Windows 7

[shmokes]

Has anyone here tried it?  It's really really good.  I've been running it for a couple weeks now and I'm amazed at how stable it is, especially being Beta software.  Aside from stability, though, it's SO much more usable than Vista.  MS has redesigned the taskbar from the ground up.  Much of its new functionality is copped from Mac OS's dock, but IMO they've really outdone the dock in a bunch of important ways.  And in addition to being able to do everything Vista can do and more, it's FAR leaner than Vista.  Windows 7 will run well on 1 GB of RAM and fairly slow processors.

I'm kinda curious how MAME would do on it.

Anyway, download a copy from MS before the public beta period ends. 

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx

[AtomSmasher]

I haven't tried it, but I've heard good things.  I've decided to wait for the release candidate before I install it since thats probably only a month or so away.

[patrickl]

I thought the task bar was quite similar to what they did with Vista (and actually the one from Win 95 already)? Isn't the only difference that it collapses icons on he task bar from the same program? Vista does that already and to be honest I hate it when it does that.

[shmokes]

  No no no no no no no

The difference is much greater.  In fact, it does collapse multiple instances of the same program, which I've always hated.  But I don't hate it at all here because it's managed brilliantly.  The first big difference is that programs are permanently pinned to the task bar, whether running or not.  When you click on one it is subtly highlighted and outlined, to show that it's running, but it is deliberately subtle about it.  Cos it doesn't matter if it's running.  You want to use the program you want, whether it's already running or not.  So non-running and running programs simply coexist in the taskbar and it works very very well.  As for the grouping, it works well because when you hover your mouse-over the icon instead of getting a pop-up list you get a live thumbnail of each instance of the program, tiled horizontally above the taskbar.  As you mouse-over each of these thumbnails it temporarily pulls that window into the foreground, so you can VERY quickly cycle through open programs just by sliding your mouse across the row of tiles.  When you get to the one you want, just click on it and it will come into focus.  Don't click on anything and whatever you were working on before will return to focus.  Very slick.

Additionally, the icons in the taskbar no longer use text labels of any kind.  Just icons (like Mac's dock).  This not only looks way cooler, but it also opens up a TON of useable space on the taskbar.

Lots of little touches make it nice too.  Now when you click the button to show you the hidden icons in the system tray, instead of expanding out horizontally, it opens a vertical box containing all the icons.  No more of the snapping back closed when you're trying to get to one of the icons at the end and your mouse veers a single pixel off the row.  Show Desktop is now improved, and a permanent fixture on the taskbar, rather than just an icon in the system tray nobody knows about.

And that's all just the task bar (and there are other cool features I didn't even touch on).  There's a lot of other greatness under the hood.  Hell . . . if Windows 7 looked and acted just like Vista it would be quite an accomplishment since it'll run well with a fraction of the horsepower. 

[patrickl]

It shows all non running programs on the taskbar too? That doesn't sound very practical. Ah well, I guess I have to see it.

[shmokes]

Not all.  Just ones that you use frequently.  And it's 100% up to you which programs you have there.  Some programs are pinned to the taskbar by default, like Internet Explorer, but they can be unpinned just by right clicking on them.

Again, this much works very much like the Mac OS X dock.  The bit about having to see it may just be right.  If you've made use of the quick launch in previous flavors of windows it might be somewhat easier to wrap your head around.

The start menu is still there, virtually unchanged from Vista as near as I can tell (which isn't too bad since Vista already made the start menu significantly better than XP).  You still use the start menu in the same way you always have.  But you can pin programs to the task bar that you use often.  It just works really well.  I'm sure that once you start using it you will find how well it works.  It's seriously a revolutionary upgrade.  I'd say the biggest step they've taken in UI since they moved from 3.1 to 95.  Seriously that big.  And it's really really good.

[ark_ader]

Is Shmokes working for M$ now?

I have several copies running on VMware and it is playing ball with me so far.  I have been running several apps to try and break it and it has some potential.  I cannot say it is a XP killer, but if it had the security of Vista with the file transfer speed of XP then we would have a interesting debate on upgrading.

I'm not sure which of the 7 versions I will purchase or upgrade from Vista with.  But I will stick with XP for functionality until I can be 100% certain it is not another pile of crap.  But it is great to use as a learning tool for future certifications and real world applications.

I would give the betas a miss and concentrate on the finished version when it appears in 4Q unless you are truly beta testing for your institution.  I definitely would not recommend installing on a live system, but within a contained environment.  I would not like to see a thread of "I lost my PC after installing Windows 7".  But anything is possible here.

I'm also testing 2008 server. Its still early days, and I have not gotten out the legacy software yet.  I do have issues with migrating accounts from Linux and Novell.  There are mixed mode issues with old NT4 boxes too.   There shouldn't be considering... 

Such is life. 

[DaveMMR]

I only ran my install on Windows 7 a couple of times but so far I'm kind of digging it.  I'll reserve judgment until I do full-blown tests with my hardware and apps. 

[shmokes]

Not working for MS.  If I was I certainly wouldn't be pointing out that much of the new functionality is copped from Mac OS X. 

ark_ader, you sound like a geek.  The one thing that Apple has always had on MS is that Apple's UI's (and hardware) are designed by designers, while MS's are made by geeks.  I went into great deal about how amazing the new user interface is and you respond with stability, security and file transfer speed.  Geeks don't care as much about user interfaces cos they just learn how everything works and they make it work for them.  Maybe they get around clunky interfaces by memorizing keyboard commands.  Maybe they figure out how to bypass obnoxious quirks by doing things at the command line.  But that's a dumb way to think.  In addition to everything I mentioned already, Windows 7 still has a command line interface.  And it has greatly expanded the gamut of keyboard commands available, e.g., win+shift+right/left-arrow will jump your application from one monitor to the other (if you have multiple monitors), even if the app is maximized.  Way cool!  You're an advanced network guy who's worked with Novell, so surely you've seen how dangerous it is to ignore the importance of user interface even when 100% of your target market consists of professional computer geeks.

Now, don't get me wrong, stability and security and file transfer are important.  In fact, I mentioned that it's very stable (especially considering it's beta software).  And I mentioned that it's much leaner and faster than Vista.  Obviously that's important.  And without that stuff, the user interface is for naught.   

BTW . . . I can't help but get a gigantic kick out of this:

Is Shmokes working for M$ now?

. . . I cannot say it is a XP killer . . . I will stick with XP for functionality . . .

Are you aware that M$ makes Windows XP?   

[boykster]

I'm probably one of the dozen or so peeps in teh world, but I like Vista......

Mebbe it's that I don't have a ton of legacy hardware on the 3 computers I run it on, and they're new machines.  One of them "vista certified", and the other 2 pretty beefy boxes with modren hardware, but otherwise, nothing special.

 

I am looking forward to Windows 7 though - I'll wait for an RC or Final --BINGO! Either that, or I was attempting to say "before" but it was too many letters to type-- I put it anywhere but in a VM.

[patrickl]

I'm probably one of the dozen or so peeps in teh world, but I like Vista......

I'm perfectly happy with Vista too. Actually I think it's just a few early adopters and general MS hate in some people that keeps perpetuating the Vista sux nonsense.

But then I rarely install another OS on my computers (other than the one that came with it) and if I do, I wait at least for service pack 1 (or even 2).

[shmokes]

If there's one thing that proves that Vista sucks, it's Windows 7.  Vista is like a Hummer.  It has some cool features, but it is horribly inefficient and gets like 10 MPG.    You might argue that it's just so advanced that it has to have outrageous system requirements to run well.  The Windows 7 comes along and shows you that, no, Vista was just a sloppy mess.  And in terms of usability, Vista is a fail compared to OS X.

[patrickl]

Are you basing that on actual facts or just a gut feeling? Or maybe that you are comparing a clean Windows 7 install with a bogged down Vista install? Or just that it runs  better on old hardware?

I have seen benchmarks of the service packs of Vista vs Win XP and IIRC there was really no performance difference to speak of.

I don't like these shiney, see through, animated hippy interface things though. The first thing I do is switch back to the Classic Windows interface. My computers all still look like they are running Win 95 So I might be missing out on a lot of cool features.

[ark_ader]

Not working for MS.  If I was I certainly wouldn't be pointing out that much of the new functionality is copped from Mac OS X. 

ark_ader, you sound like a geek.  The one thing that Apple has always had on MS is that Apple's UI's (and hardware) are designed by designers, while MS's are made by geeks.  I went into great deal about how amazing the new user interface is and you respond with stability, security and file transfer speed.  Geeks don't care as much about user interfaces cos they just learn how everything works and they make it work for them.  Maybe they get around clunky interfaces by memorizing keyboard commands.  Maybe they figure out how to bypass obnoxious quirks by doing things at the command line.  But that's a dumb way to think.  In addition to everything I mentioned already, Windows 7 still has a command line interface.  And it has greatly expanded the gamut of keyboard commands available, e.g., win+shift+right/left-arrow will jump your application from one monitor to the other (if you have multiple monitors), even if the app is maximized.  Way cool!  You're an advanced network guy who's worked with Novell, so surely you've seen how dangerous it is to ignore the importance of user interface even when 100% of your target market consists of professional computer geeks.

Now, don't get me wrong, stability and security and file transfer are important.  In fact, I mentioned that it's very stable (especially considering it's beta software).  And I mentioned that it's much leaner and faster than Vista.  Obviously that's important.  And without that stuff, the user interface is for naught.   

BTW . . . I can't help but get a gigantic kick out of this:

Is Shmokes working for M$ now?

. . . I cannot say it is a XP killer . . . I will stick with XP for functionality . . .

Are you aware that M$ makes Windows XP?   

Duh.  M$ is trying to kill off XP thus my comment. 

But if my comments makes you giggle then, then I am happy it made your day! 

[AtomSmasher]

Are you basing that on actual facts or just a gut feeling? Or maybe that you are comparing a clean Windows 7 install with a bogged down Vista install? Or just that it runs  better on old hardware?

I have seen benchmarks of the service packs of Vista vs Win XP and IIRC there was really no performance difference to speak of.

I don't like these shiney, see through, animated hippy interface things though. The first thing I do is switch back to the Classic Windows interface. My computers all still look like they are running Win 95 So I might be missing out on a lot of cool features.

I believe he's basing it on being able to run windows 7 on slower machines.  However, the benchmarks I've seen on higher end machines so far show 7 run about equal to Vista and XP (they're all faster on some tests and slower on others, but overall they're about equal).  Of course windows 7 is still in beta, so it may be faster then Vista in every test by the time it ships, but we'll have to wait and see.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming_performance/

[shmokes]

Duh.  M$ is trying to kill off XP thus my comment. 

Right . . . I mean, I say Windows 7 is great and thus must be on Microsoft's payroll.  You respond with Windows XP being great.  So who is paying you to say that?  Exactly.   

[patrickl]

Ah thanks Atomsmasher.

So as usual the performance differences aren't really impressive. I guess it would help if it's useful quicker after booting. That's the only thing that really bugs me with Vista (compared to XP). The desktop is showing, it looks like booting is done, but it's just sitting there not responding to key presses or mouse clicks.

[Blanka]

It's not good.
They should make 1 version: Windows 7 ultimate, and sell it for 129$ (Apple Leopard price) and make no strange impossible OEM licenses. Then it is good.

[richms]

I hate the taskbar. I intentionally resize my one on vista to 3 or 4 lines to avoid the grouping.

Thumbnails dont tell you what the message window has in it, the title does - so the small thumbnails are wortheless - thats when they work and dont just get an icon on it.

If you are a light user with only 10-20 windows open at a time I can see that it might be ok, but with 40-50 its bloody aweful.

I have being really annoyed that they never put an ungroup this application option in xp/vista for the taskbar. I cant recall when grouping started happening rather then a scrollbar on the taskbar but it was one of the most annoying things ever because it groups so stupid - I end up with acrobat in the list of firefox windows - the somehow explorer windows are in the list with utorrent for some reason? I dunno, and it doesnt seem to have any reasonable way to seperate instances of firefox out - that was an issue in vista tho where they would all group together despite being different processes started from different icons.

[AtomSmasher]

I hate the taskbar. I intentionally resize my one on vista to 3 or 4 lines to avoid the grouping.

Are you talking about the Vista taskbar or the one in windows 7?  Because from what I hear, it's been vastly improved.

I also prefer my tasks not to be grouped, but the way its described in windows 7, it sounds like it might be okay now.

[Hoopz]

I have being really annoyed that they never put an ungroup this application option in xp/vista for the taskbar.

Am I missing something?  Can't you right click on the taskbar, hit properties, then look under taskbar appearance, uncheck "Group similar taskbar buttons"?

[AtomSmasher]

I have being really annoyed that they never put an ungroup this application option in xp/vista for the taskbar.

Am I missing something?  Can't you right click on the taskbar, hit properties, then look under taskbar appearance, uncheck "Group similar taskbar buttons"?

Yup, in XP you can.  I don't use Vista anymore (my illegal copy got turned off by MS and I never bothered getting a legit one), so I figured they took that option out of Vista since he was ranting about it.

[richms]

Not on an app by app basis you cant turn it off, its an all or nothing thing.

With explorer windows it is ok to group since they have sensible titles, but you lose that in windows 7 untill you mouse over the things, its just making things have mystery meat navigation too much IMO.

[orion]

It's not good.
They should make 1 version: Windows 7 ultimate, and sell it for 129$ (Apple Leopard price) and make no strange impossible OEM licenses. Then it is good.

I was reading an article somewhere (can't find it now, sorry) that said that Microsoft learned their lesson with vista and isn't going to release umteen versions of 7.

[Zero_Hour]

I've seen several articles claiming that Win 7 will continue with the multiple flavor scheme - Toms Harware & ZDNet were a couple of them.

What will be brought down to a single version is the "Windows 7 Ready" Sticker that they slap on New PCs  - Vista had 4 variants apparently.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/windows_seven_logos/

[sel]

I cannot wait for windows 7 already. I am not that thrilled with V ista! ^_^!!!!!!

[orion]

I've seen several articles claiming that Win 7 will continue with the multiple flavor scheme - Toms Harware & ZDNet were a couple of them.

What will be brought down to a single version is the "Windows 7 Ready" Sticker that they slap on New PCs  - Vista had 4 variants apparently.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/06/windows_seven_logos/

There seems to be different accounts of what they are going to do. This article is claiming that they are going to only release three different versions..... who knows

http://windows7news.com/2009/02/04/microsoft-cuts-down-on-windows-7-editions/

[Flip_Willie]

EDIT: Atomsmasher already posted that link. Dang, too late.

From the brief time I have spent using windows 7, I still greatly prefer XP.

[ark_ader]

Duh.  M$ is trying to kill off XP thus my comment. 

Right . . . I mean, I say Windows 7 is great and thus must be on Microsoft's payroll.  You respond with Windows XP being great.  So who is paying you to say that?  Exactly.   

I read that a couple of times and it gave me a headache.   

I have some M$ shares so it puts me well into their camp. 

XP will live on forever as does NT4 and Windows 98.

I contract for some who still has NT4 Workstation on all their PCs.   NT4 is rock solid and stable.

If it ain't broke.....

[shmokes]

In fact, it is broke.  It is not supported.  It also lacks driver support for about 99.999% of any hardware on the market today.  I suspect that tons of modern software will not run or will not run properly on it as well, but I haven't touched an NT4 workstation in years so I can't really comment on that more concretely.  Antivirus software is, presumably, among these since no modern antivirus program will run on NT4 and no version old enough to run on NT4 can still have its virus definitions updated.  Actually I have no idea if that's true, but if it is not it will be soon enough.

DOS was also rock solid and stable.  Neither NT4, nor Windows XP will live on forever.    Both, however, were excellent operating systems.

[Level42]

Duh.  M$ is trying to kill off XP thus my comment. 

Right . . . I mean, I say Windows 7 is great and thus must be on Microsoft's payroll.  You respond with Windows XP being great.  So who is paying you to say that?  Exactly.   

I read that a couple of times and it gave me a headache.   

I have some M$ shares so it puts me well into their camp. 

XP will live on forever as does NT4 and Windows 98.

I contract for some who still has NT4 Workstation on all their PCs.   NT4 is rock solid and stable.

If it ain't broke.....

You know, my Atari 130XE, THAT was a rock-solid machine. The reason why I'm not using it anymore for day-to-day work is that it lacks the facilities that more modern systems offer.
With that mentality, we would still be using steam-engines. Or horses.

I must say that I find this thread amusing.

[DaveMMR]

I hate the taskbar. I intentionally resize my one on vista to 3 or 4 lines to avoid the grouping.

I also prefer my tasks not to be grouped, but the way its described in windows 7, it sounds like it might be okay now.

I like the way it is in Windows 7 because, frankly, it annoys the heck out of me having 15 million boxes taking up the taskbar, yet I don't want it to be any taller than it needs to be.  With Windows 7, I just hovered on my IE8 icon and both tabs I have open appear in thumbnail, hover on it and it pops up briefly. 

And I know this is incredibly stupid but I love the "rotating wallpaper" option.  I'm one of those yahoos who can't decide on a background image even though it's something teenage girls, soccer moms and emo kids worry about. 

But, for some reason, I can't get my computer rated.    Oh and I'm typing this on IE8 (running 64-bit Windows7 beta) and I don't line break automatically at the end of the box, only after it moves to the right once.  Doesn't seem to affect the final output... 

It's not good.
They should make 1 version: Windows 7 ultimate, and sell it for 129$ (Apple Leopard price) and make no strange impossible OEM licenses. Then it is good.

I was reading an article somewhere (can't find it now, sorry) that said that Microsoft learned their lesson with vista and isn't going to release umteen versions of 7.

I wouldn't mind if they just didn't release umpteen versions of the next Xbox. 

[Ummon]

I don't like these shiney, see through, animated hippy interface things though. The first thing I do is switch back to the Classic Windows interface. My computers all still look like they are running Win 95 So I might be missing out on a lot of cool features.

Blech. I haven't liked Vista's stock settings, and don't prefer the look necessarily...but the day I saw XP ('02) was the day I thought, 'hey, finally they got rid of the old-fart programmer interface and made something that looks sophisticated - shoulda happened ten years ago'.

[Cakemeister]

I use quick launch icons all the time. So Windows 7 unifies the quick launch toolbar with the running program toolbar. That would be a cool feature for me.

The only problems I ever had with any OS were getting old hardware to run on them. That's because I never change operating systems, new OSes are installed on blank hard drives.

I bought all new stuff when I built my son's Vista computer. It works fine, other than having to disinfect it regularly from all the trojans and malware he runs into.

[delta88]

Are they trying to kill off Xp cause I have a volume Lic and have installed it on lord knows how many PC's around the house here and in the family??? I take it Vista and 7 nix this practice and make it 10x harder to carry out??? Thuds more money made from more per machine copies??? And BTW, it'll take a while to kill xp. Its do darn good and A LOT of machines are using XP now and finally losing 98. And when I say machines I mean machines and not office pc's At least all of the digital medical equip I work with uses xp as the systems OS of choice

[Level42]

At least all of the digital medical equip I work with uses xp as the systems OS of choice

That's exactly the thing that scares me to death in hospitals. I can't believe they choose a whacky OS like that for freaking life-saving/monitoring devices !

Thank god airplane traffic is controlled with real OS's.