so what do you think of win 7 2

[max8699]

The beta's been out for a little while now so what do you think of it so far?


Regards
Max
Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience

 

[linney]

Mark

"I primarily wanted to add it back to get the Show Desktop icon"

Right-click on the "Show Desktop" thingy next to the clock and uncheck the ticked options to permanently see the Desktop.

 

[markdmac]

Linney, I don't have any Show Desktop icons or "thingy's" near my clock. Of course that could be the difference between our betas. I'm running the beta from MSDN. How about you?

Getting the Show Desktop got me exploring a whole bunch of other stuff. I eventually found Rocket Dock which I like. I wrote script code to duplicate the functionality of the Show Desktop icon and linked to that in Rocket Dock. After that I discovered the Windows Key + D trick, and now I primarily leverage that keyboard shortcut.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[BadBigBen]

One thing that I found most annoying was that 7even decided on it's own what the primary display is...

e.g. I have a HD TV attached over HDMI cable and it works without any hassle in XP and VISTA. Log-on screen both show on my 19" WXGA screen and when I want to watch a movie over the TV, I would turn on the TV and voila watch the film...

not so with 7even, it decided that my TV is the primary display and I had (I'll get to it later why it is past tense) to turn on the TV in order to log on, even after I told it that my 19" was the main monitor...

now to the PAST TENSE, after I had installed VMWare Workstation, this all changed, now the LOG ON screen is on my monitor...

Ben

"If it works don't fix it! If it doesn't use a sledgehammer..."

How to ask a question, when posting them to a professional forum.

 

[linney]

Mark,

"I love the fact that you can move your mouse to the bottom right corner of the screen and all open windows become transparent".

That, I'm sure, is the "thingy" I am using to show the Desktop, if you right-click on the area you mention in the above quote, do you see a couple of check boxes with options for "Show Desktop" and "Preview desktop"? I have both options unchecked and the ability to get straight to a clean uncluttered Desktop, (just like Win Key + D) when I now click on that right hand corner thing.

This version of Windows 7 was downloaded from Connect at Microsoft. Both 64 and 86 versions show me the same behavior.

 

[markdmac]

Linney, now we are talking the same language. I was unaware of the click capability of that corner. Thanks for letting me know.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[wahnula]

My opinion echoes almost exactly Nelviticus', calling Vista "arrogant" was genius! I too shunned Vista after adopting it immediately. I like Windows 7 a lot not for what it is...but what it ISN'T, at least compared to Vista. And no, it's not "Vista SP2", as some have implied. Too many new features and it neither looks nor feels like Vista.

I started with 64-bit, what the heck, go for broke right off the bat. I needed not one single driver and my rig is NOT simple. I was amazed at how it found my printer, attached to another machine running XP. Flawlessly, first time. It also slipped itself into my home network seamlessly.

My gripes are loss of net connectivity when multitasking, sometimes it just sits there spinning its wheels and other times it goes to "the page cannot be displayed" until I do a refresh. Likewise it lost my Netflix conection on a regular basis. I also miss (or have not been able to find) the ability to view the Start Menu in Classic View. It's just the way I prefer my OS to act.

Love the new colors and eye candy, I think it's a winner. If anyone knows how to get the Start menu in Classic View please share!

Tony

Users helping Users...

 

[wolluf]

it neither looks nor feels like Vista[/quite]

yes it does! - apart from the usual moving of features which M$ developers can't resist. W7 to vista is XP to 2k.

Operating systems are shortly going to become background (IMO)- though I think people will always want local stuff, its obvious that delivery via browser whatever your machine/operating system will be next flavour of the month.

Windows 7 delivered quickly is M$ strategy to distance itself from vista, which hasn't been well received. But XP remains the o/s of choice for most businesses/organisations (and individuals who can). The point being that it generally works well and supports what they do. Until XP (well 2k IMO), windows o/s were trying to catch up with what was needed. Now M$ are trying to manufacture a need to upgrade - but who needs it?

Since vista came out I've been reluctantly using it because I need to support it (reluctantly because of all the problems - some documented here - I've had) - while advising customers generally to stay with XP after listening to their requirements. in the last 2 years of all the customers I've built PCs for or obtained and configured laptops for, only one has wanted vista (and that because her sister has it and is her main source of support). Main reason is compatibility and annoyance. Windows 7 won't be any better (yes it will wrt vista but not anything else) - and they're just personal customers. What about businesses government, schools, universities etc).

The point is you can't expect people to continually throw out what they've got just because M$ have a new version of windows. It would be very easy just to 'evolve' an o/s via patches and services packs, and I suspect that will happen at some point with windows - because there is a huge user base with experience and expectations. Getting them all to change on M$'s whim is no longer viable.

Back to windows 7 - it looks to be a bit better in some respects than vista - but I take issue with 'quick' - compared to XP on the same hardware. But its moot - there's no significant difference in use (just that all these functions have moved - quick launch being my particular bugbear as toolbars in the taskbar (and yes you can still create them so not too bad for someone like me) have been my main access to applications since it was introduced with ie4 - which of course was an add-on, not a move of functionality. BUT why move functionality? If users just have to cope with a browser to access all they need, why will they be concerned about the rest of the o/s as long as it runs their browser?

I will say W7 beta is a lot more stable than vista beta (but as its just tweaked vista, not surprising).

 

[strongm]

>it's not "Vista SP2", as some have implied

I'm afraid it is. Same kernel, with a few minor tweaks to make point upgrade. No, really. Just check Winver, for example

>Windows 7 delivered quickly is M$ strategy to distance itself from vista

I disagree. Calling it Windows 7 rather than Vista SP2 or Vista SE was their strategy to distance themselves from Vista, which they sadly* needed to do.

>But XP remains the o/s of choice for most businesses/organisations

True now. But goodness, how short short people's memories are. It took years for XP to be adopted by the business community. For example 4 years after XP's release less than 50% of business desktops were running it. And many of the complaints levelled against it were similar to those levelled at Vista - too big, too slow, too high a hardware requirement, not really any better than its predecessor ...



* I say sadly because, in my opinion, there is nothing really wrong with Vista. It's really quite good. But it got a bad reputation in its first year, mainly down to the lack of functional 3rd party drivers, a bad reputation that it never recovered from despite that driver issue (and others, such as the file copying speed) being cleared up.

 

[dilettante]

This is even clearer in the server builds of Vista. They go by the names Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

 

[Nelviticus]

Well if Windows 7 is Vista SP2, what will Vista SP2 be? When they are both out are you going to argue that they are the same thing?

Clearly, Windows 7 isn't Vista SP2 and Oasis aren't the Beatles.

Of course Windows 7 is based on Vista - Microsoft aren't going to throw away everything they've done and start from scratch, are they? The Windows operating system is much more than just the kernel.

Nelviticus

 

[strongm]

>Well if Windows 7 is Vista SP2, what will Vista SP2 be?

Let's call W7 Vista SE if that makes it easier to swallow.

Here's Steve Ballmer on the subject:

Windows 7 is Windows Vista with cleanup in user interface [and] improvements in performance

>Microsoft aren't going to throw away everything they've done and start from scratch

I have software that I wrote for Windows 95 that runs fine on Vista and W7. So, sure, in general MS try and keep backwards compatibility in mind. But I don't think you would argue in any shape or form that Vista is based on W95.

Microsoft have happily reset their client OS codebase a number of times (W3x -> W9x -> XP -> Vista, or NT3.x -> NT4 -> W2K -> XP -> Vista) without really throwing anything away (at the time of the reset, at least). They could have done a reset this time - but they haven't ...

 

[strongm]

Oops. Please mentally replace "Bullmer" with "Ballmer" in the quote box ...

 

[vanka25]

Microsoft have happily reset their client OS codebase a number of times (W3x -> W9x -> XP -> Vista, or NT3.x -> NT4 -> W2K -> XP -> Vista)

I would argue that there was only one "major reset" with many minor ones along the way. The major reset that I'm referring to is the move from the 9x kernel to the NT kernel. I would modify the time-lines to: DOS/3.x -> Windows 9x -> Windows Me and NT 3.x -> NT 4 -> 2000/XP -> Vista/Windows 7. The fact that XP and Vista both came with consumer versions doesn't justify them being grouped with the DOS based versions of Windows. Each version of Windows built on the kernel of the previous release in the time-line; the reset occurred when Microsoft released the NT kernel - it just took a while for the consumer versions to be released.

I don't agree with the argument that since Vista SP2 and Windows 7 will share the same kernel, Windows 7 is just Vista SP2 or Vista SE. As another poster pointed out, an OS is not just the kernel. Many people either don't realize or ignore that Vista SP2, Windows 7, and Server 2008 R2 will all have the same kernel. Yet I don't hear anyone claiming that Server 2008 R2 is Vista SP2/SE. Why not, they both share the same kernel? I also don't hear anyone claiming that XP was really Windows 2000 SE even though Microsoft ported many of XP's new features back to 2000. As for Windows 98 and 98 SE, SE's new feature list is quite short with most of the items on it being minor fixes and updates to software that were already available; in essence it was a Service Pack.

So the question boils down to whether Windows 7 is different enough from Vista to deserve it's own name; from my experience with it I would say that Windows 7 is new enough to deserve it. Working with it I came to the opinion that Windows 7 (like XP) is similar to its predecessor, but different enough that a new name is not just a marketing ploy but describes the reality that we are dealing with a new OS.

 

[Sympology]

Also Windows7 Fits in with standard Windows releases.
XP will die, it's end of life, no more service packs will be released. it won't support emerging technologies.
You don't have to upgrade to vista or 7, but you will increasingly find that technology kills it off.
After how well does your USB device work on 95?

Most people spend their time on the "urgent" rather than on the "important."

 

[markdmac]

Guys can we get back on topic? This thread was not titled "Do you think Windows 7 is Vista SP2" or "Is Windows 7 Different Enough From Vista to be a New Product"

Let's get back on track with what you like or dislike about the product or let this thread die.

I hope you find this post helpful.

Regards,

Mark

Check out my scripting solutions at

http://www.thespidersparlor.com/vbscript

Work SMARTER not HARDER. The Spider's Parlor's Admin Script Pack is a collection of Administrative scripts designed to make IT Administration easier! Save time, get more work done, get the Admin Script Pack.

 

[strongm]

>Server 2008 R2 is Vista SP2/SE

R2 isn't out yet. And it's internal name is Windows 7 Server ... so, yes, R2 will basically be the server version of W7. And, yes, ultimately based on the Vista kernel. Interestingly the Server teams seem to be being a little more honest about how big the change is ...

And I suspect you'll find that quite a lot of us in here were well aware that W2K8 shares the Vista kernel. It, after all, just the server version of the Visat codebase, and has the same realtionship as WIndows Advanced Server 2000 did to Windows 2000 Professional.

>Vista SP2, Windows 7, and Server 2008 ... all have the same kernel

Actually we mentioned that some time back in this thread.

By the way, here's Ballmer again, from October last year: "Windows 7 will be Vista, but a lot better

 

[Grenage]

After how well does your USB device work on 95?

95 gained USB support in revision B.

"We can categorically state that we have not released man-eating badgers into the area" - Major Mike Shearer

 

[strongm]

I like it

 

[kjv1611]

Interestingly, I have a multitrack audio recording program for my audio work (Audition 3.0) that will not run properly in Vista, but runs fine in Windows 7!

If Audition3 didn't run in Vista, then it's something else that's the issue. I've run it on 3 different computers with Vista, not 1 issue. If still using Vista on whatever machine, give Audition another try. Are you sure you didn't try running Audition 2, not 3? I think Audition 2 has problems with the Aero interface.

-yeah, that was a pretty old post, but I just happened to see this thread, and find that post today.

--

"If to err is human, then I must be some kind of human!" -Me