[S-99]

For those interested, the Classic menu can be found at: http://classicshell.sourceforge.net/

I wish they had provided the menu also in 95/98 style, I find it cleanest with minimum amount of clutter. Oh well, I can use the XP Classic, but find the extra colors distracting.

Idk y people are complaining about vista/7 so much. The taskbar is actually for once something different in windows 7. As far as that classic menu goes? Is it impossible to right click on your task bar>properties> and turn on the classic menu? It's been this way since xp and vista (i haven't used 7 before so maybe they got rid of this basic ability) for turning on the classic menu in the same genre as win95/98.

After that, if you really want to free up more ram, go to your display settings. You know the area where you can change the screensaver, resolution, desktop effects, and even gui themes. You can switch the gui theme back to windows classic as you could in xp and vista (i don't know about 7 before so maybe they got rid of this basic ability).

Windows 7 is just a re-release of vista, so if you have a **** load of ram, i wouldn't bother spending extra that's the same thing with some differences (well i'd only do it if i sold that copy of vista to someone and then buy 7, buuuuut look at how many people aren't doing that, wasted money is wasted money, at least put the old copy of vista to some use).

People moving on from xp and having trouble with vista/7 are ultimately unhappy because it's not xp. Aside from eating up your memory, vista is just a much nicer rehash of xp. The taskbar in vista doesn't operate any differently, the start menu has the same layout as the default xp start menu, control panel features the same bs albeit superior versions of everything with only windows defender being new. Why do people go crazy about vista? Probably because it eats their memory and the pretty black start menu and taskbar have different graphics so as to make things unfamiliar. BUT OMG!!! CHANGE EVERYTHING BACK TO GREY (windows classic gui, it's not a separate download (idk for 7)) AND TURN ON THE CLASSIC MENU (also not a separate download(idk for 7), AND PEOPLE KNOW WHERE EVERYTHING IS AND HOW TO USE IT!!!

If you play a lot of computer/console games, you learn a different system of configuration, controls and gui for each one. Why is it that these people have such a hard time with the sequel to xp (vista) and the sequel to vista (7)? But a new video game is no problem? That boggles my mind, ultimately it's people thinking that windows the sequel is going to be completely different when it's not going to be. The start menu is always in the lower left hand corner of your screen, the clock is always in the lower right hand corner of your screen, the taskbar is always at the bottom of the screen as part which has the clock and the start menu, and you can point and click with the mouse as always (GO AHEAD AND TRY SOMETHING COMMON).

This **** really really really does hurt my brain. I'm surprised it doesn't hurt other's brain. Or why the main population of windows users aren't realizing that learning how use this stuff would be great instead of the few who realize that vista and 7 treat the user like an idiot.

As far as that goes. Winxp 64bit and vista 64bit can handle more than 3gb's of ram. It's not a windows 7 64bit exclusive (it's just a 64bit exclusive).

[Kosh]

Really, if you're an old bat who can't be arsed to learn new things in the name of efficiency, what the bloody hell are you doing near a computer? Technology is all about moving forward, being efficient, etc. Imagine where a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude" would've gotten OS development. We'd all still be using Windows 98, and perhaps it wouldn't go kaput as often.

Windows 98 did have the interface right but everything else was fundementally flawed.

I'm all well and good with learning new things if they are genuinely better (95 >> 3.1), but if the improvement is negligable or is cancelled out by the added problems, then it just isn't worth the trouble.

[jr2]

After that, if you really want to free up more ram, go to

www.blackviper.com

[Kosh]

I'll also add that the next time I get a real computer (not some 6 year old second hand POS system like what I have now) I plan to switch to linux of some variety, which of course would require a lot of extra learning, but I'm cool with that because its better than the newer versions of M$.

[MP-Ryan]

Windows 7 is just a re-release of vista, so if you have a **** load of ram, i wouldn't bother spending extra that's the same thing with some differences (well i'd only do it if i sold that copy of vista to someone and then buy 7, buuuuut look at how many people aren't doing that, wasted money is wasted money, at least put the old copy of vista to some use).

No.  7 is what Vista SHOULD have been.  Stable, excellent driver support and compatibility, intuitive new user interface, and friendly to both experienced users and new owners.

I've been using Windows in all its iterations since 3.1, and Windows 7 is, BY FAR, the best operating system Microsoft has released.  The only reason anyone should be running a Windows OS other than 7 is if their system is too old to handle it (and given how well it scales, it would have to be really old) - and then you should be running XP.  If anyone on Vista hasn't upgraded... well, it's your headache.

As for the interface changes - I was a Classic diehard, but the new interface is so intuitive and easy to navigate (the new taskbar is seriously the cat's meow) that I don't miss it.  My work laptop is still running XP and every time I have to use it I curse the fact that I can't put 7 on it.

[Mika]

I'm being serious, I have not needed the search function since the advent of GUIs. Not even once. Adding this functionality to the start menu is unnecessary BLOAT in my eyes. I especially do not want to ask questions and then slowly process the results. Had my share of that circa 1995. And I have not needed the console that much either. Only when I want to test some program that I wrote I need to use the console if I didn't bother to write other output function yet. Some cute consolesque macros can be programmed under the right mouse button accessible menu for even lot more efficient functionality.

Using the older menu structure efficiently simply meant organisation. In my work, I'm already forced to have a certain folder structure, so the search function will not help much there either. Also, newer Windows UI requires more use of keyboard (typos!) while I prefer to use the mouse, I need to do that nevertheless in 3D windows while doing CAD/Optics.

Really, if you're an old bat who can't be arsed to learn new things in the name of efficiency, what the bloody hell are you doing near a computer? Technology is all about moving forward, being efficient, etc. Imagine where a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude" would've gotten OS development. We'd all still be using Windows 98, and perhaps it wouldn't go kaput as often.

Thanks for encouragement, perhaps I can ask you for an advice in the future to calculate and verify the Modulation Transfer Functions for superachromatic 12+ lens systems since my time is seemingly better spent in learning the operating system / Microsoft Office at work? By the way, did I mention I need the results tomorrow? With tolerances, please. And the day after tomorrow I need assitance with something completely different, that probably means you need to learn something new Physics to deal with it.

Bottom line is I didn't say stop developing the new UI. I said do not abandon the old one, and I expect the full consequences of that Microsoft decision have not even hit the shore yet. Don't try to tell me how to do my job if you don't know what I'm talking about in the above snippet - and I don't want Microsoft doing that either. For me there simply was not a single convincing reason to change anything from the GUI that Microsoft did. I only needed the new security model and a working and supported 64 bit OS. I know there is 64 bit XP. But it has poor support, no drivers or that well working software for it. So XP is a 32 bit operating system in practise.

That's how MS would want you to think
"Technology" is a good enough reason for nerds to upgrade, but for the rest of the (sensible) people it goes like this:
+ new delights - new annoyances - trouble of it all < 0? Screw it!

This is exactly what I'm talking about. If every single person in a 5000 strong company spends a week learning to use something as simple as Windows, Excel, Powerpoint or Word, assuming a week/person costs averagely 2000 $, the net loss due to the changing of software is 10 million $. Who do you think will need to carry the costs - keep in mind indirect losses like that don't disappear from the budget? Besides, license costs are not included there, and it is questionable if that 2000 $ is a typical price - I expect it to be higher. Now I have already used two days to tackle with Windows 7, and it doesn't seem to open. I wonder how many days I need for Office? Or, should I be smart and simply use the one that I already am familiar with? By the way, in that jr2s article author says one can restore My Computer and related icons on desktop. I didn't find that either.

The softwares that I use at work do have different UIs and I needed to learn them. But, those software companies don't **** things up by then randomly changing the location of some analysis feature, or if they do, they sure make it bloody obvious to user where to find it. By the way, those softwares still use the 95/98 style menu system to work. I usually subject the demonstration software to an extraordinarily difficult testing pattern: I don't read the manual before trying it out. If I can complete a simple preselected task without looking at the manual, it's a PASS for the user interface. Surprisingly, Windows 7 failed that test. Good Optics/CAD software passes it. In case you wondered, when using the software for real cases, I do read the manual and help files.

About clicking icons at the desktop with old Windows, well, it has its good and bad sides. Some software check for updates/licences at start up, and should there be a user prompt for anything, experience has shown that it's better to have the plain desktop behind the announcement/prompt/exclamation rather than any other program.

[Mika]

And S-99, I suggest you try Windows 7 before commenting on the use of it. In case it wasn't already clear "classic start menu has been annihilated" = "it does not exist"

And there are reasons to use the classic gray start menu style. I find that the contrast between searchable programs and whatever is on the desktop is highest that way. Start menus that have white areas & pretty pictures and colorful text mix up with something that is on the desktop. At least for me.

[Colonol Dekker]

The Start menu is prefect as it is in 7/Vista, Search typing and pinning is all i need

[S-99]

No.  7 is what Vista SHOULD have been.  Stable, excellent driver support and compatibility, intuitive new user interface, and friendly to both experienced users and new owners.

That's one way of interpretting it. Here's another, 7 is just a re-release of vista.

And S-99, I suggest you try Windows 7 before commenting on the use of it. In case it wasn't already clear "classic start menu has been annihilated" = "it does not exist"

And there are reasons to use the classic gray start menu style. I find that the contrast between searchable programs and whatever is on the desktop is highest that way. Start menus that have white areas & pretty pictures and colorful text mix up with something that is on the desktop. At least for me.

Before you tear me apart, you need to realize that upon mentioning i hadn't used 7 before, that i was also generalizing about xp, vista, and what ever short time i've spent with someone using a beta of 7 in front of me (i think i slipped in some generalization of win95/98 too). And yes, i do mention that going back to the gray classic gui is what makes users no longer **** their pants. And of course i mentioned the classic start menu being turned on that also makes users no longer **** their pants. Tell me something i haven't said.

[General Battuta]

I wish we had an IRC-style ignore list for the forum so I could put S-99 on it.

[jr2]

@Mika:  I hear what you are saying.  But tell me... how long did it take to drag you from Windows 3.x?  You know, Windows '95 had the option to support 3.x - style interfaces, right?  And Windows '98 didn't.  Some of what you are saying seems to parallel here.  The 7 interface learning costs you mentioned - over the course of the next year or two, how many man-hours are saved?

[castor]

The Win95 vs 3.1 analogy doesn't really work. Win3.1 gui was tolerated only because there was nothing better available. When 95 arrived it was pure win, not a tradeoff of any sorts (as far as the gui is considered).

[IceFire]

The Win95 vs 3.1 analogy doesn't really work. Win3.1 gui was tolerated only because there was nothing better available. When 95 arrived it was pure win, not a tradeoff of any sorts (as far as the gui is considered).

I'm sure there is a diehard out there who would argue otherwise (there always seems to be). The Win 7 interface is a real improvement in my mind... not quite 3.1 to 95 good but a huge step forward.  Obviously not everyone thinks so. I tend to regard that as curmudgeonly but I mean that in the nicest way possible

[S-99]

I wish we had an IRC-style ignore list for the forum so I could put S-99 on it.

No, what we need is the padded cell forum going on again. A proper place to profess dismay and personal concerns to others in a forum meant for it. Maybe even proper threads for such?

Just because i got on a soap box doesn't make the points, reasonings, and ideals i spoke about as wrong because some people took it personally because they couldn't try reading something from a point of view aside from their own which can at times make people miss details in said paragraphs they read. Reading something that someone else has written from possibly the writer's point of view, or just a neutral point of view, helps people understand both sides of the argument.

In this case, people reading my mega post in the sincerest way of trying to be in my shoes understand my perspective, or just a neutral perspective would lead to more understanding as opposed to people just reacting.

People just reacting to arguments is counter productive which can often lead to refuting of what was written even when it's right. Here's an example:

No.  7 is what Vista SHOULD have been.  Stable, excellent driver support and compatibility, intuitive new user interface, and friendly to both experienced users and new owners.

That's one way of interpretting it. Here's another, 7 is just a re-release of vista.

When i wrote this i almost couldn't help but be an ass, but the thing here is that i'm right. I stood my ground as such. That's not to say that i didn't double check myself through the internet in the area of 7 just being a re-release of vista. Double checking through the internet, sure enough i found out again that 7 is just a re-release of vista. This lead to me standing my ground.

Which raises my next point of 7 in regards to MP-Ryan. Since 7 is a re-release of vista, then where's the expectation of stability, excellent driver support, and compatibility that is purportedly better than vista? The subsystem of 7 has been slightly revamped since vista for lower hardware requirements, and there's an intuitive user interface.

If it's going to be more stable than vista sp1, i'm leaning towards not really thinking so. I did use vista 64bit home basic for two semesters on my old core 2 duo laptop, and i found that vista sp1 is largely pretty darn stable. Whether ms actually did something to increase stability you can put doubt forth in the area because what MP-Ryan said sounded awfully like sales hype.

As far as excellent driver support, i doubt that has changed for 7 since vista. The reason why is because that drivers for vista since it's release have improved a lot. A bad driver can easily mean an unstable system. So if manufacturers are putting out higher quality drivers as opposed to when vista was first released, and that 7 is just a re-release of vista. That means 7's drivers work the same for vista and vice versa because internally their both the same operating system. So it means your in the same boat with vista and 7 in the area concerning more stable drivers.

As far as compatibility goes; this area of 7 that MP-Ryan brought up made me even think more of what he mentioned was ms sales hype. Compatibility with what? Hardware or software? In the area of hardware, this is one reason why a lot of people hated vista and will make them equally hate 7. Planned obsolescence, ms has a huge part in this when support for one of it's older operating systems is no longer supported, and even which older hardware will not be supported (manufacturers of said hardware also have a part in this) in the new operating system that ms cooks up every now and again. There's plenty of hardware out there that have win9x and xp drivers, but will never have a new driver for vista (some old hardware is lucky enough to get a vista driver, other hardware that existed before vista got released and got a vista driver simply wasn't very old hardware). Planned obsolescence is meant to make people buy new hardware when they upgrade their operating system because the new operating system just doesn't support their older, but perfectly working hardware.

For software compability, that all depends on ms and planned obsolescence as well. Yet again a similar story to that of the hardware. Ms can go ahead and make their own old software like office 2000 and office 98, etc no longer work under vista/7 to try to spur people to buy the new office 2003 or office 2007. And software makers need to keep up with new windows releases as well since they since they support they're own software.

What 7 does have that vista doesn't is a new user interface that is friendly to new users. This is why i consider 7 to be not mind blowing at all and tell people if they have plenty of ram to just stick with vista. It's all the same drm'ed goodness with not much support for older hardware and software that has caused many to stick with xp, switch to macosx or linux.

[redsniper]

what we need is the padded cell forum going on again.

Second.

[Kosh]

The Win95 vs 3.1 analogy doesn't really work. Win3.1 gui was tolerated only because there was nothing better available. When 95 arrived it was pure win, not a tradeoff of any sorts (as far as the gui is considered).

Win 95 was a win not necessarily because it had a better interface but because it fixed so many shortcomings that were holding back the win3.1/DOS platform, even though win95 was terribly buggy and unstable it was still the better choice.

[Ghostavo]

No.  7 is what Vista SHOULD have been.  Stable, excellent driver support and compatibility, intuitive new user interface, and friendly to both experienced users and new owners.

That's one way of interpretting it. Here's another, 7 is just a re-release of vista.

When i wrote this i almost couldn't help but be an ass, but the thing here is that i'm right. I stood my ground as such. That's not to say that i didn't double check myself through the internet in the area of 7 just being a re-release of vista. Double checking through the internet, sure enough i found out again that 7 is just a re-release of vista. This lead to me standing my ground.

It depends on what you consider a re-release. Is Vista a re-release of XP? Is XP a re-release of 2000? In the end, is 7 a re-release of NT 3.1? Each added features and content while removing something.

If it's going to be more stable than vista sp1, i'm leaning towards not really thinking so. I did use vista 64bit home basic for two semesters on my old core 2 duo laptop, and i found that vista sp1 is largely pretty darn stable. Whether ms actually did something to increase stability you can put doubt forth in the area because what MP-Ryan said sounded awfully like sales hype.

Do you consider a better 2D accelerated windowing system (WDDM 1.0 vs WDDM 1.1) to be better stability for starters?

As far as excellent driver support, i doubt that has changed for 7 since vista. The reason why is because that drivers for vista since it's release have improved a lot. A bad driver can easily mean an unstable system. So if manufacturers are putting out higher quality drivers as opposed to when vista was first released, and that 7 is just a re-release of vista. That means 7's drivers work the same for vista and vice versa because internally their both the same operating system. So it means your in the same boat with vista and 7 in the area concerning more stable drivers.

Actually drivers for 7 can be different than drivers for Vista. What happens is that Microsoft started making developers make drivers for Vista that were also compatible with 7, under the "threat" of the driver not being designated a Vista driver. The opposite however is not true. This creates a situation where Vista's drivers are a subset of 7's drivers. In this situation it would be very strange for driver support to be worse in 7 than in Vista. Try installing a 7 driver in Vista and see how it goes. I'm not suggesting they are fundamentally diferent, but there is still some difference between them.

As far as compatibility goes; this area of 7 that MP-Ryan brought up made me even think more of what he mentioned was ms sales hype. Compatibility with what? Hardware or software? In the area of hardware, this is one reason why a lot of people hated vista and will make them equally hate 7. Planned obsolescence, ms has a huge part in this when support for one of it's older operating systems is no longer supported, and even which older hardware will not be supported (manufacturers of said hardware also have a part in this) in the new operating system that ms cooks up every now and again. There's plenty of hardware out there that have win9x and xp drivers, but will never have a new driver for vista (some old hardware is lucky enough to get a vista driver, other hardware that existed before vista got released and got a vista driver simply wasn't very old hardware). Planned obsolescence is meant to make people buy new hardware when they upgrade their operating system because the new operating system just doesn't support their older, but perfectly working hardware.

For software compability, that all depends on ms and planned obsolescence as well. Yet again a similar story to that of the hardware. Ms can go ahead and make their own old software like office 2000 and office 98, etc no longer work under vista/7 to try to spur people to buy the new office 2003 or office 2007. And software makers need to keep up with new windows releases as well since they since they support they're own software.

XP Mode, which is a fancy name for a native XP virtual machine with a bit more user friendliness thrown at it, makes it compatible with old software, so it's not like Microsoft is forcing people to buy new software, when they include tools to stop this from happening.

What 7 does have that vista doesn't is a new user interface that is friendly to new users. This is why i consider 7 to be not mind blowing at all and tell people if they have plenty of ram to just stick with vista. It's all the same drm'ed goodness with not much support for older hardware and software that has caused many to stick with xp, switch to macosx or linux.

Sure, and Linux has advanced nothing more in this past few years other than gnome and KDE getting prettier and more user friendly</sarcasm>.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Nice icons. I'm using a similar layout (minus Graphics and Office and plus Shared Documents), but all my icons are taken from shell32.dll.

[Kosh]

I also just realized in my previous post I forgot to mention that when it was released Win95 was considered to be bloatware and it really would tax most desktop systems of the day. Win 3.1 actually was significantly faster on a 486 (the standard at the time) and even the early Pentiums, but again the improvements in win95 made it worth the upgrades needed to run it well. Windows 7/Vista has massively upped the system requirements, while giving little in return (Aero is nice though).

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Yes, Aero is nice, but keep in mind that translucent windows were already being used in Messenger Plus! before Vista was released.