Legit Windows 7 Screens!

[Jeezoflip]

i dont think that they are real pics... those pics are not different then vista OS... so anyone can take Vista's pics and morph them slightly to look like windows 7...

 

the fact that they may be fakes does not lay on the fact that they look like vista. Early versions of vista in the alpha stages looked just like xp. they have to build off something, and they are just using the vista UI for now.

[Biervanichta]

Would be nice if Windows 7 could base on a completely new architecture. Stop the compability to older Software (or maybe as a kind of virtual pc let it still be running). But in that way you could use the pc with the possibilities given, not knocked out by Windows.. You know what I mean? Got Windows and stuff on my pc but with Linux Mandriva the system seems to be more faster and that without having suitable drivers.

 

Cheers!

Yours Biervanichta

[InorganicMatter]

WOW... That blew my socks off. I suppose they are looking at leopard and seeing what they can copy badly.

Umm...what? Microsoft has done a great job creating their own unique layout, look and feel with Vista. They really diverged from the office feel of Windows XP, and they didn't go for the all-out eyecandy overload that Mac OS X has. They've done a great job balancing bling with efficiency.

 

Well all I want is a OS that actually has lesser hardware requirements and size than Vista. That would mean they actually managed to remove bloat. Which would mean a better OS. They need to do a Mac OSX on their Windows Line too.

 

Like how Mac OSX just came up and blew away compatibility, so that they could have a much much better OS.

It would be nice, and would also be a great proving ground for Microsoft's Virtualization technology they are positioning to compete with VMWare. They could even build the virtualization in at a much lower level, ala BSD's Linux emulation layer, so that there is zero performance impact.

 

Won't happen and keep dreaming. It is not practical or realistic

 

i.e.

 

Windows 2000 had less requirements and was smaller than XP

Windows Xp had less requirements and is smaller than Windows Vista

 

Mac OS X Jaguar had less requirements and is smaller than Mac OS X Tiger

Mac OS X Tiger has less requirements and is smaller than Mac OS X Leopard

 

See a trend? Stuff doesn't get smaller and less powerful because some people have old equipment and are unwilling to upgrade. You will never see any company, whether it is Apple or Microsoft, take a step backward in performance, just to make people with old computers happy. It just doesn't happen...

Well, sure, of course it won't like old computers. If They obsolete all the old stuff, then obviously it's going to need newer hardware with newer technologies (like how Leopard requires SSE3 and HPET).

[Azurael]

Umm...what? Microsoft has done a great job creating their own unique layout, look and feel with Vista. They really diverged from the office feel of Windows XP, and they didn't go for the all-out eyecandy overload that Mac OS X has. They've done a great job balancing bling with efficiency.

 

What... Vista has loads of effects OS X doesn't... Flip3D... Anti-aliased transitions... Translucent, reflective title bars... Personally, I don't see that there's nearly as much 'bling' in Leo as there is in Vista, but maybe I'm just a grumpy idiot who doesn't like change.

 

On the other hand, unlike OS X's toys, like Expose, none of Vista's toys actually make the OS more productive. All I get is a CPU cycle wasting 3D version of the already perfectly well implemented task switcher and windows I can't read the title bar on due to stuff underneath. Still, I guess all my £200 graphics card would be doing is rendering web pages all day long otherwise, right?

 

Actually, I really hate the way Vista has so much change that seems to be 'for the sake of change' - it's as though some pointless exec who's position resulted from a job creation scheme decided that "people must be sick of the known and established way in which Windows works, formalities that have been established to probably 95% of computer users since Win95 or even 3.1 - let's stir it up a bit to keep them on the edges of their seats". A brilliant example of this is the new Control Panel. It takes me ten times as long to find the item I want in it, and I don't really even see that the senseless reshuffling and renaming of functionality has added to the ease of use for a new user... For example "Add/Remove Programs" has moved to "Programs" - it's not more logical, it doesn't describe the function of the applet better, in fact I'd argue it's worse. It no longer sits in it's long established location beside "Add New Hardware" at the top of the Control Panel (which makes sense as it's likely to be just about the most commonly used applet on most people's Control Panels), and where it has been for generations of Windows versions. Why bother? Besides, shouldn't it be "Hardware" rather than "Add New Hardware" now? At least keep to a convention...

 

Contrast this with the very limited changes Apple made to System Preferences in Leo - things like the way the Firewall settings have moved from 'Sharing' to 'Security' - makes sound sense to me.

 

Alas, I'm stuck with Vista, regardless of the (admittedly minor) misgivings I have about it, because Microsoft have decided I shouldn't be allowed to play the games I want under XP, including some new releases which don't even benefit from DX10. Still, gaming is pretty much all I use Windows for these days anyway.

[cmdshft]

CPU cycle wasting?

 

It's only used up 3% CPU on my work machine in the office...

 

 

And that's while having a virus scan running, and the system is a Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, with 2GB DDR2 RAM, and a Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family...

...

[Numberzz]

CPU cycle wasting?

 

It's only used up 3% CPU on my work machine in the office...

 

 

And that's while having a virus scan running, and the system is a Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz, with 2GB DDR2 RAM, and a Intel 82945G Express Chipset Family...

...

You have to remember the fact that it also sucks. Exposé is a way better way of window-switching.

[Azurael]

CPU cycle wasting?

 

It's only used up 3% CPU on my work machine in the office...

 

OK... But what does it do that Alt-Tab doesn't?

[robotskip]

Windows Flip 3D uses the dimension of visual depth to give you a more comprehensive view of your open windows, helping you sidestep chaos even as you juggle myriad open files and programs.

While many people may find it useless, not all do.

[apowerr]

You have to remember the fact that it also sucks. Exposé is a way better way of window-switching.

Is Exposé the best window switcher overall? I would say 'yes'. However, you cannot access it through the keyboard as quickly as you can access alt+tab or win+tab. In Windows, there is no need for Exposé. For switching via mouse you have the taskbar, which is actually quicker than Exposé (some mice can also support win+tab by pushing a button on the mouse, much like how mice work with Exposé). For switching via keyboard you have alt+tab and win+tab, which are both very fast and simple. In Vista, the taskbar, alt+tab and win+tab all support live window previewing as well.

[Paranoid Marvin]

You have to remember the fact that it also sucks. Exposé is a way better way of window-switching.

 

Not better, *the best*.

 

Flip3D is a poor attempt at a window switcher. You can't see the entire window, and it becomes pretty useless when there are 40+ windows. Also, there is a really annoying delay, and you can't go by actually applications (ala F10 on Mac).

[REVENGE]

Look, nobody in the prosumer world is going to give a f$ck about Vienna until M2 and beyond. Right now it's just Vista with a new logo and kernel.

[Azurael]

The thing is... I've always found PowerSwitch much more useful than Flip3D - you can see the whole window in the preview, like you can in Expose...

 

While many people may find it useless, not all do.

 

Wow... You've even quoted genuine Windows marketspeak this time. 10/10 for effort. I still don't see the point, though.

 

Of course somebody finds it useful, I'm just saying I don't.

[Numberzz]

Is Exposé the best window switcher overall? I would say 'yes'. However, you cannot access it through the keyboard as quickly as you can access alt+tab or win+tab. In Windows, there is no need for Exposé. For switching via mouse you have the taskbar, which is actually quicker than Exposé (some mice can also support win+tab by pushing a button on the mouse, much like how mice work with Exposé). For switching via keyboard you have alt+tab and win+tab, which are both very fast and simple. In Vista, the taskbar, alt+tab and win+tab all support live window previewing as well.

That is what the dock is used for. Also, I don't get why anyone in the world would need to preview a window before they click on it. The only feasible thing I can think of is for a mom to check her son's computer for porn.

[robotskip]

Wow... You've even quoted genuine Windows marketspeak this time. 10/10 for effort. I still don't see the point, though.

 

Of course somebody finds it useful, I'm just saying I don't.

I quoted it to show you that if you spent 2 seconds in a search engine you'd be able to find the 'point' of it which mostly to provide people with a more or less full view, or easily accessible full view, of the active programs and the desktop. I even put it in bold for you, how can you not see the point? I should actually get 1/10 for effort because that's the amount of effort I put into it, in fact, how about 0/10.

 

Do you want a medal?

Also, I don't get why anyone in the world would need to preview a window before they click on it.

To see the progress of something to decide if you're ready to switch to it, which you wouldn't be able to do with ALT+TAB.

 

I thought of that possibly scenario instantly, are you honestly telling me you were unable to fathom at least 1 possible real world scenario aside from your porn one? Oh dear..

 

 

 

I'm guessing both of you are pretending you can't think of a real reason why it would be used, what the point of it is, etc, just to make it look bad and the fact that Azurael said "It's not for me" shows that s/he has an understanding of what it is, however small (Honestly, you don't see the point of Flip3D, really??), which contradicts this person's definitive "I don't get it" statement. Also, Numberzz porn statement also indicates the same and furthers this simple view point I have just presented.

[apowerr]

That is what the dock is used for.

The dock only displays window's contents when they're minimized, it's primary use is the launching of applications (startmenu, quicklaunch and desktop shortcuts do this in Windows). I don't know why you're going to try to argue this, the only point I'm making is that in Windows Expose or something similar to it is not necessary.

Also, I don't get why anyone in the world would need to preview a window before they click on it. The only feasible thing I can think of is for a mom to check her son's computer for porn.

Uhh, it's in Windows for the same reason it's in OS X (when items are minimized to the dock) : it's very useful. I don't see how you can't see the use of this!

Here are some pics of the live previews in Vista (some contents blurred for privacy)

Mouse over taskbar:

Alt+Tab

Win+Tab

 

Now do you see how live previews are useful? For window switching via keyboard, they're almost necessary.

[Azurael]

I quoted it to show you that if you spent 2 seconds in a search engine you'd be able to find the 'point' of it which mostly to provide people with a more or less full view, or easily accessible full view, of the active programs and the desktop. I even put it in bold for you, how can you not see the point? I should actually get 1/10 for effort because that's the amount of effort I put into it, in fact, how about 0/10.

 

Do you want a medal?

To see the progress of something to decide if you're ready to switch to it, which you wouldn't be able to do with ALT+TAB.

 

What are you on about? I've been able to do all of that better for years under XP with PowerSwitch, which I'm sure with your intimate knowledge, you'd know is provided for free by Microsoft. It shows a live preview of the window, just like Flip3D. However, unlike Flip3D, I don't waste several seconds of time waiting for animation when I use it, and I do get to see the whole window, without anything else overlapping. It's better.

[Numberzz]

I thought of that possibly scenario instantly, are you honestly telling me you were unable to fathom at least 1 possible real world scenario aside from your porn one? Oh dear..

I'm guessing both of you are pretending you can't think of a real reason why it would be used, what the point of it is, etc, just to make it look bad and the fact that Azurael said "It's not for me" shows that s/he has an understanding of what it is, however small (Honestly, you don't see the point of Flip3D, really??), which contradicts this person's definitive "I don't get it" statement. Also, Numberzz porn statement also indicates the same and furthers this simple view point I have just presented.

Ok, so we can check porn and check a status bar. Good things to do. So lets say that you want to check a download. Now instead of checking the name on the taskbar, "56% of...," you want to see a bar, because you are a visual person. Let's say for example this window is 512x512. And let's say that the bar itself was about 10 pixels high, which is a lot. Let's say that the Preview Popup is about 200x200. That would mean that said bar would be about 4-5 pixels. This you could probably see except for the fact that Windows has crappy graphics, and will probably only be able to see the individual pixels of the text and the bar extending way past the point they should be. Or, I could swing my mouse in the corner of my screen, be able to read everything and swing it back, also known as "Exposé" or a "useful feature." Good design.

 

EDIT:

So let's say that you want to get to that document in the back. Would you be like "Man, now I have to press WIN+Tab 7 times to get to the window I want. And let's not forget the desktop is there which obstructs all small windows behind it"? Or, you could move your mouse into the corner, move to the window you want, and click. WAAAAAY faster.

[apowerr]

So let's say that you want to get to that document in the back. Would you be like "Man, now I have to press WIN+Tab 7 times to get to the window I want.

Win+Tab can be triggered by a button on the side of your mouse like Expose. Also, once you've pressed Win+Tab you can scroll with your mouse through the Windows, or click onto the Window you want: like Expose.

Or, you could move your mouse into the corner, move to the window you want, and click. WAAAAAY faster.

Or you could move your mouse to the bottom of the screen where the taskbar is, and click. WAAAYYYY faster. Or, you could press alt+tab to quickly switch to another Window via a logical and easy keyboard shortcut. But you're missing the point! I'm not arguing that Expose isn't fantastic. I'm saying that Windows doesn't need Expose, it already has A+ window switching utilitys and always has (95 or NT4 and onwards). Without Expose, Mac OS X sucks for window switching.

[Numberzz]

Win+Tab can be triggered by a button on the side of your mouse like Expose. Also, once you've pressed Win+Tab you can scroll with your mouse through the Windows, or click onto the Window you want: like Expose.

 

Or you could move your mouse to the bottom of the screen where the taskbar is, and click. WAAAYYYY faster. Or, you could press alt+tab to quickly switch to another Window via a logical and easy keyboard shortcut. But you're missing the point! I'm not arguing that Expose isn't fantastic. I'm saying that Windows doesn't need Expose, it already has A+ window switching utilitys and always has (95 or NT4 and onwards). Without Expose, Mac OS X sucks for window switching.

Or, you could click on the icon in the dock...

[~pcwiz]

I really don't see the point in arguing about Vista's "useless" features vs. OS X in a thread about screenshots of Windows 7. What, you're hoping that if you argue about OS X and Vista, Bill Gates will take all the features from OS X and put it in Windows 7?

 

robotskip, try to word posts a little less offensively next time

[Azurael]

Or, you could click on the icon in the dock...

 

Actually, the dock is pretty useless for task switching. What if you have more than one Window open in an app? You also don't know which Windows are which, because you can't see them.

 

I found task switching frustrating before 10.3 came out. However, there was always Command-Tab - which was ripped off from Windows. Remember, it's not a one-way process kids. Apple has ripped off just as much from Windows, and indeed other OSes, as OS X. Xerox Parc, eh?

[cmdshft]

Haha, I love how a screenshot just showing CPU usage on some basic hardware by a feature can cause such a ruckus.

[Numberzz]

Actually, the dock is pretty useless for task switching. What if you have more than one Window open in an app? You also don't know which Windows are which, because you can't see them.

 

I found task switching frustrating before 10.3 came out. However, there was always Command-Tab - which was ripped off from Windows. Remember, it's not a one-way process kids. Apple has ripped off just as much from Windows, and indeed other OSes, as OS X. Xerox Parc, eh?

Ok, let's say you're like me, except you think that Windows doesn't suck. I always have a lot of applications open:

I counted all the windows I have open....27. It would be almost impossible to see the names of any of the icons, because there is no way a single layer Taskbar can use 27 icons, nor a double layered one. Leopard actually wins here. Because not like an idiot, I group all my windows for a single application in one space, so it doesn't matter which one I go to.

[Joey D]

Now I've never been good at comparisons, but these screen shots look the slightest bit like vista in my opinion.

[Guest MrRogers]

Now I've never been good at comparisons, but these screen shots look the slightest bit like vista in my opinion.

It's because it's based off the Vista code. The last thing they do is design the UI.