Windows 7 Discussion Thread

[fumanstan]

Just thought i'd make a thread specifically to the next consumer version of Windows following Vista, that is officially named Windows 7 and could be out as early as next year.

Explanation on the name here - http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/win...windows-7.aspx

The first major details on it came out today with pre-beta versions available to people attending PDC.

Here's a lot of good info on the changes - http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/28/w...k-builds-medi/

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...windows-7.html

Obviously, the big news is the new taskbar, which forgoes text for icons and has new "jump lists" of app controls and options you can access with a right-click. You can select playlists in Media Player, for example. Super cool: when you scrub over the icons, all the other app windows go transparent so you can "peek" at the windows you're pointing at.

Gadgets now appear on the desktop -- the sidebar has been killed. That makes more sense for all those laptop owners out there with limited screen space, and you can still see gadgets anytime by peeking at the desktop, rendering all other windows transparent.

Window resizing and management now happens semi-automatically: dragging a window to the top of the screen maximizes it, pulling it down restores; dragging a window to the edges auto-resizes it to 50% for quick tiling. Nifty.

The system tray now only displays what you explicitly say it should -- everything else is hidden, and the controls have been streamlined.

User Account Control settings are now much more fine-grained -- you can set them by app and by level of access.

They demoed multitouch features on an HP TouchSmart PC -- it was pretty cool, although the usual nagging "what is this good for / that'll get old fast" concerns weren't really addressed. The Start menu gets 25 percent bigger when using touch to make it easier to handle, and apps will all get scroll support automatically. There's also a giant on-screen predictive keyboard. Again -- could be amazing, but we won't know until it's out in the wild.

We've always known Microsoft intends Windows 7 to run on netbooks, and we got a small taste during the PDC keynote: Windows SVP Steve Sinofsky held up his "personal" laptop running Windows 7, an unnamed 1GHz netbook with 1GB of RAM that looked a lot like an Eee PC, and said that it still had about half its memory free after boot. (We're guessing it was running a VIA Nano, since most Atoms run at 1.6GHz.)

At the other end of the scale, Windows 7 supports machines with up to 256 CPUs.

Multiple-monitor management is much-improved, as is setting up projectors -- it's a hotkey away. Remote Desktop now works with multiple monitors as well.
Media Center has been tweaked as well -- it looks a lot more like the Zune interface. There's also a new Mini Guide when watching video, and a new Music Wall album artwork screensaver that kicks in when you're playing music.

Devs got a pre-beta today; a "pretty good" feature complete beta is due early next year. No word at all on when it'll be released to market apart from that "three years from Vista" date we've known forever.

[SomethingMore]

looks nice. If the price is right, I'd buy in.
Of course, I'm in the minority of people that really has no qualms with Vista at this point.

[Ranger]

Meh, one of the reasons I hated Vista was that they redid too much of the windows interface. But I'm hpeful about the security. I still doubt I'd buy a new copy unless it came with the next computer I buy.

[darkside]

It took 4 tries before I finally got a PC that was stable with Vista. Even that one can't use sleep without crashing. Not too excited about trying yet again with Windows 7.

[UAIOE]

Will it let me change the desktop icon font color from white to black?

I find it silly that Vista won't let me change something like that.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by UAIOE

Will it let me change the desktop icon font color from white to black?

I find it silly that Vista won't let me change something like that.

Here's some workarounds for Vista:
http://www.vistax64.com/general-disc...or-change.html

[hahn]

Originally Posted by SomethingMore

looks nice. If the price is right, I'd buy in.
Of course, I'm in the minority of people that really has no qualms with Vista at this point.

I don't think you're in the minority. I've had no qualms either. At this point, I wouldn't switch to OS X just because Adobe doesn't have any 64 bit apps out for it yet. People who are satisfied with Vista aren't going to complain. When you have an OS that has to support literally an infinite number of different hardware configurations, you're naturally going to have some less than optimal setups. The OS almost always gets blamed. I read about a study that showed that the vast majority of problems (like 90%) can be attributed to misbehaving video drivers.

Anyhow, I'm pretty excited about the user interface updates (much more so than I was about Aero). These actually sound useful. All they have to do now is make 64 bit standard. I'd also like them to make it easier to control programs that are loaded at startup, so that it doesn't slow it down over time. If they can do that, I'm sold on Windows 7.

[bauermj]

No Vista issues here either. Windows 7 should be very interesting.

Also see: Windows Azure & Cloud Computing: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7693993.stm

[RayChuang]

By the way, Windows Vista since the introduction of Service Pack 1 is quite good--reasonably fast, stable, and takes advantage of current hardware very well indeed.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista with an improved Aero Glass interface and probably more memory optimizations to take advantage of the x86-64 CPU architecture.

[darkside]

Originally Posted by hahn

I read about a study that showed that the vast majority of problems (like 90%) can be attributed to misbehaving video drivers.

The issue I had though was that 2 of the computers I returned were bought new with Vista. If they can't build me a stable PC at Dell with Vista when they have total control over the hardware and drivers what chance does the average consumer have that is upgrading an older PC?

I will say all my problems were with the 32bit version and I have had pretty much smooth sailing with the 64bit version.

[wmansir]

I like the new window/taskbar changes, assuming I'm not forced to use icons only. I give MS a lot of slack on their lack of UI progress, considering their position in the desktop world, but they really dropped the ball in Vista. Almost all of Vista's UI tweaks were purely graphical. The core functionality wasn't improved that much.

[hahn]

Originally Posted by wmansir

I like the new window/taskbar changes, assuming I'm not forced to use icons only. I give MS a lot of slack on their lack of UI progress, considering their position in the desktop world, but they really dropped the ball in Vista. Almost all of Vista's UI tweaks were purely graphical. The core functionality wasn't improved that much.

I disagree. Security and memory handling were drastically improved. The graphical tweaks in my opinion were extremely minor by comparison. To me, Vista was all about making changes under the hood - as long as things are functioning, most of these changes won't be recognized by the end user which is why SOME graphical tweaks (a la Aero) were necessary. Windows 7 looks like it's more about making user interface improvements now that Vista drivers are stabilizing and the 64 bit version is a practical option.

[dx23]

The problem lies with Microsoft rushing their core product again. Yahoo had an article today in the main page where Microsoft themselves said that product was slated to be ready for 2010 to 2011 but their CEO wants it released next year. They don't seem to learn from their mistakes of rushing things instead of testing them to see that they are working flawlessly.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by dx23

The problem lies with Microsoft rushing their core product again... They don't seem to learn from their mistakes of rushing things instead of testing them to see that they are working flawlessly.

Vista took 5 years to come out, and if anything, it suffered from gestating too long, not too short. XP, by contrast, was released less than 2 years after Windows 2000 and just over a year after Windows ME.

7 sounds like it's to Vista what XP was to 2000: a refinement rather than a drastic re-engineering. The articles keep mentioning that the hardware and software structure isn't going to change significantly, and most of the features look cosmetic. The version numbers used play this out as well: 2000 was NT5.0 while XP was NT5.1, and Vista is 6.0 while 7 is (currently) NT6.1.

[wmansir]

Originally Posted by hahn

I disagree. Security and memory handling were drastically improved. The graphical tweaks in my opinion were extremely minor by comparison. To me, Vista was all about making changes under the hood - as long as things are functioning, most of these changes won't be recognized by the end user which is why SOME graphical tweaks (a la Aero) were necessary. Windows 7 looks like it's more about making user interface improvements now that Vista drivers are stabilizing and the 64 bit version is a practical option.

I should have made it more clear that my whole post was in regards to just the UI, including my last statement that the core (UI) functionality was mostly unchanged. I agree there were a lot of core OS changes, although even those were underwhelming following the Longhorn hype and extremely long development time.

In general I'm an MS/Vista defender. Although I must admit my enthusiasm took a major blow when my personal system rebooted into a BSOD a couple of months ago. After a full day of trying to fix it I threw in the towel and reinstalled (Vista64, working good so far).

[Case01]

http://www.rlslog.net/microsoft-wind...1-dvd-winbeta/

Try it out and see. That build just seems like a dumbed down vista.

[Kdogg]

Originally Posted by SomethingMore

I'm in the minority of people that really has no qualms with Vista at this point.

Welcome to the silent majority. As it's been stated there is no need to bitch and moan when things work. I've used every MS OS since DOS and there are always problems when I new OS is releases. It's to be expected.

[dx23]

Originally Posted by Kdogg

Welcome to the silent majority. As it's been stated there is no need to bitch and moan when things work. I've used every MS OS since DOS and there are always problems when I new OS is releases. It's to be expected.

What silent majority are you talking about? The fact is that Vista doesn't work properly when you don't have the right equipment, which the majority of the PC users don't have. Add to that the compatibility problems with software and drivers and you see why the majority of Vista users complain. There is no silent majority that use and like Vista.

[Jay G.]

Originally Posted by Kdogg

Welcome to the silent majority.

While I think the problems with Vista are a bit overblown, there's no doubt that the majority of people aren't that satisfied with Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Reception

I've used every MS OS since DOS...

Wow, every MS OS? You used Bob? OS/2? Singularity? Windows 1.0? Windows 3.2? Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs?

[Brain Stew]

Bob was a program for Windows 3.1 not an operating system. (Interface does not equal operating system)

Windows 3.2 only offered a Chinese translation.

Windows Fundamentals is essentially XP.

[Kdogg]

Originally Posted by Jay G.

While I think the problems with Vista are a bit overblown, there's no doubt that the majority of people aren't that satisfied with Vista.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Vista#Reception


Wow, every MS OS? You used Bob? OS/2? Singularity? Windows 1.0? Windows 3.2? Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs?

I thought I typed 4.0 after DOS. Anyway, yeah I have used every MS OS since DOS 4.0 - circa 1989. (Most of the Mac operating systems too.) Bob was not an OS, just a very insulting front end but I did play with that too. The only operation systems that I truly hated were Windows ME and System 7. I actually threw a System 7 Mac out a window after it destroyed two weeks of DNA sequencing data.

Edit: I actually liked OS/2 especially the later IBM warp flavors.

[al_bundy]

Originally Posted by dx23

What silent majority are you talking about? The fact is that Vista doesn't work properly when you don't have the right equipment, which the majority of the PC users don't have. Add to that the compatibility problems with software and drivers and you see why the majority of Vista users complain. There is no silent majority that use and like Vista.

looking at Apple the last year OS X is hardly better. Apple is still fixing bugs from the latest release and has put a hold on new features in it's updates.

[al_bundy]

i think i found a problem with Vista and laptop heat. i noticed that the paging file settings were wrong by default. same thing on Vista. change them from default to 2x to 4x your physical RAM and it will use less disk I/O and less heat should be created

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Ranger

Meh, one of the reasons I hated Vista was that they redid too much of the windows interface. But I'm hpeful about the security. I still doubt I'd buy a new copy unless it came with the next computer I buy.

Keep hoping. Are you logged in as an Administrator? Kiss any real sort of security goodbye. Is Windows 7 going to default to users being admins? Then it's the same old story.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by RayChuang

By the way, Windows Vista since the introduction of Service Pack 1 is quite good--reasonably fast, stable, and takes advantage of current hardware very well indeed.

Windows 7 is essentially Vista with an improved Aero Glass interface and probably more memory optimizations to take advantage of the x86-64 CPU architecture.

Windows XP wasn't really all that stable until the release of SP2. Christ, the fucking thing didn't even come with a built-in firewall until then. My, I still remember people pining for Windows 2000 before then.