[IceFire]

I have also wondered why people make a big deal of the various search features of Vista and 7. Do people really search that often? I do it maybe once a year.

I search every day...at work and at home. Sometimes quicker than clicking to where the document I was working on is located from My Documents and through my layers of organization.

Seriously... you search once a year?

[CP5670]

The only times I can recall having to search is if a file got saved/moved to the wrong place due to an accidental click in a save dialog, but I didn't see exactly what I clicked, or if I'm trying to install drivers directly from an inf file and am checking if Windows comes with a particular driver file. Obviously, these things don't happen very often.

My files and programs are organized pretty well and I can access them quickly from a third party file manager program I use, much faster than I could from the Windows Explorer interface.

[Mongoose]

You can apparently do this with some tweaking. I rarely use the start menu anyway (or the desktop for that matter), so I might not bother.

Color me confused, but if you don't use either the Start menu or the desktop, just what is it you're using?

EDIT: It's also times like this that makes me yearn for the days when your start interface was just a black screen with white text that read "c:\>" with a blinking cursor next to it, back then people had to actually "learn".

Those days were terrible and should be left buried in the past.  All of my programming classes in college were done via Unix command-line, and even after a few semesters, I still found even the most simple of tasks to be incredibly and needlessly frustrating due to the lack of a GUI.  Why should I be forced to mentally visualize an entire folder tree when the capability to do so graphically for me has existed for something like 15 years?  Maybe it's just me, but I find any sort of graphical file interface to be infinitely more intuitive than its text-based counterpart.  Why muck around with mv and cp and far-too-long directory names when you can actually manually place your files right where you want them to go?

I do agree that there is a great deal of value in basic computer literacy, but not to the point when archaic UI intentionally obfuscates a particular function.  The goal should be to make tasks easier for the user, not force them to jump through five flaming hoops in order to perform a simple file manipulation.

[Kosh]

Those days were terrible and should be left buried in the past.  All of my programming classes in college were done via Unix command-line, and even after a few semesters, I still found even the most simple of tasks to be incredibly and needlessly frustrating due to the lack of a GUI.  Why should I be forced to mentally visualize an entire folder tree when the capability to do so graphically for me has existed for something like 15 years?  Maybe it's just me, but I find any sort of graphical file interface to be infinitely more intuitive than its text-based counterpart.  Why muck around with mv and cp and far-too-long directory names when you can actually manually place your files right where you want them to go?

It was a statement out of annoyance more than anything else. I don't actually miss it that much, but I really don't appreciate new OS's like Windows 7 treating us like morons and dumbing down its userbase even more. They had the GUI done right with Windows 2000 (except for its lack of msconfig )

Oh, and the command for displaying the directory in dos was "dir /w". Dos was the first OS I used, but I didn't learn it really well because I was young and also DOS was on the way out anyway (good riddence).

[carbine7]

Just a quick question here, has there been any significant speed increase or otherwise over Vista x32? I'm considering getting 7 and wondering if I should bother with the extra RAM upgrade as well (I only have 2 GB).

[MR_T3D]

I have also wondered why people make a big deal of the various search features of Vista and 7. Do people really search that often? I do it maybe once a year.

its a handy way to open any program, hit start, type 1st couple letters and it shows up.
easy way to get to more things than looking through the lists.
...not to say they are terrible hard to look through, its just easier

[CP5670]

Color me confused, but if you don't use either the Start menu or the desktop, just what is it you're using?

Basically what I said in my last post. It's a file manager utility called Turbo Navigator, but I use it like my desktop and have it open at all times. I have 10 or so common shortcuts I use in the start menu, but anything else (including all games) is opened by going to its exe directly through that program. My program locations are organized well enough that this is quick and easy to do. If needed, I could stop using the start menu altogether by just moving those shortcuts to another, easily accessible folder.

I used to use the start menu and desktop more several years ago, but got tired of maintaining them the way I wanted them to be, and now find this program a lot more powerful and convenient. I still clean out the shortcuts that installers put in those places though.

its a handy way to open any program, hit start, type 1st couple letters and it shows up.
easy way to get to more things than looking through the lists.
...not to say they are terrible hard to look through, its just easier

I haven't done this, but I would expect it to be a little slow and unresponsive due to hard drive activity. (even if the indexing features are on, you would get extra HD activity at other times)

[Bob-san]

The reason I used to like C:> is because it was incredibly simple yet powerful. Not to mention that M$ actually has a good bit of official documentation, so it's not like Linux in command-line, where every command depends on packages installed and appending "--h" still tells you absolutely nothing. Perhaps great for those experienced in Linux, but to need an internet connection to do just about anything?

[pecenipicek]

so it's not like Linux in command-line, where every command depends on packages installed and appending "--h" still tells you absolutely nothing. Perhaps great for those experienced in Linux, but to need an internet connection to do just about anything?

bull****? the base linux commandline is powerfull enough, also, dont make me drag out my dads book about unix commands, its got about 500 pages, and weighs about 2 kilos

[Fenrir]

So it still eats up about half you RAM then, eh? I was hoping 7 would have stepped away from the ludicrous overly-system intensive crap and left your machine with most of its processing power at-the-ready. Proof that my sig is not inaccurate...

People still believe this? Prefetching makes your processing power far more "at-the-ready" than leaving it unused does.

[pecenipicek]

So it still eats up about half you RAM then, eh? I was hoping 7 would have stepped away from the ludicrous overly-system intensive crap and left your machine with most of its processing power at-the-ready. Proof that my sig is not inaccurate...

People still believe this? Prefetching makes your processing power far more "at-the-ready" than leaving it unused does.

except in the cases when it utterly fails to release the "cached" crap for some memory intensive apps. which almost always ends up with tearing into the page file and slowing the system down to... a crawl to say the least.

if you run something that can on occasion tear into more than 3 gigs of ram, and you have only 4 gigs... well, lets just say, YOU WANT YOUR RAM CLEAN OF CRAP THAT VISTA OR 7 THINK MIGHT BE USEFULL.



sorry. just a bit pissed off since it managed to lock up the pc once again.

[jr2]

Thought this was an interesting take on 7 / XP ... Mods feel free to split this, I don't want to hijack.

If you love Windows XP, you'll hate Windows 7
Posted by Ed Bott @ 12:21 pm

My colleague Jason Perlow has been playing with Windows 7, and he hates it. The sad thing is, all the things he hates are improvements, in my opinion, which just goes to show that you really can’t please everyone. But what’s sad to see is that every setting Jason describes as broken is in fact easily customizable so it works the way he wants it.

The crux of Jason’s complaint is simple: “I learned how to use Windows in 1998. Don’t change a thing.” Here’s his main argument in a nutshell:

I find it difficult to believe that Windows 7 was created to be easier to use than Vista — if anything, they’ve introduced a number of UI changes that make the system much harder to navigate, particularly if you’ve never used Vista and are going direct to Windows 7 from Windows XP, which is the path that many users will experience.

Yes, there’s a learning curve. And if you insist on using those techniques you learned back in the last millennium with software that was designed differently, you will be frustrated. But I believe that an open-minded XP user who actually takes a few minutes to learn how the new UI works will be more productive very quickly. The secret is breaking old habits and developing new ones. Let’s take all three of Jason’s examples and work through them.

Jason: “The ‘Run’ option is no longer directly accessible from the Start Menu, you have to get to it via a Search.”

Where do I begin? First of all, the Search box at the bottom of the Start menu does nearly everything the Run box did, and much more. If you begin typing a command, it appears in the Start menu, where you can click or press Enter to run it. With the Run box, I have to type a command in full and possibly even include its path. If I mistype the name, I get an error message. Want to play Solitaire? With the Search box, you can begin typing sol and the first choice on the list will be Solitaire, ready to run when you press Enter:



But the worst part of the Run box is that it requires you to learn the names of executable files. In XP, if you open the Run box, type solitaire, and press Enter you’ll get a cryptic error message. You need to know that the name of the executable is sol.exe. Want to play Minesweeper? You’re SOL with the Run box until you learn that the executable is named Winmine.exe. The Vista/Win7 Search box, by contrast, works with program names and executable files.

Still not convinced? You want the old- school Run box? So just press Windows key+R. That shortcut has been around since the mid-1990s and still works in Windows Vista and Win7.

Not good enough? Fine. Customize the Vista/Win7 Start menu to add the Run command and you can party like it’s 1998. Right-click Start, choose Properties, click Customize, and select this check box.



Jason: “Another thing that greatly frustrated me was the fact that a fresh install of Windows 7 gives the end-user a blank slate on the Desktop, removing the familiar ‘Computer’, ‘Network’, ‘Control Panel’ and ‘My Documents’ icons, requiring users to get to those functions and folders via the Start Menu.”

Jason thinks this is “change for the sake of change.” I disagree. I’ve been talking to Windows UI designers and usability testers for years, and I can tell you that moving this stuff off the desktop is a huge usability win for novices and experts alike. If you rely on desktop icons, you have to minimize all open windows first before you can even see the icons on the desktop, then you have to click them. That adds unnecessary steps to every navigation option, and adds still more steps to get back to the windows you were working with previously. Once you wean yourself from desktop icons, all you have to do is tap the Windows key or click the Start button and you are one click away from any common file storage location. You can also press Windows key+E to open Explorer, where common locations are neatly arranged in the navigation pane.

Jason thinks the option to restore those desktop icons is “not intuitive.” Well, if you open the Start menu and type “desktop icons” in the Search box, the very first result is “Show or hide common icons on the desktop.” There’s another shortcut that’s even easier to discover. Every Windows user quickly learns how to right-click the desktop and choose Personalize, so they can adjust the desktop background (you old-timers remember it as wallpaper). When you do, you’ll see a very prominent “Change desktop icons” option at the top left. It leads here:



Jason: “I also find the Windows 7 Control Panel to be less intuitive than XP’s […] you now need one additional mouse click to see all the Control Panel options — of which there are now approximately double than which existed in XP. Clearly, they could have done a better job at consolidating functions, or at the very least, provided a better UI for navigating such a long list of stuff.”

The Windows XP Control Panel intuitive? A folder filled with icons, many with cryptic/technical names, doesn’t seem intuitive to me. I think familiar might be a more accurate word to describe the reaction of someone who learned where everything is the hard way. Meanwhile, if you want “a better UI for navigating such a long list of stuff” it’s right there already. See that search box in the upper right corner? It’s a huge improvement on the old folder full of Control Panel icons. If you don’t believe me, try changing your screen saver from the Windows XP Control Panel. Does it make sense that you have to click the Display icon and then choose the Screen Saver tab to get there? You know those steps because you’ve been doing it that way for 14 years, but it’s hardly intuitive.

By contrast, in Windows Vista and Windows 7, you type the word screen into the search box, and the list automatically filters as you type. I think this result list is pretty helpful:



For an even better example, try finding the option to show hidden files in Windows Explorer. With XP, you have to open Control Panel, double-click Folder Options, and then click the View tab. Now, would the average person know that file settings are under Folder Options? That hardly seems intuitive.

By contrast, type hidden in the Control Panel search box and here’s what you see:



The very first option on the list takes you to the correct tab on the correct dialog box, with exactly one click. That’s a huge improvement over the XP solution; in fact, when I open Control Panel in Windows XP I am enormously frustrated over the inability to do anything except drill down into icons to find the right one.

The real problem most XP users will have when migrating to the Windows 7 interface is that they need to unlearn those old navigation models. The longer you’ve been using PCs, the more likely you are to reflexively assume that the solution is to pull down a menu or double-click an icon. Those techniques worked fine back in the 1990s, but today, with instant search available just about everywhere in the Windows UI, those old techniques are as dated as a pair of Dockers.

If you’re an XP veteran, take some time to learn why the new interface was designed the way it was. Believe me, those designers and  usability professionals didn’t just make this stuff up. If you’re willing to learn a few new techniques, I guarantee your productivity will increase over time.

Ed Bott is an award-winning technology writer with more than two decades' experience writing for mainstream media outlets and online publications. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

[Dilmah G]

Really, if you're an old bat who can't be arsed to learn new things in the name of efficiency, what the bloody hell are you doing near a computer? Technology is all about moving forward, being efficient, etc. Imagine where a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude" would've gotten OS development. We'd all still be using Windows 98, and perhaps it wouldn't go kaput as often.

[pecenipicek]

and i fail to see why that is a bad thing. we'd have a rock-solid platform from which to work with.

[Dilmah G]

But then your grandmother wouldn't be able to use the computer, or your girlfriend. Say hello to getting phone calls nonstop from your family asking how to send e-mails again.

[The E]

and i fail to see why that is a bad thing. we'd have a rock-solid platform from which to work with.

A rock solid platform with a broken security model, for one.

[pecenipicek]

But then your grandmother wouldn't be able to use the computer, or your girlfriend. Say hello to getting phone calls nonstop from your family asking how to send e-mails again.

my grandmother doesnt use a computer... and my girlfriend does just fine. got her fixing up her pc when something craps out.

also, never got calls from family regarding that.

also your point is moot

and i fail to see why that is a bad thing. we'd have a rock-solid platform from which to work with.

A rock solid platform with a broken security model, for one.

this wasnt directed at win 98. if micro$oft for once stopped trying to push new crap onto us, and took a year pause off of developing new ones and focus on fixing every piece of crap they broke with new "stuff", we'd have a better user experience overall.

also, please start reading between the lines a bit, instead of taking everything at face value




in other news i'll be installing win 7 soonish.

first thing that goes away is the quicklaunch=tab in taskbar. i want my quicklaunch as ordinary friggin icons, not bloody tabs where the program gets hidden. for some apps i find it usefull (msn, multiple windows under same tab, pidgin, around 6 rooms in and such), but i find it lacks the needed customiseability to UNLINK some apps from the bloody fugger.


if i'm wrong and there is a facility for that, please point me in the right direction.


also, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" is a very valid thing when used in right places. for instance, i'm perfectly happy with Vista's UI. What was so wrong with it, that it demanded a redesign? (taskbar especially)


tl;dr version, screw you both

[jr2]

Really, if you're an old bat who can't be arsed to learn new things in the name of efficiency, what the bloody hell are you doing near a computer? Technology is all about moving forward, being efficient, etc. Imagine where a "If it ain't broke, don't fix it attitude" would've gotten OS development. We'd all still be using Windows 98, and perhaps it wouldn't go kaput as often.

You know, Windows XP is only about three years newer than '98, and only 2 years than '98 SE...

[Dilmah G]

Oh pfft, you know the point I was making.

[castor]

Really, if you're an old bat who can't be arsed to learn new things in the name of efficiency, what the bloody hell are you doing near a computer? Technology is all about moving forward, being efficient, etc.

That's how MS would want you to think
"Technology" is a good enough reason for nerds to upgrade, but for the rest of the (sensible) people it goes like this:
+ new delights - new annoyances - trouble of it all < 0? Screw it!