Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Estimated Transfer Time Is No More In Windows 8

samzenpus posted about 3 years ago | from the good-riddance dept.

Microsoft 456

MrSeb writes "Ahh, the Windows Explorer progress dialog. For years it has been struggling to figure out how to calculate how long our copy and delete operations would take, sliding the progress bar back and forth in a seemingly random, haphazard way, the laws of time all but ceasing to exist — five seconds remaining one moment and 13 minutes the next. That's (almost) all going to change, with the arrival of a greatly improved file management experience in Windows 8. Copy, move, delete, rename, and conflict resolution are all being overhauled and it's about time!"

cancel ×

456 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obligatory XKCD (3, Insightful)

supersloshy (1273442) | about 3 years ago | (#37194742)

Re:Obligatory XKCD (-1, Troll)

UltimatumBooty (2445446) | about 3 years ago | (#37194780)

A few days ago, it finally happened to me. Being an experienced PC user, I was shocked that I had been infected with a computer virus. This wasn't just any virus, however. It held my computer hostage and wouldn't go away unless I paid the creators $80! I thought I could get rid of it myself since I was an experienced PC user.

I was horribly, horribly wrong. None of the usual solutions worked at all! I wasted hour after hour trying to remove the virus. My life span was quickly dwindling away due to this nightmarish virus. My gigabits were running slower than ever, and my computer was underclocking. This virus succeeded in doing one thing: making me a mere shell of what I once was. I became filled with feelings of anger, emptiness, and depression. There was a time when I became so angry at this wretched virus that I struck my own four-year-old daughter and my wife.

That's when I found MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] . I went to their website, ran a free scan, and MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] made the virus vanish off of my PC right this minuteness. I couldn't believe how effective MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] was!

My daughter's response? "MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] is outstanding! My dad's computer is running faster than ever! MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] totally cleaned up my dad's system and increased his speed!"

MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] came through with flying colors where no one else could! If you're having computer problems like I was, then I honestly and wholeheartedly recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] to solve your problem. MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] will clean up all of your gigabits and you'll be overclocking in no time!

But even if you're not having any visible problems, I still recommend that you use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] . If you do use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] , your computer will be overclocking and your gigabits will be running like new! So use MyCleanPC [mycleanpc.com] right this minuteness!

Watch their commercial! [youtube.com]

MyCleanPC: For a Cleaner, Safer PC. [mycleanpc.com]

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194802)

I hate you so much.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194844)

Being an experienced PC user, I was shocked that I had been infected with a computer virus. This wasn't just any virus, however. It held my computer hostage and wouldn't go away unless I paid the creators $80!

I don't think you meant to do this, but you just described the product you were advertising.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195022)

MyCleanPC trashed my Windows install and broke my PC. Definitely not recommended.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (3, Funny)

Moryath (553296) | about 3 years ago | (#37195200)

Not only that, it kicked my dog and stole my grandmother's false teeth!

Re:Obligatory XKCD (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 3 years ago | (#37195304)

It turned me into a newt!

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

ajo_arctus (1215290) | about 3 years ago | (#37194794)

Of course! I came straight to the comments to post the exact same thing. It is my favourite xkcd, I think :)

FWIW, I'll believe that Microsoft have actually changed something for the better once it's shipping and it is proven that they actually did it. Too often they've been quick to talk and slow to deliver.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (0)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 3 years ago | (#37194842)

I wonder...
- was Microsoft really not able to fix that (probably) easy bug?
- or did they think it's not important enough?

There was another (less) famous bug: notepad not able to deal with word-wrap correctly - not sure if they fixed this one in Vista+ (that was happening in the latest XPs).

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

pak9rabid (1011935) | about 3 years ago | (#37195242)

I'm going with B.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194874)

It's so obligatory that the Windows 8 blog itself beat you to the punch: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2011/08/23/improving-our-file-management-basics-copy-move-rename-and-delete.aspx (search for "funny jokes")

Re:Obligatory XKCD (2, Funny)

dingen (958134) | about 3 years ago | (#37195286)

Ah great! I like funny jokes a lot better than unfunny ones. Well done, blog administrator for including my favorite type of joke!

Re:Obligatory XKCD (2)

Sez Zero (586611) | about 3 years ago | (#37194930)

XKCD612 was actually referenced in TFA. So, yes, I knew it was coming.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (4, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | about 3 years ago | (#37194938)

This is Slashdot. Why would TFA have given anyone any idea about anything? That would have required reading it, and that never happens. Ever.

Re:Obligatory XKCD (1)

AvitarX (172628) | about 3 years ago | (#37195176)

It's a little unfair to criticize them strongly, I think the Vista conflict resolution was the best out there when it was released.

And times haven't been terrible since XP.

How about replacing an open file? (0)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37194754)

How about replacing an open file?
That is one thing every windows user would benefit from.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37194782)

You can replace/overwrite it. Only time you cannot do that is if the software developer has made his program to specifically lock that file, and usually there's a good reason for that.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194860)

There's never a good reason for that, it's simply a pain in the ass requiring users to close programs with open files before overwriting them.. on the few occasions that I still have to use windows IE at work, this is the most irritating part of the process. Even fucking acrobat reader thinks it needs to lock down an open document even when it doesn't have the ability to edit the fucking thing.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37194936)

There's never a good reason for that,

Because you say so? There are plenty of good reasons that a piece of software would want a write lock on a file so that someone else can't replace the file. Synchronization is a prime example. Secondly, exactly what does this have to do with Windows when the same behavior exists on virtually every other OS.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37194974)

Because you say so? There are plenty of good reasons that a piece of software would want a write lock on a file so that someone else can't replace the file.

There are plenty of retarded reasons but I can't think of any good ones; if it's something like a database, then you should only be allowing one process to access it, not allowing multiple programs to randomly write stuff in there.

All I've ever seen file locking achieve is annoying users and fscking up the system when it fails so you have to reboot to clear the stuck locks.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195088)

There are plenty of retarded reasons but I can't think of any good ones

And that means something why? Because you're the sole arbiter of what is good and what is not? Oh wait, your opinion means jack and shit.

All I've ever seen file locking achieve is annoying users and fscking up the system when it fails so you have to reboot to clear the stuck locks.

You do realize that any time you open a file for writing you are almost always given an exclusive write lock on it, correct? Behavior that pretty much all OSes have had for 30+ years?

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37195230)

Not with a proper text editor.
Never seen the .filename.swp that vim uses?

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37195268)

And that means something why? Because you're the sole arbiter of what is good and what is not? Oh wait, your opinion means jack and shit.

So, give us a good reason why a program should be locking a file so no other program can access it. And by good reason, it has to be something that isn't better solved by having one process arbitrating access to that file (e.g. dumb database vs some kind of SQL server).

You do realize that any time you open a file for writing you are almost always given an exclusive write lock on it, correct? Behavior that pretty much all OSes have had for 30+ years?

No wonder you think file locking is a good thing if you know so little about how file accesses work. I don't remember even Windows being that retarded, and the numerous Unix variants certainly weren't.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | about 3 years ago | (#37195154)

This behavior doesn't exist on OS X, nor did it in Mac OS (as far back as I can remember).

As a user, your logic makes no sense to me. There are plenty of good reasons (behind the scenes technical reasons?) why the OS should make it harder for me to accomplish work?

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195234)

This behavior doesn't exist on OS X, nor did it in Mac OS (as far back as I can remember).

Really? Because I wrote a trivial C program and ran it on OS X where I opened a file with an exclusive write lock and the file couldn't be replaced.

As a user, your logic makes no sense to me. There are plenty of good reasons (behind the scenes technical reasons?) why the OS should make it harder for me to accomplish work?

Why does it not make sense? Do you as a user not want consistent data? Do you never work in an environment where files are shared and you don't want others overwriting your changes? These are not uncommon situations in the least bit. And yet, to handle all these you *gasp* have to put exclusive write locks on files. Apps for both OS X and Linux do this as well. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with anything that Windows does.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

ge7 (2194648) | about 3 years ago | (#37194950)

So then it's a badly designed program. You can't really blame Microsoft for that. Locking the file keeps it from beginning destroyed by two or more concurrent writing operations and signals to the other program that it should wait while the operation is finished. Linux also has lock switch for files - do you also blame Linux distros for that, or do you blame the badly designed programs?

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195262)

But...but...it has to be a Windows problem despite the fact that what they complain about can also happen in Linux and Unix and Mac OS X. Hell even the complaints about not being able to rename or move open files in Windows is wrong. These people basically have no clue what they are talking about.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37195316)

Linux also has lock switch for files - do you also blame Linux distros for that, or do you blame the badly designed programs?

The difference is that almost every Windows program locks files even though there's no reason to do so, whereas almost no Unix programs lock files because there's no reason to do so. If you have two programs writing to the same file simultaneously, you're probably doing something wrong.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#37194906)

Even if there is a "good" reason to prevent me from replacing/overwriting a file, there's still no "good" reason to prevent me from moving/renaming it.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195112)

And exactly which OS(es) allows you to rename or move files that have write exclusive locks on them? Because, from what I can see this has, again, nothing to do with Windows.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195190)

So to test, I was able to do this in Windows. Created a txt file, opened it twice, once in Notepad another time in Notepad++, was able to rename it and move it. So what's your issue?

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37194838)

How about replacing an open file?

How about what? You've always been able to replace open files as long as their is no write lock on the file. In fact I just did so with a half dozen files. Apparently I have a magic version of Windows. Oh wait, I don't. And the behavior is no different than any other OS that will not allow you to replace a file that has a write lock on it.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37194908)

Then so sad that damn near every program uses them I guess. Too bad windows lacks lsof, is there a decent replacement for that?

Re:How about replacing an open file? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194970)

Unlocker works quite well, although IIRC the installer may appear to contain some adware/malware. The product itself seems to be solid.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195052)

Then so sad that damn near every program uses them I guess.

Why would it be sad? Do you care nothing about consistency of your data or do you never deal with synchronization? Since plenty of apps for Linux, Unix, Mac OS X, etc also have the exact same behavior I'm still failing to see why this is lumped in as some sort of Windows issue. It's trivially easy to write a C program to do this on any OS. Just open a file with exclusive write access and you won't be able to overwrite the file unless your OS is buggy or stupidly written.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37195270)

Because it means you are closing apps to replace files. A silly thing to do. I can rm rm, lets see windows do that.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

spazdor (902907) | about 3 years ago | (#37195194)

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb896653 [microsoft.com]

Process Explorer can list file handles.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | about 3 years ago | (#37195306)

Thank you.
Does this have a CLI?
I would hate to have to watch filenames blink in and out of the list in a gui.

And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194886)

* Drive letters - WTF???

* \ instead of the standard / - leave it to Microsoft when faced with picking a sane choice and and a mind boggling idiotic one...

* Can't boot to a standard desktop from any Windows OS media

* No application bundles

* The Registry - LOL. Why lose just the settings for a single application when you can lose everything! Thanks Microsoft!

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (2)

Radres (776901) | about 3 years ago | (#37195058)

What about not having cancelling a print job take forever and a day?

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195062)

Yeah, let's use a character everyone uses and might want to use in a file name as our path delimiter. And the alternative (backslash)? Let's use that to escape spaces and shit! YEAH UNIX RULES. Not.

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195092)

You can change mount points, but it's like a hidden feature. You can reference paths with / too if you know how also. The rest is about making money. The registry is designed to thwart piracy more than anything else.

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (1)

MurukeshM (1901690) | about 3 years ago | (#37195308)

You mean help piracy. The number of cracks that attack registry keys... 123,785,496.. no wait, 2.3568, no 1,555,524,285,233,131,651.

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (3, Informative)

djdanlib (732853) | about 3 years ago | (#37195102)

Oh, kids these days just don't troll like they used to. How about we get some facts in here, instead?

There is no standard directory separator:

/ is UNIX and derivative OSes since the beginning of subdirectories
: was the separator on MacOS from the 1980s until MacOS/X
\ is DOS and Windows, from the 1980s
VMS was this massive mess: http://www.itec.suny.edu/scsys/vms/ovmsdoc073/V73/6489/6489pro_010.html [suny.edu]
(Were there others?)

Also, if you lose your Registry... wow. Never seen that happen in 16 years of working in IT. I think the last time I heard of that was when someone's hard drive started going bad, and they were running Windows 95, and had never backed up anything in their lives. Why wouldn't anyone back up their hard drive regularly, anyway? Some people must like the pain of reinstalling everything and starting from scratch... Mac / UN*X users are not exempt from this requirement either.

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195222)

Not hard to lose the current user profile though if Windows chokes during logoff or shutdown. While you don't completely lose the registry, you are pretty much fucked.

(Had it happen to me this year - was a royal PITA.)

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195186)

NT4.0 allowed double drive letters (AA...ZZ:). Why was that feature removed ?

Re:And The Rest Of What Makes Windows Garbage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195302)

* The Registry - LOL. Why lose just the settings for a single application when you can lose everything! Thanks Microsoft!

Gnome is doing the same thing. See gconf-editor.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

stewbacca (1033764) | about 3 years ago | (#37195106)

How about being able to move or rename an open file while we are at it. These three shortcomings, the fact Windows wouldn't tell you there wasn't enough disk space until it was 30 minutes into the transfer, and the issue in this story are the reason I'm a Mac user.

Re:How about replacing an open file? (1)

Desler (1608317) | about 3 years ago | (#37195174)

Really? It's a short coming of Windows yet I created a txt file, opened it in Notepad and Notepad++ and I was able to both rename and move it. I guess I once again have a magical version of Windows.

It will be... (2)

kiehlster (844523) | about 3 years ago | (#37194766)

1302481501461469 minutes until this feature is completed.

Re:It will be... (1)

stms (1132653) | about 3 years ago | (#37195156)

No it will be about 10 seconds.

Will the file copy/move crash.... (1)

GuyFawkes (729054) | about 3 years ago | (#37194770)

... when it hits a locked / corrupted / moved file, as every version of windows has since year dot??/

That alone would be a vast improvement and make all the file sync tools surplus...

Re:Will the file copy/move crash.... (1)

nstlgc (945418) | about 3 years ago | (#37194840)

Didn't they fix that in Vista? Last time I can remember having a similar problem was in XP...

Re:Will the file copy/move crash.... (2, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | about 3 years ago | (#37194902)

You can copy files in Vista? I've never had the system stable long enough to try that.

Re:Will the file copy/move crash.... (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37195000)

You can copy files in Vista? I've never had the system stable long enough to try that.

You can, but it takes so long that no-one has ever managed to copy a complete file.

Re:Will the file copy/move crash.... (2)

broggyr (924379) | about 3 years ago | (#37195214)

Chuck Norris copied a file in Vista. Once.

Re:Will the file copy/move crash.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194944)

You mean when you're copying a bunch of pictures off of a customers computer for you to look at while you're "repairing" it and one of the pictures is in a bad sector and as a result Windows tells you theres an error and simply quits the transfer?

Happened to me many times before, and if Windows 8 has it where it can "skip" the corrupted file and move on to the next one, then that's awesome....

Re:Will the file copy/move crash.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195252)

Yeah, this is one of those things that make me think, "in the 11 years since Windows 2000, why hasn't Microsoft improved this?" It'd be great if copy processes didn't die when an error occurs. It'd be great if there were something like a queue, so you could see which file copies have failed, and have the option to resume/retry. It'd be great if, when it gives you the option to replace an existing file in the new location, one of the options were to check the checksums to see if they're the same file.

All this stuff would take a little work to make it simple and palatable to everyday users (maybe just hiding these options by default), but I wish Microsoft would focus on these kinds of improvements rather than making fancier window animations. Follow around some users and sysadmins for a year and catalog all of their annoyances, and then fix them.

So.. (2)

cyberchondriac (456626) | about 3 years ago | (#37194776)

It'll be replaced by a dialog box saying, "It's done when it's done"?

Re:So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194896)

And that took a fairly long amount of time. What does that say about the devs...

Re:So.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195026)

Actually the time estimate is not gone. Check the screenshots with the TFA: http://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/windows-8-copy-speeds.jpg [extremetech.com] . I clearly see time estimates there. They are just relegated to the advanced view and not in the default view.

This may take from a few minutes to a few hours.. (1)

tunapez (1161697) | about 3 years ago | (#37195074)

Hey, it worked for disk defragmenter in Vista. I'm sure Pririform [piriform.com] agrees.

Teracopy (4, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 3 years ago | (#37194778)

Perhaps they should just buy teracopy

Re:Teracopy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194836)

Came here to say this. +1

Re:Teracopy (1)

devlynh (857521) | about 3 years ago | (#37194854)

Who says they didn't?

So Futuristic (2)

droidsURlooking4 (1543007) | about 3 years ago | (#37194800)

Finally catching up to ftp and kermit

Terrible summary & headline (4, Insightful)

Godai (104143) | about 3 years ago | (#37194822)

First, I've never seen the progress bar in a Windows file transfer progress bar slide 'back and forth in a seemingly random, haphazard way'. I've seen progress bars that do that, and but I've never seen a Windows file transfer dialog do that. The estimation can jump around like crazy at times, but the progress bar was always fine (since, I assume, it's simply based on # of files completed). Maybe Windows 98 did that? I don't remember it doing that, but its been a while. Certain XP, Vista & Windows 7 don't.

Second, if you RTFA the estimated transfer time is currently still there; its just downplayed.

Re:Terrible summary & headline (1)

godrik (1287354) | about 3 years ago | (#37194878)

"Second, if you RTFA the estimated transfer time is currently still there; its just downplayed."

You read RTFA? Hand over you slashdot reader card!

Re:Terrible summary & headline (3, Funny)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | about 3 years ago | (#37194982)

You read RTFA?

You read RRTFA?
Error Stack Overf%$3z/.$%#@

Re:Terrible summary & headline (2)

The MAZZTer (911996) | about 3 years ago | (#37194884)

The problem is that the progress dialog pre-Vista does not know how many files there are as it starts, so the progress bar may go quickly for a bit then slowly for another bit as it encounters folders with few small files and folders with many large files, respectively.

Re:Terrible summary & headline (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37195014)

The bigger problem is that the first thing the GUI does when you want to copy the files is to go and see how many files there are and how large they are so it can estimate the amount of time it's going to take, and by the time it's done that it could just have copied the damn files in the first place unless they're enormous.

Re:Terrible summary & headline (2)

greed (112493) | about 3 years ago | (#37195040)

If the count isn't known, it shouldn't use a progress bar. What's the Windows version of the "barber pole" unknown-limits-but-not-crashed progress indicator?

Re:Terrible summary & headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37194960)

Consider yourself lucky. I've seen it go from 30 seconds, to 15 minutes, back to 30 seconds again, and then to some other seemingly-random and thoroughly unhelpful estimate in between, especially with network file copies on a busy network, but it also happens between local drives sometimes depending on what the machine is doing. It's whacked. Granted it's not a simple problem when other tasks may be interfering, but it's still really, really awful.

But worse than the crazy estimated file transfer time is the unnecessary file locking in order to keep legacy programs from breaking. Oh look, I can't rename that file in Explorer until I close the file in Word (repeat for any other program and file). Seems reasonable ... until you realize that every other decent OS and filesystem in the last decade hasn't had that limitation. Not Linux, not OS X, not UNIX systems going back decades. Hell, I can't even rename a PDF file that I happen to simultaneously have open in Adobe Reader, and it's read-only!

Re:Terrible summary & headline (1)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#37195064)

Oh look, I can't rename that file in Explorer until I close the file in Word (repeat for any other program and file).

My favorite was the way that I couldn't delete a file in Explorer because Explorer was trying to generate a thumbnail for the file. And usually that would cause some thread in Explorer to vanish up its own backside so the file remained locked until I killed Explorer or rebooted.

Ah, I so miss the excitement of running Windows and never knowing what is going to spectacularly fail next.

Windows really does that? (4, Funny)

Anon-Admin (443764) | about 3 years ago | (#37194904)

Wow, I guess I am out of touch with windows flaws. I quit running windows back at windows 3.1.

Ill stick with Linux until windows is ready for the desktop. ;P

I have a song for this... (1)

timestride (1660061) | about 3 years ago | (#37194916)

"In a Microsoft minute-- oooeeeeooooo, everything can change!"

where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (0, Troll)

BroadbandBradley (237267) | about 3 years ago | (#37194976)

It's so hard for me to believe that so many people still use Windows. As a Ubuntu Desktop user and administrator of a small business network, I've been patiently waiting since 1999 for enough people to just ditch windows all together so that we could all move on to better times. Everyone I know who has tried Linux in the past few years hasn't gone back to Windows, and were all amazed that the computer 'Just Worked'. People are so used to struggling with Windows issues that they don't expect using a computer to be easy and it really doesn't have to be that way.

So perhaps this is a bit off topic, but every time an article comes out touting some new enhancement of the Microsoft Windows Operating system, I just feel compelled to say "Who fucking cares?" and "Why does anyone even bother with this Operating System designed with the main purpose being to lock up your computer spending dollar into Microsoft?" Don't we all know better already?

Please people, get over MS Windows already, let it die.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (1)

Elbart (1233584) | about 3 years ago | (#37195044)

No.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (1)

microbee (682094) | about 3 years ago | (#37195048)

Why do you want to kill off Windows anyways? Let people use whatever they want. Isn't this what freedom is about? Choice is always good.

So put aside the arrogance that you are the one that knows the best, please?

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195140)

I've used Windows, Linux, BeOS, Mac OS X, etc. Mostly Windows and Mac. I have no major issues with Windows 7. Sure, Ubuntu and Mac OS X are superior in many ways, but I love Steam.

My reason is simply an opinion that reflects my use on PCs. We all have our own opinions.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195150)

On August 23, 2011, I ditched Windows at home and switched to... a Mac. As a long time Ubuntu user at work, I find that Ubuntu has too many glitchy and unpolished areas for me to feel comfortable switching my home environment to that.

But for dev work, it's fine.

The Mac gives me access to useful programs like Photoshop, and a decent GUI, as well as the power of BSD.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (1)

Drogo007 (923906) | about 3 years ago | (#37195168)

I have four words: "Games and Legacy Apps"

That explains pretty much every windows install I'm personally aware of (including my own)

Either people want to play their games or they have to use/support legacy apps for a business that it doesn't want to take the time, expense and risk of replacing.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195274)

We're being held down by "but it's always been this way." I have 15 applications required for my research and not a single one is produced by the vendors for anything but Windows. We're scientists, not software developers, so we're not going to stop to rewrite everything from the ground up, and the installed base globally for these specialized apps isn't big enough to make it profitable (or even recoup the expenses) of rebuilding it. That said, two of our packages have been replaced recently by new offerings, but they're Java, which has essentially solved platform portability issues at my company, which has a mix of Apple, Windows, and some Linux.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (1)

andersa (687550) | about 3 years ago | (#37195198)

You can't play games and record the video on linux.

Well yeah, you can, maybe. Compared to fraps it is a pita.

I play games on my windows box and occationally I want to record something for youtube. It's just not viable to do that in linux, even if you could run the game in Wine. I switch to linux for editing. Kdenlive is very nice for that.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195250)

Because linux on the desktop and especially ubuntu is a steaming pile of shit that normal people (not basement dwelling dweebs) DO NOT WANT. My own fucking 3 year old couldn't stand ubuntu and I had to put a pirated (yyyyyaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrr!) copy of windows 7 ultimate on her computer. Was nice for the wireless card to just fucking work too. With ubuntu, I had to put ddwrt on a linksys and put it in wireless bridge mode. Surprised linux could even handle her nic.

And yea, I know ddwrt is linux. Quite nicely done too. It's junk for a nice usable desktop experience.

I don't have hours to spend compiling kernels, reading shitty how to guides, and interfacing with people like you on forums.

Does linux have anything that compares in functionality to Visual Studio 2010 Ultimate? I don't think so. Until it does, it's fucking useless for me. Does it have any debuggers that can do what Intellitrace does? Do you know what that is? Doubt you do, because you like to use stone age computer shit.

As far as "spending dollar into Microsoft" : I already addressed that earlier (yyyyyyyaaaaaaaaaRRRRRRRR!!!!!)

Visual Studio Ultimate is a free download as well, provided by MS. When it stops working, a google search will yield many keys to make it start working again. No DRM at all. Just fucking works. You can download and install all the updates. Give it a try asshole.

Answer your question?

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 3 years ago | (#37195264)

Simple there is too much software that runs only on windows that people need and or want. For the enterprise VB was a brillant lock in. It because fast and easy to write applications that ran on Windows and no where else.
People talk about Office but the real lock in was VB and now it looks like C# is trying to take it's place. You can make an effort to make it portable or just go the easy way and make it only run on Windows.

Re:where is our critical mass of Linux Users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195300)

Sorry to tell you, but Ubuntu is NOT ready yet (and maybe will never be for many many people). I used Debian and Ubuntu only for about 7 years and about 8 months ago I decided to give Mac a chance... that was the best thing I ever did for myself! Not just because the OS is better, but mostly because of the applications... give me Garage Band, Logic Express and iMovie and maybe I will come back to Linux as my main desktop OS (and I really don't care if I have to pay for it).

Same apply to many Windows user. There is NO replacement for many popular applications.

queue (2)

eddy (18759) | about 3 years ago | (#37194988)

I wish the transfer window created had a pause function, and was actually a queue so that I could queue up more files for the same action (copy/move).

Re:queue (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195038)

Did you not RTFA? Of course you didn't. It's there. Multiple copy operations to the same destination result in a queue-like behavior.

W7 is pretty good about it (1)

Haven (34895) | about 3 years ago | (#37194994)

The real problem with incorrect reporting times is when you have a very large number of 10-100kB files to transfer. Windows spends a very long time starting up the transfer of a new file, and that is where I have seen the greatest slowdown and most inaccurate time estimates.

Windows 7 performs better with smaller files, and provides a transfer rate indicator, but everyone already knows this.

What a weird thing to take out...

Re:W7 is pretty good about it (4, Interesting)

billcopc (196330) | about 3 years ago | (#37195204)

I think you meant to say "... performs better with larger files".

You nailed it though. My big gripe with Windows it how it seems to spend more time fiddling with metadata / directory entries than the actual contents. On an SSD with 700mb/sec writes and 0.1 msec access times, I'd expect it to churn through a few thousand files per second at the very least. That's not even factoring the disk cache. All those MFT updates seem to drag it right back down to spinning-disk speeds when dealing with numerous small files. You know, like a source tree or a directory full of images.

As sequential storage performance continues to improve, filesystem overhead is becoming the primary bottleneck.

so just like.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195002)

.....a normal OS then

They brought in an Irish development team (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195032)

New time warnings

"It's gonna take 20 fuckin' minutes so grab a pint"

"The file will take 45 minutes to fuckin' transfer. Buy a faster computer ya cheap bastard"

"It's almost finished deleting, about bloody time"

The hourglass has also been updated to a pint glass being tipped and drained.

Estimating time to delete (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 3 years ago | (#37195034)

Deleting folders with large numbers of files and sub-folders in Windows 7 takes inordinately long, far longer than rd /s. This is partly because it first scans the entire structure to count the files that will be deleted, so it can then try to estimate how long it will take for the delete to complete. The scan takes nearly as long as the delete itself! I hope they fix this in Windows 8.

also changing (1)

nimbius (983462) | about 3 years ago | (#37195110)

in this version: the blue screen of death will now be a somber black screen
federal agents need no longer work to violate your fourth amendment, the history vault and facial recognition make sure of that
the windows app store is poised to offer features and products you never thought you needed. no really, please buy them
cloud based roaming profiles put the shine on a classically bad idea
and finally simple system reset means never having to bother with hard copies of the operating system you technically purchased with the PC anyway.

How about "No to all?" (1)

gatkinso (15975) | about 3 years ago | (#37195114)

Or at least *telling* the user that holding down shift key while clicking No accomplishes the same thing as a "No to All" button!

Having actually read the article ... (1)

MacTO (1161105) | about 3 years ago | (#37195144)

... it looks like the new dialogs are going to include some useful diagnostic information in detailed view. Wondering why it went from 15 minutes to 2 hours? Oh, that's because the transfer rates dropped 90% around the time that I launched such-and-such a program. Maybe I shouldn't do that next time.

Granted, my biggest criticism is that the copy process grinds to a halt every time Windows Explorer doesn't know what to do. They should either figure out the problem before the copy happens (which they can do in most of the cases where you want to merge folders or have identical file names) so that you don't have a half-botched job; or keep copying the files that can be copied in the background while you're waiting for input from the user on the troublesome cases. If Windows 8 fixes that problem, I'll be gleefully happy because I don't like babysitting copy operations.

Experience? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 3 years ago | (#37195220)

Why does everything have to be an "experience" now? I'm not really looking for an experience from my workstation; what I have are a list of tasks that need to be completed. When I go on vacation is when I look for an experience. Why don't they concentrate on helping me get actual work done?

Use Directory Opus (1)

jomcty (806483) | about 3 years ago | (#37195240)

Not an issue for me, I use Directory Opus [gpsoft.com.au] .

Another vista? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37195310)

How are we supposed to know that this wont just turn into another vista experience, honestly we got lucky with windows 7, why are we pushing our luck any further?

Stick with 7 people.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>