Slashdot Mirror


UI Features That Didn't Make It Into Windows 7

TRNick writes "TechRadar talks to Windows 7's Senior User Experience Designer and discovers the interface ideas the Windows 7 team almost, but didn't put into Windows 7, and the stages various UI features went through to their final form. Quoting: '... The next prototype, in February 2007, was called the Bat Signal; when you moved your mouse over an icon in the taskbar, the full window would pop up on screen, highlighted by beams of light (a little like the Batman signal projected over Gotham City). Bat Signal made it easy to find the right window but it caused other problems: 'sometimes people toss the mouse down to the bottom of the screen when they're typing because they don't care where the mouse is and the Bat Signal pops up and that's really intrusive in their flow.' Bat Signal evolved into Aero Peek in Windows 7; you can hover over an icon to get thumbnails and hover over a thumbnail to get a preview of the window."

57 of 342 comments (clear)

  1. Sounds interesting. by AltGrendel · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone know of something similar for Linux?

    --
    The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination

    - Douglas Adams

    1. Re:Sounds interesting. by lordtoran · · Score: 5, Funny

      KDE 4. This is where Microsoft apparently borrowed their ideas this time.

      --
      Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
    2. Re:Sounds interesting. by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes,

      thumbnail previews.

      Hover over task to get preview.

      Click once to get a full size, fully interactive preview.

      Click again to hide it.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Sounds interesting. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      KDE 4. This is where Microsoft apparently stole their ideas this time.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    4. Re:Sounds interesting. by David+Gerard · · Score: 5, Funny

      KDE 4. Microsoft saw it was incredibly pretty and also didn't bloody work and thought, "I gotta get me some o' that!"

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    5. Re:Sounds interesting. by rusl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, Compiz "Window Preview" is probably what they copied, the Bat-Window probably is just a better story and makes it look like M$ doesn't take all their ideas from others.

      --
      Stupidity is its own reward.
    6. Re:Sounds interesting. by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Should be -1 Troll.

      Wow, nobody has any sense of humor today....

      as Microsoft has a well paid legal team at their disposal which would most likely prevent unauthorized usage of patented ideas.

      Yeah, when would Microsoft ever violate patents?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    7. Re:Sounds interesting. by lordtoran · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, some guys from ZDNet presented it as a Windows 7 beta and nobody noticed the difference.

      4.2 works fine for me BTW and I switched to it from 3.5.10 for everyday use, but the former releases indeed were quite unfinished.

      --
      Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
    8. Re:Sounds interesting. by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Also, this idea you speak of, was it patented? I am guessing that it was not, as Microsoft has a well paid legal team at their disposal which would most likely prevent unauthorized usage of patented ideas.

      A legal team such as the USPTO?

      You can't patent an idea. An idea must be realized as an invention before it can be patented.

      For example, you can't patent the idea of a flying man. You can however patent an airfoil suit that allows a man to fly.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    9. Re:Sounds interesting. by prozaker · · Score: 2, Informative

      i saw that video, apparently much of the ppl they talked to barely knew what a computer was.

    10. Re:Sounds interesting. by malevolentjelly · · Score: 4, Insightful

      KDE 4. This is where Microsoft apparently borrowed their ideas this time.

      What from KDE 4 is in Windows 7? Seriously? The only UI concepts I see shared are ones that KDE 4 stole from Vista and Windows 7 inherited.

      Here are some subtle differences to help the mentally impaired:

      1) Windows 7 does not crash whenenver you look at it funny. Applications more often than not close cleanly when the user wants them to, instead of just randomly throwing a SIGSEGV.

      2) Windows 7 has latent functionality- meaning that you will find the UI interacting with applications in a contextual fashion, instead of just providing a taskbar interface that looks attractive, but actually is just a glorified launcher.

      3) Your systray is not full of graphically corrupted garbage in Windows 7.

      4) Your system will not randomly shoot to 100% cpu usage for mysterious causes in Windows 7 (but that doesn't mean applications won't do this).

      5) Windows 7 has a fully documented application development API- and it's actually complete! This means that Windows 7 provides features that aren't simply planned or imaginary. This should be a dead giveaway if you're used to KDE 4.

      I suppose when you see an Aston Martin driving down the street you're like "OMG THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE A FORD TAURUS". Well, you're right... they're both cars. Is this just because some braindead aussies thought KDE 4 was Windows 7 on the street. Well.. why not. It's got a start menu on the bottom with a button in the bottom left, icons on the desktop, looks pretty shiny and reflective. To the average user, it might as well be Windows... but you just wait until they try to get something done with KDE 4. If Microsoft tried to sell anything like that as a product, they would go out of business. It would make Vista look like a glorious success- for them to steal from KDE 4 would be like a bakery stealing cow shit from a nearby ranch to decorate their cakes.

    11. Re:Sounds interesting. by lordtoran · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was a reason KDE 4.0.x and 4.1.x were explicitely not recommended for production use... the stuff you listed, some of which I never encountered at any time, has been sorted out in 4.2 which is the first version I consider as rock solid as 3.5.10 and use as my main desktop now.

      The aussie video was just an example I googled BTW. Put some screenshots side by side and you will see that the Windows 7 taskbar in its current state looks very KDE like, rather than Vista like. On the other hand, the KDE 4 panel might resemble the Vista color scheme, nevertheless it functions in a very original, customizable way that doesn't borrow from somewhere else.

      --
      Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
  2. Dispite what everyone says... by XPeter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    MS is making a comeback. Win 7 looks great and even as a chrome/ff user I have to say that I'm attracted to IE8.

    This is Slashdot, home of the penguin I know. But you have to give MS some credit. They're doing better.

    --
    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has it's limits" - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And Vista already has three times the users as OS X does.

      Considering MS discontinued selling XP (thus consumers don't have limited choices), that's hardly an endorsing statement. When you buy a consumer PC from Dell, HP, etc, you get some version of Vista as standard. You have to pay more or figure out how to get XP somehow. Also the Vista adoption rate only includes those people that bought a computer with Vista and does not include those that downgraded to XP later. With OS X, people have to choose to migrate to a different OS. That they are doing so at one third the rate of Vista adopters says that 1 in 4 people actively chose to avoid Vista by migrating to a completely different operating system says a lot about how much they are avoiding Vista.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    2. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's like the Oracle/MS-SQL argument... for years MS-SQL has been "getting better" and "more enterprise". Why dick around with a tinkertoy DB when Oracle has done it all for years? Why reward a Johnny-come-lately?

      Why not, if it does anything that you need it to, for much cheaper? Or maybe because it has better integration with your platform of choice?

      Note that your argument can be equally applied to PostgreSQL or MySQL. And the answer will be the same there, too.

    3. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by MobyDisk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Vista has a beautiful UI, but that UI has nothing to do with my purchase. Same with IE8. I didn't switch to FireFox because it looked better. I use an OS for stability, compatibility, etc. I use a browser for security.

      I have yet to see an article headline like "Windows 7: Network and Sound performance problems resolved" or "Windows 7 beta crashes 1/10th as often as Vista" or "Windows 7 performs 47% better on mid-range hardware"

      When I see headlines like that, I will be interested. Until then, I run Windows XP on my Macbook so I have an alternate migration path in case Windows 7 turns out to be Vista 1.1

    4. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by owlnation · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Win 7 looks great

      Looks great. So what? What productivity advantages does it give you over XP? In fact, for a business user, it's a new interface and that means a drop in productivity for most users -- at least in the short term.

      Now, in these times of recession, explain to me why I want to spend extra money on an operating system that will only cost me money in production loss.

      What is the point of Windows 7 exactly? Prettier, sure. Who cares. MS doing better? Probably. MS doing enough? MS doing a comeback? Maybe for IE8 admittedly, but Chrome can still beat it -- while FF has long since lost its way. But overall MS back, or even good? Not yet, not at all.

    5. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by Stevecrox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You realise that since XP Sp2 windows has been pretty much rock solid, the only time Vista has managed to crash on me was when I first installed it onto a machine with dodgey ram. Once readyboost filled that area of the ram up the machine would crash.

      I realise I'm just feeding a karma whore but considering every man and his dog has been raving about how much quicker Windows 7 and there are articles on how to get it working on an Asus EEE pc. You must have had your heard in the sand.

    6. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except that statement isn't even true. It's just a perpetuation of FUD and urban mythology.

      It's not. Notice that I didn't say that MSSQL is always cheaper than Oracle (I'm fully aware about free editions of Oracle, BTW). I merely pointed out that there may well be cases where you do get more bang for the buck for MSSQL. For .NET development, for example, MSSQL is a reasonable default choice because of its superb integration with the platform, and many Microsoft shops (particularly partners) get MS software heavily discounted. Then, of course, maybe the company already has SharePoint, which requires an MSSQL instance, so depending on the task at hand it may make sense to reuse that. Etc.

      Just to remind, the GGP claim was: "why dick around with a tinkertoy DB when Oracle has done it all for years?". Now that is indeed perpetuation of FUD and urban mythology!

    7. Re:Dispite what everyone says... by Omestes · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So how is being a Linux shill any better? I'm guessing your just using the word "shill" to designate people that you've decided aren't as "cool" as yourself, thus denigrating yourself to the level of the rest of the "fanboys" out there.

      It is an operating system, nothing more, nothing less. Your preference in operating systems says nothing about the worth of your character. Also, sadly, going with the meaning of the word "shill", it doesn't mean that Apple/Microsoft is throwing large amounts of money my way to say nice things about their software. It would be nice if they were, though.

      Vista isn't as bad as people said it was, especially after SP1 and some tweaking. It works, it is stable, and it doesn't eat up too many resources on any half-modern computer. More than it should, perhaps, but hardly noticeable if you have over 2Gb of RAM and a modern processor. File copying still sucks, and its cute little wifi death after waking bug still annoys me to the point of homicidal rage from time to time, but there is no perfect OS.

      Vista is on my gaming box.

      OS X also serves its niche, when I got sick of tinkering with computers, and my time was almost completely taken by writing large collegiate papers (and a fair amount of binge drinking), it worked wonderfully for me. It lived up to its slogan, for the most part, it just worked. Yes, it was lacking in tweak-ability, and often felt hobbled, but it still got the job done rather well. OS X, also has the benefit of being the hot-bed of high quality independent developers, who make both functional programs, and POLISHED ones, something the Linux development community, as a whole, hasn't quite discovered.

      Right now OS X (on a MacMini) is my media center.

      Linux has come leaps and bounds in recent years. Thanks to Ubuntu, and like projects, it has finally received the feeling of polish that the other corporate OSs have. It finally found the medium I'm happy with, where it works out of the box (sans my laptops damn built in wifi, as usual), is feature complete, but still has enough subterranean options to turn to when I'm in the mood. Sadly it still is somewhat gimped by issues not of its own fault... drivers... oh lord drivers, please?! It also still has compatibility options, WINE is nice, but still require more tinkering than some people have time, or desire for. There needs to be a Parallels like solution.

      Linux is on my tinkering machine (an old HP laptop).

      So who am I shilling for, if I use, and enjoy all three of the major OSs? I'd even be using Windows 7 right now if it wanted to behave nicely on my laptop.

      My view might be a bit skewed since I'm not a programmer, nor do I work in the IT industry. I'm nothing more than a hobbyist, and casual nerd. My major "work" (i.e. for money) on computers is writing and the occasional freelance graphic design work.

      OS preference should come down to what you need, and what compliments your work-style, and not some quasi-religious loyalty. I know cognitive dissonance comes into it, where your choice MUST be the best, since you chose it. But that is a silly and irrational justification.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  3. "Bat Signal" in miniature is annoying enough by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 5, Funny

    It makes me nervous enough to have miniature popups of certain windows....

  4. K.I.S.S by pilgrim23 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For those of us not all that interested in gosh gee whiz features that require the next iteration of Moore's Law to support, why not a simple uncluttered GUI that operates the hardware and the network and GETS OUT OF THE WAY when you are working? Elegance through simplicity.... Bill is gone now Steve, you could risk excellence of design as a counterpoint

    --
    - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    1. Re:K.I.S.S by nine-times · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've read (though I don't know for sure and can't find backup at the moment) that Microsoft's GUI design is much more of a trial & error approach than Apple's. They throw stuff in, put it in front of users, ask users what they think, and study the users' reactions in a scientific sort of way. If it make test users' workflows more efficient by Microsoft's measures and causes positive reactions in test users, then the design is used. There exact process may be much more complicated than that, but from what I've heard, that's the general idea.

      I've read that Apple's process, on the other hand, has a little more emphasis on the opinions and views of GUI designers and experts, as well as the personal opinion of Steve Jobs. (again, supposedly)

      It wouldn't be clear to me at the outset which approach would give better results.

    2. Re:K.I.S.S by MrMista_B · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're trying to actually /sell/ an operating systerm to home users, the first thing people will look at, and the main thing they will use in judging whether or not it's worth buying, is the user interface.

      And if the user interface looks cheap and lazy, they're going to think, justified or not, that the entire operating system, therefore, was cheap and lazy. /That/ is why there are so many, as you put it, 'gee whiz' features in new versions - it's the only thing most people will ever see.

    3. Re:K.I.S.S by eebra82 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I used to think just like you do now. When XP was released, I forced the ugly Windows 2000 theme because I didn't want graphical interfaces left and right. Then I realized that it's not really cluttering anything, just that I am not used to the looks.

      I think that a modern operating system must look good and flashy, but more importantly, configurable. It should appeal as trendy and nice to those who don't care to look under the shell, yet configurable enough to appeal to geeks who want features on or off.

      Finally, I'd like to say that features like the bat signal should be included in Windows 7, but disabled by default.

    4. Re:K.I.S.S by PPH · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If it make test users' workflows more efficient by Microsoft's measures and causes positive reactions in test users, then the design is used.

      Except that they can only expect their test subjects to spend a limited amount of time with the product.

      Research has shown (don't ask me to cite, Google for it) that users start out with the GUI and all the little helpers turned on. As time goes by and they gain more experience, they turn off the animated paperclips, the help pop-ups and rely more on keyboard shortcuts. Autocad is an example of this (one I use occasionally). Inexperienced users (like me) tend to rely on the point and click interface. But the experienced users rarely touch the mouse, doing the bulk of their work with the CLI. This isn't something that would be revealed by a few days of testing. These changes occur with months (or years) of experience.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    5. Re:K.I.S.S by David+Gerard · · Score: 3, Funny

      I use Cygwin. In an xterm. Antialiased fonts are the work of Satan!

      --
      http://rocknerd.co.uk
    6. Re:K.I.S.S by hob42 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The lack of "File" menus that need to be toggled visible... even when they are needed to get to your bookmarks in IE.

      Huh? Right-click the IE icon on the taskbar. You get a list of your bookmarked favorites and your recent history as choices to open. Just wish Chrome supported it.

      The only place I've ever had an issue is WMP. It can sometimes be very difficult to navigate through it without the menus.

    7. Re:K.I.S.S by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      EXACTLY. Since Win 98, I always customized Explorer to show most of the extra buttons on the toolbar, changed the folder options to suit me, etc. In Vista these options are gone. You see, in designing the Vista UI they just used the old Explorer defaults and threw away all the extras, figuring that nobody used them anyway. In other words, they designed for the inexperienced users who hadn't been using it very long, not an experienced user that knew they could choose which view they preferred for that directory, icons or what have you and could choose that with the press of a button. No, they had to spread that out over half of a toolbar so they'd be sure to see it.

      This philosophy is how they redesigned the entire system so far as I can tell. I used Vista at work and yes, SP1 did improve it, but I still hated it. All the little simple tools I'd taken advantage of for years (e.g., in Explorer before Vista, just glance to the left to see how big a file is) were missing, it was slower than my XP box at home that had the same amount of RAM and actually a less powerful CPU (Superfetch is supposed to make frequently-used apps load faster, but that only sped them up to ALMOST XP-speed). Now, I expect that a newer, more powerful version of something to use more resources, but I expect something in return for that besides a prettier UI. I may not get transparency out of it, but I can patch the uxtheme.dll in XP, apply a theme or msstyle and it will look pretty good without it using up hundreds more megs in RAM. Vista just doesn't offer me anything that I actually need since I have XP and know how to use it.

      I haven't tried 7, but at least from what I hear it does have two features that interest me: minimize other windows by shaking the one I'm using ("aero shake") and making items on the taskbar appear as icons instead of as an icon and a text description. But that probably still means giving up all those little extra tools I've used for years that I mentioned above, so I'm not sure that I want it yet. Most likely not, since I hear that the DRM is absolutely Draconian. The last thing I want is more DRM and I'm willing to go without rather than put up with that crap.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
    8. Re:K.I.S.S by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...that's not discoverable at ALL. There is no other application that I know of that has a context menu in the damned taskbar. That's not an example of "good UI" by any stretch of the imagination. They're changing the game, and not giving people hints. I'm sure it's the first time most people have heard of the "right-click on the application listing in the taskbar to get a unique menu you can't get elsewhere" school of UI design.

    9. Re:K.I.S.S by PitaBred · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, it DOES clutter the interface. On smaller laptops the Luna theme uses up a couple more pixels in each direction on every window. When you've only got 800 vertical pixels, losing 2-4 of them to window themeing in every decorated window is a hell of a hit and displaces a lot of content. It's an entire line of text even if it's just a single window as compared to the Win2K-style decorations.

    10. Re:K.I.S.S by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then I realized that it's not really cluttering anything, just that I am not used to the looks.

      IMHO, it was never so much a problem of "clutter" with the Windows XP "Luna" aka Fischer Price interface so much as it was inefficient use of space. The buttons, borders, title bars, etc...were all just a tad bigger than they really needed to be. While there may be some users who enjoy the "big buttons" look I and many other users were never really fans. Microsoft would do well to learn a bit more about their different classes of user (and there were more than just "classic" OR "luna" users with XP) and offer some more logical choices for different user interface designs. Personally, I use the Stardock WindowBlinds software (which plugs into the theme APIs provided in Windows XP and above) with the "soft crystal" theme (a modified copy of a KDE style interface) as my UI of choice because it is space efficient, unobtrusive, and substantially less 90s than "windows classic".

    11. Re:K.I.S.S by AbRASiON · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No a modern OS shouldn't look flashy or at least in my case, it should have an OPTION to make it look basic and crappy like XP classic, 2000, 98SE

      I still run Windows classic UI on Vista, Windows 7 and XP to this day, not because I don't like the other look but because this is the neatest, fastest way of getting things done.
      I realise this place is a linux shop but we do have Windows users like myself here and I can tell you, we DO a lot of RDP in Windows and RDP is rubbish with all the fluff turned on.

      If I'm to have a CONSISTENT experience, I need the same experience from machine to machine, so I need classic mode in my RDP, classic in my local workstation and classic on the server(s) I work on.

      Classic is simple and easy to work with and could easily be improved while still looking bland and simple.
      Feel free to enable 'fluffy 3d' mode for users but when it comes to getting things done, I don't WANT to wait 200ms every time I click something, for it to animate, that adds up to a lot with the work I and others may do.

    12. Re:K.I.S.S by Anpheus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What a troll, you clearly didn't spend much time with Vista.

      Look to the left for file data? Now you look to the bottom. Or you use the details mode. There are so many ways of finding that information. Hundreds of MBs? DWM used around 30MB I found. Windows 7 uses around 23MB for the window manager. And while Vista on a low resource system was, admittedly, pretty bad. On a high resource system, it more intelligently used extra CPU cycles, extra RAM, and most computer's largely idle built in graphics to do useful work.

      And the administrator tools! My god, you can't begin to compare the tools in XP and Vista. Every administrator tool got better, command line tools appeared for even the most esoteric functions. Command line differencing or full system image backups using a snapshotting filesystem the user has control over (wbadmin and vssadmin respectively, allow control of those features.) Task scheduler gained a truly ridiculous number of capabilities. I have my computer wake me up to music, and at the same time, the computer wakes itself up. Out of sleep mode. Computer management, disk management, the firewall, the performance monitor, the reliability monitor, the security policies, ... every administrative aspect became vastly better.

      I just, I can't keep listening to people troll Vista like it's an administrative nightmare. If anything, it gives IT people vastly more control over their OS than they've had with XP. Ever since I've installed Vista I've had free, automated system backups, reliable sleep and wake, a snappier display because I use discrete graphics cards, I've had better control over what I can do with regards to guest accounts (SteadyState + UAC + fine grained ACLs means so, so much.)

      And lastly, the DRM. I've never encountered it. Not once. Music from iTunes, AFAIK, doesn't use it. They have their own draconian DRM that they implement. None of my ripped music has ever been abridged by Vista or 7. None of my videos have ever been paused or downgraded in resolution, and that includes HD quality video. The DRM is solely for those who choose to implement it in software, to provide them with that guarantee if they choose to. I don't agree with that choice, but I'd rather the OS let me watch the damn thing (and let me exploit the analog hole) than have to watch it on a piece of hardware I have no control over (most Blu-Ray players and movies with HDCP enabled.)

      Frankly, what Vista screwed up on were a few operations (file copies, how did they F that up?) and public relations. When that troll of an article on DRM came out, they should have responded with an open letter the next day. Instead, they've never addressed those concerns. They needed to be on top of things, and they essentially ignored widespread public criticism. It's not hard to understand why Vista would be so disliked if they never attempted to alleviate or address concerns.

      I hope this changes with 7. Certainly, the Engineering Windows 7 blog has done that so far. We'll see if that continues post release.

  5. this is why I no longer mess with betas by Saint+Stephen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    when I worked at MS, I used to always install the IDS and IDW builds. Not the dailies - they never worked. But I got really tired of learning about possible features that would never really exist, and now from the outside world I'm tired of learning about betas, because it's never exactly like the shipping product. Who cares? I'll just learn about it when it's done.

    It does me zero good to know about things that I'm not going to create myself. If MS will implement it in five years, I'll learn about it in five years.

    1. Re:this is why I no longer mess with betas by geobeck · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...I'm tired of learning about betas, because it's never exactly like the shipping product.

      Unless you're Google. Then the beta is the shipping product. ;)

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  6. Vista adoption.. by rs232 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "despite all the 'Vista sucks!' being thrown around, it didn't slow down adoption at all"

    Where can I go into a shop and buy a PC with the previous incarnation of Windows? And if Vista is such a success why is MS moving to Windows 7 already?

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
  7. The Ballmer Signal Didn't Make It Either by CyberSlammer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The recycle bin was changed to a chair icon, and whenever users would hover their mouse over it furniture would start flying around the room at random and howler monkey screams would emit from the computer speakers. This caused way too many worker's comp complaints, not to mention growing hostility in the work place.

  8. "UI is everything", but... by starglider29a · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There are 3 groups of reasons to "improve" a user interface:
    1. Enable more tasks to be multitasked
    2. Increase usability/productivity on existing tasks
    3. Look cool/whizbang/just because we can

    Ignoring number #3 and assuming that "productivity" is a goal of the user, here is my assertion:
    "It is amazing how much more productivity you have with multiple computers with multiple screens."

    So much of the UI is spent on "switching" apps or discerning between windows/tabs of the same app. Think Office/Email/PhotoWhatever/MSVC. Behind all that is your websurf, Facebook, chat, tunez, Skype, FTP, Remote Sessions, site monitoring, Limewire ;-) And because speed is a critical part of UI, having to swap out memory slows it all down. Chances are, there is ONE APP that dominates your workflow, whether it WordProc, Spreadsheet, Coding Environment, Graphics/Flash. Whatever that is SHOULD dominate your 24" monitor. All the other stuff (the web page yer copying text from, the Email your reading for specs, etc) are in the background, BEHIND the window that's doing the work. What if it were off to the side? And what if your chat and stuff were on the computer beside you. Why buy Moore's Law next machine, when the 1.8GHz, 1GB can run your side-surfing, and it only takes a glance, not an Alt-Tab? And chances are, you have older machines and CRT monitors. Oh, but they use energy? And shipping them to the Third World doesn't?

    I like UI. UI is everything, but... But I like ignoring it while I work. Most UI improvements aren't.

  9. FSOD by bugeaterr · · Score: 2, Funny

    The new Fuschia Screen Of Death was left out after they determined that it would *not* require users purchase new FSOD-Ready video cards and monitors.

  10. Re:shame on you Firefox/Chrome user... by idontgno · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bash screens. Macros. Feh.

    I wire 75 baud 20 ma current loop leads directly into the muscles of my left forearm. I use slightly rusty safety pins to pierce my "insulation". I key Baudot by flexing my left index finger and decode Baudot from the computer by feeling the twitches of my left pinky finger.

    Yes, half-duplex. It's a luxury, but you gotta treat yourself right sometimes.

    Oh, yeah, I use csh too. Because sometimes you gotta treat yourself badly to compensate for the luxuries of things like half-duplex.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  11. Simplicity through simple implementation by Lord+Grey · · Score: 3, Informative

    "... sometimes people toss the mouse down to the bottom of the screen when they're typing because they don't care where the mouse is ..."

    Many years ago -- about 25 years, maybe a bit more -- others realized the exact same thing: Users don't want to see the mouse while they're typing. The solution at the time was to simply hide the mouse pointer at the first touch of a printable key. Amazing!

    One of the little reasons I like my Mac.

    --
    // Beyond Here Lie Dragons
  12. Reminds me of something in Gnome.... by pizzach · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Particularly the auto play of music files when hovered. If you are prepared for it, it's okay. But I usually don't have icons shown on my desktop and that particular day I decided to clean up my download folder of mp3s by moving them all to the desktop. (mv ~/Downloads/*.mp3 ~/Desktop
    ) Because of some gconf problems I tried resetting my whole gconf folder so my desktop was back.

    AGH! The agony! My computer keeps randomly playing mp3s when I didn't want it too! For the whole day I would wonder for about 5 seconds where a sound was coming from until I realized it was music.

    --
    Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
  13. Re:Will be missing the Classic Start Menu myself. by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've got an easy solution for that: make some folders and group things logically. Works for me. I do NOT want to have to search for my applications. As it stands I've got tons of stuff installed, but I can easily find it all because I spend a little time and thought on organizing my start menu.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
  14. All Wow No Fuctionality by Iyonesco · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whoever is designing the interfaces at Microsoft seems to be living in a fantasy world where functionality is irrelevant and the only thing that matters is "wow".

    Things have been going rapidly down hill since around 2005 when they reversed the order tabs appeared in Visual Studio. The new arrangement meant that tabs appeared on the left and pushed all the other tabs along so the position of your files was constantly changing making it hard to keep track of where they are. Microsoft could simply provide the option to revert to the sensible behaviour used by every other application where new tabs appear on the right but despite the public outcry they refuse to do this. So much for their claims of "Work your way".

    Next came Internet Explorer 7 where they ditched the traditional tool bar and spread the buttons to the four corners of the earth so nobody can ever find the button they one. I don't think there's a single person who likes this arrangement but once again Microsoft refuse to include any customisation to the intereface so you can "Work your way" just as long as "your way" is the way Microsoft tells you to work.

    Then there was Windows Vista which adopted the attitude of "why do in 5 clicks what you can do in 20". Everything now takes more clicks to do so productivity is reduced. For example in XP you could change your resolution, theme, wall paper, screen saver and power saving options all from the Display Properties dialog but in Vista they were spread to multiple different places, making it harder to get things done. The functionality and consistency of interface provided by menus was abandoned and now every window has a different interface with stupid pictures and lots of "wow". The new start menu is worthless and abandons the tree structure to replace it with a list of applications you have to scroll through slowly, further reducing the productivity of Vista users.

    Then there was Office 2007 which also ditched the consistent menu style interface and switched to ribbons. It makes it impossible to find the options you're looking for and someone who had the misfortune of getting Office 2007 with a PC once said to me "I've just spent 20 minutes looking for one options in the ribbons".

    Windows 7 takes Vista and makes things even worse. The combined quick launch bar & task bar makes it hard to see if an application is running or not and impossible to see how many instances of the application are running. The fantastic Windows Classic theme has been removed completely and now you're forced to use wasteful themese where all windows have thick borders and fat title bars. Consistency has been further abandoned and things like the theme selection dialog box has been replaced by something entirely customised which users have to learn to use. Ribbons have been added to other applications like Paint and the whole thing seems to have been designed to be has hard to use as possible.

    Other application interfaces have been destroyed, for example Windows Media Player with it's 1 pixel thick jog bar, lack of menus and ridiculous button arrangement.

    The one thing Microsoft used to do right was user interfaces but they've now abandoned everything that makes a good interface. Things such as consistency, clarity and efficency have gone and instead all we have is "wow". I used to use all Microsoft applications but by destroying their interfaces across the board I've been abandoning them one at a time. After trying the Windows 7 beta I've been forced to switch to Linux.

    I must admit I'm having a hard time with Linux and there's a lot to learn for a 30 year old who has been raised on Microsoft products. However, it's definitely worth the effort since Linux really does let me "Work your way" while Microsoft just makes that claim and in reality you have to work the way Microsoft tell you.

    I always wondered what would bring an end to the Microsoft monopoly and it turns out it's Microsoft themselves. They seem intent on making their own products such a nightmare to use that people are forced to go elsewhere and I'm more than happy to oblige them.

    1. Re:All Wow No Fuctionality by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm going to hold out till we get the official release version, but I'm right there with you. I HATE wasted screen real estate and gimmicky gadgets.

      I can "de-vista" Vista in about 5 minutes ... completely turn off Aero, remove the gadget bar thing, turn on classic menus and interfaces, turn off the UAC, reduce the size of icons on the desktop, and a few other things. It turns out not to be all that bad to use then, but at this point, it is indeed looking like Windows 7 will not be giving us those options.

      I'm ready and willing to go Linux, just need that last little push. This may be it.

      --

      The Digital Sorceress
    2. Re:All Wow No Fuctionality by Onyma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree whole heartedly however I must point out you can still put Windows 7 back to the "Classic" Win98 style theme. I can actually make Win7 look very much like classic windows in all respects but one. You get a "Classic" looking version of the new format start menu which doesn't feel or function like "home".

      --
      Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
    3. Re:All Wow No Fuctionality by awrz · · Score: 2, Informative

      The fantastic Windows Classic theme has been removed completely and now you're forced to use wasteful themese where all windows have thick borders and fat title bars.

      Start -> Run
      "Services.msc"
      Themes Service: Automatic/Manual/Disabled
      Disabled.

      And:

      Windows Key + Pause/Break
      Advanced System Settings
      Performance -> Settings
      Visual Effects
      Adjust for best performance

      Done.

      --
      "--wine; a constant proof that God loves us, and loves to see us happy." --Benjamin Franklin
    4. Re:All Wow No Fuctionality by Simulant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Things such as consistency, clarity and efficency have gone and instead all we have is "wow"

      Hear,hear. It's shocking how inconsistent Vista/Win7/Office2008 is. Just try to find "Options" in IE, Explorer, Windows Mail, and Word08. It's completely random. Don't even get me started on the Control Panel.

      I wish they would focus more on usability for everyone, and not just the lowest common denominator.

      I'd like to see a consistent level of detail implemented across all of the tasks that an OS is really supposed to be good at, like moving data around.

      For example, You drag and drop a file to a different location and the file copy dialog box appears. This first dialog box can remain unchanged from XP except for the addition of a 'More' or 'Details' button. Click on that button and now you have detailed stats like, copy speed, # of files to be copied, # of files left, etc.... And then there's one more 'More' button. Click on that and now you see the entire queue which you can manipulate live (remove files, add files, etc...)

      This would give 2 or 3 classes of users a much better experience. Grandma never has to click more and things work more or less as expected. Someone who wants a little more depth, might click more once to see detailed stats, and more hard core users could click yet again to manipulate the copy queue as the copy is in progress.

      This is the kind of functionality I wanted added to Windows. Improvements to core capabilities and windows into what is really going on which can be opened as needed. MS has a tendency to hide how a computer actually works from the user. They are doing them a disservice, IMO.

      There are 1000s of cool utilities that add truly useful core functionality to Windows. If MS just bought the best and figured out a way to integrate them in a consistent manner, they'd have a much better product (and probably for a much lower cost), than Vista/Win7.

      I like a pretty UI as much as the next person but if what's under the hood is invisible and doesn't perform, then what's the point. And half-assed utilities like Notepad, Windows Mail (in win7 beta anyway), wordpad, Paint, and Hyperterminal (thank god that's gone) are just a waste of space. How hard is it to include useful text editor for goodness sake? I think MS at least owes me that.

    5. Re:All Wow No Fuctionality by jaavaaguru · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I totally agree. I'm not sure if it's still there, but they used to have a document on MSDN that discussed how to implement consistent user interfaces for Windows apps. They seem to be completely ignoring this themselves.

      I've not used Windows at home now for about 10 years. Linux UIs may not have looked pretty back then, but at least they were consistent if you stuck with apps designed for your chosen desktop environment.

      I've found OS X apps to have a consistency level somewhere in between.

  15. Aero Peek... not TOTALLY new, Vista has it too by erpbridge · · Score: 2, Funny

    Aero Peek isn't totally new. Vista has had Aero Peek all along. The difference is that in Vista's Aero Peek, you weren't able to see ALL the peek preview windows by hovering over the taskbar stack. You had to open the taskbar stack's context window that showed all the different items, then you could peek at each item.

    Oh wait, I forgot. Vista doesn't exist. Sorry about that. I must be new here.

  16. Virtual Desktops? by Hatta · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are virtual desktops going to be in Windows 7? I haven't tried the beta, and all I get with google is some stuff about RDP. Any desktop without virtual desktops is pretty much unusable for anything non-trivial. What is taking them so long? UNIX has had them since the early 90s.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  17. Re:Will be missing the Classic Start Menu myself. by Onyma · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hate to be the one to break the news but the classic simple start menu is no longer an option in Win7. Several people have come up with 'hacks' to simulate it (since the "new" start menu can still cascade things like Documents, Music, etc. into a popout menu... but you can't revert back to what we call a 'Classic' start menu, even when you use the 'classic' theme. It's gone. Feel free to visit http://www.windows7taskforce.com/ and vote it up if you'd like to see it return but sadly it doesn't seem to have much support.

    --
    Play me online? Well you know that I'll beat you. If I ever meet you I'll "/sbin/shutdown -h now" you. -Weird Al, kinda.
  18. Hey MS, attend to what's IMPORTANT! by DrVomact · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once more, MS wants to sell an operating system on the merits of its GUI. Once more, they have completely missed the point. They have failed to address the number one issue that faces all classes of PC users: the lamentable lack of security that is characteristic of all Microsoft operating systems. Please note that this is not an "MS is trash Unix is cool" rant; I think the only reason there aren't more hijacked Unix boxes is that they're a small target, and the people who own them catch on too fast.

    I'm particularly hot on this topic because I just blew my last three weekends salvaging two Windows XP boxes that were riddled by multiple trojans, virii, and just plain annoying trash. (They belong to two family members who shall remain unnamed—but I'm married to one of them, and cutting off her internet access could be deleterious to the climate around the ol' homestead.)

    Now, I understand that no one can make an OS completely secure, except perhaps by removing all networking features. However, it should not be so easy to infect a PC, and it most certainly should be possible to recover from a malware infection without going through the pain I experienced.

    Yes, I had backups—full image backups of the C drives (I use Acronis, and it's very good at what it does). The question was how far back I had to go to find a clean image. And how can I be sure it's clean, when the virus scans themselves couldn't detect all the contamination? For example, one machine was pronounced "clean"—but every time I rebooted it, several Internet Explorer processes not associated with any GUI windows would spawn and start sending packets to all sorts of interesting places. (I think I figured that one out—the malefactor was hiding in the OS System Restore file.)

    What do I think MS could do about this? Well, for one thing they could provide an actually useful system recovery capability. I do not consider the "Fix your Windows installation (y/n)? that comes with the installation disk remotely useful. A truly useful recovery capability would reside on bootable media provided along with the OS that does things like:

    • Run an integrity check on every OS process image on the hard drive to verify that it's not contaminated. (Yes, the recovery system would have to determine what the patch level of the machine is, but given that information, it should be possible to run checksum verification of every system file. The same could be done for every third-party .dll and executable (I'm sure most legitimate vendors would give MS the requisite information to keep in their database.)
    • Check all the holes, like System Restore, that malware can hide in, and kill it.
    • Let me run an antivirus scan (either MS's or an AV program of my choice, and support that AV program by helping it eradicate all traces of any found malware (like registry entries).
    • Repair the damage done by the malware by replacing damaged system processes with good ones; repair damage to the disk's boot record
    • Let me start the on-disk OS in a sandbox, and give me diagnostic tools to determine if anything's misbehaving (like making changes to the registry that aren't kosher).
    • I'm sure you can think of lots more (and probably better) items to go on this list.

    Until MS "hardens" their OS and provides tools that do what I've described, I see no point in buying any further MS operating systems. One is just as bad as the other.

    I don't think it's going to happen, though. You see, building a hardened OS would not be in Microsoft's interests. I talked to the guy who takes care of my swimming pool the other day, and mentioned my malware hassles. He furrowed his brow and said that maybe he had had some viruses too; his computer was running really slow and would reboot a lot. I asked him how he fixed the problem. "I bought a new computer" was his answer. When he said that, it hit me—just how many people decide to buy a new computer for precisely th

    --
    Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    1. Re:Hey MS, attend to what's IMPORTANT! by zuperduperman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You wrote that whole rant about a version of Windows that is now almost 2 major releases old and which has been superseded by a version whose primary focus was improving the kind of security problems you cite.

  19. Re:Yes, I'm off topic - stuff it if you don't like by lordtoran · · Score: 2, Informative

    You should be fine with any non-ancient graphics hardware. KDE 4 does hardware checks during startup and disables desktop acceleration on hardware that fails the checks. You can alternatively switch to an XRender backend in that case which will disable most of the fancier effects, though, as it only accelerates 2D.

    Full OpenGL desktop acceleration works on my eee 701 netbook (Intel 910GM) but not on my crappy old laptop (Mobility Radeon M6).

    --
    Want to hear the voice of GOD? cat /boot/vmlinuz > /dev/dsp
  20. Priorities by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Funny

    Remote cockpunch feature still unimplemented

    First things first. We need to invent a device that remotely stabs people in the face, first.