Am I the only one that doesn't like the new UI?

XOR != OR

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
11,549
As stated, getting to the control panel is simple in W7. There are many ways to do it. Click start, type "cont" and press enter. You can do that in less than 1 second. Or, just click the start menu, then click "control panel". Bam, two clicks. Or, have your control panel pinned to the taskbar. Bam, one click whenever you need it.
My biggest beef, at least with vista? Managing network connections. They buried it.

It's also awesome how you can pin individual documents to it's parent program icon permanently. Say you're working with a .psd for Photoshop, and it's gonna take you at least 3 days to finish the project. Instead of having to click the program, then going to file>open and searching through folders for the .psd every time you open Photoshop, you can just right click the Photoshop icon, click your pinned document, and bam, the program starts with that document open. Once you're finally done with your whole project and you're no longer needing to use that specific file on a regular basis, just unpin the document from the right click menu. So basically, it's this: in the old system you'd have 1 click to open the program, then a 2nd click on the "File" menu, then another click to select "Open", then however-many more clicks to search through folders to get to the file. So that will be 4 clicks at the least, maybe more depending on how many folders you have to go through. Or, you could click the program to open it, then click "File", go down to the recent docs option, then click your document. That's still 3 clicks. The newer method is 1 right click, then another click on the pinned document to open it and its parent program. Bam, only 2 clicks. All the while, the document remains safe in it's actual location.


I think this new bar is light years ahead of the previous offerings.
Ya..you know, or you could just double click on the document. Or, if it's recent, you open the start menu, go to Recent Items, and click on it.

Same shit, different gui. If GUI enhancements actually provided something new, I may not bitch as loudly about how many times they make radical changes to the GUI.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
You're kind of proving my point for me. A power user shouldn't need to FIND anything, they just need to get to where it is in as few clicks as possible.

Do I really want to set up shortcuts for everything I do in Office? Unless I was performing a single repetitive task over in a cubicle all day, creating a ton of shortcuts is often not worth it. That doesn't even touch on when you're using Office on a computer that's not actually yours.

The ribbon interface wouldn't be so bad if they let you decide what you wanted shown under each tab.

I understand that and I agree. My point about Office 2010 is that this is no longer an issue. The keyboard shortcuts are COMPLETELY customizable, what ever the hell someone wants. Make it work like OO if your want!

And the ribbon is also completely customizable and extensible. But the buttons where ever you want as well.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,670
I must admit to having used the search function in Windows a few times (mostly to locate certain DLLs) and of course I search the internet using Google a lot. In my experience, though, nothing beats knowing the location of an item of information or a document you need, even if it's via a few other sites.

Again, maybe I'm just special, but I can find no use for meta searches and such as OS X has had for a while and Windows now too.

I'm the same way as you. I very rarely use a search function on my machines. I learned a long time ago that it's much better to be organized and know where my stuff is than to rely on a search to find what I'm looking for. This has nothing to do with having a great memory either as I have a rather lousy memory actually.

In my case, searching for a file is likely to be detrimental to me. I will keep multiple backups of certain files which may have changes made to them over time. The filename may not be the same but they will be similar and knowing exactly where the file I'm looking for is tends to be quicker than doing a search and having to decide from there which file I'm looking for.

Since I have multiple systems with different things stored on them, search doesn't do me any good there either. Doing a search on my main system isn't going to help if what I'm looking for is on my Linux file server. It's also not going to do me any good if I'm looking for a recorded TV program on the system with the TV card.

 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I do not work with words but with 'images' :) My type of giftedness is called 'visual-spatial' for a reason. Essentially I convert anything I read, hear or see into a kind of images (impressions) which are then heavily linked (spatial). In a sense I have a database inside my head :p So yes, I can easily find anything I am at least somewhat familiar with.

As for unknown things, there are ways to find out about them. I also make it a rule to know what I have on my HDDs in terms of documents. I don't think that some kind of search function in the OS will be very beneficial to me, at least I can not think of a time when I actively felt I could use it.

I download a lot of code and other documents that I'll never read verbatim. I scan and archive a lot of things as well. I have some old OneNote books that I'm about to import into my main collection and I be searching through those.

Heck I've even gone through and found lost stuff for people by simply indexing and searching on keywords.

I simply don't believe that even a special gift as yours can do all these things as quickly and efficiently as well done search system.
 

Tawnos

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2001
Messages
3,808
Nope, I organize my email in such a way that I can find the proper folder and narrow it down to the right date within seconds. Perhaps it's just me having a photographic memory but I honestly wouldn't know why I'd want to have a search function in my email client. Now searching bookmarks in Firefox, that's more useful. I absolutely do love the new smart address bar in 3.x :)



I must admit to having used the search function in Windows a few times (mostly to locate certain DLLs) and of course I search the internet using Google a lot. In my experience, though, nothing beats knowing the location of an item of information or a document you need, even if it's via a few other sites.

Again, maybe I'm just special, but I can find no use for meta searches and such as OS X has had for a while and Windows now too.

Either you're special, or just don't get enough email. Even with massive filtering on emails and only one social group, I'm getting hammered with 500-1000 or more emails a day. It's a fact of life here, and I end up ignoring most of it, but doing my best to recall the title. Search is super important when I get asked "was so and so discussed on X distribution list this last week?" Memory may allow me to say "yeah, an email with a title about that came up, let me check its content," but search makes pulling all the pieces easier.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
546
I understand that and I agree. My point about Office 2010 is that this is no longer an issue. The keyboard shortcuts are COMPLETELY customizable, what ever the hell someone wants. Make it work like OO if your want!

And the ribbon is also completely customizable and extensible. But the buttons where ever you want as well.

I already addressed why keyboard shortcuts aren't a fully legitimate form of UI customization.

As for the second bit, unless I'm missing something:

From the help file:
Things you can't do:
Add to or rearrange the commands on the Ribbon.
Change or remove a command or group on the Ribbon.
Add tabs to the Ribbon, unless you use XML and programming code.
Switch to the toolbars and menus from earlier versions of Microsoft Office.
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
My biggest beef, at least with vista? Managing network connections. They buried it.

Start>Control Panel>Network and Internet. Or just right click on the network icon on the taskbar and select "Open network and sharing center". Simple.

Ya..you know, or you could just double click on the document. Or, if it's recent, you open the start menu, go to Recent Items, and click on it.

Same shit, different gui.

Not the same shit at ALL. Everything organized differently on a per-app basis, something totally not present in right click menus on any Windows version. You can go to "recent documents", but it's all unorganized as hell with different docs from different apps.

Sure, you could just double click icons - if you keep shortcuts on your desktop, which I definitely don't. But that's the beauty - you can do that, too, if you really want to. It's another choice that you're given, and I like choices.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I already addressed why keyboard shortcuts aren't a fully legitimate form of UI customization.

As for the second bit, unless I'm missing something:

From the help file:

You said that you already address why keyboard shortcuts aren't a fully legitimate form of UI customization? I sorry I missed your point there. In Office 2010 you can export the customizations to a file. I need to test that's per user but I think that it is, so you could customize Office to your liking on any computer that you can log into with you own account with Office installed and work as you with.

The other points have pretty much all been addressed in 2010. You can create new tabs, remove ones and move commands around. You could even TOTALLY build your on ribbon look and feel programaticlly, the Ribbon is really nothing more than a GUI front end to Office functionality add is well separated from Office functionality.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
546
You said that you already address why keyboard shortcuts aren't a fully legitimate form of UI customization? I sorry I missed your point there. In Office 2010 you can export the customizations to a file. I need to test that's per user but I think that it is, so you could customize Office to your liking on any computer that you can log into with you own account with Office installed and work as you with.

The other points have pretty much all been addressed in 2010. You can create new tabs, remove ones and move commands around. You could even TOTALLY build your on ribbon look and feel programaticlly, the Ribbon is really nothing more than a GUI front end to Office functionality add is well separated from Office functionality.

Keyboard shortcuts first require being setup, then are generally only known by you if you created them, and lastly do not offer the same variety of options that a good UI would. The point is that you shouldn't have to set up shortcuts in the first place, you shouldn't be limited to shortcuts if you want to avoid extra clicks. This is on top of the the fact that you have to create the shortcuts in the first place which is unreasonable.

Secondly, last time I checked, Office 2010 wasn't out yet, so whenever the ribbon gets fixed, great, but until then it still sucks.
 

XOR != OR

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Messages
11,549
Start>Control Panel>Network and Internet.
...and then manage network connections.
Or just right click on the network icon on the taskbar and select "Open network and sharing center". Simple.
yes, thank you. I am capable of finding it, no matter where they move it. The fact that they needed to insert another layer before I can get to where I need to be is my problem. And no, that doesn't make it more "user friendly".
Not the same shit at ALL. Everything organized differently on a per-app basis, something totally not present in right click menus on any Windows version. You can go to "recent documents", but it's all unorganized as hell with different docs from different apps.

Sure, you could just double click icons - if you keep shortcuts on your desktop, which I definitely don't. But that's the beauty - you can do that, too, if you really want to. It's another choice that you're given, and I like choices.
My point being that the text I quoted was misleading. It gave the impression that XP required all these steps to open an associated document.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Keyboard shortcuts first require being setup, then are generally only known by you if you created them, and lastly do not offer the same variety of options that a good UI would. The point is that you shouldn't have to set up shortcuts in the first place, you shouldn't be limited to shortcuts if you want to avoid extra clicks. This is on top of the the fact that you have to create the shortcuts in the first place which is unreasonable.

Secondly, last time I checked, Office 2010 wasn't out yet, so whenever the ribbon gets fixed, great, but until then it still sucks.

Who said you have to create the shortcuts yourself? Since they are stored in files I'm sure that there'll be templates for Office 2003, WordPerfect, hell even OpenOffice.

Yes, 2010 isn't even in beta, that's next month. What you bet me that that beta will quickly surpass the install and USE base of OpenOffice? Kind of like how Windows 7 in beta surpassed the install based of all desktop Linux installs COMBINED, even before general release?

At any rate you're complaining about something that's all but fixed so its a moot point. It'll be here sooner than you realize. The only thing that travels faster than light is time.
 

streetkid

Gawd
Joined
Sep 17, 2003
Messages
871
search is great.

For example, I know I bought a NEC burner from Newegg. Win+ type newegg nec + enter I have it my invoice.. you're still clicking through folders no matter how vivid that image is in your head.
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
My point being that the text I quoted was misleading. It gave the impression that XP required all these steps to open an associated document.

BS. How was it misleading? Unless you put individual documents in your quick launch, then you have to do it in one of the ways I described. You have no other choice. Unless you keep individual documents on the desktop or quick launch, then there's no other way to do it. In XP you could either a.) have crap all over your desktop and double click a file to open it in it's parent program (no less than two clicks) or b.) Click start>documents and then go through however many folders it takes to find your document (absolutely no less than 3 clicks) or c.) Open your program, click file, click open and then click through folders to find your document (no less than 4 clicks). Or d.) open the program, click file, go down to recent documents, click the document you want (if it's even there).

Those are the only ways to do it in XP. In Vista, you can at least use the quick search function. In Windows 7, you can pin any document you want to it's parent icon. Whenever you need to open it, right click the icon, then left click the file. Bam, it opens that file in the program.

You can't do anything remotely close to that in XP, so quit trying to act like you can. Opening files isn't any faster or "easier" in XP compared to W7, it's the total opposite.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
I download a lot of code and other documents that I'll never read verbatim. I scan and archive a lot of things as well. I have some old OneNote books that I'm about to import into my main collection and I be searching through those.

Heck I've even gone through and found lost stuff for people by simply indexing and searching on keywords.

I simply don't believe that even a special gift as yours can do all these things as quickly and efficiently as well done search system.

Believe it. Being well organized is a habit. Not an addon.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Believe it. Being well organized is a habit. Not an addon.

I totally understand that. But there's a difference between being organized and finding information out of hundreds of thousands of millions of documents. No organization scheme and no human memory can replace a powerful search capability.

And what benefit to you get from tons of organization when you have the ability to simply type a few keywords and get what you want?

If I want to locate something I just type a few keywords, I don't have to navigate through endless amounts of directories and such. Not only that I can find different items attached to the same keywords simultaneously.

search is great.

For example, I know I bought a NEC burner from Newegg. Win+ type newegg nec + enter I have it my invoice.. you're still clicking through folders no matter how vivid that image is in your head.

+ 1000. This is an EXCELLENT point that I hope I was able to reinforce.
In my case, searching for a file is likely to be detrimental to me. I will keep multiple backups of certain files which may have changes made to them over time. The filename may not be the same but they will be similar and knowing exactly where the file I'm looking for is tends to be quicker than doing a search and having to decide from there which file I'm looking for.

This isn't a search problem, this IS an ORGANIZATION problem. The oldest trick in the book is to just keep the same file name and put a number on the end to denote the version. And as many mentioned before you could just pin the current version.

A much better option is to use a version control system like CVS if you really have to deal with a lot of versioning.

For a computer enthusiast site there seem to be a lot of people that don't seem to actually want to USE technology to make their lives easier.
 

TechJeff

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 25, 2009
Messages
185
Well, here's the deal after talking with a lot of tech guys and reading various web sites. It seems like there are two camps and you will either love or hate the Windows 7/Vista look. Some don't like the task bar, but that is the MAIN selling point Microsoft learned in a study. In fact, in a survey conducted by Microsoft, as many Mac owners LOVED the taskbar and quick view of windows, etc. in Windows 7. It was sort of like the OSX one which is very nice.

Microsoft will not change this and in fact is taking their whole OS in a more 3D desktop look with more features. The amount of people that don't like it tend to be old time Windows users or those very tech savy. That is not a big enough market for Microsoft to think about in their survey when it comes to the GUI. They want it to be just as pretty and useful as the Mac. Also, according to some things being said, Microsoft wants even more polish on Windows 8 and the task bar will be more 3D like the Mac is as well.

For me, I love it and like the look a lot even though I am a tech guy. A little color and style goes a long way on an otherwise boring desktop. If I want plain I can always run a stripped down version of Linux. But I just like the new features and all the great uses it has like the mini popup windows of an opened app and other goodies of the taskbar. Either way, this is their new direction and given 64 bit is becoming the norm and lots more RAM, then system resources are a non issue for the GUI and whatever they want to do.
 

jeremyshaw

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
12,512
QFT. Remember when 16bit had a 65k cap, and everybody thought it was 'too much'? lol.
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
I was initially on the other side of the fence regarding the new taskbar - in other words, I thought it was ugly and too fat. I normally like a very small, minimal taskbar. Now, though, after having used 7600 for over a month, I love the new system. I've tried a couple times going back to the small task bar, but I just can't. I love the way it is, how it looks, how it works, etc. It just takes a bit of getting used to, a little bit of exploration. Ditching old methods and styles led up to me, ultimately, being happier with a Windows OS than I ever have been before.

Windows 7 is that pinnacle OS that I will be comparing others up against for years to come.
 

Mr. Pedantic

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 19, 2009
Messages
1,707
I was initially on the other side of the fence regarding the new taskbar - in other words, I thought it was ugly and too fat. I normally like a very small, minimal taskbar. Now, though, after having used 7600 for over a month, I love the new system. I've tried a couple times going back to the small task bar, but I just can't. I love the way it is, how it looks, how it works, etc. It just takes a bit of getting used to, a little bit of exploration. Ditching old methods and styles led up to me, ultimately, being happier with a Windows OS than I ever have been before.

Windows 7 is that pinnacle OS that I will be comparing others up against for years to come.
Can you make the size of the taskbar icons smaller? Because I like to have all my important applications in the taskbar, and I think having them all there would look weird if they're the Windows 7 default size.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Well, here's the deal after talking with a lot of tech guys and reading various web sites. It seems like there are two camps and you will either love or hate the Windows 7/Vista look. Some don't like the task bar, but that is the MAIN selling point Microsoft learned in a study. In fact, in a survey conducted by Microsoft, as many Mac owners LOVED the taskbar and quick view of windows, etc. in Windows 7. It was sort of like the OSX one which is very nice.


This is ALWAYS the case when Microsoft makes a UI change especially. People have a tendency to think these changes are arbitrary but in the case of the windows 7 taskbar there is one point that I've yet to see in any discussion about it. In a word, touch.

Remember, Windows 7 is the first desktop OS to bring real OS level support for screen based touch and multi-touch. Being a big tablet fan the first thing that came to my mind was how much better the Windows 7 taskbar was for touch; it even helps with a pen as well.

Yes it's "fat" by default but there is a GREAT reason for that. It's much finger friendlier. Indeed even jumplists are finger friendly. But this point is almost never made.
 

Adidas4275

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
5,986
i am not sure if it was answer prior, but icons and such are much bigger bc the average size monitor and resoultion is getting larger.

on my 23" LCD that is 1080p the icons are similar relative size as in XP
 
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
2,881
i am not sure if it was answer prior, but icons and such are much bigger bc the average size monitor and resoultion is getting larger.

on my 23" LCD that is 1080p the icons are similar relative size as in XP

Yeah that's how I see it. The icons are relatively similar in size when you compare it to the old days with a low resolution monitor and low resolution icons. The only difference now is that its crisper.

I think people are used to having quicklaunch icons being intentionally small. But now that the new taskbar can have full-size icons, it looks more cluttered at the first glance. However, with the default settings, there aren't going to be more windows cluttering up the taskbar anymore, so it's a lot cleaner looking than before.
 

SmokeRngs

[H]ard|DCer of the Month - April 2008
Joined
Aug 9, 2001
Messages
17,670
I totally understand that. But there's a difference between being organized and finding information out of hundreds of thousands of millions of documents. No organization scheme and no human memory can replace a powerful search capability.

And what benefit to you get from tons of organization when you have the ability to simply type a few keywords and get what you want?

If I want to locate something I just type a few keywords, I don't have to navigate through endless amounts of directories and such. Not only that I can find different items attached to the same keywords simultaneously.



+ 1000. This is an EXCELLENT point that I hope I was able to reinforce.


This isn't a search problem, this IS an ORGANIZATION problem. The oldest trick in the book is to just keep the same file name and put a number on the end to denote the version. And as many mentioned before you could just pin the current version.

A much better option is to use a version control system like CVS if you really have to deal with a lot of versioning.

For a computer enthusiast site there seem to be a lot of people that don't seem to actually want to USE technology to make their lives easier.

It's not an organization problem. Organization is the solution to the problem. So what if you're looking for a certain document with certain words in it? The more documents and files you have, the more keywords you need to locate that document out of even more and more possibilities. Also, what happens when you are looking for a document and you think a certain keyword is located in the document but it actually isn't? You're not going to find the document with search in that case. Are you going to memorize every document so that doesn't happen? I've found organization cuts down on the number of false hits you're going to get with a search. Organization also allows you to gain access to a number of similar files without having to search for each and every one of them individually.

I found out a long time ago that organization is superior to search in the vast majority of instances on my local machine. I don't have massive databases of astronomical size and information. I haven't had to deal with them since I quit working for the government. Most of my information and files are known to me and I know where to find them, therefore I have easy and quick access to them.

I have about 7-8 terabytes of data on my three local machines and I don't have any trouble locating what I need. I don't discount the usefulness of search for something like the internet. I don't know where all the information is located and I can't organize it myself, therefore I need to utilize search to find what I'm looking for if it exists.

Each has its own strengths and uses, but search is not something I find to be particularly useful on a desktop with limited information.
 
Joined
Jun 6, 2008
Messages
546
At any rate you're complaining about something that's all but fixed so its a moot point. It'll be here sooner than you realize. The only thing that travels faster than light is time.

Banking on a solution in the unspecified future in software when dealing with annoyances now, is always a terrible idea, and ESPECIALLY when software is involved.
 
Last edited:

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
It's not an organization problem. Organization is the solution to the problem. So what if you're looking for a certain document with certain words in it? The more documents and files you have, the more keywords you need to locate that document out of even more and more possibilities. Also, what happens when you are looking for a document and you think a certain keyword is located in the document but it actually isn't? You're not going to find the document with search in that case. Are you going to memorize every document so that doesn't happen? I've found organization cuts down on the number of false hits you're going to get with a search. Organization also allows you to gain access to a number of similar files without having to search for each and every one of them individually.

I found out a long time ago that organization is superior to search in the vast majority of instances on my local machine. I don't have massive databases of astronomical size and information. I haven't had to deal with them since I quit working for the government. Most of my information and files are known to me and I know where to find them, therefore I have easy and quick access to them.

I have about 7-8 terabytes of data on my three local machines and I don't have any trouble locating what I need. I don't discount the usefulness of search for something like the internet. I don't know where all the information is located and I can't organize it myself, therefore I need to utilize search to find what I'm looking for if it exists.

Each has its own strengths and uses, but search is not something I find to be particularly useful on a desktop with limited information.

You seem to be looking at search as antithetical to organization and nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed search gives one abilities to organize like never before. No matter how well organized you make your documents in a traditional hierarchical file system, you have a fixed and static arrangement which is nice but at the same time it's inflexible.

Searches are focused on the what, including meta data, so I can create logical views of documents by type, date modified, created, etc regardless of the underlying physical location.

You have 8 TB of data and you call that limited? Maybe its all video but even with my video, including emails, I've got roughly a million documents, with at least 100 a day that keep, including emails. Spending a lot of effort to manually organization that information yields nothing that search gives me with no effort. This is not to say that I don't move things to folders I just don't do it for all of my information, just the more important stuff.

Your view of local storage is focused solely on the where.
 

Grimham

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,592
I dislike the Win 7 UI as well (coming from XP). Seems like they dumbed everything down for the least common denominator and actually made it harder for power users to get things done. To me it looks and feels "Consoley" in a way (if that makes any sense at all). Then again I'm different from a lot of the users here - I care ZERO about aero, backgrounds, dancing bears and all that crap. Maybe it's just the old adage "people don't like change". I'll start using it though, gonna have to sooner or later. Might as well get it over with - like pulling off a band-aid.
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
Been using 7 for over a year now, never had issues with the GUI changes, and it never ceases to amaze me just how many people can't stand change... Windows isn't written for any individual, it's written for that very "least common denominator" that was just mentioned above.

There are a lot of things in life to get all fired up about. A change in the GUI in Windows... doesn't even rank on the list, in my opinion.
 

sparks

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2004
Messages
3,206
I hate it. I knew that it was nothing more than a glorified vista that I also hate :)

This weekend I saw some ads for 7 on tv, as soon as they talked about the new simpler user interface I knew I was correct. Next week the ads will say a more user friendly environment.

Right now I can't blame 7 about their less than friendly HW listings and stuff but so far I don't like pulling up hw and only seeing whats plugged into the computer. Have to hunt and dig for anything.
But like I said I have not spent much time working with 7.
They don't need an XP compatibility they should have stuck with what works. BUT I guess XP was too complicated and the user interface was trash.


Grimham made a very good point.
shouldn't this be called 7-box
 

Arainach

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
Messages
2,353
They don't need an XP compatibility they should have stuck with what works.
Except that XP doesn't "work". Graphics drivers are the #1 source of Bluescreens, the security model sucks, and hte network stack is out of date. Vista was a huge step in the right direction for the future of the platform, and was a necessary painful step for future growth. 7 builds on that foundation.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
Right now I can't blame 7 about their less than friendly HW listings and stuff but so far I don't like pulling up hw and only seeing whats plugged into the computer. Have to hunt and dig for anything.

Huh? Please explain what you mean here. Hut and dig for hardware.
 

Grimham

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 20, 2004
Messages
1,592
Except that XP doesn't "work". Graphics drivers are the #1 source of Bluescreens, the security model sucks, and hte network stack is out of date. Vista was a huge step in the right direction for the future of the platform, and was a necessary painful step for future growth. 7 builds on that foundation.


I agree with you on the security and the network. But as far as Bluescreens - I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that 90+% of those are caused by the users themselves. I can't remember the last time I had a BSOD (XP, Vista, Win2k). I know I had a couple when I was using Win 98. But I haven't had one in literally years now. Overclocking the hell out of everything, using modified drivers, using shitty 3rd party apps, poor cooling, insufficient power, etc.. Are there instances where a BSOD is not the result of any of these? - of course. But like I said, most are caused by the person behind the keyboard.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
I agree with you on the security and the network. But as far as Bluescreens - I'd be willing to bet large amounts of money that 90+% of those are caused by the users themselves. I can't remember the last time I had a BSOD (XP, Vista, Win2k). I know I had a couple when I was using Win 98. But I haven't had one in literally years now. Overclocking the hell out of everything, using modified drivers, using shitty 3rd party apps, poor cooling, insufficient power, etc.. Are there instances where a BSOD is not the result of any of these? - of course. But like I said, most are caused by the person behind the keyboard.

You are correct and XP at this point in its life is very stable. However, Vista did pull the video drivers back into user mode and that help a LOT with video drivers BSODing a system. Now that doesn't magically make a system more stable, it simple keeps the whole OS from crashing.

But 7 is a lot more solid overall than XP. This that XP chugs on are slows down on of the GUI gets weired just don't happen as much in 7, or even Vista for that matter. The big benefit of Aero aren't the effects, its the moving of the UI off the CPU and onto the GPU.
 

Jon55

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,349
I hate it. I knew that it was nothing more than a glorified vista that I also hate :)

This weekend I saw some ads for 7 on tv, as soon as they talked about the new simpler user interface I knew I was correct. Next week the ads will say a more user friendly environment.

Right now I can't blame 7 about their less than friendly HW listings and stuff but so far I don't like pulling up hw and only seeing whats plugged into the computer. Have to hunt and dig for anything.
But like I said I have not spent much time working with 7.
They don't need an XP compatibility they should have stuck with what works. BUT I guess XP was too complicated and the user interface was trash.


Grimham made a very good point.
shouldn't this be called 7-box

258Troll_spray.jpg


How can you hate something you've never used or haven't used for more than 5 minutes? There's a word for that, it's call ignorance.
 

sub.genius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
172
I wanted to point out that one aspect of his post - not using Windows 7 much - but the overall tone of the post (and even the parts mentioning Vista) already paint a negative picture towards anything but XP so... best to let it go. ;)
 

JonathanJ

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
111
It's not an organization problem. Organization is the solution to the problem. So what if you're looking for a certain document with certain words in it?
Who cares where the file is? You know where your files are, I know where my files are - so what? Accessing the files is generally speaking much quicker using Instant Search. It's like using a keyboard shortcut versus manually using the mouse.

The feature should have been called Microsoft Access Your Files Instantly 2006 instead of Instant Search. At least it would get the point across more easily. :)
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
So...wait...some of you are saying the interface is "dumbed down", yet you also say it's "harder to use" or navigate.

:confused:

It's the same damned concept. Close the windows by clicking the "x", minimize them by clicking the "-". Open something by searching through a couple folders and then double clicking it, or click a pinned icon on the taskbar. Need to change something in the system? Go to the damned control panel.

It's all the damned same, people, just with more options this time. Don't like aero? Turn it off.

etc etc etc.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
So...wait...some of you are saying the interface is "dumbed down", yet you also say it's "harder to use" or navigate.

:confused:

It's the same damned concept. Close the windows by clicking the "x", minimize them by clicking the "-". Open something by searching through a couple folders and then double clicking it, or click a pinned icon on the taskbar. Need to change something in the system? Go to the damned control panel.

It's all the damned same, people, just with more options this time. Don't like aero? Turn it off.

etc etc etc.


+1. Honestly, I really don't get half the stuff in this thread. The UI AIN'T that different from Windows 95 even today.
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
I know! People are complaining because they put some option another level deeper, so they have to click one extra time...OH THE HORROR!! There's also tons of options added, stuff that isn't and would never present in XP or prior versions, so I don't mind if some option that I'm only going to need only when I have problems is buried a little.
 
Top