Windows 7 Beta
- Thread starter BoxWhatBox
- Start date
love it.
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo - DO NOT UPGRADE VISTA.
Do the following -
1) right-click on computer
2) disk management
3) shrink the drive vista is on - I give Windows 7 30gb.
4) Run the installer for Windows 7 - do a custom install - install 7 on the 30gb partition.
5) When it reboots it asks you if you want to boot vista or windows 7 - your machine is now a dual-boot. When you get bored, deleted the 30gb paration and use any one of a number of tools to restore the single boot.
Do the following -
1) right-click on computer
2) disk management
3) shrink the drive vista is on - I give Windows 7 30gb.
4) Run the installer for Windows 7 - do a custom install - install 7 on the 30gb partition.
5) When it reboots it asks you if you want to boot vista or windows 7 - your machine is now a dual-boot. When you get bored, deleted the 30gb paration and use any one of a number of tools to restore the single boot.
Been using it for a little while now ... it's nice!
Very polished, compatible with everything on my system and all applications I've wanted to install.
But it's just a slightly evolved Vista. It's just a slightly more evolved XP.
there's nothing even remotely innovative whatsoever. That's not surprising - and it's not even really a criticism - it's just been S.O.P for windows for the past decade. Slow evolutions. Big aesthetic makeovers with minor improvements to the overall OS in some admittedly key areas.
It's a fine OS. But Vista was a fine OS too, and unfairly maligned.
Vista is a perfectly competent operating system. Completely usable, completely stable. Those calling XP a good operating system but calling Vista a disaster frankly don't know what they're talking about.
If Windows 7 is somehow very well received, and viewed as some sort of a major improvement over the disastrous Vista, I'll laugh my ass of. Because it's effectively the exact same operating system.
One criticism: Microsoft, as they did with Vista, has evolved its UI in a more OS X like direction. That's fine, because OS X is gorgeous and a nice design direction to head in.
But they've made the taskbar into a taskbar/dock hybrid, and it doesn't really pull off either very well. As with the OS X dock, it mixes running applications and shortcuts into the same UI element. OS X pulls this off now because its dock is well designed (note: the first generation of OS X dock, 10.3, was a usability disaster). Windows 7 isn't nearly as successful.
Beta users: Quick, look at your taskbar. Which icons represent running applications and which icons represent shortcuts?
You can tell, of course, but on your first look it's not immediately obvious. That's a mistake, I think.
Very polished, compatible with everything on my system and all applications I've wanted to install.
But it's just a slightly evolved Vista. It's just a slightly more evolved XP.
there's nothing even remotely innovative whatsoever. That's not surprising - and it's not even really a criticism - it's just been S.O.P for windows for the past decade. Slow evolutions. Big aesthetic makeovers with minor improvements to the overall OS in some admittedly key areas.
It's a fine OS. But Vista was a fine OS too, and unfairly maligned.
Vista is a perfectly competent operating system. Completely usable, completely stable. Those calling XP a good operating system but calling Vista a disaster frankly don't know what they're talking about.
If Windows 7 is somehow very well received, and viewed as some sort of a major improvement over the disastrous Vista, I'll laugh my ass of. Because it's effectively the exact same operating system.
One criticism: Microsoft, as they did with Vista, has evolved its UI in a more OS X like direction. That's fine, because OS X is gorgeous and a nice design direction to head in.
But they've made the taskbar into a taskbar/dock hybrid, and it doesn't really pull off either very well. As with the OS X dock, it mixes running applications and shortcuts into the same UI element. OS X pulls this off now because its dock is well designed (note: the first generation of OS X dock, 10.3, was a usability disaster). Windows 7 isn't nearly as successful.
Beta users: Quick, look at your taskbar. Which icons represent running applications and which icons represent shortcuts?
You can tell, of course, but on your first look it's not immediately obvious. That's a mistake, I think.
Last edited:
It's a bit odd, because the shortcuts also represent running applications, if the thing said shortcut is pointing to is running. At least in IE's case.
Anyway, just got it installed and running myself so I haven't poked around much. But it seems solid so far!
Looking at the taskbar more, I see that the difference between shortcuts and running programs is actually really indistinct. Like, you can drag something that's running over to the shortcuts which pins it there. The only difference between something running and something as a shortcut is that for a shortcut the icon hangs around even when the program is closed... but when it's open it acts as the icon for a running program.
It's a little strange, but I think I like it.
It's a little strange, but I think I like it.
Even more out of character for windows is the fact that, if your shortcut/running application icon is running (e.g. you have a firefox window open), clicking the icon again will *not* open a new instance of that application - it'll simply show you a preview of what is already open.
In order to open a new instance of that application you must right click, then choose the application's name. It's arcane.
So W7 taskbar items don't behave like true shortcuts, nor do they behave like true classic taskbar items. It's a strange hybrid of both.
Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'm getting a funny feeling that the new W7 taskbar is a little too much like the OS X 10.3 dock. A good idea in theory, but the execution led to unnecessary usability issues.
If Microsoft really wants its taskbar to simply become a dock, then it should stop trying to hide that fact and just copy OS X leopard's (or Tiger's) dock verbatim. The hybrid idea doesn't work too well (at least given my experience with it so far).
It's pretty, though!
Two more quick observations:
I've found one compatibility issue so far ...
I have an external hard drive that I have formatted to HFS+ so that I can transport files from my work machines (Ubuntu 8.10 and OS X Leopard) ... Of course, windows (for frankly moronic reasons) doesn't support Read/Write to an HFS+ partition out-of-box.
So I use a third party app called MacDrive which simply extends Vista's/XP's file handling capabilities to HFS+ and ext3 (I think ext3 is supported, that is).
Anyway, MacDrive doesn't work on Win7. It's the first compatibility issue I've run into so far ...
Having said that, I'm noticing that win7 is MUCH snappier and overall feels more "lightweight" (in an abstract way, I guess) than does Vista. Everything simply seems to launch and respond faster. It's great.
I've found one compatibility issue so far ...
I have an external hard drive that I have formatted to HFS+ so that I can transport files from my work machines (Ubuntu 8.10 and OS X Leopard) ... Of course, windows (for frankly moronic reasons) doesn't support Read/Write to an HFS+ partition out-of-box.
So I use a third party app called MacDrive which simply extends Vista's/XP's file handling capabilities to HFS+ and ext3 (I think ext3 is supported, that is).
Anyway, MacDrive doesn't work on Win7. It's the first compatibility issue I've run into so far ...
Having said that, I'm noticing that win7 is MUCH snappier and overall feels more "lightweight" (in an abstract way, I guess) than does Vista. Everything simply seems to launch and respond faster. It's great.
I used to work for Dell tech support, and customers used to constantly complain about Vista because it was slightly different from XP and they couldn't find any of their things. That is what 90% of the complaints about Vista are. A lot of these people don't remember just how crappy XP was before SP2 came along, yet Vista has been very stable for me since I got it last year. Yes, the UAC is irritating, that's why I turned the thing off. Then again, these people have trouble finding their own files, I suppose I shouldn't expect them to find the UAC switch.
I have Win7 downloaded and put on disc, but I have to wait for my desktop PC to arrive back from repair before I can try it out. I use RocketDock and I've been really looking forward to the new superbar ever since I saw it, so I must admit that I'm disappointed to hear that it doesn't work out so well.
Well, that's just my opinion, remember. And I don't hate the taskbar - it's just ... not particularly successful IMO.
You may like it if you're a fan of RocketDock, though RD effectively aims to emulate the Leopard/Tiger dock, which is a far more successful implementation of a dock.
The Win7 dock isn't a dock at all. It's just a taskbar that's trying desperately to be a dock, and failing.
Here's a well written editorial (by infamous MS apologist Paul Thurrott) on why he doesn't like the new taskbar (he hates docks in general, though ... )
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_simple.asp
It's worth a read - he does make some pretty good points about Simple vs. Easy in an OS.
You may like it if you're a fan of RocketDock, though RD effectively aims to emulate the Leopard/Tiger dock, which is a far more successful implementation of a dock.
The Win7 dock isn't a dock at all. It's just a taskbar that's trying desperately to be a dock, and failing.
Here's a well written editorial (by infamous MS apologist Paul Thurrott) on why he doesn't like the new taskbar (he hates docks in general, though ... )
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_simple.asp
It's worth a read - he does make some pretty good points about Simple vs. Easy in an OS.
Very interesting, and it brings up many points that I've been thinking myself. I'm not a fan of Windows going down the Mac route of simplicity over function, and it is the thing which divides me most about Vista. I very much think that Vista is an improvement over XP (not as big an improvement as five years of development would suggest) but things such as the Network and Sharing Center left me feeling worried about the path MS is taking. On the one hand I think it is great because it cuts down on time spent troubleshooting network issues, but if you want to change any real settings about the network then you have to go to the Network Connections window like in XP, so the NaSC is just adding an addidional click to some common tasks.
As for what he said about the taskbar, those are exactly my worries; it seems like the whole thing could easily turn into a confusing mess. I only use RocketDock as an application launcher and leave the taskbar as my application switcher. One thing I always turn off on the taskbar is window grouping because when I have 15 windows open I don't want all the explorer windows to collapse into one. Just like the NaSC, it adds an additional click and hides what I'm looking for out of plain sight. This new superbar works very much on the principle of window grouping, but then it throws quicklaunch in as well in order to confuse me further.
At least I know I can change it back to something resembling the current model should I feel I need to. That will be the key to Win7 for me; so long as they keep all the complicated options there for me to access in some way, then I will be okay with it. If they remove functionality rather than just hiding it in order to make it "easier", then it will not be the OS for me.
Yes. In fact, a fresh install is almost always better. It gives you the new computer feel again.
Anyway, I just got done intsalling 7 on my system about two hours ago. I put it on a second partition and left Vista as the main OS on the other. It was nice that 7 handled the dual boot feature with out a hitch (I had to do nothing at all, but tell it to install on the second partition). The xp/vista dual boot had a lot more hitches, or at least it did way back when I first set that up.
So far I like 7. It is very snappy and fast. On my system I get significantly better performance from Vista than I did with XP, and slightly better with 7 than Vista. However, I imagine lower end computers will see a noticable bumb in performance with 7. I liked the memory manager of Vista because rather than letting 80 percent of my memory do nothing for the majority of the time like XP, Vista puts it work caching my apps based on priority of use and makes them instantly available to me. If I needed my extra memory to do something Vista released it. I am not sure how 7 does it, but I imagine it is about the same. This feature made it so that Vista was far superior to XP performance wise, but only if you have the extra memeory. XP with one gig is faster than Vista with one gig, but Vista with 2gig is generally better than XP with 2gig, and smashes it at the 3gig and up level.
Thus far I cannot comment too much on features as I have been testing mostly performance, but I really like how the task bar works. It is different, but you get used to it in a matter of seconds.
Of course I have had no problems yet, but since it is a beta there has to be some sitting around for me to eventually stumble across.
I have not looked into any of the reviews about 7's taskbar, but what exactly is the problem? I love it. It makes so much more sense than the way of dumping programs across the entire bar. It is much more logical, clean, and faster for me when multitasking with five or more programs.
Do the issues people have with it boil down to not liking change, or is it something more?
Edit:
Okay, I saw your link. The guy lost me when he said the jump feature was hard to use and impossible to just figure out unless you stumbled on it. I figured it out right away and it couldn't be easier to use. In fact, I cannot think of a way to make it easier. I guess it just shows how inept your average person is with a computer when even a reviewer like this guy stumbles on the easy things (this is easier than a double click).
Last edited:
Or even the Vista release candidates, which are what caused me to skip Vista. I *might* try the Windows 6.1 beta, and see how it runs now that they've had three years to patch it--the machine that it's going on gets used only for games and as a file server, so maybe DX10 might be worth it.
Might.
The only thing that really bothers me about it is the deal with opening new windows. It's not so much of a deal for me most of the time, but at work I tend to open a lot of explorer windows from a shortcut on my taskbar and I can see how the current setup would make that a little annoying. Except for that, I actually really like the thing now that I'm a little more used to it. I don't know what exactly I would do to improve it, but that's how I feel!
On another topic, I was very surprised by the gaming performance I'm getting out of it... I'm getting the same framerates as my Vista install and things just seem to be running smoother, for instance I get no dealys when I task out of a game like I usually do. Though this is also the first time I've used a 64-bit version of Windows, maybe that has something to do with it? And while it's not a Microsoft thing, it looks like the Win7 nVidia drivers are, thus far, also very solid... which is a nice change considering it took them 6 months at least to get solid Vista drivers.
On another topic, I was very surprised by the gaming performance I'm getting out of it... I'm getting the same framerates as my Vista install and things just seem to be running smoother, for instance I get no dealys when I task out of a game like I usually do. Though this is also the first time I've used a 64-bit version of Windows, maybe that has something to do with it? And while it's not a Microsoft thing, it looks like the Win7 nVidia drivers are, thus far, also very solid... which is a nice change considering it took them 6 months at least to get solid Vista drivers.
Similar threads
