There was talk of things like this for Vista, such as when you installed a graphics card driver, you wouldn't need to reboot your whole PC, just the graphics card would restart and then you'd be away. Shame it didn't get implemented. But I use sleep/hibernate a lot, which is more or less instant resume. Only ever do a proper restart/leave it shutdown over night once a week.
Don't those days seem far-off now, when the Registry seemed like a brave new approach, doing away with all those silly, amateurish, unprofessional and simple-minded .ini files, each just 'dumped' in the program directory? And then the scales fell from our eyes and we realised that, wait a cotton-pickin' minute there Muskie, there was absolutely nothing wrong, or silly, or amateurish, about having simply-managed, text-based configuration files that belonged with, and so stayed with, their executables and libraries, rather than a bloated 'database' (as in, meaningless buzz-word) that spaghettified everything and made backing up and restoring, or re-installing the OS, a nightmare rather than a minor irritation.
Just a thought!
What does bloat matter with; a 64-bit OS, 8GB RAM, quad cores running at 3GHz or better and last but not least, 750GB HDDs running at 10k RPMs, 3Gb/s transfer rates with a 32MB cache.
I'm NOT a MS fanboy at all but why can't people give MS credit for what they've accomplished?
Honestly; what would your machine be like if it weren't for MS?
Just my two cents!
LaterTed
Hey bare foot kid, thanx man, i am soo soo excited about the new windows 7>> and + the new media player YYEEAAAA!!!!
im already jumping with joy!!!
Bloat doesn't do much to the performance of your machine, but a lot of bloat is caused by sloppy programming. Remember when Lotus Spreadsheet ran on 64kb. That was really tight programming, the program wasn't as powerfull as todays stuff, but it didn't crash. Todays programming ethos maintains why do something with one line of code when you can do it with a thousand. This is what makes the big programmes buggy.
Hello again code2, you're welcome ...
@Norm, you're right about the excess and I agree there needs to be less bloat.
Unfortunately today's technology is outstripping the ability to be kept up with except by vast armies of code writers, hence the problem; too many voices all competing to put in their "two cents". That brings about the mentality: "If one is good then ten is better" it's a vicious circle!
Just "my two cents" ...
Later
The trouble is a lot of code just gets lifted out (of NT4, say) and dropped in (to XP) - it's like a subroutine, but on a vast scale- in fact it's a huge mess of repurposed code that really should be either dumped or radically rewritten; but no-one wants that job, so you get to 'if it ain't (too) broke why (pay someone to) fix it?'
This below; from here first posted by NormCameron
The operating system stores multiple copies of core system libraries, as each revision of a library typically adds/removes functions, and applications compiled with dynamic links to a specific version of a DLL file may call on functions not present in the currently installed library. Vista aims to solve this issue through the WinSxS collection; essentially a massive store of every differing version of libraries present on the system. That way, when an application makes a call for a dynamically linked library, Vista queries the WinSxS cache for the correct version, which is then loaded into memory. On the average system, this directory can be several gigabytes in size, with much of the code duplicated between the separate versions many times.
Later
From http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_hereitcomes.aspMicrosoft has also highlight the multi-touch capabilities of Windows 7, but I think a bigger deal will be the voice-enabled Activities functionality. Remember when Scottie tried to turn on that Mac in "Star Trek IV" by speaking into the mouse? He must have been a Windows 7 user.
Quote
