Windows 7 Build 7004 screenshot revealed

Scott Wylie, Microsoft's New Zealand Director of Development and Platform Strategy, revealed a Windows 7 build 7004 screen shot on his blog yesterday.

The build in question was compiled on the 3rd December with the tag 7004.0.081201-1410 according to Winfuture. Microsoft employees were given access to the beta build earlier this week with a welcome message that read "Thank you for joining us on our shared journey to Windows 7. The work we've done is largely based on the feedback we've gotten from you before and throughout the development process. We rely on beta testers, like you, to help refine the product before it's commercially released. If you haven't already installed the Beta, we want you to! Please refer to the Installation Instructions to get started".

Build 7000 is due to be beta 1, build 7004 is the next branch that starts for the RC/RTM phase. From the small screen shot you can tell that the folder icons on the desktop are coloured blue like Live Mesh folders and have a glass tint across them. As the screen shot is so small it's hard to tell whether any elements have truly changed visually. We expect the blue coloured folders are simply Live Mesh synced folders rather than newly coloured folders.

Microsoft is expected to announce the Windows 7 Beta 1 on 7th January 2009 at Steve Ballmer's CES keynote.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Bebo to get instant messaging from AIM

Next Story

Windows Live Hotmail gets an update

109 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I like what he said on his blog: "I like Vista. Since SP1 I have been running Vista on three machines with no problems. I like the UI"

haha... Well... I dont expect something different from the Director of Development and Platform Strategy. If not he will be fired or converted to scientologist :P

oh. I know is too early to say but to me is yet another vista skin. People WONT pay for a skin. It happend with vista and might happend with 7

Can some body please shre a sreenshot of build 6956 with vista basic or rather win7 basic theme? pecsly i wanna kno how task switching in basic mode, as i have an old laptop that doesn;t run aero Thanks in advnce...

there is actually no need to show screenshot, because basic and classic themes are exactly the same as in Vista (except taskbar in basic theme, it's blue now). More important thing is about features and task switching - most of it (if not all of them) aren't available without aero. This means no previews, no aero-peek, aero-shake, no desktop preview when you hover cursor over "show desktop" button, and also performance on basic and classic themes is lower compared to aero enabled interface.

х.iso said,
there is actually no need to show screenshot, because basic and classic themes are exactly the same as in Vista (except taskbar in basic theme, it's blue now). More important thing is about features and task switching - most of it (if not all of them) aren't available without aero. This means no previews, no aero-peek, aero-shake, no desktop preview when you hover cursor over "show desktop" button, and also performance on basic and classic themes is lower compared to aero enabled interface.

actually i was looking for screen shot that shows how am i gonna task switch among windows, i guess it will be like old windows vista way, without taskbar grouping.... like i do now... thanks for help anyways...

usman767 said,
actually i was looking for screen shot that shows how am i gonna task switch among windows, i guess it will be like old windows vista way, without taskbar grouping.... like i do now... thanks for help anyways...

task grouping and rearranging will work on basic or classic theme.

the taskbar icons are looking like they are morphing from vista->Kde->mac.
i think the designers ultimate aim here is to look like mac. before you start, i only use windwos. no fanboy of any OS.
I have used many distro's of linux. used mac's but windows i know, and prefer.
but like i said, i think the developers are starting to go to mac's dock

end users shouldn't really care about who steals from who. in the end we just need better interface, that's all.

nunjabusiness said,
You can't.

can someone tell for sure, is it really so and why? because when you start installing new build over old (6956 on top of 6810) there is an option to upgrade and it actually works. however it didn't work for me and failed at the very end of installation (also when I tried to upgrade from Vista), but I tought it's because of some settings or software. also, shouldn't the upgrade feature be a part of testing?

MuCtEr said,
I've updated the above link with a couple shots of how the grouping works with several apps open.


Thank you. That was awesome. Far better than the **** poor resolution single screenie that started this thread.

Hey guys. Since a lot of people on here seem concerned about the configurations available on Windows 7's Taskbar. I've gone ahead and taken some screenshots of the different configurations available. Let me know what you think, and if you'd like a shot of any other configuration, I'll be happy to post it.

http://w7.netraworks.com/

Nice job, this should help people out.

BTW, is there the option to still have text labels and always combine/group them? Just wondering if that even works out at all.

No there isn't, but it seems that its fairly intelligent about how it works. And when it groups the windows together, it puts connected borders around the grouped icons and a margin between the groups. I'll add a couple more shots to illustrate this.

You don't have the Vista-style "never combine, small icons" on there. I've already seen it, but many haven't; you may want to add that one.

Added the Vista-style never combine. Also added a shot of moving the groups around. As well as a shot with the vista style icons and large toolbar icons, looks pretty sweet.

How about small icons, always combine, no text labels, with taskbar on left side? Right now all you have is big icons on the left side.

I agree with the above two posts. Come on now... Win7 is closer to Vista than XP. From what we can see, it's a whole lot better too.

Actually, wait, I know it's better. I use it.

BanneD said,
what about Windows 7 having ribbon interface? heard that this should be the case or am i wrong?

no , not the windows

just some of the application notepad , paint etc

by the way, this means... that explorer is gonna have the same old look? i believe making it in ribbon style would work out well..

BanneD said,
by the way, this means... that explorer is gonna have the same old look? i believe making it in ribbon style would work out well..

Or at least having that as an optional feature would be awesome.

I'm really disappointed that Microsoft STILL hasn't taken desktop icons and sorted them into something more organized, compact, and attractive that still sits on the desktop. Your average home user has way too many desktop icons (most of which are junk) and even with the Desktop Cleanup Wizard, their desktop is still an unorganized mess. I use my desktop as a temporary "junk drawer" that has whatever files I've created or saved that day, and it can get rather messy in a matter of minutes. Especially considering that more and more people have wide-screen displays now, why not create another "sidebar" that's specifically for holding desktop files and stick it to the left side of the screen? It works and looks so much better, (I'm using a 3rd party program to do it right now with Vista and I love it.) and if you have a touchscreen PC and having your icons listed in a sidebar would be too small, you can always switch back to the big ugly way like it is in this screenshot:)

archer75 said,
You can organize your desktop however you wish.

Well my point was that such a feature would better organize and display the desktop icons, and therefore increase productivity for many users because they could find the file they're looking for more quickly. (in addition to the fact that, IMO, a desktop without a bunch of icons on it looks cleaner and nicer)

Unless you're saying that Win7 has the feature I'm talking about? If so, then great!

To the OS, they are all shortcuts. How would you organize them? You could tag them on a user basis into categories like "Productivity Software, Security Software, AOL Malware (lol)" and then the computer manually sorts them, but thats where I'd say people are missing the whole idea behind the programs menu. Desktop for the few things you need immediate access to. Clean and simple.

cybertimber2008 said,
To the OS, they are all shortcuts. How would you organize them? You could tag them on a user basis into categories like "Productivity Software, Security Software, AOL Malware (lol)" and then the computer manually sorts them, but thats where I'd say people are missing the whole idea behind the programs menu. Desktop for the few things you need immediate access to. Clean and simple.

I was thinking of something really simple, like this: along with the option to make the icons larger if desired, but basically the idea being to list and compact the desktop files. You wouldn't necessarily even need a sidebar to put them in, but just have a "list view" for the desktop.

Liana said,
Well my point was that such a feature would better organize and display the desktop icons, and therefore increase productivity for many users because they could find the file they're looking for more quickly. (in addition to the fact that, IMO, a desktop without a bunch of icons on it looks cleaner and nicer)

Unless you're saying that Win7 has the feature I'm talking about? If so, then great!

What i'm saying is what works for you may not work for others. People can customize and organize themselves however they wish. Whatever makes your more productive. I'd rather not have this decided for me.

Personally I remove all clutter from my desktop and have everything loaded up in folders and shortcuts to those folders setup on the taskbar. I can get to what I want quickly and easily and it all stays organized.

I would like a section of my desktop, maybe a fifth of screen, to be showing a different folder of my choosing. (I would be choosing the Public Desktop folder.)
I have the "Public" folder shared across my computers with LiveSync, and I would like 'Public Desktop' files to be visible on the desktop, in a controlled area (in icon OR list view) ...
There's another thing, why can't I set part of my desktop to icons, and another part to list, and another part to super big icons!... could be an option.
Well that was my first post on Neowin. I'll be around...

actually we have some personal folders for documents, pictures, music, videos, other stuff like contacts and finally downloads (since Vista), where all the "trash" should going on, and you have to manually change default location back to desktop to fill it up with bunch of trash and then blame MS that they didn't implement ways to organize your stuff (or at least obvious ways). So in first place people should deal with trash in their heads, lol.
However, there is also more ways to find something in Vista (via search feature, hit Start and type; sorting files by date modified) and even more in 7. Now you can create library and virtually fuse several folders to it (so you don't have to go in multiple locations for same typical stuff) and choose one folder as default save location. Now you also have jumplists for applications, where you can see recent/frequent stuff and pin something if you want right in place or from outside via drag'n'drop.

х.iso said,
actually we have some personal folders for documents, pictures, music, videos, other stuff like contacts and finally downloads (since Vista), where all the "trash" should going on, and you have to manually change default location back to desktop to fill it up with bunch of trash and then blame MS that they didn't implement ways to organize your stuff (or at least obvious ways). So in first place people should deal with trash in their heads, lol.
However, there is also more ways to find something in Vista (via search feature, hit Start and type; sorting files by date modified) and even more in 7. Now you can create library and virtually fuse several folders to it (so you don't have to go in multiple locations for same typical stuff) and choose one folder as default save location. Now you also have jumplists for applications, where you can see recent/frequent stuff and pin something if you want right in place or from outside via drag'n'drop.

I don't know if you're trying to be condescending, but all I was saying is that it would be nice to have more options to organize files on the desktop; it's just my opinion and you're certainly welcome to disagree, but I hope that you aren't being rude about it. No one is blaming Microsoft for desktop clutter; most programs that someone installs like to put a shortcut on the desktop. I work on peoples' PCs for a living and most people have 25+ files/shortcuts on the desktop. Or some people just have a lot of files that they want quick access to, and the desktop is a fast way to work with those files. It would be great to have more organization options so that average users don't have to "hunt" for the shortcut they are looking for on the desktop, and experienced users have more options and versatility to customize the desktop how they like and what works best for them.:)

Liana said,
I was thinking of something really simple, like this: along with the option to make the icons larger if desired, but basically the idea being to list and compact the desktop files. You wouldn't necessarily even need a sidebar to put them in, but just have a "list view" for the desktop.

That would actually be a cool feature to add. Optionally display icons on desktop in a list.

Liana said,


I don't know if you're trying to be condescending, but all I was saying is that it would be nice to have more options to organize files on the desktop; it's just my opinion and you're certainly welcome to disagree, but I hope that you aren't being rude about it. No one is blaming Microsoft for desktop clutter; most programs that someone installs like to put a shortcut on the desktop. I work on peoples' PCs for a living and most people have 25+ files/shortcuts on the desktop. Or some people just have a lot of files that they want quick access to, and the desktop is a fast way to work with those files. It would be great to have more organization options so that average users don't have to "hunt" for the shortcut they are looking for on the desktop, and experienced users have more options and versatility to customize the desktop how they like and what works best for them.:)

no I'm not rude about it, sorry if my post looks offensive. I just think that average user will not use new improvements and ways to organise desktop, because they don't do so already. list view is a good idea, but I doubt people will often use it, because average user dont' even change default icons and size on the desktop.
also we must keep in mind, more ways you have to organise your stuff - more complex it become.

Sorting desktop items?

Ok, this is where someone would normally be telling you to clean your room and tidy up after yourself. :)

The thing you complain about is something you can do something about in Windows and is one of the 'cool' things about Windows, as you can make it do whatever you want and however you want.

Want something that cleans up the pictures and links on your desktop? Write a script that moves them to the proper folders (create folders on desktop or use Favorites and Pictures, you choice.)

Then run the script manually or even just schedule it to run once every 5,10,30 minutes.

If you want 'easier' way to get to stuff on your desktop, then add the 'Desktop' Toolbar to the TaskBar. Slide it all the way so the only thing you can see is the 'chevron', and then when you want a fly out menu of the desktop folders and items to get to stuff fast, click the 'chevron' on the desktop toolbar.

There are literally unlimited ways of accessing and also managing things on your desktop or anywhere else.

(Other examples, make the Desktop a toolbar on the side of the screen and then hide the icons on the desktop, then they are all still accessible and displayed on the toolbar on the side, but not cluttering up the background.) - Like I say, there are unlimited ways to see and use documents and folder on your computer.

People forget that Windows is extermely customizeable and even puts KDE or GNOME on a *nix to shame most of the time. As with Windows you have really simple drag and drop customizations to advanced scripting tools that can interact with all aspect of the Graphical Interface and the OS and NT kernel level objects if you want to get uber geek. (*nixes don't have kernel level objects as they use a basic generic construct instead of specific object concepts like NT does.)

People that are script 'kiddies' or even the average home or office worker have tons of ways of managing their computer from basic user move stuff around to work like they like to massive scripts that can even do Voice automation and let you scream at the computer and it will do what you ask and even 'yell' back at you if you want it to do so. (And this is all 'built in/out of the box' OS level features if people look for them.)

I would love it if someone would take a screenshot of the desktop with a nice looking wallpaper, normal sized icons, and a more realistic taskbar set up (some people will shun quicklaunch and stick to using the start menu entirely). No gadgets on the desktop.

Just to see how it looks, you know? Cuz that, I think, is how many people on NeoWin would actually make their Win7 look. It feels like all these screenshots we've seen are trying to show off as many features as possible at once, and it's scaring some people, hah.

P.S. Am I the only person who tried the whole address-bar-on-the-taskbar thing aaaages ago in an older version of Windows, realized that pressing Win+R is 500x simpler to use since you're going to start typing anyway, and abandoned the concept entirely?

Joshie said,
I would love it if someone would take a screenshot of the desktop with a nice looking wallpaper, normal sized icons, and a more realistic taskbar set up (some people will shun quicklaunch and stick to using the start menu entirely). No gadgets on the desktop.

Just to see how it looks, you know? Cuz that, I think, is how many people on NeoWin would actually make their Win7 look. It feels like all these screenshots we've seen are trying to show off as many features as possible at once, and it's scaring some people, hah.

P.S. Am I the only person who tried the whole address-bar-on-the-taskbar thing aaaages ago in an older version of Windows, realized that pressing Win+R is 500x simpler to use since you're going to start typing anyway, and abandoned the concept entirely?

I took a few screenshots of 6956 today, but I couldn't find where to change the start menu & taskbar to the classic or Vista appearance.
http://www.clankeen.com/kn/solice/Win7/

Also, I still use the address bar in the taskbar area. Win+R doesn't accept CTRL+ENTER to append www. & .com, but the address bar in the taskbar still does. So I keep a small one down there for quick access.

Personally, I have always changed my Windows appearance to the classic menu look. I stopped that with Vista because this new look worked for me and wasn't something I detested at first sight. WinXP, I never was a fan of Luna or what ever it was called.

See that looks more reasonable to me, though I'd definitely go for a glassy taskbar to minimize the shock factor against the wallpaper. And have fun with all that snow.

zeke009 said,

I took a few screenshots of 6956 today, but I couldn't find where to change the start menu & taskbar to the classic or Vista appearance.
http://www.clankeen.com/kn/solice/Win7/

Also, I still use the address bar in the taskbar area. Win+R doesn't accept CTRL+ENTER to append www. & .com, but the address bar in the taskbar still does. So I keep a small one down there for quick access.

Personally, I have always changed my Windows appearance to the classic menu look. I stopped that with Vista because this new look worked for me and wasn't something I detested at first sight. WinXP, I never was a fan of Luna or what ever it was called.


Just go into the Properties of the Taskbar and choose use small icons, it will go back to the same size it was in Vista. Set Grouping to Never Group and the open Windows will display the same way they did in Vista as well. If you choose to display the Quicklaunch toolbar and then remove any pinned icons, it will look exactly like Vista.

Will it also show the name of the opened items -- just like in Vista, or will it still be those stupid wanna-be-OS-X-dock icons?

here link for my desktop screenshots album:
http://cid-1f5243a69d7a7b9e.skydrive.live....se.aspx/desktop
you can download full sized pictures to see details or start slideshow to see almost same transition effect that windows 7 have when changing desktop backgrounds every "n" seconds or hours.

as you can see, with bigger grouped icons it finally makes sense to use task bar on the side of the screen, especially if you have wide screen monitor. things that you access most time are on fingertips (lol, especially for touchscreen users), this includes not only the applications you run, but also locations and documents, because now we have jumplists where you can see most frequent things you use and pin them emove if you want, or pin something from outside by drag'n'drop. so you just use one slide move on icon (to open jumplist) and click item that you needed, it's super handy.
and at last here screenshot of the new scrollbar when you got taskbar overfilled and have multiple rows:
http://cid-1f5243a69d7a7b9e.skydrive.live....tails/w7sc4.PNG

Justin, Justin...

The taskbar is not that much different, and can be configured to look and act like it does in XP/Vista, etc...

You also concern me that you turn off anything 'pretty' or useful, and expect that other people here will also be doing that. Why?

This reminds me of an old friend that turns off all the UI features of XP or Vista and then goes back to doing things they learned how to do in the Win95 or earlier era.

Sometimes there are 'reasons' and 'new' ways to interact with the OS and to move forward and help yourself you sometimes have to take 5min and embrace them and use them to understand that they do save time and are easier to get things done.

Using XP/Vista/Win7 like Windows 3.x or DOS is not going to be very productive.

There are clues to spot people that can't let go of the past computing 'concepts'.

1) They always use the 'Explorer' view with a Folder Tree. (If you take a few minutes, you can get around faster and easier without the Folder Tree view from the Win 3.1 days.)

2) They always start Winword to write a letter instead of using a template and dragging it to their desktop or folder or using the right-click-new option to create a new blank Word Document. (Dialog Boxes are a dated concept and using a computer you shouldn't see them unless you are placing something from inside the application.)

3) They won't let go of the directory structure and stop worrying about where stuff is kept in relation to C:

4) They often turn off features that actually make the computer faster, but because these features are 'pretty' they assume it slows down the computer. For Example: People that turn off Aero thinking that 'basic' if faster is losing out not only on features, but PERFORMANCE as well, since the DWM of Aero not only does the basic composer things like stopping constant 'redrawing' of the applications, but it also shoves a lot of things through the 3D GPU that in the end, INCREASES PERFORMANCE. (Things like Font Rendering, some GDI/GDI+ routines, Bitmap compression, etc.)


I find it amazing that over 10 years after Windows95 was released, many of the features of the OS UI are still not used by a majority of 'power geek' users, and grandma that doesn't know about computer prior to Win95 are using folders and templates and other document centric features and are more organized and get things done faster than a hard core nerd that still thinks in Win3.x or DOS terms.


I need to go back into teaching, and just spend time getting people to use the features of a modern OS and stop doing an internal translation of old school geek thought and trying to make it work on an OS that has eliminated the need for many of the old school geek concepts.

I swear that sometimes it is just painful to watch, when you see a good IT person 'effectively' running around the car looking for the crank start or even looking for the place an ignition key goes, when the car has a starter and the smart key in your pocket authorizes the button on the dash to start the car. (And then even more scary when the smart IT people that can't find the crank, weld one on to the car and continue to use it.) - Truly that is how bad it is with 90% of the best and brightest in the power user world, and also why a lot of 'geeks' like Linux, as it still has a Crank Start if you want to use it.




jwelsh405 said,
the taskbar kinda of reminds me of gnome panel

it's much closer to the kde panel, doesn't really look anything like gnome...

It looks pretty cool, although I don't like the Folder Icons they look like tune up utilities.. but all in all it looks descent ; They did a great job

Now which one of those icons down there on the TaskBar is running and which one is just to launch an application? I have no idea can't tell the difference and that should be instant... I shouldn't even have to think about it.


Well at the current time I'll be waiting for the Windows after Seven or the Google OS.

It's really obvious, the one's with the friggin boxes around them... I was able to tell instantly the first time I used the new taskbar. You must be blind if you can't tell.

You can also easily change it back to the old text style like on vista in the options. That screenshot is just really small low/quality, it is quite easy to tell running applications in use, it's not any less obvious than the osx dock which has the little tiny indicator on the bottom.

A Google OS? do you think that it will support atleast major applications that the consumer nor the enterprise use?

Wind 7 will be having lot of enhancements for sure...

Brandon, can u help to pass the message to the UI team, to replace the shortcut icon to something different or glassy? current icon (small shortcut arrow doesnt fit the windows 7 UI)

What does it matter? If you want to start an app move to the icon. If the app is running restore it, if not, launch it.

It's the same way I use rocket dock. I don't have any indication for running windows because it's completely irrelevant. If I want to interact with Firefox I'll click it's icon. Why should I care if that action un-minimizes it or starts it from scratch? The end result is the same; I bring up Firefox.

With that said, I think you should try the OS. It is extremely apparent which apps are running and which aren't. I can only attribute your difficulty to the resized screenshot.

You can customize it. I don't know why that build has fricking huge icons but you and make them smaller. That build is also showing a sidebar which isn't even in windows 7. Unless they are simply putting their gadgets there.

There is no sidebar, well, it's not running, they just automatically align to the right side of the screen till you decide to move them somewhere else.

Also I think the screenshot might be at a lower rest making the taskbar icons look bigger etc.

basically keeps folders etc online, so you can access them from anywhere. You dont even need mesh installed to get access to it.

barteh said,
basically keeps folders etc online, so you can access them from anywhere. You dont even need mesh installed to get access to it.

Isnt that Skydrive ?

From a GUI point of view Windows 7 looks just as busy as Windows Vista does, in my opinion anyway. There is just way too much going on there. The bright colors and excessive use of gloss and translucency isn't really helping.

This is an argument I have seen people making since Windows95, as it was too 'busy' 'shiny' etc...

Things change and 'pretty' actually does transfer over to productivity because of the psychological aspects.

Additionally, if bright or shiny things distract a person, doesn't that say more about the person than they realize? Bright and shiny things also distract animals and simple minded people, get it?

**Throws shiny nickel on forum so .Reo and others will forget what they are doing and just sit and go, "Oh, so pretty"**

In Vista, I always found (find - still use it at work) myself enlarging dialogs, changing views, and digging into hidden-by-default menus to get the options and information I wanted. The defaults for everything weren't thought through.

The PDC Windows 7 build is far better in this regard, and despite the fact that there are fewer buttons shown, the information I want is displayed far more consistently without further customization. Useless interface objects are replaced with useful ones, and I keep finding little features that are make so much sense that I can't help but wonder how they weren't implemented years ago (default printer dynamically changing when the machine is moved to a different network? sweet!). Despite the busy looking screenshots, the Windows 7 interface definately has less cruft, has so far proven to be more predictable, and feels far less busy in actual use. You can make some pretty disgustingly busy OS X screenshots too, but it's hard to deny that Apple has built a spartan interface once you start poking around.

As for the aesthetics in general, glass has had small adjustments that result in a major improvement. Foreground windows are much more opaque, blend well with the taskbar, and don't turn a horrible glossy and glowy black when maximized. The background window borders are now very distinguished from the foreground and get a rather beautiful translucent glow that I know Vista was never capable of doing. The teal and green is gone, and in all but the most radically coloured settings, Aero actually feels quite calming now. It looks like the Vista icon set will remain, but that was always one of its strong points. As long as Microsoft can keep the candy-coated gloss effect to a minimum (and it seems like pastel colours with subtle gradients and glows are the going trend), I'll be happy.

only from the looks, i dont quite like it. =) but thats just the looks.
ill be happy to test it myself when its time though. =) really excited this time!

AFAIK, it's not even possible to upgrade from beta to beta. You gotta format and install again or upgrade from XP or Vista as that's what they are testing.

SHoTTa35 said,
AFAIK, it's not even possible to upgrade from beta to beta. You gotta format and install again or upgrade from XP or Vista as that's what they are testing.

This is correct. The reason it doesn't work is because it's like upgrading from vista to vista. Doesn't compute.

Digix said,
This is correct. The reason it doesn't work is because it's like upgrading from vista to vista. Doesn't compute.

But wait. You can upgrade from Vista to Vista as long as the version number for the upgrade isn't lower than the currently installed version... right? Unless MS changed it, you can.

Theoretically, it should work, but in practice that doesn't seem to be the case. (I tried it. Wasted a day just trying to get it to install... finally just decided to do a clean install.)

Not all builds will be in order.. Some builds are built for other purposes as its still internal builds.. Vista was the same way.

i just think that is so ugly....they didnt even change the start button from vista....it looks bad

If they went for a more aesthetic look they could really gain more market over apple.

I agree, I think it looks horrible. I hate the way Windows UI design is going towards the dumbed down, enlarged, shiny and in your face look. I'm more a fan of the minimal & understated look that doesn't distract attention from whatever I'm trying to do.

I guess so long as there's the options to change it, I'll be happy.

hadouken said,
I agree, I think it looks horrible. I hate the way Windows UI design is going towards the dumbed down, enlarged, shiny and in your face look. I'm more a fan of the minimal & understated look that doesn't distract attention from whatever I'm trying to do.

I guess so long as there's the options to change it, I'll be happy.

Atleast this OS will be happy for touchscreen and desktop in one.

hadouken said,
I agree, I think it looks horrible. I hate the way Windows UI design is going towards the dumbed down, enlarged, shiny and in your face look. I'm more a fan of the minimal & understated look that doesn't distract attention from whatever I'm trying to do.

I guess so long as there's the options to change it, I'll be happy.


I'm confused, you want Windows to be MORE understated? I don't think you know what that words means. What do you think the point of the "glass" is?

One small problem with the taskbar is when it gets filled up (too many windows open even after grouping), there is not enough free space to comfortably right click on the taskbar and bring up Taskbar Properties (there a triangular arrow in 7 where right clicking brings up notification area customization). XP leaves a little space between the farthest taskbar button and the first notification icon from the left. The GUI designers should fix such issues right now, not at RC stage. Also, the right-click functions on the taskbar "shortcuts" seem to be lost.

Brandon Live said,
I'm confused, you want Windows to be MORE understated? I don't think you know what that words means. What do you think the point of the "glass" is?

Yes, I know what understated means but I think we have different opinions on what understated looks like.

Understated for me is toned down and restrained. Huge icons on the desktop with bright flashy colours isn't, big gadgets on the side of the screen isn't, neither are the bigger icons at the bottom taking up screen space and jumping out at me.

Glass may be your idea of an understatement but to me it means seeing windows behind the one I'm trying to concentrate on and being distracted when theres activity in them.

It was just my opinion, qualified by the "I think" which I used at the start of my post. I hope that clears up your confusion.

xpclient said,
One small problem with the taskbar is when it gets filled up (too many windows open even after grouping), there is not enough free space to comfortably right click on the taskbar and bring up Taskbar Properties (there a triangular arrow in 7 where right clicking brings up notification area customization). XP leaves a little space between the farthest taskbar button and the first notification icon from the left. The GUI designers should fix such issues right now, not at RC stage. Also, the right-click functions on the taskbar "shortcuts" seem to be lost.


You can Right-click on anything that isn't a button and activate the task manager, including the clock in the system tray (not shown here), toolbar text labels (where it says "Address," for example), and even the blank regions around the round start button.

Besides, most of us activate the task manager with [ctrl]+[alt]+[del].

I guess people still forget the fact that you DON'T HAVE TO USE LARGE ICONS. You can set them to have small, with or without text, and so on. You also don't have to pin stuff to it, it can be empty and only show what's running at the time if you want.

And again, as has been said in the forum, it's another 10pix in height over the default in Vista if you use large icons. On a bigger screen with a higher res it looks even better.

Seriously though, it's not like they bounce or jump or even blink (at least I don't think they blink?) So aside from being a tad bit bigger, do they really grab your attention?

MS is doing more to stop it from getting in your face and messing with your work, like hiding systray icons and notifications until you decide to view them.

If all you really hate is Icon size and that somehow manage to draw your attention from your work, maybe the problem is on the users end?

what said,
The UI for Vista wasn't finalised until RC2 iirc. Don't cast your judgement on the style just yet.

Aero was present in Beta 1 of Vista and it didn't change much after that. They added colorization in one of the interim builds but that's really all that changed.

The UI was done well before RC2 was made public.

-Bryce- said,
i just think that is so ugly....they didnt even change the start button from vista....it looks bad

If they went for a more aesthetic look they could really gain more market over apple.


Ok, this is really being picky, you want a new start button or you don't like it? Strange, but the start button is different, animates differently, etc.
(The subtle animations in the UI and taskbar make a big difference and aren't shoved in your face.)

As for the Apple comment... Do people really look at Leopard and think, wow that is so much more pretty than Vista? Really? Gray 2D effects is something programs like Word was doing with Windows 3.0, I don't see how the OS X is prettier, truely..

As for UI design, Apple needs to take a few lessons from Microsoft with regard to document centric ideas and removing dated UI concepts and moving in a new direction.

For example: Menus - MS has started replacing the need for menus with Vista and Office 2007, and yet menu are a main 'features/staple' of OS X. However if you go back in UI design history, Menus were design as a 'easy way around' the problem with GUIs as applications had more functions and features than could be displayed on the screen. So to use a 'quick' fix, Apple and MS and other early GUIs all used Menus.

So what are Menus? Menus are nothing but a list of 'words' the user has to memorize and are very much the opposite of what a Graphical User Interface should be. As UI design has gotten better with toolbars and other offsetting features of the 'menu', the need for menus is finally being replaced, well by everyone but Apple.

Why would Apple, a company that prides itself on their 'awesome' GUI, still rely on lists of words(menus) for applications in the year 2007/2008?

Mephistopheles said,
Have a close look at the folder icons. They look an awful lot like Live Mesh folders, don't they?

i think its good to see that win7 and windows live will be really interelated