Slashdot Mirror
Windows 7 Beta Screenshots Leaked
Slatterz writes "Screenshots of what is said to be the next version of Microsoft's Windows operating system have been leaked onto the internet. The ThinkNext.net blog posted a range of screenshots over the weekend which it said represents Windows 7. Overall, the screenshots show a distinctly Vista-like interface, but there is still plenty of time for tweaks and changes to take place."
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
Windows 7??? If I count it correctly - it must be Windows Vista!
3. Windows 3/3.11/NT 3.5
4. Windows 95/ NT 4.0
5. Windows ME/ Windows NT 2000
6. Windows XP/ Windows Server 2003
7. Windows Vista/Windows Server 2008.
I remember that couple of months ago Microsoft did an experiment when they shown Vista as "beta of Windows 7" to people that don't know Vista.. just to check people reaction. Amusing that slashdot got lured too...
they always leak? and critisms leak, suggestions leak, etc.
It true. 512meg is enough for light use. My partner's laptop is still at default spec, and it works fine for her, and the botnet shes part of (loves those toolbars) ;)
I use mine (same model - bottom end lenovo 3000) for development (VS, etc) - 4 gig ram though - about $80 AUD. The only downside is the shitty hitachi hard drive - terrible performance there, but superfetch does help.
These are bottom end $500 laptops, so its hard to imagine how cheap an equivalent desktop would be. ($250??) If you can't afford the hardware to run the OS - then, frankly, you aren't in the target market.
3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
Yes it looks like Vista, but who said the product was finished.
Longhorn or Vista which is the name today, also looked much like XP/2003 in its early stages.
I could afford a 2GB stick of RAM for my desktop. And no doubt for the laptop that I'm actually using (I'm on a different continent to "my" desktop).
However, as I said it works, why would I upgrade? The only thing that requires more ram is the fact that I like to have 20 - 30 tabs on Firefox open, OpenOffice.org/AbiWord open to a few documents, and Gedit open with a bunch of files as well (not to mention Apache and MySQL).
I could use more RAM sure, but I don't *need* more RAM. And if I had didn't do any webdev (thus no Apache, no MySQL, no Gedit most of the time and no nearly as many tabs on Firefox), I could even have the pretty wobbly things (that I show people to impress them) all the time.
As it is, I don't need more RAM. Heck, I remember my first computer (the one that only I used) had 8 MB of ram, and half a gig of space on the HD... And it was fine for word processing and Internet browsing. What is the obsession with MORE MORE MORE?
If nothing else, I would rather save what little money for things such as airline tickets, to fly around the world again. (On that note, (and here I'm going to assume you are not from the EU), go to a country that isn't your own and get a job. Then come back and tell me to get a job.)
I wank in the shower.
Joke -> j
You -> (00)
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Joke -> j
You -> (0,0)
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
Joke -> joke
You -> (0,0)
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!