It sure seems like an upgrade from vista, just some stolen and tweaked ideas added on.
I'm still sticking with Windows XP because it has more compatibility with software/hardware than vista/7.
it would not be a whole new windows because if it were, like win 98/200/me/xp/vista, there are major tweaks noticable at first.
it should be called vista 2.
*I thought Vista was supposed to be a new standard OS, now a whole new OS is comming out?
A first look at the Windows 7 PDC release
Notification area clutter reduced
The ever expanding galaxy of notification area icons gets corralled in a pop-up box, which appears when you click the arrow at the left end of the taskbar section still best known as the system tray.
Talkback Most Recent of 138 Talkback(s)
-
Roastmeat28th Oct 2008 -
Cosmetic
Its just Vista with a few pretty changes, someone got a shovel and tried to slap makeup on the problem. Adding more junk will not make it run better. I want speed not junk!
aussieblnd@...28th Oct 2008 -
I don't know about 2....maybe 1.5
Looks like they got around to changing the rest of vista that they didn't have time to fix in the first go around er first 2 go rounds including sp1. This looks like sp 1.5 to me.
rickroberts_mcse@...29th Oct 2008 -
Re: Still Windows Vista
Yeah i have the same opinion. but actually windows 7 is based on windows XP, so its compatible with just as much things that can work on the XP. so actually its a XP update, a kind of.. but im already tired of looking at the windows 7, cause it looks like the windows vista.
Mortexxx30th Oct 2008 -
False.
"but actually windows 7 is based on windows XP"
Actually, it's based on Vista. They're not taking out the changes they made between Vista and XP.
They're mostly tweaking it to fix the most common complaints about Vista - which is largely UAC's black and white nature right now. They're allowing people to scale back UAC without turning it completely off.
Other than that, they really don't need to change much - driver compatibility will come with time as more hardware manufacturers offer updates and less people use older devices. It's already vastly improved from the time Vista was first released.
Program compatibility, ditto. It'll improve over time for the same reasons. They're not moving back to XP, nor to they need to.
CobraA130th Oct 2008 -
Geez, R U MAD!!
It isn't just based on XP, it is a mix of Vista and XP lamer. and it is far from Vista SP 1.5. Other then the interface and layouts there isn't really any comparison to Vista. Vista is rather sweat now, butWindows 7 owns all. There is no reason to hold on to the yuck'di'fied XP anymore. If you knwo Windows as much as you and many others talk like then you will have no migration issues at all. I have a lot of software and all but 2 titles work and they are games that require there to be a specific location for the My Documents folder. One of the 2 simply had to be installed with compatability for Windows XP SP2, the other one well it is just stuck in the gross apeal of XP. Yes XP is okay but it deserves very little bragging rights. TO me it is nothing more then a Windows 9x with ME extentions. You know like a short hair femailspending money to have longer hair by the way of hair extentions!!
BOTTOM LINE get off XP and ride Windows 7, you will be glade you did. the few small almost transparent bugs in 7 won't matter a bunch, and everyday it seems there are new improvements to the fixes as the pubic final is released.
Ez_Customs7th Jul 2009 -
A vulgar copy of KDE
It is a cheap copy of KDE. The larger menubar and the free floating desklets are taken straight from Linux/KDE. But then, isn't anything made by microsoft these days "inspired" by somthign else?
Internet explorer struggles to run after Mozilla and claims to have introduced innovative features that were available in mozilla for since 5 years ago. The innovative menu VIsta was shipped with was already available in linux (it is called kicker).
I am sure that soon they will claim they invented multiple desktops, on their OS, just like linux has had for many many years.
One thing to say is that, while Microsoft is not leading the way with innovative features, is definitely the first to patent features invented by others.
QatQat28th Oct 2008 -
What of all the ideas used by KDE
taken from Apple and Microsoft.
GuidingLight28th Oct 2008 -
Even OS X is inspired by existing *nix desktop
OS X is a build of FreeBSD stripped out of its powerful (but complex) features and its desktop is an enhancement of Enlightement.
I still think that KDE, and generally linux these days, is leading the way.QatQat28th Oct 2008 -
I this a joke?
Because I cannot see the satire.
People28th Oct 2008 -
No, it is not a joke
Os X is based on a unix kernel, derived from BSD Unix and improved with parts of FreeBSD and NetBSD.
I don't see why you are so surprised.QatQat28th Oct 2008 -
Which is why Conical says
that Ubuntu has to look more like OSX.
If KDE was leading the way, then they would say that Ubuntu must look more like KDE.GuidingLight28th Oct 2008 -
Do you know the difference between a distro and a desktop manager?
KDE is a Desktop Manager.
It is available ALSO for Ubuntu (distribution).
Ubuntu ships by default with Gnome (another desktop manager).
kubuntu ships by default with KDE.
The reason why Shuttleworth says that, is because Mac OS X it is undeniably easy to use, a thing that Apple has managed always to achieve with its Operating systems and that linux has to learn from them.QatQat28th Oct 2008 -
Because
Because I know what Enlightenment is and I use OS X on a daily basis and have studied OS X for years and for the life of me I cannot see how one can compare Quartz to X/Enlightenment. It's like comparing a airplanes landing gear to a helicopters landing skid.
Anyhow. Moving on...People28th Oct 2008 -
The Gui is all Apple, well ....
There is some Next in there, too. But KDE is lame
compared to OSX. Also, OSX is not stripped. It's got full
blown Unix under the hood. Apple just made a consumer
oriented interface and made the standard settings more
secure for people who don't want to fool around with
permissions and other complexities of UNIX. You can
command line all you want in OSX if that's what your heart
desires. Still, if you are really into Unix and all its
complexities and controls why buy a Mac? There are many
free versions of UNIX available to wet your whistle..
MacGeek212130th Oct 2008
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
