Having recently tried Mac OS X and all of it Exposé and Spaces goodness, I couldn’t help but to notice that Aero Peek feels like a complete rip off of the Exposé feature. Don’t take me wrong though, it is not a critic. I am of the opinion that progress can only be made if we pick the best bits and pieces out of everything that is out there and put it all into one package. So while Windows still has a long way to go on user experience matters, I see this as a move forward.
Still, Aero Peek came with an annoyance for me: it takes too damn long! Basically, when you activate Exposé on a Mac (either by having a shortcut or by hovering over a hot corner) you instantly get to your desktop and can see what’s underneath – with Aero Peek this takes at least one or two seconds which isn’t ideal for me by any stretch.
With that in mind, and since there does not seem to be that much documentation about this yet, Microsoft allows you to adjust that delay time with some registry hacking. To adjust the delay, do the following:
Open regedit (Start -> regedit -> press enter)
Go to the key HKEY_CURRENT_USER \ Software \ Microsoft \ Windows \ CurrentVersion \ Explorer \ Advanced
Once here, create a new DWORD (32 bit) entry with the name DesktopLivePreviewHoverTime and set it to whatever time you’d like in milliseconds. I found that 100 works best for me but I will leave that at your own discretion.
Now I’m back to testing Windows 7 RTM – have a good one!
Christopher Dawnson over at ZDNet has announced the end of the Ubuntu vs. Windows war, the world is safe again!
Till the next time!
WAIT! Hold it!
What the heck?! Wasn’t ZDNet supposed to be a reliable source of information regarding technology? So what are these shenanigans about his 17 year old saying that they’re the same? I’ll tell you what it is: it is the most bold statement I’ve heard all year, and also the most idiotic one. So just because a 17 year old says that they’re the same, 6 billion people will just agree and this fact will just be set in stone? Bullshit.
Windows and Linux are different; it’s about time people realize that. I absolutely need both so is this proof enough that they are ultimately different?
Christopher says: “Their underlying architectures are quite a bit different, Gnome looks different than the 7 UI, etc.”. The underlying architectures are quite a bit different, Gnome looks different than 7 does, but apart from that, which by the way is everything that effing matters in an Operating System, they’re pretty much the same.
I have a Hyundai Getz, my neighbour has a Ferrari, but apart from the engine and the chassis they’re pretty much the same. They both have wheels! A whole set of four! So they must be the same…
With the advent of Microsoft’s latest operating system, the Windows 7, many people have come to state that Windows 7 is Windows Vista doneright. Well, excuse me tech whizzes but as an IT professional myself, I beg to differ.
Windows Vista was a massive stepping stone in Microsoft’s history. It was the first upgrade from the ever so loved Windows XP, that admittedly had its flaws at birth but it grew to become perhaps the most stable operating system that Microsoft had built until then. It is lightweight and to prove that we have the netbook market share that is dominated by Microsoft.
Now, we have to be analytic. What did Vista bring to the table when compared to XP? In a very brief and sketchy approach, it brought cleanliness to the user folders (no one really liked the spaces in ‘Documents and Settings’), it brought UAC that albeit poorly-loved, it brought with it a great layer of security, it brought some driver modifications including a redesigned sound-stack and these last two put together with the bloated memory usage, made Vista Microsoft’s bastard child.
Well, when you look at it closely, pretty much every Vista driver will work on Windows 7, including the soundcard drivers. UAC is also part of Windows 7 and has been partly redesigned so that it isn’t so naggy. Still, my bottom line is that when switching from XP, Microsoft was always going to get complaints. When you add security, people will complain because the system is more restrictive. When you add features that change the way people interface with the computer, people will complain because we have an inertial nature and are typically against change.
However, now that Vista was Microsoft’s escape goat for all the changes that simply had to be made, Windows 7 can come in its shinning armour and save the day. Because Windows 7 is so much better than Vista, even though it’s actually Vista, just lighter.
Hold your horses, this isn’t a flaw per se. There isn’t a massive hole in Windows 7 that allows the execution of malicious code. Instead, there’s a legacy feature that has been around ever since Windows 98 (maybe even 95, but that I do not know for sure) that is used by virus writers to fool users into executing their viruses.
The feature I am talking about is the ability to hide the extension for known file types. This comes enabled by default on XP and Vista and it was not addressed in Windows 7. Basically, as Adrian over at ZDNet reports, with this feature enabled, a file with ‘double extension’ can easily be fooled for its fake extention. For example, a file named Report.txt.exe will automatically have the ‘.exe’ extension hidden, and to the eyes of the less computer-savvy it can easily be mistaken for an innocent Report.txt file. Moreso when the creator of the virus is careful enough to add an innocent notepad icon to the malevolent application.
To be perfectly honest, I agree with Adrian. This is a feature that I disable right after I install Windows. More often than not I find myself having to change the extension of a file, and it’s impossible to do so with this feature enabled and without resorting to the command line.
This feature is dangerous and it has been the gateway for many viruses to spread. Adrian also suggests adding some sort of overlay to the icons of executable files that aren’t digitally signed – this is an incredibly good idea. Maybe something glarey as the icons of running applications on the new Windows 7 start bar. If properly done, this could be flashey and would cause a good impression on end-users, both visually and safety-wise. Personally, I would remove the feature altogether and leave it off – and please, without the possibility of working around it on the registry – but that’s just my two pennies worth of opinion.
Alright ladies and gentlemen, the announcement is out: the first (and hopefully only) Release Candidate of the newest, mind blowing, operating system from the folks at Redmond is out. Or is it really? There’s a Microsoft Partners’ page announcing the event and I say that that’s as reliable as it gets.
According to said page, the RC should be available right now for MSDN and TechNet subscribers but well… it ain’t. The same page also announces that a global (and I guess, public) release will be done on May 5th which is actually pretty close in time.
My guess is that we just sit and wait, and that within the day, this RC will be made available on the MSDN downloads page. Or so I hope.
Finally, this release is more coherent with Ed Bott’s speculative timeline over at ZDNet which places the Windows 7 RTM release on late August of 2009. At this point, we just wait and see – being a 7 Beta user, I am happy and borderline ecstatic to get a RC release so soon. Way to go, Microsoft!
That’s right, this will after all be the official name of the next Windows version. According to Mike Nash on the Windows Vista blog, Microsoft is sticking with the simple name Windows 7, therefore cutting with the “aspirational monikers” that they have used in the past like Windows XP or Vista.
The same person writes that this is the seventh release of Windows, hence the naming Windows 7.
Another source tells us that a pre-beta version of this new Windows will be distributed at the Professional Developer Conference, set to take place on Los Angeles on October 27th.