Slashdot Mirror

You mean this one? Seems fine to me.

(Likely the article just linked to the wrong post or something.)

I'm surprised no one has mentioned that the entry on the screenshots on http://www.thinknext.net/ blog has already been squelched at the behest of Microsoft minions.

They've had a takedown notice, as it seems did YouTube:

http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2281

Yes it does funnily enough.

Powershell - http://www.thinknext.net/content/2008/09/win7/powershell.png

The screenshots page http://www.thinknext.net/archives/2268 linked from the article tries to download & execute the following files:
ucsb_evoting_attack_dl_small.3gp
sa.aspx

Linking trojans from /. - that's a 1st !

Look at this?
http://www.thinknext.net/content/2008/09/win7/Computer-menu1.png

I don't like to blow my own horn (ok I do) but really, that might be good for jimmy and billy smith and perhaps mom but that interface does not bring enough data into my eyes / brain fast enough, it looks convolouted and confusing.

I'd like to re-post for the 1000'th time why I don't like Vista (read if you like, but you don't have to)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=364823&cid=21406737
(note, one or two small mistakes in there but mostly correct)

My issues with Vista are usability and logic.
I realise some users don't care about the finer details but ultimately I do feel there are enough smart users out there who simply won't put up with such a 'fluffy' and unpleasant interface.

I can not bring the data into my brain quick enough, things are not in logical places, things are messy and convoluted, some things take longer to do and some bugs have been introduced into explorer while old ones remain (what!)
Example, opening explorer with mapped network drives and cd-roms / dvd-roms IS STILL GOD - DAMNED @#%ING SLOW (sorry)
Why, why is it slow in 2008?
Not only is it slow, it's almost precisely and utterly slow as it always was back in 1998 with Win 98 and 95.
I am thoroughly and utterly convinced the morons at Microsoft have simply used the same piece of explorer code since day 1, it has NOT been re-written from scratch.
As a very very heavy explorer user, I can simply 'feel' it. I know it sounds ridiculous but that's how it is.

Why is it, that they don't simply cache what was previously located on previously mapped network / dvd drives and then in a seperate thread or process then poll these drives, while maintaining a completely consistent user interface, in the background?
Take note that I'm not a coder and I apologise for speaking of which I don't understand but from my base level of knowledge, is this not possible?!

It feels sluggish, just as it did under XP and frankly that's not good enough, it needs an entire overhaul.

While I'm at it, I'm a dork, I mean I'm a tech here, you'know - I'm not even smart or good at user interface design, I have an opinion and I haven't been to university but I mean I feel as if *I* could do a better job.
To get to my point on this, the 'up arrow' has been removed from explorer.
This was a quick and simple button which took you one level higher in the folder view.
Ok that's fine Vista does that with breadcrums, but the breadcrumb physical location on the explorer interface could be anywhere - depending on the length of the path you're looking at.
In a maximised window of explorer, the green 'up' arrow is _ALWAYS_ consistent and that means simplicity, logic and convienience, why is this so god-damned hard?

This also applies to the 'folders' button which takes a 'single window' explorer view of a folder and it's contents and converts it into a 'full explorer' view of said folder AND the folders to the left of it in the entire tree view. It's a simple button but good jesus it's convienient and easy and helps me navigate quicker to get things done faster.
I want my computer performance and my slow hands / brain hampering me, not a stupid interface.

Futhermore again,..... I find that folder 'behaviour' and explorer behaviour is not consistent, you click a folder and sometimes it does X sometimes it does Y, sometimes a view does refresh, other times not.
Windows XP however is simple, easy, fast - and yes to clarify I *was* one of the XP whiners back when it first came out, for about 6 months but I adopted it.
In XP, they added classic view which was as good as 2000 or better and virtually identical to boot (not so for Vista classic) furthermore the primary concerns were performance, driver etc in XP, patchable and fixable.
In Vista however, (I