Lets just hope that we can finally install the darn thing by going to a website, downloading the .iso to a usb key and installing it and paying for a license each time we do. Ordering a DVD is so 2000.
While I'm unsure if I like the idea of Microsoft making huge bank on this, I would be delighted to see a unified Windows app store, where things could be listed, hosted, and updated in one convenient location. No more broken links to files you'd like, since theoretically they'd all be hosted by Microsoft.
Add to that, if they would adjust licensing to be like Steam or (perhaps to a lesser degree) iTunes app store, lifetime ability to re-download as long as you keep your name and password... that would be nice.
And if updates were handled seamlessly as well, that would be amazing. No more hunting around to make sure all my programs are up to date.
..unless, such a thing already exists on Windows. I know Google tried something like that with Google Updater or whatever they called it.
Huh?! You have to pay for your copies? People don't just give them to you????!? The last time I actually got a disc with a key was in 2005. MSDN and DreamSpark silly.
Well when you do a clean install they could effectively mark everything that is not within the core folders for windows and then break the partition table to generate two, push the user data to one and start the install after the install is done migrate the data back into place or put the partitions back together and clean up(In a very simple nut shell).
As a tech guy, I've used OEM recovery to factory state several times. It's a quick and dirty way to get a system back with all the crap you need. Data is often lost. Windows recovery saves data but it's not really back to that fresh new OS smell. If Windows 8 can figure out how to take the Windows 7 backup of whatever was on the disk before and put it in a separate directory and add in the ability to roll back to "Factory Image"... that would be awesome.
I think Windows 8 will be another incremental update and not a massive shift like Vista was. They will add stuff they could not get into Win7, drop some really old backward compatibility features, and tweak some things that didn't work out the way they dreamed.
UAC was a good push to all of that functionality already. As more applications become more UAC aware/compatible, less important data is getting stored in C:\Program Files and associated directories.
As the amount of data at the root levels of C:\ decreases, the more likely we will be to have a UNIX-like experience of "Blow away everything but /home and let-er rip".
Alex, you are spot on. Many companies use Group Policies to prohibit users from saving any data in any directories other than their "My Documents" or even a network share. If Microsoft did this by default it would be SO much easier to backup/recover.
NTFS is getting old but still has legs left. WinFS could make NTFS seem new to users. But Microsoft has been publicly working on it for over a 1/2 decade and probably much longer (10+ years?) and been rumored for Vista and then Windows 7??? No idea yet.
Fatcat, I have to ask for the desire for a new file system technology. Why? NTFS may be old but it's hardly end of life like FAT32. The steering wheel in your car has fundamentally not changed in decades but we don't feel the need to ask for something new either because well, it works just fine
Pssh... forget NTFS, Microsoft should just adopt ZFS so their filesystem can finally play nice with the *nix world. They never will though. Proprietary jerks.
As for storing bitlocker passwords online... please no. That seriously undermines file encryption. What Microsoft should do is keep it as it is now, an option that the user has to turn on.... one that warns you of the repercussions of turning it on and forgetting your password. I don't trust Microsoft to store my encryption password. I don't trust them not to get hacked or to not turn it over to a 3rd party (RIAA, law enforcement, etc.). It's not that I actually have anything to hide, it's just the principle of the thing.
Interesting viewpoint. But I am going to ask for reasoning.
File system: why should Microsoft adopt ZFS? Why shouldn't the 'nix world adopt NTFS (under license). What does ZFS bring to the table that makes it so much more compelling to the 95% of Windows end users who don't care? Neither are worthy endeavours and kind of pointless. Can google share their android file system with RIM or Apple devices? No and who is it hurting in the world by not doing so?
Secure password storage: do you have a password online for icrontic and send PMs? Do you have online webmail? Sadly, anyone is susceptible. However, your bit locker password has to be 1) hacked from Microsoft and 2) someone targets you, steals your hard drive AND unencrypts it. That is a lot unless you have something really sensitive on your PC...
I was just using ZFS as an example, though it is an excellent filesystem. Very efficient, supports extremely large file and volume sizes (16 exbibytes, or 2^64 bytes, each), can handle 2^48 total files. Supported by Mac and Linux. Sure, 95% of the Windows end users don't care, but then again, 95% of Windows end users don't care about disk encryption, does that mean that they should ditch BitLocker? Most end users don't care about SMB, does that mean that Windows shouldn't have it? Most people also don't care about UAC.... does that make it a bad idea? Just because the end user doesn't care about it doesn't mean it's not a good idea. If development only went by "what 95% of end users care about", computers would not have come nearly as far as they have. It's the other 5% that push the industry and result in most of the progress that is made.
Yep... I sure do have a password for Icrontic. That password is stored via a one-way hash in a database and if someone compromised my account, big deal. In order for a bitlocker password to be stored online, the plaintext would need to be recoverable (unlike passwords used for sites, webmail, etc.). I also don't store sensitive data in my Icrontic account. I do have work-related data on my laptop sometimes. If my work involved sensitive data, having my bitlocker password in the hands of a 3rd party (even if it is Microsoft) would be a massive security risk. They would intentionally be making bitlocker pointless for the very people who needed it most.
Windows recovery saves data but it's not really back to that fresh new OS smell. If Windows 8 can figure out how to take the Windows 7 backup of whatever was on the disk before and put it in a separate directory and add in the ability to roll back to "Factory Image"... that would be great.
Welcome ascon and we can only hope Microsoft can pull this off.
Ardichoke, the idea for the online storage of the password can be encrypted and only available after several security questions are answered then the password is emailed to you or whatever. I would never allow MS to keep my password in plain text or have access.
The key is that enterprises can recover the passwords via active directory. The average customer should have the same protection. No matter how much you layer on the legal text, customers will still complain if they lose data because they forget their bitlocker passwords.
Just cuz customers will complain, doesn't mean they're right and doesn't mean they should compromise security to pander to them. Customers complained about UAC too, but it was something that needed to be done (and should have been done sooner)
Just cuz customers will complain, doesn't mean they're right and doesn't mean they should compromise security to pander to them. Customers complained about UAC too, but it was something that needed to be done (and should have been done sooner)
The customer is after a service not an unworkable dream. Once you realise that, you can sell something.
Knowing MS, they know to secure their online services. Their OS have been insecure for a long time but they have the message me suspects (as you deduce, UAC is one example). 'nix has it's place but don't be too much of a fanboy to not see the big picture in the world of the desktop
Ardichoke, the idea for the online storage of the password can be encrypted and only available after several security questions are answered then the password is emailed to you or whatever. I would never allow MS to keep my password in plain text or have access.
The key is that enterprises can recover the passwords via active directory. The average customer should have the same protection. No matter how much you layer on the legal text, customers will still complain if they lose data because they forget their bitlocker passwords.
Security questions are the worst thing to come out of online accounts, ever. The problem is, you can't ask questions for which the answer won't possibly change without resorting to information that is either publicly available, or easily obtainable through legal means (or a few minutes of social engineering).
The only way to make password recovery feasible AND secure would be to use biometrics. Even then, biometrics are beatable, but they're at least better than "What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?".
hmm..Windows 8 seems pretty cool..but im just confused, with users still trying to get their hands on windows 7, ofcourse 150 mill copies sold, its just gona 'break' their hearts i mean, win7 is fairly easy to use people still trying to uncover all the features of it, (referring noobs) and win8 with so many additional features added, its just too easy to make a naive mad with all those 'easy' to use stuff..oh God
I think Windows as a desktop OS will disappear with the increasing capabilities and popularity of mobile devices. I don't see myself still building PCs and installing Windows 3-4 years from now.
I think Windows as a desktop OS will disappear with the increasing capabilities and popularity of mobile devices. I don't see myself still building PCs and installing Windows 3-4 years from now.
Famous last words. I hate to say it (being an OSS/FOSS fan) but Windows isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's too ingrained into the corporate world and has far too much of a stranglehold on the gaming world to lose any significant market share anytime soon.
I think Windows as a desktop OS will disappear with the increasing capabilities and popularity of mobile devices.
That's perfectly fine if you prefer to use mobile devices over locked-down, chained-to-a-desk devices.
But for the other 90%+ of people (I'd almost wager it's more like 99%+), a reliable place to sit down to work and play will not be out of the picture for probably decades.
Even the base psychology of it, there's something satisfying and reassuring to know that your device is always there in the same spot when you need it. You can't lose it, you can't have it stolen from you as you walk through town, and you don't drop it or scrape it up from daily use like a PDA or other device is susceptible to.
I am not saying Windows will be dead (maybe I should not have said disappear). But there are many people using only a browser and a media player on their dekstop PCs. Such things very well can be done with a portable device. Prime's OnLive article also shows that people will be able to play 3D-intensive games with those devices where broadband is available. However, big boxes will still be necessary, especially for professional applications, content creation, scientific computing, visualization, post processing, etc. I am now putting 32 cores in a single box at work for workstations or connecting them to build HPC clusters. Anyone who likes the big boxes will have it since the parts will still be available. But for the rest, there will be economical and practical options increasingly provided by portable devices which will decrease the market share of desktop versions of Windows.
QCH
Ancient GuruChicago Area - USA Icrontian
Comments
Add to that, if they would adjust licensing to be like Steam or (perhaps to a lesser degree) iTunes app store, lifetime ability to re-download as long as you keep your name and password... that would be nice.
And if updates were handled seamlessly as well, that would be amazing. No more hunting around to make sure all my programs are up to date.
..unless, such a thing already exists on Windows. I know Google tried something like that with Google Updater or whatever they called it.
Nice write-up Q.
I think Windows 8 will be another incremental update and not a massive shift like Vista was. They will add stuff they could not get into Win7, drop some really old backward compatibility features, and tweak some things that didn't work out the way they dreamed.
As the amount of data at the root levels of C:\ decreases, the more likely we will be to have a UNIX-like experience of "Blow away everything but /home and let-er rip".
Fatcat, I have to ask for the desire for a new file system technology. Why? NTFS may be old but it's hardly end of life like FAT32. The steering wheel in your car has fundamentally not changed in decades but we don't feel the need to ask for something new either because well, it works just fine
As for storing bitlocker passwords online... please no. That seriously undermines file encryption. What Microsoft should do is keep it as it is now, an option that the user has to turn on.... one that warns you of the repercussions of turning it on and forgetting your password. I don't trust Microsoft to store my encryption password. I don't trust them not to get hacked or to not turn it over to a 3rd party (RIAA, law enforcement, etc.). It's not that I actually have anything to hide, it's just the principle of the thing.
Interesting viewpoint. But I am going to ask for reasoning.
File system: why should Microsoft adopt ZFS? Why shouldn't the 'nix world adopt NTFS (under license). What does ZFS bring to the table that makes it so much more compelling to the 95% of Windows end users who don't care? Neither are worthy endeavours and kind of pointless. Can google share their android file system with RIM or Apple devices? No and who is it hurting in the world by not doing so?
Secure password storage: do you have a password online for icrontic and send PMs? Do you have online webmail? Sadly, anyone is susceptible. However, your bit locker password has to be 1) hacked from Microsoft and 2) someone targets you, steals your hard drive AND unencrypts it. That is a lot unless you have something really sensitive on your PC...
Yep... I sure do have a password for Icrontic. That password is stored via a one-way hash in a database and if someone compromised my account, big deal. In order for a bitlocker password to be stored online, the plaintext would need to be recoverable (unlike passwords used for sites, webmail, etc.). I also don't store sensitive data in my Icrontic account. I do have work-related data on my laptop sometimes. If my work involved sensitive data, having my bitlocker password in the hands of a 3rd party (even if it is Microsoft) would be a massive security risk. They would intentionally be making bitlocker pointless for the very people who needed it most.
Ardichoke, the idea for the online storage of the password can be encrypted and only available after several security questions are answered then the password is emailed to you or whatever. I would never allow MS to keep my password in plain text or have access.
The key is that enterprises can recover the passwords via active directory. The average customer should have the same protection. No matter how much you layer on the legal text, customers will still complain if they lose data because they forget their bitlocker passwords.
Knowing MS, they know to secure their online services. Their OS have been insecure for a long time but they have the message me suspects (as you deduce, UAC is one example). 'nix has it's place but don't be too much of a fanboy to not see the big picture in the world of the desktop
Security questions are the worst thing to come out of online accounts, ever. The problem is, you can't ask questions for which the answer won't possibly change without resorting to information that is either publicly available, or easily obtainable through legal means (or a few minutes of social engineering).
The only way to make password recovery feasible AND secure would be to use biometrics. Even then, biometrics are beatable, but they're at least better than "What's your favorite flavor of ice cream?".
That's perfectly fine if you prefer to use mobile devices over locked-down, chained-to-a-desk devices.
But for the other 90%+ of people (I'd almost wager it's more like 99%+), a reliable place to sit down to work and play will not be out of the picture for probably decades.
Even the base psychology of it, there's something satisfying and reassuring to know that your device is always there in the same spot when you need it. You can't lose it, you can't have it stolen from you as you walk through town, and you don't drop it or scrape it up from daily use like a PDA or other device is susceptible to.
I am not saying Windows will be dead (maybe I should not have said disappear). But there are many people using only a browser and a media player on their dekstop PCs. Such things very well can be done with a portable device. Prime's OnLive article also shows that people will be able to play 3D-intensive games with those devices where broadband is available. However, big boxes will still be necessary, especially for professional applications, content creation, scientific computing, visualization, post processing, etc. I am now putting 32 cores in a single box at work for workstations or connecting them to build HPC clusters. Anyone who likes the big boxes will have it since the parts will still be available. But for the rest, there will be economical and practical options increasingly provided by portable devices which will decrease the market share of desktop versions of Windows.