Windows 7 was so good it made me switch.

[pdxflint]

I actually like having all my 'most used programs' tucked away behind the Start button in Windows. I think it keeps a clean, uncluttered desktop.

Is there a way to set up a Mac that way? Where the dock only appears when we click on a button (but is otherwise hidden)?

Way back in Mac System 8 I used to put my programs/apps under the menu. It was just a folder with aliases, but that was possible more than 10 years ago - I don't know if it's still possible, but I'm sure it is. Or just put your Applications folder on the right side of your dock - and use stacks with "list" as the preference. One click and all your apps appear, either icons or a nice list in whatever order you want... not hard at all. Then just empty your dock of icons... or set your dock to autohide... lots of way to approach this. It ain't Windows, but there are certainly ways to make your workflow your own.

Speaking of Win7 - I put the RC on my machine when it first was available, and after spending just a little while on it I began to have that same rising blood pressure feeling I used to get as a regular Win2k and WinXP user - it just felt like the exact same DNA, although things were re-arranged, that same inner reaction in my gut was unmistakeable. I'm so done with Windows, after using it for 8 years. Been there - done that. Don't want to return, although I did want to see what all the fuss was about. Lots of eye candy for some (doesn't work for me...) and just seems too focused on glitter and slick paint job, but under the surface it still feels creaky, like an old Dodge with worn out shocks. Yeah, this isn't a technical evaluation... but it's an honest impression expressed in the simplest terms I can. It's coming off my MBP as soon as I get home and can dump it without polluting anything.

 

[Sounds Good]

Or just put your Applications folder on the right side of your dock - and use stacks with "list" as the preference. One click and all your apps appear, either icons or a nice list in whatever order you want... not hard at all. Then just empty your dock of icons... or set your dock to autohide... lots of way to approach this.

Hmmm.... I'll have to do a bit of research on this. I'm not a Mac owner (yet?) so I'm not sure what this all means, but I'll look into it.

Thanks very much...

 

[contoursvt]

Except that its not the exact same. The fact that the quicklaunch and taskbar are now the same bar makes things different. If you pin an application (so lets pretend thats equal to adding it to a quicklaunch), you'd expect that its always going to remain in the same spot but thats not true. Depending what application you launch, your pinned item may shift or move aside which is retarded. If you've pinned it, it should never move from that spot.

Fail. You can set it so it has the exact same behavior as previous taskbars fyi.

View attachment 175146

 

[andymodem]

Except that its not the exact same. The fact that the quicklaunch and taskbar are now the same bar makes things different. If you pin an application (so lets pretend thats equal to adding it to a quicklaunch), you'd expect that its always going to remain in the same spot but thats not true. Depending what application you launch, your pinned item may shift or move aside which is retarded. If you've pinned it, it should never move from that spot.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/888-quick-launch-enable-disable.html

 

[contoursvt]

Awesome. Thanks I wonder why the quicklaunch cannot be enabled the normal way and its via a registry change. Wonder if the final release will have it as a menu option. Well at least this takes care of one of my gripes so thats great.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/888-quick-launch-enable-disable.html

 

[Quillz]

Awesome. Thanks I wonder why the quicklaunch cannot be enabled the normal way and its via a registry change. Wonder if the final release will have it as a menu option. Well at least this takes care of one of my gripes so thats great.

It won't. Just like Apple, Microsoft is forcing change, whether people like it or not. But as with a lot of changes, it just requires some patience. You'll get used to it eventually. In fact, I think Windows 7's taskbar is far better than any previous incarnation. It adheres much better to Fitt's Law, and having static, pinned icons instills muscle memory. (Similar to locking down Dock icons and turning off all animations.)

 

[kasakka]

Except that its not the exact same. The fact that the quicklaunch and taskbar are now the same bar makes things different. If you pin an application (so lets pretend thats equal to adding it to a quicklaunch), you'd expect that its always going to remain in the same spot but thats not true. Depending what application you launch, your pinned item may shift or move aside which is retarded. If you've pinned it, it should never move from that spot.

New applications are always opened to the right of pinned applications. My pinned applications stay in one spot just fine.

 

[wrldwzrd89]

New applications are always opened to the right of pinned applications. My pinned applications stay in one spot just fine.

Yeah, the problem is that, if the Dock isn't fixed at its maximum size, it tends to expand when new applications are launched, shifting things over and destroying muscle memory.

 

[contoursvt]

Sorry,I should have clarified. My response was initially to andymodem who put a link showing how you can make the taskbar behave like XP and that means turning on text labels. With text labels on, you will get the shifting since it has to write something. A dedicated quick launch means those icons....but andymodem sent another link showing how that can be enabled and that was cool.

New applications are always opened to the right of pinned applications. My pinned applications stay in one spot just fine.

 

[uberamd]

Do you think Microsoft made Vista terrible on purpose, so then no matter what, the next OS that they made (in this case Windows 7) would look absolutely amazing in comparison?

 

[netnothing]

Do you think Microsoft made Vista terrible on purpose, so then no matter what, the next OS that they made (in this case Windows 7) would look absolutely amazing in comparison?

Um no. I think the project was mis-managed and rushed. Someone once used the metaphor, Vista development was like a 100 story skyscraper where the plans only called for 75 floors. Early on they added feature after feature on to it until it eventually toppled over. At that point Microsoft had to do some major coding changes and start dropping features (WinFS for example). Since they were so behind I think they rushed it out.

Between that and the mess of Vista Compatible logos (Intel and Microsoft screwing over early adopters), Vista got the bad rap it has today.

Honestly, Service Pack 1 did a lot to help Vista. And as drivers caught up and compatibility improved, it got more usable.

Usable by others....not me

I switched to the Mac in 2007 after my 1 year old PC wasn't able to install Vista do to motherboard driver issues. I said buh bye to Windows at that time and hello to OS X. I haven't looked back since! I even switched my Mom over after her brand new Gateway laptop (with Vista installed) wouldn't be able to install SP1 because of the crappy hardware and driver support!

I still say, use whatever machine and OS works best for you and what you are trying to do. Use the right tool for the job. For me, I've found OS X works the best and I work more efficiently with it.

-Kevin

 

[Richard1028]

I still say, use whatever machine and OS works best for you and what you are trying to do. Use the right tool for the job. For me, I've found OS X works the best and I work more efficiently with it.

Same here. But I think MS will make a big comeback with Win7. I think the Mac/PC ad campaign could very well be over.

Fortunately, I think Apple made a good move rebranding their laptops cheaper. One sure way to sell more OSX is to sell more macbooks.

 

[Quillz]

Do you think Microsoft made Vista terrible on purpose, so then no matter what, the next OS that they made (in this case Windows 7) would look absolutely amazing in comparison?

Considering that Vista never was and isn't terrible, I'd say no.

What people forget is Vista had the same problems that XP had at launch; primarily the lack of available third-party applications, updates and drivers. nVidia, for example, took more than a year to release proper Vista drivers. How is that Microsoft's fault? And of course, there were lots of perceived problems with Vista that weren't problems at all, but were rather just new ways of doing things.

Windows 7 is just like Windows 98... Very similar to its predecessor, but also was much more refined. Very much like Snow Leopard. Similar to Leopard, but improved.

So, while Apple will lambast Windows 7 as being an "upgraded Vista," that's actually a good thing.

 

[contoursvt]

I'm probably one of few that has never had any problems with Vista and I've been running the X64 at work and home. I have found it bulletproof...no freezes, lockups of any kind, never a single bluescreen. Best OS I've used to date.

Considering that Vista never was and isn't terrible, I'd say no.

What people forget is Vista had the same problems that XP had at launch; primarily the lack of available third-party applications, updates and drivers. nVidia, for example, took more than a year to release proper Vista drivers. How is that Microsoft's fault? And of course, there were lots of perceived problems with Vista that weren't problems at all, but were rather just new ways of doing things.

Windows 7 is just like Windows 98... Very similar to its predecessor, but also was much more refined. Very much like Snow Leopard. Similar to Leopard, but improved.

So, while Apple will lambast Windows 7 as being an "upgraded Vista," that's actually a good thing.

 

[Quillz]

I'm probably one of few that has never had any problems with Vista and I've been running the X64 at work and home. I have found it bulletproof...no freezes, lockups of any kind, never a single bluescreen. Best OS I've used to date.

I doubt you're one of the few.

With both Windows and Mac OS X, it's always a vocal minority that complain, a silent majority that say nothing.

 

[ppc750fx]

I've ran windows 7 with 512mb of ram. It runs just peachy and its plenty speedy. Heck theres very little difference in speed between the two unless you run alot of programs. It even runs decent on 320mb pentium III I had. And these are more than 7 year old machines. Heck the pentium III is from the 90's.

Either you're using a build/builds of Window 7 that hasn't/haven't been pushed out to MSDN subscribers, or you're exaggerating.

But Apple does the same thing. Granted, this year the cost dropped by $100 for Leopard users, but you still have to purchase it. I agree that the Microsoft fees are outrageous.

1) The cost of Mac OS X upgrades are substantially less than those of Microsoft Windows upgrades.

2) Mac OS X and Windows aren't the only two OSs out there.

And many Apple fans were upset that they weren't including 1GB standard. Apple is and has been continuously behind the hardware curve and charging extra for things like the case or the screen.

And? This simply supports my point -- up until recently, < 1GB wasn't that uncommon, so making 1GB the new minimum for a "good" experience is going to screw over a lot of budget-savvy, non-technical users.

I'm not impressed with Windows in general either, but then again, I'm not impressed by Apple's current lineup and pricing either. I like OS X but don't want to pay for hardware that is way more than what is needed. I choose cheap hardware and deal with Windows/Linux.

<shrugs>

Finding an equivalent criticism of Apple doesn't make Windows 7 any better. It doesn't add features to it, or make it anything more than a service pack with a great PR focus.

 

[windywoo]

I mean c'mon.....Windows 7 still doesn't have spring loaded folders? And try this, on OS X, open 2 finder windows. The one in front just slighty to the left of the one behind. Now, drag a file from the front window to the back window. What happens? The back window comes into focus. You can then use spring loaded folders to drop your file. In Windows, you can hover over that little bit of exposed window all day but it doesn't come into focus.
-Kevin

This is typical ignorant Apple fanboy logic. In windows the idea is you don't need to have the two windows open, you use the folders view in the sidebar to navigate up and down the folders. I find Finder a real pain in the arse with all its drag and drop ****. You have to get two windows to the front of all your other apps before you can copy between them. Yes you can use the sidebar too, but then again that is almost as slow, having to wait for the folder to change.

You can change the new Taskbar in Windows 7 to behave like the old one, no need for hacks. The new Expose in Dock feature of Snow Leopard is just a copy of Windows 7's preview feature.

Another Apple fanboy habit is to parrot the bad press Vista received at launch, ignoring the fact that since then Vista has been patched, and hardware has been upgraded. It runs fine, better than XP on modern hardware, and the only crashes I ever experience were my own fault overclocking too far. Show me the Apple machine I can overclock without spending over 2000GBP.

Windows 7 is more than a Service Pack, you would know that if you used it. It runs well on my 1.6Ghz laptop with 768MB of RAM which is below the minimum specs. Can't really say the same about Snow Leopard now can we? Apple decided not to support my G4 iBook. Pity, since Leopard runs like a dog on it, I was hoping the performance improvements of Snow Leopard would make me switch from Tiger. Of course I don't expect Apple to keep supporting PPC forever, but give MS credit where they are due: backwards compatibility.

Oh and their prices are not much worse than Apple if you buy an upgrade edition. Upgrade prices are based on the assumption that you already own an MS operating system, which is exactly how Apple prices their own OS. Snow Leopard may be $29 for Leopard users, but that is the exception not the rule, and still costs the same for Tiger users.

 

[netnothing]

This is typical ignorant Apple fanboy logic. In windows the idea is you don't need to have the two windows open, you use the folders view in the sidebar to navigate up and down the folders. I find Finder a real pain in the arse with all its drag and drop ****. You have to get two windows to the front of all your other apps before you can copy between them. Yes you can use the sidebar too, but then again that is almost as slow, having to wait for the folder to change.

You can change the new Taskbar in Windows 7 to behave like the old one, no need for hacks. The new Expose in Dock feature of Snow Leopard is just a copy of Windows 7's preview feature.

Another Apple fanboy habit is to parrot the bad press Vista received at launch, ignoring the fact that since then Vista has been patched, and hardware has been upgraded. It runs fine, better than XP on modern hardware, and the only crashes I ever experience were my own fault overclocking too far. Show me the Apple machine I can overclock without spending over 2000GBP.

Windows 7 is more than a Service Pack, you would know that if you used it. It runs well on my 1.6Ghz laptop with 768MB of RAM which is below the minimum specs. Can't really say the same about Snow Leopard now can we? Apple decided not to support my G4 iBook. Pity, since Leopard runs like a dog on it, I was hoping the performance improvements of Snow Leopard would make me switch from Tiger. Of course I don't expect Apple to keep supporting PPC forever, but give MS credit where they are due: backwards compatibility.

Oh and their prices are not much worse than Apple if you buy an upgrade edition. Upgrade prices are based on the assumption that you already own an MS operating system, which is exactly how Apple prices their own OS. Snow Leopard may be $29 for Leopard users, but that is the exception not the rule, and still costs the same for Tiger users.

Thanks for calling me a typical ignorant Apple fanboy....I appreciate someone taking what I said "personally" like I'm attacking them. I'm just pointing out something that I have noticed since moving to OS X from my years with Windows.

With using Expose and Spring Loaded folders....no you don't have to get 2 windows in front of you, that's the whole purpose. Like I said before, Microsoft and Apple have 2 different views on window management.

I personally like OS X's approach over Windows. This is after using Windows my entire life full time until 2007.

-Kevin

 

[windywoo]

If you used Windows for so long why do you complain about the lack of Spring Loaded windows? You should have known that Windows doesn't need them.

Are you saying that I can drag a file from one folder, open expose and drag it into another within Expose? Yes very good, but I can do almost the same thing with Vista Flip, it may require that I click instead of hovering, but are you seriously going to complain about an extra click?

By the way I just take ignorance passed as fact personally. You didn't say anything at all about personal preference in your post, you presented it as if it was an OS requirement.

 

[netnothing]

If you used Windows for so long why do you complain about the lack of Spring Loaded windows? You should have known that Windows doesn't need them.

Because it happens to be a feature of OS X that I not only like, but find it missing in Windows.

After using OS X as my primary machine, and going back to using a Windows machine, habit takes over. I try to do things the way I do them in OS X.

All my post was saying was that you can't. The feature isn't there in Windows.

By the way I just take ignorance passed as fact personally. You didn't say anything at all about personal preference in your post, you presented it as if it was an OS requirement.

What I said was fact. You can't do what I described in Windows. It was a simple example.

I'm real sorry that you are taking this so personally and feel that I'm a "typical ignorant Apple fanboy". I can assure you I'm not. I use OS X as my primary machine because I choose to, it's the best tool for me. I still use Windows as well. Do I think either is perfect....nope. There are features I prefer from each.

That's all I'll say about this. I was simply taking a experience I had with a particular feature of OS X vs Windows and sharing.

-Kevin

 

[windywoo]

Nit picking over minor OS features that most users wouldn't even miss in Windows is fanboy behaviour.

 

[kasakka]

Regarding Windows pricing:

You're insane if you buy any retail packaged Windows. They're absurdly overpriced. Instead everyone should just buy the OEM version. I bought the full Home Premium version of Vista 64-bit for about 100€ (OSX is about 125€) a year or two back and I intend to do the same when Win7 comes out.

The main differences between OEM and retail are that you don't get a full manual, phone support and a fancy case with the OEM. Just a brown cardboard box with a DVD case inside and a small startup guide. Other than that it's exactly the same stuff as the retail package.

Yeah, sure you can say that "OSX is just one version with everything" but most people don't need anything from the business version of Windows, the Home Premium has everything they need. Thus no need to spend more for the Ultimate (which is essentially Home Premium and Business combined). Yes, the multiple versions thing is silly and unnecessary.

 

[contoursvt]

Sorry, but there is one other important difference. The OEM one is licensed to only be installed and run from one machine. If you get a new computer, you cannot simply get rid of your old computer and install OEM on that computer using the same license. You can, but you'll be in breach of the agreement. The retail can be installed without limitations as long as you're using only one machine. If I buy a new computer every month and throw away the old and just install the retail on my current machine, its fine.

Regarding Windows pricing:

You're insane if you buy any retail packaged Windows. They're absurdly overpriced. Instead everyone should just buy the OEM version. I bought the full Home Premium version of Vista 64-bit for about 100€ (OSX is about 125€) a year or two back and I intend to do the same when Win7 comes out.

The main differences between OEM and retail are that you don't get a full manual, phone support and a fancy case with the OEM. Just a brown cardboard box with a DVD case inside and a small startup guide. Other than that it's exactly the same stuff as the retail package.

Yeah, sure you can say that "OSX is just one version with everything" but most people don't need anything from the business version of Windows, the Home Premium has everything they need. Thus no need to spend more for the Ultimate (which is essentially Home Premium and Business combined). Yes, the multiple versions thing is silly and unnecessary.

 

[Saladinos]

If you want to see your open windows, just hit the expose button. It's quick and gives you large, live images of all windows. You can even put an expose button in the Dock.

 

[nefan65]

If you want to see your open windows, just hit the expose button. It's quick and gives you large, live images of all windows. You can even put an expose button in the Dock.

Exactly. My middle mouse button [scroll wheel] is set for that. One click, I see everything, and I'm on my way...