Recommended Posts

I have to completely disagree with the OP on this one. The taskbar finally has a look that matches the glass windows. After using 7, I can say that the taskbar looks out of place with the glass windows. There are countless subtle tweaks to Aero that make 7 look much more complete. Even the Control Panel looks better.

I respect your opinion, however, I think Windows 7 is a lot better visually than Vista in every way. Its more refined, more snapier, more transparent, more customisable (themes), easier to use (taskbar, aero peek, live previews, jumplists etc) and more consistant. I use Windows 7 as my main OS and when I go back to Vista it seems old now, the same feeling I got when using Vista and then using XP (which, visually, is dreadful!!!). I just love everything about Windows 7, and thats my opinion.

I have to completely disagree with the OP on this one. The taskbar finally has a look that matches the glass windows. After using 7, I can say that the taskbar looks out of place with the glass windows. There are countless subtle tweaks to Aero that make 7 look much more complete. Even the Control Panel looks better.

If I remember correctly... the taskbar was translucent when no windows were maximized, but as soon as you would maximized a window the taskbar, sidebar and title bar would all change to a non translucent black...to mimic a widescreen border so your focus would be on the window content instead. Correct me if I?m wrong. But I thought that was genius and worked very well.

perfomance > looks

Why not have both? I think MS can do it!!!!!! - Besides It's going to cost you $200+ - you deserve both!

hahaha, I hated Vista, now I hate 7 (guess thats me only and i don't blame you all). Don't get me wrong but when you tweak and disable unnecessary services from XP, you can end up with very very few services (which is cool for a gamer like me). Check out my processes....

after tweaking Vista, i could NOT disable as many services as i did with XP. To get the same job done quickly as xp, Vista almost doubled my time, 7 has added more. When it comes to that taskbar of 7 and themes, its cool but i'm afraid my girlfriend won't come everyday to see these "fancy dresses" either. Its great if MS allows removing/reinstalling unnecessary files/services (like W98 Setup remember?). There are so many GBs, Even Apple realized something and Snow Leo is near 5 GB! (And they are known to be cool kewl dudes in OSX world). Installation time can go down further if we're allowed to remove things (like XPLite)

post-239493-1241112017_thumb.png

Edited by JunkMail
Vista.. uses.. XP.. as its core.

Actually, it's server 2003 as the core, not XP, if memory serves.

One thing I'm not happy about is the return of "My [insert thing here]" that's really not necessary, don't see what was wrong with Just "Document" "Picture", etc. It's really the same thing anyway, Oh well though.

I think Windows 7 looks better than vista. Glass looks better, I like the way the taskbar looks, I just see it as an improvement. It's nice to see a better bootup screen than what Vista had (heh, if any). The new flashing colour is just a really snappy touch.

Performance will always seem to be the focus over appearance, but appearance will have a factor of keeping people on the OS. I remember when I first saw XP, I thought it was ugly as hell, but of course who'd expect that it would be 5, 6 years until we'd see the next OS when XP came out, yet it came out pretty popular despite the tinkertoy look. Vista, on the other hand, came out as much better improvement, graphic wise (and I think performance wise, but yeah yeah not everyone agree with this).

The only place that I've seen them is if you go there by Windows Explorer. User > (Your login name) > X

X, marks the spot on where you'll see the My 'X' Stuff. It's no big deal but just slightly irksome, and that's only because they used to appear as shortcut in vista (if you allow hidden and system files to appear), which you cannot access, of course.

excuse me, but what the fuzzle are you talkin bout?

take a pic of vista, take a pic of Win 7. Do you see the difference? i do, see that toolbar? its NEW. take a pic of XP and vista, you see a bigger difference? well except the extremely horrible blue toolbar, not really, You actually have to use these things for like 2 or more minutes to notice those things... i guess if you managed to post here, and sign up, you probably would be able to figure it out on your own

P.S, no need to be RUDE to people who don't agree with your opinion.

themes are added in THE END, same as with vista, god, is this gonna happen EVERY release?

I respect your opinion, however, I think Windows 7 is a lot better visually than Vista in every way. Its more refined, more snapier, more transparent, more customisable (themes), easier to use (taskbar, aero peek, live previews, jumplists etc) and more consistant. I use Windows 7 as my main OS and when I go back to Vista it seems old now, the same feeling I got when using Vista and then using XP (which, visually, is dreadful!!!). I just love everything about Windows 7, and thats my opinion.

Uhm...your right vista is old, no doubt it would feel that way. But seriously, it's Vista 1.5 at most...but there are some things that looked better in vista...so I figure, why not keep the things that were good in vista if the overall look of the OS is Vista? isn't all that different anyways.

If you have decent hardware, disabling services makes no significant difference to performance
I've decent hardware already (vista capable before i bought it), its just my old habit to tweak system, isn't that yours too? I've another old system with P4 and Geforce 6800 and if I install XP, I can watch 1080p movies without any problem but thats not going to happen with Vista or 7 :D (even if i put decent hardware with this 6800 card)

One thing I agree, 7 is anytime better then Vista (just won't be better then my XP) :p

Uhm...your right vista is old, no doubt it would feel that way. But seriously, it's Vista 1.5 at most...but there are some things that looked better in vista...so I figure, why not keep the things that were good in vista if the overall look of the OS is Vista? isn't all that different anyways.

Who make you the decider of what looks good or not? I think Win7 looks better than Vista.

oops I meant "Vista looks better THAN Win7"

-Fade in into the login screen - not in win7 it just abruptly pop-ups after boot screen ? not very elegant.

Fading isn't always better. When you right click on your desktop would you want your menu to fade in or just appear. When ever I go to fix someones computer that has windows Vista I always turn off the animation and the fade effects of aero and ask the customer what they think. They are always amazed because their computer seems a lot faster. Thats because before when the window would kill a few milliseconds fading in and now it just appears.

Windows 7 is what happens when MS listens to its customers and responds to their feedback - the UI is tweaked and features that have been requested are implemented. I bet 'Maximised Transparency' was a big request. The taskbar, which at first looks confusing, it a lot more easier to use than previous versions of Windows and its the first 'major' overhaul of it since Windows 95! People who upgrade from XP to 7 are going to see the most change, those who are on Vista will see the subtle changes that make Windows 7 more refined and more of a pleasure to use.

Fading isn't always better. When you right click on your desktop would you want your menu to fade in or just appear. When ever I go to fix someones computer that has windows Vista I always turn off the animation and the fade effects of aero and ask the customer what they think. They are always amazed because their computer seems a lot faster. Thats because before when the window would kill a few milliseconds fading in and now it just appears.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here - I'm referring to the fade effect while your comp boots.

Windows 7 is what happens when MS listens to its customers and responds to their feedback - the UI is tweaked and features that have been requested are implemented. I bet 'Maximised Transparency' was a big request. The taskbar, which at first looks confusing, it a lot more easier to use than previous versions of Windows and its the first 'major' overhaul of it since Windows 95! People who upgrade from XP to 7 are going to see the most change, those who are on Vista will see the subtle changes that make Windows 7 more refined and more of a pleasure to use.

Well said, but the people (avarage joe) who are on XP and stayed away from Vista, looking at Win7 - why would they switch? - They will think Vista 1.5 at most and stay with their trusted and familliar XP... now if MS would offer something that did not remind average joe's of vista, like new UI, theme or whatever, than I believe people will jump ship.

I don't think we are talking about the same thing here - I'm referring to the fade effect while you comp boots.

You're talking about to the login screen, right? I think from login screen to desktop it fades. Not sure about boot screen to login screen though, I believe you're right.

The fade is nice, but in all honesty, I plan on using my computer, not watching it boot so it's not really much of an issue for me.

Still being honest here, as much as I like 7, I still like the look of Vista's taskbar. I was messing with 7 the other night, and I'm not sure whether I simply didn't try hard enough or what, but it doesn't seem to be possible to get that same dark shade as Vista's. Looks more grayish or something if I remember correctly. Will have to go home and fool with it again to be sure, but if I had any complaint, it'd be that.

The other thing that doesn't feel right to me is the start button. I just... don't like it. Vista's start button fit in perfectly, but with 7, it just feels like they threw it there and didn't bother looking at it again. I dunno though...

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Spotify really have turned in to a butthole of a company. Assuming this isn't a bug then this is a low act for Premium users. Honestly, YT Premium which includes YT Music is a genuine alternative. In any event, the internet enshitification continues unabated...next up, the banning of VPN's.
    • This is why science is the only path to truth. It isn't rigid in its beliefs, rather it changes its views based on scientific discoveries.
    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      92
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      76
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!