After Vista came I started to really care less, but hey I'm a geek and I love to play around so I wanted to install Windows 7 and have a look. How do you like what you see so far, let us know your gripes too. My list: 1. Vista was a flop so why even make Windows 7 even remotely look alike, big mistake, Windows 7 should have it's own look. 2. UAC jumping in my face again, you mean this all over again, oh well time to disable. 3. Speaking of looks, terrible looking icons, all icons should have a fresh new look, something more modern and 3D looking. Hasn't the GUI department of Microsoft been looking at OS X lately? I guess not... 4. Options during installation. Whatever happened to those days when users had choices during the install? Users should have a choice of what software they want installed and not. Can I see a vote of hands to at least let us remove Windows Defender? I hate having no choices and getting stuck with what I'm forced with. Do we wear the same cloths, drive the same cars, date the same girls? LOL, well I don't want everything installed that you want either! 5. Still to much fluff going on. Sure I like eyecandy like the next geek, but at least some NEW eyecandy, not just something that feels like a Vista service pack update. 6. They said performance was going to be faster, well I'm running 75% less services on a laptop I've installed Windows 7 on then with Vista coming presinstalled on and it uses more memory. And the performance on Windows 7 rated Aero slower on my Geforce 8200M then in Vista. Overall, all I can say is I'm disappointed. With Vista being such a flop, you'd think they had the brains to give Windows 7 a complete cosmetic makeover, new look. Sure under the hood there are differences, but don't you get sick of looking at the same thing over and over again? Sure there are going to be people that could careless what it looks like as long as it gets the job done, there is going to be that crowd. I want performance too, don't get me wrong, but I like to have something that looks new too. If I have to sit and stare at it all day I'd like to be able to look at something different to break up the monotony. If you sat in front of a computer 60 hours a week don't tell me you don't get sick of looking at the same thing all the time and if you do, wow I feel sorry for the BLAND in your life. Maybe time to spice it up a bit? I never really liked the look of Vista that much and I can't say I like what's going on here either, afterall it's just Vista Part 2 in my book... YUCK :biggun: P.S. Performance aside, the point of the topic are looks, making Windows 7 look like something new. Overall I think the performance aspects are better, I'm not disputing that, I'm just not fond of the Vista wannabe look alike is all...
less your doing it on purpose, a flamewar has risen and its not even started yet. Theres alot i could opinionate here too, but point is Windows is highly customizable to suite your liking. its just a pain to do so. Stardock is your friend
I give this thread five posts before it becomes XPRULEZ VISTA DRULEZ. And unfortunately, I disagree with your post entirely on every level. But each to their own.
As far as the looks. I honestly don't care how my OS looks so maybe i really shouldn't reply as it seems your thread is mainly about the looks. But as for point 2 and 4. 2. Did you try just lowering the setting one notch ? I haven't tried the RC yet but doesn't it come with UAC set to max ? 4. Because the install really should be as unattended as possible. I guess an install option to run in attended/unattended mode might be worth considering though.
Ummm i totally disagree with you bro.. windows 7 is far superior to any OS that ms has relased even in its early stage.. You can't give an OS an entirely new look because ppl would need to learn everything all over again and that is not supossed to happen .. u know , old people know how to browse internet just because the IE icon is blue and its an E.. if you change that then they screw up.. Don't be so selfish mate.. if you don't like its ok..
Yawn. It annoys me that no one actually looks at these from a general design perspective. It's always about what is the absolute best for themselves. 1. Windows 7 shouldn't have its own look. The look is fine, they changed the taskbar a bit to improve it's usability. Usability should be the ultimate goal not cool looks. 2. UAC, like you said, can be disabled. Not only that but it has multiple settings of tolerance. They aren't going to remove it and it shouldn't be removed. It's a security feature UNIX has had since the 1970's. It's sad that it took Microsoft so long to catch up. 3. What icons? The only icon I have on my desktop is the recycle bin, which looks pretty 3d and like a recycle bin to me. 4. You can disable whatever you want after the OS is installed. I don't see why it matters whether it's before or after installation. IT administrators/OEM's have been fighting for years to automate the install as much as possible. Microsoft finally got it right and now people want it changed. 5. 95% of the user base uses Windows to get work done, not watch cool little effects. The majority of effects in Windows aren't even designed for eye candy purposes but to trick the user into thinking a task is occurring faster then it is. 6. Performance is faster. I don't know why you are disabling 75% of your services. Memory consumption is irrelevant. And the performance rating is totally incomparable to Vista. Overall I think their could have been more done to make the OS better, especially in terms of ease of customization. It seems like so many people are bent on appearances though. Does it really matter? How often do you admire your desktop? I'd rather Microsoft focus their development on features/performance/usability then having my window set on fire when I close it or something.
http://www.stardock.com/products/odnt/ and it wont be long after W7 release till its supported to, so no worries.
It's rumored that come RTM there might (and I use the word might loosely) be a new theme, keep in mind this is an RC which means things can still change. Oh and just because Aero is there, now with a matching color scheme mind you, doesn't mean thats a bad thing.
Replies 1. PR and marketing respond to users who go ooohh over praticallity 2. Agree 3. Dunno 4. Totally Agree 5. I Prefer Dry 2D 98-XP look 6. Windows 7 has a different rating system kinda they have a higher maximum and soem of the older maximums = different
XP was microsoft making up for giving us millennium. Windows 7 is microsofts way of making up for vista. The UAC is great, those that dont know how to turn it off, are the ones that need it on. I like how vista and windows 7 look. They kept the start menu since windows 95. If you break it down, the start menu has only gotten fancier but the concept is tried and true. I hate all icons that look anything different from what their task is. The my computer icon should look like a computer and the recycle bin like a trash bin. I wouldn't care if we still had windows 98's icons. I'm thinking of porting windows XP's over, just so i dont get mixed up when i switch between my xp and win7 computers. As far as selected installs you can go in afterwards and remove some things. Or you can do what i plan on doing. vLite the thing. That's if you're pro enough. I nLited XP SP3, and made an OS that was so lite it was blazing fast even on a weak netbook. My Windows 7 vLite will be magnificent. Heck, my vista vLites are good, though a little buggy. Edit: last note. Going from XP to vista/windows7 can be a bit confusing. Networking for one is definitely different. But once you get used to it, it's all fine. Only problem i have, is i think it blue-screens when it tries to go into automatic sleep mode. I can put it to sleep and it wakes up fine, but i think the automatic sleep mode which i have set for 1 hour, causes it to bluescreen. But because i'm never on the computer when this happens, i've never seen the blue screen. I just end up turning on the computer when i'm suppost to wake it, because it shuts down when it bluescreens then gives you a message telling you what happened when you get back into windows.
Well, most of the issues that you are griping about could be rectified by changing what is there on the left side of the screen(or bottom if you are logged in)................... And if you haven't read a whole lot of forums......................most peeps dont like change and would have preferred to keep the XP look and just beef up the OS............. I myself and these are just my opinions have been messing with rc7000 and definitely will be grabbing rc7100 here in a few hours. If you dont like win 7 uninstall and go back to XP and be a happy camper as the rest of us move on...........
Someone on another forum made the comment above and my reply below. So what are we saying? Both the built in Admin account and the one you create BOTH don't operate at TRUE admin level? If that is so, then they are the same correct? So again what's the point of even creating an Admin account when the built in one does the same thing? This is what I'm saying, just create a password for it during the install and login as a standard user. What are we saying now that the Standard user account isn't a more secure account to be running the OS under? If that is so then what's the point in havin it, it's suppose to be a more secure way to use the system and that is the way any true OS should be run as a user. Admin/Root access should only be there for making changes. You shouldn't even use a desktop as an admin, under an admin account. Another gripe here is why aren't we just creating a password for the built in admin account, then making a user account during the install and then logging in as a user and running Windows 7? I've never believed users should be running an OS under a admin account. They don't do it in the Unix/Linux world and it works... P.S. As far as UAC is concerned it's great if you are using the OS like you should under a user account not an admin account...
All I know is that I tried Vista, went back to XP, tried W7 beta and liked it. So then I moved to Vista, still liked W7 better. Now I'm looking forward to W7. I might run W7 RC as my primary system until RTM - I don't know yet.
Huh? All UAC does is elevate privileges for applications that the user allows. Because that's annoying and confusing to the user. It was setup like that in Windows XP. Except 90% of users were administrators and had the real administrator account without a password. Besides, why should I have to log out and go into a separate account just to install something? UAC is fine the way it is - if you don't like it disable it, takes like 3 clicks.
Incorrect, considering one of the biggest strengths and compliments of Vista was it's redisgned look. The big complaint of Vista was it's demanding hardware requirements at that time and the lack of compatability. You mean the redisgned UAC that now gives you the ability to limit how many prompts you get or to disable it entirely without issue? Um excessive design isn't always indicative of a better product. The new designs are modern, but at the same time, they aren't too flashy. Sometimes less is more. If you did any research on Windows 7, many optional functions are automatically defaulted as uninstalled and that you have to go online to intall and activate them. And with the forced options, you don't have to regard them. Don't like Windows Defender, download something else. Vista and Windows 7 doesn't make cohabitation of Windows standard software and 3rd party applications nearly as much as an issue as XP does. Yet you just heralded OSX for it's eye candy....be consistent already!:3eyes: The hardware requirements of Windows 7 versus Vista have not changed AT ALL. Windows 7 still requires the same thing as Vista. Just now we are at a period where the hardware is cheap to buy and assemble. You never listed the specs of your laptop. IF your laptop could not run Aero3d in Vista, what in the hell makes you think M$ will dumb down the new OS to accomodate YOUR laptop? No, Windows 7 is not a huge revolution like XP was to 98/ME. Windows 7 is not the huge revolution Vista was to XP. Windows 7 is about refining what worked in Vista, eliminating what did not, and making a better product for the workplace and the home environment. Do your research... ...Vista was a flop not because of aesthetics or such. Vista was a flop because.... 1. Anything Vista ready wasn't. The hardware that was sold with Vista was not sold with any knowledge of what would be good with Vista. For gods sake, Dell sold the goddamned laptops with 512MB of RAM and claimed it was Vista ready when, in fact, Vista required 1GB minimum for functionality and 2GB for smooth performance. Superfetch is not the kill all slay all for improved functionality with paging files. It helps, but it isn't the only thing that will improve performance. Microsoft advertised months in advance that Vista was made for future computers, not past computers. 2. In regards to option 1, most businesses were not willing to buy all new computers just to get Vista working right. At that time, it was too much money. XP was not hardware demanding on most old machines. However, that's offset by how pathetically easy it is for hackers to dismantle XP. Vista isn't perfect, but it has better security in it's OS. Windows 7 improves what Vista started while eliminating what made Vista's UAC annoying and unlikable. At this stage, computer hardware is cheap and getting a true vista ready computer is easier now than it was three years ago. The old hardware from three years ago will still run Windows 7 perfectly now. 3. Even if hardware was not an issue, Vista was sunk for one huge reason: COMPATABILITY. When Vista was released, Microsoft did not take into consideration that the average person would KEEP THEIR ORIGINAL PERIPHERALS. So a good 75% of items were not compatable with the initial Vista...right down to onboard devices on the motherboards. It took many patches and SP1 to fix that problem and make Vista an incredible OS. However...by the time Vista was fixed, it was too late to change public perception. Research the mojave experiment. When people saw Vista without the name Vista, they loved it. When they saw the name, Vista, attached, they hated it based on what had already been reported and the issues they had at launch. Does anyone remember the debacle XP was in it's first year and that it required SP2 and not SP1 to be worth a damn? How many people said screw XP, we'll stick with 98/2000? The only difference between XP ad Vista was that Win 7 was around the corner for Vista while XP had nothing around the corner for a good 7 years. Once again...consistency. One minute you're saying eye candy is what's needed. Next, you're saying eye candy is bad. Make up your damned mind. Read the stats. Vista caught up with XP a year after launch and Windows 7 is reported to be at least 7-15% faster than XP and Vista combined, in regards to application functionality and game performance. But then...that's what happens when you listen to the people who are buying your damned product instead of disregardging them. Vista failed because M$ ignored the people. M$ is listening VERY CLOSELY to what the people are saying with Windows 7. Consistency again. Napster bad! Eye candy good! Napster good! Eye candy bad! :look: ...so the whole point of this topic is that eye candy is more important than functionality? Jesus freaking christ, buy Windowsblinds or Objectscapes then.
w7 rc1 > vista altho UAC needs some kind of rules system, like a firewall imo nvm, i found a way, using prio you can make the programmes you want to execute
More of a personal preference, i prefer Windows 7 over vista any day and some people like yourself will not like either at all. On the other hand i do and thats all i care about
