I Think Windows RC Looks Disappointing - Do You Too?

[DasFox]

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

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...

[denniz]

Originally Posted by DasFox

Well I installed Windows 7 RC last night in eager anticipation, but let me say I have not followed anything about this new OS at all...

This sentence says it all, I read your whole post, but the sentence in the quote says it all. No point in arguing with someone who already (prematurely) made up there mind.

[DasFox]

Originally Posted by denniz

This sentence says it all, I read your whole post, but the sentence in the quote says it all. No point in arguing with someone who already (prematurely) made up there mind.

You should read though...

I said under the hood there are differences. We're not talking about the code/performance aspects that will hopefully be a big difference, we're talking about making an OS look different from the past version, in the GUI department, that's all...

PEACE

[SystemJunkie]

What did you expect? Microsoft is Microsoft. The only difference more and more restrictions, more and more security through obscurity, more and more up-splitting, more and more unnecessary blinkings, more and more waste of space plus main aim global control and profit. But what is the alternative? There is no real alternative most people are used to use windows and it is still the most comfortable and customized os available.

[lodore]

Vista isnt a flop what are you talking about.
windows 7 is a lighter tweaked version of vista.
same as windows xp is windows 2000 with more features.
I still think vista and windows 7 take up to much disc space thou.
you can remove quite alot of features in windows 7. such as internet explorer 8,media player,media centre etc etc.
why not just disable windows defender?
it doesnt hurt to have it enabled anyway.
I have never had a problem with UAC.
As I have said before if you get alot of UAC prompts its probaly because the software your using isnt designed for UAC. so blame the vendor not MS.

windows 7 beta runs faster on my hardware than windows vista does.
I havent tryed the RC yet but if i have time i will later on this week.

I really like the new taskbar. dont compare it to a mac or the dock on a mac its nothing like it.

MS has some bad points but i think overall windows 7 is a decent OS.

[vizhip]

Originally Posted by lodore

why not just disable windows defender?
it doesnt hurt to have it enabled anyway.

I have seen defender eat system resources like they were pure sugar...

so... in some cases it can kill your system to have it enabled...

Oh yeah... some software that we loved tp play on XP and thus moved to Vista is not the fault of the vendor... but ours for placing it on an OS that it was not designed for...

Regards -
-Bob

[DasFox]

Originally Posted by lodore

Vista isnt a flop what are you talking about.

Vista was a marketing flop, not to mention the driver incompatibility issues everyone was having, these are facts, not my own personal spin...

windows 7 is a lighter tweaked version of vista.

Ok lighther tweaked version should be called the samething Vista 2. Calling it by another name should have another look.

same as windows xp is windows 2000 with more features.

At least XP had a different look to it...

I still think vista and windows 7 take up to much disc space thou.

Yep big space, can't argue there...

you can remove quite alot of features in windows 7. such as internet explorer 8,media player,media centre etc etc.

I'm talking about options during the install, not afterwards...

why not just disable windows defender?

Yes you can do that, I was again talking about an option to not even install it.

it doesnt hurt to have it enabled anyway.
I have never had a problem with UAC.
As I have said before if you get alot of UAC prompts its probaly because the software your using isnt designed for UAC. so blame the vendor not MS.

No problems here other then the stupidity of asking me if I want to install something that I do. UAC is useless, takes up resources so I shut it down.

windows 7 beta runs faster on my hardware than windows vista does.
I havent tryed the RC yet but if i have time i will later on this week.

For me Aero scores are slower and with 75% less services running, it's using more memory then Vista on my laptop.

I really like the new taskbar. dont compare it to a mac or the dock on a mac its nothing like it.

Well at least give us some more modern icons, cooler, more 3D and I can live with the taskbar too.

MS has some bad points but i think overall windows 7 is a decent OS.

Made comments in the quote...

[SystemJunkie]

I still think vista and windows 7 take up to much disc space thou.

Surely.

The moment you debate on windows 7 windows 8 is already in creation.

You guys now see what power is?

Power is when nobody forces you to do (buy) something but when you feel forced to do (buy) something.

Subconscious mass control.

[tipstir]

Too early to knock down the next OS not even release official wise.. Not even got the kinks out yet... Oh knows what the heck it's going to look like. Lots of knock off on it. XP to Seven7, Vista to Seven7.. NetBooks use XP not Vista go figure. Vista was test to see how the public would like the idea of having a simple yet fancy OS. The only problem with that idea was that they didn't figure on the public and corp companies still going to keep tight hold on XP instead of using Vista. When 7 does come out offical I still believe that Corp Companies and the general public is going to play the wait and see game. So around 2012 you might see the move for it or not?

Heck they can't even get 802.11n Standardized yet!

[SystemJunkie]

As long as you only use windows for internet purposes it is a decent thing.
But harassment starts already with the explorer and file management. Several design errors and rude restrictions in vista are similar to the devil. Not easier but one more stone between your legs to keep you busy and waste your time with os incapabilities. Or stop the bottomless pit with just more patches.

[m00nbl00d]

As someone else already mentioned, its a release candidate and not release to manufacturer. Don't expect everything to be working just fine.

Now, a few questions:

- What's the problem with UAC?

- What's the problem with the user interface? You talk about Mac OSX, but, personally, I totally dislike that ugly user interface. I do hope Microsoft takes no examples from it.

- I do agree that options of what or not to install would be great, but, most people want an operating system that simply works. These same people don't even know what is security software, etc. Microsoft will even be implementing a free antivirus into their operating system.
I know that for some people (like me) optional settings would be welcome, but, for most it would be like - Hey, what the heck is this? Do I need it? What is it for?.

Most of them don't even know how to install an operating system, etc. Its all done in the computer shop, etc. They want the operating system working when they get the computer. They want the office suite installed, they want a video and audio player already working, etc. They don't even know other alternatives exist.

Try to install a system to somebody like these people without Windows Media Player, Internet Explorer, etc., and not installing anything else, and you'll see them complaining.

Microsoft is running a business, and they need to satisfy the masses. Simple. No one is forced to use their operating system. So, if some of us don't like it, don't use it. Simple.


Regards

[SystemJunkie]

most people want an operating system that simply works.

most people want an os that is able to manage a huge amount of files in a simple way but explorer.exe is not able to do this job, especially vista explorer is like a dementia patient. Once you change the letter of a partition all settings are forgotten not to mention the bad chosen detail presets in contrary Windows XP that was comme il faut.

[ahriman]

I'm running the Windows 7 beta. Will install the RC as soon as I get time.
Love it! My favorite OS. Well...OpenBSD does have a special place in my
heart...but if I had to choose? It would be hard. Think I'll get rid of Ubuntu.
I may keep SUSE.

[arran]

Originally Posted by lodore

you can remove quite alot of features in windows 7. such as internet explorer 8,media player,media centre etc etc.

I like the sound of that.

[Aaron Here]

WinXP still looks best for those of us whose PC is in the neighborhood of a single-core CPU with a Gig of RAM.

[Defcon]

I can't believe that people still complain about UAC and turn it off? What do you want Microsoft to do? They have made a secure OS which does not allow dangerous software to run without user prompts. They now reduced the UAC prompts after much whining about excessive prompts (mostly because applications are still badly written). Now you go and turn it off and then complain that your webpage wrote to a system file.

The rest of your complaint boils down to - I want new eye candy and I hate everything about Windows 7. This is not constructive. If you don't like it don't use it, but you know very well whats under the hood matters a hell of a lot more than the looks. And there are many UI improvements as well (aero peek, superbar) but you choose to ignore them.

With Win 7, the goal was not to build a new OS with lot of new features (this is what caused Vista to be so incompatible), but to take Vista, tweak and refine it and make sure it would run well on a much wider range including netbooks. The development process for Win7 has also been very different, which is why you see essentially feature complete betas and early builds. I don't think any Microsoft OS has received such a positive response before.

I think its the best OS I've used. And Microsoft, unlike Apple, does not add DRM to their OS that limits you from running it on fully compatible hardware thats not made by them. On the contrary, they are giving everyone a 1 year license to use the OS free.

[Kerodo]

I too think this is the best thing I've seen in a long time, and I really really do like it. I think there will just be those who don't want to like it, no matter what, and those who do like it, regardless. You can make excuses all day why you don't, or why you do, but it's all just a lot of talk. Windows 7 is the direction things are going, and those who want to run it will, and those who don't will use XP or Linux or something else. This is what I'll be running from now on. I love it.

[Brian K]

Originally Posted by Aaron Here

WinXP still looks best for those of us whose PC is in the neighborhood of a single-core CPU with a Gig of RAM.

Aaron,

I think Win7 would run very well on your computer.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...hp?t=240486#13

[Sully]

I may be missing the point here, but has anyone forgot that 'WE' geeks are only a very small percentage of the market for windows platforms? IT who want servers don't care about these things. They just want it to work with all thier stuff. They will tweak it anyway.

Home users, they put computer knowledge of the OS on a priority level of 0. They care about certain softwares they use. As it should be.

I agree with the sentiment, "what is MS supposed to do?". They are in the business of selling software, and thier market potential for people like 'US' is small compared to the averge joe in the world.

I would like to see much more from them myself, but I think reality dictates otherwise. But, we can look at it this way, they are getting better about things 'WE' like, such as a better task manager and services, as well as more saavy with the automated installs. So while you have to be a geek to actually care about those things, they have not totally forgotten us.

Seems to me anyway.

Sul.

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Andrmgic
built-in admin account is disabled by default in Windows 7 and as others have said, the admin account doesn't operate at true admin level.. hence the security prompts. They can do more than a standard user, like access regedit and the control panel, but still require elevation to install software

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.

My main 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 Windoews 7? I've never beleived 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...

[chronomatic]

Originally Posted by DasFox

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.

From the screenshots I have seen, Vista is aping KDE 4 as well as some things from OS X, though it doesn't look as good as either.

2. UAC jumping in my face again, you mean this all over again, oh well time to disable.

I have never used Vista or 7, but I am familiar with what UAC is supposed to do. I think it was a well intentioned feature from M$ that was perhaps done a bit incorrectly. As was said, Windows, when it was first created, was not intended to be a multi-user system (which is why 95, 98, and ME were so horrendously bad on the security front). M$ has been playing catch up ever since. Even though the NT kernel was supposed to address this problem, it didn't do it well enough in XP (because no one ever made a user account, and if they tried, they quickly found out most apps would not work). Now that Vista and 7 ask you to create user accounts during install, M$ had to come up with a way to elevate privileges whenever they were needed. The problem is that many apps still want admin privileges when they shouldn't need them, thus the UAC problem.

It all goes back to the mentality of the Windows world -- one user per PC that has total control and access to everything. Most users have this mindset (which is why we have all the crying about user accounts -- most people don't understand the purpose of them), most developers still have the mindset, and M$ has not really done a good enough job to change the paradigm.

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...

I think M$ has been looking at OS X and the various Linux desktops. How well have they copied them? I guess not very well according to you.

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!

M$ makes Windows for non-geeks. It would confuse a lot of people if they had the freedom to install what they wanted. If you don't like it, you should probably be looking at non-Windows alternatives.

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.

Better performance will never happen until M$ disposes of NT and writes a new kernel from scratch (or at least drastically trim it, thus breaking backwards compatibility). It simply has too much baggage with it now for it to ever be that fast.

M$ said during the early phases on Win 7 development that it would be running on a new kernel. Is it? I doubt it, but it seems to be stripped down a bit.

[SystemJunkie]

I may be missing the point here, but has anyone forgot that 'WE' geeks are only a very small percentage of the market for windows platforms? IT who want servers don't care about these things.

True.

I heard Windows 8 will quit 32 bit compatibility, pity.

[Aaron Here]

Originally Posted by Brian K

Aaron,

I think Win7 would run very well on your computer.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...hp?t=240486#13

Brian, my system doesn't support (nor do I need) DirectX 9 graphics - which I believe is a Win7 requirement.

My computing consists of internet browsing, email, office apps and photo-editing, so I fail to see what Win7, or Vista for that matter, brings to 'my table' (other than an appetite for more hardware resources)!

Aaron

[Brian K]

Originally Posted by Aaron Here

my system doesn't support (nor do I need) DirectX 9 graphics - which I believe is a Win7 requirement.

Aaron,

I doubt my test computer does either. I only mentioned my experience with a 384 MB RAM computer in case anyone would like to test Win7 in a minimal setting. I have no plans to switch from WinXP to Win7 even though Win7 runs fine in my main computer (multi-boot). Maybe in a year or two when I buy another computer.

[Aaron Here]

Originally Posted by Brian K

...I have no plans to switch from WinXP to Win7 even though Win7 runs fine in my main computer (multi-boot)...

What are your observations insofar as WinXP's vs. Win7's responsiveness and performance on your main computer (and what's the CPU and RAM in that PC)?