I Think Windows 7 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 :disgust:


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...

 

[VinDSL]

Do I too?

There seems to be two camps concerning 7...

One camp says they went too far!

The other camp says they didn't go far enough...

I'm sitting on the sidelines, with a bag of popcorn, enjoying the fight!

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: VinDSL
Do I too?

There seems to be two camps concerning 7...

One camp says they went too far!

The other camp says they didn't go far enough...

I'm sitting on the sidelines, with a bag of popcorn, enjoying the fight!

I'm just talking about looks, not much new in the looks department, just like a Vista update.

I was hoping for an OS that looked different from Vista is the real point of the topic.

 

[California Roll]

My only experience with Win7 is with the RC. Been running it less than a week on an ancient 2.4ghz Pentium (Dell SC400) and a new Mini 9 netbook. I'm ecstatic with it tbh. I run Vista Ultimate on my main rigs. Vista choked on my SC400 due to driver problems. Windows 7 recognized all the drivers right off the bat and it's surprisingly smooth. Win7 experience rating is only a 3.9 due to the processor (everything else is around 5.0, including the Radeon 9800 vid card).

Dell SC400 specs:

2.4ghz Pentium hyper-threaded
3gb ram
Radeon 9800 pro
2x100gb IDE drives
Audigy soundcard

Win7 is very snappy, and pretty. Considering it's been running (boring) XP forever, my kids think I bought a new computer

I guess it's all subjective. I personally like the way Vista looks, compared to XP. W7 maybe Vista 2.0 but that's not a bad thing (to me). Regardless of looks, I'm happy it runs so smoothly on such old hardware, which seems to be a first for a MS OS.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: California Roll
My only experience with Win7 is with the RC. Been running it less than a week on an ancient 2.4ghz Pentium (Dell SC400) and a new Mini 9 netbook. I'm ecstatic with it tbh. I run Vista Ultimate on my main rigs. Vista choked on my SC400 due to driver problems. Windows 7 recognized all the drivers right off the bat and it's surprisingly smooth. Win7 experience rating is only a 3.9 due to the processor (everything else is around 5.0, including the Radeon 9800 vid card).

Dell SC400 specs:

2.4ghz Pentium hyper-threaded
3gb ram
Radeon 9800 pro
2x100gb IDE drives
Audigy soundcard

Win7 is very snappy, and pretty. Considering it's been running (boring) XP forever, my kids think I bought a new computer

I guess it's all subjective. I personally like the way Vista looks, compared to XP. W7 maybe Vista 2.0 but that's not a bad thing (to me). Regardless of looks, I'm happy it runs so smoothly on such old hardware, which seems to be a first for a MS OS.

Yes I have to admit the install was great, all the drivers installed except my motherboard and graphics it was cake to install.

Snappier maybe over Vista at this point in time, but it's using more memory for me with 75% less services running, so appears to be more of a memory hog on my end. Also as I mentioned my Aero performance was slower.

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...

 

[VinDSL]

Originally posted by: DasFox
I'm just talking about looks, not much new in the looks department, just like a Vista update.

I was hoping for an OS that looked different from Vista is the real point of the topic.

I see!

Well, I like the *looks* just fine. I've commented on this several times...

To me, 7 *looks* rather Linux-ish. Either that, or Linux is *looking* more like Windows.

I can't figure out whom is copying whom - maybe they're both copying each other.

Anyway, I like the *looks* of 7. The window decorations are nice, and the backgrounds are pretty - just like Linux...

 

[California Roll]

Originally posted by: DasFox
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...

Oh yeah, if you were an early adopter of Vista I can see why you'd feel this way. For the people who decided to wait/skip on Vista and stuck with XP (and I think the number is pretty significant) there's probably enough oooo factor for them. I actually waited till SP1 to finally switch to Vista myself so the new ui shine hasn't fully faded from me yet.

 

[PhreePhly]

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, you know why?, one word, Vista.

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.

Different strokes and all that. I much prefer the Vista look to XP and it makes sense that 7 follows.

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

UAC was one of the best things about Vista. It was basically SUDO for windows. Unfortunately, they've dummied it down for 7. You now have a slider control to set warning levels. Play with it a bit before you knock it.

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...

Meh, the OSX icons don't do that much for me. I find the new icons much easier on the eyes and easier to figure out what they are for.

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!

You are a minority. If you really want a custom install, there are ways, but you'll have to work at it. You can un-install pretty much what ever you want. There are now options to uninstall IE, WMP, and many other included programs. Mail, messenger, etc. are a download now, so are are also not loaded by default.

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.

As far as I'm concerned, ther's too much eye-candy as is. I don't bother going through and shutting it all off, as it doesn't really affect performance, but what more would you want? Think of Windows 7 as the Win XP to Win2000. There is some GUI enhancements, but the majority of the changes are under the hood. The compositing engine has been tightened up, memory usage is a bit more efficient, etc.

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.

Well you are in the minority on this one. The rating has changed, so you can't compare the WEI from Vista to 7, they are different scales. Windows 7 performance has gotten better, especially on lower specced hardware. On high end stuff, you will probably see little change, but especially in the netbook class, 7 out performs Vista as well as XP in many cases.

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 makeover, new look.

Vista is a flop only in the minds of fools that listen to the so-called "experts" in the press.

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.

??? People have been running XP since 2001. Vista has been out 2 years and it's old?? It's the same thing over and over again?? Have you noticed that between KDE, Gnome, OSX and Vista, the general layout of the GUI isn't really that different. Could that be that the current layout seems to be the most efficient for current computer use? Will touch screens change that paradigm, probably, but at this point, we are here, and that model is pretty standard.

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?

Windows 7 will be more skinnable via the themes process, from what I understand. I'm not big into that, it looks fine to be as it is. I might change the background picture every 6 months or so, but that's about it.

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 :disgust:

Windows 7 is the next iteration of Vista, like 98 was the next iteration of 95 and XP was the next iteration of Win2000, so in that sense, yes it's Vista Part 2, but it is certainly no service pack.

PhreePhly

 

[KeypoX]

its obvious the people that have never used another os besides windows... UAC is less intrusive than linux or mac.

 

[XBoxLPU]

Originally posted by: DasFox

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.

Vista, a flop? Only to the people who never used it. It has been by far my most stabe and favorite MS OS to date. The only BSODs I have had so far were hardware related and unlike past installs of previous MS OSes I have never felt the need for a fresh install to clean out the junk and regain speed.

Originally posted by: DasFox
2. UAC jumping in my face again, you mean this all over again, oh well time to disable.

I am not sure what actions what you are performing but Win 7 has a slider that basically elevates without having to prompt the user. (default I think). Personally, I had no qualms with UAC and I expect Win 7 to be an improvement

Originally posted by: DasFox
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 guess you haven't really played with Win 7 much because the taskbar is very similar to a OS X dock. That is that icons/applications stay in the taskbar even though they may not be open. But anyway Win 7 was never meant as a GUI overall.

Originally posted by: DasFox
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!

Since when did any MS OS have any choices of which software to install? The answer is none. In fact Win 7 allows the user to remove many key applications:

http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/choice.asp

They also have removed the Live Wave applications and they are now a stand alone install..

Originally posted by: DasFox
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.

Win 7 is leaner than Vista. Same eye candy as it was not meant as GUI over haul release.

Originally posted by: DasFox
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.

Vista was not a flop, it just got off to a rough start but it was a very matue and polished OS. I have no problems staring at what you call bland, we had to endure the Windows 95/98 look for much longer

http://www.winsupersite.com/faq/windows_7.asp

Call it SP3 but there are enough new features to warrant the label Windows 7 a major release.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
its obvious the people that have never used another os besides windows... UAC is less intrusive than linux or mac.

I'm curious this observation is in reference to me never using another OS?

Why even have UAC if you're using the box as an Admin? Because when you first start Windows, from either buying a computer and turning it on, or installing it yourself you start the system and run it as an admin and the majority of users out there are still running Windows as an admin.

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: KeypoX
its obvious the people that have never used another os besides windows... UAC is less intrusive than linux or mac.

I'm curious this observation is in reference to me never using another OS?

Why even have UAC if you're using the box as an Admin? Because when you first start Windows, from either buying a computer and turning it on, or installing it yourself you start the system and run it as an admin and the majority of users out there are still running Windows as an admin.

When using an Admin account, you are still running in a lower elevation. When you want to do something that requires admin control, then UAC pops up a warning letting you know that the operation you are trying to run will require elevation. If you are an Admin, then all you need to do is press an acknowledgement, if you are a user, you need to know the admin password.

I quite like the fact that I am notified if an operation is requiring admin rights. I see the admin elevation screen about 2 times a week, and I spend at least 10 hours a day infront of my computer. I can live with those few elevations.

PhreePhly

 

[n7]

Programs don't run as admin by default in Vista/7...even with admin account.

That's why UAC exists...to give permission for those requesting administrative privileges.

No offense, but you claiming Vista was a flop pretty much sums up this thread up.
Many of us have happily used Vista since i came out...the majority of people claiming flop either are clueless media, or users who have no clue what they are talking about...

 

[PhreePhly]

Originally posted by: DasFox

...

Snappier maybe over Vista at this point in time, but it's using more memory for me with 75% less services running, so appears to be more of a memory hog on my end. Also as I mentioned my Aero performance was slower.

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...

This is such a bad argument. Windows Vista as well as Windows 7 utilizes memory aggressively. It uses all of your memory. Superfetch is a big part of that. Having a boatload of unused memory makes no sense. When you need it, Windows gives it up.

Why do people continue to pull out this spurious argument?

PhreePhly

 

[Andrmgic]

UAC in Windows 7 is much better. I'm perfectly ok with the default setting because it lets me mess around in control panel without bothering me but lets me know when applications try to change my system. I don't mind when I'm installing software or calling on regedit or something, Vista just pissed me off with the near-constant prompts. Windows 7's default is pretty much the UAC I wanted.. granular enough to be configured without being completely disabled. The taskbar is a pretty big UI change, unless you've altered it to look and behave like the old taskbar, and it is one of the primary reasons I like Windows 7 so much. None of my shit moves. It stays right where I left it whether it is running or not, and that is GREAT! I think a lot of folks underestimate the value of this.

 

[hans030390]

Originally posted by: DasFox

Originally posted by: KeypoX
its obvious the people that have never used another os besides windows... UAC is less intrusive than linux or mac.

I'm curious this observation is in reference to me never using another OS?

Why even have UAC if you're using the box as an Admin? Because when you first start Windows, from either buying a computer and turning it on, or installing it yourself you start the system and run it as an admin and the majority of users out there are still running Windows as an admin.

What do you call the prompts in OS X and Linux asking for your password to do specific actions? I think every time I install an app in OS X, it prompts me for my password. At least Windows 7 makes it super easy to turn off or adjust.

 

[MikeyLSU]

anyone know what time specifically RC is available?

Is it midnight tonight? And if so is it EST or PST? Just curious if it is worth staying up another hour to start the download.

 

[DasFox]

Ok my bad over UAC I think where it really shines is for the standard user.

No one should be running a OS under a root account....

Windows users should only operate the OS as a standard user and when needed to make changes let UAC popup for admin control and take over.

Another thing I don't get here is how come the install doesn't just have you make a password for the built in Admin account and then make an account for a standard user and when you first login and always log in you just use the standard account and any changes you make UAC pops up for the Admin password and you make changes.

I fail to see why you need to make an Admin account when you first install, when there is already a built in Admin account you can use to administer the system by. Seems a but redundant....

Users need to start learning to use Windows as a user not the Root and yet during the install of Windows 7 you make a root account and most non-experienced users are just going to stick with using it and now realize this downfall...

 

[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

 

[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

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.



P.S. I forgot accounts in Windows can become unuseable, hence the reason for making an admin account when install windows in case something happens to that you have the backup built in account, but I didn't think this might be the case with 7.

 

[Andrmgic]

I'm saying it is more secure to have the built-in admin account disabled, because in earlier versions of windows, you could always tell which account was the administrator account by the hexidecimal value of its entry in the SAM database. In my mind, it makes sense why they did that. I agree that would be better for the account created to be a standard user and have a password to elevate the account to the equivalent of a superuser in a OS X or Linux environment. I know that using an administrator-level account is far less secure, but I'm personally willing to give up a degree of security for the convenience of not having to type in a password whenever I want to do something that requires more rights than my account already has.

 

[sxr7171]

Well I thought the Win 7 Beta v7000 release was the best in many ways. It was just such a jump from Vista and it was more stable and functional than any other release I've tried since.

The newer ones until this morning had an Intel Display Driver issue that would cause random screen flashes and eventually a random reboot. It happened several times until I reverted to the Intel Display Driver for Vista and then it started happening with that driver also. Finally this morning an update showed up on the Windows Update application. No problems yet.

I guess had I waited until today I would have never faced that problem since it will be fixed for all users at their first Windows Update.


One question that I really would like to know the answer for is whether the leaked build and this official download are different. They have the same exact build numbers. So there can't be any differences other than what they push out through Windows Update right?


About this build so far it seems like a winner. I just noticed voice recognition technology built-in. The authentec fingerprint scanner initializes instantly instead of the 3-4 second delay of 7000. So far it has been very stable after the video driver update.

It is weird that suddenly the video memory usage is up to 1GB when before it was never more than 100-200MB. Is it just reporting the allocation differently?

It literally says on my 4GB machine: 4GB (2.96GB usable), so is that going to video memory now?

I guess it doesn't really matter in the end since my peak commit charge has been at or above 2GB. It's just weird.

It's responsive and everything works.

I think it is time to start listing directory sizes on detail view. Cache it, database it, index it, whatever just get it done. It's essential to manipulate folders meaningfully.

 

[MadRat]

PCI addressing steals from the physical addressing, it is not a video issue. Video is just the most recognizable device that takes up address space.

 

[DasFox]

Originally posted by: Andrmgic
I'm saying it is more secure to have the built-in admin account disabled, because in earlier versions of windows, you could always tell which account was the administrator account by the hexidecimal value of its entry in the SAM database. In my mind, it makes sense why they did that. I agree that would be better for the account created to be a standard user and have a password to elevate the account to the equivalent of a superuser in a OS X or Linux environment. I know that using an administrator-level account is far less secure, but I'm personally willing to give up a degree of security for the convenience of not having to type in a password whenever I want to do something that requires more rights than my account already has.

Well I guess remembering how the user accounts can be messed up it's good to create an admin account so that if you can't access it then you have the backup account.

Using the standard user account shouldn't just be about typing in the password all the time to do something, it should about having greater security which should be everyone's concern.

Being under a user account should also make it harder against hacks and exploits trying to gain access to the system, where UAC wouldn't being suspecting anything.

 

[Griffinhart]

Originally posted by: 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

So what are we saying? Both the built in Admin account and the one you create BOTH don't operate at TRUE admin level?

That is correct. When you log in as an admin you get a standard user access token. When you need to do an admin task you are granted a second token with higher rights. This happens when the UAC prompt occurs. This is the same process that occurs when you are signed in as a standard user except you are required to enter a valid admin password. The elevation process is exactly the same either way.

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.

Under Vista, this was the original plan, but, it was such a fundamental change people didn't like it so they compromised with the current implementation.

What are we saying now that the Standard user account isn't a more secure account to be running the OS under?

The standard user account is more secure in that you are required to enter a password to elevate rites. It's not more secure in that applications can't automatically escalate without your permission.

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.

What's the point? To make running a higher security model easy to manage for consumers and stand alone installs while giving corporate and domain admins the ability to lock down the system for business networks. While It's perfectly acceptable to allow a consumer to have an easy to manage system, it's not acceptable to allow the average corporate user full admin access to the local system.