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

    • You're absolutely right! No reason in hell these should be on the road!
    • They aren't going to want to. Most would just go with the 17 Pro and save money. Why would they want to spend $300 for basically the same thing? It's not worth it if there are hardly any changes from year to year.
    • 24H2 rolled out to the Release Preview Channel in early June 2024, so this coming a bit later in the Experimental Channel (formerly Dev) doesn't really say much more than earlier H2 releases that came out in October. I am not sure what the thinking is here by putting it in Experimental, one would think that the 26H2 stamp means features are locked down and it's now bug tested until October? I don't even pretend to understand Microsoft's strategy for Windows Insider Program though
    • Nothing Ear (a) and CMF Buds Pro 2 with active noise cancellation drop to lowest price ever by Fiza Ali With Prime Day 2026 scheduled to run from Tuesday 23 to Friday 26 June, Amazon has already begun rolling out early access offers ahead of the main event. Particularly, Nothing Ear (a) and CMF Buds Pro 2 wireless earbuds have dropped to their lowest price ever with limited Prime deal offering 33% and 24% discounts, respectively. Nothing Ear (a) are equipped with 11mm dynamic drivers featuring a PM1 + TPU diaphragm. For noise control, the earbuds offer active noise cancellation (ANC) of up to 45dB across frequencies reaching 5,000Hz. The smart ANC algorithm adapts to surrounding noise levels, while a Transparency Mode allows users to remain aware of their environment when needed. Connectivity is handled via Bluetooth 5.3, with support for AAC, SBC, and LDAC audio codecs. Additional features include IP54-rated earbuds for dust and splash resistance, paired with an IPX2-rated charging case. Furthermore, users also benefit from pinch controls, in-ear detection, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, dual-device connectivity, and a low-latency mode designed for gaming and video playback. The Nothing X app unlocks a range of customisation options, including a personalised equaliser, bass enhancement, control remapping, ear tip fit testing, firmware updates, dual-device management, a Find My Earbuds feature, and low-latency mode settings. When it comes to the battery, the earbuds house a 46mAh lithium-ion battery, while the charging case contains a 500mAh cell. With ANC disabled, users can expect up to 9.5 hours of playback from the earbuds and up to 42.5 hours in total with the charging case. With ANC enabled, battery life is rated at up to 5.5 hours per charge and up to 24.5 hours combined with the case. Finally, fast charging is also supported that should provide up to 10 hours of playback from a 10-minute charge with ANC turned off. Nothing Ear (a) Wireless Earbuds (Black): $53.20 (Amazon US) - 33% The CMF Buds Pro 2 feature a dual-driver audio system consisting of an 11mm bass driver and a 6mm micro-planar tweeter. The earbuds use PU (polyurethane) and PET (polyethylene terephthalate) titanium-coated diaphragms and are tuned by Nothing to deliver balanced audio performance. They further support active noise cancellation of up to 50dB across a frequency range of up to 5,000Hz, and noise control features include a Smart ANC algorithm, Adaptive ANC, Transparency Mode, and Clear Voice Technology 2.0. For calls, the CMF Buds Pro 2 use a total of six microphones and feature an environmental noise-cancelling algorithm, Clear Voice Technology 3.0, and Wind Noise Reduction 3.0 that should improve voice clarity during conversations. Furthermore, when it comes to the connectivity, it is provided through Bluetooth 5.4. Additional features include an IP55 rating for dust and water resistance, Google Fast Pair, Microsoft Swift Pair, in-ear detection, a low-latency mode, and a Find My Earbuds function. Moreover, through the Nothing X app for Android and iOS, users can access custom EQ settings, a bass enhancement algorithm, customisable controls, Find My Earbuds, low-latency mode, dual-device connectivity, an ear tip fit test, and firmware updates. The earbuds contain a 60mAh rechargeable lithium-ion battery, while the charging case houses a 460mAh battery. A full charge of the earbuds and case via USB-C should take approximately 85 minutes, while the earbuds alone should be fully recharged in the case in around 60 minutes. Battery life is rated at up to 11 hours of playback on a single charge and up to 43 hours with the charging case when ANC is turned off. With ANC enabled, playback time is reduced to up to 6.5 hours on the earbuds and up to 26 hours with the charging case. Talk time is rated at up to 6 hours on the earbuds and 25 hours with the case with ANC disabled, or up to 4.8 hours and 18.6 hours, respectively, with ANC enabled. CMF Buds Pro 2 Wireless Earbuds (Dark Grey): $37.05 (Amazon US) - 24% Good to know This Amazon deal is U.S. specific, and not available in other regions unless specified. We only use first-party seller links (at the time of article publishing); ensure that you purchase from a first-party seller link only. Check out Today's Deals on Amazon | or our recent tech deals. Become a Prime member (for Students or SNAP) via Neowin Get Prime Access - Prime for half price (for qualifying Medicaid, EBT, SNAP) Subscribe to Prime Video, Audible Plus, Music Unlimited or Kindle Unlimited via Neowin As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      AMV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      AMV earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Collaborator
      ryansurfer98 went up a rank
      Collaborator
    • One Month Later
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Eurosoft10 earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      542
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      186
    3. 3
      Michael Scrip
      77
    4. 4
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      76
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!