- Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it
- Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems, and
- Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous
Features that have been available in previous Windows releases, and also other operating systems before it
Microsoft is, of course, keeping the Vista's newish start menu with the built-in search. This is good, because it may have been the only worthwhile new feature in Vista. I wouldn't ever use it, because I know where I keep my files, and I usually use toolbars and shortcut keys to get to my programs faster, but for your average Windows user, this is a good thing to keep around. Too bad you have to keep a poorly-written, stodgy, resource-hogging Indexing Service running to get decent performance out of it. They'd be better off using a different filesystem that doesn't fragment files and keeps better track of files on its own. golfclap
In addition to this, they're keeping the Vista control panel with a couple small tweaks. This is where I start to dissent from the plusses. I hate the Vista control panel with the fiery passion of a billion fusion reactions. It doesn't need to stick around any longer. It needs total retooling, and all options for a particular action or category need to be organized better, and all in the same window. I'm tired of digging around aimlessly trying to find common settings. I don't care if this means that terminology for these settings needs to become more terse. If you're going to try to be in control of your computer, you might as well learn what your actions are actually called.
Another thing that's sticking around with one small change is User Account Control. I found this to be one of the biggest detractors of Vista, and proof of Microsoft's severe lack of understanding on the subject of security. Simply asking the user if it's okay for Vista to run virtually any program it encounters is not enough. Especially when a simple keystroke (Alt+C) skips straight past this. Also since disabling it is so easy. For Vista, they ripped this concept straight out of Linux operating systems where a superuser password is required to access administrative materials. The difference is that Vista does not require a password on every account the way Linux does, and so any hacker or bot program can easily get past this "feature" by sending a keystroke instead of having to crack passwords. It's not security. It's annoying.
They've changed it up a little bit. See, before, you could only disable it or enable it. There was no in between setting. So you were either constantly annoyed or less constantly annoyed, but never really any more secure than you would be without UAC at all. Now there are four settings - on, off, and two in betweens that let you choose how often, and for what purposes UAC should notify you that the program you are running is requesting administrative access. This is admittedly better than it used to be, but I'm afraid I have to point another bitter finger at the control panel, which presents this single option as a full window with a slider bar instead of the two checkboxes that it should occupy as a footnote to the security options. This is exactly the kind of dumbing-down that ruins the current control panel scheme as Microsoft would have it.
It looks like MS has done away with the Vista sidebar, but kept the gadgets. This is probably a step forward for them, but if they really want to copy Linux and Mac, they should put the gadgets on a separate layer that shows and hides when you press a predefined toggle key, or click a button. Instead, the gadgets are constantly taking up space on your desktop, and if things are as they were in Vista, they'll have a higher Z-order, so you won't be able to select desktop icons which are behind them. So they're crowding up precious desktop space.
Also, Windows 7 has taken the concept of a tool ribbon which has delighted very few users of Microsoft Office 2007 and redistributed it across every single program Windows has to offer! This has got to be the worst idea Microsoft has come up with yet. The people who like it say they like it for the better organization of functions and for the smaller screen real estate it consumes. However, Microsoft has implemented this in such programs as Paint and WordPad. Can somebody please clarify for me how it consumes less screen space and presents your options in a better way to put ribbons in simple programs like this instead of actually displaying ALL of your options at once? I just don't understand. We've gone from having small buttons for tools on the left and small squares for colors on the botton to having giant, lunky boxes taking up a third of the program's height, and ALL OF THE FUNCTIONS ARE OBSCURED!!! I don't get it. This doesn't make any sense. I hope somebody from Microsoft gets hit with a meteor because of this. Not because of some trivial rearrangement of buttons in a stupid program that nobody ever uses, but because of how obviously asinine they are to assume that there is always a one-size-fits-all solution to every problem. This is stupid, and a major reason for me not to use Windows 7 right now. For the record, I don't like it in Office, either.
Features that have not been in Windows before, but have been in other operating systems
It looks like they're trying to make Bluetooth easy to use. Good job, Microsoft. It's about time somebody took the initiative to turn the complication of the Bluetooth wireless "standard" into a point-and-click-and-be-done-with-it interface. Too bad Linux got there before you. In some distributions, like the very popular Ubuntu which has become the Messiah of the Linux users who want Linux to arrive in the mainstream, you don't even have to install software. There's not even a wizard like the one demonstrated in Windows 7. It takes two clicks and a bonding password, and you're done.
Somewhat original features that represent a more "Windowsey" approach to features that have made other operating systems famous
So Windows now has a different taskbar (or it will). Instead of showing you the names of the programs that are running, you only get icons. In this way, you cannot differentiate between shortcuts in your Quick Launch bar and programs that are already running. This is exactly the kind of change they need to make to get confused people to like the next Windows operating system. Also, the only two differences between this and Mac's dock are that Windows allows you to close programs when you're done with them, and Mac's version looks good.
</sarcasm>
The benefit here is that when you mouse over the icons for running programs, you get a preview of the window. Which... Wait... Okay, so Linux has been doing this for quite some time now, and Microsoft did it with Vista... So it's not really as original as it may seem. I guess the only thing original about this feature is that if you have, say, multiple documents open in Word, you'll get a preview for each document. Clicking on the preview opens the program directly to that document. That's pretty cool. I only hope that the two previews are clear enough and large enough for me to determine which of the documents I'm opening. I have never liked the taskbar grouping that's been around since XP, so I doubt I'm going to like this feature. Especially because it won't display words. Perhaps part of the desktop customization Microsoft is screaming about will allow me to disable this feature. I'm undecided on this feature as of right now, but I'm leaning toward "I don't like it."
Another thing that no operating system I've ever witnessed has ever done that Windows 7 is now apparently doing is requiring you to log into Windows Live services. That's the same Windows Live that keeps getting blasted for sucking so much. Only it's no longer an option. At least that's the image given by CNet's video review of the Windows 7 Alpha. I will expound on how this is only a method to stack the usage statistics later on in another blog entry. Suffice it to say it's unfair. Par for the course for Microsoft, in other words.
Conclusion
I know we're still years away from Windows 7 being a public threat, but in all seriousness, if this is all Microsoft has changed, if this is all Windows 7 can offer, then I don't know why anyone should bother. I mean, sure, Microsoft has contracts that ensure that the OS will get used on every single PC purchased until they decide it should be a different version of the same old crap. But this doesn't help them in any new way. If Microsoft wants to sell more units, they need to get folks to upgrade. What I've seen so far is not a reason to upgrade. If anything, it's a reason to stick with the tried and true, or venture into Linuxland where these issues are not a problem.
The point is, so far, I have not seen an upgrade. I have seen an update. I have to fall back on my precious Ubuntu here to point out that more positive changes are made to that operating system with each six-month version than Microsoft has ever made between versions, even when they've had years to work on it. I'll say right now that I'm not sold, and that it's going to be a tough sell for me. I'll stick with XP for the occasions that I need Windows, and I won't be changing until Microsoft produces, at bare minimum, a multiple virtual desktop environment.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment