Windows 10: Windows 7 should be Windows 11

The only items I see that are missing in 8.1 and now 10 are window borders and transparent glass,
Without borders there's no reason to have glass or really nothing to apply the glass too,
The only place it would apply to is the taskbar so the whole UI deal I just don't see where your referring too :/

I do miss borders it makes it quite easy to see if a page as overpassed the taskbar or the sides of a monitor,
Which tends to happen with some programs not acknowledging the taskbars existence,

Not sure if we can thank html5 for the loss of windows borders or not I'm not all that familiar with it ?

 

This is quite the long thread, and I'd be lying if I said I read everything. I just figured I'd add my two cents.

Libraries, like anything else, is what you make of it. For a long time in Windows 7, which I used since the RC first came out, I not only did not use libraries, I hated them. In Win 7 they really pushed libraries in your face, and I could never find any way to disable them. Real pain in the butt. In Windows 10, its easy enough to hide them, and I think its the same way in Windows 8 (just got a tablet with 8.1 and still learning the OS). Point is, I think I got to the point of having an irrational hatred of Libraries. But then I got SkyDrive in late 2012, and moved a lot of stuff to that, but some software I used required keeping some documents in the regular C:\users\[user]\documents location. This is when I finally looked into the library settings and realized I could set which folders appear as part of the library and what the default save location is. Suddenly, Libraries were useful. When I setup the Windows 10 install, I just made it where everything syncd to OneDrive, and libraries seemed useless again, and I hid them. Then, on Black Friday, I got a Windows 8.1 tablet and finally looked into another feature I had dismissed as useless, Homegroup. I wanted to be able to stream my videos directly from my laptop to my tablet. Had to go setup libraries again, and once again, they've proven to be useful. Is everyone going to need them? No. Are they worth bothering with? I'd say its at least worth figuring out how the settings for libraries work. Even if you don't plan on using them, you never know when they might suddenly be incredibly useful.

 

"BTW: When I say release 7 as 11 I am talking about keeping the core UI of Windows 7 and adding a few new features but nothing like we are seeing in W8/W10. *Rolleyes"

Well Mouse,

then stay on win 7, easier and less expensive.

Jeff

 

You're forgetting that Windows is a multi-user operating system. The purpose of the \Users folder is to separate each logged in users files from each other in a way that can be securely locked down so that users can't view each others files.

Sure, you may be the only person using your computer, but there are multiple users and accounts running on your computer even though you are the only one using it. Several of those accounts have their own users folder.

So are you seriously saying you "can't imagine" how this is useful?

 

You're forgetting that Windows is a multi-user operating system. The purpose of the \Users folder is to separate each logged in users files from each other in a way that can be securely locked down so that users can't view each others files.

Sure, you may be the only person using your computer, but there are multiple users and accounts running on your computer even though you are the only one using it. Several of those accounts have their own users folder.

So are you seriously saying you "can't imagine" how this is useful? On a single user computer without the ability to opt out at installation, absolutely right. Duh...

 

You're forgetting that Windows is a multi-user operating system. The purpose of the \Users folder is to separate each logged in users files from each other in a way that can be securely locked down so that users can't view each others files.

Sure, you may be the only person using your computer, but there are multiple users and accounts running on your computer even though you are the only one using it. Several of those accounts have their own users folder.

So are you seriously saying you "can't imagine" how this is useful? On a single user computer without the ability to opt out at installation, absolutely right. Duh... Once again, even though you're the only physical user of the computer, there are still more than one user account on the computer, and they are all running simultaneously. Just run task manager, go to the Details tab, and notce the User Name tab... (you may have to tell it to view processes from all users).

Windows itself is multi-user, and uses multiple user accounts just to run.

 

Hey dude, you asked. I merely gave you my opinion, which I stand by.
But now, I have to expand on this, and it's all your fault.

What in the world can they possibly thinking, to believe it is in any way acceptable to try to cram this mulit-user nonsense down our throats. Seriously, they need to get over this perverted notion that they alone get to decide how we use OUR damned computers.

We need some basic options at the install.

A) Do you want to decide some basic functions for your own device.

-or-

B) Would you rather some pimply faced poindexter from ms central make those decisions for you.

I know which one I would choose...*Roflmao2


Note: Please don't hang on every word I say, embrace the haha...

 

Yes, I know which one I would choose. And it's not the one you would choose.

The reason for multiple users in the base OS is that different users have different privileges. Some have very low privilege levels so that if an attacker compromises them, they cannot do damage to the system. Other users have only specific rights, such as the ability to access just the network services they need. This level of security helps to improve things.

Going back to a single, global, all powerful user would be like going back to Windows 95, and we all know the security nightmare that was.

 

Deleted by idiot poster.

 

Why should he "get over it"? He's correct. Unix has been multi-user since it's inception in 1969. It's a smart architechural design.

 

The point is, for me, multi-user capability is one thing, as an option, but for a very large number of people who are never ever gonna have more than one user on their computer, it's more of an annoyance than anything else.

PC=Personal Computer.
Get it..??
(oh, and who gives a toss about unix...??)

 

Well I used the example of Unix as a means of giving the multi-user concept a high degree of credibility, as Unix represents a high pedigree of OS.

And yes, I get the whole Personal Computer, single user thingy; but even then, we have other accounts that work as part of the Windows NT architecture. There is a Network Service account, a Local Service account, an Administrator account that should ONLY be used for system tasks on occasion, a Default User account that is used as a template for new accounts. And then your User account for brisk and secure day to day operation.

To defeat that mechanism upon installation would require a great deal of re-engineering of the OS. The way to do is just create one user, because all the accounts I mentioned above are used to make the system work properly and cohesively.

If you're going to say, "Yeah but we had the option of single user systems on Win9x", well then you're saying, "I embrace an insecure, volatile method of computing that could potentially come down like a house of cards, or be hacked". To want that simplistic method of computing would be going backwards. Today, accommodating the hosting of multiple users is a "must-have" feature of an OS. It amounts to the same as a modern-day OS support online connectivity or some other basic feature. You may not use such features, but to not include it would constitute an incomplete product.

 

It's not all about you, pal. Build a bridge and get over it! Oppsie! I responded to the wrong post. sorry! *Redface

 

It's not all about you, pal. Build a bridge and get over it!

 

H shouldn't. I should pay more attention o which post I'm responding to.