Have Comments about Windows 7 RC? (Do not post questions here)
Locked
- To all forum users:
Please use this thread to note any comments that you have about Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC). Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, create a new thread.
Thanks
-Tony Mann
Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums- Edited byAnthony_MannMSFT, OwnerWednesday, May 06, 2009 11:55 PM
All Replies
- A lot of people have been asking for a "classic" start menu, but no one has given a good solid reason as to why it's needed ("it's better" is not a sufficient reason), or even which "classic" start menu they are referring to.
The Start Menu first appeared in Windows 95, almost 15 years ago, so is that one the "classic" start menu?
Or do they mean the default start menu in Windows 98, Windows XP, or Windows Vista?
Looking back, the Start Menu (even the "classic" one back in 1995) was difficult for people to accept -- not because it was "bad" but because it was different.
From an early review of Windows 95:
"The new "Start" menu can be annoying at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again.
This is a step backwards from Program Manager which kept the last accessed program group on top. Of course, an advanced user could create a shortcut to the application on the desktop or add it to the top of the main start menu."
http://toastytech.com/guis/win95.html
Shooting forwarding to today, people are now begging for this "annoying" start menu! Maybe, in a few years when everyone is used to the new Windows 7 / Vista start menu, people will finally realize that the new one is faster for techies and easier for Grandma to access.
- Merged byRonnie VernonMVP, ModeratorFriday, May 08, 2009 4:54 AMFeedback
As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because:
1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical ____ like it is in Vista and in Windows 7. When you boot it up the users at different companies should feel comfortable working with the Windows user interface which they arent with Vista and not in Windows 7. Why change something good Microsoft has used since windows 95 untill Windows XP to something worse?
2, Older people like 45-65 doesnt like the new Start Menu because it is harder to find stuff, it takes still longer time to start programs in windows 7 then in Windows XP and so on.
3, It isnt Microsoft who gets the headache when the users wants to lynch the Technician. So if you want to sell ____ we will not buy Windows 7 untill administrators can use a policy on it showing a classic windows start menu, and loading it after performance and not after looks! With windows classic start menu buttons and with a graphical windows xp look alike userinterface as fast as Windows XP. If you dont do this believe me we will start using Linux Ubuntu! Thats a fact!
4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. It boots faster and it shutdowns faster. The user recognizes the userinterface, it looks like Windows XP and you can start Windows TS session on it and so on.
5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!!
- Oliver__76 said:
As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because:
1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical ____ like it is in Vista and in Windows 7. When you boot it up the users at different companies should feel comfortable working with the Windows user interface which they arent with Vista and not in Windows 7. Why change something good Microsoft has used since windows 95 untill Windows XP to something worse?
2, Older people like 45-65 doesnt like the new Start Menu because it is harder to find stuff, it takes still longer time to start programs in windows 7 then in Windows XP and so on.
3, It isnt Microsoft who gets the headache when the users wants to lynch the Technician. So if you want to sell ____ we will not buy Windows 7 untill administrators can use a policy on it showing a classic windows start menu, and loading it after performance and not after looks! With windows classic start menu buttons and with a graphical windows xp look alike userinterface as fast as Windows XP. If you dont do this believe me we will start using Linux Ubuntu! Thats a fact!
4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. It boots faster and it shutdowns faster. The user recognizes the userinterface, it looks like Windows XP and you can start Windows TS session on it and so on.
5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!!
HERE HERE! Hail to the Oliver baby! I want it for my own productivity, but i do game on my machine. though i also file serve, print serve, media serve and so on! probaly why its a screaming beast! - I am a web developer and I use Windows 7 at work. As a web developer I have certain needs:
1. Quick access to launching "everyday" applications that I use everyday like Firefox, IE, Photoshop, SQLYog, Outlook, etc.
2. Quick access to less-common applications such as Calculator, Character Map, Command Prompt, etc.
3. Easily be able to multi-task between all of those applications.
The new Windows 7 Start Menu lets me do all of those things, and I can launch applications (both common and uncommon) much faster.
How do I do it?
1. I pinned all of my "everyday" applications to the taskbar. This alone keeps me from having to open the Start Menu at all on most days. I can easily just click the program's icon whether it's running or not, and I don't have to dig through any menus to get to it. It doesn't waste any space because the launcher icon becomes the task when it's running.
2. If I need to launch a less-common application, I click the Start Button and begin typing the application name. I usually only have to type in a few letters before the search box finds exactly what I need, and then I just have to press Enter to launch it. Again, no need to dig through any menus to find things like Calculator and Character Map.
All I'm saying is that by adjusting how I use Windows 7 to take advantage of its new features, I have increased my productivity, and it took me less than a day to get used to it. The "classic" start menu does not increase productivity beyond what Windows 7 provides by default.At home I am dual-booting with Windows XP, and the few times I have to go back to Windows XP, I always miss the Windows 7 taskbar and Start Menu.
- Pinning down all of your "everyday" applications to the taskbar is also available in Windows XP! So why use Windows 7? The only thing I miss in Windows XP is the step 2 in your list =).
- In Windows XP I generally disable Quick Launch because it competes with the taskbar, both physically and mentally. In other words, if I want to launch, say, Photoshop, I have to first see if I already have it running in the task bar. If it's not there, then I move over to the Quick Launch and launch it.
But the reason why I remove the Quick Launch entirely is because it can become "muscle memory" for me to want to click the Quick Launch button every time I need Photoshop (even if it's already running).Even though I still have to make that assertion in XP ("is Photshop already running?"), I am less likely to accidentally launch a new instance from the Start Menu than from the Quick Launch.
Windows 7 solves this for me with the superbar.I multitask over 60 hours a week with Windows 7, and I approve the new Taskbar and Start Menu.
- Oliver__76 said:
As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because:
1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical ____ like it is in Vista and in Windows 7. When you boot it up the users at different companies should feel comfortable working with the Windows user interface which they arent with Vista and not in Windows 7. Why change something good Microsoft has used since windows 95 untill Windows XP to something worse?
2, Older people like 45-65 doesnt like the new Start Menu because it is harder to find stuff, it takes still longer time to start programs in windows 7 then in Windows XP and so on.
3, It isnt Microsoft who gets the headache when the users wants to lynch the Technician. So if you want to sell ____ we will not buy Windows 7 untill administrators can use a policy on it showing a classic windows start menu, and loading it after performance and not after looks! With windows classic start menu buttons and with a graphical windows xp look alike userinterface as fast as Windows XP. If you dont do this believe me we will start using Linux Ubuntu! Thats a fact!
4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. It boots faster and it shutdowns faster. The user recognizes the userinterface, it looks like Windows XP and you can start Windows TS session on it and so on.
5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!!
I agree with you total as an sytem Admnistrator at a school - I'm a Microsoft Professional and I start each installation from my routine task to Switch Task bar to "Classic Start menu" moreover "Show Small Icons" in the start menu is ESSENTIAL to me.
It was introduced to me in Windows XP , this new approach for Managing files, Getting to Network Connections, Fax and printers, control panel etc.
I JUST HATE it.
Show Small Icons is essential because when I press START this menu doesn't take so much space on my desktop. It's small , little, tiny and this is the way I want it to be.
To get to "Network Connections" it's just two clicks ! I press Start, Settings , Network Connections and I have WHAT I WANT.
I don't see any fancy , gui , graphical Animation showing me where I stand with a network, No shiny buttons flying around telling me "YOU ARE CONNECTED" or not connected.
I have my NIC , I can get to it's settings in seconds... and that's what I want.
I appreciate that some people wish to use (especially home users) different , proposed menu.. which is fine.
BUT TAKING POSIBILITY FROM THOSE WHO USED TO CLASSIC VIEW from Windows 7 ITS A MISTAKE , and if it won't come back I'll be strongly against this system, not because it's bad, but because it doesn't give an option to CHOOOOSE.
MP- Merged byRonnie VernonMVP, ModeratorFriday, May 08, 2009 4:53 AMFeedback
- way to speak your mind, and i agree completely, thats the same way my GUI is set up.
- I hope this post is informative and not an seen as an attack on your opinion.
The fastest way to get to the network connections page in 7 is to click the Network icon in the system tray and click "Open Network and Sharing Center". If you need to manage your network adapters (which is what I think you were referring to in your post), click "Change adapter settings" on the left-hand sidepanel.
How often do you modify your network adapter? If the answer is "often", would it help if you could pin your network connection to the Taskbar, so it's always accessible from 1 click? BTW I just tried this, and it seems network connections currently cannot be pinned to the Taskbar. I was able to create a shortcut to it on my Desktop, but I still could not drag the shortcut to the Taskbar. - I agree with mpianka. I use the network icon to access my NIC properties fairly often, in fact many times each week. I also prefer the classic start menu and have customized it very heavily in XP-Pro from which still do all my work during the day. I have over 120 apps that take up 3 full sized columns within the classic start menu and each of those have many slide-out columns afterward. I know not many people use as many apps as I do, but still, it's nice to be able to customize the UI environment. In fact - isn't that what mainly distinguishes Windows from the Mac OS? (I'm not familiar with the Mac OS, but that's what it seems like from their TV commercials)
Mike - Just curious, why do you have to access your NIC properties so often? Are you changing your static IP address or adding networking protocols, or just reviewing the current settings?
If you have 3 full pages of apps openning classic menu, would this one not be nicer as it doesnt take up your entire screen doing that?
Also, classic menu has been dying for a LONG time before this.
I'm not a fan of everything they are trying to do atm, but I'm trying to play with the start menu / taskbar to try and make it work
for me, who knows I might find something that is even EASIER then I had it before and never would have bothered looking for it
if I wasn't given the opportunity to play with it.- You are absolutely right and there are a lot of users Who agree with you. See: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproui/thread/f942ad6a-9ce2-41b8-a1d7-d8fd6ba2cdc1, and similar posts.
- I agree completely!
I also miss the ability to switch between the ui themes (XP, Vista, W2k). It professionals have no use for a 3d effects... ui's should be simple and fast - I also agree as I've said in a couple of other threads. I like things set up the way I want them. After all, it is my computer! Bells, whistles and eye candy that don't help me work are useless to me. Don't necessarily take those things away, but at least give me the chance to opt out of some of them by returning the classic menu and the means to set up attached menus the way I want them.
- I agree the CLASSIC MENU should be a choice for any number of reason
Tek-Zar - I don't want this to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, because I'm all about choice and if it were still there, I'd say use it if you want it.
HOWEVER...
Asking for "Classic Start Menu" at this point is no different than the people who demanded Program Manager and File Manager from the old Windows 3.1 days when they upgraded to Windows 95/98. Microsoft forced the new UI on users for those versions, but left the old style in tact for 2 major upgrades afterwards to ease the transition. By the time Windows 2000 and ME were released, those old programs no longer existed.
Now, the Classic Start Menu was replaced with the XP style menu and was expanded in Vista, and now Windows 7 (two major releases later) is deprecating that classic interface in favor of the new interface that has been in place since XP.
At some point, no matter how much we love/hate an interface, it becomes imperative --- ESPECIALLY AS IT PROFESSIONALS --- to embrace the new interface to make it work for us, even if it means re-learning new tricks to make things as efficient as they were under a previous version.
The same can be said of Office with the new Office 2007 Ribbon interface. No matter how much some people may hate it, they're not going to go back to the menu style, and in fact, Office 14 is expanding it to Outlook, OneNote, Publisher, etc etc.
The bottom line is this... they're not asking if we like the decision, they're telling us to deal with it. To be honest, I resisted Vista with every ounce of my being, because I hated all the new changes and interface. With 7, because there are a lot of elements I like, I'm finally embracing the things I don't like and finding alternative solutions.
Now I don't want to rant and walk away leaving you disgruntled that I told you your grandmother is dying and there's nothing you can do about it, so here's a few ways that you can simply the task you're trying to accomplish:1) Enable and show all notification area icons... especially the network connection one. Click it once, click Network and Sharing Center, click Change Adapter Settings. 3 clicks. XP required two, and Vista requires 8. For the record, I have submitted feedback for them to add "Change Adapter Settings" and "Change Firewall Settings" back to the right click menu of the network notification icon. I hope they really listen to that one.
2) Click Start, type "view network connections" and press Enter. Bam, you're there. This is actually my preferred method for now, because I'm a keyboard junkie and press WinKey and immediately start typing while I wait for the animations to happen.
3) Create a shortcut on the desktop to the Network Connections folder. Then, copy the shortcut to a flash drive and it will work regardless of the PC you're using. Better still if you use your own autorun.inf to trigger that shortcut, it will run as soon as you pop it in.
- I don't think he was complaining about the Networks thing, I believe he was using it as an example. His point is give the paying customer an option of going to older versions, to ease them into the new ways of things. We're paying in excess of 200+ dollars for these OS's, why not make the customer happy while making your billions? I like the new options in Windows 7 (I went from XP to Windows 7 Beta.. but I've used Vista on my wife's laptop), but the fact I can't customize the look of this taskbar and install custom theme packs cause I have NO idea where they are stored, kinda bugs me. So just give us the options!!.. LOL
@GoodThings2Life
You quote:"At some point, no matter how much we love/hate an interface, it becomes imperative --- ESPECIALLY AS IT PROFESSIONALS --- to embrace the new interface to make it work for us, even if it means re-learning new tricks to make things as efficient as they were under a previous version."
You could not have said it any better.
As IT Professionals, it is incumbent on us to be up to speed on what is happening in the computer world. Regardless of what we personally like or dislike, there is going to be a customer somewhere that loves a feature that we just hate and is going to ask us for help. The last thing they want to hear is a fanboi-like rant about how messed up things are and how they should be.
To make it worse, once you learn and embrace the changes, you actually find that some are better, quite a bit better in some cases. I have been using Vista since its inception because I wanted to be in-the-know and stand out from those who refuse to use it. At first, it frustrated me to no end; however, as I read actual reference materials and understood what was happening, I slowly came around to realize it is much better than XP. As a result, I can get Vista to do things that people swore up and down—and still swear left to right—it could not do.
Although I can navigate each OS just as easily, I really prefer the Vista/7 interfaces to XP.
- I have to agree, I have supported Windows since the very 1st version and I also like the XP classic and also the taskbar method. I'm not a fan of the new taskbar. It is confusing and if some like it I would like an option that is either XP or W7 as a quick option. I prefer the way it extends "up" and the end of it a movable row which I can decide where that is take place. A bit like the Classic view option when Control Panel is opened. It's quick to return to the "Category View" for customers.
I have trouble opening a second copy of IE using this new taskbar. I want to open a new copy not restore the existing lowered version.
Also I am loosing icons from the desktop that I have made shortcuts of. eg Control Panel, Printers, System. They all disappear regulary when I start each morning.
Otherwise I am very happy. - I agree with what is being said here. I really only have 2 problems thought with the interface.
First and foremost is the Start Menu. I really did like the XP/2000 thinner version. I really don't like to see a most recent list on my start menu since there is the desktop to place icons and now a really nice tray that I can put my most used on.
Second and most minor of options is that I want the button on all my folder menus that goes up a folder. I know that I can just click on the name and go backwards but really, I don't like that as much as having a small button up there.
Oh and I thought of a third thing. I miss having "Windows Update" on my start menu. I think that should be a start menu option that you can turn on if you like.
I can really see why some people would like the start menu and I really can't say anything bad about it. It's just not what I want and I can see that there are many people that don't want it either. I hope that MS will make some additional options to bring back old looks.
- When it comes to the UI, don't bother complaining, this is the way Microsoft want windows to look and feel and that's it. In my opinion it's not change for improvement it just change for change sake, this was a complaint in in the early incarnations Vista and continues to be a complaint in Windows 7, but as I said it's falling on def ears. Alright Rant over.
With that being said, first right click on task bar, then properties, start menu Click on the start tab, customize, enable say Recorded TV and dislpay as menu, than click on orb right click on Recorded TV, click on include a folder point to "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\programs"right click on Recorded TV again rename to "programs" and you have the fly out style menu of windows xp. For the life of me I can't understand why Microsoft will not just include this as an option, the only reason I can think of, is stubbornest, they are upset that a great deal of people don't like the new UI that worked so hard on and their going to force it no matter what. It's analogous to Office's Ribbon, Microsoft is forcing it, there is just as many bad reviews as good reviews on the ribbon, not a lot of companies are licensing the Ribbon UI, but they are Microsoft, they don't make mistakes they know better then their customers what their customers want. The only way this will change is either Bill Gates comes back like Jobs did or if Balmer retires than it will be a all new improved design once again.. that's my story I'm sticking to it...
PEACE! - I said in another post:
Microsoft says on The Welcome to Windows 7 site, "Over the past few years, you've asked us to make some changes to Windows. We listened closely."
It is obvious to me that they have only listened to the users whose opinions matched their own. - I also use the classical start menu in windows xp and windows ultimate.
Here is my good solid reason:
I use more than 100 different applications a day and have installed more than 3000 applications on my computer.
Most of them are seldom used. I use them if I get a question from others to solve a problem they have.
With the classical start menu I have groped them under themes like:
development->embedded->arm
development->embedded->microchip
development->embedded->cypress
development->embedded->atmel
development->tools->hex-edit
development->tools->programmer
picture->edit
picture->viewer
multimedia->audio
multimedia->video
multimedia->tv
...
and so on.
The main menu has about 20 entries which have sub menus up to 10 levels deep.
In the start menu of windows 7 it costs me very much time to scroll through the applications tree all the time to start a seldom used application.
- your best bet is not to bother using the menu but just type in the program's name in the search box
Why not use "new start menu style" side by side with "classic start menu style":
http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/3154-classic-start-menu-available.html#post41112- I think we are represented, it is just lack of interest in us the people! 7 versions? WTF? way to listen!
- The recursive menus are also available in Win7' start menu. Not as easy as it was before, but still... you can organize your things by manually creating all the folders here:
%systemroot%:\Users\%user%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs - I have to agree that being forced to have enterprise setups is sub-optimal for many users. I have worked with or for many companies, including some with thousands of employees. I have only seen one case where roaming profiles were used -- an office of about 10 people where roaming profiles were apparently all the IT guy knew how to do. Every office has had one computer per user, even the one with roaming profiles. I would much rather have a switch on setup that let the install choose between having a single user setup (without all the c:\user\ZZZZ\... stuff) or a setup with multiple users. Having to drill down 8 to 10 layers to make a simple configuration change on a program should never be necessary.
- Simple solution for this would be to have one of the default themes be Windows Classic and let those of us who have to
administer this in a corporate/education environment chose what our users will see.
I'm not sure if Microsoft sees this as a way to demonstrate to the user that they've left the Win9x/Win2k?WinXP days
or if someone has decided that this "looks cool and by god it's gonna stay". It makes one wonder if the reasons for
leaving progman as a shell in Win9x have been completely forgotten.
In any event they need to learn from Vista's failings, accept that they completely misread what their customers
were willing to accept and use this as a base to move on. Simple solution for this would be to have one of the default themes be Windows Classic and let those of us who have to administer this in a corporate/education environment chose what our users will see.
Hi
I'm not sure a theme would solve this problem? I think one mistake people make with the current thinking about the Classic Start Menu is that austere or spartan equals productivity. I have never seen any real proof that this is true. However, I have seen that austere equals boredom and a lackadaisical attitude which usually results in much less productivity.
The main thing I remember about the Classic Start Menu was watching people click Programs and then see those cascading menus that completely covered the monitor. Then they would need to move all the way across the screen to get to the application they were looking for, and then oops, they accidentally moved the cursor across a menu that had sub-menus that popped open and covered up the application they were trying to reach.
I'm not sure if Microsoft sees this as a way to demonstrate to the user that they've left the Win9x/Win2k?WinXP days or if someone has decided that this "looks cool and by god it's gonna stay". It makes one wonder if the reasons for leaving progman as a shell in Win9x have been completely forgotten.
If I remember correctly, one of the most vociferous rants about XP was it's Mattel Toys look. People just could not handle all of the 'eye candy' J
In any event they need to learn from Vista's failings, accept that they completely misread what their customers
Uh, Vista still has the Classic Start Menu as an option.
were willing to accept and use this as a base to move on.
The one thing I do remember is a few years before I retired, I helped replace approximately 80 workstations running Win2k with XPPro. The excitement and increased productivity was amazing to watch. Most of the people in the office were in the coffee room 30 minutes before their start time. Even the stuffy old CEO was impressed. :)
Also, remember that Windows 7 is still at the earliest stages of beta, there may be some changes coming that will even impress the folks who balk at any sort of change.
I just plan on sitting back and watching the show.
My thoughts.
Thank You for testing Windows 7 Beta
Ronnie Vernon MVP- the problem with XP, specifically, Luna, wasn't the eye candy. It was UGLY eye candy that looks like as you say My Mattel Computer.the Mac has eye candy, too. But it's pleasing and enhances functionality and not merely distracts. win7 is much better than XP, but I still give the edge to OSX.I do wish he theme were more customizable, like this concept shot:http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/073/8/3/Windows_7_RTM_by_aesmon11.jpg
+1 for more customization, but I beg that Win7 doesn't look like that pic ^^.I do wish he theme were more customizable, like this concept shot:http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/073/8/3/Windows_7_RTM_by_aesmon11.jpg
Can you imagine a taskbar like that on a 9-inch widescreen?
Can you imagine those small fonts on a small screen?
Can you imagine how awful it would look if you made them bigger?
Why no search in Start Menu? It's the best thing since sliced bread.
Why swap Programs and Folders in Start Menu? Start Menu is primarily about programs, thus they should be closer (right above the Orb)
Why is the only taskbar item in the middle?
It's made in 2008. Vista's out since 2006/2007. Where's Aero?- Edited byKristaps. Monday, April 20, 2009 1:49 AMadded info
One thing I've always wondered about is whether these people making mockup sketches of future operating systems ever considered actually using their creations. What's with the negative space? Why does the awkward-looking centered text of the left-hand column in the Start Menu have absolutely zero organization? Why is there zero distinction between the titlebar, breadcrumb bar, and command bar in this file navigator? Not only that but the command bar gives way and transitions into a really large status bar. And why the ____ are the controls so uneven, the bottom of the back button (I'm guessing forward goes from 0 to 100% opacity when necessary... weak) is right in the upper-middle region of the star button on the right side of "Explorer". ____, the upper lip on the back buttons decoration looks to intrude about three pixels into the captions space...
Gah... sorry, I just never understood these things. So, what were we talking about? Customization? Yeah, why not, but not every theme needs glass, Kristaps. :P
True, but it looks good :PYeah, why not, but not every theme needs glass, Kristaps. :P
Well, the glass sure looks better on than off :P
JUST MY WORDS !As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because:
1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical
....
4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7.
5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!!
Here is some more:
6. The program list is too short. You don't want to scroll the list up and down when seeking the program you need. The expanded list in WinXP was good
7. Some installed programs just disappear from the list. There might be a bug
8. Keyboard shortcuts just don't work with the new menu. Try to shut down or hibernate he system.
WE WANT AN OPERATING SYSTEM AND NOT A VIDEO GAME !
Please remake your decision about the marketing profiles of Windows. Make one version without any AEROs and Mediaplayers, leave out all the tours, games, toys and eyecandy. Make it domain compatible.
Here is thousands of customers who want to WORK with the computer.
The last operating system which could be used in simple laboratory environments was MSDOS 6.22 and MS don't even sell it any more. (Is it now public domain ?)
Version after version MS operating systems have been less and less user friendly. Win3.11 was about 32 MB. Compared to Win 7 with 7.6 GB this Win7 should be 237.5 times better. Is it really ?
For example Puppy Linux is about 100 MB, runs fine in a 200MHz PC with 128MB of RAM and has all that is needed. What is missing, can be downloaded from the net for no cost = free.
- ok here are my 2 eurocents about OP
1 - evolition. Windows pre-95 didn't even have start menu at all , and everyone (read:ppl like you) was complaining about it.
2 - it is easier and faster , cos you can just use your keyboard (you are an IT expert, right?) without looking through multiple columns of start menu folders
3 - what has any of this got to do with Linux? Also, if you consider using Linux, that means you've made sure that all your applications are compatible. In that case, you could end up with saving a lot of money.
4 - what has startup/shutdown speed to do with user-friendliness? and could you explain this "Windows TS session" please?
5 - see #1 and #2 pls?
6 - to make the start menu bigger, increase the number of shown recent programs. and THIS has been there since WinXP
7 - smth wrong at your end
8 - alt+f4 - working. win -> left -> enter still working too. don't see problems there
@"WE WANT" part - there are many enterprise operating systems. IMHO Windows UI/u-experience is mostly oriented to home users (don't be fooled by all them 'business' versions)
@MSDOS again, noone is forcing anyone to upgrade. feel free to throw your computer out the window and grab a pen (or a feather).
@Win3.11 and no new features have been introduced, no new UI, no new security measures, no new device support (did you know that USB (your mouse and keyboard) support wasn't even in your beloved Win95 (introduced in 1996 with OEM Service Release 2.1)), no NOTHING , right? Well, kind sir, thanks for enlightening me! If you could pls send me a copy of Win3.11 (or better yet Win1), I would be very grateful, watching all those monochrome letters blur out on my Full HD monitor.
@PuppyLinux PL was made to be one of the lightest, plainest, most no-frills distros around. Don't you dare compare a it to full-featured OS with some attention to UI and design and beauty (finally) . Also, I woudn't call PL a operating system designed to use in any business.
@ the free part - ever heard of freeware? does FOSS (free and open-source software) ring a bell?
I don't want to continue this post (and risk losing my good mood), but TBH, I'm pretty pissed right now. kthxbye.
P.S.: YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN. - Wow, Kristaps, I guess Microsoft can do no wrong in your eyes. Doesn't it get boring not thinking for yourself? :) I guess there was nothing wrong with Vista, either, contrary to popular belief.
- 1) Now why would you think that? Read my posts much?
2) If I wasn't thinking for myself, I wouldn't be there, trying to make the next operating system I'll use better.
3) There were many things wrong with Vista, but in most cases (and I'm dead serious) the problem was somewhere between the keyboard and the chair. Of course, there were driver problems in the beginning. Of course, UAC was much more annoying than it should. Of course people didn't like the changes (it's natural I guess). Of course it needed more resources than your average PC would have at that time (okay it was a resource hog).
but without Vista, there wouldn't even be Windows 7 .
Vista isn't as bad, really (most of what you know is probably from Apple's awesome Get A Mac ads, and other press bashing and hating). Sure, it changed a lot, and it was flawed, but it the end, many of the changes (mostly DWM) were for good, once MS tweaked them (see Windows 7).
Kristaps, I totally agree with you. Vista has so bad reputation from people who even never installed or used. One of the main problems is that people hate the changes. Personally, I think Windows XP has been out there for too many years. And, for those complaining about Vista/Windows 7, I have to say that XP had a lot of security issues in the beginning and until SP 2 was released, was another "crappy" Microsoft product.
3) There were many things wrong with Vista, but in most cases (and I'm dead serious) the problem was somewhere between the keyboard and the chair. Of course, there were driver problems in the beginning. Of course, UAC was much more annoying than it should. Of course people didn't like the changes (it's natural I guess). Of course it needed more resources than your average PC would have at that time (okay it was a resource hog).
but without Vista, there wouldn't even be Windows 7 .
Vista isn't as bad, really (most of what you know is probably from Apple's awesome Get A Mac ads, and other press bashing and hating). Sure, it changed a lot, and it was flawed, but it the end, many of the changes (mostly DWM) were for good, once MS tweaked them (see Windows 7).
On the other hand, Vista SP2 is excellent. They solved many of the issues the OS had since the release. But W7 is a step forward. They tweaked and improved a lot compared to Vista.
So, I think that the real pain here is to learn new features and mainly, a new way of interacting with the UI/desktop. I'm pretty sure that most of people (not everybody) complaining about the new start menu/taskbar or requesting the implementation of the "Classic Menu" hardly used Vista.
Regards.
W7 Beta running on an AMD Semprom 3200+ (1800Mhz) with 2 Gbs of RAM and a built-in Nvidia 6100 VGA, and mate, it runs like a charm! And now on my VAIO FE31M Laptop.Kristaps, I totally agree with you. Vista has so bad reputation from people who even never installed or used. One of the main problems is that people hate the changes. Personally, I think Windows XP has been out there for too many years. And, for those complaining about Vista/Windows 7, I have to say that XP had a lot of security issues in the beginning and until SP 2 was released, was another "crappy" Microsoft product.
Totally agree with you there :)
On the other hand, Vista SP2 is excellent. They solved many of the issues the OS had since the release. But W7 is a step forward. They tweaked and improved a lot compared to Vista.
So, I think that the real pain here is to learn new features and mainly, a new way of interacting with the UI/desktop. I'm pretty sure that most of people (not everybody) complaining about the new start menu/taskbar or requesting the implementation of the "Classic Menu" hardly used Vista.
Regards.I use Windows since 1993 spending around 10-12 hours a day on a PC.
I have 3 computers at work plus quite a few at home.
A computer is not a piece of art to stare at....
All my computers are set to "maximum performance" and tweaked with no system restore, no recycle bin, static swap files, clean msconfig, trimmed services, minimal use of “docs and settings”, etc. I use only overclocked quads up to 4Ghz and 8Gb Ram with raid arrays, and I’m still not happy with the performance.
I'm still looking forward to an OS focused on speed and not on features to have programs and windows opening almost instantly, to have a response close to or even faster than my reactions.
I do not care about features, fancy desktops, animated menus' etc. I want an ugly but fast interface with menus easily accessible.
In my experience, the fastest OS so far from Microsoft is XP x64 which is being abandoned...
In my nature, I have an open mind - I gave Vista 9 months of my time and had only frustration until I decided to go irreversibly back to XP. I'm not a slow learner, but after 9 months with Vista menu, I was still wasting a lot of time searching....and started using Run to type the *cpl or *msc shortcut....
I do not understand why Microsoft is focused so much on visual and ergonomic changes and not on the important things.
Why didn't they make a research on most common used application and tried to include them, like a decent download manager, an enhanced file manager (I use Total Commander for 10 years now), a better browser (Firefox and Opera are becoming more and more popular and IE is the falling way behind in speed and security), better taskmanager (see process explorer from Sysinternals), decent firewall, ghost utility, antivirus (I know they bought at least a couple antivirus companies....), etc
No, nothing of this..... instead, they adopted a stubborn attitude in annoying some of the most loyal users by changing menus (Office 2007, Vista, Win7).
Vista already proved itself to be a market disaster despite those 90mil copies pretended sold. Almost no major company in the world adopted Vista as standard OS. Major manufacturers like HP that initially released Vista only machines changed strategy offering XP option. Is Microsoft learning anything out of this experience? Again, No. Instead they removed even the feature to make the new OS look like legacy ones. With the present GUI, I do not see Win7 in the business envirnonment adopted either.
About the Classic start menu - my programs list on a 1920x1200 screen spans on 4 columns..., I know how to reach everything without thinking. I hate the scrolling “feature” in explorer (I use TC anyway)…I do not want to argue with the people who like and use the new start menu in Win7 but it's not for me.
It is a matter of preference, and I, as an old Windows user want my "outdated" menus back.
Regardless of how appealing a desktop looks like, you eventually get bored with it and stick with the main functionality of the system.Security is only an annoyance - there will always be exploits in windows as long it will stay the most popular OS. People who need security never did or will rely on Windows only.
Someone said that only 15% of the users want the classic menu. But if they are most the opinion makers, of the PC technicians and the ones who advise their peers, the impact will be much larger. I always advised all my friends to stay away from Vista, and not surprisingly, they all did. Hopefully I won’t have to do the same with Win7
I was defending Windows against Mac and Unix, and still do, but something changed in Microsoft before releasing Vista, which in my opinion leads, deliberately or not, to the wrong track.
It will take many years until Win7 or something similar will replace W2k3 server, and hopefully, until then Microsoft will come down to earth and start respecting their most devoted users.ok here are my 2 eurocents about OP
Reply:
1 - evolition. Windows pre-95 didn't even have start menu at all
2 - it is easier and faster , cos you can just use your keyboard (you are an IT expert, right?) without looking through multiple columns of start menu folders
3 - what has any of this got to do with Linux? Also, if you consider using Linux, that means you've made sure that all your applications are compatible. In that case, you could end up with saving a lot of money.
4 - what has startup/shutdown speed to do with user-friendliness? and could you explain this "Windows TS session" please?
5 - see #1 and #2 pls?
6 - to make the start menu bigger, increase the number of shown recent programs. and THIS has been there since WinXP
7 - smth wrong at your end
8 - alt+f4 - working. win -> left -> enter still working too. don't see problems there
@"WE WANT" part - there are many enterprise operating systems. IMHO Windows UI/u-experience is mostly oriented to home users (don't be fooled by all them 'business' versions)
@MSDOS again, noone is forcing anyone to upgrade. feel free to throw your computer out the window and grab a pen (or a feather).
@Win3.11 and no new features have been introduced, no new UI, no new security measures, no new device support (did you know that USB (your mouse and keyboard) support wasn't even in your beloved Win95 (introduced in 1996 with OEM Service Release 2.1)), no NOTHING , right? Well, kind sir, thanks for enlightening me! If you could pls send me a copy of Win3.11 (or better yet Win1), I would be very grateful, watching all those monochrome letters blur out on my Full HD monitor.
@PuppyLinux PL was made to be one of the lightest, plainest, most no-frills distros around. Don't you dare compare a it to full-featured OS with some attention to UI and design and beauty (finally) . Also, I woudn't call PL a operating system designed to use in any business.
@ the free part - ever heard of freeware? does FOSS (free and open-source software) ring a bell?
I don't want to continue this post (and risk losing my good mood), but TBH, I'm pretty pissed right now. kthxbye.
P.S.: YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN.
1. Nothing wrong in Start menu in itself. Many users are agains the changes which seem to be there for just the fun of changing things. Users got to learn new ways of finding things.
2. Yes, You can and I can find ways to make things without using mouse, but there is a lot of people who has more important things to do than sit there trying to find new tricks.
3. Linux is evolving. The user interface is not changing radically, because the builders are listening the users. Microsoft builds the user interface without any interest to the users
4. The start/shutdown time doesn't matter anything for you, who are sitting at your computer day and night. For an average user it is annoying. Because of the slow response the computers are left on for the whole day spending energy.
..
6. Please tell us, how to 'clue' the most often used programs to the left panel of the menu as we had a habit doing in WinXP.
..
8. Nice to see there is some tricks. Tell me how can we teach these to the average users.
'@We want': As you said, the windows operating systems are more and more built for home use. Even the Professional version is not for a professional, if we mean by the word 'Professional' those users, who have a profession and are really working. I well know that nowadays this word professional is more often meaning 'kids' or something else without connection to work. I have even met a toothbrush with label 'professional'. Still I have newer met a person, who brushes her teeth as a work.
'@Win311'. Many things could have been changed without making radical changes to the user interface. The Start menu could have stll been copied there from Linux. The new device drivers added (for example USB) and the kernel grown to multitasking. If the changes had been gradual and well planned, we might still manage our everyday work with a lot smaller computers. For example the viruses are here because there has been too many radical changes. The size of Win7 is 200 times larger than Win311 because there is so much dead code. Microsoft has bought all kinds of programs from third party programmers and just thrown them there without checking. All those programs seem to have all their libraries there eating space. Compare this to Linux.
Win7 might be tens of procents smaller and not so vulnerable to viruses, if all the programs were built in one standardized and thoroughly tested programming environment.
'@PuppyLinux' is there only for a comparition. It is small, functional and expandable. It makes all the things needed. And it doesn't need an antivirus program eating power.
Check it: any antivirus program eats about 50-300MB of RAM and worth of 500MHz of CPU speed.
cut from another post:
'Kristaps, I totally agree with you. Vista has so bad reputation from people who even never installed or used. One of the main problems is that people hate the changes.'
If you have a company or EDU with some thousands of employees, you understand it better. Not only the new operating system cost something. Also you need new PC's, new servers, program versions, drivers, laboratory equipement. You got to cook up teaching for the users. You spend endless hours trying to find how to make systems work and find new drivers for our tools. We spared millions of Euros when we decided to jump over WinNT, Win2000 and Vista. If possible, we'll be clad to jump over Win7 too.
The users hate the changes, because they have to spend counless hours learning how to use the system. Their tools don't work while we are trying to find solutions.
The IT professional hate it, because it is just work in vain. They hate it, because HelpDesk got to find new ways to help users over the telephone and email. The customers think it is your reason, if you cant make it work.
Everyone hates the changes, because they make old computers obsolete. New systems just don't work any more. Old computers got to be thrown out -it is called pollution !
You say you are going to loose your good mood. This tells me you are in your teens. Real IT professionals have lost their good mood years ago with MicroSoft. There is no more frustrating work than this. You can't build anything for the future, because you don't know what is lurking in the minds of MS. Anything you have built and tested will be history, when the new MSWindows appears. It is no evolution. It is pure dictatory. Like sailing in a boat with a mad captain.
Someone said that only 15% of the users want the classic menu. But if they are most the opinion makers, of the PC technicians and the ones who advise their peers, the impact will be much larger.
When this data is collected, who were those, who takes part to the survey ?
Mostly this kind surveys are in the network. Who does spend their time in that kind of netsites -Mostly young iPod generation. Never those who are using their PC as a tool in their work !A lot of people have been asking for a "classic" start menu, but no one has given a good solid reason as to why it's needed ("it's better" is not a sufficient reason), or even which "classic" start menu they are referring to.
The Start Menu first appeared in Windows 95, almost 15 years ago, so is that one the "classic" start menu?
Or do they mean the default start menu in Windows 98, Windows XP, or Windows Vista?
Looking back, the Start Menu (even the "classic" one back in 1995) was difficult for people to accept -- not because it was "bad" but because it was different.
From an early review of Windows 95:
"The new "Start" menu can be annoying at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again.
This is a step backwards from Program Manager which kept the last accessed program group on top. Of course, an advanced user could create a shortcut to the application on the desktop or add it to the top of the main start menu."
http://toastytech.com/guis/win95.html
Shooting forwarding to today, people are now begging for this "annoying" start menu! Maybe, in a few years when everyone is used to the new Windows 7 / Vista start menu, people will finally realize that the new one is faster for techies and easier for Grandma to access.
the classic menu is borring and old. If you dont know how to use the windows 7 start menu; then you shouldnt be working with computers. Go take intro to micro computers or something.
"The new "Start" menu can be annoying at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again. "
How about you click "Start" and type in "solitaire"?
Maybe you think it's annoying because you dont know how to use the start menu.- Edited byae69ae Friday, May 08, 2009 4:44 PM
"How about you click "start" and type in "solitaire"?
Maybe you think its annoying because you dont know how to use the start menu."
I don't type 50wpm neither can type blind...This is why I always prefer clicks instead of typing.
If you want to understand, change keyboard layout to Dvorak and try it for yourself in the dark, then tell others how great the new menu is....- Ok you've been waiting on pins+needles for my opinion:
Recent Items, Recent Docs, YAY
Translucent anything, ?? (boo?)
Customizable YAY
And be consistent, whatever you decide, (no wait, that was wasted air) I like pretty, just don't ask me to learn anything you'll justa change/abandon very soon.
I thought of around 20 synonyms for what I think MS thinks of our opinions, but I really believe its people like Kristaps and Wolfie who inspire the people who Do matter, (so that means they matter too). Use your powers for good. Ok you've been waiting on pins+needles for my opinion:
Recent Items, Recent Docs, YAY
Translucent anything, ?? (boo?)
Customizable YAY
And be consistent, whatever you decide, (no wait, that was wasted air) I like pretty, just don't ask me to learn anything you'll justa change/abandon very soon.
I thought of around 20 synonyms for what I think MS thinks of our opinions, but I really believe its people like Kristaps and Wolfie who inspire the people who Do matter, (so that means they matter too). Use your powers for good.
Those super-powers better be fast acting. According to MSNBC, whatever we see in the RC next week is pretty much going to be it.
"The company [MS] has still not said when the finished version would begin to be installed on PCs or available to buy in shops, but the company's chief financial officer said on Thursday it could be as early as July."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30395407/If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again. "
Oh yeah, and in classic start menu you don't neet to go to Programs -> accessories -> games -> solitaire, no? Sheesh.
I'd like to actually do something good and/or valuable about it, but at the moment I'm just stuck giving out suggestions for everything :P- >>A lot of people have been asking for a "classic" start menu,
>>but no one has given a good solid reason as to why it's needed
>>Looking back, the Start Menu (even the "classic" one back in 1995) was difficult for people to accept --
>>not because it was "bad" but because it was different. From an early review of Windows 95: "The new "Start" menu can be annoying
>> at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click
>Oh yeah, and in classic start menu you don't neet to go to Programs -> accessories -> games -> solitaire, no? Sheesh.
The guy who wrote that prolly died or retired, hector was quoting that guy, and I am quoting Hector (and you). When do you sleep? O, I accidentally discovered Office2007-SP2 thanks to you, so um, thanks. The guy who wrote that prolly died or retired, hector was quoting that guy, and I am quoting Hector (and you).
I like quoting you quote me quoting hector quoting that other guy ^^
When do you sleep? O, I accidentally discovered Office2007-SP2 thanks to you, so um, thanks.
What is this sleep thing you're talking about? :D And you're welcome :P
I'd like to actually do something good and/or valuable about it, but at the moment I'm just stuck giving out suggestions for everything :P- >> When do you sleep?
MS pays overtime for fanboys :) MS pays overtime for fanboys :)
Get your facts right. I am not a fanboy, nor am I getting paid.
I'd like to actually do something good and/or valuable about it, but at the moment I'm just stuck giving out suggestions for everything :P- RIGHT ON!
cact25 - I don't want to pin things to the taskbar. That is what the Quick launch in XP is for, or pin them to the start menu. You can also use the old fashioned desktop short-cuts...........
cact25 - That theme would definitely drive me to a MAC!
cact25 - Maybe MS should watch the MAC vs PC TV commercials................
cact25 - You can also pin GAMES to the start menu..................
cact25 - I almost always know what programs I have running. For the few times that I do forget, a quick glance at the task bar reminds me...........
cact25 - Win 7 could have been born without us using Vista. Was there a Win96 or 97? Win98 right to XP.
cact25 - I agree there. Vista is on the shelf and XP went back on the PC. I'm one of those who hardly used Vista, but I used it enough to dislike it. I also got free when I bought an HP/Compaq Pressario.
cact25
Although, I must admit... it does look appetizing. :)- Edited byRonnie VernonMVP, ModeratorSaturday, May 02, 2009 9:09 AMEdit
- Could someone please give me a sensible and reasonable reason (legit reasons, not all that "office" and "old ppl" BS) why you prefer the Classic vs New? No hate, just reasons, please -- I'm willing to hear you out ;)
Regards, Kristaps. - Most people would be satisfied with a flyout menu option. This could be easily done by a simple option under "To Customize how links,icons,and menus look and behave in the startmenu, click customize." They have recourdered tv in there they have personnel folders, videos etc, Why not just have the option of the "Programs" displayed as a menu in there. I have already changed Recorded TV to point to all the programs in the program directory giving me a classic feel of a flyout menu.
Here is some reasons.
1 Flyout menus are for many easer to navigate.
2 I don't have to use numrous clicks to get to one program.
3 I am comfortable with the flyout menu.
4 I can find programs faster with a flyout menu.
5 the new program menu system is in a small box, thus limiting my field of view and choice.
Trufully it dosent matter why people want it. What really matters is why Microsoft will not give the option? "display progarams as a flyout menu" very simple, very easy fix that would saticfy a lot of people, for Microsoft is that really too much trouble. I've seen comments from Microsoft in the windows blog, but that would be redundant because it would give two different way of doing the same thing, my comment to that statment is "so what" Again a flyout menu option, would quell alot of indignation or discontent, would not require any major code additions. it's all right there already all Microsoft has to do is allow people to access it....
PEACE! - Kristabs - Great diagram, excellent response. So, now that you have proven that this issue in NOT about funtionality, what's left that could get all these folks so fired up? It's all ultimately about losing Flyout, and a corresponding loss of PC productivity.
The human eye is the fastest PC interface device there is. By taking away FLYOUT and limiting the use of your eyes to scan for what you are looking for, the new Start Menu is just plain slower. That's the core issue in this whole debate. Hopefully, with RC1 there will be an awakening. Hopefully, with RC1 there will be an awakening.
Not going to happen, since RC has been already released :P
I just hope for RC2 with all the change's we've suggested all around these forums :)
Regards, Kristaps.- So is it really safe to talk about the RC1 build 7100? Just want to make sure before I waste time with comments like last time. I'll be installing it in the next day or two and will have a couple of comments after I see the issues first hand.
- RC running fine here for a couple of days. For those who may be wondering, yes you can still add the Quicklaunch toolbar to the Taskbar. Also, you can get Windows Mail working also, although I see NO REASON for it to be included but disabled!!!!
- It's safe, even Ronnie will not lock you out. lol
Having said that, I thought there was supposed to be a major overhaul of the UI. Result: not a lot. Startmenu a bit more "readable". Explorer still has the flaws the beta had (I'm not saying internally, but as an end-user...).
Nevertheless it's the best OS Microsoft has ever made.
Regards
Rem - I just got RC installed, had less than a hour to play with it. Later, after work, I will have more time.
For now, I´m happy the list view of long file names is fixed. List is good to use again.
But, I´m really disapointed that Windows explorer still have all the flaws it had in beta. Windows XP explorer is (for me) still much better. It show me the file sizes without having to select files, and, even better, if I select more than a few files, I don´t have to click the STUPID "more details" button.
In xp, I can customize the windows explorer buttons bar. In 7, I can´t.
The image importer (when you plug a digital camera) is still the same one used in vista, back in 2006, that is just limitaded. In xp, I can select the pictures I want and the ones I don´t want to import, in 7, or you import everything, or nothing. (Why broke something that was good?)
In fact, the only way (for me) to work with a digital camera is windows 7 is installing Windows Live Photo Gallery, once it adds a decent picture importer to the autoplay of my camera. But it just means I need to download/install onther software to be able to use a function that was present and good in xp out of the box, for more than a decade.
The autoarrange function still can´t be disabled, even if I hate that thing, and is a huge drawback for my way of working with files.
The Classic start menu is out. Period. Even if people like it, they can´t get it anymore. I don´t want classic back, I like the new menu, but I would want it to float out when I go to "All Programs" having to scroll and scroll and scroll again to find a program is terrible, once I have a big screen, plenty of space to float my menu, and no option to do that. It still confined to that little corner of the screen, no matter if I don´t want it there.
Let me use it a little more, later I post more impressions... - In that case, here is some disk art for Epson printers with the type 2 tray. Print from Photoshop or extract the image area out and use your other disk printing software
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/win7rc1disksmall.jpg - Zeus76,
I have to chime in here. That "dig" about Ronnie locking you out is not fair or warranted.
Whether you realize it or not, we have a very difficult job to do here in these forums, including keeping messages on track. We have many internal discussions about how to handle specific threads, including if and when we lock threads and specific users. Certainly everyone should be able to understand that discussing non-public builds in a public forum cannot be supported. RC is now public, so discussing it instead of Beta is the appropriate thing to do in these forums.
I don't want this thread to get off track, but I thought it was important for me to chime in, so please take my comment for what it is worth and let's get back to testing RC. Please do not respond further on this thread for non-RC issues. Thanks for your cooperation.
Thanks
-Tony Mann
Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums - I agree we should still have the Classic Start Menu Option. It is then up to the user to decide how their desktop and start menu workd.
Don't take functionality away
Regards - ditto Anthony.
If you want to work on tech issues of Win 7, here is the place.
If you need to trash MS, go elsewhere! I have waded through enough of that garbage and will report you in a flash!
As to the d/l after the 5th, I realized at midnight last night that it was now the 5th and sure enough it was available - took about 32 minutes. Very nice, MS!!! Cudos!!!
I have been using 7100 for about a week now, and love it!!!!!!
As to the quick launch - yeah, I totally forgot about that - I am reminded only by programs, whom, when installing, ask me if I want it added to the quick launch bar - I always say "no" as I have no idea where it would put it. I find the natural win 7 taskbar works beautifully for me - I get the advantages of both.
I have not noticed any change in 7100 from 7000, other than sfloppy now works, which means to me that the changes are transparent to me. I know a ton of work has gone into it as I have installed a couple of the in-between's just for fun.
I can not believe that they are giving this to us for a year. And in this economy.
Such a present!!!!!
Kris - Tony,
A comment from Ronnie to Darien about a question of mine really pissed me off. I'm an IT professional and have a good reputation. His comment was way out of line. (and of course no apologies)
This being said, my remark on Ronnie was a direct answer to Greg-999. (and I added "lol" (no hard feelings))
I agree that this thread should not go off track and therefore there will be no further "digging" about Ronnie (who I'm sure does a good job).
Back to business?
Taskbar->properties: the dropdowbuttons are too small for languages not as concise as american. - yes and I am a bigger IT professional. and far older than you and weigh more and my father is stronger. When will you guys learn to just take it elsewhere. You just gotta have the last word putting someone down.
Ronnie has done a lot of hard work here. If you don't like it, don't read his posts. I will not respond further to you.
Kris yes and I am a bigger IT professional. and far older than you and weigh more and my father is stronger. When will you guys learn to just take it elsewhere. You just gotta have the last word putting someone down.
Ronnie has done a lot of hard work here. If you don't like it, don't read his posts. I will not respond further to you.
Kris
Are you going to stop. I'm on this forum to help people when I can, not to support childish language. I was writing to Tony. Now stop.- This RC certainly solved a lot of issues we had with build 7000. MS has done a fantastic job in a very short time. Nevertheless although it's stable and functions OK, it is by no means ready to be shipped.
When you try to delete a bunch of files and than cancel that on the fly, explorer dies. It really tries to read / discover the contents of the files which are to be deleted. A nonsense to me.
Regards
Rem - I also miss the old Classis Start menu and I don´t like the Taskbar, since my first 95 and up, i allways have use Classic and the old taskbar,
i will NOT buy Windows 7 for years to come, because i (Classic, Taskbar) and IS´NT soooooo user freindly as Windows 95 and up to Windows 2008, i can´t find around in W7, but with Classic Start/Taskbar in W7, i will but it that day it´s come on the market...
:-( When your using UNIX (HP-UX, AIX, Spark), Linux, RTE-A, CPM (yes ma they still have a few around), CAPS, OS-11, Win98, Win2000, WinXP, Vista and Luck number 7, it would be nice for once for the new kid on the block to have an XP interface along with 7’s new interface.
With today’s processors, 4 plus GB of Ram and 1TB or more hard drives why can’t an intelligent programmer when teamed up with a savvy Marketing type give the XP users what they want, a new engine under the hood but the steering and gas pedal where you expect it to be. And just in time for a Xmas present.
JSThe only thing I noticed with Window Vista and Windows 7 is that the logon banner doesn't have the white background like Windows XP had. If you put a wallpaper on the desktop and if you have the DoD warning banner, then you can't read it that well. May suggeest that MS should look at making the logon banner with a white background. The whole point in the logon banner is so that people can read what the warning message states. This is a very critical when anyone signs on to a computer.
-Daniel HankinsDon't take functionality away
Classic Start Menu has less functionality than the new one, so basically it's the other way around xD
Regards, Kristaps.- I just found one nice improvement over the Beta. (one out, several to go!)
Internet Explorer now have "Tasks" and now is possible to open InPrivate navigation with just one click. No need to open a non in private instance and just them open inprivate.
But, thinking about it now, what if (keeping the moto: User in control) the user can personalize "tasks" and so on for the programs? Like.. I can right click a program in start menu and edit the menu I see there, puting or removing "tasks", would be very good.
The same can be applyed to notification area. Many times I want to open the Reliability Monitor, to check something. I can do that typing in "search" of start menu, but so far, I found that the faster way of doing it, using only mouse is: Right Click in Action Center "White Flag", open Action Center, expand Maintenance and click View reliabilty story. It would be much better if I can add The monitor to the White flag, pretty much like the new Jump Lists, but for icons in the system tray too.
Talking about the "white" flag, we still have all icons "white". The flag, the Volume Control, The Fork, or, I mean.. the network (it will always be like a fork for me)... they are all plain white. We don´t have the visual network indicator anymore, even with lots of users asking for put it back.
Let me talk about something sensitive now. the UAC. In a short analysis, its is much better than it was in vista. In a bigger analysis: It is still a pain to deal with.
Lots of applications I use (like games) always trigger UAC when I start them. WHY, for god sake, can´t we have a option like: NEVER AGAIN DISPLAY UAC FOR THIS APPLICATION?. Of course I know the reply: If MS put such option in UAC, it would be less secure, and more vulnerable to malware. Ok. Now, lets see the facts: I, and I believe lots of users have a good firewall instaled. Does it keep asking the same thing over and over again? or a GOOD application for safety have the option to store user rules? I think I don´t need to say more. The way UAC is, there is only one think I can do to use it without being anger: DISABLE UAC ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Ok, I know it will be much less secure. but... WAIT!!! WAIT! So, the user CAN DISABLE the UAC for good, but the user CAN´T create UAC rules, because it is LESS SECURE that way? Can please, someone explain it to me? If malware could be malicious enough to create a "safe rule" for itself, why can´t this same piece of malware disable uac?
But, again, let´s face the facts in here. Windows 7 is DONE. They will never change it. No matter how we say it, how many of us asks for it. Even from beta to RC many things didn´t change. Now, it´s even worse.
So, I think I will just stop wasting my time putting comments in here, or any other place. So far, all I can say is that MS don´t want our feedback anymore (Do you see any "Send Feedback" button in RC?). If they can´t change my mind about it, I will just assume windows is done now. They will fix little bugs, and, here we go, ship it, because "its good for you, the way it is. Don´t you DARE say otherwise, ok?" - Okay, I'm going to re-post some of my (and some other pupil's) suggestions, just because no-one at MS listened (and no changes were made for RC), even though people agreed.
- Add your own folders to start menu right side
- In a shortcut 's properties , the shortcut 's name in title should be placed in quotes , or separated by a dash . At the moment it's like this:
Just make the title say "shortcut name" properties or shortcut name - properties instead of shortcut name properties ;) - A new color picker (would be best if similar to Adobe Photoshop)
- There is a small bug, which I think has been carried over from Vista (haven't used Vista for a long time, so I might be wrong) -- when a window is maximized, its application icon directly touches the screen's edge - there is no padding on the right side.
The normal icon has equal padding on the left and the right side, while the maximized icon has only one on the right side.
This makes it hard to see the icon, and in general looks ugly. - Clicking on a taskbar icon with multiple windows open should bring up the last active document . (major UI flaw here)
- Middle-Click on show-desktop button to activate Flip3D
- Better "Overflow Mode" (when you have about 30 windows programs open)
As you can clearly see by the scrollbar buttons (up/down), the "overflow mode" is vertical , which, in my opinion, is its biggest weakness and makes it very flawed.
I suggest that "overflow mode" gets a horizontal layout (instead of the current vertical ).
And then there is this totally crazy idea -- make the scrolling continuous (like in Media Center)! Like, there is no beginning , there is no end -- you could just keep scrolling forever ! Of course, when "overflow mode" isn't needed anymore, all your programs return to how they were before - Two new buttons for ejecting removable drives (c'mon this was needed even in Vista - eject buttons inside the <expletive removed> drives !!)
- Big clock option in taskbar
- Always on top feature for DWM (= works with all windows)
- An included tool to unclutter right-click menus (and some work by Microsoft in right-click menu shortening field)
- Side-menus, thumbnails or whatever you call them, they should be connected to the item you just clicked. This is really needed , especially when taskbar is vertical:
1) Live Thumbnails
2) Notification area (okay this one maybe doesn't look very good, but still)
3) Jump Lists
- Permanent UAC-prompt disabling per-application
- Manual un-grouping of windows
- When taskbar is vertical (left/right), the start menu must open to the side , not down . (sry no pic here, but point still valid)
- Fix Aero-Snap (snap works, but unsnap doesn't) with windows with custom window themes (Office 2007 , Skype )
- Multi-launch shortcuts
- More use for Start Menu search bar (picture thumbs are a must )
Regards, Kristaps.- Edited byAnthony_MannMSFT, OwnerWednesday, May 06, 2009 10:44 PMexpletive removed
- Edited byKristaps. Tuesday, May 05, 2009 10:37 PMdash
- My comments about the RC are here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itprogeneral/thread/2edd2c2e-d14c-4c93-8015-91c4ef352701
I've waited the RC like you suggest me, but some bugs are still not fixed... - Hi SadSlash
Please understand that all of the bugs reported in the previous Beta 1 Build 7000 may not be fixed in the new RC build.
Many of these bugs are still being evaluated and fixes developed for them.
Hope this helps.
Thank You for testing Windows 7 Beta
Ronnie Vernon MVP Hi SadSlash
Please understand that all of the bugs reported in the previous Beta 1 Build 7000 may not be fixed in the new RC build.
Many of these bugs are still being evaluated and fixes developed for them.
Hope this helps.
Thank You for testing Windows 7 Beta
Ronnie Vernon MVP
Oh yes, I know this... But the bug 8 and 11 are frustrating for two reasons:
8 because I've read that it's fixed, and I discovered that it doesn't...
11 because removing external hd only when the pc is shutdown is a step down than Vista, where my two hd have no problem to removing...
A good news is that Office Update are, I hope, fixed completly... Now I don't have to select one by one the update, now it does updates without any errors (for now...)- I have to repeat my feedback which I did for the beta release since I still believe it is a serious usability flaw and not fixed yet for the RC (seems like nothing is fixed from the previous topic):
There is a serious usability flaw in W7 Beta. When I open multiple windows of the same program (Word, for instance), it takes me click + looking for the right window + mouse movement + click to switch back to the window I just worked with.
How about changing the default icon behaviour: click to open the last used window, hover to see the list of open windows. Clicking should bring up the last active document and hovering brings up other instances of the process.
If I have two Word files open and actively working on the first document and moving forth and back in this document and a browser page (researching something on the internet?), I'm bored of hovering stuff just to bring up my last active document!
Clicking and hovering on the icons in the taskbar do the same things so no one is hurt if you guys made it possible that clicking brings up the last recently used instance of a process and leave hovering as it is.
- Edited byshadow_shooter Tuesday, May 05, 2009 7:18 PM
- Edited byshadow_shooter Tuesday, May 05, 2009 8:05 PM
- I think user must have a choice what he would like to use without any intrusion. So please return back old startmenu/taskbar. :)
- By the way I totally AGREE WITH ALL THE THINGS kristaps recommended in this topic (except ungrouping the icons along the taskbar).
- Little enhancement Idea for IE8!!
I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop down arrow in the address bar.
When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab.
Just like your Favorites menu has.
Did I explain this ok? :) Please understand that all of the bugs reported in the previous Beta 1 Build 7000 may not be fixed in the new RC build.
What is the point of having a RC - RELEASE candidate, if Microsoft KNOW about lots of bugs not fixed yet? Why not just make a Beta 2 or something? Doing a RC, knowing it still have lots of bugs seens very strange for me.
Many of these bugs are still being evaluated and fixes developed for them.
In beta, you don´t know what to expect.. lots of bugs can and will happen. But once you leave the beta and start the RC, is supposed you think the release is fine, unless new bugs are found? Why leaving the old ones open in a RC build, knowing it?I have to repeat my feedback which I did for the beta release since I still believe it is a serious usability flaw and not fixed yet for the RC (seems like nothing is fixed from the previous topic):
There is a serious usability flaw in W7 Beta. When I open multiple windows of the same program (Word, for instance), it takes me click + looking for the right window + mouse movement + click to switch back to the window I just worked with.
How about changing the default icon behaviour: click to open the last used window, hover to see the list of open windows. Clicking should bring up the last active document and hovering brings up other instances of the process.
If I have two Word files open and actively working on the first document and moving forth and back in this document and a browser page (researching something on the internet?), I'm bored of hovering stuff just to bring up my last active document!
Clicking and hovering on the icons in the taskbar do the same things so no one is hurt if you guys made it possible that clicking brings up the last recently used instance of a process.
I totally agree. Hovering and clicking should have different behaviours. No need to be the same for them both, but real need to view the last active window when click the icon.I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop down arrow in the address bar.
You can middle click in the address to have it opened in a new tab. But, some consistence with the behaviour of favorites (having the arrow) could be good.
When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab.
I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop down arrow in the address bar.
You can middle click in the address to have it opened in a new tab. But, some consistence with the behaviour of favorites (having the arrow) could be good.
When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab.
Middle click does not work for me.Middle click does not work for me.
Strange, it always worked for me. But you can´t middle click in the address bar itself, middle clicking works only if the drop down menu is used to select one address.I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop down arrow in the address bar.
You can middle click in the address to have it opened in a new tab. But, some consistence with the behaviour of favorites (having the arrow) could be good.
When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab.
Unfortunately, notebook touchpads do not have a middle button.- I agree with ALL suggestions that have been made here, especially the one about clicking to switch to the last opened window, but some of the changes asked to the context menu and the double quotes in the Properties dialog. A dash would be better (i.e. I Love Myself Some Good - Properties). It has the same purpose (separating the filename and the word "Properties", but without the ugly double quotes.
- I've installed it on three machines with no problems whatsoever. This is not a guarantee that some problems will not arise but so far it looks clean.
Alex Stevens
Alex Stevens For those who may be wondering, yes you can still add the Quicklaunch toolbar to the Taskbar. Also, you can get Windows Mail working also, although I see NO REASON for it to be included but disabled!!!!
I don't miss them, at all, but, just out of curiosity, how did you do that?
As Ronnie told me, I also think that the three bugs (or features? :-| ) I showed here should be fixed. To summarize up:
- If you rename a file inside the Save as... dialog, and then click outside the editing field (do not press Enter), and then on Save, you get a message saying that the file xxxx already exists.
- If, in Tiles view in Windows Explorer, you rename a file changing only the case of some letters ("MyFile" -> "mYfIlE"), that change is not shown until you refresh the folder. Does not happen inside a library.
- If in regedit you rename a value changing only its case (see above), you get an error message and it does not work. I know that registry is not case sensitive (and this is probably the cause of the bug), but some very maniacal people (like me) like to see the correct case everywhere and sometimes they also rename some registry values for this reason... :-P
yes. what's really dumb is often the second window is not even a window proper, but may just be a dialog. for example: if you initiate a file operation in windows explorer, when you click on its icon, you get a preview of the explorer window and the file progress window. duh!If I have two Word files open and actively working on the first document and moving forth and back in this document and a browser page (researching something on the internet?), I'm bored of hovering stuff just to bring up my last active document!
Clicking and hovering on the icons in the taskbar do the same things so no one is hurt if you guys made it possible that clicking brings up the last recently used instance of a process and leave hovering as it is.
some have speculated they do it this way for touch screen, since you can't "hover" with touch screen. well, then they should do that for touch screens. why should 95% of people suffer this idiocy to accommodate 5% (conservative approximation).anyway, considering how many people have harped on this and it's unchanged for RC, I give up. I've set the taskbar to 'never combine'.When I say "clasic start menu" I mean the clasic start menu that is included in the taskbar properties of Windows XP and Vista, which allows us to switch the start menu from Windows XP or Vista mode to "Clasic Start Menu". You can also call it Windows 95 Start Menu.
Let me give you a good reason why I need a "clasic start menu".
I am legally blind, and I use a screen reader to operate my PC. I cannot use mouse, that's why I have to use keyboard for navigation. In Windows 7 Start Menu, It is very difficult to navigate between sub menus.
For example, when I open start menu, I up arrow to go to all programs and right arrow, down arrow to games and press right arrow, and then I press down arrow to listen the items in the games submenu.
When I move to the last item in the Games submenu, I will never know if it is the last item. If I continue to press the down arrow, the keyboard focus will leave the Games submenu, and move to the All Programs Items, but the Games submenu remains opened. In most cases I never know that the keyboard focus has moved outside the submenu.
If I need to close the Games submenu, I have to move my keyboard focus to the "Games", and then press the left arrow. This means if I am on the last item of the games submenu, I have to press up arrow 17 times and then press the left arrow. If I press left arrow while the keyboard focus is on the Games submenu items, the keyboard focus will move to the right navigation area of the start menu. It is very difficult to move from the right navigation area to the exact location on the left navigation area of the start menu. This means that I have to start all over again.
I'm sure that you noticed that I have to be very very careful when using Windows 7 start menu. This is just an example of games submenu, now imagine me using Accesseries submenu, and its submenus on Windows 7 Start Menu.
When I use a "Clasic Start Menu", I just press the Windows key to open the start menu, press the letter "P" to open the programs submenu, press "G" to open the Games submenu, and then I press down arrow to listen the Items.
When I'm on the last item of the Games submenu, and I press down arrow key one more time, the keyboard focus will move back to the first item on the Games submenu. The keyboard focus will not jump outside of the Games submenu. While my keyboard focus is on the games submenu Items, at any point I can press the left arrow key to close the Games submenu.
The clasic Start menu is more accessible, and a lot sympler than windows 7 Start menu while using it with the keyboard. The Windows 7 Start Menu is still accessible, but very time consuming. I'd prefer Clasic Start Menu.
Zaheer Sheikh- a dash would be better indeed :) I updated the post.
Regards, Kristaps. Hi Zaheer
I understand your special needs.
In Windows 7, I think one thing that can help with your disability is the Search Box on the Start menu.
As an example, if you press the Windows Key to open the Start Menu and then simply begin typing the name of the program you wish to open, the name of the program will appear in the top of the Results and you simply need to press Enter to open the program.
For instance, press the Winkey, type Spider and press Enter and the Spider Solitaire game opens. Type Solitaire and the classic game opens. Type Chess and Chess Titans opens. You can do this for virtually any program.
Hope this helps.
Thank You for testing Windows 7 RC
Ronnie Vernon MVPMiddle click does not work for me.
Hi Superman75I have another solution you might want to test.
Please your original thread on this subject.
Little enhancement Idea for IE8!!
Hope this helps.
Thank You for testing Windows 7 RC
Ronnie Vernon MVP- Just installed the RC version. Two notes so far....
(1) My first initial windows update after install showed that the driver install for my Dell Printer AIO 922 failed...I hit "retry" and it seemed like it succeded but I tried to print and the printer doesn't work. The printer works on my Vista partition.
(2) McAfee Total Protection Beta for Windows 7 failed to install. I was using it on the Windows 7 Beta. The installation failed, and now I can't even get to the McAfee page without getting a runtime error.
Intel Pentium 4 @ 3Ghz, 2GB DDR Ram, Nvidia 7600GS - AGP type. - my beta -> RC report.I did both an upgrade from build 7000 (yes I know I should not do this, but I'm using win7 full time now and did not want to reinstall everything) as well as a clean install on a separate disk, so that I can give proper feedback.things that are fixed/changed:1) cisco VPN works now, although uninstalling still gives a B(lack)SOD and reboot.2) the task manager's tray icon now stays visible. before, the beta kept changing it from "show icon and notification" to "show notification only".3) taskbar icons shrunk a bit, giving more space.things not fixed/unchanged:1) as reported above, when you set taskbar to combine icons and have multiple instances of the app opened, clicking and hovering do the same thing: show the previews. You have to click twice just to bring up the last active window. Of course you can ctrl+click, but I can't get used to it. (silly rabbit, cmd+click is for macs!)2) windows explorer still does not show free disk space on the status bar. still does not show total file size when selecting more than 20 items or so. you have to click 'show details'. I won't rehash why this is idiotic.I'm frustrated with windows explorer in general. it has some improvements over XP, but takes some steps backward. the fact of the matter is windows explorer has not seen much innovation simply because it has no real competition. if you doubt this, imagine if we lived in a world where google, mozilla, apple, opera, etc. for some reason had an incentive to create free windows explorer alternative. do you think windows explorer would be in a same state it is now?3) you still cannot drag and drop files from WMP to another app, e.g., to explorer to copy songs to a USB disk, to iTunes to put songs onto your ipod. this makes it rather useless as an app to manage your media files, which is a shame considering other media players don't (yet) understand the Library concept of win7.(speaking of which, why can't win7 virtualize a Library into a folder? I want to tell iTunes that I keep all my music in a Library called... wait for it... Music. this Library links together several folders that I have scattered among 3 disks. However, when I select the Music Library, win7 says I need to select a folder, not a library. well, isn't the point of a Library to create a virtual folder that you can treat as a single super folder? Seems to me for backward compatibility, an app should be able to open, enumerate, and traverse a library just as if it's a folder. Kind of like how you can map a network path to a drive? There are complications, such as dealing with duplicate names. But if you can run a whole other OS inside win7, I think you can pull itoff!)I think like many people here, I'm disappointed that a lot of the suggestions in the previous threads were passed over. It seems MS was content to use the beta trial to iron out problems rather than to get feedback for significant improvements. also, considering that there isn't expected to be another RC, I think what we see is pretty much what we'll get for the final release. I think MS wants to get win7 out the door due to the (relative) failure of Vista, real or perceived. which is too bad. I personally would've welcomed a longer beta period where more of user suggestions could've been implemented. but I'm not trying to run the world's biggest software company.PS: the new shell icons: pale, flat, indistinct, forgettable. It feels as if the prime directive behind the design was not to draw attention instead of showing what the heck the icon is for. I can't even tell, for example, what the icon for control panel is supposed to be. why does that remind me of one of those cutesy imacs?PPS: on the other hand, there are some good looking and funky wallpapers.
- "I don't miss them, at all, but, just out of curiosity, how did you do that?"
Do an internet search on "Windows 7 Quicklaunch". You will find the directions. I have my taskbar setup exactly like in 2000/XP/Vista, because I LIKE IT THAT WAY!!!! Dual row taskbar, open app icons on the top row, Quicklaunch icons on the bottom row. Don't need ANYTHING on the desktop this way. Plus you get the Show Desktop and Flip3D icons back!
Here is one:
http://windows7center.com/windows-7-tips/how-to-enable-the-quick-launch-bar-in-windows-7/
I'll not reveal my method for getting Windows Mail to work yet. I'm worried that MS will do something in the final to prevent it from running. I WANT WINDOWS MAIL FOR USENET NEWSGROUP ACCESS!!!! Why is it included in Windows 7 but disabled?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
This is how I see it (and your quote ^ proves it) -- some people are just convinced that the new start menu is bad and the classic one was better (some of them probably haven't even used the "new" start menu). They just scream and shout and demand and rant without knowing what the new start menu can and can't do, without even using it themselves and discovering how it can help them.In Windows 7, I think one thing that can help with your disability is the Search Box on the Start menu.
For example, take this point: "I can find programs faster in classic start menu". -- Hello, have you noticed the search box? (nothing beats start menu search, hat off to MS) How about the pinning ability?
So I suggest that ppl, before demanding classic start menu back, actually use the new start menu how it was supposed to be used.
Nothing personal, just my 2 eurocents.
Regards, Kristaps.- Edited byKristaps. Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:01 AM
- There always has been 2,3 or more ways to accomplish the same task in Windows. There is nothing wrong with 7's Start Menu but the customer is always ..... and we are the customers. No demand = No sales for Microsoft, since so many people stayed away from Vista for whatever the reason the idea here is not only to make a better Vista but also to sell a product that XP users will like and migrate to. Therefor a truely XP style Start Menu and other XP style features not only makes for happy XP users but leads to good sales.
Corporations are still using Windows 2000 and XP and never moved to Vista, that a lot of lost sales so Microsoft's first priority should be the average home user, after all if it wasn't for us the world would all be eating Apples and using a one finger mouse.
JS Overall, the RC is somewhat disappointing. Really large amounts of feedback have *seemingly* been ignored, I'm not sure who exactly requested some of the UI/UX features but certainly no one I know did. One thing I'm disappointed about in the RC is that Wordpad and Windows Explorer still don't work well with .docx files.
Windows Explorer can't preview the formats now compatible with Wordpad (.docx and .odf, it also can't preview .ico, .ps1, .m4v) using the Preview Pane. The metadata in the incompatible .doc documents can be be seen and edited (via Properties > Details or the Details Pane) but not .docx documents, even though .docx is now an out-of-the-box compatible format via Wordpad. If Wordpad opens a tagged .docx file it will erase some of the user-editable metadata if saved out. The only way I know of to get access to .docx metadata in Windows 7 is to install Office 2007. Weak. Utilizing Tags, Authors, and Titles is a great way to get more use out of Windows Search.
I'm not even getting into a lot of the small visual problems with Wordpad... (lie):
»Like a number of icons that don't match the rest of the OS.
Cut and copy don't match Explorer/Powershell ISE, Date and Time doens't match the CPL item.
»The artifacting around font text in the "Font Family" DropDownList on mouse hover.
»And, at least to my eyes, ClearType doesn't work in Wordpad. Text looks a bit different in Wordpad.
I didn't expect the visual things to change when using 7000 but I'm surprised they let the metadata go unchanged.
------
And Naddy, use Live Mail.- I suppose by the look of things this is still not "A" release candidate" but rather another beta of one and for that reason much can still be changed, but I'd really like a lowdown on Superfetch soon. I want to know if its current state is what is meant to be in Release Candidate level and if so; is there anything the user can do to modify its behavior?
- I believe this is very much the release candidate. They said one beta and release candidate and I think they meant it. I think some people were expecting a bit much of it.
- I downloaded the RC yesterday and installed to a spare partition on a 64bit system.
The install was flawless and very quick,all hardware was found and working in minutes.
I have not seen Win7 before and for the most part have to say I am very impressed,certainly it seems to be a vast improvement on Vista.
2 things that I see so far that are not good, 1) Defender was apparently running but is nowhere to be found in the start menu,the programs list or Control Panel,I only found it by accident,it is so invisible I assumed it was not included in this OS.
2) Windows Mail, why is this incomplete/disabled. I and many other Vista users run Windows Mail,I need to be able to import all mail/settings/contacts etc. The offered Windows Live Mail is definitely not something I would use,frankly I think it is truly dreadful. Fine for those that want a facebook /social networking app that looks like it was designed by 10 year olds but certainly not an application for serious /business use. If this "Live Mail" is the thing of the future it needs to be able to lose all the tacky looks and have the abilty to import all WindowsMail settings.
Why?
And Naddy, use Live Mail.
Live Mail is totally unsuitable for home office/ business use , mail and account settings cannot be imported and the interface is truly awful.
Fine for home use and those that want to share media etc. but as an app for a busy environment no way, Live Mail is a home user toy.
- I've "discover" also this bug:
http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproperf/thread/2c4c95d6-fe48-48d3-a378-2d122bbecb26
Anyone can check this? - OK! I'm a convert.
On January 15th I posted a tirade (same Title: Taskbar) against mixed Program (pinned) shortcuts, and Program buttons:(
Thankfully it was treated gently by those who responded.
The springboard videos are very helpful, and the whole Taskbar thing now has me in raptures! - as do many of the other UI features :)
GLITCH:
On ONE startup, the desktop Gadgets did not appear.
Right-Click>View showed the box ticked.
I needed to untick then re-tick to show the Gadgets.
Only happened once, but DID happen.
Great effort by, and Great credit to, the development team!!
Regards,
Pat Garard
Melbourne Australia
Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia- Edited byPat Garard Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:11 AMAccuracy
- Merged byRonnie VernonMVP, ModeratorWednesday, May 06, 2009 8:34 AMFeedback
- I can not believe they got rid of the option for the classic menu!! I have so many freeware apps on my system and I can never remember their names so I group them together based on their use. I don't use the same 3 or 4 programs each day - even if I did I would stick them on my desktop.
Im finding this really hard to adapt to as its a lot less intuitive. I keep sneaking back to XP which is no good as I know its on its way out. - "And Naddy, use Live Mail."
No thanks, I will continue to use Windows Mail. It can be made to work in 7!
This is how I see it (and your quote ^ proves it) -- some people are just convinced that the new start menu is bad and the classic one was better (some of them probably haven't even used the "new" start menu). They just scream and shout and demand and rant without knowing what the new start menu can and can't do, without even using it themselves and discovering how it can help them.In Windows 7, I think one thing that can help with your disability is the Search Box on the Start menu.
For example, take this point: "I can find programs faster in classic start menu". -- Hello, have you noticed the search box? (nothing beats start menu search, hat off to MS) How about the pinning ability?
So I suggest that ppl, before demanding classic start menu back, actually use the new start menu how it was supposed to be used.
Nothing personal, just my 2 eurocents.
Regards, Kristaps.
As I already posted in the "have comments about 7 beta", here is my 2 cents for this:
The search feature is a good thing, IF I NEED TO SEARCH!
Why do I need to search for something if I know exactly where is?
I always had my Start Menu organizated, and I know exactly where my programs are. So, if I need to lauch something, I just use the MOUSE, click all programs, and click the program I want, simple as that, click, click, done.
Why do I need to click start menu, leave the mouse, put the hands on keyboard, start typing the name of the program, wast processor cicles to search for it, then, put the hand back in mouse, and only then, click the program? Nice improvement!
If I don´t know where the program is, or if im searching for a document, I agree the search function is amazing, but it simples is not all the times I need to SEARCH, sometimes, I just need to have a nice floting menu, and CLICK.
and, soon after I posted it, barth2k posted:
I agree with Warel. We need an option for fly out menu. the new start menu is great if you're using an iphone, but now that we can get 1920x1200 monitors for 300USD, it's really dumb to confine your menu to that little window and force the user to scroll scroll scroll.
people keep pointing out that you can use the search. but isn't that just an indictment of the new menu? it's so cumbersome to navigate that it's faster to take your hand off the mouse, type, then go back to the mouse? this is exactly what I do if the program I'm looking for isn't on the MRU list.
And, I totally agree with barth2k. For me, there is no need to classic menu come back. Overal, I like the new menu, but not having a option to a fly out menu, and make me scroll and scroll and keep scrooling a confined little place, when I have a huge monitor in front of me, and I WANT to use it, is just stupid.
- Edited byWarel Wednesday, May 06, 2009 1:50 PMHtml color was red?
- Ok, now, after using Windows RC for a bit more time, here is my list of what I think is missing:
1) Windows explorer: It is still not customizable, nor user friendly, as it was since Windows Vista.
- We can´t configure the commands bar anymore. Can I put my most used buttons in there? No. Can I remove something? No. It is "as is" like it or not, you can´t change it.
- Status bar / Details pane still use 3 lines and don´t provide the information (file sizes) that Windows XP provided with ONE SINGLE LINE.
-If I want to know the sizes of more than a few files, I need to click the STUPID "More Details" button. Did I said STUPID? Yes, just because I don´t want to use a heavier word here. but STUPID is not enough for this behaviour. I´m using it just to be polited.
- Explorer don´t show (anymore) the free space of a disk / partition / device. So, if you are going to copy / move files, or you guess, or you open "Computer" to see it.
- Can I pause a copy / move operation after it started? NO. If windows explorer is given this single improvement, that people are asking for YEARS, this only would be a nice compeling feature to buy Win7.
- If I´m coping a file over a network, and the connection is lost, can I resume the file transfer later? NO. after all this years, even with a "homegroup" the only option is to replace the file and start copying again.
- Autoarrange for files: I HATE this "feature" Can I disable it? NO. AGAIN, I can´t disable / modify one setting that I dislike.
2) Internet Explorer:
- Download resume if connection is lost. It is a MUST. and we don´t have it YET.
1+2) For both, Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, I like very much the new "Progress bar" integrated in the icon on superbar. THIS is improvement. But, again, I don´t like the green color. Can I change it to be blue? NO. Why not? The system is not suposed to have "User in control"?
3) Program elevation:
I use winrar a lot. Lets think if a need to rar a file or folder inside "Program files" or "Windows". In XP, I could right click it, and make the rar. Now, I cant. Winrar is not running with administrative privileges, so, it can´t write to this folders. But, Windows don´t ask my permission. It just says: DENIED. Wait, it´s my computer, I´m the admin, I want to do it. Ask. Don´t put a DENIED in my face.
The only way to do that, is to put winrar to run with admin privileges, or, when right click, change another location for the file. I can do that, for sure, but I still don´t like the idea of windows saying I´m denied of doing something without asking first.
4) UAC: As I already said a lot of times, but never got listen too:
In a short analysis, its is much better than it was in vista. In a bigger analysis: It is still a pain to deal with.
Lots of applications I use (like games) always trigger UAC when I start them. WHY, for god sake, can´t we have a option like: NEVER AGAIN DISPLAY UAC FOR THIS APPLICATION?. Of course I know the reply: If MS put such option in UAC, it would be less secure, and more vulnerable to malware. Ok. Now, lets see the facts: I, and I believe lots of users have a good firewall instaled. Does it keep asking the same thing over and over again? or a GOOD application for safety have the option to store user rules? I think I don´t need to say more. The way UAC is, there is only one think I can do to use it without being anger: DISABLE UAC ONCE AND FOR ALL.
Ok, I know it will be much less secure. but... WAIT!!! WAIT! So, the user CAN DISABLE the UAC for good, but the user CAN´T create UAC rules, because it is LESS SECURE that way? Can please, someone explain it to me? If malware could be malicious enough to create a "safe rule" for itself, why can´t this same piece of malware disable uac?
5) ISO Files: Why windows can not mount iso files out of the box yet?
6) Disk manager:
A option to resize / merge disk partitions without data loss would be very very welcome.
7) Programs starting with windows:
We can hide the icons. But why not integrate a function in the "Notification area" like: Stop this program from starting with windows.
For sure we can use regedit or msconfig to edit it, but why not make it more user friendly?
8) Start Menu:
Why not put a option to have "all programs" Fly out? We can put almost all other options to Fly out. Computer, Control Panel, Documents, Videos, Pictures, Games, almost all. but the most needed one for me, the ALL PROGRAMS, don´t have the option to be show as a menu. Even with bigger / high res monitors becoming cheaper and cheaper, the user have all the programs confined to a tiny small place and is forced to scroll, scroll, scroll scroll... its (again) stupid, unnecesary and inconsistent with all other options beeing alowed to be show as a menu.
9) Superbar icons: I think the default icons are too big. But the small ones are too small. Why there is no option, like in personalization to set a specifc size? We can set the exactly size for icons in desktop, why can´t it be done in the superbar too? - Is there a way to switch to classic start menu in Windows 7 and how can I enable quiklunch on taskbar?
- Merged byRonnie VernonMVP, ModeratorWednesday, May 06, 2009 10:44 PMFocus
- Installed Vista Ultimate 32 bit SP2 a few days ago, but this platform blows that away. I'm impressed with 7's "nurturings".
- Warel: did you vulcan mind meld me in my sleep, because I agree 100% with all your points.
- I simply want to turn off the taskbar preview. It's not neccesary for my use of Windows. But when opening gpedit.msc it says "Compatible with Windows Vista ONLY"
- Classic Start menu is gone Gone Gone For Good. There is no way to switch to it.
Quick launch can be enabled as a "Toolbar". Follow the directions here: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/01/14/how-to-enable-or-disable-quick-launch-bar-toolbar-in-windows-7/
This toolbar is a workaround as opposed to the actual quick launch but it does work. - Yes, Windows Explorer would need many improvements. Ok, the copy in Vista and 7 is handled better than in XP, but until I am given the ability to pause and resume copies I'll just go on with TeraCopy.
As I reported in another topic, the string "Invert Selection" should be replaced with "Invert selection".
A nice feature which is probably now too late to ask to be included is what QTTabBar does. It was a software for Windows XP which added an address bar similar to the one we have in Vista or Windows 7 in Windows Explorer (the one which allows you to click on any level of the path). It was better, since the dropdown menu that is shown when you click on one of those arrows in order to select a folder, had submenus for other folders, so basically you could navigate directly to a complicated path using those menus. I haven't explained this very well, I hope I was clear.
This minor bug should also be fixed. It's a minor bug in the installer.
Finally, I've also noticed that when you are renaming a system file (tried that with C:\bootmgr), you are asked once to grant administrator permissions plus 3 more times with exactly the same message (warning: if you rename a system file the system might be damaged, or whatsoever). And that when you assign a label to a disk, the warning asking for administrator permissions which you get, shows the error symbol (X) instead of the exclamation mark , which would be more appropriate since that is a warning, not an error. - Hi Zarsen
You need to always consider that Windows 7 is still a beta product.
You won't see any 'compatible with Windows 7' notations until the final
