The big Windows 7 experiment has begun

[jdhurst]

The experiment has started with Windows 7 on a 500Gb hard drive.

First disappointment: The 500Gb Seagate drive is only 450Gb. It was a blank drive, so there is no recovery partition. Just the vendors' (plural) greedy advertising of measuing in bytes so it has to be restated to normal (lesser) numbers. One whole virtual machine now cannot be installed because I forgot that vendors are pathological liars.

Installation: So far so good. 11 years on the line here. 11 years starting with Windows NT4 of no BSOD's of any kind. We shall see if Windows 7 can keep this record intact.

Futures: Except for 64-bit, my Vista laptop is no more productive than my XP laptop. Except for Clear Type, my XP laptop is no more productive that my Windows 2000 laptop. Windows 2000 *was* more productive than Windows 9x before that.

I paid $400 for a full (not upgrade) license for Windows 7. My guess is that it will prove to be an utter waste of money.

Any thoughts? ... JDH

[jdhurst]

It is of course, too early to write off Windows 7, but it gets an performance score of 1.0 compared to over 4 for Vista. Deathly slow whereas my Vista box is like greased lightning.

And I cannot get rid of the pathetically stupid start button. On Windows 95, 98, NT4, 2000, XP, and Vista, when I click on Start, I see one single column of items to select, one of which is Programs which is my next flyout.

In Windows 7, I get two columns of picks, and it looks like and works like utter crap. But try as I might, I cannot get rid of it. That one single bug may cause me to take the loss and write off Windows 7.

... JDH

[Harryc]

The W7 help system works.

To customize the right pane of the Start menu ...
You can add or remove items, such as Computer, Control Panel, and Pictures, that appear on the right side of the Start menu. You can also change some items so that they appear as links or menus.

Click to open Taskbar and Start Menu Properties.

Click the Start Menu tab, and then click Customize.

In the Customize Start Menu dialog box, select (or deselect) the options in the list that you want, click OK, and then click OK again.

[crashnburn]

So for stable 4GB RAM performance would you recommend going back to Windows 2000? 2003? or 2008? (Server editions I guess?)

[neenee]

It's rarely a good idea to upgrade unless you need features provided by that upgrade, or if a problem will be fixed by doing so.

I myself do not share your experiences when it comes to Windows 7.

Good luck with your predicament

[yak]

On Windows 95, 98, NT4, 2000, XP, and Vista, when I click on Start, I see one single column of items to select, one of which is Programs which is my next flyout.

In all of my years using Windows I came to quickly realize how painful it is to start programs using this "Programs" menu if you have a lot of stuff installed. In XP days I tried various tools like Launchy so I was very happy to finally get a built-in solution in Vista and now in 7. Now I start programs using my keyboard only. I just hit the Windows key, type the start of the name of a program I want to start, hit Enter and here it is.

Try to forget the old habits and seek for new ways to make the time spent at the PC more productive and less frustrating.

[jdhurst]

I have searched high and low and (a) I know how to search and (b) I have paid 3rd party applications to replace Windows Explorer and Offline files. There is no way to get rid of the start menu in Windows 7. More and more, a tiny little tail is stuffing their way to work down the throat of the big dog owning the tail. Shameful.

I have changed all the way along, beat Vista into submission and accepted it all. I may have to use Windows 7, but I will never accept it. Some day a 3rd party desktop replacement will come along and I will buy it. ... JDH

[jdhurst]

<snip>
Try to forget the old habits and seek for new ways to make the time spent at the PC more productive and less frustrating.

I am reading this sentiment in other places, but when one is well organized, this new method is vastly slower to use. It will never be as fast, no matter how much time passes. ... JDH

[jdhurst]

I got a bunch of drivers installed (still more to go) but the performance score went over 4, I polished the Performance settings (got rid of eye candy) and the machine is now working as fast with Windows 7 as with Vista. There is no question that my overall coordinated design picks (fast Core 2 Duo CPU, 4Gb of memory, and a fast hard drive) conspire to make a very quick machine.

I am well used to Vista, so I gutted the foolishness out of Windows 7 pretty fast, installed xPlorer2 so I can find things in a hurry, and am now left with only with a defective Start Button. CSMenu looks like my saviour here, and soonish (within a week or so part time, I shall have this machine looking just like and functioning just like Windows 2000 plus natural OS advances like 64-bit and IPv6).

... JDH

[dr_st]

In all of my years using Windows I came to quickly realize how painful it is to start programs using this "Programs" menu if you have a lot of stuff installed. In XP days I tried various tools like Launchy so I was very happy to finally get a built-in solution in Vista and now in 7. Now I start programs using my keyboard only. I just hit the Windows key, type the start of the name of a program I want to start, hit Enter and here it is.

I have a different approach. Since my earliest days with XP (and probably even Win98 before it), I've gotten into a habit of placing shortcuts on my desktop for commonly used applications, and assigning shortcut keys to them. It is the fastest and usually enough for the most commonly used programs since there are not too many of them.

Try to forget the old habits and seek for new ways to make the time spent at the PC more productive and less frustrating.

When I saw Windows ７ and noticed some of ｔｈｅ changes to the UI it made over Vista, I came to the same conclusion. To me, the new UIs in XP/Vista were nothing more　than glorified visual themes, and I saw no real benefit in them. So I quickly reverted all my XP/Vista machines to classic theme and classic start menu. With 7 Microsoft disabled some of this classic functionality, and I think it is for a good reason. 7 offers ways to do things differently, and potentially, better. The interface is finally different enough to justify its use (at least this is my feeling).

[mattbiernat]

i have the same problem with start menu, it really pisses me off to have 2 columns and even thou i can get rid of all the nonsense in the right column it still stays there as a blank. yes microsoft is notorious for shuffling down our throats things that we don't like sometimes and not putting any option to customize our experience. but i have already i've noticed with windows vista that classic windows experience is no more.

[Harryc]

jdhurst mentioned csmenu earlier. Here is a link to a 'howto'.
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/2227/get ... windows-7/

[visionguru]

I like Windows 7's two column start manu, it allows quick access to most recent files.

I'm running Windows 7 in my W500 and X41t. I can say that Windows 7 is by far the best OS from Microsoft, light, stable.

[jdhurst]

I like Windows 7's two column start manu, it allows quick access to most recent files.

I'm running Windows 7 in my W500 and X41t. I can say that Windows 7 is by far the best OS from Microsoft, light, stable.

For me, however, there is more in my life than the most recent files. Obvious frequent programs are in my Vista start button (classic), on the desktop, or on the shortcut bar on the side. I just exited my Windows 7 machine and came back to Vista to do some work. The two columns are a pain in the butt to me. I do not ask anyone to work my way - I wish others (Microsoft) would stop pushing their way down my throat. They clearly do not have a clue on the face of this earth how to put in a good day's work. No idea. If they did, Windows 7 would be different. ... JDH

[SHoTTa35]

I guess everyone has their way of doing things but i always see that like buying a brand new BMW and ripping out the navigation system and seats and dash to put in one from a old 56 Chevy cuz those seats just contour to your butt perfectly! I wouldn't get the car if that's the case or i would have to just keep them as is and contour my butt to the new seats

Microsoft tries to implement a fairly well designed system (in their minds) but someone will always not like it since these things are so subjective. They can't just ship with a blank system tho and tell the user to create what they want, they wouldn't sell much then.As for JDH, it's your PC - "Personal Computer" so make Windows do what you want it to do anyway you feel fit. If you're gonna be using the darn thing all day, might as well be comfy doing it.

For me, i love the new "seats" more than the last ones, they seem to have designed them just for me! I loved Vista and XP when they came out but i'm not stuck in any way since i'm constantly evolving myself and finding new ways to do thing rather than doing the samething all the time. It annoys me sometimes even that the OS isn't updated fast enough to keep up with me. Some people are comfortable with what they have and i'm comfortable with (good) changes!

[jdhurst]

After an initial learning exercise, I re-formatted and re-installed Windows 7 and worked out the near term bugs. I have it working and looking essentially like Windows 2000. Except for defective Start Menu, it is now working fast, reliably and effective. I don't have a VPN tool yet, and until I do, I am holding off installing Office 2007 (I will want to deactivate it from my Vista machine).

It has taken about 3 days to do this, whereas it took some months to do the same thing in Vista.

Lest anyone thinks I am stuck in old ways, I am not. I watch people use the new ways, and there is only one or two people in a hundred people that can work faster the new ways than I can in the tried, known and true ways. Microsoft is changing for the sake of change something that is not broken. ... JDH

[ausmike]

After an initial learning exercise, I re-formatted and re-installed Windows 7 and worked out the near term bugs. I have it working and looking essentially like Windows 2000. Except for defective Start Menu, .......>

1)> JD < can you please explain where what you mean by defective "start menu" ??

Nope not being smartass about it> just that I got my W500 with LEnovo's Win7 x64 ult > really acting weird at times when I I click on "start". I have made NO changes nor moved anything for now < default install stage till now.


2) I am also getting my w500 with a weird problem (am adding these same comments here from another post elsewhere)>breif description of issue:
> when you hold and an OPEN WINDOW on windows 7 desktop, like you want to move a screen aside , so you can see screen below or next to it....
>> THAT SCREEN suddenly becomes "full screen" !!!

(((I tested this same thing on that same w500 with RC windows 7 - from previous testing. I have same setup on TWO SEPERATE HARD DRIVE so everything is SAME - so as to make a real APPLES to APPLE compsrison)) AND IT DIDNT DO THAT!!!

3) I have tried to talk to lenovo tech support (( ok for all those who have compalined about lack of knowledge @ that palce ...NOW I cannot defend them ))They told me " call MS as its a windows issue. I feel its a BUG with LENOVO DISPLAY DRIVER.

4) This same problem ( screen suddenly becoming FULL SCREEN) does not happen if u change/install the 'standard windows 7 ' display!!!
AND it dont happen on a DELL(dare i even mention that name here) M series laptop (supposed to be equal to W series )


Btw > i am also of same view as you > MS shouldnt push/force pple to do things THEIR WAY!!! but where have i heard those same arugments b4 <<< everywhere in the world>>> Lol ~

[visionviper]

2) I am also getting my w500 with a weird problem (am adding these same comments here from another post elsewhere)>breif description of issue:
> when you hold and an OPEN WINDOW on windows 7 desktop, like you want to move a screen aside , so you can see screen below or next to it....
>> THAT SCREEN suddenly becomes "full screen" !!!

(((I tested this same thing on that same w500 with RC windows 7 - from previous testing. I have same setup on TWO SEPERATE HARD DRIVE so everything is SAME - so as to make a real APPLES to APPLE compsrison)) AND IT DIDNT DO THAT!!!

3) I have tried to talk to lenovo tech support (( ok for all those who have compalined about lack of knowledge @ that palce ...NOW I cannot defend them ))They told me " call MS as its a windows issue. I feel its a BUG with LENOVO DISPLAY DRIVER.

4) This same problem ( screen suddenly becoming FULL SCREEN) does not happen if u change/install the 'standard windows 7 ' display!!!
AND it dont happen on a DELL(dare i even mention that name here) M series laptop (supposed to be equal to W series )

Lenovo doesn't make the graphics drivers, the graphics chip manufacturer does.

When you say "hold" you mean you are holding the left click button with the cursor on the window right? Does the window maximize while you are still holding the mouse button or after you release the mouse button? Does it happen with all applications or just a certain one/few in particular?

[ausmike]

JD >>

I think I can explain here ( as am often too lazy to type heaps of stuff .. got so used to Talk-Type software). It will open generally at the same size as your last closed screen and location on dekstop etc etc ,,,,< dont matter where it open on desktop .. as long as its not FULL SCREEN!!)

1) Open any screen (I used NOTEPAD - std one from win7 OS) and make window about 1/3 of your screen width..... NO DATA entered in there...

2) CLICK & HOLD DOWN LEFT button; and drag that notepad screen

3) if you let go ,,, anywhere else on screen ( as long its not too close to TOP/Bottom /SIDES of your FULL SCREEN WIDTH , IT SHOULD stay there and 'size' will remain same

(( this is what I beleived to be STANDARD screen movements on any windows desktop )))
HOWEVER , in my w500, it becomes FULL SCREEN !!!

I have tried it sme with WORD , IE8 and few other 'apps' get same results

MY W500CTO has ""ATI Mobility FireGL V5700 (512MB VRAM) with Intel AMT"" - ??? intel chipset on a ATI card ???

[jdhurst]

1)> JD < can you please explain where what you mean by defective "start menu" ??
Nope not being smartass about it> just that I got my W500 with LEnovo's Win7 x64 ult > really acting weird at times when I I click on "start". I have made NO changes nor moved anything for now < default install stage till now.

The Start Menu in Windows 7 has no Programs -> flyout. It has Control Panel and Admin Tools flyouts (like we have in Vista and everything before it) but no Programs.

So launching a Program means scrolling through several hundred entries in a one inch wide, two inch long screen. And I pointed out to Microsoft (Case number SRX11183 ...) I don't see how typing into the Start box can assist me in differentiating between
QuickBooks Premier Accountant - Multicurrency Edition 2008 and
QuickBooks Premier Accountant - Multicurrency Edition 2009

The new way might (I say might) assist a disorganized person, but it hinders an organized person like myself.

And I don't even mind that Microsoft brought this new way out. I mind greatly that they took away the option of a well-oiled, well-greased, productive, effective way of working. ... JDH

[yak]

I don't see how typing into the Start box can assist me in differentiating between
QuickBooks Premier Accountant - Multicurrency Edition 2008 and
QuickBooks Premier Accountant - Multicurrency Edition 2009

Well, you could probably just type "acco" or even less letters to get the two results and then just select the one you want (preferably using cursor keys cause it's faster than mouse) or you could type "acco 2009" to get a single result. It's hard for me to imagine how can you do it faster using the old Programs menu.

That being said, I also do not understand why Microsoft decided to ditch the classic Start menu. It was an important part of the classic Windows experience and it's what many people know and are used to.

[jdhurst]

<snip>
Well, you could probably just type "acco" or even less letters to get the two results and then just select the one you want (preferably using cursor keys cause it's faster than mouse) or you could type "acco 2009" to get a single result. It's hard for me to imagine how can you do it faster using the old Programs menu.
<snip>

That was just an example (I use QuickBooks), but I have examples where I could get 3 or 4 of the same thing.

So Start -> Programs -> Finance -> Quickbooks Ver -> Program is 4 clicks not counting start.

Start -> char1 -> char2 -> char3 -> char4 -> select -> select -> enter is 7 clicks not counting start.

It's a way to work that I don't like and cannot use effectiverly.

I replaced Windows Explorer with xPlorer2 Pro, offline files with Sync Back Pro and now I am going to replace the Start menu with CS Menu.

I can do all this customization in Linux as well, but Linux doesn't run the programs I need.

Thanks for your informative reply (and also the other informative replies here). ... JDH

[Marin85]

The Start Menu in Windows 7 has no Programs -> flyout. It has Control Panel and Admin Tools flyouts (like we have in Vista and everything before it) but no Programs.

So launching a Program means scrolling through several hundred entries in a one inch wide, two inch long screen.

I remember now, when I changed to Vista, I was very happy with it except for one 'little' thing, the frustrating lack of automagically expanding programs menu in the start menu. It was (and still is) a very handy feature of Windows XP, and I never understood why M$ needed to ditch it... But I also like the new two panels design with pinned programs and Documents, Pictures, Videos, Downloads, Admin Tools, as well as the ability to search right from the start menu for everything... I really think they could have incorporated both features with no problems. Taking what was good from before and adding some new functionality to it. The current solution with 'All Programs' is plainly useless to anyone having several applications installed (IMHO). So, I can fully understand your disappointment.
As of now, I´m trying to distribute my programs between shortcuts on the desktop, pinned shortcuts in the start menu and pinned shortcuts in the taskbar and it seems to be working quite well for me (for now). I am sort of lucky having a WUXGA screen and thus enough space to squeeze most things together

Just my 0.02$

Marin

[dsvochak]

I’ve always been annoyed that every application creates its own start menu folder. I cleaned up the clutter in W2K and XP by creating an “Apps” folder, moving all the individual application start menu folders into Apps and pinning Apps to the start menu. Similar process for Utilities. Same number of clicks as JD’s example.

With Vista and W7, I did the same thing, pinning Apps to the start button. Start->Apps->Office->Word. One more click, about the same amount of time.

(This issue isn’t really relevant for me as I usually open files rather than apps)

[Marin85]

When you pin the folder 'Apps' to the start menu, does it actually expand in menus and submenus, or when clicking on it, it simply opens the folder Apps and you have to manually navigate through all subfolders to the program you want to open?

Now, when you mentioned this about pinning a folder to the start menu, it came to my mind that Windows 7 start menu has some enhanced functionality over the older Vista menu, namely, some of the pinned shortcuts have arrows expanding to a submenu with recent items having been opened by the corresponding program previously. Each shortcut has its own list of recent items, but what is more important, one can pin arbitrary elements to that list, including other folders or shortcuts Thus it might be possible to incorporate something similar to the original XP start menu into the Windows 7 start menu. The only downside is that it would take lots of time to make and group all necessary folders with subfolders and shortcuts (and the effect would be anyways limited)...

[dsvochak]

...or when clicking on it, it simply opens the folder...

It simply opens the folder. That's sufficient for my use.

The balance of your comment raises some interesting possibilities, but I think you're correct that it would take more time to set up than it would be worth. As I said, I usually open files rather than programs and I've also created an "Open" folder containing my current open project folders/files and pinned that to the start menu. As a result the "flyout" issue isn't something I'm concerned about. Clicking to the file I want doesn't take that long.

[jgrobertson]

My first computer was a Z80 machine clocking at 5 MHz on a box made in 1976 before PCs (5.25 " floppy - no HD - with 64 Kbyte RAM). I ran Word Star on CPM (before DOS) and an NEC printer with print wheel. Beautiful documents and the word processor (character based) was faster than Word 2007 on W7 64 on my 2.8 GHZ, I7-860 with 8Gyte ram on ASUS board and 500 Gbyte HD

MS manages to add overhead and delays into Windows continuously to offset any improvements in hardware such that we are driven to buy the next generation. This is part of a Justice Department action against Intel if memory serves. The worst part is that MS Windows is an awful operating system but we are stuck with it as the marketing prowess of Billy Gates has created a complete monopoly which only the Europeans are doing anything about.

[bill bolton]

I ran Word Star on CPM (before DOS) and an NEC printer with print wheel. Beautiful documents and the word processor (character based) was faster than Word 2007 on W7 64 on my 2.8 GHZ

That is certainly NOT my experience, having made a similar journey.

WordStar was OK for basic WP (and definitely better than Electric Pencil which I had previously used) but had a HUGE numbers of speed issues with anything complex.

Cheers,

Bill B.

[Dr-J]

It is not my experience either, but he has a point. The old programs ran remarkably well with a very small memory and disk footprint. The WP programs of that era were pretty limited, and did not do proportional spacing that well unless one had special printers, and the ability to handle math and other graphics was terrible. I thought the various daisy-wheel printers gave text that looked awful (and don't ask about the dot matrix printers), and it was not until I started using the Unix typesetting tools that text started to look right.

I still use those tools these days, since Word and friends still do not produce text that looks that great. But the power of modern word processors is very far from what we had in the old days. I do not yearn for them at all.

[mattbiernat]

Beautiful documents and the word processor (character based) was faster than Word 2007 on W7 64 on my 2.8 GHZ, I7-860 with 8Gyte ram on ASUS board and 500 Gbyte HD

that's why i am running office XP on my windows 7 machine.