OSNews

With extensive use of MRU Lists I hope there is an easy way to exclude porn and other sensitive files.

They are finally reducing the number of clicks required to get things done. Frankly, 7 looks more like OS X, and that's a good thing.

And yet, just hiding system tray icons by default isn't enough. They shouldn't be allowed to install without user consent. That goes for all auto run applications.

Edited 2008-10-28 19:27 UTC

I think it resembles KDE 4. I'm thinking more in terms of the task bar and not so much the Windows.

I heard they licensed KDE4. They couldn't afford that ugly thing in the right-upper corner, though.

Edited 2008-10-28 21:09 UTC

They say it requires the same hardware as Vista, which is totally plausible seeing nothing in Windows 7 so far seems to use any hardware tricks that Vista doesn't already support.

In fact, Sinofsky even said Windows 7 reduces the memory footprint. So who knows.

Well, so far this is just marketing bullshit.

Judging from MS track record Windows 7 will use more memory and be slower than Vista.

Unless benchmarks tell a different story a new Windows will always require more resources. That is how it has been so far.

Actually... I believe for today's keynote Steve Sinofsky used a netbook with a 1 GHz Atom cpu and 1GB of memory.

<sarcasm>
I'd say a dual quad core processor (3ghz+). Quad video card setup. 8GB of DDR4 memory. SSD will be required for the OS with a minimum of 64GB of free space. That of course is the Windows 7 ready system. The recommended system is still being designed by Intel.
</sarcasm>

And it took you this long to figure that out?

I was reading an interview with Sinofsky in a trade journal awhile back. He said that they tried to be very transparent about the Vista development process, and inadvertently built up alot of expectations. Instead of transparent, he said he would make windows 7 communication "opaque". This is why this is the first real information we have about the OS, and it comes with a CTP so this is only stuff they have done, not stuff they were planning but got dropped.

The taskbar and the dock have always been slightly different ways of doing the same thing. Still, even with the new one in 7, they are different in the exact same ways as they used to be. The taskbar has just gotten some new features, that's all.

Don't think that just because it's entirely icon-based, it's suddenly the same as the Mac OS X dock.

I know, I've had the discussion about task bar/launch bar/dock similarities & differences several times on this very same site ;-)

Hmm what is so great about the dock anyway? I never understood why the dock is so much favored over the Windows taskbar. From my experience so far, the taskbar lets you do a lot more than the dock. But I could be wrong of course, so maybe you could explain the features of the dock.

In my opinion the best part of the Dock is the elimination of duplicate entries in the notification area and the launcher. A dock icon can launch an application, control an application, and represent a minimized window. A taskabr generally requires 3 different icons to do the same thing. One for launching the application, one entry in the notification area to control the application, and one entry to represent the minimized window. It's a lot of clutter.

I'm still waiting for a real dock for Gnome. I'm using AWN right now but notification is still separate from the icons and probably requires a lot of changes in the API to allow for a true dock.

It's not just the icons that make it more dock-like. There is only one icon per application instead of per instance. Then with the addition of jump lists that allow you to control some application features directly from the minimized window the new taskbar resembles a dock a lot more than it did before although ultimately it still is a taskbar.

"Peeking at the desktop is particularly significant, because the desktop is now where gadgets live. Because people are increasingly using laptops, taking up a big chunk of space for the sidebar isn't really viable; Microsoft has responded by scrapping the sidebar and putting the gadgets onto the desktop itself."

where they will be hidden by windows 100% of the time. What's the point of that?

Hence the new peeking feature. It's in the article.

It seems to work for apple

Edited 2008-10-28 21:05 UTC

it's one of the things that prevents me from considering a mac. Style over substance.

That is exactly why I don't use Windows. I like OS X because I forget I am using an particular OS and am instead working in a particular application. If you want a really cool looking interface, add a theme to Windows or Linux. The Mac has one interface that works properly and does the job with no flash except in areas where it is used tastefully for function like Expose or Dashboard. It is like people saying they think deign is unimportant because they see most designs don't assist the content. Proper design should enhance the function.

Edited 2008-10-28 21:51 UTC

I'm talking about icon only in the taskbar. It's great for showing off but it hurts productivity

Edited 2008-10-28 21:58 UTC

My workflow completely ignores the dock. I don't keep applications on it that aren't running and it's size the smallest possible with only a slight magnification setting.

I use Quicksilver to launch and end up using command-tab to switch between applications. I honestly am looking for a way of killing the Dock permanently.

I understand but it's annoying to play peekaboo every few seconds.

This is definitely not making it to the final release. MS cannot force users to memorize which icon belongs to what app.

don't quote me on this, but, there'll probably be an option to have the old-style taskbar.

but, i have to disagree with you. there are so many (arguably dense) users that *only* know applications by their icons. could i see a show of hands for people who know at least one person that thinks the 'internet' is 'the little blue e thingy'? it would be funny if it weren't so... tragic. that's actually such a common happenstance that it's become a cliche.

not to mention, so many windows users love to refer to 'stupid/simple mac users'. well, those mac users have been fine with textless icons since, what, 2001?

for the record, i'm not a windows or mac user at home, so i'm not really pulling for either way of presenting a dock/taskbar. but, users are *definitely* capable of functioning without text next to dock icons.

it's not about even knowing the apps but rather what's in them. for example, next to the firefox icon is the title of the website, next to the chatzilla icon is my user name and the IRC channel I'm focused on.

actually, i was replying to the OP, who *was* referring to knowing the apps.

but, that being said, hovering over an icon for more info is a fair replacement for lots of people.

like i said, i'm not advocating either way of doing the dock/taskbar. just pointing out that it can work either way for most people.

unix is not the best out there. as far as kernels go NT is pretty amazing, you should look into it

Unix is not the end all and be all of OS's. The NT kernel is pretty mature and very functional, Windows problem has always been it's messy userland.

Yes, by and large NT is a solid kernel, leaps and bounds above Windows 9x.

Still, some very annoying problems with Windows seem to be kernel related.

1) You cannot delete, move or rename a file which some process has open for reading or writing. Even worse, Windows sometimes keeps the file lock after the process has terminated! I can't even start to describe the trouble this creates on a daily basis. On Unix systems, you can delete any file at any time. If a process was reading or even writing the file, it will happily continue to do so. Only when the last file handle is closed, the file system actually reclaims the space used for the content.

2) I have some programs configured to access parts of my disk through network shares. This is necessary because they should also work from other machines. But when my computer is not connected to a network, I cannot access the shares on my own computer! So I have to connect to some random WiFi hotspot or something just to access my localhost. I wish they had heard of loopback devices in Redmond.

Granted, the second problem could be caused by the userland. NT probably does have a loopback device, but it's only up when one of the other network devices is connected.

The first issue most certainly is kernel related, however, and this is by far the worst shortcoming of Windows in my opinion.

I'll be you can turn the text back on, MS always lets you fall back to classic mode.

And indeed, here's a picture of the taskbar with text:
http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/436140-Windows-7/?Comme...

I bet:

a) They tested it with more than 10 people.

b) More than 10 of those people liked it just fine.

And you can turn the text back on if you want.

yeah, that's odd. Never noticed it until now. The switch between windows keeps it there though, very odd.

Dave

Yeah, I guess that's a given.

Are you really starting spewing that again?

The changes to the taskbar are really kinda minor, and probably reversible. The taskbar has been around for over 14 years. It's still not the dock, as you can tell the difference at a glance between a running app and a app launcher, little dots or triangles don't really do it.




Desktop gadgets have existed for decades, and MS demoed the sidebar with gadgets in the earliest Longhorn builds. The first destop widgets could be considered oldschool DOS TSRs (if you don't remember them, you don't know enough computer history to be even commenting) or Apple desk accessories, both in the mid 80s.



Yeah, like BEOS is the only OS that can search and save File searches. Windows 95 could, only the underlying technology is different. Beos is dead, get over it.

i see where you're going with this... but, not so fast. TSRs are really not equivalent to desktop widgets. while they could be (in a limited capacity) used for things that widgets might provide nowadays, most people only used TSRs for things like mouse drivers, and did not have any direct knowledge of their existence. not to mention the difference in ease of use. mac desk accessories, better comparison. but, it's not really a fair assessment to say that people who "don't remember" TSRs shouldn't be commenting. not everybody needed knowledge of them, for one. average users probably were just happy that everything was working. not to mention that back in the DOS days, many users were still running classic macs, amigas, C64s, and many others. they'd have no reason to remember TSRs.

just saying...

(edited for clarification)

Edited 2008-10-28 22:58 UTC

You can't comment on the history of computers and computer interfaces without knowing about the history of computing and computer interfaces.

It's that simple.

um... no, it's not 'that simple'.

actually, you CAN comment on the history of computer interfaces when the particular computer interface being discussed (the freaking taskbar) is the one you're familiar with.

heck, half the people here could probably say "well, geez, back in *my day* we only saw OUR running processes and apps if we ran 'top'!" the other half, that was raised on a strict diet of DOS and windows would likely have no idea what that meant. and, frankly, 'top' is every bit as critical in the 'history of computing and computing interfaces'. furthermore, it's still being used today. regularly.

the history of computing is vast. frankly, you're fairly nuts if you think you can sum up 'people who shouldn't comment' with 'those who don't remember TSRs'.

Actually, we're discussing desktop widgets. Oh, and how they weren't invented at Be, in 1999. The concept probably goes back farther than the TSRs and desktop accessories.

Maybe I was a bit harsh, but the whole song and dance about MS copying everyone is just nonsense. There isn't too much new under the GUI sun.

Try this:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars

or this:
http://www.sensomatic.com/chz/gui/history.html

The whole history of the GUI is just one theft after another, by everybody. It's the same with widgets/gadgets. They are basically little utilities that do a simple task, that are easy to access, and easy (relatively) to make.

I never mentioned top, but you are certainly correct, but I would think that it's also a precursor to desktop accessories. My point was that computers aren't new, and most OSs and applications are based on decades of ideas and concepts.

Anyway, my point is that MS hasn't done anymore copying then anyone else.

TSRs with things like a calculator or a pop up telephone list that launched on a key press were used on DOS where I used to work. So you could do something useful while running WordPerfect. They were certainly the functional equivalent of widgets and accessories today.

i made clear in my post that certain functionality was common with today's widgets. i also made clear that the ease of use and knowledge of this functionality is what set TSRs apart from today's widgets. TSRs were more likely used in other contexts (hardware drivers, etc) than that by most users. those users usually used them in an out-of-sight-out-of-mind sort of way. that is my point. they are not equivalent to today's widgets because of that.

Buddy, the first program I ever typed into a computer was on a teletype printer connected to a Dec PDP11/50 series back in 1978. Thats right, no monitor. My first computer was a Vic20 back in 1981. Terminate & Stay Resident programs are ancestors of Desktop Widgets? The interrupt driven crap that was intended to convey the illusion of running multiple programs under DOS was the ancestor of Desktop Widgets? Can I have some of what your smoking?

My entire quote was about publishing an interface to allow applications to embedd views into the desktop. Geez,

I understand the concept of your argument, but the examples you gave were very very poor.
Let me correct a few factual errors you made:

They are seperate in classic mode. Always have been.

Windows has done this since the dawn of the windows taskbar. Just drag and drop it.

Not everyone likes unified menu bars. I certainly don't.

You'll have to expand on what you mean there, but directory navigation isn't any harder in Windows than in any other OS i've used.


This feature has been around since Windows 2000 (maybe even longer). Granted it's not enabled by default, but the setting isn't hidden away either should anyone want to find it.

Media processes do get a greater processor schedule than non-media processes. In fact this is one of the very features linux fanboys use against windows.

NTFS holds a great deal of metadata about media and there's plenty more options hidden around XP (for example) if you know where to look.

You mean like windows services?

Many people seem to like .net. Personally I don't, but then it's been some years since I was a heavy developer for the windows platform.

Windows directory structures make sense. It's just a pity Windows, its users and its software developers aren't stricter about adhearing to the structure. But I guess that's one of the prices you pay for allowing users to install applications manually rather than via software reposatories


So, to summarise: I don't have a problem with people taking a dislike to Windows (I personally can't stand 90% of Windows releases either). But, for the sanity of this site, please at least keep your grievences factually accurate.

Edited 2008-10-29 01:50 UTC

don't know about vista, but in xp they are seperated


unified like in osx? it's one of the worst ui-concepts i've ever seen


like in winXP?
http://temp.funtech.org/WinXP-1.png
or like in beos?

like in winXP?
http://temp.funtech.org/WinXP-1.png
or like in beos? "

Actually, it's been an option since the original taskbar appeared in Windows 95. You can dock it to any side of the monitor. You'd be amazed at how many helpdesk calls we get regarding "broken taskbars" because someone inadvertently dragged theirs to somewhere other than the bottom.

Personally, I've had the taskbar in Windows at the top of the screen, set to auto-hide, since Windows 98.

What I'd like to see in Windows, is the ability to separate the application launcher from the taskbar. Let me put the app launcher at the top of the screen, with the app menu on one side, the systray on the other, and a set of quick launch buttons in the middle, all set to auto-hide. With a separate taskbar at the bottom of the screen that just shows what apps are running. It's a much nicer setup than everything crowded together in one bar.

i'm honestly not trying to troll; but, what you want sounds a lot like a default GNOME desktop. you'd just have to set the panels to autohide.

what would be neat with windows, or the mac os, would be if the user could add additional panels and customize as needed. the GNOME (and KDE) way is to have everything that could be in a panel/dock to be treated pretty much like individual objects/applets that can be placed in any panel that you create. that includes menus, launchers, clocks, system tray, etc.

edit: i just noticed your avatar... i'm guessing you're a bsd guy and probably fairly familiar with *nix DE conventions already. teehee.

Edited 2008-10-29 18:00 UTC

i'm honestly not trying to troll; but, what you want sounds a lot like a default GNOME desktop. you'd just have to set the panels to autohide. "

Similar, yes, although I started out with this setup back in the LightStep/DarkStep days on Windows 98, before I got into Unix. However, I (personally) can't stand GNOME or even GTK apps. There's just something ... not ... quite ... right about GTK apps. I prefer QT apps, and KDE in particular.

As an aside, I really, really, really dislike how the new KDE4 panel works, as you can't set the size of the system tray applet, and it takes up all the space on the panel when you remove the taskbar applet.



Agreed. Customisability of the app launcher, taskbar, systray, etc would be very nice to have on the Windows side of things.



Correct. I'm a FreeBSD user at heart and at home (desktop/server), a Debian Linux user at work (desktop/servers), and a Kubuntu Linux user on the road (laptop/netbook).

Edited 2008-10-29 18:22 UTC

indeed, GTK apps (and GNOME, by extension) have a very... errr... 'special' look and feel. but, that being said, i am not horribly fond of QT, either. the only QT apps i use regularly are amarok and qjackctl.

but, WOW, i couldn't agree more about the kde panel thing. it's one of the several reasons i can't feel at home in a kde4 environment. it's really a shame the way plasmoids are handled in the panel. i just don't feel in control of my workspace. oh, well.

when i'm doing any serious work, i usually operate from fluxbox and try to avoid the whole desktop environment mess.

<sad attempt at humor>
Microsoft says you will like it. They did studies. They have proof. You only hate it because of the slanderous Mac commercials and the communist Linux people.

Now come. Sit here at the computer. Let me walk you through the desktop. Let me show you the great features that the Windows has. Look at the new task bar...

And then you say: Wait isn't that KDE?
MS Rep: No. It's Windows 7.
You: Why does it say KDE then?
Rep: Um.. that's... um... the code name of Windows 7.
You: Well, it looks like KDE 4.
Rep: No. Now look into my eyes. You are getting sleepy, sleepy. You will buy the Windows. You will love the Windows. You will hate all else.
You: I will buy the Windows. I will hate the Windows. I will be stuck with the Windows.
Rep: <click>BOOM!!!
Rep: Bring in the next victim... er.. I mean customer.
</sad attempt at humor>

Actually, I don't think Windows 7 looks like KDE 4 but I do know I wont be using Gnome again unless the UI in 3.0 transforms in an equality significant way as KDE 4 has from 3.5.

I personally think Gnome is stagnating and needs "rejuvenating lotion".

Now... back on topic.

Edited 2008-10-29 02:39 UTC

It'll only cost you an additional $200 to upgrade. Well, that is assuming you aren't running photoshop or programs like that. The older versions won't work with the new windows.

(Once again I'm with the sarcasm.)

Windows usability problems go as deep as the sewer that is the file system and the weirdly architected dependencies like changing Outlook preferences through a control panel.

While smaller UI improvements are appreciated, I can't help but feel like it's putting direction signs into a house of glass until they make truly major re-organizations to the underlying structure.

Why don't you people just assemble your own computers? It's fun and you get to know every peripheral and get to choose that elusive 'ideal' config. I always used to do just that before going the Mac way.