i would like a machine that is switched on, but unused to be able to power itself off if you alter a setting, that way you would help save the planet, and extend the life of your machines.
also i would like microsoft to actually ask 'ordinary' users what they want, not just techies, and seriously think about people, especially children with disabilities, for example IE7 is just a nightmare for special needs, or visually impared children.
ha ha , i've got a hope !!
What's wrong with the power settings in XP or Vista (configure to allow hibernation or sleep if not used for an amount of time)?
What sort of things would need to change in the browser to make it more accessible? Isn't the biggest problem not the browser itself but the content it presents (can't really see that Microsoft or any other browser maker can change the way people provide content)
Sorry to be picky, but how would you download Firefox if Windows didn't have a browser in it?!Originally Posted by markwilliamson2001
Assuming the command line ftp client stays then you could use that to get whatever you need :-)
Vista's power settings can do that; sleep after x minutes of inactivity.
That is, in part at least, down to the web site. IE7 is friendly enough to keyboard-browsing so long as the site has been written well, e.g. links with friendly names for screen readers.
I do not want a computer to sleep/snooze/hibernate/take a little nap....... etc etc I want it to power off without anyone ever having to be logged on, eg someone turns on computer, and has to go do something else but forgets so the pc is unused.
I think there is a growing 'fear' of actually rebooting, or waiting for a machine to power on, which i will never undertand as it only takes seconds ??
plus there are benefits of a reboot, over a 'wake up' , such as problems due to software and connectivity. I always remove the standby, hibernate, sleep etc from pc's as it is more trouble than it is worth.
As for I.E7 the main problem i have found as far as special needs is concerned, for vision the icons are too small, and all the buttons have been moved/scattered to places where they have never been, for years they were in a set layout
. In previous versions of I.E, the default setup was a good visable easy to navigate explorer, but M$ seem to have forgotten this, but this is hardly surprising with their recent offerings at an operating sydumb - Visturd
- Sort out profiles (seriously why do we need 1000s of tiny files to be copied back and forth from the network all the time)
- Faster boot time (why does it take vista 1min 30secs to become usable?)
- Get rid of User account Control (stupid idea, even stupider implementation)
- Reduce the number of files in the windows directory, consolidate programs)
- Make things easier to find, having 1 million options in an operating system is stupid.
- Simplify the registry (add colours?)
Profiles was pretty much sorted out with XP - it's just that most people don't seem to read the MS docs on how to do it! If you have thousnds of files being copied at logon/off then I suspect you're not redirecting (eg) application data. If you do redirect the folders rather than include them in the roaming bit then there are not many files/folders which roam.
What would you put in place of UAC to tighten up security? Mac OSX, Linux and Unix all have something similar and there is certainly a need to have something which stops users from accidentally installing viruses etc.
Why does it matter how many files are in the Windows directory? One of the big criticisms which has been made of Windows in the past that it is too monolithic - having lots of small files means that you separate out the functionality (one dll/exe file per discrete function).
Have you used Vista's search? just start typing the name of the thing you want in the search box and it will find it (doesn't help if you don't know what it's called and not everything can be found - eg "system restore" can be found but "system protection" can't)
If Microsoft did make Windows "simpler" you can pretty much guarantee that the bits they leave out because I don't want them would be just the bits you need and so on. Vista's "add features" section does give pretty fine granularity about what is/isn't installed and I'm sure that could be improved.
The registry is daunting. I don't know if it would be possible to just hide sections that you're not interested in (or don't have rights to edit - a bit like access based enumeration on the file system). The favourites part could probably be improved - if you could hide everything but favourites then it might help. Ultimately, the registry is a huge database and needs to be a huge database. Even if you replace it you've still got all that data to store - at least with the registry it's all in one place. I think I prefer this to many files under /etc in Unix but that's just a personal preference :-)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote