Originally Posted by Article We were never big fans of the Quick Launch area because it was too fiddly and, if you wanted to store lots of regularly-used applications that were all accessible with a single click, it took up valuable taskbar space - I'm a fairly heavy multi-tasker, so taskbar space came at a premium.
Are you kidding? Quick launch is awesome! Just have a double height taskbar, window tabby things on the top, quick launch below and you've never got the need to go to you desktop ever again.
Sure, it's not great if you're using a smaller monitor but on 1280x1024 I find the loss of a tiny bit of vertical screen space absolutely worth the increase in ease of use it brings. You can also use hide taskbar thing if you're really picky.
Anyway, back to my reading.
EDIT: Ok the new taskbar does sound awesome if I'm interpreting this right. It's essentially like they've merged the quick launch and task bar tabs? So you have thunderbird pinned on there, you click on it and it opens it, once it opens it acts as the tab?
LOL so you're thinking the same as I do then :-) The Quick Launch is one feature in XP that I can't live without and with Windows 7 get rid of it, it makes me sad T_T. When I open up a program in XP, I always do it from Quick Launch, I rarely run it from the Start Menu because I think Start Menu is too crowded. Now with no Quick Launch in Win 7, I don't know if I would migrate to Win 7 :p
And about the Quick Launch taking up a lot of taskbar space, I'd say that is simply incorrect because everyone knows that it can be resized to a minimum of 3 visible icons + an expand arrow beside it. My Quick Launch width is only 2 cm here and the whole taskbar width is 30 cm (1280x800 res in a 14" LCD), so I don't know how can it be said to takes up a lot of taskbar space? IMO, the SysTray area is usually the one which takes up a lot of taskbar space, even if you already enable the "Hide inactive icons" feature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyocera future OS should just manage, allowing the programs direct access to the hardware or functioning as a virtual machine if needed. Not to mention, that an OS should not play the game of enabling hardware producers to be market dominant, and the other way around (X86, Intel).
When I read that comment of yours, there's only 1 thing that comes up to mind, which is........ Apple! They even lock their own BIOS for God's sake LOL.
Originally Posted by Article We were never big fans of the Quick Launch area because it was too fiddly and, if you wanted to store lots of regularly-used applications that were all accessible with a single click, it took up valuable taskbar space - I'm a fairly heavy multi-tasker, so taskbar space came at a premium.
Are you kidding? Quick launch is awesome! Just have a double height taskbar, window tabby things on the top, quick launch below and you've never got the need to go to you desktop ever again.
Sure, it's not great if you're using a smaller monitor but on 1280x1024 I find the loss of a tiny bit of vertical screen space absolutely worth the increase in ease of use it brings. You can also use hide taskbar thing if you're really picky.
Anyway, back to my reading.
EDIT: Ok the new taskbar does sound awesome if I'm interpreting this right. It's essentially like they've merged the quick launch and task bar tabs? So you have thunderbird pinned on there, you click on it and it opens it, once it opens it acts as the tab?
LOL so you're thinking the same as I do then :-) The Quick Launch is one feature in XP that I can't live without and with Windows 7 get rid of it, it makes me sad T_T. When I open up a program in XP, I always do it from Quick Launch, I rarely run it from the Start Menu because I think Start Menu is too crowded. Now with no Quick Launch in Win 7, I don't know if I would migrate to Win 7 :p
And about the Quick Launch taking up a lot of taskbar space, I'd say that is simply incorrect because everyone knows that it can be resized to a minimum of 3 visible icons + an expand arrow beside it. My Quick Launch width is only 2 cm here and the whole taskbar width is 30 cm (1280x800 res in a 14" LCD), so I don't know how can it be said to takes up a lot of taskbar space? IMO, the SysTray area is usually the one which takes up a lot of taskbar space, even if you already enable the "Hide inactive icons" feature.
For me, where I have a fair number of regularly used applications, it's actually two clicks to get to most of them using Quick Launch because it takes up space. Quick Launch also grows quite quickly if you don't manage it - I often don't have time to keep my applications/shortcuts tidy - my desktop is full of crap, which is why I turn off icons unless I actually need something that I know is on there.
I actually found myself leaving many of my applications open to achieve the same thing subconciously (while nomming all the RAM) and also stacked them in my Start Menu in the sticky area at the top under Email/Web for launching because I found them easier to get to there. Quick Launch just wasn't useful to me, but I know that several of you have said you did like it.
With Windows 7, it's one click to get to any of those regularly used applications, regardless of whether they're open or not, because I've pinned them in a line across the taskbar. It's actually useful because those appliations open in the same place on the taskbar every time I run them, so accessing them is, quite literally, second nature.
With Windows 7, it's one click to get to any of those regularly used applications, regardless of whether they're open or not, because I've pinned them in a line across the taskbar. It's actually useful because those appliations open in the same place on the taskbar every time I run them, so accessing them is, quite literally, second nature.
A bit like the dock in OS X - which is good. The more ideas cross-pollinate between the three main OS's, the better each one becomes.
I'm hoping some Windows 7 ideas like the drag-to-edge to half-maximise a window, and easier networking make it across the OS divide, maybe in time for OS X 10.7.
windows 7 will run mostly happy on 512mb of ram (in an laptop) the pc was still useable and web sites still loaded in good time (i going to have an little bit more of an play with it as i do not use that one i sold the 2gb of ram that was in it :) but it did boot right to the desktop with the built in 512mb of ram that is in the laptop and opened IE quite fast)
Originally Posted by sandys Do you really think that I'm sure there are loads of people on this site that are nowhere near this level.
Myself I have such a machine but I'm very happy with Vista on it, Win7 is no more than a tarted up Vista really and a lot of its improvements are sure to come via updates I'd imagine, so no need to change that, I am however very interested how this OS will perform versus XP on my shitebook.
Whilst yes XP is old, netbooks are still being sold with this OS on it, therefore win7 performance versus XP is very relevant for a lot of people, netbooks were probably the only thing to come out in the last couple of years to provide any spark in the PC sales industry, unfortunately they could not cope with Vista and so most are sold with XP.
XP is poor, I know this, compared to running Vista there are lots of things that annoy me about XP, things like floppy/CD access do not slow up a Vista machine for example whereas on XP the file explorer becomes unresponsive, multitasking is typically better in Vista as is memory management, in that it uses all available RAM so things run up instant etc, improving the experience, but XP has been required for these rubbish low end web machines, wanting comparisons between XP and Win7 are valid in this case.
There are some positive response in the thread which is good but you can't just disregard XP because you think its old hat and people need to get with the program as I'm sure more netbooks were sold to consumers than 6Gb i7 behemoths and this is unlikely to change in the future.
i meant to say 4gb+ but you do make a fair point, i have a aspire one (1.6 atom) and will continue to run XP on that as i do little more than browse the web and play music on it.
For those people with a Windows 7 ISO and want to boot off USB to install, Microsoft have a tool to make a bootable USB copy - http://store.microsoft.com/Help/ISO-Tool - very handy! Now no more fussing around with boot files etc.
It also makes creating a bootable DVD from the ISO incredibly simple.
I'd be interested to know users performance opinions relating to design app such as CS3 Creative Suite (PS, INDD, IL) video editing and 3d on W7 compared to XP.
Comments 101 to 111 of 111
ReplyLOL so you're thinking the same as I do then :-) The Quick Launch is one feature in XP that I can't live without and with Windows 7 get rid of it, it makes me sad T_T. When I open up a program in XP, I always do it from Quick Launch, I rarely run it from the Start Menu because I think Start Menu is too crowded. Now with no Quick Launch in Win 7, I don't know if I would migrate to Win 7 :p
And about the Quick Launch taking up a lot of taskbar space, I'd say that is simply incorrect because everyone knows that it can be resized to a minimum of 3 visible icons + an expand arrow beside it. My Quick Launch width is only 2 cm here and the whole taskbar width is 30 cm (1280x800 res in a 14" LCD), so I don't know how can it be said to takes up a lot of taskbar space? IMO, the SysTray area is usually the one which takes up a lot of taskbar space, even if you already enable the "Hide inactive icons" feature.
When I read that comment of yours, there's only 1 thing that comes up to mind, which is........ Apple! They even lock their own BIOS for God's sake LOL.
Ah, didn't know that. Thanks
Working fine for me.
For me, where I have a fair number of regularly used applications, it's actually two clicks to get to most of them using Quick Launch because it takes up space. Quick Launch also grows quite quickly if you don't manage it - I often don't have time to keep my applications/shortcuts tidy - my desktop is full of crap, which is why I turn off icons unless I actually need something that I know is on there.
I actually found myself leaving many of my applications open to achieve the same thing subconciously (while nomming all the RAM) and also stacked them in my Start Menu in the sticky area at the top under Email/Web for launching because I found them easier to get to there. Quick Launch just wasn't useful to me, but I know that several of you have said you did like it.
With Windows 7, it's one click to get to any of those regularly used applications, regardless of whether they're open or not, because I've pinned them in a line across the taskbar. It's actually useful because those appliations open in the same place on the taskbar every time I run them, so accessing them is, quite literally, second nature.
Meant the UI, unless they updated it with the Win7 visual styles?
I'm hoping some Windows 7 ideas like the drag-to-edge to half-maximise a window, and easier networking make it across the OS divide, maybe in time for OS X 10.7.
Yes they have.
i meant to say 4gb+ but you do make a fair point, i have a aspire one (1.6 atom) and will continue to run XP on that as i do little more than browse the web and play music on it.
It also makes creating a bootable DVD from the ISO incredibly simple.
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums