Windows 7 new taskbar

[pcslookout]

Is there anyway to have it in Vista 64 bit ? I thought it was pretty cool and had a few advantages but nothing as a must have. The only thing I liked is being able to minimum windows have them pin to the taskbar. So the next time you need the program and you click it on the taskbar it is instantly opened. Though it is just like having a window minimize on Windows XP or Windows Vista. It is an illusion like the program is opening that fast when in reality it was already open and that is why it opens so fast.

 

[hans030390]

I don't see this illusion you're talking about. If the window is minimized, it's minimized in the taskbar. If you have that program's shortcut on the taskbar, it pins it on that...clicking on it opens it like a minimized window. Otherwise, if you click on the shortcut, it still has to load it like normal.

I don't see how that's any different aside from grouping things together and allowing shortcuts. As far as how fast things open, it's still the same speed.

To be honest, I sort of prefer the original taskbar (as cool as the new one is). Say I have multiple AIM windows open, instead of clicking on the one I need to, I have to click on the pinned items and pick the one I want (which does not individually flash for you depending on which window someone responded in).

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: hans030390
I don't see this illusion you're talking about. If the window is minimized, it's minimized in the taskbar. If you have that program's shortcut on the taskbar, it pins it on that...clicking on it opens it like a minimized window. Otherwise, if you click on the shortcut, it still has to load it like normal.

I don't see how that's any different aside from grouping things together and allowing shortcuts. As far as how fast things open, it's still the same speed.

To be honest, I sort of prefer the original taskbar (as cool as the new one is). Say I have multiple AIM windows open, instead of clicking on the one I need to, I have to click on the pinned items and pick the one I want (which does not individually flash for you depending on which window someone responded in).

Yeah I really not sure which one I like better yet but I am leaning toward the old one that Windows XP and Windows Vista uses. I just thought if I could try the new taskbar someway in Vista 64 bit I could finally decide on which one I like better. I will see if Stardocks can do this maybe.

It would be cool though if Windows OSes had the same precache feature as OS X so after you close a program but want to reopen it that program opens instantly because it had already been precached before hand. I know Vista sorta does this but not in the same way. It goes by your schedule of when you open programs.

 

[MrPickins]

I'm pretty sure programs aren't flushed out of main memory immediately in Windows. They should stay cached for awhile just like you describe for OSX.

 

[KeypoX]

lol i used the new taskbar on windows 7, i dont like it. Atleast not right now, hopefully it gets better. But it sucks it turns a one movement one click action into > 3 movements 1 click. And it has a delay from the hover over the group to see what it has.

Its really annoying and time consuming... also takes longer to visual scan after the hover to find which window you need.

On another note i hope they do implement multidesktop!

 

[Rhonda the Sly]

1) I like it at default but you can enable text labels and small icons, KeyboX.

2) No native virtual desktops, spanning taskbar, or tabbed explorer. People all across the internet have been hoping and posting stating they will have them but Sinofsky said for sure they'd have no desktops and spanning taskbar.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I'm pretty sure programs aren't flushed out of main memory immediately in Windows. They should stay cached for awhile just like you describe for OSX.

The way XP, Vista and OSX do it are very different.

The reason programs open so fast in OSX is because they dont actually close. The last window might be closed, but the process is still running. Its essentially minimized.

In XP after you load and close a program, the process is killed, but the data to load it again is cached in a file cache, which greatly speeds up reloading it, but its nowhere near as fast as having the program already loaded.

In Vista it preloads the data into the cache, but its still nowhere near as fast as having it already loaded.

In Win7 its a bit in between, the best of both worlds IMO. Itll preload like vista. Closing a window will close an app completely just like it does in XP and Vista. But if you minimize the app, it doesnt screw up your taskbar placement like it would in XP/Vista, so minimizing instead of closing is much more feasible. So whether or not you would rather have more free memory or faster loading is entirely up to you.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I'm pretty sure programs aren't flushed out of main memory immediately in Windows. They should stay cached for awhile just like you describe for OSX.

The way XP, Vista and OSX do it are very different.

The reason programs open so fast in OSX is because they dont actually close. The last window might be closed, but the process is still running. Its essentially minimized.

In XP after you load and close a program, the process is killed, but the data to load it again is cached in a file cache, which greatly speeds up reloading it, but its nowhere near as fast as having the program already loaded.

In Vista it preloads the data into the cache, but its still nowhere near as fast as having it already loaded.

In Win7 its a bit in between, the best of both worlds IMO. Itll preload like vista. Closing a window will close an app completely just like it does in XP and Vista. But if you minimize the app, it doesnt screw up your taskbar placement like it would in XP/Vista, so minimizing instead of closing is much more feasible. So whether or not you would rather have more free memory or faster loading is entirely up to you.

I hate that "feature" when I use OSX. I know it's just user error, but I always forget to close stuff and have a billion programs opened at once 😛

So ya, I was aware that OSX worked this way, but I was directly responding to this:

Originally posted by: pcslookout
It would be cool though if Windows OSes had the same precache feature as OS X so after you close a program but want to reopen it that program opens instantly because it had already been precached before hand. I know Vista sorta does this but not in the same way. It goes by your schedule of when you open programs.

Also, "nowhere near as fast" depends on the program. Small apps that are completely cached in RAM load is very close to instant.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: KeypoX
lol i used the new taskbar on windows 7, i dont like it. Atleast not right now, hopefully it gets better. But it sucks it turns a one movement one click action into > 3 movements 1 click. And it has a delay from the hover over the group to see what it has.

Its really annoying and time consuming... also takes longer to visual scan after the hover to find which window you need.

On another note i hope they do implement multidesktop!

Sounds less productive. 🙁

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I'm pretty sure programs aren't flushed out of main memory immediately in Windows. They should stay cached for awhile just like you describe for OSX.

The way XP, Vista and OSX do it are very different.

The reason programs open so fast in OSX is because they dont actually close. The last window might be closed, but the process is still running. Its essentially minimized.

In XP after you load and close a program, the process is killed, but the data to load it again is cached in a file cache, which greatly speeds up reloading it, but its nowhere near as fast as having the program already loaded.

In Vista it preloads the data into the cache, but its still nowhere near as fast as having it already loaded.

In Win7 its a bit in between, the best of both worlds IMO. Itll preload like vista. Closing a window will close an app completely just like it does in XP and Vista. But if you minimize the app, it doesnt screw up your taskbar placement like it would in XP/Vista, so minimizing instead of closing is much more feasible. So whether or not you would rather have more free memory or faster loading is entirely up to you.

I hate that "feature" when I use OSX. I know it's just user error, but I always forget to close stuff and have a billion programs opened at once 😛

So ya, I was aware that OSX worked this way, but I was directly responding to this:

Originally posted by: pcslookout
It would be cool though if Windows OSes had the same precache feature as OS X so after you close a program but want to reopen it that program opens instantly because it had already been precached before hand. I know Vista sorta does this but not in the same way. It goes by your schedule of when you open programs.

Also, "nowhere near as fast" depends on the program. Small apps that are completely cached in RAM load is very close to instant.

True, but those programs already launch so fast straight off the HDD that its irrelevant. But for most programs that arent paint or notepad, its a lot faster to reactivate them than to reload them. Thats one of the things I really liked about OSX, how instant launching everything was because you werent constantly killing and restarting processes. Sure, it was a pain in the ass to completely close programs, but at least in Win7, you're given a pretty obvious choice where you can choose the appropriate option (close or minimize).

 

[Scooby Doo]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: KeypoX
lol i used the new taskbar on windows 7, i dont like it. Atleast not right now, hopefully it gets better. But it sucks it turns a one movement one click action into > 3 movements 1 click. And it has a delay from the hover over the group to see what it has.

Its really annoying and time consuming... also takes longer to visual scan after the hover to find which window you need.

On another note i hope they do implement multidesktop!

Sounds less productive. 🙁

Thats what I was complaining about in the other thread. At least the text part is available from the sounds of it.

 

[pcslookout]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I'm pretty sure programs aren't flushed out of main memory immediately in Windows. They should stay cached for awhile just like you describe for OSX.

The way XP, Vista and OSX do it are very different.

The reason programs open so fast in OSX is because they dont actually close. The last window might be closed, but the process is still running. Its essentially minimized.

In XP after you load and close a program, the process is killed, but the data to load it again is cached in a file cache, which greatly speeds up reloading it, but its nowhere near as fast as having the program already loaded.

In Vista it preloads the data into the cache, but its still nowhere near as fast as having it already loaded.

In Win7 its a bit in between, the best of both worlds IMO. Itll preload like vista. Closing a window will close an app completely just like it does in XP and Vista. But if you minimize the app, it doesnt screw up your taskbar placement like it would in XP/Vista, so minimizing instead of closing is much more feasible. So whether or not you would rather have more free memory or faster loading is entirely up to you.

Thanks great explanation! The other thing if you leave a lot of programs open so they start instantly and a big gamer then you need a good amount of ram. Though that is not really a drawback now when ram is so cheap. Though it may be a better idea to have 8 GB rather than 4 GB so you have a extra 4 GB just for gaming and the other 4 GB just for all the applications you have left open. Always good to have a buffer.

 

[Scotteq]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I'm pretty sure programs aren't flushed out of main memory immediately in Windows. They should stay cached for awhile just like you describe for OSX.

The way XP, Vista and OSX do it are very different.

The reason programs open so fast in OSX is because they dont actually close. The last window might be closed, but the process is still running. Its essentially minimized.

In XP after you load and close a program, the process is killed, but the data to load it again is cached in a file cache, which greatly speeds up reloading it, but its nowhere near as fast as having the program already loaded.

In Vista it preloads the data into the cache, but its still nowhere near as fast as having it already loaded.

In Win7 its a bit in between, the best of both worlds IMO. Itll preload like vista. Closing a window will close an app completely just like it does in XP and Vista. But if you minimize the app, it doesnt screw up your taskbar placement like it would in XP/Vista, so minimizing instead of closing is much more feasible. So whether or not you would rather have more free memory or faster loading is entirely up to you.

I don't have a Technet subscription, and haven't/won't get to play with 7 until at least the open Beta. And what's to be found in the press has to be double filtered: First to determine if the writer actually knows what (s)he's writing about, and secondly to determine the relative Love/Hate levels for/against MSFT. So thanks for the explanation, BD. 🙂


Though I do have to wonder: If Vista had the same setup like OSX where you close the program but it's actually still running in the background, how many more times would Bill Gates been burned in effigy because the 'bloated pig of an OS was continuing to consume resources on items the user no longer wants running...' (sic) Might do a lot for heating costs in the winter, I should think. 😉