i hope the final release is not like the beta of windows 7

[Razor512]

$500 internets to who ever can guess the last 2 programs I am running

I have it on the default UI settings, this can be fixed by changing some of the vista crap settings but I want to show everyone how microsoft intended windows to be

and yes I know you can hover the mouse over the icon to eventually get a name, but thats a waste of time and a unneeded delay

it is like removing the labels from every bottle of seasoning in your kitchen, instead of noticing which kind it is at a glance, you will have to open each bottle and taste it to find out which kind of seasoning it is

yep isn't it great. windows 7 taskbar shows you programs based on their icon and if the program doesn't have a icon, it shows up with a generic graphic. so if you test out a lot of programs that have no icon pics, just a name, you will have 1 hell of a time trying to find the program you minimized

desktop at 96 dpi http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/3284/96dpiro2.jpg

desktop at 120 dpi http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/2240/120dpikc2.jpg

desktop at 144 dpi http://img264.imageshack.us/img264/5228/144dpiuj4.jpg

notice the taskbar, icons, and (not visible in the screenshot) the mouse cursor gets larger

they seem to want to maintain the empty wasted space no matter which DPI is used

even with the glass crap disabled, the OS is sluggish compared to windows xp, it is even slower than my windows vista install (provided, my vista install has much of the resource hogging crap disabled)

microsoft like using 2 rows of crap to do the work of 1 row. everything on the taskbar can be placed on 1 row but they decided to make it a minimum of 2 rows (which you cant change unless you use a different theme)

and for some reason I cant find the windows classic theme, it is either well hidden or was removed so users are forced into the windows 7 wasteful theme

other then these problems, I cant tell the difference between vista and windows 7 (other than some options being even harder to find, what ever happened to related settings all being in 1 place like in xp, it is annoying going through 6 different setting windows to access the same options that were located in 1 windows in windows xp )

post anything that you would like me to test and I will try to do it

unlike what microsoft believes, screen space really is important. screen space is the reason why we no longer use 10 inch crt's

larger screens provide higher resolutions which increases your work space

but microsoft sees it as

"her these are people who used to use old 10 inch screens, now they have 20+ inch screens and higher resolution, that means we can fill their screens with 10+ inches worth of unnecessary UI elements and they wont mind"

and they are slowly working towards this

[Guest PacGamer]

By right clicking the taskbar and going to the drop down menu, you can tell it to show the labels and not to combine them: http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/PacGamer/Win7_2.jpg

Also, by checking "Use small Icons", it changes the taskbar icons to about the same size as it is in vista: http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c181/PacGamer/Win7_3.jpg

Windows 7 was extremely fast. Even when assigned 512 mb of Ram in VMware. When I boot into it completely, it runs like butter.

I like how you can rearrange already open windows in the teaskbar. The only thing I really don't like is how when you type something in search, the start menu expands and changes size.

[Razor512]

yep thats why i said that I am using the default settings. the problem is that by default

I hate how companies make the default settings for their software in a way that makes it as annoying to use as possible

it is just extra work to fix problems that should never have been there in the first place

[h3%5kr3w]

well, im not trying to hate but thats why they have the 'Send Feedback' link on almost everything in 7. Hell I'm using it right now, and there is mucho that I love about it but alot that I am going to send my 2 cents in for.

My big problem? WTF is with the 1000000000000 things in control panel?!

My rant is this is bullshit!

Half of this stuff should not even be enabled/viewable in control panel unless it is actually present on the system (ie. stuff like biometric devices)

take out all the clutter in control panel and i would be happy. oh yeah, and by default control panel should display classic style, not all the options in subcategories that make it such a bitch when your trying to tell someone on the phone where to go when your troubleshooting.

[jadedoto]

I like it as far as Windows OS's go. As for "Send Feedback" links everywhere, I'd bet money that's just cause it's a beta, and feedback and testing is sorta the purpose of beta's...

[Razor512]

i don't even think they read the feedback

but it is really annoying about the UI is where everything has it's own window.

to access the same settings present in 1 window in windows xp, you have to go through like 6 different windows in windows vista and especially windows 7

it is so annoying. almost every setting and option has been sent to it's own category and window and it is just frustrating

microsoft needs to stop separating things so much it just adds extra steps to get things done and the categories are not very descriptive , so basically you wind up with a UI that has all of the setting windows spread out all over and names that are not very descriptive as to which option it is, at least in xp all of them that were related were all in the same window or in the same window with tabs

[VaKo]

Please shut the fuck up about XP, its nearly 8 years old now and doesn't even work properly on modern computers.

As for the control panel, there are lots of icons yes, but Microsoft knows this which is why your supposed to use the search function, and not just endlessly scroll threw icons.

As for the screen icons, Windows 7 is designed to be used with a touch screen.

[MRGRIM]

Sigh. I really dislike people who rush out and install BETA MS software then complain when shit doesn't work right. Are you all linux fan boys by chance?

I guess I'll have to skip over forum threads for months now while people rag on MS.

[Seshan]

OMG I hate that I have to burn it to freaking DVD, that's just stupid!

Just wanted to fit in you know?

I want to play around with 7 but I have nothing to install it on :( my MBP's hard drive is full :(

[VaKo]

This works with Vista, Server 2008 and Windows 7:

• Take a 4GB USB stick
• Format with Fat32
• Extract the iso to the usb stick
• Boot from it
• Follow prompts

Optical media is dead, don't waste your time with it.

[Rab]

lol VaKo

I have a modern pc, I use XP, it's fine.

I use optical media all the time.

... so there!

[VaKo]

Lack of x64 support for XP is a killer for me, I know there is XP x64 but it was never really more than a dev platform.

[digip]

I tried Vista for a while when I got my new pc, but it just isn't me. To each their own, but I prefer XP to Vista for my daily tasks.

Lack of x64 support for XP is a killer for me, I know there is XP x64 but it was never really more than a dev platform.

I mainly only use XP64bit to edit video and get full use of my 4gig of ram. 32bit XP just chokes on some of the stuff I have to edit, and when converting 1080 hd video from quicktime(HD) to uncompressed avi, you end up with like a 30 gig file for some of the videos(and thats for like only a 10 minute video clip). I have vista 32bit both Home and Business, but I would like to have Vista 64bit ultimate instead. I think I am going to just wait till 7 comes out though before switching permanently. By that time I will probably look for a new desktop with 8 or more gig of ram and more expansion than my current desktop which is really not upgradable beyond the PSU and GPU. I'm already maxed on RAM and with two 500gig HDD's I have no other room to mount anything, even though I have like 4 more SATA ports on the mobo. The case just doesn't have the space even though the motherboard can handle more HDD's.

[Razor512]

I know xp is old but there were some things that xp did right and that vista ruined, the layout was one of them

for much of the UI, things that can be found in 1 window in xp are now spread out over like 4-6 windows so it is more work to get to them and it is annoying when you just want to make quick changes.

this has nothing to do with the age of the OS

when a movie comes out and it is extremely good, then the company comes out with a new movie that sucks, do you tell people to STFU about the new one sucking compared to the old one. nope. there basing their conclusion relative to the previous movie. it doesn't mean there going to head out and buy the old movie. it meant that they didn't make it as good.

newer doesn't always mean better

both vista and windows 7 did some things right and some things wrong, the problem is the areas where they messed up are areas frequently used and the areas where they did something right are areas where the user will almost never go after the initial setup

[VaKo]

I know xp is old but there were some things that xp did right and that vista ruined, the layout was one of them

for much of the UI, things that can be found in 1 window in xp are now spread out over like 4-6 windows so it is more work to get to them and it is annoying when you just want to make quick changes.

Citation needed i'm afraid. The network & sharing center is actually quite useful, and if your using Areo then the personalize appearance and sounds window is a lot neater than the alternative.

this has nothing to do with the age of the OS

For me it does, XP is old and now that I've used Vista for nearly a year its like going from XP to 2000, it just feels out of date.

when a movie comes out and it is extremely good, then the company comes out with a new movie that sucks, do you tell people to STFU about the new one sucking compared to the old one. nope. there basing their conclusion relative to the previous movie. it doesn't mean there going to head out and buy the old movie. it meant that they didn't make it as good.

But what if a lot of people who didn't see the movie heard on the grapevine that it wasn't any good, and went around telling friends not to bother because its not that good?

newer doesn't always mean better

I agree here, however newer does mean that is more current.

both vista and windows 7 did some things right and some things wrong, the problem is the areas where they messed up are areas frequently used and the areas where they did something right are areas where the user will almost never go after the initial setup

Again, citation is needed here.

[Razor512]

the settings in this 1 tabbed view in xp (also note that when you click on a tab in this window, it responds instantly, alsi think about why we moved to tabbed browsers instead of the single window crap of IE6 )

all of the needed settings are just 1 click away but in windows 7, you have to do multiple clicks and go through multiple windows just to find them, that takes time and is annoying

windows 7 (i can get access to these same settings in xp with just 1 window and a few tabs that are easy to click on and load instantly, but in windows 7, they take a longer time to load due to the extra bloat ) problems like this can be seen all over the OS

notice for the window 7 that the non tab style windows requires heavy use of the back button because those other windows are hidden deep in the UI

it is more steps to do the same work

(it was annoying looking for all of these settings)

the problem with vista and windows 7 is over-categorization

categories are useful for keeping things organized but when you separate things too much, it just becomes harder to use

if a site like softpedia were to categorize their downloads based on md5 hash, how long would it take you to find all of the media related apps?

when you categorize is too much of a specific manner.

the xp tabbed window has the same info as the vista. the layout just isn't the same. and it is just not only the these settings, almost every option menu has been messed up like this. requiring more work to access the same info

[VaKo]

Try it with Aero, makes a lot more sense that way. Also, I have a fairly modest machine (P9500 - 4GB of RAM) and it is just as responsive as the old tabs. The problem microsoft faces is they now have too much to put on the same menus. And at the end of the day, while this pisses you off, I don't delve into those settings often (i'll change my wallpaper once every 6 months or so) and the layout they have makes sense to me.

[Kung Fu Jesus]

Ouch, I'm squirming right now. I was afraid much of the UI of 7 would be like Vista, but actually seems like it might be worse. And Vako, I use XP x64 all the time, it's a development, server, and workstation platform. You can use it for anything. I can't name a single app that I've tried that didn't work with it that wasn't a 16-bit windows application (obviously support for 16 bit binaries was ripped out, but if you're using those then there probably is a newly ported version out there that makes better use of the win32 api).

Stuff I have installed on XP x64 that works like a dream:

Half-Life

Half-Life 2

Half-Life 2: Episode 1

Half-Life 2: Episode 2

Half-Life: Blue Shift

Half-Life: Opposing Force

Doom3

Quake IV

Prey

Alice

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.

F.E.A.R.

Counter-Strike

Counter-Strike: Source

Day of Defeat

Day of Defeat: Source

TFC

Team Fortress 2

Battlefield 1942

Battlefield (some of the newer ones, I can't remember, I removed them a while back)

Call of Duty

Call of Duty 2

VMWare

Visual Studio 2k8

Adobe CS3 Suite (all of it, haven't bothered to grab CS4 yet)

AnyDVD

Avid

Maya

Blender

Legacy Doom

Nod32

Office 2k3 suite (although 2k7 works, I very much hate the new ribbon interface)

So what's your gripe with XP x64? Have you even tried it as of lately? What modern computer does XP not run properly on? I can't think of a single device that doesn't have an XP driver counterpart available. Sometimes the OEM likes to exclude XP drivers from their website because they claim to have dropped support for it (a microsoft push to get Vista/7 on desktops), however the drivers do exist, I assure you.

[VaKo]

The sound system in XP isn't as good as Vista's and XP Pro SP3 doesn't support more than 3.5GBish of memory. Also the sleep function finally works properly in Vista (I have P35 mobo and this never worked properly with XP). I've not tried x64 XP recently no, but then again I quite like Vista and Server 2008. I've never seen a reason to go back to it since I moved to Vista. I don't have a gripe with it, I just think that Vista is better. One of the main things about XP x64 is that it isn't actually XP, its based on Server 2003 x64.

[Kung Fu Jesus]

The sound system in XP isn't as good as Vista's and XP Pro SP3 doesn't support more than 3.5GBish of memory. Also the sleep function finally works properly in Vista (I have P35 mobo and this never worked properly with XP). I've not tried x64 XP recently no, but then again I quite like Vista and Server 2008. I've never seen a reason to go back to it since I moved to Vista. I don't have a gripe with it, I just think that Vista is better. One of the main things about XP x64 is that it isn't actually XP, its based on Server 2003 x64.

And what's wrong with server 2k3? It had a cleaner codebase and ran very stably. There's no rhyme or reason for me to use Vista, as XP x64 uitilizes all the memory I need. On top of that, vista 32 bit edition has the same gripes as XP 32 bit edition when it comes to memory. You are burdened to use Physical Address Extension, something that doesn't fix the problem for extremely memory intensive applications. What's so special about Vista's sound, my friend's EMU 1810m is glorious in XP x64. The ACPI sleep state issue I can't entirely vouch for, as I only worry about that with laptops.

[VaKo]

Nothing is wrong with Server 2k3, I just happen to think server 2k8 is better. As for memory management, I don't have a problem with Vista's memory management, the caching speeds things up and memory is dirt cheap these days. Memory is supposed to be used, either by the application or the OS and from my experience Vista manages to handle the transition nicely. Don't really care about Vista x86, I don't even think they should have bothered to make it tbh, not much kit isn't x64 these days and it would have prevented people installing it on underpowered machines. As for audio, the biggest improvement is the ability to control sound mixing on the application level. I also like the new search functions, which quite frankly are crap under XP.

If you don't like the new versions of Windows, don't use them. Eventually your going to be missing out on a lot though. However I think Vista is better than XP, and from the looks of it W7 is going to be better than Vista.

[Kung Fu Jesus]

It just bothers me that Vista has a larger memory footprint than OS X.

[VaKo]

This is something Windows 7 should address, people are running it on atom powered netbooks without issue. Don't get me wrong, Vista has/had its problems but it is a better foundation to build on for future releases than endlessly tweaking XP.

[unasoto]

first I've had my lappy running vista for almost 2 years now, and everyone who doesn't like that "new" vista layout can do what I did right click on your start button properties, use classic window. say goodbye to all the vista pretty crap. and hey in control panel you have another "classic view" oh and on my XP machine I still use the classic settings. win 7 is still in beta. when it comes out I'll wait 6 months to a year before I get it. and xp is smoking fast on a 486 smell the sarcasm and vista runs like crap on a single core, and win 7 will run like crap on anything less than a... whatever CPU come out next year.