Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion

Who should judge Win7's success?

<< < (5/10) > >>

Stoic Joker:
I always heard that "unused ram is wasted ram", don't you agree?-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)
--- End quote ---
Anything to a point (i.e. 4GB of RAM on an x86 machine would be 750MB of wasted RAM), but better to under use it that over use it. Too many XP machines with 256MB RAM (which was 4x the install min...) ended up gnawing a hole in the HDD where the PageFile isn't any more because of scuttling the HDD due to insufficient RAM.



Ya know the "Classic" start menu really only had about a five year run 95-2k ... The Start Panel introduced (to the public e.g. the rest of us had it earlier...) in 2001 when XP was RTM is looking at about a 10 year run at this point. So... Why is it still being treated as some new evil thing?!?
-Stoic Joker (October 16, 2009, 11:54 PM)
--- End quote ---
This is the first time that "the public" is forced to use it...-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
...And with a 10 year warning it's about damn time it went the way of 16bit software. Frankly I'm tired of having to fight my way around the missing UI improvements when I get stuck working on the machine of some spastic user that thinks that life is simpler if you have less (or compare-ably no) options.

Now, true, 10 years ago I wasn't tickled to death with the at-the-time new-fangled contraption. But, as an IT professional I was obligated to take the time to learn how the then new OS worked...UI improvements and all. It ended up taking less that a week for me to realize just how incredibly handy (and superior) the Start Panel was.


Do you really trust Microsoft's studies? Of course they will never result in "this sucks".
-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
Sure they will, they just won't blame it on somebody else on TV like Apple does.

Tuxman:
...And with a 10 year warning it's about damn time it went the way of 16bit software-Stoic Joker (October 17, 2009, 07:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
Why? "Never change a running system". After all, there wasn't a need for that, unlike 16 bit software (as 32 bit CPUs came up).

UI improvements and all.-Stoic Joker (October 17, 2009, 07:39 AM)
--- End quote ---
Why do you think this is an improvement?

Darwin:
I think Windows 7 will be judged a success or a failure in both the market and the press. I loved Vista (and agree with Josh - Windows 7 is probably NOT worth a paid upgrade, though I suspect that a lot of people will do just that to get away from Vista) and its sales seem to have been more than adequate, but it has remained a PR nightmare for MS since it was released. If reports start filtering out post-Oct 22 about real users having trouble free upgrades to Windows 7 on older hardware that was designed for XP or even 2000, I think Windows 7 will have a shot at doing well in the press and blogosphere and this will be reflected in the marketplace.

However, if MS REALLY wants a hit on its hands, they should do something about their pricing scheme. From what I've seen, Windows 7 will be very expensive.  If MS took a page from Apple's playbook and released a single DVD with all flavours of Windows 7 on it and one license key for a flat sum of $100-200, it would sell like hot cakes. Instead this is the price point for lower-end version UPGRADE LICENSES, which will still require clean installs. Not smart marketing in my opinion.

jgpaiva:
Or do you mean it just uses more resources in general? But I always heard that "unused ram is wasted ram", don't you agree?-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)
--- End quote ---
Unused RAM is cache for me. More resource usage = less performance with the same resources, right?
-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
Yes, exactly, that's the reason Vista used more memory than XP, it used unused ram for cache. So you didn't notice the performance improvements mentioned in several reviews and you even noticed your computer being slower? I'd love to have the time to test it on my computer and see if it actually matches up to what's being said.

what I read about microsoft having made studies on how it was an improvement in usability for the general public.-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)
--- End quote ---
Do you really trust Microsoft's studies? Of course they will never result in "this sucks".
-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)
--- End quote ---
I though microsoft wouldn't invest of money on creating a whole new interface if it didn't bring better usability results... If they faked the studies, and they launched an operating system with an unusable taskbar, wouldn't they lose even more costumers to other OS?

I've seen a microsoft presentation about how and why they developed the new taskbar. It's really interesting, they have the explanations for why they developed it like that, and show the usability results and the costumer experience data which led them through the design process.
Honestly, since I've tried windows 7, I've been trying to find something similar to its taskbar in Ubuntu. I've found dockbarX, and think it's a fantastic improvement because the taskbar gets way more organized. Its only problem is its paradigm doesn't work so well with multiple desktops.

Darwin:
I quite like the new taskbar in Windows 7. It takes a bit of getting used to but it works. So much so that I have removed (though have not yet uninstalled) TrueLaunchBar64 from the taskbar and find that I really do not miss it.

Hovering the cursor over an icon pops up a small window showing you what apps are running associated with the icon (ie if you have two Firefox browsers and a download window open you will see these represented in the popup):



PS Screenshot from SnagIt 9 - I couldn't figure out how to use MS' Snipping Tool (which is otherwise quite good) to invoke without using the mouse and thus having the pop-up disappear

EDIT: add the postscript...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page