected speed from all of the Win7 PCs, but dragging and dropping the same files between the same machines in Windows Explorer would take an order of magnitude longer. Just to be clear, I'm talking about testing with new files where rsync would also have to transfer them in their entirety here, not a speed up because of the rsync algorithm itself.)

pixl97 13y ago

>I have a legacy NAS from Cisco that no OS since Vista can access on my network. My guess is that is a security/encryption setting issue with your NAS. Windows won't send a login request to a server that uses weak standards unless you change registry settings. This is done for your protection.

leviathant 13y ago
It's like complaining that you can't get leaded gasoline anymore. Complaints like that make this dude come off like a short-sighted, self-centered idiot.
Silhouette 13y ago
That specific example might be, but Microsoft seem to have been in denial about some adverse side effects of the networking changes in Windows 7 since about five minutes after the launch. I've seen an office with a hybrid network where numerous machines running XP, OS X and Linux all talked to each other quite happily, at the expected network speeds over wireless and wired connections, all working as you'd expect. However, most of the the Windows 7 machines (both desktops and laptops, from a variety of vendors) transferred data at a fraction of the speed the network could support for no apparent reason. At some point, you have to accept that the obvious common factor is your new operating system and you've broken something, but MS never have.
- pixl97 13y ago
  Being that I run mixed Linux/Win7 networks with SMB filesharing and don't have speed transfer problems, it seems to be a sysadmin problem. Update your NIC drivers and make sure your processor can handle encrypted sessions at full speed. If you want to downgrade to NTLM you are free to edit the registry keys to do so. The rest of us don't want our passwords and traffic easily crackable.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    Thanks for the advice, but the company in question did a lot of work in the networking field, so it is highly unlikely that the poor performance was caused by either a lack of competence on the part of their sysadmins or simple oversights like not updating drivers. Various third party software running on the Windows 7 machines seemed to achieve the expected throughput just fine too, so the finger was definitely pointing to something in Windows being the culprit. (Really obvious example: An rsync-based tool used to copy files to a central server prior to backing up would do so at roughly the expected speed from all of the Win7 PCs, but dragging and dropping the same files between the same machines in Windows Explorer would take an order of magnitude longer. Just to be clear, I'm talking about testing with new files where rsync would also have to transfer them in their entirety here, not a speed up because of the rsync algorithm itself.)