Slashdot Mirror


Hands-On With Windows 7's New Features

Barence writes "Microsoft has released the first pre-beta code of Windows 7, and PC Pro has a series of in-depth, hands-on examinations of all the new features. The revamped user interface has clearly gleaned more than a little inspiration from the Mac OS X Dock, but it goes further than the Apple concept with 'jumplists,' new gadgets and an updated system tray. The much-vaunted multi-touch controls were there to play with, and it seemed to work well. Networking has been given the full treatment, with new features HomeGroup and Libraries. Windows 7 debuts a new feature called Device Stage that has the potential to be unbelievably handy ... or a complete disaster. Finally, several new features could make PCs easier to manage and secure for IT departments, such as BitLocker To Go and Branch Cache." All in all, these features together lead some people to the conclusion that Windows 7 will "suck less than Vista" — that last link from reader ThinSkin, who also points to a related sampling of screenshots from the current iteration of Windows 7.

11 of 662 comments (clear)

  1. What's a gamer to do? by pzs · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was looking at buying a new gaming rig recently but I refuse to buy an operating system that hobbles the performance. Most of the benchmarks show that Vista is just slower than XP. These reports don't make future versions look that hopeful either.

    It's pretty hard to buy a non-Vista machine these days. Am I going to have to blag an XP license from work to get a proper OS for gaming? How long am I going to have to hang on to these licenses before Microsoft releases a decent product or games companies start supporting Linux?

    Yes, I know, buy a console. I still prefer PC gaming for many types of game.

    1. Re:What's a gamer to do? by mweather · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You joke, but what good is the desktop environment to me when I'm playing a game? I liked the days of DOS games much better.

    2. Re:What's a gamer to do? by sqrt(2) · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If you're looking to buy a new computer anyway, get Vista. A couple less FPS isn't going to ruin your gaming experience. That's what you're worrying about; getting 120 FPS in counter strike or 123. Vista is rock solid on new hardware*, even 64 bit version just doesn't have the problems it did a year ago. I'll admit that the gap becomes more noticeable the lower your hardware specs get but you said you're building a gaming machine which says to me you're willing to spend a little more to get more power so the difference between Vista and XP won't be apparent to your eyes--you'll need benchmarking software to measure the difference.

      Vista WORKS now, guys. Why don't you try it again and stop basing your idea of Vista on your impression of it at launch, which was no worse than XP when it first came out.

      *disregarding the problems from vendor added crapware, but that'll affect you even if you buy an XP machine. Install a clean version of Vista.

      --
      If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
    3. Re:What's a gamer to do? by Jaysyn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anecdote: Last weekend I was trying to get wireless set up on my friends Vista laptop. I made the damn thing crash no less than 6 times. It took me an hour to do what it would normally take me 15 minutes to do in XP & Ubuntu.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
    4. Re:What's a gamer to do? by MBGMorden · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually I had DOS based 3dfx enabled games that would do 800x600 mode easily (probably higher too but my crappy 14" monitor I used back then would spaz at 1024x768). For a good while I didn't take Windows games seriously because Windows games were always like the flash games we have today: simple diversions with very limited gameplay. For a "real" game you dropped into DOS.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  2. Visuals by StreetStealth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know that there's plenty of time for this to change between now and release, but Aero's visual details continue to leave a vast amount to be desired.

    There's simply far too much detail on elements that don't need it -- window borders, toolbars, status bars; everything seems to have about twice as many lines as are needed, with various controls popping up and down like the terraces of some ancient courtyard. This makes windows look more complicated than they should.

    And don't get me started on the ridiculous transparency + airbrush titlebars. The first thing they should have done was to accept that the translucent window experiment failed (or at least to boost the opacity to ~90% like another company addicted to transparency learned to do), but the Windows UI team doesn't seem to have realized it yet.

    --
    Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    1. Re:Visuals by kisrael · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Windows Vista is a very sad exercise in "More is the new More!" design.

      I took a snapshot of first desktop scene of my Vista laptop. Some of that's the usual OEM cruft, but man, what a visual assault! Harsh colors, the OEM cruft (icons, windows, toolbars), messages screaming at me... and then this dumbass sidebar. Because, you know, I always wanted a slideshow permanently putting up a new picture to distract me every couple minutes.

      I still run w/ windows maximized, just a way of focusing, but Windows UI is running in the opposite direction.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  3. Re:Why dont they call it what it is? by Farmer+Pete · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yeah, but if you look at the history of Windows, the best OSes have been rehashes of older ones. Sometimes it takes a bit of tweaking to make a good OS.

    Windows 3 to 3.1

    Win 95 to Win 98

    Win 2000 to Win XP

  4. Page fault madness by MegadeTH_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    have they done anything to improve memory management and the incredibly insane amount of page faults?

    Vista is terrible slow with it's default config, super prefetch, using all the memory and then paging applications your actually trying to run to swap, which is hundreds of times slower than ram, and sure feels like it too.

    osx, and linux and most all other operating systems that I've used will not swap memory until the machine is completely out of ram, and are noticeably faster in this area. Vista starts to swap before your even logged in, and page faults like crazy

    with 4 gigs of ram, less than one half used, why does vista page fault important programs like dwm.exe, my machine has 7 million page faults on that one app and it's only been turned on 12 hours

  5. No, Windows 7 really is Mojave. by argent · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most of the original scope of Windows 7 has been abandoned. The new cleaned-up native API? Not a word about that. The Classic-like sandboxes for legacy APIs? Gone. What we have is more like a Plus Pack for Windows Vista, the same way Windows XP was a Plus Pack for Windows 2000.

    So I don't think there's any reason to treat it as a joke. Windows 7 really is Mojave. It's Vista with some new bundled apps and gratuitous user interface changes (who came up with the ribbon? What was he on? Does the DEA know about it?), and a fresh new name to try and dump the bad PR from the botched release. It worked in the Mojave Experiment, so they see no reason not to go ahead and expand its scope.

  6. Re:the best taskbar i could think of... by reidconti · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >I don't like the OSX dock, and its lumping together of "start a new task" and "return to a previous task context"... (not to mention the hopelessness of "alt-tab to the application you're thinking of, then alt-tab (or whatever) to the window in that program) instead of Window's "alt-tab to your task"

    Really? I always thought the way that the dock combined task management and app launching into one place was genius. In windows, you typically have 3 places from which to launch apps (desktop, start menu, quicklaunch) and one place to manage tasks, the taskbar. Why the hell do they waste all that screen real estate on taskbar item titles, when they'll be unreadable once you have 4 apps running anyway? Why do I need quicklaunch and taskbar to take up separate real estate? And why are there multiple, confusing ways of accomplishing the same task (this goes for the proliferation of control panels as well)?

    I sorta see your point with the alt-tab thing, but the problem is, in windows, alt-tabbing thru browser windows is an exercise in futility because you have no clue which one of the 10 firefox instances your proper window is until you try them all. In OS X you have a much shorter list of things to alt-tab thru, then cycling windows is cake. It does take a little bit of getting used to, but I vastly prefer it.

    I do understand that alt-tab behavior in Vista is different -- if it allows you to preview content of the window before you switch (like alt-tilde in OS X does for window switching) then it would be better. I just haven't used Vista so I don't know.