Recommended Posts

Functionality of win7 is perfect, I love it. So snappy and up front.

However I feel it's kinda silly to complain about eye candy, but here's my input anyway:

The whole fade thing is nice, reminds me of OS X. But in OS X the boot feels like it's actually part of the desktop and it creates a seamless transition to and from.

(In windows, after boot, the screen flickers (Tube Monitor) or the Lights in LCD screens turn off then light up again.)

(In OS X, it's all seamless. It's... seamless lol. It's all 1 entity...er environment.)

What I would have liked in win7 is the smoothness of OS X. I don't use OS X "at all" but I like how it feels. Windows is kinda jerky, and you get motion blur when you move things around like windows or scrolling with the mouse wheel. You get MOTION BLUR!!!!!

OS X doesn't do that and I want Windows to be just like that! Does it have to do with the whole quartz thing? Does anyone know what I'm talking about? xD

I forgot to mention, what exactly about the changes to Windows 7 is "minor"? I can't find a change that isn't relatively major. Including the improved speed over Vista/XP.

Functionality of win7 is perfect, I love it. So snappy and up front.

However I feel it's kinda silly to complain about eye candy, but here's my input anyway:

The whole fade thing is nice, reminds me of OS X. But in OS X the boot feels like it's actually part of the desktop and it creates a seamless transition to and from.

(In windows, after boot, the screen flickers (Tube Monitor) or the Lights in LCD screens turn off then light up again.)

(In OS X, it's all seamless. It's... seamless lol. It's all 1 entity...er environment.)

What I would have liked in win7 is the smoothness of OS X. I don't use OS X "at all" but I like how it feels. Windows is kinda jerky, and you get motion blur when you move things around like windows or scrolling with the mouse wheel. You get MOTION BLUR!!!!!

OS X doesn't do that and I want Windows to be just like that! Does it have to do with the whole quartz thing? Does anyone know what I'm talking about? xD

It's impossible to do that on the huge variety of PC hardware. The only reason OSX can stay so consistent is cuz their hardware is locked down.

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)

Black Viper is your friend...!

Now, I haven't tested 7 since 7000 beta, eagerly awaiting an official release of the RC so I'm going from screenshots.

But here's what I think of your opinions :) :

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

The fade in XP into the boot screen is rather annoying, and I never really liked the one in Vista that you're describing. I guess I disagree with you.

-Toolbar is plain looking in win7 with no icons - this looked much better in vista.

Especially since some people learn more quickly by pictures than text! Make it configurable, but don't force text-only buttons.

-Start orb glow in win7 looks odd

I was always a little disappointed with the hover look of the Start button in Vista, I like how in 7 it pops out more.

-Transparency when window is maximized does not look good at all ? should be black like in vista. Same with the taskbar.

The lack of transparency was always one of my pet peeves, but they should make it configurable.

-Default background for login and installation ? it?s nice and all ? a little feminine looking but it really does not make the login screen look good or modern. And the white font ?windows 7 ultimate? at the bottom blend in too much with the background.

I agree a lot. I really like the one in Vista and the one in the 7 beta, the one in the latest 7 builds looks too plain. BTW, now that you can officially change the background of the login screen, can you change the text color so its still readable with a white background?

-The animations while coping or moving or deleting files is pretty ugly and looked better in Vista.

Haven't seen this, can't comment.

The only good thing to come out of this thread:

Anyone try the 185.81 Win7 beta driver that came out today?

Very nice set:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x86_185.81_beta.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x64_185.81_beta.html

Everyone else just seems to be arguing.

Thank you for the download link!

There isn't going to be a RC2.

Not publicly, but there will be a internal RC2 build for internal certification and testing after Microsoft squashes any bugs that come apparent in RC1.

Anyone try the 185.81 Win7 beta driver that came out today?

Very nice set:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x86_185.81_beta.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/win7_x64_185.81_beta.html

Yup and the 6600GT in this PC was not happy about it, so I had to do a system restore.

No. There will be no RC2. Microsoft explicitly stated so.

The only reason RC2 would happen is in case of a showstopping bug, which will not happen.

They only said there will be NO PUBLIC RC2. They never said there would not be a internal RC2.

No, he is the enemy of a well working Vista. Use the guides at tweakguides.com instead.

The lack of transparency was always one of my pet peeves, but they should make it configurable.

It is configurable in both Win7 and Vista. In Windows 7, go to personalize - Window Color and Appearance and adjust the "Color Intensity" slider to get the desired transparency.

I'll say this about Win7... even though I sound like I'm bashing it...which I'm not - I just think MS would seal the deal if they had one more "wow" for us...like a new and exciting fresh UI (SKIN/THEME/WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT) one that would differentiate the look....one that would remove the notion that it's just a better Vista. I really believe that people will think Win7 is Vista and vice versa. I think it's in the better interest of MS to do this. My ex wife thought there was an update to Vista, which I installed Win7 - she doesn't know the difference. I can't explain why she didn't notice the Win7 logo...but to her it's almost the same...anyways what I wanted to say is that, the underpinnings is where Win7 shine...it's so much faster in everything it does...even office apps load up faster, don't ask me how it does it...but it's true...no one crash..etc etc... I just hope people will over look the bad taste that was Vista and give Win7 a chance... even though they look the same, essentially.

Edited by piedpiper09

I'm pretty sure that more people will give windows 7 a chance than they did with Windows Vista. As for a new UI/Theme, whatever. Maybe they will, Maybe they won't. Windows 7 is pretty much great enough as it is. Appearance isn't everything, but it is a factor though. From the way I see it, it's just better code, much better performance than Vista. (Not that I think Vista was bad mind you)

Win95 to win98 looked almost the same as paralleled to Vista -> going to Win7 ? but the big difference here is that win95 was a major success and had both enthusiast and average Joes AGREEING that windows was awesome, the same thing cannot be said with Vista. That's why I think they need to change the look of Win7?.

Ahh read up... nobody believes that anything will change from this point on, at least not drastically such as UI - it's all bug fixes from this point on.

Actually, the only people who complained about Vista was a very vocal minority who never used the OS. The vast majority of people use it and have no strong opinions one way or another.

And, no, like I said, the UI doesn't change unless it has to. With Win95, 98 and ME, the OS looked virtually the same over the course of some five years, because it was the 9x era. Things changed in XP because it was the first time NT was built for the consumer market. And now we've moved onto the Vista/7 era, with hardware accelerated desktops. Thus, don't expect the GUI to change until the next major Windows revision, which will likely bring about an entirely new desktop paradigm, anyway.

That's pretty much the way I see it too. vista is to 7 as 95 is to 98, to 2K/Pro. (And please dear god let's not bring ME into this, it may looked the same but it's a horrid piece of junk.) I can't even imagine what better GUI they can come up with than 7 as it is now, in terms of professional design.

i think if anyone looks at windows 7 and thinks it is Vista is a super Idiot for sure. Cause the difference is right in your damn face . a good example was from an Early build of windows 7 presented at the D6 confferance and Walt moss burge was easy to see the difference btween both the current windows 7 version that used the windows vista taskbar and the other one witha different t Taskbar

Quote MossBurge : Wait wait a 2nd her umm not stop ya from what your doing but i notice over here this one has a different taskbar can you explian what this is.

Quote Microsft: well i am not supposed to talk about that right now.

So if Walt can see the difference in an old old build then umm yea so can the regular consumer and also the differences between the vista explorer in many areas and the windows 7 are hugely see able i can see them right away widnows 7 is not as bloated in the UI

Actually, the only people who complained about Vista was a very vocal minority who never used the OS.

Thats what Vista defenders have been saying for over 2 years now and XP still has a WAYYYYY larger install base than Vista and Vista is still largely ignored in the enterprise market.

You would be in the minority, not the other way around ;)

Functionality of win7 is perfect, I love it. So snappy and up front.

However I feel it's kinda silly to complain about eye candy, but here's my input anyway:

The whole fade thing is nice, reminds me of OS X. But in OS X the boot feels like it's actually part of the desktop and it creates a seamless transition to and from.

(In windows, after boot, the screen flickers (Tube Monitor) or the Lights in LCD screens turn off then light up again.)

(In OS X, it's all seamless. It's... seamless lol. It's all 1 entity...er environment.)

What I would have liked in win7 is the smoothness of OS X. I don't use OS X "at all" but I like how it feels. Windows is kinda jerky, and you get motion blur when you move things around like windows or scrolling with the mouse wheel. You get MOTION BLUR!!!!!

OS X doesn't do that and I want Windows to be just like that! Does it have to do with the whole quartz thing? Does anyone know what I'm talking about? xD

i love it when people complain about things they can't even describe.

yeah, its all "one Entity"

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

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Calling GTA 6 overhyped crap doesn’t make you edgy, it just makes you sound like someone who hasn’t enjoyed anything since the PS2 era.
    • I’m not arguing whether Rockstar likes money. Obviously, they do, they’re a business. I’m saying this isn’t new. They’ve always launched console first. This is just how Rockstar operates.
    • I'm not sure how old the school is, but they've been doing this since GTA 3. Back in those days we'd be lucky for game companies to release on the PC at all. And with the current state of Sony (or Microsoft) their gaming wing won't be getting a penny from me.
    • We now know when and how the Universe may truly end by Sayan Sen Image by Marek Pavlík via Pexels| Not representative A study by physicist Henry Tye of Cornell University suggests that the universe may not expand forever. Instead, it could eventually stop expanding, begin contracting and end in a "Big Crunch" roughly 20 billion years from now. The research, published in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, was conducted by Tye, Horace White Professor of Physics Emeritus at Cornell University. Using recent observations from major dark-energy surveys, Tye and his collaborators developed a cosmological model that predicts the universe could have a total lifespan of about 33 billion years. Since the universe is currently estimated to be 13.8 billion years old, the model places it near the midpoint of its existence. According to Cornell University's summary of the research, the study centers on the cosmological constant, a term introduced by Albert Einstein in his theory of general relativity. In modern cosmology, the cosmological constant is commonly used to describe the simplest form of dark energy, the unknown phenomenon believed to be driving the accelerating expansion of the universe. "For the last 20 years, people believed that the cosmological constant is positive, and the universe will expand forever," Tye said in a Cornell University news release. "The new data seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is negative, and that the universe will end in a big crunch." The study draws on data from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) and the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), two major projects designed to investigate the nature of dark energy. According to Tye, recent observations suggest that dark energy may not behave exactly like a simple cosmological constant. To account for those observations, Tye and his collaborators proposed a model involving an extremely light hypothetical particle that evolves over time. In their calculations, this produces a negative cosmological constant and leads to a future collapse of the universe. The model predicts that cosmic expansion would continue for approximately another 11 billion years before reaching a maximum size, after which the universe would begin contracting and eventually collapse. Scientists have long debated how the universe might end. As explained in an article published in The Conversation by Stephen DiKerby of Michigan State University, several possibilities have been proposed. If dark energy remains constant and positive, the universe could continue expanding indefinitely, gradually becoming colder, darker and more diffuse in a scenario often called the "heat death" of the universe. Other theoretical possibilities include a Big Rip, in which cosmic expansion accelerates so dramatically that galaxies, stars and even atoms are torn apart, or a Big Crunch, in which expansion reverses and the universe collapses back into an extremely dense state. DiKerby notes that the Big Crunch idea itself is not new. What distinguishes Tye's work is that it attempts to use current observational data to estimate when such a collapse might occur and how it could unfold. Much of the universe's long-term evolution remains uncertain. According to current astrophysical understanding, stars will continue to form and die for billions of years. The Sun, for example, is about halfway through its expected lifespan. Galaxies are also expected to continue merging; the Milky Way and Andromeda galaxies are projected to collide several billion years from now. At the same time, the nature of dark energy remains one of the biggest unanswered questions in cosmology. While observations indicate that the universe's expansion is accelerating, scientists still do not know what is causing that acceleration. Future observations may therefore alter current predictions about the cosmos's ultimate fate. Tye emphasized that additional evidence will be needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. DESI continues to collect data, while upcoming observations from missions and observatories including Euclid, SPHEREx and the Vera C. Rubin Observatory are expected to provide more precise measurements of dark energy. "People have said before that if the cosmological constant is negative, then the universe will collapse eventually. That's not new," Tye said. "However, here the model tells you when the universe collapses and how it collapses." For now, the study presents one possible future for the cosmos rather than a settled prediction. Whether the universe ultimately ends in a Big Crunch, expands forever, or follows another path entirely remains an open question that future observations will help answer. Source: Cornell University, The Conversation 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.
    • If you look around on Amazon, some of these are available for $9
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      With What earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      570
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      175
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      73
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      68
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!