SEARCH

The How-To Geek Forums Have Migrated to Discourse

How-To Geek Forums / Windows 7

what does anyone like about windows7 ?

(62 posts)
  • Started 5 years ago by 0zSpitt
  • Latest reply from jd2066
  • Topic Viewed 9202 times

jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

@whs: Right, I figured so. I was simply pointing that saying the taskbar "sucks" when it's just the fact that some features were removed that "sucks" is incorrect and a little misleading to say on a public forum.
It's no big deal though. I just wanted to know what you meant as I was a little confused as to what you thought "sucks" at first.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
whs
Posts: 17584

jd, as you know since a long time, I am using the English language a little loosely at times. Sorry for that. I am sure you would have a similar problem in my language. The subtelties sometimes get lost.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
funjman
Posts: 2

I was able to get it to run decently on my older acer 9500 laptop. I have used the same laptop to run xp "normal operating system for it" also beta tested and loaded vista on this pc. I have been beta testing windows 7 on this machine. No much to do comparisons on however it seemed stable on first install. But I have noticed a number of issues with windows 7. I have been using vista for a while and it just seems to be an update on vista. Then next gaming and multi media box I build might be done when windows 7 comes out I am actually up in the air as to do it with windows 7 or vista.
I will say that I do not care for the libraries. One of my many feedback to Microsoft was that they should allow users to customize the documents, pictures etc buttons on the right of the start menu. It isn't hard to do but I don't see with the number of people wanting it why they haven't done it.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

@whs: Indeed though as I only know English, I would have many other problems speaking your language :D

@funjman:
Quote I don't see with the number of people wanting it why they haven't done it.
Just because many people want it doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Here are some of the reasons I know of from reading Microsoft blogs why the things like the Start Menu are mostly fixed and un-customizable:
1. For most people, it's not needed. There are far more important peaces of code to be written like for the kernel so it's not worth their time to bother with.
2. Microsoft wants to have an interface with Windows that people can learn once and then be able to use other Windows systems based on their knowledge of other ones.
Making things like the Start Menu, Themes and others customizable just causes confusion when newbees use multiple systems.
They only made so many interface changes in Microsoft Office 2007 and Windows Vista/7 because they thought it was needed to continue adding to the user interface.
Microsoft was hitting to many limits with the GUI concepts of menus, buttons, dialogs, toolbars, tray icons, classic Start Menu, etc. and decided that a new user interface was needed.
I think that with the changes in Windows 7, Microsoft has reached most of their goal for that and the interface should stay the way it is for a quite a while.
3. Any option that Microsoft has can be abused by people who either think they know what is best for the user or has a malicious intent.
Microsoft made Windows 95/98 quite customizable and it was abused.
The wallpaper setting is changed by malware a lot.
The favorites folder was designed so that other programs could integrate with it but instead is used by just about every good and bad program out now a days.
The desktop, start menu root folder and quick launch are just folders so any program can create shortcuts in them. Things like those were only designed for shortcuts created by the user. Instead a ton of programs fill them up with shortcuts to them selfs when you install them as those developers think their program is so great you should have a shortcut to it everywhere.
So in Windows XP, Vista and 7 only pinning/small changes can be made to the start menu and in Windows 7 the quick launch is gone and only taskbar pinning is allowed.

I could go on and on about why the interface changes were needed and what is less flexible due to it being abused in the past but I don't have the time.
In short it just boils down to necessary progress for the future of Windows.
I don't really like the fact that you can't customize the Start Menu either but certainly can agree with the reasoning behind it.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
raphoenix
raphoenix
Posts: 14920

@jd2066,

One thing which concerns me about Win7 is that I never found a way to put the GUI in Classic View Mode.
This may have been my fault as I didn't have any documentation or books but tried all I knew.
Another item of concern was that the Beta appeared to be slow.
By this I mean there was no "snap" or "quickness" in it.
Here again having no documentation, I didn't know how to tweak it properly I guess.
Maybe these concerns will be addressed in the Final Release of Win7.

Best Regards,
Rick P.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
whs
Posts: 17584

Rick, I find W7 to be very quick, even in the virtual partition - and I have not even yet put it on my "big" system because that is in Germany. Could it be a lack of muscle in your system?
And why would anybody want "classic" view? The functions are all there in the W7 GUI - just a matter of getting used to the GUI (which is basically Vista). How long do you want to hang on to all this old stuff - and then there will be complaints about bloat. The fact that e.g. Vista has 2,3 or 4 ways to get to the same function makes it unnecessarily big. If they would cut all this old stuff out, it could be reduced by a good chunk. It's like having 4 of everything on a car - but you need only 1 steering wheel.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
raphoenix
raphoenix
Posts: 14920

@whs,

I know one day I'll have to run my machines the way MS wants me to so am resigned to the fact and will accept the change with no gripes or complaints.
Was just mentioning some of the differences I noticed when I ran Win7 to test it.
I'm probably the only user in the world who likes Classic View and instantaneous O/S speed (Snap) but will overcome that legacy like I have always done in the past.
This old Machine Build has more than enough "muscle" to handle any 32 Bit O/S.
Next Build, if ever, will be a 64 Bit platform.
That is the future I think.
Best Regards,
Rick P.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

[ Note to moderators: Delete above post as it was not finished and I hit the edit limit by mistake ]
raphoenix said One thing which concerns me about Win7 is that I never found a way to put the GUI in Classic View Mode.
I'm not sure what you mean. If your goal is to switch between Aero with transparency, Aero without transparency, Aero basic or the classic Windows 2000 look then you can easily do so in the Personalization Control Panel.
Here is how:
For Aero with transparently: Change to one of the themes listed under "Windows Themes" and then you can change the Window Frame color if you want to by clicking the "Window Color" icon.
For Aero without transparency: Same as above only you select the "Window Color" icon and uncheck "Enable Transparency".
For Aero basic: Select the first theme under "Ease of Access Themes" to get it.
For Windows 2000 classic: Select any "Ease of Access Themes" except the first one to enable it. Then selecting "Window Color" will open the classic Appearence dialog to change it's colors/sizes/fonts/etc just like Windows 2000.

Sure, it's not really that obvious at first but for most users it shouldn't matter. Many users will just be buying new computers that will run Windows Aero anyways.
It seems to me that it's better the other options are under "Ease of Access Themes" as it should hopefully be less confusing to new users except that selecting a theme under "Windows Themes" will load Aero basic when the graphics driver and/or graphics card doesn't support it because Aero basic has a fixed blue color so it's a little confusing when you pick a theme with a certain Window Color and don't get it. Also when you have Aero basic turned on, selecting the "Window Color" option will still open the classic Windows 2000 color dialog which has no effect on the color of Aero basic.

It would appear in both Windows Vista and Windows 7 Aero basic is just to have something that is better then Windows 2000 Classic but just crippled enough that you will want to upgrade to the full Aero experience.
Which I think is an interesting tactic by Microsoft as it shouldn't have been much work to port the Windows XP style to Windows Vista and rename it Aero basic.
My guess would be that Microsoft's goal is to basically force everyone to use Windows Aero which eventually will be supported by every computer model including the low end ones and then Microsoft can remove both Aero basic and the classic Windows 2000 look in future versions of Windows.
Which is actually a very good goal as Windows Aero enables a lot of cool things due to all the graphics rendering being done on the Graphics Card Processing Unit (GPU) like:
1. More resources available to heavy CPU using programs as the work is off loaded to the graphics card.
An example of this is Taskbar previews, instead of the CPU displaying them which would take a lot of CPU to make the previews real time it uses the GPU to render them.
2. It enables many neat programs like Flip 3D (Bult-in), Switcher (Third-Party Program) and Video In Picture (Third-Party Program).
3. By requiring a good graphics card for Windows this benifets people who want to play videos, do video editing and play many of todays games.
Some manufactours were putting really low end cards in their Windows XP computers and that hampered the experience for many users.
Also the price of low end graphics cards released in the last few years are quite cheap so it doesn't really affect the price of new computers that much.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
raphoenix
raphoenix
Posts: 14920

@jd2066,

Was speaking about Classic View Mode something like this example with Orb, Menus, Etc....
Never was able to more or less really duplicate this kind of screen in Win7.
Tried most everything you suggested but couldn't do it.
Sorry this Screen Shot is so poor but had to reduce down to fit into post area.

Best Regards,
Rick P.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

@raphoenix: Are you refering to the Classic Start Menu as a whole or just the flyout menu that it has instead of the menu that appears in place as part of the new Windows Vista Start Menu?

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
raphoenix
raphoenix
Posts: 14920

@jd2066,

Classic Start Menu as a Whole With All the Fly-out Menus.

That is what I could (NOT) duplicate in Win7.
--------------
I didn't have a book of course on the registry so just tried what I could guess at.
Was frustrating.
I will install Win7 again if you can give me good directions on how to duplicate the above screen.

Best Regards,
Rick P.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

@raphoenix:
To my knowledge the Windows Vista/7 Start Menu never supported flyout menus like the Windows 2000 and Windows XP Start Menu did.
So when Microsoft removed the classic Windows 2000 Start Menu with Windows 7, I believe the flyout menus were then gone entirely.
I agree with this as I think the Windows Vista/7 in-place menu/search box is much easier to use then the flyout out menus though I can see how others could still like the old behavior.
From what I can tell it seems Microsoft's goal is to remove the need to use the "All Programs" listing on the Start Menu at all regardless of flyout or in-place menu with the usage of the search box, Start Menu/taskbar pinning, gadgets and other ways to get to installed programs.

I don't really agree with Microsoft forcing the way programs are listed or launched though as it's not a nice thing to force people to use your methods even if they are better in some ways.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
whs
Posts: 17584

I hate flyouts. Especially in browsers - one reason I do not like Firefox. When I go thru a folder of URLs, I do not always want to renavigate 2,3 or 4 levels of flyouts to find the next one in that group. The IE is so much more practical in that regard - much easier to get back to where I was before.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

@whs:
Actully in terms of accessing saved URLs in a browser, both Firefox and Internet Explorer are mostly equal with just a few small differences like Internet Explorer calling them favorites while Firefox calls them bookmarks.
Since at least Internet Explorer 4.0 and at least Firefox 1.0 the following is supported*:
* Flyout menus.
* A sidebar to the left displaying bookmarks that can be displayed or hidden whenever you want.
* A toolbar that displays the contents of a certain folder.

Since Firefox 3.0 and Internet Explorer 8 they support:
Enhanced address bar that searches the bookmarks, history and other things to help you get to bookmarked locations.

* Most of these features were supported in early versions of Internet Explorer, Netscape, Mozila Suite, Opera and others too, I just don't know exactly which versions or what browser did what first. I just know that those features are standard in almost every browser out today.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
whs
Posts: 17584

I have no problem with the "saving" part. I just don't like to "crawl" thru flyouts.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

whs said I have no problem with the "saving" part. I just don't like to "crawl" thru flyouts.
Indeed and I understand that, it was an error in my post to only say "saving urls".
I meant to say "accessing saved urls" and that no browser available today requires crawling thru flyout menus.
I have corrected my above post to reflect this, sorry for the confusion.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
whs
whs
Posts: 17584

OK, got you.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
raphoenix
raphoenix
Posts: 14920

If knowledgeable folks think that searching for items is faster than menus, then will accept answer as all know I prefer a fast interface on a machine.
That's going to be a lot of searching but if method has been proven faster, will certainly learn to use it.
Hope I can memorize all the items to search for.
Best Regards and Thanks,
Rick P.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
jd2066
jd2066
Posts: 3814

@raphoenix:
If knowledgeable folks think that searching for items is faster than menus
That is only true in some cases, I did not mean to imply it always is faster then using menus.

Hope I can memorize all the items to search for.
This highlights one of the problems with the search at the moment, you will not always be able memorize everything and will have to use another method like menus instead.

That's going to be a lot of searching but if method has been proven faster, will certainly learn to use it.
I don't think this method has been proven to be faster in all cases and a lot of the time it is not.
I think companies like Google and Microsoft have gone a bit overboard in making search the primary method of access to information.
I know that search can help a lot of the time but there are also many times where only a search box will hinder one's ability to find things.

Ending Notes:
My point (that I did not clearly point out before) is that flyout menus are one of the worst ways to get access to programs and information.
Methods like searching are a lot better but still are not the whole answer.

Methods like the following work a lot better then flyout menus and searching a lot of the time (listed in order of newest to oldest):
* Taskbar Pinning
Displays Shortcuts (.lnk Files) in the taskbar all the time and share the same button space as running programs
Stored In Known Folder(s): UserPinned and ImplicitPinned
Supported in: Windows 7 Only

* Inplace Start Menu
Displays Shortcuts (.lnk Files) in Specific Known Folders
Known Folder(s): Per-User Start Menu, Per-User Programs, All-User Start Menu, All-User Programs
Supported in: Windows Vista and Windows 7 Only

* Start Menu Pinning
Displays Shortcuts (.lnk Files) from any location on the Start Menu that the user has put there
Supported in: Windows XP and Higher

* Sidebar Gadget Shortcuts
Displays Shortcuts in Sidebar Gadget from any location
Supported in: Any gadget that supports Microsoft Gadgets, Google Gadgets, Yahoo Gadgets, Apple Gadgets, Gnome/KDE Gadgets, etc. and all Operating Systems supported by those gadgets technologies

Here are a list of methods in older versions of Windows that Microsoft no longer recommends and/or supports in current versions of Windows:

* Quick Launch, Links and Others Toolbars
Displays Shortcuts (.lnk Files) in Known Folder(s): Quick Launch, Favorites\Links, Custom Locations
Supported in: Windows 95 with Desktop Update and Higher
Reason Not Supported: Has many limitations that are overcome by the supported methods and are not worth supporting anymore.

* Desktop Icons
Displays Shortcuts (.lnk Files) in Specific Known Folders
Known Folder(s): Per-User Desktop, All-User Desktop
Supported in: Windows 95/NT 4.0 and Higher
Reason Not Supported: A very ineffichent way to launch programs when you have many programs running that cover the desktop.

* Start Menu Quick Access Shortcuts
Displays Shortcuts (.lnk Files) in the root directory of the Known Folder(s): Per-User Start Menu, All-Users Start Menu.
Supported in: Windows 95/NT 4 to Windows Vista Only
Reason Replaced by Start Menu Pinning: This feature was intended to be used for shortcuts created by the user only but since it first came out this feature has been abused by just about every computer manufactour, software programs and malware known to exist. This is also a big reason that the the Desktop Icons and obove listed Toolbars are no longer supported.
Reason Removed: It has been replaced by Start Menu pinning and is not worth supporting anymore.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 
raphoenix
raphoenix
Posts: 14920

@jd2066,
--
I think I understand.
--
If you look at the old 2K/XP example screen, you can see that that each Fly-Out Menu eventually ends up to a link to a specific program application on the machine.
--
The way I have the machine setup, the Fly-Outs do so (automatically) as the mouse is moved very quickly over them so it just takes (2) quick clicks to open and run any program on the machine within the menu system.
--
In Win7, if one has to Manually PIN each program application to the task bar, seems like that would be a big mess constructing such.
--
Notice the example quick launch bar with just a few items.
--
Can't imagine everything on the machine PINNED to the task bar but guess it can be done.
--
Likewise, creating a desktop shortcut link to each program application would really clutter up the desktop.
--
Gadgets are fun, but I'm really not into Cute Internet clocks, calendars, weather, etc., etc.
--
One little clock is fine and I pretty much know if the weather is bad outside. (lol)
--
Have a loose leaf Cheat Book now with pages containing Shell Commands, Command Prompt Commands, Shortcut Key Documentation, etc., etc. so was worried that I will have to add more sheets for Search Commands or try to Construct some type of quick PINNED menu system.
--
I guess MS has done research and knows best what the public likes so will deal with Win7 when the time comes.
--
BTW: Still trying to learn the theory behind The New Boot Manager System so there are many challenges ahead.
Will be glad when there are some good books published on Win7 as that will make it easier than just experimenting.
--
Best Regards and Thanks for the Explanation,
Rick P.

Posted 5 years ago
Top
 



Topic Closed

This topic has been closed to new replies.

Enter Your Email Here to Get Access for Free:

Go check your email!