The last test version of Windows 7 ties up loose ends, adds remote streaming, XP virtualization, and looks nearly ready for primetime.
25 Windows 7 Release Candidate Features : Read more
25 Windows 7 Release Candidate Features : Read more
- Status
the_one111
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2008
- 142
- 0
- 18,630
quantumrand
Distinguished
- Feb 12, 2009
- 160
- 0
- 18,630
So did they fix the retardedness that is the new Internet Explorer taskbar BS? I seriously hope to god they did. That's really the most ridiculously stupid thing I've ever seen. If you have multiple browsers open, each with multiple tabs, when you click on the damn IE icon to try and switch between the windows, it displays all the TABS!!!!! There's no disignation between which tab is in which window, so I have to constantly cycle my way through just about every freaking tab I have open until I find the one I want.
Please tell me that's fixed.
Please tell me that's fixed.
[citation][nom]quantumrand[/nom]So did they fix the retardedness that is the new Internet Explorer taskbar BS? I seriously hope to god they did. That's really the most ridiculously stupid thing I've ever seen. If you have multiple browsers open, each with multiple tabs, when you click on the damn IE icon to try and switch between the windows, it displays all the TABS!!!!! There's no disignation between which tab is in which window, so I have to constantly cycle my way through just about every freaking tab I have open until I find the one I want.Please tell me that's fixed.[/citation]
I haven't checked to see if they fixed it, but I do know there is a setting in IE that shows one preview for the entire browser instead of one for each tab.
I haven't checked to see if they fixed it, but I do know there is a setting in IE that shows one preview for the entire browser instead of one for each tab.
[citation][nom]SpadeM[/nom]Just one question: during the installation process, does it prompt the user to CHOOSE what software packs to install or not? DVD Maker + games + the other versions of 7 ... i don't want or need them on my PC.[/citation]
No, it doesn't give you any of those options. You will have to remove them later.
No, it doesn't give you any of those options. You will have to remove them later.
xyzionz
Distinguished
- Aug 28, 2008
- 40
- 0
- 18,580
It only need a few clicks to complete the installation and it makes easy for beginners
I didn't like Vista though but Windows 7 haven't did anything that annoys me so far, just that I haven't get used to the new interface, and forgot to mention, where's the run command ?
I didn't like Vista though but Windows 7 haven't did anything that annoys me so far, just that I haven't get used to the new interface, and forgot to mention, where's the run command ?
I'm really starting to get sick of these feature reviews. I don't know anyone who still uses windows media player. Furthermore, I don't see how any of this actually improves using the operating system besides making it look prettier. Keep to the basics how much ram and cpu does it use at idle, which applications work. I have an old pentium 3 loaded with ram running xubuntu dam thing idles at 64 meg of ram and can run applications faster that any xp, vista, windows 7 box although about useless for multimedia/video encoding/editing. Average person uses web browse, aim, and itunes. By the way libraries are basically symbolic links used in linux for quite a few years now, don't treat windows like it's inventing the wheel. So seriously, how is this better than XP besides making my antivirus and microsoft office incompatible unless I run xp mode. Microsoft is trying way too hard to be pretty like mac, make your operating system faster and easier to use not slower and more complicated.
Sorry to complain. I just haven't seen anything good out of microsoft operating system wise since XP and am rather irritated in the direction things are going. Operating system is there to run applications and services. They make it better by making it run applications faster and services easy to set up. For god sakes make it easy to stop programs people don't want from starting up with their computer. I think if I use this OS and the only way for me to do that is launch msconfig.exe I will tear my hair out on behalf of every inexperienced computer user that will never find it. Here ends my rant sorry if I sound too antiwindows but I think windows is becoming ungodly in both resources and size but hey it looks prettier right.
Sorry to complain. I just haven't seen anything good out of microsoft operating system wise since XP and am rather irritated in the direction things are going. Operating system is there to run applications and services. They make it better by making it run applications faster and services easy to set up. For god sakes make it easy to stop programs people don't want from starting up with their computer. I think if I use this OS and the only way for me to do that is launch msconfig.exe I will tear my hair out on behalf of every inexperienced computer user that will never find it. Here ends my rant sorry if I sound too antiwindows but I think windows is becoming ungodly in both resources and size but hey it looks prettier right.
captaincharisma
Distinguished
- Oct 13, 2004
- 1,844
- 0
- 20,060
but yea it would be awesome of Microsoft released an ultra lean OS with a good minimum set of apps with the ability to add any others we may need.guys windows has left the building
welcome to the party
http
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVM32aEABGY&feature=related
welcome to the party
http
/www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVM32aEABGY&feature=related
[citation][nom]captaincharisma[/nom]im not at my PC right now but i think they buaried the "run" command in the accessories folder[/citation]
If you look in the taskbar and start menu properties page it should be listed under customise section of the start menu tab. IMHO there's no point using run anymore because you can hit start and type cmd and get the same result anyway. Tho it may chuck a spanner in the works if you need admin priveleges but there's always win+r for that.
If you look in the taskbar and start menu properties page it should be listed under customise section of the start menu tab. IMHO there's no point using run anymore because you can hit start and type cmd and get the same result anyway. Tho it may chuck a spanner in the works if you need admin priveleges but there's always win+r for that.
Here is something that really should be fixed.
When viewing file sizes when right-clicking on a folder or a file.
The numbers don't match. e.g. 7,27 MB (7.632.384 bytes)
They should change the algorithm (divide by 1.000.000 instead of 1024*1024 or change the unit to MiB, and the same with KB, GB, etcetera...
Have they fixed it in the o so good looking Windows 7?
Not fixing that actually is one big thing that makes it crap.
A lot of computer users get really confused and it's a source of mistakes about file size. Which matters if you try to get stuff to fit on something. In comparison, Linux uses the right conventions since somewhere in 2001, with Linux I mean the Linux Kernel.
They should fix that instead of being buzzy with aero peak,
it's good to have, but there are things that really need your attention MS engineers and programmers!
When viewing file sizes when right-clicking on a folder or a file.
The numbers don't match. e.g. 7,27 MB (7.632.384 bytes)
They should change the algorithm (divide by 1.000.000 instead of 1024*1024 or change the unit to MiB, and the same with KB, GB, etcetera...
Have they fixed it in the o so good looking Windows 7?
Not fixing that actually is one big thing that makes it crap.
A lot of computer users get really confused and it's a source of mistakes about file size. Which matters if you try to get stuff to fit on something. In comparison, Linux uses the right conventions since somewhere in 2001, with Linux I mean the Linux Kernel.
They should fix that instead of being buzzy with aero peak,
it's good to have, but there are things that really need your attention MS engineers and programmers!
quantumrand
Distinguished
- Feb 12, 2009
- 160
- 0
- 18,630
[citation][nom]annymmo[/nom]Here is something that really should be fixed. When viewing file sizes when right-clicking on a folder or a file. The numbers don't match. e.g. 7,27 MB (7.632.384 bytes)They should change the algorithm (divide by 1.000.000 instead of 1024*1024 or change the unit to MiB, and the same with KB, GB, etcetera...Have they fixed it in the o so good looking Windows 7?Not fixing that actually is one big thing that makes it crap. A lot of computer users get really confused and it's a source of mistakes about file size. Which matters if you try to get stuff to fit on something. In comparison, Linux uses the right conventions since somewhere in 2001, with Linux I mean the Linux Kernel. They should fix that instead of being buzzy with aero peak, it's good to have, but there are things that really need your attention MS engineers and programmers![/citation]
It's a computer, not a metric measurement. The numbers correspond correctly.
1KB is 1024bytes, 1MB is 1024KB, and so on. It's just the nature of a binary computer. Most everything is done in powers of 2.
Now, how the Russians handled their nomenclature with their trinary computers? I have no idea...
It's a computer, not a metric measurement. The numbers correspond correctly.
1KB is 1024bytes, 1MB is 1024KB, and so on. It's just the nature of a binary computer. Most everything is done in powers of 2.
Now, how the Russians handled their nomenclature with their trinary computers? I have no idea...
[citation][nom]annymmo[/nom]Here is something that really should be fixed. When viewing file sizes when right-clicking on a folder or a file. The numbers don't match. e.g. 7,27 MB (7.632.384 bytes)They should change the algorithm (divide by 1.000.000 instead of 1024*1024 or change the unit to MiB, and the same with KB, GB, etcetera...Have they fixed it in the o so good looking Windows 7?Not fixing that actually is one big thing that makes it crap. A lot of computer users get really confused and it's a source of mistakes about file size. Which matters if you try to get stuff to fit on something. In comparison, Linux uses the right conventions since somewhere in 2001, with Linux I mean the Linux Kernel. They should fix that instead of being buzzy with aero peak, it's good to have, but there are things that really need your attention MS engineers and programmers![/citation]
This is a stupid idea. You're basically asking microsoft to inaccurately report disk space. Additionally your comment about linux seems to me to be utter bs given all major distro's report their capacities accurately using the correct 1024KB = 1MB.
Its not hard to actually do a bit of research and find out a bit about the equipment you're using and I think if you're too lazy to learn a bit about computers then you deserve what you get. People like you make me wish people had to be licenced to use a computer.
This is a stupid idea. You're basically asking microsoft to inaccurately report disk space. Additionally your comment about linux seems to me to be utter bs given all major distro's report their capacities accurately using the correct 1024KB = 1MB.
Its not hard to actually do a bit of research and find out a bit about the equipment you're using and I think if you're too lazy to learn a bit about computers then you deserve what you get. People like you make me wish people had to be licenced to use a computer.
bildo123
Distinguished
- Feb 6, 2007
- 205
- 0
- 18,830
[citation][nom]xyzionz[/nom]It only need a few clicks to complete the installation and it makes easy for beginnersI didn't like Vista though but Windows 7 haven't did anything that annoys me so far, just that I haven't get used to the new interface, and forgot to mention, where's the run command ?[/citation]
I personally noticed during the install of 7, that it had the same stupid "blank stare" syndrome when you install Vista. What I mean from blank stare syndrome, after I believe to be selecting/formatting the HDD, it just sits there for 10+ minutes with no progress bar, nothing to mark any level of progress. It literally seems like the install is locked up since their isn't much HDD activity at all either. For the most part this wouldn't matter to John Doe since they will never install an OS. But for the rest of us, a progress bar of some kind would be a nice touch.
I personally noticed during the install of 7, that it had the same stupid "blank stare" syndrome when you install Vista. What I mean from blank stare syndrome, after I believe to be selecting/formatting the HDD, it just sits there for 10+ minutes with no progress bar, nothing to mark any level of progress. It literally seems like the install is locked up since their isn't much HDD activity at all either. For the most part this wouldn't matter to John Doe since they will never install an OS. But for the rest of us, a progress bar of some kind would be a nice touch.
[citation][nom]quantumrand[/nom]It's a computer, not a metric measurement. The numbers correspond correctly.1KB is 1024bytes, 1MB is 1024KB, and so on. It's just the nature of a binary computer. Most everything is done in powers of 2.Now, how the Russians handled their nomenclature with their trinary computers? I have no idea...[/citation]
Everything is done in powers of two. Already knew that.
So it's the nature of computers that computers can't divide by 1000?
Your calculator will surely contradict that fact.
The current use of the prefixes conflicts with the Si prefixes.
That's why there are those something-i-bytes mentioned.
The right nomenclature is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte
Read this article, this link was actually needed in my first post.
The correct way of noting down the numbers with the correct standards and prefixes:
1024B = 1KiB, 1024KB = 1MiB, not KB and MB.
Stating that 1024KB = 1MB is actually not correct.
It's just used a lot. It's adopted as the normal way but it's not the right way to represent things.
It's: 1024KiB = 1MiB or 1000KB = 1MB.
Have you researched that kato128?
Don't accuse people of laziness before you have researched the matter yourself.
Everything is done in powers of two. Already knew that.
So it's the nature of computers that computers can't divide by 1000?
Your calculator will surely contradict that fact.
The current use of the prefixes conflicts with the Si prefixes.
That's why there are those something-i-bytes mentioned.
The right nomenclature is described here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibibyte
Read this article, this link was actually needed in my first post.
The correct way of noting down the numbers with the correct standards and prefixes:
1024B = 1KiB, 1024KB = 1MiB, not KB and MB.
Stating that 1024KB = 1MB is actually not correct.
It's just used a lot. It's adopted as the normal way but it's not the right way to represent things.
It's: 1024KiB = 1MiB or 1000KB = 1MB.
Have you researched that kato128?
Don't accuse people of laziness before you have researched the matter yourself.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Question Lenovo Yoga book 9i vs. Asus Zenbook duo
- Started by szcad
- Replies: 0
-
-
-
-
-
Question Transferring iPhone 8 (iOS 14.5) to new 15: Upgrade 8’s iOS & best method of transfer
- Started by autozonejawana
- Replies: 0
Facebook
Twitter