A lot of people have been asking for a "classic" start menu, but no one has given a good solid reason as to why it's needed ("it's better" is not a sufficient reason), or even which "classic" start menu they are referring to.The Start Menu first appeared in Windows 95, almost 15 years ago, so is that one the "classic" start menu?Or do they mean the default start menu in Windows 98, Windows XP, or Windows Vista?Looking back, the Start Menu (even the "classic" one back in 1995) was difficult for people to accept -- not because it was "bad" but because it was different.From an early review of Windows 95:"The new "Start" menu can be annoying at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again. This is a step backwards from Program Manager which kept the last accessed program group on top. Of course, an advanced user could create a shortcut to the application on the desktop or add it to the top of the main start menu."http://toastytech.com/guis/win95.htmlShooting forwarding to today, people are now begging for this "annoying" start menu! Maybe, in a few years when everyone is used to the new Windows 7 / Vista start menu, people will finally realize that the new one is faster for techies and easier for Grandma to access.

As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because: 1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical ____ like it is in Vista and in Windows 7. When you boot it up the users at different companies should feel comfortable working with the Windows user interface which they arent with Vista and not in Windows 7. Why change something good Microsoft has used since windows 95 untill Windows XP to something worse? 2, Older people like 45-65 doesnt like the new Start Menu because it is harder to find stuff,ittakes still longer time to start programs in windows 7 then in Windows XP and so on. 3, It isnt Microsoft who gets the headache when the users wants to lynch the Technician. So if you want to sell ____ we will not buy Windows 7 untill administrators can use a policy on it showing a classic windows start menu,and loading itafter performance and not after looks!With windows classic start menu buttons and with a graphical windows xp look alike userinterface as fast as Windows XP. If you dont do this believe me we will start using Linux Ubuntu! Thats a fact! 4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. It boots faster and it shutdowns faster. The user recognizes the userinterface, it looks like Windows XP and you can start Windows TS session on it and so on. 5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!!

Oliver__76 said:As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because: 1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical ____ like it is in Vista and in Windows 7. When you boot it up the users at different companies should feel comfortable working with the Windows user interface which they arent with Vista and not in Windows 7. Why change something good Microsoft has used since windows 95 untill Windows XP to something worse? 2, Older people like 45-65 doesnt like the new Start Menu because it is harder to find stuff,ittakes still longer time to start programs in windows 7 then in Windows XP and so on. 3, It isnt Microsoft who gets the headache when the users wants to lynch the Technician. So if you want to sell ____ we will not buy Windows 7 untill administrators can use a policy on it showing a classic windows start menu,and loading itafter performance and not after looks!With windows classic start menu buttons and with a graphical windows xp look alike userinterface as fast as Windows XP. If you dont do this believe me we will start using Linux Ubuntu! Thats a fact! 4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. It boots faster and it shutdowns faster. The user recognizes the userinterface, it looks like Windows XP and you can start Windows TS session on it and so on. 5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!!HERE HERE! Hail to the Oliver baby! I want it for my own productivity, but i do game on my machine. though i also file serve, print serve, media serve and so on! probaly why its a screaming beast!

I am a web developer and I use Windows 7 at work. As a web developer I have certain needs:1. Quick access to launching "everyday" applications that I use everyday like Firefox, IE, Photoshop, SQLYog, Outlook, etc. 2. Quick access to less-common applications such as Calculator, Character Map, Command Prompt, etc.3. Easily be able to multi-task between all of those applications.The new Windows 7 Start Menu lets me do all of those things, and I can launch applications (both common and uncommon) much faster.How do I do it?1. I pinned all of my "everyday" applications to the taskbar. This alone keeps me from having to open the Start Menu at all on most days. I can easily just click the program's icon whether it's running or not, and I don't have to dig through any menus to get to it. It doesn't waste any space because the launcher icon becomes the task when it's running.2. If I need to launch a less-common application, I click the Start Button and begin typing the application name. I usually only have to type in a few letters before the search box finds exactly what I need, and then I just have to press Enter to launch it. Again, no need to dig through any menus to find things like Calculator and Character Map.All I'm saying is that by adjusting how I use Windows 7 to take advantage of its new features, I have increased my productivity, and it took me less than a day to get used to it. The "classic" start menu does not increase productivity beyond what Windows 7 provides by default.At home I am dual-booting with Windows XP, and the few times I have to go back to Windows XP, I always miss the Windows 7 taskbar and Start Menu.

Pinning down all of your "everyday" applications to the taskbar is also available in Windows XP! So why use Windows 7? The only thing I miss in Windows XP is the step 2 in your list =).

In Windows XP I generally disable Quick Launch because it competes with the taskbar, both physically and mentally. In other words, if I want to launch, say, Photoshop, I have to first see if I already have it running in the task bar. If it's not there, then I move over to the Quick Launch and launch it. But the reason why I remove the Quick Launch entirely is because it can become "muscle memory" for me to want to click the Quick Launch button every time I need Photoshop (even if it's already running).Even though I still have to make that assertion in XP ("is Photshop already running?"), I am less likely to accidentally launch a new instance from the Start Menu than from the Quick Launch.Windows 7 solves this for me with the superbar.I multitask over 60 hours a week with Windows 7, and I approve the new Taskbar and Start Menu.

Oliver__76 said: As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because: 1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical ____ like it is in Vista and in Windows 7. When you boot it up the users at different companies should feel comfortable working with the Windows user interface which they arent with Vista and not in Windows 7. Why change something good Microsoft has used since windows 95 untill Windows XP to something worse? 2, Older people like 45-65 doesnt like the new Start Menu because it is harder to find stuff,ittakes still longer time to start programs in windows 7 then in Windows XP and so on. 3, It isnt Microsoft who gets the headache when the users wants to lynch the Technician. So if you want to sell ____ we will not buy Windows 7 untill administrators can use a policy on it showing a classic windows start menu,and loading itafter performance and not after looks!With windows classic start menu buttons and with a graphical windows xp look alike userinterface as fast as Windows XP. If you dont do this believe me we will start using Linux Ubuntu! Thats a fact! 4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. It boots faster and it shutdowns faster. The user recognizes the userinterface, it looks like Windows XP and you can start Windows TS session on it and so on. 5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!! I agree with you total as an sytem Admnistrator at a school

I'm a MicrosoftProfessional and I start eachinstallationfrom my routine task to Switch Taskbar to"Classic Start menu" moreover "Show Small Icons" in the start menu is ESSENTIAL to me.It was introduced to me in Windows XP , this new approach for Managing files, Getting to Network Connections, Fax and printers, control panel etc.I JUST HATE it.Show Small Icons is essential because when I press START this menu doesn't take so much space on my desktop. It's small , little, tiny and this is the way I want it to be.To get to "Network Connections" it's just two clicks ! I press Start, Settings , Network Connections and I have WHAT I WANT.I don't see any fancy , gui , graphical Animation showing me where I stand with a network, No shiny buttons flying around telling me "YOU ARE CONNECTED" or not connected.I have my NIC , I can get to it's settings in seconds... and that's what I want. I appreciate that some people wish to use (especially home users) different , proposed menu.. which is fine.BUT TAKING POSIBILITY FROM THOSE WHO USED TO CLASSIC VIEW from Windows 7 ITS A MISTAKE , and if it won't come back I'll be strongly against this system, not because it's bad, but because it doesn't give an option to CHOOOOSE.MP

way to speak your mind, and i agree completely, thats the same way my GUI is set up.

I hope this post is informative and not an seen as an attack on your opinion.The fastest way to get to the network connections page in 7 is to click the Network icon in the system tray and click "Open Network and Sharing Center". If you need to manage your network adapters (which is what I think you were referring to in your post), click "Change adapter settings" on the left-hand sidepanel.How often do you modify your network adapter? If the answer is "often", would it help if you could pin your network connection to the Taskbar, so it's always accessible from 1 click? BTW I just tried this, and it seems network connections currently cannot be pinned to the Taskbar. I was able to create a shortcut to it on my Desktop, but I still could not drag the shortcut to the Taskbar.

I agree with mpianka. I use the network icon to access my NIC properties fairly often, in fact many times each week. I also prefer the classic start menu and have customized it very heavily in XP-Pro from which still do all my work during the day. I have over 120 apps that take up 3 full sized columns within the classic start menu and each of those have many slide-out columns afterward. I know not many people use as many apps as I do, but still, it's nice to be able to customize the UI environment. In fact - isn't that what mainly distinguishes Windows from the Mac OS? (I'm not familiar with the Mac OS, but that's what it seems like from their TV commercials)Mike

Just curious, why do you have to access your NIC properties so often? Are you changing your static IP address or adding networking protocols, or just reviewing the current settings?

If you have 3 full pages of apps openning classic menu, would this one not be nicer as it doesnt take up your entire screen doing that?Also, classic menu has been dying for a LONG time before this. I'm not a fan of everything they are trying to do atm, but I'm trying to play with the start menu / taskbar to try and make it workfor me, who knows I might find something that is even EASIER then I had it before and never would have bothered looking for itif I wasn't given the opportunity to play with it.

You are absolutely right and there are a lot of users Who agree with you. See:http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproui/thread/f942ad6a-9ce2-41b8-a1d7-d8fd6ba2cdc1, and similar posts.

I agree completely! I also miss the ability to switch between the ui themes (XP, Vista, W2k). It professionals have no use for a 3d effects... ui's should be simple and fast

I also agree as I've said in a couple of other threads. I like things set up the way I want them. After all, it is my computer! Bells, whistles and eye candy that don't help me work are useless to me. Don't necessarily take those things away, but at least give me the chance to opt out of some of them by returning the classic menu and the means to set up attached menus the way I want them.

I agree the CLASSIC MENU should be a choice for any number of reasonTek-Zar

I don't want this to sound like I'm disagreeing with you, because I'm all about choice and if it were still there, I'd say use it if you want it.HOWEVER...Asking for "Classic Start Menu" at this point is no different than the people who demanded Program Manager and File Manager from the old Windows 3.1 days when they upgraded to Windows 95/98. Microsoft forced the new UI on users for those versions, but left the old style in tact for 2 major upgrades afterwards to ease the transition. By the time Windows 2000 and ME were released, those old programs no longer existed.Now, the Classic Start Menu was replaced with the XP style menu and was expanded in Vista, and now Windows 7 (two major releases later) is deprecating that classic interface in favor of the new interface that has been in place since XP.At some point, no matter how much we love/hate an interface, it becomes imperative --- ESPECIALLY AS IT PROFESSIONALS --- to embrace the new interface to make it work for us, even if it means re-learning new tricks to make things as efficient as they were under a previous version.The same can be said of Office with the new Office 2007 Ribbon interface. No matter how much some people may hate it, they're not going to go back to the menu style, and in fact, Office 14 is expanding it to Outlook, OneNote, Publisher, etc etc.The bottom line is this... they're not asking if we like the decision, they're telling us to deal with it. To be honest, I resisted Vista with every ounce of my being, because I hated all the new changes and interface. With 7, because there are a lot of elements I like, I'm finally embracing the things I don't like and finding alternative solutions.Now I don't want to rant and walk away leaving you disgruntled that I told you your grandmother is dying and there's nothing you can do about it, so here's a few ways that you can simply the task you're trying to accomplish:1) Enable and show all notification area icons... especially the network connection one. Click it once, click Network and Sharing Center, click Change Adapter Settings. 3 clicks. XP required two, and Vista requires 8. For the record, I have submitted feedback for them to add "Change Adapter Settings" and "Change Firewall Settings" back to the right click menu of the network notification icon. I hope they really listen to that one.2) Click Start, type "view network connections" and press Enter. Bam, you're there. This is actually my preferred method for now, because I'm a keyboard junkie and press WinKey and immediately start typing while I wait for the animations to happen.3) Create a shortcut on the desktop to the Network Connections folder. Then, copy the shortcut to a flash drive and it will work regardless of the PC you're using. Better still if you use your own autorun.inf to trigger that shortcut, it will run as soon as you pop it in.

I don't think he was complaining about the Networks thing, I believe he was using it as an example. His point is give the paying customer an option of going to older versions, to ease them into the new ways of things. We're paying in excess of 200+ dollars for these OS's, why not make the customer happy while making your billions? I like the new options in Windows 7 (I went from XP to Windows 7 Beta.. but I've used Vista on my wife's laptop), but the fact I can't customize the look of this taskbar and install custom theme packs cause I have NO idea where they are stored, kinda bugs me. So just give us the options!!.. LOL

@GoodThings2Life You quote: "At some point, no matter how much we love/hate an interface, it becomes imperative --- ESPECIALLY AS IT PROFESSIONALS --- to embrace the new interface to make it work for us, even if it means re-learning new tricks to make things as efficient as they were under a previous version." You could not have said it any better. As IT Professionals, it is incumbent on us to be up to speed on what is happening in the computer world. Regardless of what we personally like or dislike, there is going to be a customer somewhere that loves a feature that we just hate and is going to ask us for help. The last thing they want to hear is a fanboi-like rant about how messed up things are and how they should be. To make it worse, once you learn and embrace the changes, you actually find that some are better, quite a bit better in some cases. I have been using Vista since its inception because I wanted to be in-the-know and stand out from those who refuse to use it. At first, it frustrated me to no end; however, as I read actual reference materials and understood what was happening, I slowly came around to realize it is much better than XP. As a result, I can get Vista to do things that people swore up and downand still swear left to rightit could not do. Although I can navigate each OS just as easily, I really prefer the Vista/7 interfaces to XP.

I have to agree, I have supported Windows since the very 1st version and I also like the XP classic and also the taskbar method. I'm not a fan of the new taskbar. It is confusing and if some like it I would like an option that is either XP or W7 as a quick option. I prefer the way it extends "up" and the end of it a movable row which I can decide where that is take place. A bit like the Classic view option when Control Panel is opened. It's quick to return to the "Category View" for customers.I have trouble opening a second copy of IE using this new taskbar. I want to open a new copy not restore the existing lowered version.Also I am loosing icons from the desktop that I have made shortcuts of. eg Control Panel, Printers, System. They all disappear regulary when I start each morning.Otherwise I am very happy.

I agree with what is being said here. I really only have 2 problems thought with the interface.First and foremost is the Start Menu. I really did like the XP/2000 thinner version. I really don't like to see a most recent list on my start menu since there is the desktop to place icons and now a really nice tray that I can put my most used on.Second and most minor of options is that I want the button on all my folder menus that goes up a folder. I know that I can just click on the name and go backwards but really, I don't like that as much as having a small button up there.Oh and I thought of a third thing. I miss having "Windows Update" on my start menu. I think that should be a start menu option that you can turn on if you like.I can really see why some people would like the start menu and I really can't say anything bad about it. It's just not what I want and I can see that there are many people that don't want it either. I hope that MS will make some additional options to bring back old looks.

When it comes to the UI, don't bother complaining, this is the way Microsoft want windows to look and feel and that's it. In my opinion it's not change for improvement it just change for change sake, this was a complaint in in the early incarnations Vista and continues to be a complaint in Windows 7, but as I said it's falling on def ears. Alright Rant over. With that being said, first right click on task bar, then properties, start menu Click on the start tab, customize, enable say Recorded TV and dislpay as menu, than click on orb right click on Recorded TV, click on include a folder point to "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\programs"right click on Recorded TV again rename to "programs" and you have the fly out style menu of windows xp. For the life of me I can't understand why Microsoft will not just include this as an option, the only reason I can think of, is stubbornest, they are upset that a great deal of people don't like the new UI that worked so hard on and their going to force it no matter what. It's analogous to Office's Ribbon, Microsoft is forcing it, there is just as many bad reviews as good reviews on the ribbon, not a lot of companies are licensing the Ribbon UI, but they are Microsoft, they don't make mistakes they know better then their customers what their customers want. The only way this will change is either Bill Gates comes back like Jobs did or if Balmer retires than it will be a all new improved design once again.. that's my story I'm sticking to it...PEACE!

I said in another post:Microsoft says on The Welcome to Windows 7 site, "Over the past few years, you've asked us to make some changes to Windows. We listened closely."It is obvious to me that they have only listened to the users whose opinions matched their own.

I also use the classical start menu in windows xp and windows ultimate.Here is my good solid reason:I use more than 100 different applications a day and have installed more than 3000 applications on my computer.Most of them are seldom used. I use them if I get a question from others to solve a problem they have.With the classical start menu I have groped them under themes like:development->embedded->armdevelopment->embedded->microchipdevelopment->embedded->cypressdevelopment->embedded->atmeldevelopment->tools->hex-editdevelopment->tools->programmerpicture->editpicture->viewermultimedia->audiomultimedia->videomultimedia->tv...and so on.The main menu has about 20 entries which have sub menus up to 10 levels deep.In the start menu of windows 7 it costs me very much time to scroll through the applications tree all the time to start a seldom used application.

your best bet is not to bother using the menu but just type in the program's name in the search box

Why not use "new start menu style" side by side with "classic start menu style":http://www.sevenforums.com/general-discussion/3154-classic-start-menu-available.html#post41112

I think we are represented, it is just lack of interest in us the people! 7 versions? WTF? way to listen!

The recursive menus are also available in Win7' start menu. Not as easy as it was before, but still... you can organize your things by manually creating all the folders here:%systemroot%:\Users\%user%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs

I have to agree that being forced to have enterprise setups is sub-optimal for many users. I have worked with or for many companies, including some with thousands of employees. I have only seen one case where roaming profiles were used -- an office of about 10 people where roaming profiles were apparently all the IT guy knew how to do. Every office has had one computer per user, even the one with roaming profiles. I would much rather have a switch on setup that let the install choose between having a single user setup (without all the c:\user\ZZZZ\... stuff) or a setup with multiple users. Having to drill down 8 to 10 layers to make a simple configuration change on a program should never be necessary.

Simple solution for this would be to have one of the default themes be Windows Classic and let those of us who have to administer this in a corporate/education environment chose what our users will see. I'm not sure if Microsoft sees this as a way to demonstrate to the user that they've left the Win9x/Win2k?WinXP days or if someone has decided that this "looks cool and by god it's gonna stay". It makes one wonder if the reasons for leaving progman as a shell in Win9x have been completely forgotten. In any event they need to learn from Vista's failings, accept that they completely misread what their customers were willing to accept and use this as a base to move on.

Simple solution for this would be to have one of the default themes be Windows Classic and let those of us who have to administer this in a corporate/education environment chose what our users will see. HiI'm not sure a theme would solve this problem? I think onemistake people makewith the current thinking about the Classic Start Menu is that austere or spartan equals productivity. I have never seen any real proof that this is true. However, I have seen that austere equals boredom and a lackadaisical attitude which usually results in much less productivity.The main thing I remember about the Classic Start Menu was watching people click Programs and then seethose cascading menus that completely covered the monitor. Then they would need tomove all the way across the screen to get to theapplicationthey were looking for, and then oops,they accidentallymoved the cursor acrossa menu that had sub-menus that popped open and covered up theapplicationthey were trying to reach. I'm not sure if Microsoft sees this as a way to demonstrate to the user that they've left the Win9x/Win2k?WinXP days or if someone has decided that this "looks cool and by god it's gonna stay". It makes one wonder if the reasons for leaving progman as a shell in Win9x have been completely forgotten. If I remember correctly, one of the most vociferous rants about XP was it's Mattel Toys look. People just could not handle all of the 'eye candy' J In any event they need to learn from Vista's failings, accept that they completely misread what their customerswere willing to accept and use this as a base to move on. Uh, Vista still has the Classic Start Menu as an option. The one thing I do remember is a few years before I retired, I helped replace approximately 80 workstations running Win2k with XPPro. The excitement and increased productivity was amazing to watch. Most of the people in the office were in the coffee room 30 minutes before their start time. Even the stuffy oldCEOwas impressed. :)Also, remember that Windows 7 is still at the earliest stages of beta, there may be some changes coming that will evenimpress the folks whobalk atany sort of change. I just plan on sitting back and watching the show.My thoughts.Thank You for testing Windows 7 Beta Ronnie Vernon MVP

the problem with XP, specifically, Luna, wasn't the eye candy. It was UGLY eye candy that looks like as you say My Mattel Computer. the Mac has eye candy, too. But it's pleasing and enhances functionality and not merely distracts. win7 is much better than XP, but I still give the edge to OSX. I do wish he theme were more customizable, like this concept shot: http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/073/8/3/Windows_7_RTM_by_aesmon11.jpg

I do wish he theme were more customizable, like this concept shot: http://fc04.deviantart.com/fs28/f/2008/073/8/3/Windows_7_RTM_by_aesmon11.jpg +1 for more customization, but I beg that Win7 doesn't look like that pic ^^. Can you imagine a taskbar like that on a 9-inch widescreen? Can you imagine those small fonts on a small screen? Can you imagine how awful it would look if you made them bigger? Why no search in Start Menu? It's the best thing since sliced bread. Why swap Programs and Folders in Start Menu? Start Menu is primarily about programs, thus they should be closer (right above the Orb) Why is the only taskbar item in the middle? It's made in 2008. Vista's out since 2006/2007. Where's Aero?

One thing I've always wondered about is whether these people making mockup sketches of future operating systems ever considered actually using their creations. What's with the negative space? Why does the awkward-looking centered text of the left-hand column in the Start Menu have absolutely zero organization? Why is there zero distinction between the titlebar, breadcrumb bar, and command bar in this file navigator? Not only that but the command bar gives way and transitions into a really large status bar. And why the ____ are the controls so uneven, the bottom of the back button (I'm guessing forward goes from 0 to 100% opacity when necessary... weak) is right in theupper-middleregion of the star button on the right side of "Explorer". ____, the upper lip on the back buttons decoration looks tointrude about three pixels into the captions space...Gah... sorry, I just never understood these things. So, what were we talking about? Customization? Yeah, why not, but not every theme needs glass, Kristaps. :P

Yeah, why not, but not every theme needs glass, Kristaps. :P True, but it looks good :P Well, the glass sure looks better on than off :P

As an IT professional I want the Classic windows XP start menu because: 1, When people work they are at the office to work and shouldnt fool around with graphical .... 4, Linux Ubuntu is still more user friendly then Windows 7. 5, GIVE BACK the user friendly START MENU! We at companies arent interested of looks and games, we want easyness and efficiency. We dont want a "game look a like operating system ____"!!!!! JUST MY WORDS ! Here is some more: 6. The program list is too short. You don't want to scroll the list up and down when seeking the program you need. The expanded list in WinXP was good 7. Some installed programs just disappear from the list. There might be a bug 8. Keyboard shortcuts just don't work with the new menu. Try to shut down or hibernate he system. WE WANT AN OPERATING SYSTEM AND NOT A VIDEO GAME ! Please remake your decision about the marketing profiles of Windows. Make one version without any AEROs and Mediaplayers, leave out all the tours, games, toys and eyecandy. Make it domain compatible. Here is thousands of customers who want to WORK with the computer. The last operating system which could be used in simple laboratory environments was MSDOS 6.22 and MS don't even sell it any more. (Is it now public domain ?) Version after version MS operating systems have been less and less user friendly. Win3.11 was about 32 MB. Compared to Win 7 with 7.6 GB this Win7 should be 237.5 times better. Is it really ? For example Puppy Linux is about 100 MB, runs fine in a 200MHz PC with 128MB of RAM and has all that is needed. What is missing, can be downloaded from the net for no cost = free.

ok here are my 2 eurocents about OP 1 - evolition. Windows pre-95 didn't even have start menu at all , and everyone (read:ppl like you) was complaining about it. 2 - it is easier and faster , cos you can just use your keyboard (you are an IT expert, right?) without looking through multiple columns of start menu folders 3 - what has any of this got to do with Linux? Also, if you consider using Linux, that means you've made sure that all your applications are compatible. In that case, you could end up with saving a lot of money. 4 - what has startup/shutdown speed to do with user-friendliness? and could you explain this "Windows TS session" please? 5 - see #1 and #2 pls? 6 - to make the start menu bigger, increase the number of shown recent programs. and THIS has been there since WinXP 7 - smth wrong at your end 8 - alt+f4 - working. win -> left -> enter still working too. don't see problems there @"WE WANT" part - there are many enterprise operating systems. IMHO Windows UI/u-experience is mostly oriented to home users (don't be fooled by all them 'business' versions) @MSDOS again, noone is forcing anyone to upgrade. feel free to throw your computer out the window and grab a pen (or a feather). @Win3.11 and no new features have been introduced, no new UI, no new security measures, no new device support (did you know that USB (your mouse and keyboard) support wasn't even in your beloved Win95 (introduced in 1996 with OEM Service Release 2.1)), no NOTHING , right? Well, kind sir, thanks for enlightening me! If you could pls send me a copy of Win3.11 (or better yet Win1), I would be very grateful, watching all those monochrome letters blur out on my Full HD monitor. @PuppyLinux PL was made to be one of the lightest, plainest, most no-frills distros around. Don't you dare compare a it to full-featured OS with some attention to UI and design and beauty (finally) . Also, I woudn't call PL a operating system designed to use in any business. @ the free part - ever heard of freeware? does FOSS (free and open-source software) ring a bell? I don't want to continue this post (and risk losing my good mood), but TBH, I'm pretty pissed right now. kthxbye. P.S.: YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN.

Wow, Kristaps, I guess Microsoft can do no wrong in your eyes. Doesn't it get boring not thinking for yourself? :) I guess there was nothing wrong with Vista, either, contrary to popular belief.

1) Now why would you think that? Read my posts much? 2) If I wasn't thinking for myself, I wouldn't be there, trying to make the next operating system I'll use better. 3) There were many things wrong with Vista, but in most cases (and I'm dead serious) the problem was somewhere between the keyboard and the chair. Of course, there were driver problems in the beginning. Of course, UAC was much more annoying than it should. Of course people didn't like the changes (it's natural I guess). Of course it needed more resources than your average PC would have at that time (okay it was a resource hog). but without Vista, there wouldn't even be Windows 7 . Vista isn't as bad, really (most of what you know is probably from Apple's awesome Get A Mac ads, and other press bashing and hating). Sure, it changed a lot, and it was flawed, but it the end, many of the changes (mostly DWM) were for good, once MS tweaked them (see Windows 7).

3) There were many things wrong with Vista, but in most cases (and I'm dead serious) the problem was somewhere between the keyboard and the chair. Of course, there were driver problems in the beginning. Of course, UAC was much more annoying than it should. Of course people didn't like the changes (it's natural I guess). Of course it needed more resources than your average PC would have at that time (okay it was a resource hog).but without Vista, there wouldn't even be Windows 7 .Vista isn't as bad, really (most of what you know is probably from Apple's awesome Get A Mac ads, and other press bashing and hating). Sure, it changed a lot, and it was flawed, but it the end, many of the changes (mostly DWM) were for good, once MS tweaked them (see Windows 7). Kristaps, I totally agree with you. Vista has so bad reputation from people who even never installed or used. One of the main problems is that people hate the changes. Personally, I think Windows XP has been out there for too many years. And, for those complaining about Vista/Windows 7, I have to say that XP had a lot of security issues in the beginning and until SP 2 was released, was another "crappy" Microsoft product. On the other hand, Vista SP2 is excellent. They solved many of the issues the OS had since the release. But W7 is a step forward. They tweaked and improved a lot compared to Vista.So, I think that the real pain here is to learn new features and mainly, a new way of interacting with the UI/desktop. I'm pretty sure thatmost of people (not everybody) complaining about the new start menu/taskbar or requesting the implementation of the "Classic Menu" hardly used Vista. Regards. W7 Beta running on an AMD Semprom 3200+ (1800Mhz) with 2 Gbs of RAM and a built-in Nvidia 6100 VGA, and mate, it runs like a charm! And now on my VAIO FE31M Laptop.

Kristaps, I totally agree with you. Vista has so bad reputation from people who even never installed or used. One of the main problems is that people hate the changes. Personally, I think Windows XP has been out there for too many years. And, for those complaining about Vista/Windows 7, I have to say that XP had a lot of security issues in the beginning and until SP 2 was released, was another "crappy" Microsoft product. On the other hand, Vista SP2 is excellent. They solved many of the issues the OS had since the release. But W7 is a step forward. They tweaked and improved a lot compared to Vista. So, I think that the real pain here is to learn new features and mainly, a new way of interacting with the UI/desktop. I'm pretty sure thatmost of people (not everybody) complaining about the new start menu/taskbar or requesting the implementation of the "Classic Menu" hardly used Vista. Regards. Totally agree with you there :)

I use Windows since 1993 spending around 10-12 hours a day on a PC.I have 3 computers at workplus quitea fewat home.A computer is not a piece of art to stare at....All my computers are set to "maximum performance" and tweaked with no system restore, no recycle bin, static swap files, clean msconfig, trimmed services, minimal use of docs and settings, etc. I use only overclocked quads up to 4Ghz and 8Gb Ram with raid arrays, and Im still not happy with the performance. I'm still looking forward to an OS focused on speed and not on features to have programs and windows opening almost instantly, to have a response close to or even faster than my reactions.I do not care about features, fancy desktops, animated menus' etc. I want an ugly but fast interface with menus easily accessible.In my experience, the fastest OS so far from Microsoft is XP x64 which is being abandoned...In my nature, I have an open mind - I gave Vista 9 months of my time and had only frustration until I decided to go irreversibly back to XP. I'm not a slow learner, but after 9 months with Vista menu, I was still wasting a lot of time searching....and started using Run to type the *cpl or *msc shortcut....I do not understand why Microsoft is focused so much on visual and ergonomic changes and not on the important things.Why didn't they make a research on most common used application and tried to include them, like a decent download manager, an enhanced file manager (I use Total Commander for 10 years now), a better browser (Firefox and Opera are becoming more and more popular and IE is the falling way behind in speed and security), better taskmanager (see process explorer from Sysinternals), decent firewall, ghost utility,antivirus (I know they bought at least a couple antivirus companies....), etcNo, nothing of this..... instead, they adopted a stubborn attitude in annoying some of the most loyal users by changing menus (Office 2007, Vista, Win7).Vista already proved itself to be a market disaster despite those 90mil copies pretended sold. Almost no major company in the world adopted Vista as standard OS. Major manufacturers like HP that initially released Vista only machines changed strategyoffering XP option.Is Microsoft learning anything out of this experience? Again, No. Instead they removed even the feature to make the new OS look like legacy ones. With the present GUI, I do not see Win7 in the business envirnonment adopted either. About theClassic start menu - my programs list on a 1920x1200 screen spans on 4 columns..., I know how to reach everything without thinking. I hate the scrolling feature in explorer (I use TC anyway) I do not want to argue with the people who like and use the new start menu in Win7 but it's not for me. It is a matter of preference, and I, as an old Windows user want my "outdated" menus back. Regardless of how appealing a desktop looks like, you eventually get bored with it and stick with the main functionality of the system. Security is only an annoyance - there will always be exploits in windows as long it will stay the most popular OS. People who need security never did or will rely on Windows only.Someone said that only 15% of the users want the classic menu. But if they aremost the opinion makers, of the PC technicians and the ones who advise their peers, the impact will be much larger. I always advised all my friends to stay away from Vista, and not surprisingly, they all did. Hopefully I wont have to do the same with Win7 I was defendingWindows against Mac and Unix, and still do, but something changed in Microsoftbefore releasing Vista,which in my opinion leads, deliberately or not, to the wrong track.It will take many years until Win7 or something similar will replace W2k3 server, and hopefully, until then Microsoft will come down to earth and start respecting their most devoted users.

ok here are my 2 eurocents about OP 1 - evolition. Windows pre-95 didn't even have start menu at all 2 - it is easier and faster , cos you can just use your keyboard (you are an IT expert, right?) without looking through multiple columns of start menu folders 3 - what has any of this got to do with Linux? Also, if you consider using Linux, that means you've made sure that all your applications are compatible. In that case, you could end up with saving a lot of money. 4 - what has startup/shutdown speed to do with user-friendliness? and could you explain this "Windows TS session" please? 5 - see #1 and #2 pls? 6 - to make the start menu bigger, increase the number of shown recent programs. and THIS has been there since WinXP 7 - smth wrong at your end 8 - alt+f4 - working. win -> left -> enter still working too. don't see problems there @"WE WANT" part - there are many enterprise operating systems. IMHO Windows UI/u-experience is mostly oriented to home users (don't be fooled by all them 'business' versions) @MSDOS again, noone is forcing anyone to upgrade. feel free to throw your computer out the window and grab a pen (or a feather). @Win3.11 and no new features have been introduced, no new UI, no new security measures, no new device support (did you know that USB (your mouse and keyboard) support wasn't even in your beloved Win95 (introduced in 1996 with OEM Service Release 2.1)), no NOTHING , right? Well, kind sir, thanks for enlightening me! If you could pls send me a copy of Win3.11 (or better yet Win1), I would be very grateful, watching all those monochrome letters blur out on my Full HD monitor. @PuppyLinux PL was made to be one of the lightest, plainest, most no-frills distros around. Don't you dare compare a it to full-featured OS with some attention to UI and design and beauty (finally) . Also, I woudn't call PL a operating system designed to use in any business. @ the free part - ever heard of freeware? does FOSS (free and open-source software) ring a bell? I don't want to continue this post (and risk losing my good mood), but TBH, I'm pretty pissed right now. kthxbye. P.S.: YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY IS BROKEN. Reply: 1. Nothing wrong in Start menu in itself. Many users are agains the changes which seem to be there for just the fun of changing things. Users got to learn new ways of finding things. 2. Yes, You can and I can find ways to make things without using mouse, but there is a lot of people who has more important things to do than sit there trying to find new tricks. 3. Linux is evolving. The user interface is not changing radically, because the builders are listening the users. Microsoft builds the user interface without any interest to the users 4. The start/shutdown time doesn't matter anything for you, who are sitting at your computer day and night. For an average user it is annoying. Because of the slow response the computers are left on for the whole day spending energy. .. 6. Please tell us, how to 'clue' the most often used programs to the left panel of the menu as we had a habit doing in WinXP. .. 8. Nice to see there is some tricks. Tell me how can we teach these to the average users. '@We want': As you said, the windows operating systems are more and more built for home use. Even the Professional version is not for a professional, if we mean by the word 'Professional' those users, who have a profession and are really working. I well know that nowadays this word professional is more often meaning 'kids' or something else without connection to work. I have even met a toothbrush with label 'professional'. Still I have newer met a person, who brushes her teeth as a work. '@Win311'. Many things could have been changed without making radical changes to the user interface. The Start menu could have stll been copied there from Linux. The new device drivers added (for example USB) and the kernel grown to multitasking. If the changes had been gradual and well planned, we might still manage our everyday work with a lot smaller computers. For example the viruses are here because there has been too many radical changes. The size of Win7 is 200 times larger than Win311 because there is so much dead code. Microsoft has bought all kinds of programs from third party programmers and just thrown them there without checking. All those programs seem to have all their libraries there eating space. Compare this to Linux. Win7 might be tens of procents smaller and not so vulnerable to viruses, if all the programs were built in one standardized and thoroughly tested programming environment. '@PuppyLinux' is there only for a comparition. It is small, functional and expandable. It makes all the things needed. And it doesn't need an antivirus program eating power. Check it: any antivirus program eats about 50-300MB of RAM and worth of 500MHz of CPU speed. cut from another post: 'Kristaps, I totally agree with you. Vista has so bad reputation from people who even never installed or used. One of the main problems is that people hate the changes.' If you have a company or EDU with some thousands of employees, you understand it better. Not only the new operating system cost something. Also you need new PC's, new servers, program versions, drivers, laboratory equipement. You got to cook up teaching for the users. You spend endless hours trying to find how to make systems work and find new drivers for our tools. We spared millions of Euros when we decided to jump over WinNT, Win2000 and Vista. If possible, we'll be clad to jump over Win7 too. The users hate the changes, because they have to spend counless hours learning how to use the system. Their tools don't work while we are trying to find solutions. The IT professional hate it, because it is just work in vain. They hate it, because HelpDesk got to find new ways to help users over the telephone and email. The customers think it is your reason, if you cant make it work. Everyone hates the changes, because they make old computers obsolete. New systems just don't work any more. Old computers got to be thrown out -it is called pollution ! You say you are going to loose your good mood. This tells me you are in your teens. Real IT professionals have lost their good mood years ago with MicroSoft. There is no more frustrating work than this. You can't build anything for the future, because you don't know what is lurking in the minds of MS. Anything you have built and tested will be history, when the new MSWindows appears. It is no evolution. It is pure dictatory. Like sailing in a boat with a mad captain.

Someone said that only 15% of the users want the classic menu. But if they aremost the opinion makers, of the PC technicians and the ones who advise their peers, the impact will be much larger. When this data is collected, who were those, who takes part to the survey ? Mostly this kind surveys are in the network. Who does spend their time in that kind of netsites -Mostly young iPod generation. Never those who are using their PC as a tool in their work !

A lot of people have been asking for a "classic" start menu, but no one has given a good solid reason as to why it's needed ("it's better" is not a sufficient reason), or even which "classic" start menu they are referring to. The Start Menu first appeared in Windows 95, almost 15 years ago, so is that one the "classic" start menu? Or do they mean the default start menu in Windows 98, Windows XP, or Windows Vista? Looking back, the Start Menu (even the "classic" one back in 1995) was difficult for people to accept -- not because it was "bad" but because it was different. From an early review of Windows 95: "The new "Start" menu can be annoying at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again. This is a step backwards from Program Manager which kept the last accessed program group on top. Of course, an advanced user could create a shortcut to the application on the desktop or add it to the top of the main start menu." http://toastytech.com/guis/win95.html Shooting forwarding to today, people are now begging for this "annoying" start menu! Maybe, in a few years when everyone is used to the new Windows 7 / Vista start menu, people will finally realize that the new one is faster for techies and easier for Grandma to access. the classic menu is borring and old. If you dont know how to use the windows 7 start menu; then you shouldnt be working with computers. Go take intro to micro computers or something."The new "Start" menu can be annoying at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again. "How about you click "Start" and type in "solitaire"? Maybe you think it's annoying because you dont know how to use the start menu.

"How about you click "start" and type in "solitaire"? Maybe you think its annoying because you dont know how to use the start menu."I don't type 50wpm neither can type blind...This is why I always prefer clicks instead of typing.If you want to understand, change keyboard layout to Dvorak and try it for yourself in the dark, then tell others how great the new menu is....

Ok you've been waiting on pins+needles for my opinion: Recent Items, Recent Docs, YAYTranslucent anything, ?? (boo?)Customizable YAYAnd be consistent, whatever you decide, (no wait, that was wasted air) I like pretty, just don't ask me to learn anything you'll justa change/abandon very soon.I thought of around 20 synonyms for what I think MS thinks of our opinions, but I really believe its people like Kristaps and Wolfie who inspire the people who Do matter, (so that means they matter too). Use your powers for good.

Ok you've been waiting on pins+needles for my opinion: Recent Items, Recent Docs, YAYTranslucent anything, ?? (boo?)Customizable YAYAnd be consistent, whatever you decide, (no wait, that was wasted air) I like pretty, just don't ask me to learn anything you'll justa change/abandon very soon.I thought of around 20 synonyms for what I think MS thinks of our opinions, but I really believe its people like Kristaps and Wolfie who inspire the people who Do matter, (so that means they matter too). Use your powers for good. Those super-powers better be fast acting. According to MSNBC, whatever we see in the RC next week is pretty much going to be it."The company [MS] has still not said when the finished version would begin to be installed on PCs or available to buy in shops, but the company's chief financial officer said on Thursday it could be as early as July."http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30395407/

If I want to play solitaire I would click Start, then Programs, then Accessories, then Games, then Solitaire. If I closed the application and wanted to re-open it, I would have to go through the same thing again. " Oh yeah, and in classic start menu you don't neet to go to Programs -> accessories -> games -> solitaire, no? Sheesh.I'd like to actually do something good and/or valuable about it, but at the moment I'm just stuck giving out suggestions for everything :P

>>A lot of people have been asking for a "classic" start menu, >>but no one has given a good solid reason as to why it's needed >>Looking back, the Start Menu (even the "classic" one back in 1995) was difficult for people to accept -- >>not because it was "bad" but because it was different. From an early review of Windows 95: "The new "Start" menu can be annoying>> at times. If I want to play solitaire I would click>Oh yeah, and in classic start menu you don't neet to go to Programs -> accessories -> games -> solitaire, no? Sheesh. The guy who wrote that prolly died or retired, hector was quoting that guy, and I am quoting Hector (and you). When do you sleep? O, I accidentally discovered Office2007-SP2 thanks to you, so um, thanks.

The guy who wrote that prolly died or retired, hector was quoting that guy, and I am quoting Hector (and you). I like quoting you quote me quoting hector quoting that other guy ^^ When do you sleep? O, I accidentally discovered Office2007-SP2 thanks to you, so um, thanks. What is this sleep thing you're talking about? :D And you're welcome :PI'd like to actually do something good and/or valuable about it, but at the moment I'm just stuck giving out suggestions for everything :P

>> When do you sleep? MS pays overtime for fanboys :)

MS pays overtime for fanboys :) Get your facts right. I am not a fanboy, nor am I getting paid.I'd like to actually do something good and/or valuable about it, but at the moment I'm just stuck giving out suggestions for everything :P

RIGHT ON!cact25

I don't want to pin things to the taskbar. That is what the Quick launch in XP is for, or pin them to the start menu. You can also use the old fashioned desktop short-cuts...........cact25

That theme would definitely drive me to a MAC!cact25

Maybe MS should watch the MAC vs PC TV commercials................cact25

You can also pin GAMES to the start menu..................cact25

I almost always know what programs I have running. For the few times that I do forget, a quick glance at the task bar reminds me...........cact25

Win 7 could have been born without us using Vista. Was there a Win96 or 97? Win98 right to XP.cact25

I agree there. Vista is on the shelf and XP went back on the PC. I'm one of those who hardly used Vista, but I used it enough to dislike it. I also got free when I bought an HP/Compaq Pressario.cact25

Although, I must admit... it does look appetizing. :)

Could someone please give me a sensible and reasonable reason (legit reasons, not all that "office" and "old ppl" BS) why you prefer the Classic vs New? No hate, just reasons, please -- I'm willing to hear you out ;) Regards, Kristaps.

Most people would be satisfied with a flyout menu option. This could be easily done by a simple option under "To Customize how links,icons,and menus look and behave in the startmenu, click customize." They have recourdered tv in there they have personnel folders, videos etc, Why not just have the option of the "Programs" displayed as a menu in there. I have already changed Recorded TV to point to all the programs in the program directory giving me a classic feel of a flyout menu. Here is some reasons. 1 Flyout menus are for many easer to navigate. 2 I don't have to use numrous clicks to get to one program. 3 I am comfortable with the flyout menu. 4 I can find programs faster with a flyout menu. 5 the new program menu system is in a small box, thus limiting my field of view and choice. Trufully it dosent matter why people want it. What really matters is why Microsoft will not give the option? "display progarams as a flyout menu" very simple, very easy fix that would saticfy a lot of people, for Microsoft is that really too much trouble. I've seen comments from Microsoft in the windows blog, but that would be redundant because it would give two different way of doing the same thing, my comment to that statment is "so what" Again a flyout menu option, would quell alot of indignation or discontent, would not require any major code additions. it's all right there already all Microsoft has to do is allow people to access it.... PEACE!

Kristaps, 1 column instead of 2. I want to click start, move horizontally and click again....fin. Before you say, "but that gives you more room for programs", I have over 25 items there.

Kristabs - Great diagram, excellent response. So, now that you haveproven that this issue in NOT about funtionality, what's left that could get all these folksso fired up? It's all ultimatelyabout losing Flyout, and a corresponding loss of PC productivity. The human eye is the fastest PC interface device there is. By taking away FLYOUT and limiting the use of your eyes to scan for what you are looking for, the new Start Menu is just plain slower.That's the core issue in this whole debate. Hopefully, with RC1 there will be an awakening.

Hopefully, with RC1 there will be an awakening. Not going to happen, since RC has been already released :P I just hope for RC2 with all the change's we've suggested all around these forums :)Regards, Kristaps.

To all forum users:Please use this thread to note any comments that you haveabout Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC). Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, createa new thread.Thanks-Tony Mann Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums

So is it really safe to talk about the RC1 build 7100? Just want to make sure before I waste time with comments like last time. I'll be installing it in the next day or two and will have a couple of comments after I see the issues first hand.

RC running fine here for a couple of days. For those who may be wondering, yes you can still add the Quicklaunch toolbar to the Taskbar. Also, you can get Windows Mail working also, although I see NO REASON for it to be included but disabled!!!!

It's safe, even Ronnie will not lock you out. lolHaving said that, I thought there was supposed to be a major overhaul of the UI. Result: not a lot. Startmenu a bit more "readable". Explorer still has the flaws the beta had (I'm not saying internally, but as an end-user...). Nevertheless it's the best OS Microsoft has ever made.RegardsRem

I just got RC installed, had less than a hour to play with it. Later, after work, I will have more time. For now, Im happy the list view of long file names is fixed. List is good to use again. But, Im really disapointed that Windows explorer still have all the flaws it had in beta. Windows XP explorer is (for me) still much better. It show me the file sizes without having to select files, and, even better, if I select more than a few files, I dont have to click the STUPID "more details" button. In xp, I can customize the windows explorer buttons bar. In 7, I cant. The image importer (when you plug a digital camera) is still the same one used in vista, back in 2006, that is just limitaded. In xp, I can select the pictures I want and the ones I dont want to import, in 7, or you import everything, or nothing. (Why broke something that was good?) In fact, the only way (for me) to work with a digital camera is windows 7 is installing Windows Live Photo Gallery, once it adds a decent picture importer to the autoplay of my camera. But it just means I need to download/install onther software to be able to use a function that was present and good in xp out of the box, for more than a decade. The autoarrange function still cant be disabled, even if I hate that thing, and is a huge drawback for my way of working with files. The Classic start menu is out. Period. Even if people like it, they cant get it anymore. I dont want classic back, I like the new menu, but I would want it to float out when I go to "All Programs" having to scroll and scroll and scroll again to find a program is terrible, once I have a big screen, plenty of space to float my menu, and no option to do that. It still confined to that little corner of the screen, no matter if I dont want it there. Let me use it a little more, later I post more impressions...

In that case, here is some disk art for Epson printers with the type 2 tray. Print from Photoshop or extract the image area out and use your other disk printing softwarehttp://img.photobucket.com/albums/v329/Greg_E/win7rc1disksmall.jpg

Zeus76,I have to chime in here. That "dig" about Ronnie locking you out is not fair or warranted.Whether you realize it or not, we have a very difficult job to do here in these forums, including keeping messages on track. We have many internal discussions about how to handle specific threads, including if and when we lock threads and specific users. Certainly everyone should be able to understand that discussing non-public builds in a public forum cannot be supported. RC is now public, so discussing it instead of Beta is the appropriate thing to do in these forums.I don't want this thread to get off track, but I thought it was important for me to chime in, so please take my comment for what it is worth and let's get back to testing RC. Please do not respond further on this thread for non-RC issues. Thanks for your cooperation.Thanks-Tony MannWindows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums

I agree we should still have the Classic Start Menu Option. It is then up to the user to decide how their desktop and start menu workd.Don't take functionality awayRegards

ditto Anthony. If you want to work on tech issues of Win 7, here is the place. If you need to trash MS, go elsewhere! I have waded through enough of that garbage and will report you in a flash! As to the d/l after the 5th, I realized at midnight last night that it was now the 5th and sure enough it was available - took about 32 minutes. Very nice, MS!!! Cudos!!! I have been using 7100 for about a week now, and love it!!!!!! As to the quick launch - yeah, I totally forgot about that - I am reminded only by programs, whom, when installing, ask me if I want it added to the quick launch bar - I always say "no" as I have no idea where it would put it. I find the natural win 7 taskbar works beautifully for me - I get the advantages of both. I have not noticed any change in 7100 from 7000, other than sfloppy now works, which means to me that the changes are transparent to me. I know a ton of work has gone into it as I have installed a couple of the in-between's just for fun. I can not believe that they are giving this to us for a year. And in this economy. Such a present!!!!! Kris

yes and I am a bigger IT professional. and far older than you and weigh more and my father is stronger. When will you guys learn to just take it elsewhere. You just gotta have the last word putting someone down. Ronnie has done a lot of hard work here. If you don't like it, don't read his posts. I will not respond further to you.Kris

yes and I am a bigger IT professional. and far older than you and weigh more and my father is stronger. When will you guys learn to just take it elsewhere. You just gotta have the last word putting someone down.Ronnie has done a lot of hard work here. If you don't like it, don't read his posts. I will not respond further to you. Kris Are you going to stop. I'm on this forum to help people when I can, not to support childish language. I was writing to Tony. Now stop.

This RC certainly solved a lot of issues we had with build 7000. MS has done a fantastic job in a very short time. Nevertheless although it's stable and functions OK, it is by no means ready to be shipped. When you try to delete a bunch of files and than cancel that on the fly, explorer dies. It really tries to read / discover the contents of the files which are to be deleted. A nonsense to me.RegardsRem

I also miss the old Classis Start menu and I dont like the Taskbar, since my first 95 and up, i allways have use Classic and the old taskbar,i will NOT buy Windows 7 for years to come, because i (Classic, Taskbar) and ISNT soooooo user freindly as Windows 95 and up to Windows 2008, i cant find around in W7, but withClassic Start/Taskbar in W7, i will but it that day its come on the market...:-(

When your using UNIX (HP-UX, AIX, Spark), Linux, RTE-A, CPM (yes ma they still have a few around), CAPS, OS-11, Win98, Win2000, WinXP, Vista and Luck number 7, it would be nice for once for the new kid on the block to have an XP interface along with 7s new interface. With todays processors, 4 plus GB of Ram and 1TB or more hard drives why cant an intelligent programmer when teamed up with a savvy Marketing type give the XP users what they want, a new engine under the hood but the steering and gas pedal where you expect it to be. And just in time for a Xmas present.JS

The only thing I noticed with Window Vista and Windows 7 is that the logon banner doesn't have the white background like Windows XP had. If you put a wallpaper on the desktop and if you have the DoD warning banner, then you can't read it that well. May suggeest that MS should look at making the logon banner with a white background. The whole point in the logon banner is so that people can read what the warning message states. This is a very critical when anyone signs on to a computer.-Daniel Hankins

Don't take functionality away Classic Start Menu has less functionality than the new one, so basically it's the other way around xDRegards, Kristaps.

I just found one nice improvement over the Beta. (one out, several to go!) Internet Explorer now have "Tasks" and now is possible to open InPrivate navigation with just one click. No need to open a non in private instance and just them open inprivate. But, thinking about it now, what if (keeping the moto: User in control) the user can personalize "tasks" and so on for the programs? Like.. I can right click a program in start menu and edit the menu I see there, puting or removing "tasks", would be very good. The same can be applyed to notification area. Many times I want to open the Reliability Monitor, to check something. I can do that typing in "search" of start menu, but so far, I found that the faster way of doing it, using only mouse is: Right Click in Action Center "White Flag", open Action Center, expand Maintenance and click View reliabilty story. It would be much better if I can add The monitor to the White flag, pretty much like the new Jump Lists, but for icons in the system tray too. Talking about the "white" flag, we still have all icons "white". The flag, the Volume Control, The Fork, or, I mean.. the network (it will always be like a fork for me)... they are all plain white. We dont have the visual network indicator anymore, even with lots of users asking for put it back. Let me talk about something sensitive now. the UAC. In a short analysis, its is much better than it was in vista. In a bigger analysis: It is still a pain to deal with. Lots of applications I use (like games) always trigger UAC when I start them. WHY, for god sake, cant we have a option like: NEVER AGAIN DISPLAY UAC FOR THIS APPLICATION?. Of course I know the reply: If MS put such option in UAC, it would be less secure, and more vulnerable to malware. Ok. Now, lets see the facts: I, and I believe lots of users have a good firewall instaled. Does it keep asking the same thing over and over again? or a GOOD application for safety have the option to store user rules? I think I dont need to say more. The way UAC is, there is only one think I can do to use it without being anger: DISABLE UAC ONCE AND FOR ALL. Ok, I know it will be much less secure. but... WAIT!!! WAIT! So, the user CAN DISABLE the UAC for good, but the user CANT create UAC rules, because it is LESS SECURE that way? Can please, someone explain it to me? If malware could be malicious enough to create a "safe rule" for itself, why cant this same piece of malware disable uac? But, again, lets face the facts in here. Windows 7 is DONE. They will never change it. No matter how we say it, how many of us asks for it. Even from beta to RC many things didnt change. Now, its even worse. So, I think I will just stop wasting my time putting comments in here, or any other place. So far, all I can say is that MS dont want our feedback anymore (Do you see any "Send Feedback" button in RC?). If they cant change my mind about it, I will just assume windows is done now. They will fix little bugs, and, here we go, ship it, because "its good for you, the way it is. Dont you DARE say otherwise, ok?"

Okay, I'm going to re-post some of my (and some other pupil's) suggestions, just because no-one at MS listened (and no changes were made for RC), even though people agreed. Add your own folders to start menu right side In a shortcut 's properties , the shortcut 's name in title should be placed in quotes , or separated by a dash . At the moment it's like this: Just make the title say "shortcut name" properties or shortcut name - properties instead of shortcut name properties ;) A new color picker (would be best if similar to Adobe Photoshop) There is a small bug, which I think has been carried over from Vista (haven't used Vista for a long time, so I might be wrong) -- when a window is maximized, its application icon directly touches the screen's edge - there is no padding on the right side. The normal icon has equal padding on the left and the right side, while the maximized icon has only one on the right side.This makes it hard to see the icon, and in general looks ugly. Clicking on a taskbar icon with multiple windows open should bring up the last active document . (major UI flaw here) Middle-Click on show-desktop button to activate Flip3D Better "Overflow Mode" (when you have about 30 windows programs open) As you can clearly see by the scrollbar buttons (up/down), the "overflow mode" is vertical , which, in my opinion, is its biggest weakness and makes it very flawed.I suggest that "overflow mode" gets a horizontal layout (instead of the current vertical ).And then there is this totally crazy idea -- make the scrolling continuous (like in Media Center)! Like, there is no beginning , there is no end -- you could just keep scrolling forever ! Of course, when "overflow mode" isn't needed anymore, all your programs return to how they were before Two new buttons for ejecting removable drives (c'mon this was needed even in Vista - eject buttons inside the <expletive removed> drives !!) Big clock option in taskbar Always on top feature for DWM (= works with all windows) An included tool to unclutter right-click menus (and some work by Microsoft in right-click menu shortening field) Side-menus, thumbnails or whatever you call them, they should be connected to the item you just clicked. This is really needed , especially when taskbar is vertical:1) Live Thumbnails 2) Notification area (okay this one maybe doesn't look very good, but still) 3) Jump Lists Permanent UAC-prompt disabling per-application Manual un-grouping of windows When taskbar is vertical (left/right), the start menu must open to the side , not down . (sry no pic here, but point still valid) Fix Aero-Snap (snap works, but unsnap doesn't) with windows with custom window themes (Office 2007 , Skype ) Multi-launch shortcuts More use for Start Menu search bar (picture thumbs are a must ) That's it for now. I'm sure I forgot something, so I'll keep posting ;) Regards, Kristaps.

My comments about the RC are here: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itprogeneral/thread/2edd2c2e-d14c-4c93-8015-91c4ef352701 I've waited the RC like you suggest me, but some bugs are still not fixed...

Hi SadSlashPlease understand that all of the bugs reported in the previous Beta 1 Build 7000 may not be fixed in the new RC build.Many of these bugs are still being evaluated and fixes developed for them. Hope this helps.Thank You for testing Windows 7 Beta Ronnie Vernon MVP

Hi SadSlash Please understand that all of the bugs reported in the previous Beta 1 Build 7000 may not be fixed in the new RC build. Many of these bugs are still being evaluated and fixes developed for them. Hope this helps. Thank You for testing Windows 7 Beta Ronnie Vernon MVP Oh yes, I know this... But the bug 8 and 11 are frustrating for two reasons: 8 because I've read that it's fixed, and I discovered that it doesn't... 11 because removing external hd only when the pc is shutdown is a step down than Vista, where my two hd have no problem to removing... A good news is that Office Update are, I hope, fixed completly... Now I don't have to select one by one the update, now it does updates without any errors (for now...)

I have to repeat my feedback which I did for the beta release since I still believe it is a serious usability flaw and not fixed yet for the RC (seems like nothing is fixed from the previous topic): There is a serious usability flaw in W7 Beta. When I open multiple windows of the same program (Word, for instance), it takes me click + looking for the right window + mouse movement + click to switch back to the window I just worked with. How about changing the default icon behaviour: click to open the last used window, hover to see the list of open windows. Clicking should bring up the last active document and hovering brings up other instances of the process. If I have two Word files open and actively working on the first document and moving forth and back in this document and a browser page (researching something on the internet?), I'm bored of hovering stuff just to bring up my last active document! Clicking and hovering on the icons in the taskbar do the same things so no one is hurt if you guys made it possible that clicking brings up the last recently used instance of a process and leave hovering as it is.

I think user must have a choice what he would like to use without any intrusion. So please return back old startmenu/taskbar. :)

By the way I totally AGREE WITH ALL THE THINGS kristaps recommended in this topic (except ungrouping the icons along the taskbar).

Little enhancement Idea for IE8!!I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop downarrow in the address bar.When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab.Just like your Favorites menu has.Did I explain this ok? :)

Please understand that all of the bugs reported in the previous Beta 1 Build 7000 may not be fixed in the new RC build. Many of these bugs are still being evaluated and fixes developed for them. What is the point of having a RC - RELEASE candidate, if Microsoft KNOW about lots of bugs not fixed yet? Why not just make a Beta 2 or something? Doing a RC, knowing it still have lots of bugs seens very strange for me. In beta, you dont know what to expect.. lots of bugs can and will happen. But once you leave the beta and start the RC, is supposed you think the release is fine, unless new bugs are found? Why leaving the old ones open in a RC build, knowing it?

I have to repeat my feedback which I did for the beta release since I still believe it is a serious usability flaw and not fixed yet for the RC (seems like nothing is fixed from the previous topic): There is a serious usability flaw in W7 Beta. When I open multiple windows of the same program (Word, for instance), it takes me click + looking for the right window + mouse movement + click to switch back to the window I just worked with. How about changing the default icon behaviour: click to open the last used window, hover to see the list of open windows. Clicking should bring up the last active document and hovering brings up other instances of the process. If I have two Word files open and actively working on the first document and moving forth and back in this document and a browser page (researching something on the internet?), I'm bored of hovering stuff just to bring up my last active document! Clicking and hovering on the icons in the taskbar do the same things so no one is hurt if you guys made it possible that clicking brings up the last recently used instance of a process. I totally agree. Hovering and clicking should have different behaviours. No need to be the same for them both, but real need to view the last active window when click the icon.

I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop downarrow in the address bar. When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab. You can middle click in the address to have it opened in a new tab. But, some consistence with the behaviour of favorites (having the arrow) could be good.

I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop downarrow in the address bar.When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab. You can middle click in the address to have it opened in a new tab. But, some consistence with the behaviour of favorites (having the arrow) could be good. Middle click does not work for me.

Middle click does not work for me. Strange, it always worked for me. But you cant middle click in the address bar itself, middle clicking works only if the drop down menu is used to select one address.

I really wish Microsoft would add an option for when clicking on the drop downarrow in the address bar. When you highlight an address there should be a little arrow next to it which would allow you to open that address in a new tab. You can middle click in the address to have it opened in a new tab. But, some consistence with the behaviour of favorites (having the arrow) could be good. Unfortunately, notebook touchpads do not have a middle button.

I agree with ALL suggestions that have been made here, especially the one about clicking to switch to the last opened window, but some of the changes asked to the context menu and the double quotes in the Properties dialog. A dash would be better (i.e. I Love Myself Some Good - Properties). It has the same purpose (separating the filename and the word "Properties", but without the ugly double quotes.

I've installed it on three machines with no problems whatsoever. This is not a guarantee that some problemswill notarise but so far it looks clean.Alex StevensAlex Stevens

For those who may be wondering, yes you can still add the Quicklaunch toolbar to the Taskbar. Also, you can get Windows Mail working also, although I see NO REASON for it to be included but disabled!!!! I don't miss them, at all, but, just out of curiosity, how did you do that? As Ronnie told me, I also think that the three bugs (or features? :-| ) I showed here should be fixed. To summarize up: If you rename a file inside the Save as... dialog, and then click outside the editing field (do not press Enter), and then on Save, you get a message saying that the file xxxx already exists. If, in Tiles view in Windows Explorer, you rename a file changing only the case of some letters ("MyFile" -> "mYfIlE"), that change is not shown until you refresh the folder. Does not happen inside a library. If in regedit you rename a value changing only its case (see above), you get an error message and it does not work. I know that registry is not case sensitive (and this is probably the cause of the bug), but some very maniacal people (like me) like to see the correct case everywhere and sometimes they also rename some registry values for this reason... :-P Forgot to add that the 64 bit version seemed much slower than the beta, but I only tried it for a couple of days before having my disk corrupted (not Windows' fault ;-) ), and I have read here that it might become much faster after some time. For the remaining I love Windows 7, otherwise I would not be still using it after some months from the beta. And I am one of those who never liked, bought and used Vista... :-)

If I have two Word files open and actively working on the first document and moving forth and back in this document and a browser page (researching something on the internet?), I'm bored of hovering stuff just to bring up my last active document! Clicking and hovering on the icons in the taskbar do the same things so no one is hurt if you guys made it possible that clicking brings up the last recently used instance of a process and leave hovering as it is. yes. what's really dumb is often the second window is not even a window proper, but may just be a dialog. for example: if you initiate a file operation in windows explorer, when you click on its icon, you get a preview of the explorer window and the file progress window. duh! some have speculated they do it this way for touch screen, since you can't "hover" with touch screen. well, then they should do that for touch screens. why should 95% of people suffer this idiocy to accommodate 5% (conservative approximation). anyway, considering how many people have harped on this and it's unchanged for RC, I give up. I've set the taskbar to 'never combine'.

When I say "clasic start menu" I mean the clasic start menu that is included in the taskbar properties of Windows XP and Vista, which allows us to switch the start menu from Windows XP or Vista mode to "Clasic Start Menu". You can also call it Windows 95 Start Menu. Let me give you a good reason why I need a "clasic start menu". I am legally blind, and I use a screen reader to operate my PC. I cannot use mouse, that's why I have to use keyboard for navigation. In Windows 7 Start Menu, It is very difficult to navigate between sub menus. For example, when I open start menu, I up arrow to go to all programs and right arrow, down arrow to games and press right arrow, and then I press down arrow to listen the items in the games submenu. When I move to the last item in the Games submenu, I will never know if it is the last item. If I continue to press the down arrow, the keyboard focus will leave the Games submenu, and move to the All Programs Items, but the Games submenu remains opened. In most cases I never know that the keyboard focus has moved outside the submenu. If I need to close the Games submenu, I have to move my keyboard focus to the "Games", and then press the left arrow. This means if I am on the last item of the games submenu, I have to press up arrow 17 times and then press the left arrow. If I press left arrow while the keyboard focus is on the Games submenu items, the keyboard focus will move to the right navigation area of the start menu. It is very difficult to move from the right navigation area to the exact location on the left navigation area of the start menu. This means that I have to start all over again. I'm sure that you noticed that I have to be very very careful when using Windows 7 start menu. This is just an example of games submenu, now imagine me using Accesseries submenu, and its submenus on Windows 7 Start Menu. When I use a "Clasic Start Menu", I just press the Windows key to open the start menu, press the letter "P" to open the programs submenu, press "G" to open the Games submenu, and then I press down arrow to listen the Items. When I'm on the last item of the Games submenu, and I press down arrow key one more time, the keyboard focus will move back to the first item on the Games submenu. The keyboard focus will not jump outside of the Games submenu. While my keyboard focus is on the games submenu Items, at any point I can press the left arrow key to close the Games submenu. The clasic Start menu is more accessible, and a lot sympler than windows 7 Start menu while using it with the keyboard. The Windows 7 Start Menu is still accessible, but very time consuming. I'd prefer Clasic Start Menu.Zaheer Sheikh

a dash would be better indeed :) I updated the post. Regards, Kristaps.

Hi Zaheer I understand your special needs. In Windows 7, I think one thing that can help with your disability is the Search Box on the Start menu.As an example, if you press the Windows Key to open the Start Menu and then simply begin typing the name of the program you wish to open, the name of the program will appear in the top of the Results and you simply need to press Enter to open the program.For instance, press the Winkey, type Spider and press Enter and the Spider Solitaire game opens. Type Solitaire and the classic game opens. Type Chess and Chess Titans opens. You can do this for virtually any program.Hope this helps.Thank You for testing Windows 7 RC Ronnie Vernon MVP

Middle click does not work for me. Hi Superman75 I have another solution you might want to test. Please your original thread on this subject. Little enhancement Idea for IE8!!Hope this helps.Thank You for testing Windows 7 RC Ronnie Vernon MVP

Just installed the RC version. Two notes so far....(1) My first initial windows update after install showed that the driver install for my Dell Printer AIO 922 failed...I hit "retry" and it seemed like it succeded butI tried to print and the printer doesn't work. The printer works on my Vista partition.(2) McAfee Total Protection Beta for Windows 7 failed to install. I was using it on the Windows 7 Beta. The installation failed, and now I can't even get to the McAfee page without getting a runtime error.Intel Pentium 4 @ 3Ghz, 2GB DDR Ram, Nvidia 7600GS - AGP type.

my beta -> RC report. I did both an upgrade from build 7000 (yes I know I should not do this, but I'm using win7 full time now and did not want to reinstall everything) as well as a clean install on a separate disk, so that I can give proper feedback. things that are fixed/changed: 1) cisco VPN works now, although uninstalling still gives a B(lack)SOD and reboot. 2) the task manager's tray icon now stays visible. before, the beta kept changing it from "show icon and notification" to "show notification only". 3) taskbar icons shrunk a bit, giving more space. things not fixed/unchanged: 1) as reported above, when you set taskbar to combine icons and have multiple instances of the app opened, clicking and hovering do the same thing: show the previews. You have to click twice just to bring up the last active window. Of course you can ctrl+click, but I can't get used to it. (silly rabbit, cmd+click is for macs!) 2) windows explorer still does not show free disk space on the status bar. still does not show total file size when selecting more than 20 items or so. you have to click 'show details'. I won't rehash why this is idiotic. I'm frustrated with windows explorer in general. it has some improvements over XP, but takes some steps backward. the fact of the matter is windows explorer has not seen much innovation simply because it has no real competition. if you doubt this, imagine if we lived in a world where google, mozilla, apple, opera, etc. for some reason had an incentive to create free windows explorer alternative. do you think windows explorer would be in a same state it is now? 3) you still cannot drag and drop files from WMP to another app, e.g., to explorer to copy songs to a USB disk, to iTunes to put songs onto your ipod. this makes it rather useless as an app to manage your media files, which is a shame considering other media players don't (yet) understand the Library concept of win7. (speaking of which, why can't win7 virtualize a Library into a folder? I want to tell iTunes that I keep all my music in a Library called... wait for it... Music. this Library links together several folders that I have scattered among 3 disks. However, when I select the Music Library, win7 says I need to select a folder, not a library. well, isn't the point of a Library to create a virtual folder that you can treat as a single super folder? Seems to me for backward compatibility, an app should be able to open, enumerate, and traverse a library just as if it's a folder. Kind of like how you can map a network path to a drive? There are complications, such as dealing with duplicate names. But if you can run a whole other OS inside win7, I think you can pull it off!) I think like many people here, I'm disappointed that a lot of the suggestions in the previous threads were passed over. It seems MS was content to use the beta trial to iron out problems rather than to get feedback for significant improvements. also, considering that there isn't expected to be another RC, I think what we see is pretty much what we'll get for the final release. I think MS wants to get win7 out the door due to the (relative) failure of Vista, real or perceived. which is too bad. I personally would've welcomed a longer beta period where more of user suggestions could've been implemented. but I'm not trying to run the world's biggest software company. PS: the new shell icons: pale, flat, indistinct, forgettable. It feels as if the prime directive behind the design was not to draw attention instead of showing what the heck the icon is for. I can't even tell, for example, what the icon for control panel is supposed to be. why does that remind me of one of those cutesy imacs? PPS: on the other hand, there are some good looking and funky wallpapers.

"I don't miss them, at all, but, just out of curiosity, how did you do that?"Do an internet search on "Windows 7 Quicklaunch". You will find the directions. I have my taskbar setup exactly like in 2000/XP/Vista, because I LIKE IT THAT WAY!!!! Dual row taskbar, open app icons on the top row, Quicklaunch icons on the bottom row. Don't need ANYTHING on the desktop this way. Plus you get the Show Desktop and Flip3D icons back!Here is one:http://windows7center.com/windows-7-tips/how-to-enable-the-quick-launch-bar-in-windows-7/I'll not reveal my method for getting Windows Mail to work yet. I'm worried that MS will do something in the final to prevent it from running. I WANT WINDOWS MAIL FOR USENET NEWSGROUP ACCESS!!!! Why is it included in Windows 7 but disabled?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

In Windows 7, I think one thing that can help with your disability is the Search Box on the Start menu. This is how I see it (and your quote ^ proves it) -- some people are just convinced that the new start menu is bad and the classic one was better (some of them probably haven't even used the "new" start menu). They just scream and shout and demand and rant without knowing what the new start menu can and can't do, without even using it themselves and discovering how it can help them. For example, take this point: "I can find programs faster in classic start menu". -- Hello, have you noticed the search box? (nothing beats start menu search, hat off to MS) How about the pinning ability? So I suggest that ppl, before demanding classic start menu back, actually use the new start menu how it was supposed to be used. Nothing personal, just my 2 eurocents. Regards, Kristaps.

There always has been 2,3 ormore ways to accomplish the same task in Windows. There is nothing wrong with7's Start Menubut the customer is always ..... and we are the customers. No demand= No sales for Microsoft, since so many people stayed away from Vista for whatever the reason the idea here is not only to make a better Vista but also to sell a product that XP users will like and migrate to. Therefor a truely XP style Start Menu and other XP style features not only makes forhappy XP users but leadsto goodsales. Corporations are still using Windows 2000 and XP and never moved to Vista, that a lot of lost sales so Microsoft's first priority should be the average home user, after all if it wasn't for us the world would all be eating Apples and using a one finger mouse.JS

Overall, the RC is somewhat disappointing.Really large amounts of feedback have *seemingly* been ignored, I'm not sure who exactly requestedsome of the UI/UX featuresbut certainly no one I know did. One thing I'm disappointed about in the RC is that Wordpad and Windows Explorer still don't work well with .docx files.Windows Explorer can't preview the formats now compatible with Wordpad (.docxand .odf, it also can't preview.ico, .ps1, .m4v) using the Preview Pane. The metadata in theincompatible.docdocuments can be be seen and edited (via Properties > Details or the Details Pane) but not .docx documents, even though .docx is now an out-of-the-box compatible format via Wordpad.If Wordpadopens a tagged .docx file it will erasesome of the user-editable metadataif saved out. The only way I know of to get access to .docx metadata in Windows 7 is to install Office 2007. Weak. Utilizing Tags, Authors, and Titlesis a great way to get more use out of Windows Search.I'm not even getting into alot of the small visual problems with Wordpad... (lie):Like a number of icons that don't match the rest of the OS. Cut and copy don't match Explorer/Powershell ISE, Date and Time doens't match the CPL item.The artifacting aroundfont text in the "Font Family" DropDownList on mouse hover.And, at least to my eyes, ClearType doesn't work in Wordpad. Text looks a bit different in Wordpad.I didn't expect the visual things to change when using 7000 but I'm surprised they let the metadata go unchanged.------And Naddy, use Live Mail.

I suppose by the look of thingsthis is still not "A" release candidate" butrather another beta of one and for that reason much can still be changed, but I'd really like a lowdown on Superfetch soon. I want to know ifitscurrent state is what is meant to be inRelease Candidate level and if so; is there anything the user can do tomodify its behavior?

I believe this is very muchthe release candidate. They said one beta and release candidate and I think they meant it. I think some people were expecting a bit much of it.

I downloaded the RC yesterday and installed to a spare partition on a 64bit system. The install was flawless and very quick,all hardware was found and working in minutes. I have not seen Win7 before and for the most part have to say I am very impressed,certainly it seems to be a vast improvement on Vista. 2 things that I see so far that are not good, 1) Defender was apparently running but is nowhere to be found in the start menu,the programs list or Control Panel,I only found it by accident,it is so invisible I assumed it was not included in this OS. 2) Windows Mail, why is this incomplete/disabled. I and many other Vista users run Windows Mail,I need to be able to import all mail/settings/contacts etc. The offered Windows Live Mail is definitely not something I would use,frankly I think it is truly dreadful. Fine for those that want a facebook /social networking app that looks like it was designed by 10 year olds but certainly not an application for serious /business use. If this "Live Mail" is the thing of the future it needs to be able to lose all the tacky looks and have the abilty to import all WindowsMail settings.

And Naddy, use Live Mail. Why? Live Mail is totally unsuitable for home office/ business use , mail and account settings cannot be imported and the interface is truly awful. Fine for home use and those that want to share media etc. but as an app for a busy environment no way, Live Mail is a home user toy.

I've "discover" also this bug: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproperf/thread/2c4c95d6-fe48-48d3-a378-2d122bbecb26 Anyone can check this?

OK! I'm a convert.On January 15th I posted a tirade (same Title: Taskbar) against mixed Program (pinned) shortcuts, and Program buttons:(Thankfully it was treated gently by those who responded.The springboard videos are very helpful, and the whole Taskbar thing nowhas me in raptures! - as do many of the other UIfeatures :)GLITCH:On ONE startup, the desktop Gadgets did not appear.Right-Click>View showed the box ticked.I needed to untick then re-tick to show the Gadgets.Only happened once, but DID happen.Great effort by, and Great credit to, the development team!!Regards,Pat GarardMelbourne Australia Pat Garard, Melbourne Australia

I can not believe they got rid of the option for the classic menu!! I have so many freeware apps on my system and I can never remember their names so I group them together based on their use. I don't use the same 3 or 4 programs each day - even if I did I would stick them on my desktop.Im finding this really hard to adapt to as its a lot less intuitive. I keep sneaking back to XP which is no good as I know its on its way out.

"And Naddy, use Live Mail."No thanks, I will continue to use Windows Mail. It can be made to work in 7!

In Windows 7, I think one thing that can help with your disability is the Search Box on the Start menu. This is how I see it (and your quote ^ proves it) -- some people are just convinced that the new start menu is bad and the classic one was better (some of them probably haven't even used the "new" start menu). They just scream and shout and demand and rant without knowing what the new start menu can and can't do, without even using it themselves and discovering how it can help them. For example, take this point: "I can find programs faster in classic start menu". -- Hello, have you noticed the search box? (nothing beats start menu search, hat off to MS) How about the pinning ability? So I suggest that ppl, before demanding classic start menu back, actually use the new start menu how it was supposed to be used. Nothing personal, just my 2 eurocents. Regards, Kristaps. As I already posted in the "have comments about 7 beta", here is my 2 cents for this: The search feature is a good thing, IF I NEED TO SEARCH! Why do I need to search for something if I know exactly where is? I always had my Start Menu organizated, and I know exactly where my programs are. So, if I need to lauch something, I just use the MOUSE, click all programs, and click the program I want, simple as that, click, click, done. Why do I need to click start menu, leave the mouse, put the hands on keyboard, start typing the name of the program, wast processor cicles to search for it, then, put the hand back in mouse, and only then, click the program? Nice improvement! If I dont know where the program is, or if im searching for a document, I agree the search function is amazing, but it simples is not all the times I need to SEARCH, sometimes, I just need to have a nice floting menu, and CLICK. and, soon after I posted it, barth2k posted: I agree with Warel. We need an option for fly out menu. the new start menu is great if you're using an iphone, but now that we can get 1920x1200 monitors for 300USD, it's really dumb to confine your menu to that little window and force the user to scroll scroll scroll. people keep pointing out that you can use the search. but isn't that just an indictment of the new menu? it's so cumbersome to navigate that it's faster to take your hand off the mouse, type, then go back to the mouse? this is exactly what I do if the program I'm looking for isn't on the MRU list. And, I totally agree with barth2k. For me, there is no need to classic menu come back. Overal, I like the new menu, but not having a option to a fly out menu, and make me scroll and scroll and keep scrooling a confined little place, when I have a huge monitor in front of me, and I WANT to use it, is just stupid.

Ok, now, after using Windows RC for a bit more time, here is my list of what I think is missing: 1) Windows explorer: It is still not customizable, nor user friendly, as it was since Windows Vista. - We cant configure the commands bar anymore. Can I put my most used buttons in there? No. Can I remove something? No. It is "as is" like it or not, you cant change it. - Status bar / Details pane still use 3 lines and dont provide the information (file sizes) that Windows XP provided with ONE SINGLE LINE. -If I want to know the sizes of more than a few files, I need to click the STUPID "More Details" button. Did I said STUPID? Yes, just because I dont want to use a heavier word here. but STUPID is not enough for this behaviour. Im using it just to be polited. - Explorer dont show (anymore) the free space of a disk / partition / device. So, if you are going to copy / move files, or you guess, or you open "Computer" to see it. - Can I pause a copy / move operation after it started? NO. If windows explorer is given this single improvement, that people are asking for YEARS, this only would be a nice compeling feature to buy Win7. - If Im coping a file over a network, and the connection is lost, can I resume the file transfer later? NO. after all this years, even with a "homegroup" the only option is to replace the file and start copying again. - Autoarrange for files: I HATE this "feature" Can I disable it? NO. AGAIN, I cant disable / modify one setting that I dislike. 2) Internet Explorer: - Download resume if connection is lost. It is a MUST. and we dont have it YET. 1+2) For both, Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer, I like very much the new "Progress bar" integrated in the icon on superbar. THIS is improvement. But, again, I dont like the green color. Can I change it to be blue? NO. Why not? The system is not suposed to have "User in control"? 3) Program elevation: I use winrar a lot. Lets think if a need to rar a file or folder inside "Program files" or "Windows". In XP, I could right click it, and make the rar. Now, I cant. Winrar is not running with administrative privileges, so, it cant write to this folders. But, Windows dont ask my permission. It just says: DENIED. Wait, its my computer, Im the admin, I want to do it. Ask. Dont put a DENIED in my face. The only way to do that, is to put winrar to run with admin privileges, or, when right click, change another location for the file. I can do that, for sure, but I still dont like the idea of windows saying Im denied of doing something without asking first. 4) UAC: As I already said a lot of times, but never got listen too: In a short analysis, its is much better than it was in vista. In a bigger analysis: It is still a pain to deal with. Lots of applications I use (like games) always trigger UAC when I start them. WHY, for god sake, cant we have a option like: NEVER AGAIN DISPLAY UAC FOR THIS APPLICATION?. Of course I know the reply: If MS put such option in UAC, it would be less secure, and more vulnerable to malware. Ok. Now, lets see the facts: I, and I believe lots of users have a good firewall instaled. Does it keep asking the same thing over and over again? or a GOOD application for safety have the option to store user rules? I think I dont need to say more. The way UAC is, there is only one think I can do to use it without being anger: DISABLE UAC ONCE AND FOR ALL. Ok, I know it will be much less secure. but... WAIT!!! WAIT! So, the user CAN DISABLE the UAC for good, but the user CANT create UAC rules, because it is LESS SECURE that way? Can please, someone explain it to me? If malware could be malicious enough to create a "safe rule" for itself, why cant this same piece of malware disable uac? 5) ISO Files: Why windows can not mount iso files out of the box yet? 6) Disk manager: A option to resize / merge disk partitions without data loss would be very very welcome. 7) Programs starting with windows: We can hide the icons. But why not integrate a function in the "Notification area" like: Stop this program from starting with windows. For sure we can use regedit or msconfig to edit it, but why not make it more user friendly? 8) Start Menu: Why not put a option to have "all programs" Fly out? We can put almost all other options to Fly out. Computer, Control Panel, Documents, Videos, Pictures, Games, almost all. but the most needed one for me, the ALL PROGRAMS, dont have the option to be show as a menu. Even with bigger / high res monitors becoming cheaper and cheaper, the user have all the programs confined to a tiny small place and is forced to scroll, scroll, scroll scroll... its (again) stupid, unnecesary and inconsistent with all other options beeing alowed to be show as a menu. 9) Superbar icons: I think the default icons are too big. But the small ones are too small. Why there is no option, like in personalization to set a specifc size? We can set the exactly size for icons in desktop, why cant it be done in the superbar too?

Is there a way to switch to classic start menu in Windows 7 and how can I enable quiklunch on taskbar?

Installed Vista Ultimate 32 bit SP2 a few days ago, but this platform blows that away. I'm impressed with 7's "nurturings".

Warel: did you vulcan mind meld me in my sleep, because I agree 100% with all your points.

I simply want to turn off the taskbar preview. It's not neccesary for my use of Windows. But when opening gpedit.msc it says "Compatible with Windows Vista ONLY"

Classic Start menu is gone Gone Gone For Good. There is no way to switch to it.Quick launch can be enabled as a "Toolbar". Follow the directions here: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2009/01/14/how-to-enable-or-disable-quick-launch-bar-toolbar-in-windows-7/This toolbar is a workaround as opposed to the actual quick launch but it does work.

Yes, Windows Explorer would need many improvements. Ok, the copy in Vista and 7 is handled better than in XP, but until I am given the ability to pause and resume copies I'll just go on with TeraCopy. As I reported in another topic, the string "Invert Selection" should be replaced with "Invert selection". A nice feature which is probably now too late to ask to be included is what QTTabBar does. It was a software for Windows XP which added an address bar similar to the one we have in Vista or Windows 7 in Windows Explorer (the one which allows you to click on any level of the path). It was better, since the dropdown menu that is shown when you click on one of those arrows in order to select a folder, had submenus for other folders, so basically you could navigate directly to a complicated path using those menus. I haven't explained this very well, I hope I was clear. This minor bug should also be fixed. It's a minor bug in the installer. Finally, I've also noticed that when you are renaming a system file (tried that with C:\bootmgr), you are asked once to grant administrator permissions plus 3 more times with exactly the same message (warning: if you rename a system file the system might be damaged, or whatsoever). And that when you assign a label to a disk, the warning asking for administrator permissions which you get, shows the error symbol (X) instead of the exclamation mark , which would be more appropriate since that is a warning, not an error.

Hi ZarsenYou need to always consider that Windows 7 is still a beta product. You won't see any 'compatible with Windows 7' notations until the final version is released.Windows 7 will support all of the current GP settings, plus a reported 300+ new policies.Hope this helps.Thank You for testing Windows 7 RC Ronnie Vernon MVP

That's true, but it would just make a little more sense that if the option is not available, why even have it on the list of OS configurations to modify when you can't modify it. And so far, aside from a few graphics bugs, I'm pleased with this RC, more so than the first beta release.

It is not a "workaround". It is the actual Quicklaunch functionality from Vista. You even get the Show Desktop and Flip 3D icons back!

The RC has been a bit of a cold shower for me. Windows Explorer once again hangs when accessing network drivers over slow connections. Itconfusingly displays the old folder while navigating to the new. To top it of, if you create a new folder, and then navigate to it by clicking "Enter", it gives the error "Folder 'New folder' does not exist."Windows Libraries no longer work with network drives on Linux or Vista machines, giving an error about indexing. This makes libraries useless for me (and anyone that has at least 1 non-Windows7 machine? which must be everyone?) But... Windows Media Player seems to use *different* libraries, which do seem to work with network drives? I don't get it.Search is harder to use than ever; the integration with explorer feels forced. I can't figure out what it's searching for, why it won't find things I expect it to find, and find things I think it should not have found. If I click search, I'd like a blank page with one search box, one advanced button, and one go button. At the very least, when a search has been done, display what you have searched for, and where?Still, a big step forward from Vista.It's just that the greatbeta had made me expect better. :)

And why you want that when you have desktop dimming and show desktop on the taskbar corner?

You need to always consider that Windows 7 is still a beta product. Sorry, Ronnie, but I have to disagree. My copy of windows dont have "beta" on it anymore. As long as I know, we have a Release Candidate now, BUT, as I already said in this same thread "What is the point of having a RC - RELEASE candidate, if Microsoft KNOW about lots of bugs not fixed yet? Why not just make a Beta 2 or something?" I believe we should be still in beta now, but unfortunately, this is RC, and this kind of talk can not apply anymore. barth2k: I think we have a very similar vision, we agreed a lot in many threads! And, as I said to Ronnie, I think we should still be in beta, but Im too disapointed about the way the Windows developement appears beeing rushed.

The RC has been a bit of a cold shower for me. ........... It's just that the greatbeta had made me expect better. :) It is exactly my point in the previous post. I can see this general feeling of "The beta was GREAT for a beta, imagine the final product!!" But then, we got a RC, and we see it and think: "Well.... its still good for a beta... but, its not a beta anymore. For a RC we need much more!" I keep thinking what will happen when the final *rushed?* product arrives. People will look at it and say: "Wow, that great beta evolved into an amazing windows!" OR they will say: "Yeah... the beta was very good for a beta, so sad the final one ended like this." I really really hope to have the best windows ever made. But, so far, my hopes are little down.

I think XP has the best functionality of all the MS OSs. Therefore I would like to see these features on the Windows 7.- Allow Un-grouping of tastbar buttons.- Start Menu option to use XP style menus (I hate the big menu), I turn off "frequently used programs and it shows a blank white box, I want to get rid of that and just use the "fly out" (as some people say) menu for All programs.- I think Windows Explorer is extremely hard to use. don't hide the + and -, I like seeing the full filepath and being able to use a "parent folder" button.- ClearText is fuzzy to me. I turn it off and it looks great for everything except dialogs. Windows dialogs are still fuzzy.IE8:-I don't want anything to "pop down" when I type a url (I tried to turn off everything that I thoughtcould affect thisbut it still does it).- I prefer the "File Edit View FavoritesTools Help" toolbar over anthing else. If I could get rid of "Favorites" huge button or even move it. Right now it's taking up a whole bar even alone and it can't be move afaik.I'm sure I have more. Basically I want an XP UI :). Also, in general I strongly dislike all browsers past IE6.

Microsoft please for the love of god Allow Un-grouping of tastbar buttons in Windows 7!!!!Please allow this!

Also, in general I strongly dislike all browsers past IE6. You, sir, are one in a trillion. A very small minority indeed!

I want the classic start menu, that's it. Simple. I prefer it to the horrible screen hugging monstrosity that, thankfully was able to be replaced with the wonderful classic start menu in both XP and Vista. I don't want to have a dumb space where programmes I've previously opened are displayed. I don't want a pretty bar on the side linking to folders that I never use (as I do all my navigation in explorer). I read somewhere earlier that 'it's not going to happen as it's a candidate release' in which case I will not buy it.... I installed it and it looked nice, I began the task of making it more user friendly, stopping warnings and stuff like that, when I got to the start menu and couldn't find the classic option I immediately restored my Vista from a backup...Windows 7 didn't last long in my laptop. I tried the new menu in XP, couldn't get on with it at all. I know what programmes I want to install, they are always pretty much the same, I like to have updated software but I also like the interface to be familiar. It's only a little niggle to a lot of people here, but to me it decides whether I will buy it or not - so far the answer is not. I think, regardless of who thinks what is best, we should at least have the choice. Shouldn't we?

The Windows 7 RC is incredible! :D One of my favorite aspects of Windows 7 is the pretty blue screen with a few leaves while it's loading up. It's very fast but I have to click a few icons about 4 times before it actually opens. Hopefully this will be fixed in the final version of Windows 7. Overall, this is a very good Operating System. :)Evandela

How do you think the Classic start menu (if implemented) should look under Win7? Plain grey or aero'd? Aero'd classic start menu would look funny IMO.Regards, Kristaps.

What is the point of having a RC - RELEASE candidate, if Microsoft KNOW about lots of bugs not fixed yet? Why not just make a Beta 2 or something? Doing a RC, knowing it still have lots of bugs seens very strange for me. In beta, you dont know what to expect.. lots of bugs can and will happen. But once you leave the beta and start the RC, is supposed you think the release is fine, unless new bugs are found? Why leaving the old ones open in a RC build, knowing it? TBH, this keeps bugging me too :PRegards, Kristaps.

Two more things that keep bugging me: 1) When I press the Cancel button (like, when deleting or copying files), I'd expect the action to be canceled, not just show "Canceling..." for an eternity. 2) Why does windows need to "discover " files when moving/deleting? Seriously, could someone please explain this? I just want to know. Thx. Regards, Kristaps.

I hear your pain. It's incomprehensible why M$ got rid of Explorer Bar customization. I hated Vista for this very reason. And now W7 is the same dog...How many times do I need "Burn these files to disk" ? And why have this stupid Organize menu? All of these were available under Explorer Toolbar.Why take away a perfectly fine feature of Windows....Very disappointed.

And why there still isn't an "EJECT " button inside the removable drives!?Regards, Kristaps.

Why would Microsoft get rid of the Classic Start Menu are they idots or what one of my main problems with vista was I couldn't use it because of the start menu and the way it is laid out I just found it so confuseing and that was my main reason why I stop using Vist and went back to XPI just started using Vista again with in the last 6 months because the Dummies site showed me how to setup the Classic Start Menu in Vista and now I like Vista just because of the Classic Start Menu and the many thing you can do with itI used to work for a computer shop in there Warehouse strippingdown old computers for Recycleing and You don't have any idea how many time I heard from customer how Vista was ____ because of the many changes made to it some people felt the same way I did about the Start Menu others just didn't like the look and feel of Vista to them it just wasn't WindowsIn my opinion Microsoft might want torethinkabout the Start Menuissue so far I like what I see with Windows 7 all except for theStart Menu I would hope that Microsoft would add that into Windows 7 before it goes to RTM because I can tell you now if it isn't in Windows 7 by the time it goes to RTMI Will Not Buy Windows7 just for that reason alone and stay with Vista or Go back to XPMicrosoft Lost alot of Money With Vista are they willing to to lose more money with Windows 7 because they didn't listen to the customer and keep some the things that the customer is used to using in Windows

Two more things that keep bugging me: 1) When I press the <expletive removed> Cancel button (like, when deleting or copying files), I expect the action to be canceled, not just show "Canceling..." for an eternity. 2) Why does windows need to "discover " files when moving/deleting? Seriously, could someone please explain this? Thx. Regards, Kristaps. Hey! Thanks for remind it! I forgot about this two!1) Most of times, pressing the "Cancel" button show a "Cancelling" dialog that takes the same time, or even more, than if I just had the damn action finish!2) Please, I want to know it too!and, 3) How could I forgot to mention? I want the UP one folder button back, please!

Sorry, can anyone check this problem: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itproperf/thread/2c4c95d6-fe48-48d3-a378-2d122bbecb26 It's most important... Scandisk sucks more than 1 GB of RAM for running on my external hd... And, calmly, if you can check all this bugs I've reported: http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/w7itprogeneral/thread/2edd2c2e-d14c-4c93-8015-91c4ef352701 I want to be more helpful in the process of bug fixing... I dream a perfect OS... Now that Seven is fast, "enough" stable, less expensive resources and beautiful, with the fix of these bugs (mine and the others of all the people have reported), Seven can be the perfect OS... Microsoft have the possibility to create this, so don't delude us ;)...

Warel:I motion that you become M$ president to "Dictate" these changes on us: "users" ! Anyone to second the motion?

Hey,I have no clue if this is where i should be posting comments and inputs from my expirience with the RC build.. so here goes:1 thing i noted from using the build for maybe just 2 hours is that when you access the device manager and click on properties on any device and move the mouse pointer to the red x square (to close) it starts flickering very quickly, and it does it only on that perticular window, not other windows.Ihave an intel 4500m onboard video card ver 8.15.10.1662 (WDDM 1.1).I hope this is the place to post these kinds of bugs im seeing so that the Win7 development teamcan take care of it by the time this ships. If this is not the place to post these kinds of things than i would love it if someone points out to me where i can post these things im seeing/will see.Thanks,Eddie.

Not missing the UP button, sry - breadcrumbs are much better, as they allow you to go up multiple folders.Regards, Kristaps.

Not missing the UP button, sry - breadcrumbs are much better, as they allow you to go up multiple folders. Regards, Kristaps. So true! :)By the way, I repeat my suggestions for UIupgrade: a more intelligent (and maybe faster, but that is secondary) file transfer method. I mean, why copying two files of 1GB in 2 separate copy processes takes FAR more than copying the same files in the same process? Why can't the second copy (or move, that is) go in queue after the first one, and get execution after the first ends? Or at least... please, put a "pause" button in the copy/move window. That way, while doing heavy backups, I can put music in my PDA without waiting AGES for a 100MB copy...Cancel operation is choppy as usual, aborting file copying/moving may take AGES too.Please, those arent't inhuman changes in the way good old file manager has been working for the last 20 years or so. I gotthe AWESOMEfeature of automatically select filename without extension (when shown) when renaming files, a feature I didn't even think would be done: but handling files should be revamped, it's soooooooo old. On the contrary, Seven looks soooooooooo new! :D

The "Classic" Start menu is the original Start Menu -- in Windows 95/98/ME/2000, it wasTHE start menu, no change from one version to the next. Then came Windows XPwhich introduced a new "Start menu" that was not a menu,instead its contents were constantly changing on some arbitrary algorithm dreamed up by an MS GUI developer, and introduced the "All programs" entry, which added an additional click to the process to accessing the true program structure. If you preferred a consistent user interface, you could select the condescendingly renamed "Classic" Start menu, as if preferring the consistent menu was somehow quaint or old fashioned. Vista also subscribed to the new XP-style "Start menu", andcontinued toprovidethe "Classic" Start menu for power users. Windows 7 has gone one step worse with a completely unstructured, constantly changingscrolling mass of icons rather than returning to a simpler, structured design.On top of that, eliminated the better-designed"Classic" Start menucompletely.Simply put, it is much faster to navigate a set structure thanconstantly having to re-digest and revaluate a constantly changing landscape to find what you're looking for. If this weren't the case, highways would arbitrarily re-route themselves daily based on some unknown algorithm, and drivers would need to search for a different way to accomplish the same task every day. For people who only use a half-dozen or fewer programs, perhaps a "Start menu" that reshuffles those 6 or less items around is not an issue. But for power users who are using 20, 30, 40 or more different programs on a regular basis, the half-dozenconstantly changingicons on the XP/Vista/Win7-style "Start menu" is a complete waste of screen real estate.Many argue that they prefer typingthe name of a program into the Search box in the Win7 "Start menu"rather than going directly to the exact item they want in a set menu structure. After having used Windows PCs since 1989, I can authoritatively declare that the fewer times a user hasto switch from using their mouse to using their keyboard and then back again, the far more efficientthat userwill be. Having to mouse over to the Search box then change to typing takes far more time than simply mousing through a set menu system. The constant switching between input modes is counter-intuitive and time consuming.So count me in as another long-time IT professional and Windows user who hopes MS comes to their senses and restores the "Classic" Start menu as a selectable GUI option in Win7. Granted, MS could arbitrarily disregard those of us who prefer the structured Start menu, since MS will kill off WinXP and force us all to kludge around with the inconsistent WinXP/Vista/Win7 "Start menu" system by ending security update support for the venerable old OS. But those of us they alienate are a large portion of the underpinnings of Windows popularity and support. I have never seriously considered another OS for business operations imply because Windows always was dependably doing what needed to be done, in a very predictable and dependable manner. Regardless of your viewwhich mightembrace the ideathat predictable and dependable is boring or "old school", those are the exact traitsupon which solid foundations and success are actually built. Fads are built on squishy, relativistic, reactionary constructs, and fads are washed quickly away.Someone in a forum threadlambasted "Classic" Start menu adherents as being behind the times, andbrought up an analogy of people not being able to buy a brand-new 1995 Ford F150 pick-up truck. Actually, the analogy was flawed on several levels.1) You can go out and buy a completely restored old car, and many of those are of much higher value than new cars, even ones which are "retro" versions of the original. Granted, it is restored, not brand new, but itis the exact same vehicle, and performs, looks, feels and drives exactly like the original did directly from the factory, perhaps slightly better. The 1968 Shelby GT-KR500 will never be duplicated in a brand new chassis, no matter thata new versionwith the same name is now for sale. The Studebaker Avanti was a bizarre exception to that rule, having been built for decades after the demise of the original manufacturer by enthusiasts who bought the original factory tooling to build more. Perhaps Microsoft needs to sell off Windows XP and let an outside firm continue to develop and support it as a stand-alone product.2) New pick-up trucks are available that perform substantially the same tasks in substantially the same manner as the 1995 version did. In the new version of the pick-up truck,Ford didn't arbitrarily change the way the truck was controlled. They could have researched and foundthat most aircraft pilots find that using control peddles to controlthe yawmovement of an aircraft was more intuitive to them, and that the location of the throttle mounted on the dash or in the center console was more familiar to them.Because pilots are "cool" in their eyes, and it seemed "cool" to change those functionalities in their truck,they could have suddenly removed the pick-up truck's steering wheel and replace it with steering peddles, and placed a throttle lever next to the floor shifter or center armrest. Doing so might make pilots happy, but would require a much less efficientcontrol of the vehicle for everyone else, if not outright dangerous. 3) Similarly, 3-speed automatic transmissions have been labeled "P-N-D-2-L", representing "Park-Neutral-Drive-2nd Gear-Low Gear"for nearly forever with extremely few variations. What would you do if suddenly confronted with a shifter marked "S-F-I-B-M-S" for "Stop-Forward-Idle-Backward-Medium-Slow", simply because the manufacturer determined that that was the order their polls found was the most popularly used shifting positions. Or worse, find that every time you parked your car, that the shifting order changed to match the most frequent order, or perhaps most recent order, that you used those gears? How many garage doors and vehicle fenders would you smash because you expected "P" for "Park" to be the forward position, but instead it was "F" for "Forward" this morning, but then "B" for "Backward" this afternoon? And far worse, that the gear positions changed dynamically while driving, so you had to look directly at the shifter to determine where 2nd gear actually was at that exact moment before trying to shift to that gear? It would be insane. Yet that is what the XP/Vista/Win7 "Start menu" does.

Two more things that keep bugging me: 1) When I press the <expletive removed> Cancel button (like, when deleting or copying files), I expect the action to be canceled, not just show "Canceling..." for an eternity. 2) Why does windows need to "discover " files when moving/deleting? Seriously, could someone please explain this? I just want to know. Thx. Regards, Kristaps. Kristaps,You can get your point across without using offensive language. We reserve the right to ban you for such conduct. Read thecode of conduct. We will not tolerate such language in these forums. Let's keep this professional, OK?Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums

Kristaps, You can get your point across without using offensive language. We reserve the right to ban you for such conduct. Read thecode of conduct . We will not tolerate such language in these forums. Let's keep this professional, OK? Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums Okay, sorry. I edited it out. To stick to the topic: I was unable to find the cause for this "Discovery" thing. Could someone please enlighten us? I'd really appreciate it. Regards, Kristaps.

Not missing the UP button, sry - breadcrumbs are much better, as they allow you to go up multiple folders. Regards, Kristaps. Hey, I never said I dont like or use breadcrumbs, I like it!But, sometimes I miss the up button when going up like 3 or more folders. I can just hit up, up, up without having to move the mouse.Another thing: I dont use the recycle bin. When I delete a file, I just want it gone. So, one thing I ever do is go to recycle bin and disable the "use recycle bin".In windows xp, there is a nice button: Do that for all drives. I click it. Done. Now, its removed in windows 7 (I think removing things is becoming the usual...) and I have to manualy check "dont use recycle bin" for everyone of my hard drives.

i would like to say that windows 7 downloaded great! itinstalled perfectly i have a newer pc with vista 64 and had no issues u all at microsoft did a fine job on this one good job

But, sometimes I miss the up button when going up like 3 or more folders. I can just hit up, up, up without having to move the mouse. Use ALT+UP on your keyboard ;)Regards, Kristaps.

In Win7 the MRU doesn't change that often and in the top i have my most used programs and i have a couple pinned to suit my needs, i find the serach box just amazing, and i don't ned to leave my hand from the mouse for that sheeez i have a left hand...I hated "classic" start menu right from the begining i love the new one, i think it was about time for MS to give us something with real usability, it could be better in some small things but i like how it is going, BTW on the right side you have a list of items that is customizable, you can change wich ones go in there, no need to stick with default...I think the main problem here is the same problem of new technologies all the time, there is allways people that finds hard to adapt/ to embrace / to learn new ways period.

In Win7 the MRU doesn't change that often and in the top i have my most used programs and i have a couple pinned to suit my needs, i find the serach box just amazing, and i don't ned to leave my hand from the mouse for that sheeez i have a left hand... I hated "classic" start menu right from the begining i love the new one, i think it was about time for MS to give us something with real usability, it could be better in some small things but i like how it is going, BTW on the right side you have a list of items that is customizable, you can change wich ones go in there, no need to stick with default... I think the main problem here is the same problem of new technologies all the time, there is allways people that finds hard to adapt/ to embrace / to learn new ways period. +1 to all he said :) Exactly my thoughts.Regards, Kristaps.

Folks, Thank you for your input. Actually, I've been using Windows 7 beta since Feb 15, and I have tested almost every feature in it. I use the search box in the Windows 7 start menu, and it is a good feature. I have also pinned several Items on the left navigation of the Start menu, but these features are not enough for any PC user. We have to use the All Programs submenu. It looks like that you guys are suggesting me to ignore the All Programs submenu because of my disability. In most cases I have to go into the All Programs submenu, and locate the Items that are included in the newly installed program's submenu. I cannot search for any thing in the search box unless I know it. I did a bit more testing on Windows 7 Start menu with my screen reader. I encountered difficulty navigating through the submenus, especially the All Programs submenu, and its submenus. While I navigate through the submenus in Windows 7 Start menu, the keyboard focus doesnt stay in the same submenu. When I press right or left arrow, the Keyboard focus leaves the submenu, and it moves in to the right navigation area of the Start menu. If I keep pressing down arrow in the submenu, again, the keyboard focus leavs the submenu, and moves on the All Programs submenu, search box, and then in the right navigation area. The keyboard focus keeps spinning round and round. From my point of view, the Windows 7 All Programs submenu, including its submenus are quite messy. The keyboard focus should not leave any submenu, unless the submenu is closed. I believe that Windows developers can make the Windows 7 All Programs submenu work just like Windows Classic Start menu. I have sent some suggestions through the feedback link, but I havent seen any improvement. Is there any other way to contact or work directly with Windows 7 developers?Zaheer Sheikh

So far so good with RC 1, a lot of improvements over the Beta. So far, I have only one real complaint, and that's about the removal of the "Restore Previous Folders at Logon" option in the folder options. When I was installing drivers, I had to restart my computer repeatedly, and every time, I had to reopen three different folders I was using. That option has been there for many versions of windows, and I was upset to see it removed. I hope they bring it back.

First, let's pleasestop with the vague "Classic" label and say what we mean. Talk about the characteristics of the menu you want to see.The fact is that the Start menu needs an option to show ALL PROGRAMS in a treeview with no additional clicks. People who want the"friendly" edited list CAN HAVE IT TOO. People act as though everyone wants to take away their pet mode. NOT TRUE.Typing the names of programs in is NOT a suitable replacement. First, typing can be more time-consuming than going to Start/Graphics apps/Photoshop. Second, you may not remember the name of the program you're looking for. Let's see, what was that app I used to convert FLAC audio files? Oh, here it is under Audio Apps.The current Start menu is ridiculous simply because of the waste. Look at this; why have this giant empty pane, when it could be the complete application tree:http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3365/3508263035_d8bf4858fa_o.png

Bring back the Classic Start Menu in Win7 just like one could opt forinVista. Why? Because it's all about personal usability. It'sfaster to useand more easily customized.

So far... Not too bad... I've had the RC up for a bit over a day now, and haven't seen any serious problems.Love IE 8 now that it's actually running at normal speed. IE 8 from beta = Tortoise. IE 8 from RC = cheetah..!I did have one small problem. After installing and joining to my domain, I walked away from the computer for a few and whenI got back, it was asleep. I woke it up using the mouse - and most everything came back to life (surprising since so many have complaints about Nvidia video cards not coming back to life) I tried accessing one of my network shares - and could NOT, for the life of me reconnect. I got the old error about being unable to connect the drive because the drive letter was already in use. And when I went to the Network section in Explorer, it couldn't find any of my networked computers. The motherboard has an Nvidia Nforce 4 chipset. Fortunately, a reboot was able to fix whatever the problem was. Needless to say, you'd think this kind of issue would have long been fixed.

My problem with the old start menu was that 1) it would close everything if your mouse strayed too far, which ment having to re-open everything to get to the program you were looking for. 2) didn't work well if the list went too big for the screen. Now neither of these problems are much to people who can keep a steady mouse and can work with a resolution over 800x600. But I just like not having to dash my mouse from one side of the screen to another to get to the program folder at the end of the list. Also helps to have a scroll wheel.

>8) Start Menu:>Why not put a option to have "all programs" Fly out?http://win7vista.com/index.php?topic=1414.0displays the exact procedure to fly out.This thread does not allow questions, so this is not an answer, just a hopefully helpful workaround.I did it. it works like this.PS @wolfie in case you're reading this, Apple mac users had a similar network share problem a few years ago and the suggested workaround was to run a utility when a computer wakes up to re-establish connections.

You need to always consider that Windows 7 is still a beta product. Sorry, Ronnie, but I have to disagree. My copy of windows dont have "beta" on it anymore. As long as I know, we have a Release Candidate now, BUT, as I already said in this same thread "What is the point of having a RC - RELEASE candidate, if Microsoft KNOW about lots of bugs not fixed yet? Why not just make a Beta 2 or something?" I believe we should be still in beta now, but unfortunately, this is RC, and this kind of talk can not apply anymore. barth2k: I think we have a very similar vision, we agreed a lot in many threads! And, as I said to Ronnie, I think we should still be in beta, but Im too disapointed about the way the Windows developement appears beeing rushed. True words, totally agree with you. What is that rush of Microsoft releasing a new operating system so fast? I think they do not want to lose any more share in the market but to their surprise they might lose even more if Windows 7 was not the way as we home users or IT professionals want it. They did a good job even so far for many things but the beta cycle should have been longer (maybe a month more)...

I think XP has the best functionality of all the MS OSs. Therefore I would like to see these features on the Windows 7. - Allow Un-grouping of tastbar buttons. - Start Menu option to use XP style menus (I hate the big menu), I turn off "frequently used programs and it shows a blank white box, I want to get rid of that and just use the "fly out" (as some people say) menu for All programs. - I think Windows Explorer is extremely hard to use. don't hide the + and -, I like seeing the full filepath and being able to use a "parent folder" button. - ClearText is fuzzy to me. I turn it off and it looks great for everything except dialogs. Windows dialogs are still fuzzy. IE8: -I don't want anything to "pop down" when I type a url (I tried to turn off everything that I thoughtcould affect thisbut it still does it). - I prefer the "File Edit View FavoritesTools Help" toolbar over anthing else. If I could get rid of "Favorites" huge button or even move it. Right now it's taking up a whole bar even alone and it can't be move afaik. I'm sure I have more. Basically I want an XP UI :). Also, in general I strongly dislike all browsers past IE6. Fysiks, You can do most of what you want by customizing Windows 7. Ungrouping option can be found in the properties of taskbar. You can see the full path if you click on the very space next to the new use of path view.

Also, in general I strongly dislike all browsers past IE6. You, sir, are one in a trillion. A very small minority indeed! I'm in someone's doghouse, so I'd better explain this carefully: I liked it when one browser opened everything everywhere. Now I use msie plus a standby browser when msie just stops. I know that was vague, but then so is msie.Maybe I'd love the latest version if it gave more helpful "I refuse to go there" messages.

I'm incredibly disappointed. After Beta working so beautifully I have not been able to install Windows 7 RC1 without getting the dreaded BSOD.It seems directly related to a PCI-E issue and or Nvidia driver issue.As this release is unsupported, I fear that a large number of potential testers will not be able to provide feedback as they will be unable to test the RC version.Just disappointed :-(

I have to agree that Windows Explorer is not as helpful as it was in XP, but I feel it's probably not going to change much between now and RTM :) Oh well, I can more than live with it.On another front, I upgraded my notebook memory to 2GB DDR2, with the Celeron M 1.73 Ghz processor and a SATA hard drive. Unfortunately, even with the new Intel 945 chipset graphics driver from Windows Update, and the increased available video memory, the graphicsstill only gets a 2.0 on the Windows Experience Index. It's noticeable, too.Overall, the OS itself boots as quickly, if not more so, than XP Pro, but some programs, especially Microsoft Outlook 2007, open and run slowly. Better success with Word and Excel, as well as other "lighter-weight" programs. I also like the fact that so far, every Vista program I've thrown at it appears to be compatible except for all antivirus/security suites but one: Eset Smart Security 4, which seems to run just fine.Anyway, hope this post was in the spirit of the thread. I'll ask questions elsewhere. Thanks to the team for providing this resource!

I have to agree that Windows Explorer is not as helpful as it was in XP, but I feel it's probably not going to change much between now and RTM :) Oh well, I can more than live with it.On another front, I upgraded my notebook memory to 2GB DDR2, with the Celeron M 1.73 Ghz processor and a SATA hard drive. Unfortunately, even with the new Intel 945 chipset graphics driver from Windows Update, and the increased available video memory, the graphicsstill only gets a 2.0 on the Windows Experience Index. It's noticeable, too.Overall, the OS itself boots as quickly, if not more so, than XP Pro, but some programs, especially Microsoft Outlook 2007, open and run slowly. Better success with Word and Excel, as well as other "lighter-weight" programs. I also like the fact that so far, every Vista program I've thrown at it appears to be compatible except for all antivirus/security suites but one: Eset Smart Security 4, which seems to run just fine.Anyway, hope this post was in the spirit of the thread. I'll ask questions elsewhere. Thanks to the team for providing this resource! It's difficult comparing your 2.0 without knowing what it was in Vista, the numbers changed,ButI think win 7 is faster overall than Vista. A benchmark I've been using for around 7 years just to test video shows Win7 beta/RC64 to be as fast /slightly faster than XP32. By comparison,My original benchmarks on Vista64-toXP 32/64 showed a 15%-20% drop in video performance, although that may have changed recently. Bottom line, win7 Yay. Why all this matters (to me) is that slower video (4.4/5.1) seems to be great, although I disagree with the assesment, because according to it games are less demanding than Aero. (Isn't it the other way around?)

A very very impressive piece of work, some babybugs with compatibility, but no big deal. Well done ;) (finally :P) System Specs: Windows 7 x64 RC Build 7100, AMD A64x2 5300+ Black @ 3GHz, 2GB DDR2 SDRAM @ 800MHz, Gigabyte GA-MA790X DS4 Motherboard, Sapphire Radeon HD3870 512MB GDDR4, SB Live24 Sound

Suggestion for the Suggestion box:Can we get the default for "Hide Extentions for Known File Types" to be defaulted to OFF? I don't know about everyone, but that's probably the first thing I turn off when I install a copy of Windows. It seems F-Secure is now complaining about this being a security weakness in Win 7 and the tech media seems to be jumping in on this as being a potential issue.

1.) bring back the classic start menu (so many people have been using it for years and WONT upgrade to windows 7, they will stay with windowsXP / vista)2.) PLEASE bring back the quick launch, I can't stand not been able to have applications launch from there, what if I want multiple IE windows open? not everyone likes TABS 3.) PLEASE, for the love of god, do NOT leave that SHOW DESKTOP button on the far right of the task bar, seriously, I have dual monitors, am I supposedto move my mouse, over 2 monitors, in order to show my desktop? -- and its annoying, at LEAST make it movable, let users place it where they want to,it should be near the start button, it makes sense been over there.seriously, microsoft are going to risk stuffing windows 7 up, I think its great so far, nice and stable, nice and fast, good compatability, but the navigationis ____, please fix it.apart from that, nice work, we all appreciate your efforts guys.

I honestly ripped my Vista Ultimate installation apart and I perfectly migrated to the Windows 7 RC without facing any problems.However, although I don't have currently something constructive to add from my experience (due to infinite amounts of work during the RC launch week I couldn't nitpick the OS as much as I wished to), I do think that there's a Power Management problem at least with my hardware. Seems like the choice "never" doesn't quite become clear to my W7 installation, so I was forced to manually input timers that would only occur if I ever get kidnapped by aliens : http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i134/Madvil/Power-management-plan.jpgStill, I haven't found many other performance issues, other than finding Adobe AIR applications consuming too much CPU than they previously did (or maybe that's just my idea?). However, I do agree to many (if not everything) the posters so far noticed (from hiding the print option if no printer is installed, lack of showing the free space in a hdd/usb stick, opening the last known window without hovering all the available choices with a click, bigger clock and of course the IE proposals).Keep up the good work.

please give us the option to show the text of the name of programs on the taskbar.i have 1900 x 1200 screens and so i put the taskbar on the left side of the screen.with that in vista, i can show 8 to 9 programs plus 20ish open windows--all with small icons and the text of what they are.in windows 7, the text shows only if a program is open. :(we text people want text.and yes, i added in the old quicklaunch and guess what--it will show you the text only if you use large icons (and thereby waste a ton of taskbar space). with small icons--no text appears even though i tell it to.

1.) bring back the classic start menu (so many people have been using it for years and WONT upgrade to windows 7, they will stay with windowsXP / vista)2.) PLEASE bring back the quick launch, I can't stand not been able to have applications launch from there, what if I want multiple IE windows open? not everyone likes TABS 3.) PLEASE, for the love of god, do NOT leave that SHOW DESKTOP button on the far right of the task bar, seriously, I have dual monitors, am I supposedto move my mouse, over 2 monitors, in order to show my desktop? -- and its annoying, at LEAST make it movable, let users place it where they want to,it should be near the start button, it makes sense been over there.seriously, microsoft are going to risk stuffing windows 7 up, I think its great so far, nice and stable, nice and fast, good compatability, but the navigationis ____, please fix it.apart from that, nice work, we all appreciate your efforts guys. Elemental10 -1.) Don't hold your breath... I'm not seeing Microsoft changing their collective minds on this. 2.) What if you want multiple IE windows? Right-click on the IE icon on the task bar and select "Internet Explorer" - viola! Instant 2nd window.3.) Eh.. Makes sense... Though sticking it near the start button can cause more problems. That would need some thinking..For what it's worth - getting around isn't all THAT bad.

>8) Start Menu: >Why not put a option to have "all programs" Fly out? http://win7vista.com/index.php?topic=1414.0 displays the exact procedure to fly out. This thread does not allow questions, so this is not an answer, just a hopefully helpful workaround. I did it. it works like this. Yes, this is something that can work. But, why should we users be having such a trouble to implement a little function that have LOTS of people asking for? As I ALREADY (again) said, its just illogical. We can put almost everything in the "new" start menu to show as a menu. Documents, Games, Music, Downloads, Control Panel, Pictures... why, I ask again, WHY not putting a nice little option to show "All Programs" as a menu too? If my programs can be viewed in a fly out menu, like virtualy ALL OTHER OPTIONS in the start menu, the problem is solved for me. I just dont want to have to scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll (did I say I need to scroll? and scroll A LOT because I have LOTS of programs) and, for some strange reason, Im forced to have them confined in a little corner of my screen, even if I want otherwise. The simple existence of this topic, and people searching for ways to workaround this behaviour is enough (at least for me) to proof that this behaviour is stupid.

So far I can see only one good argument about "classic" start menu, the point fromZaheer Sheikhis perfectly understandable and I think Microsoft should take accesibility more into account for blind users to be able to use the menu.

You have my vote!JS

"How about you click "start" and type in "solitaire"? Maybe you think its annoying because you dont know how to use the start menu."I don't type 50wpm neither can type blind...This is why I always prefer clicks instead of typing.If you want to understand, change keyboard layout to Dvorak and try it for yourself in the dark, then tell others how great the new menu is.... If you can't see in the dark--Turn on the lights.And why blame it on the start menu that you can't see in the dark?If you can't see with the Windows 7 start menu what makes you think your going to magically see your keyboard with the classic menu?The only reason why I(as a college student) am against this is because in my college they put the classic menu on ALL the vista computers and it just ruins the whole experienceof Vista. This would also happen with Windows 7 is they include a classic menu. Whats funny is that you're fighting for something that is going to be implemented in Windows 7 just like it was inplemented in Vista.But don't blame it on your lack of sight at night. Plus the light generating from your screen should be enough to light up your room.

You can emulate the classic start menu in Windows 7. So you have the features of the new menu and the classic start menu side by side. Features of the new menu: recent opened programs pinned programs jumplists special links (right area of start menu) search bar Bad in new menu: All programs: louvre opened menu Reduced space for "All programs" menu by start menu Search bar without "history" Features of classic menu: Laterally opened menu without mouse click Menus uses full screen height Bad in classic menu: No recent opened programs No jumplist No search bar

Suggestion for the Suggestion box:Can we get the default for "Hide Extentions for Known File Types" to be defaulted to OFF? I don't know about everyone, but that's probably the first thing I turn off when I install a copy of Windows. It seems F-Secure is now complaining about this being a security weakness in Win 7 and the tech media seems to be jumping in on this as being a potential issue. Some big important guy wrote a nice blog: http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=16860in which he says, "Ten Seriously annoying default configurations", and mentions "Im glad its available for use in the product, but does anyone know anyone actually using IPv6?"ccccccccccccccccccmy o ok 20 minutes to adjust "bold"Please send a more useful HOSTS file. Mine is 645k and blocks lots of stuff, but its from 1945 when the neighborhood was safer.

There should be a list of repaired bugs between the beta and RC1. I have seen lists of user interface changes, but no list of bugs fixed. It would be very helpful to have a list of the most serious or frequently reported bugs from the beta which have now been fixed. I'm sure that a full list would be excessively long and would also be considered proprietary. I'm just asking that the top 20 or maybe 100 issues fixed be listed. It would be a positive indication of progress made, and would also help us know what to look for (and not expect) in the RC. Steve

"2.) PLEASE bring back the quick launch, I can't stand not been able to have applications launch from there, what if I want multiple IE windows open? not everyone likes TABS "The Quicklaunch can be added back. Follow the directions here (or many other places):http://windows7center.com/windows-7-tips/how-to-enable-the-quick-launch-bar-in-windows-7/I have my Windows 7 taskbar EXACTLY like the way I had it in XP and Vista. Double height, running program icons on the top, Quicklaunch icons on the bottom.

The fact is that the Start menu needs an option to show ALL PROGRAMS in a treeview with no additional clicks Just add a "Open 'All Programs' and other folders on hover " feature :)) And about that waste of space - compare my start menu with yours ;) No empty/wasted space here: Regards, Kristaps.

I have my Windows 7 taskbar EXACTLY like the way I had it in XP and Vista. Double height, running program icons on the top, Quicklaunch icons on the bottom. Lol take no offense, but why bother upgrading then?Regards, Kristaps.

Am I the only one who just can't get Windows Update in Start Menu's MRU list? It was there in 7000, but not anymore in 7100 :(Regards, Kristaps.

Just installed the RC (I never got round to installing the beta's due to personal issues) it took a little over 14minutes to install and be setup onto the desktop which impressed me, all my hardware is working. Sofar first impressions are good, I like the show desktop tab in the lower right, love the network centre (a big improvement over vista) liking all the little neat gfx touches. I am a big vista fan tbh and I like the look and feel of win7 so can see me upgrading when there is an RTM available, I like it!Regards ;)

Lol take no offense, but why bother upgrading then? Regards, Kristaps. When they honor the hallowed few who contribute to the max here, I hope you're there in lights.I'm not sure a UI is worth 299.99 or whatever, I figure there are other reasons, and quoting the video, we ordinary users won't see all of them for a few years.My tuner card works! but it did in vista/xp, so um,O, I know, it's more secure. At least I hope so.It's easier doing stuff. (That's stretching it, but) yeah.

I have my Windows 7 taskbar EXACTLY like the way I had it in XP and Vista. Double height, running program icons on the top, Quicklaunch icons on the bottom. Lol take no offense, but why bother upgrading then? Regards, Kristaps. because there's more to the OS than the taskbar? (or at least we'd hope so). anyway, until it's on store shelves, no one has upgraded yet. it's called testing.

"Lol take no offense, but why bother upgrading then?"Are you serious? Like the taskbar is the ONLY change from Vista to 7? I use VPC daily for my work. The increased performance (and USB support) of the new VPC7 ALONE is worth the upgrade. Having a familiar taskbar arrangement just makes me more productive. If I want the OS X dock, I'll run OS X.

For those of you who are wondering about WHY to upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista, take a look at the TechNet Springboard sitefor Windows 7. It contains lots of resources, including videos, whitepapers, including What's new in Windows 7 Release Candidate. Also, don't forget to check out the Talking About Windows site, where you can see videos of folks on the product team who talk about the decisions that went into the product. Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner

"anyway, until it's on store shelves, no one has upgraded yet. it's called testing."I have upgraded. I did my testing last weekend when I installed it. I am nowbeyond testing, I am working in it right now. Have my normal Server 2003 and XP work VMs running, I'm connected to my office network with VPN, etc.

If someone could go through the documentation for the WAIK kit that was released with the RC, that would be great. Alot of the walkthrough's don't work, and many directions that are given contradict each other.So far, i love both the beta and RC of Windows 7. Keep up the good work.

A big improvement over the beta and Vista. A few comments:- dual monitor support is GREATLY improved from Vista. However, if I have a tablet in table tmode and a regular monitor, and they are different sizes, the background isn't handled properly. I'll post this issue elsewhere.- Libraries: I think the libraries, as implemented,are very annoying. I understand the use case, but it isn't mine and I have no way to turn off having left pane show them, making it more difficult to get to normal folders. How about a folder option to "not expand libraries automatically". Then I'd have just a single item. If I used them, I want to define my type and behavior not just have the canned types. And, it would be really useful to combine the library and saved search into a single view. I can have search results, specific folders and a default store.- I'm seeing some gadget issues where things aren't displaying correctly that worked in the beta. Actually it is weirder, a gadget will start off improperly rendered and then if I open the settings and cancel it renders (sometimes) correctly. be a shame to have the release break a library of gadgets, especially since thye worked in the beta. BTW, I use a 125% scaling for my desktop fonts.- I have a laptop with the infamous Intel 945GM graphics that caused so many issues in Vista. Better in Win7, but still a bit flakey. I know the driver is newly updated so I have my finders crossed.- Love the new biometric support. Very simple and smooth now that it is integrated.- It is awkward that I have to go two places to set up my system for a location. The network stuff handles the firewall and sharing issues, but I have to go to devices to set the default printer. As a user, location includes a set of changes to defaults and I'd like to have them all managed together.- Really wish that theemail client and the like shipped with the OS. MS is now the only OS that doesn't ship with this. Pain to have to go somewhere to download something that is really basic functionality of any system for decades. Strange that sticky notes are included but email isn't. Big step backwards.Thansk for all the improvements.

For those of you who are wondering about WHY to upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista, take a look at Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner respectfully humorous, Dear Owner, I looked at http://talkingaboutwindows.com/Default.aspxand all I could think of was Edie Brickell on Win 95, and maybe "Rob Roy", and the commercial of Beyonce playing a cute game.and "Five Dollar Foot Long". I humbly submit many people tried for years to make win 7 the great product it is, and now it's time for saatchi+saatchi (whoever) to take over.

Mark L. Ferguson suggested me to post this here, so here is: One of the reasons for which I downgraded Vista back to XP, was because it lacked this XP feature: - The capability to select many files, right click on the selection, and open all the selected files at once. I hoped that Windows 7 recovered the feature, but still contains this annoyance. Windows 7 forces to open each file one by one. If you have 100 files, it takes a lot of time. Is there a workaround? - it is enough to reject any update from XP to Windows 7; an OS should SAVE time, not waste user time. - A bat file, of course, or a script could do this easily. Rating posts helps other users Mark L. Ferguson MS-MVP I tried to add a bat file to my SedTo folder, but then started the HHell of the SenTo folder being forbidden access even to administrators. To add the bat to my own SendTo folder, I tried to change the security policies, starting in fail safe mode, etc. Nothing worked. Then I got a disgusting feeling, and just abandoned it.

For those of you who are wondering about WHY to upgrade from Windows XP or Windows Vista, take a look at Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner respectfully humorous, Dear Owner, I looked at http://talkingaboutwindows.com/Default.aspxand all I could think of was Edie Brickell on Win 95, and maybe "Rob Roy", and the commercial of Beyonce playing a cute game.and "Five Dollar Foot Long". I humbly submit many people tried for years to make win 7 the great product it is, and now it's time for saatchi+saatchi (whoever) to take over. Imag. friend:>o you mean "more babes"/>pig.I just mean Edie Brickell was irrelevant to how great win95 was, but wasn't she really great to look at, and listen to over those tinny desktop speakers? An image is worth millions of technical sounding words.

guillermo - EH? What do you mean Windows Vista (and 7) doesn't have the ability to select multiple files and open them all at once? That feature's never gone away... Granted, with the way Explorer works in Windows Vista (and 7), it's a bit tricky to select multiple files if you're viewing them in Details mode, but it's not impossible to do so. In Details mode, you have tofind a spot to start the selection process that ISN'T on top of a file, so you have to make sure that the Explorer window is set to be wide enough so you CAN find a spot. But it CAN be done. You can also hover-select one file and hold the shift key down and move to the begning (or end) of the list of files you want to open. Alternatively, you can also use the Ctrl key to select individual files in this method. Once you've got the files selected, right-click and Open or Open With... And they're opened.

your message does not update in MS connect, so I answer by mail in hope it goes to the forum: On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Windows Live Alerts from TechNet Forums > Anthony_Mann > > Reply: > > guillermo - > > EH? What do you mean Windows Vista (and 7) doesn't have the ability to > select multiple files and open them all at once? > > That feature's never gone away... Granted, with the way Explorer works in > Windows Vista (and 7), it's a bit tricky to select multiple files if you're > viewing them in Details mode, but it's not impossible to do so. In Details > mode, you have tofind a spot to start the selection process that ISN'T on > top of a file, so you have to make sure that the Explorer window is set to > be wide enough so you CAN find a spot. But it CAN be done. > > You can also hover-select one file and hold the shift key down and move to > the begning (or end) of the list of files you want to open. Alternatively, > you can also use the Ctrl key to select individual files in this method. > Once you've got the files selected, right-click and Open or Open With... > And they're opened. > Anthony: Fortunately you guessed that I use details mode. I forget to say it. My bad. No. It does not worked that way in Vista 32 bit, and does not work that way in Windows 7 x64 RC1. No Open option appears after right click (did it really works on you PC?)

+1 Classic menu must be back, we must have the choice

guillermo - It's not hard to guess - and even so - it can be a bit difficult in other modes as well. The icon spacing in NT 6.x is fairly tight.I suppose you also forgot to mention that you're trying to open multiple file types as well. If that's the case, then yes, you're right. You can't open a few DOC(x) files, XLS(x) and pictures all at once - but you CAN open 10, 100 or 1000 (if you've got the RAM) files of the SAME type at the same time without any grief.

We don't need old start menu, we just need some tweaks to the new one ;) [read on] @Microsoft -- we need 3 checkboxes in Start Menu options to fix everything and stop the cries for the old start menu: "Open 'All Programs' menu outside the Start Menu" "Hover on folders to open them" "Show right-side navigation buttons" And that's it -- problem solved permanently. P.S.: Couldn't you have used one of the existing recent threads, instead of bumping a 3 months old thread? :P Regards, Kristaps.

Gonna re-post this, with hope that MS Devs read it. We don't need the old start menu, we just need some tweaks to the new one ;) [read on before flame] @Microsoft -- we need 3 checkboxes in Start Menu options to fix everything and stop the cries for the old start menu: "Open 'All Programs' menu outside the Start Menu" "Hover on folders to open them" "Show right-side navigation buttons" And that's it -- problem solved permanently. Regards, Kristaps.

I just tried this and it worked here. Selected several PDF files in details mode. Right click, Open is at the top. All opened fine in a single Acrobat window.

guillermo - It's not hard to guess - and even so - it can be a bit difficult in other modes as well. The icon spacing in NT 6.x is fairly tight. I suppose you also forgot to mention that you're trying to open multiple file types as well. If that's the case, then yes, you're right. You can't open a few DOC(x) files, XLS(x) and pictures all at once - but you CAN open 10, 100 or 1000 (if you've got the RAM) files of the SAME type at the same time without any grief. No. Yesterday I tried with *.txt files ONLY, ONLY with .HTM, ONLY with .HTML, and it NO worked. by the way, in XP you also can select different types, and open all of them. any day I select many different web type formats in XP (html, htm, asp, etc), and open it on my browser. Vista/W7 do not open they, but that is another issue. Vista/XP does not open even an unique file type.

I just tried this and it worked here. Selected several PDF files in details mode. Right click, Open is at the top. All opened fine in a single Acrobat window. for in the case that is a specific hardware issue, this is my hardware: Motherboard Gigabyte M51GM-S2G, AM2, chipset Nvidia NForce 4 w/ integrated Gforce 6100 (disabled), (many BIOS updates used, today, F14 or higher) Processor Athlon X2 3600+ Video Geforce 8800GT RAID0 of two WD80 HD

guillermo - It's not hard to guess - and even so - it can be a bit difficult in other modes as well. The icon spacing in NT 6.x is fairly tight. I suppose you also forgot to mention that you're trying to open multiple file types as well. If that's the case, then yes, you're right. You can't open a few DOC(x) files, XLS(x) and pictures all at once - but you CAN open 10, 100 or 1000 (if you've got the RAM) files of the SAME type at the same time without any grief. No. Yesterday I tried with *.txt files ONLY, ONLY with .HTM, ONLY with .HTML, and it NO worked. by the way, in XP you also can select different types, and open all of them. any day I select many different web type formats in XP (html, htm, asp, etc), and open it on my browser. Vista/W7 do not open they, but that is another issue. Vista/XP does not open even an unique file type. Also is missing the useful option Open with... it allows to change the default file type manager

guillermo - Weird... I was able to open 20 JPGs by selecting them as a group from my pictures. I was able to open 6 TXT files without issue from another location... The only time I had an issue was when I tried opening an XLS file and a few TXT files at the same time.Granted, I've got the 32 bit Win 7 RC, but that shouldn't be an issue. Win 32 and 64 should (in this case) work the same way.Do you have the extensions for your files displayed or hidden?

How much RAM do you have? Maybe that could be a problem? Since several ppl (including me) have denied your bug, probably something's wrong on your end :( When you installed the RC, did you do an upgrade or a clean install? Updates sometimes mess up the system.Regards, Kristaps.

I so beyond agree. Windows 7 is nicer, but I don't need all the bells and whistles. The screen themes are not useful. The Classic Menu is short, sweet and to the point. Are any developers listening out there? My user base (and I) will be continuing to ask this question.

guillermo - Weird... I was able to open 20 JPGs by selecting them as a group from my pictures. I was able to open 6 TXT files without issue from another location... The only time I had an issue was when I tried opening an XLS file and a few TXT files at the same time. Granted, I've got the 32 bit Win 7 RC, but that shouldn't be an issue. Win 32 and 64 should (in this case) work the same way. Do you have the extensions for your files displayed or hidden? I ever use extensions displayed, and also no hidden files (even have system files ever displayed)

Kristaps -Doubting the RAM is an issue - unless he's below 1GB.. That's all my box has here and I'm able to openmultiple files of the same type without a problem.

How much RAM do you have? Maybe that could be a problem? Since several ppl (including me) have denied your bug, probably something's wrong on your end :( When you installed the RC, did you do an upgrade or a clean install? Updates sometimes mess up the system. Regards, Kristaps. I have 2 Gb of OCZ DDR2 800 4-4-4-11 I Installed former Vista and today W7RC1 on a partition which I deleted and reformated at install time with the installation CD of vista 32 bit (no Service Pack) and W7 64 bit RC1. It runs on a nvidia RAID0 (Nforce4). NTFS.

you're right. if you select multiple files of the same type, the Open option is present on the right click menu. if you select files of different types, it's not an option. pressing Enter doesn't work either. I can't tell if this is windows protecting us from ourselves or just windows being windows.

How much RAM do you have? Maybe that could be a problem? Since several ppl (including me) have denied your bug, probably something's wrong on your end :( When you installed the RC, did you do an upgrade or a clean install? Updates sometimes mess up the system. Regards, Kristaps. I have 2 Gb of OCZ DDR2 800 4-4-4-11 I Installed former Vista and today W7RC1 on a partition which I deleted and reformated at install time with the installation CD of vista 32 bit (no Service Pack) and W7 64 bit RC1. It runs on a nvidia RAID0 (Nforce4). NTFS. I had found exactly the same issue on my sister laptop Packard Bell with Vista home Basic (one of the reasons for wich I wipped out Vista, and replaced it with XP SP3). On my computer, I tried Vista Ultimate, and Vista Home Premium. it may be a localization Issue? all of the computers I tested where on culture Spanish (Argentina) Es-Ar. W7RC1 is pure english version, but I localized it in spanish (Argentina) GMT-3 (Buenos Aires), with a MS internet keyboard pro latin distribution.

So, it's cool that I can hit the winkey + a number to quickly launch or switch to the apps that are in my taskbar, but when I have 8 icons or so, I'd have to stop and count to see what number I'd have to hit. I think it'd be cool if there could be a small number in the corner of the icons. Optional, perhaps, because maybe not everybody would want it.

Just add a "Open 'All Programs' and other folders on hover " feature :)) That defeats the purpose of what people are asking for here: QUICK access to all programs. Forcing the user to put the cursor somewhere and wait for something to happen is never a good UI design. It's just tolerable with ToolTips, because those are not a command or function that you need to execute. As far as your Start menu collection goes: Not sure how that helps other folks.

short Even though new Start Menu has a minimum height (why, MS?), it is pretty short :P At least it's shorter than the classic menu could ever be, with the 'All Programs' menu spanning the entire screen :D Not saying that it couldn't be made shorter :PRegards, Kristaps.

I wish we could use WinKey+Numpad[number] for the same purpose :) [numpad junkie talking ^^]Regards, Kristaps.

That defeats the purpose of what people are asking for here: QUICK access to all programs. I remember someone else here recently crying just for this xD And there goes down another argument for classic start menu - ability to open folders by hover. :P Regards, Kristaps.

So, it's cool that I can hit the winkey + a number to quickly launch or switch to the apps that are in my taskbar, but when I have 8 icons or so, I'd have to stop and count to see what number I'd have to hit. I think it'd be cool if there could be a small number in the corner of the icons. Optional, perhaps, because maybe not everybody would want it. This wouldn't be problem if you were Rain Man! seriously, I think the thing to do is to pin your 9 most frequently used apps and work until you've memorized their positions.

I put 7100 and it works great avg 8.5, firefox, antivir, malwarebytes, all working as planned.only program did not install aol 9.0ctaw

So, it's cool that I can hit the winkey + a number to quickly launch or switch to the apps that are in my taskbar, but when I have 8 icons or so, I'd have to stop and count to see what number I'd have to hit. I think it'd be cool if there could be a small number in the corner of the icons. Optional, perhaps, because maybe not everybody would want it. This wouldn't be problem if you were Rain Man! seriously, I think the thing to do is to pin your 9 most frequently used apps and work until you've memorized their positions. The problem is, I often re-arrange them. For example, I put my chat programs together. Sometimes I use MSN Messenger (Live Messenger?), and sometimes I'm also using Yahoo or IRC, and I'll drag them over to be next to each other. IMO this is one of Win7's best new features.

guillermo - I don't see how a language pack would affect a menu - that would be a bit of a stretch. I could see a typo... A misspelling, but a drastic change like a menu item being completely missing? I dunno.. I find that a bit of a stretch. It could happen, I suppose, but I find it quite unlikely...

"2) Click Start, type "view network connections" and press Enter. Bam, you're there."LOL! Yeah man, with a combined 26 key presses/mouse clicksand BAM! Super fast and user friendly! That's the silliest thing I've ever read! A million key presses and BAM! You've written a novel!

To be totally honest I am slightly disappointed as I had expected more. I was quite happy with Vista and didnt think it rated the abuse it took with the only exception "gaming". Have not seen a big improvement in gaming in Win7RC1 . At the moment I cant see any real reason to upgrade from Vista but I guess the more I use this RC1 the more I will get used to it and like it.

"2) Click Start, type "view network connections" and press Enter. Bam, you're there." 'view net con' would also do the trick :)Regards, Kristaps.

i have experienced quirky behavior in the Rc that surprised me. For example:on my network map.. I was getting "unknown device listed The Action Center seems to hang on reboot... used to load alot faster in the BETAACHI mode can cause the RC not to install. I had to change the mode to IDE to get the RC to work (not a issue in the BETA)I think MS has a lil bit more debugging to do before actual release of any retail version. But on a better note... once installed it does seem pretty stable.

wouldnt it be cool to have a taskbar visible both on the main display and extended display? It is really annoying sometimes to go back to the main display just to launch a program or see whats running.

So I have been running the RC for about 6 hours now and have already run into three problems. 1) If you have a copy/paste(etc) dialog box open with a desktop slide show, when the background changes the dialog box gets sent behind the explorer window. 2) I still can't Pin anything to my Explorer on the task-bar. 3) The Desktop Slide Show still stops at random points and wont change until I go in and reselect all the images in the folder.(This has only happened once though and the Beta probably would have done it 12 times by now. I don't know how to report these so I am posting them here. _____________ Otzen

Did something change in the sidebar? The gadgets used to snap to a certain spacing, but you could move them closer if you wanted. Two of my gadgets are snapping really far apart and the only other place it will let me put the bottom one is partially on top of the other, no happy medium. This is not an improvement.

Can we get rid of the title bar at some point? Or come up with a sleeker design. Right now, it is taking a lot of screen real estate, considering that it is most of the time not used or experienced by the user. And it is truly ugly :-) One suggestion might be to have an auto-hide feature. I love the interface of Gadgets: clean and sleek...no title bar, no close, minimize buttons...these buttons are there but they show up only when you need them. Why not a similar interface for the rest of the apps?

Well After installing both beta and now RC i like the fact that i had no hicups with instalation or running of Windows 7 64 bit ( whaere as vista 64 BSD on install of vid driver and shut down every thing i tried to open ) yes there are still some bugs with IE 8 closing but it better then before Still not crazy about how the network wizard sets it self up to hard to get to my personal named network vrs homegroup and so WISH i could have 2 file explorer running at the same time or a 4 pane explorer like powerdesk i tend to move files a lot and have the abilty to have to trees and the subfolders open is realy nice. only other quirk is antiverous but only cuz mcafee and symantic have not kept up.

I suppose you are running into the >15 files limitation. If one selects more than 15 files of any type there are a couple of things that change automatically. For instance you won't see the collective file size listed in the properties pane(the one at the bottom, not sure if I got its name right)without clicking for more details. The choice to open all those files also disappears from the right-click menu. I don't have a Vista installation nearby but apart from there possibly being a different number involved with the limit I clearly remember this annoyancebeing the default behavior since Vista.

Ok, there are my first comments about RC. Not the lasts...1. Installation - finnaly works fine - no more problem with my nvidia graphic card.What I don't like too much - the 3 points who moves indicating the "progres", well there is so much space on that window so perhaps using bigger points or rollback to XP progress bar could look better.2. Interface and Start Menu - no much visible changes since beta.Isee no return of the Classic Menu and Quick launch as OPTIONS. I like the right of choose, and if they will not re-appear in the final versionI definitelly not buy it. And I will also recommend to my company to not do it. It took me 2 years to implement the xp visual styles in the company computers, because people was confused. i don't want to do it again without options. Also the flat taskbar looks worst than Vista one.Creating Themes is a little annoying, because there is no option to edit or to delete an already created theme - created by me, not defaults. So, if i don't like it i have to keep-it there ? ok. Ok, I found a way to delete-it but not easy for an simple user. Have to select a default theme, then check "show hidden files" and go in the User's documents searching for the theme I want to delete...3. WMP - is better than Beta - now I can acces almost all I need directly from the main windows, but still no "Properties" for played files.Also the CPU is still very stressed when playing files - about 30-40% when playing an DVD compared with PowerDVD using 5-7%. That means the codecs used don't use hardware acceleration.And also - when playing divx or xvid avi files - it does not play the subtitles if they are present, or this is a must for most people having this kind of moovies. That means the need to use ffdshow or vobsub in order to get those subtitles visible.4. Media center - the introduction looks nice, but i really don't like the interface.First - the letters are too big. I use glasses for reading, but having 5" letter high on my LCD TV is damn ugly.Second -i'm a little confused in the Up/Down navigation. In Vista I can see what's Up and Down of the selected Item. Now I can see only what's Up. So I have to memorize the order of navigation ?!?Also when trying to set MC it try to much to connect the internet, probably to download files for settings. In XP And Vista those files (like movies for color settings)were presents aready on the computer. Sorry, but there are still a lot of people not having internet acces or having low band internet in this world !Well those are the first impressions, I will come back.

In Windows XP I generally disable Quick Launch because it competes with the taskbar, both physically and mentally. In other words, if I want to launch, say, Photoshop, I have to first see if I already have it running in the task bar. If it's not there, then I move over to the Quick Launch and launch it. But the reason why I remove the Quick Launch entirely is because it can become "muscle memory" for me to want to click the Quick Launch button every time I need Photoshop (even if it's already running). Even though I still have to make that assertion in XP ("is Photshop already running?"), I am less likely to accidentally launch a new instance from the Start Menu than from the Quick Launch. Windows 7 solves this for me with the superbar. I multitask over 60 hours a week with Windows 7, and I approve the new Taskbar and Start Menu. I have to agree about the taskbar. At first I was really set on using the Quicklaunch bar. That was in the beta release. Now that I have installed the RC I decided to give the taskbar a try and like it better than the quick launch bar. The taskbar seems to get things loaded faster and makes it easier to see different pages of programs running, IE the different tabs running in my web browser. I think as people begin to get used to the new features and learn how to work with them people will not miss the older versions. So far I much happier with Windows 7 (even it is the RC) than Vista. Seems faster and less resource intensive. Top

I have been using MS Products since the days of MSDos 3.3. Throughout that time, there have been O/S's that I,personally, disliked, for example, Win 95 & ME. However, even though I really liked MSDos 6.22, Win 3.11WFG & Win 98, time waits for no man & as a system builder,I have to, at least, have a basic understanding of current (& past) operating systems to be able to assist & sell to my customers.For me,I think Microsoft are back on track with Windows 7. it has been many years since i took an instant like to an operating system before fully using it, but win 7 has potential & I like it. For many home users who have programs that run extremely well under XP, the XP Mode can, & probably will be very beneficial to them. One suggestion I would like to make is that many current systems have a copious amount of ram compared to the past, therefore the minimum default ram for XP Mode should at least be 512mb rather than the current 256mb.What I would really liketo see is Microsoft including XP Mode & Windows Virtual PC as part of the RTM release.I don't think that MS will experience the disaster that Vista produced as at my level (mainly dealing with home users) is the fact that many like Win 7.

Sirius B - You DO realize that XP Mode is only available to those who have Win 7 Professional, Enterprise or Ultimate. Right? That and the system running it MUST support hardware virtualization. There are an awful lot of gaps in both Intel and AMD's chip line ups where their respective virtualization technologies are absent or disabled. Either way, it won't be available for Home Premium and below. Nor should you get your hopes too high for an inclusion of XP Mode or Virtual PC technologies in the RTM. That goes against the Windows 7 philosophy of offloading stuff that can be offloaded to Windows Live Essentials. This is, no doubt, a preemptive strike against anyone who might be considering a complaint to the EU because Microsoft is bundling feature X, Y or Z with the main package.

I doubt MS will include XP Mode in lower editions of Windows 7. And, for sure, I hope they dont include it in RTM. I keep asking for more options to customize windows explorer and start menu, and many times I heard "you dont need it, more options just means more bloat to the system". Now, I see the very same people asking for xp mode out of the box. So, they want ms to bundle a ENTIRE OLD OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, but not put more options to customize windows explorer because IT will add code to system? Come on. Where is the logic in here? Besides, AMD is in a much better situation about virtualization in cpus than intel. Almost all AMD relatively new cpus have AMD-V enabled, but many intel cpus dont have it, because intel says that "virtualization is reserved for high end cpu. low end dont need/have it". And, talking about putting stuff in the system out of the box, I still cant understand why Windows DVD Maker is included. I think it would be much more logical to rip it off and offer as a free download as a Windows Live familty product. Movie Maker (beta) is out of the box. Image Gallery and Mail are out to. And, I bet people tend to use much more mail and photo than they create dvds. Personally, I think this new way of doing things a great improvement. The system should be as simple as possible, a kernel, drivers, basic files and midia viewer / organization. There is no need to bloat the system with stuff some will never use. I, for speak, dont use Windows Media Center, and I glad I can remove it (and other features) now. Acting like this unbloat the system, and make easier to Microsoft to update the applications, because they are no longer integrated in the system. ____ Now, another thing I think that need to be tweaked: Yesterday I installed Word and Excel 2007. I dont use the other programs in the suite. I will NEVER use Outlook, for example. I dont need it, and I didnt installed it in my system. But, just after the installation completed (SP2 too) Windows Update found several updates to do. 1 or 2 of Word, another one for Excel, one for Office in general, and TWO updates for Outlook. One of them, marked as "important" is about new filters for junk mail in outlook. And, even if I mark to hid this update, Windows Update keep asking me to install it, because it is "IMPORTANT". (If I hide a "recommended" update, Windows Update dont bother me anymore.) But, in this case, I dont want nor will use this "important" update. If I hide it, why Windows Update keeps bothering me? And, most important, why did it want me to install a update to a software that is not even in my system? I think if the user set a update to hide, Windows Update should stop asking anything about this update.

you're right. if you select multiple files of the same type, the Open option is present on the right click menu. if you select files of different types, it's not an option. pressing Enter doesn't work either. I can't tell if this is windows protecting us from ourselves or just windows being windows. It is another problem by itself. If you select different file types, you should have the option of open them; each one with his own software. XP does it, and I need it. No excuses. Without it, I gonna block any upgrade from XP. I gonna buy second hand XP licenses on new computers.

guillermo - I don't see how a language pack would affect a menu - that would be a bit of a stretch. I could see a typo... A misspelling, but a drastic change like a menu item being completely missing? I dunno.. I find that a bit of a stretch. It could happen, I suppose, but I find it quite unlikely... Its weird, but as far as I see, is the only personalization I did at install time. anyway, you can't discard it as the bug origin; If you ever debugged code, you should had found very weird bug sources.

To be totally honest I am slightly disappointed as I had expected more. I was quite happy with Vista and didnt think it rated the abuse it took with the only exception "gaming". Have not seen a big improvement in gaming in Win7RC1 . At the moment I cant see any real reason to upgrade from Vista but I guess the more I use this RC1 the more I will get used to it and like it. I program CUDA, so one of the first things I tested, was a heavy game. Win7 gets slower frame rates, but it have much better responsivity, and it does the lower framerates much less painful; In fact, I prefer the better responsivity over the higuer framerates. Although I are comparing it with XP 32 bit. I think that the enhancement have more related to 64 bit than to Win 7.

It never ceases to amaze me how retrograd people is about new technologies, instead of going on with the advance and enjoy a better experience, like most of us do they are whyning and complainig about how "they don't listen to me and, despite the factthat the change is for the best, i liked it the other way so if you don't go back and put like it was before i'm not going to buy your new product", I, honestly, find that way of thinking plain retarded.This not only appliies to Microsoft or Windows 7 it is there way long before that is just "resistance to change" in 99% of the cases...

I suppose you are running into the >15 files limitation. If one selects more than 15 files of any type there are a couple of things that change automatically. For instance you won't see the collective file size listed in the properties pane(the one at the bottom, not sure if I got its name right)without clicking for more details. The choice to open all those files also disappears from the right-click menu. I don't have a Vista installation nearby but apart from there possibly being a different number involved with the limit I clearly remember this annoyancebeing the default behavior since Vista. I tested it with far more than 15 files. I gonna check it with less files (if it works, then I hope a simple register edition changes the limit). Unfortunately, I can't check it just now, because my neighbor closed his house, and the morons of the electrical company disconnected my electricity instead of my neighbor >:(

It never ceases to amaze me how retrograd people is about new technologies, instead of going on with the advance and enjoy a better experience, like most of us do they are whyning and complainig about how "they don't listen to me and, despite the factthat the change is for the best, i liked it the other way so if you don't go back and put like it was before i'm not going to buy your new product", I, honestly, find that way of thinking plain retarded. This not only appliies to Microsoft or Windows 7 it is there way long before that is just "resistance to change" in 99% of the cases... "resistance of change" means that more than 60 persons on my company asked me to downgrade his factory default Vista do XP in the last 6 months. I did it until XP licenses started to be scarce. Even then, people like my boss literally begged me to replace the Vista they payed for, with pirated XP. The problem is, that Vista DON'T works. It hangs for minutes doing apparently nothing, in task that XP does instantaneously. Sometimes the UAC simply appears on a hidden window, and people waits for an hour, until they call me because his notebook "hanged". and is not "retrograd people about new technologies". Almost any young women on my company simply wants Vista because is "new". They ask me before about what computer purchase, and even when advice them to NOT buy vista, or buy XP separately, they play the "innocent" game, and buy Vista anyway, because is "new". A month later, they runs to me desperately whining that his laptop don't works at all (and even with core 2 Duo T7xxx, 4 Gb DDR2 800 in dual channel, and a nvidia/ATI chipset). Sudendly, they want me to change it to XP, which is a ____, since many vendors does NOT provide XP drivers, and you need to modify .inf files, and install generic drivers. Even vendors as Toshiba, a former trusworty trademark, provides XP drivers that simply don't works. Some girls asked me to install the linux included in his netbook, because all they do is to use Internet, and occasional text edition. I mean, it is CRAZY. Girls HATE Linux.

I wasn`t talking about Vista, i found some annoyances on Vista too, i used it anyway because i "only" use Visual Studio, Office, and a bunch of third party software, included my own, that works perfectly fine with it and i liked the enhacements, but, to the point: I wasn't talking about vista, it was more focused on the whole "Classic start menu" issue... still the point aplies there, Vista is a resource hog but it does the job and it does'nt do it any worse than XP same as XP didn't do it worse than 98 and i dowgrade hundreds of clients from XP to 98 because the find difficult to adapt to it in that time...It is the same for every major release of almost any software...

XP does it, and I need it. No excuses. Without it, I gonna block any upgrade from XP. I gonna buy second hand XP licenses on new computers. XP does A LOT, let me tell again, A LOT of things that Seven dont. 1) XP shows file sizes of the current folder in status bar of Windows Explorer. In seven, we needto select the files to see their sizes. But wait, dont select more than 15 files, or you will then need to click the (stupid) "More Details" button. 2)XP show free space in status bar of Windows Explorer. If you want to see free space in status bar / details pane in seven you... well... you just cant. NO SINGLE WAY. The better you can do is going to "Computer" and see the devices there. 3) XP let you choose the pictures you want to import when you plug a digital camera and the "Windows Importer" is used. In seven, you have to import ALL imagens or NO imagens at all. No option. (For sure you can install Windows Live photo gallery to provide this, as you can install any software to do anything you want, but, Im talking here about what is BUILT IN windows and now works less or simple dont work at all when compared to XP.) 4) In XP you can disable Clear Type. In seven, its never full disabled. Some windows (like wordpad?) insist in show Clear Type even if its turned off. I love clear type, and always use it. But, Im all for option. If there is people over there that dont want / like Clear Type they should be able to get off it easily. (and MS knows it, because in the study to implement clear type they found that a large % of people dont like it) 5) In XP, I can make a RAR file inside windows or program files folder with 2 clicks. Right Click in the file I want, click make rar. DONE. In seven, because winrar is not running with admin privileges, it cant write to Windows or Program Files folder. So, no more 2 clicks file done. Now, I need to select a patch and filename to save. 6) In XP, I can fly out the All Programs if Im using the New Start Menu, and not the classic one. In seven, I cant fly out. All my programs (and I have several) are confined to a little screen space and force me to scroll and scroll to find what I want USING THE MOUSE (stop this bs of "type in search box" Im using mouse, I dont want to switch mouse / keyboard / mouse every time I need to open a program, knowing I dont NEED to search anything, as I know where the program is, and I just want a fast "click".) 7) In XP you can have a Classic menu. In seven, you cant. Period. 8) In XP I can have the system with the look I want. If I want a blue progress bar, I can use a theme for it. In seven, Im still searching for a way to get rid of the green progress bar. I dont like green. Its simple, it should be easy to change, but its not. 9) In XP, you can have a installed version of windows with less than 2gb in disk size. In a new disk, with zero files, just a Windows Seven installation goes to almost 15 gb in size. I still think its a lot of space for a system. There are entire linux suits with office and image editor applications that uses less than half of it. Ok, let me stop here. I think will be a shame if I reach a 2 digits count of things that seven cant do and XP always did.

It is the same for every major release of almost any software... Yes, people tend to resist changes, but here, Im talking about real functionality lost.

guys, if you are happy with windows xp, why are you even here? Just pressure MS to keep producing more licences for XP. Come on, dont spoil windows 7 for us :-) This is probably the only time some of us are enjoying a quite efficient and nice interface. Sure, it can be better. There are rough edges here and there, like the ugly title bar :-) I personally dont think a title bar is necessary (check the interface of the gadgets! a perfect example of a nice interface)....Anyway, good job with the new UI! keep it coming

... XP does A LOT, let me tell again, A LOT of things that Seven dont. 1) ... ... 9) In XP, you can have a installed version of windows with less than 2gb in disk size. In a new disk, with zero files, just a Windows Seven installation goes to almost 15 gb in size. I still think its a lot of space for a system. There are entire linux suits with office and image editor applications that uses less than half of it. ... ... and you can right click a folder, and search on it an his subdirectories! As a programer, I understand that common user, prefer simpler, completely un-featured interfaces. Any extra information you facilitates and show to them just confuses and scare them. So I understand why Google slaughtered any other search engine (and windows live s*cks). And I understand why some people fancy Apple, and each Windows version loses the most useful features. But WHY MS sell a -Professional- version?. I NEED those lost features, and they don't even are available on professional versions. With each version, I need to add a lot more extra software just to recover lost features. And Windows "Professional" have no reason to hold that name. Each version have more "versions", so WHY I can't have one with all the features?

guys, if you are happy with windows xp, why are you even here? Im here because I want to use Windows 7. Im here because if something do the job very well in xp (a system from a decade ago) I think it can, in minimun, do the same job in seven. For sure I want it to do BETTER, but if MS cant provide this, at least provide the same. Im here because if no one complain about what is or appears to be wrong or worse, then there will never be evolution in the world. Im here because Im trying to provide my opinion and experience as a user of windows to be able to buy a better product when it is released.

Chitbill,Your comment is completely unprofessional and offensive. You are contributing to invalidate and polute these forums. I have deleted your post. You need to read the code of conduct. Another such comment and you will be banned from participating in any Microsoft forum. Thank you for your cooperation.-Tony MannWindows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums, Windows Client Forum Owner

Sorry I'll go,

guys, if you are happy with windows xp, why are you even here? -Because I want a better OS, and I want MS to make money from it, so he can finance development for new OS. -Microsoft did really wrong with Vista, and I want Windows 7 to be better. -Because I got a free beta and RC1 which is easier to use than many Linux. -Because although I rant here, I hold hope for W7. -Because is wonderful that MS allow me to rant and whine here all I want. Is good sign.

guillermo - I don't see how a language pack would affect a menu - that would be a bit of a stretch. I could see a typo... A misspelling, but a drastic change like a menu item being completely missing? I dunno.. I find that a bit of a stretch. It could happen, I suppose, but I find it quite unlikely... What about a missed string in the language pack?, would probably not be displayed?

guys, if you are happy with windows xp, why are you even here? -Because I want a better OS, and I want MS to make money from it, so he can finance development for new OS. -Microsoft did really wrong with Vista, and I want Windows 7 to be better. -Because I got a free beta and RC1 which is easier to use than many Linux. -Because although I rant here, I hold hope for W7. -Because is wonderful that MS allow me to rant and whine here all I want. Is good sign. Excellent points :-)

To all forum users: Please use this thread to note any comments that you haveabout Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC). Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, createa new thread. Thanks -Tony Mann Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums I had found DirectX 11 on W7. Wonderful. It has being promised with GPGPU support, but I still had not heard of Physics acceleration (I mean DirectX Physics). It is really, really, really important. Lack of it really hurts the PC platform.

To all forum users: Please use this thread to note any comments that you haveabout Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC). Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, createa new thread. Thanks -Tony Mann Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums Something that Windows 7 should absolutely have, is supporting many users with one computer. Software like BetWin allows to connect manu mouses, monitors, and keyboards to a single computer, and run many simultaneous users on it. -It is really useful. You can buy an expensive computer instead of many poor ones. -You can buy just minimal hardware, and if it does not works, you lost nothing. Just need to buy the extra hardware which already was needed. -Today computers have 4 processors, many of them doing nothing. -You can save lot of money in hardware, and /or invest it in software. -Is easy of implement with Virtual machines. Just need to associate each keyboard/mouse with a specific virtual machine. -Is easier to maintain and upgrade. -Bosses love saving money. -The bottleneck is commonly the hard disk access, but today SSD drives solve it nicely.

guillermo - > Something that Windows 7 should absolutely have, is supporting many users with one computer.The Windows family already does this - it's called Terminal Services or Remote Desktop. It's primarily available on the Server editions. Windows 7 already sports a client that allows you to connect to either a terminal server or another computer running Windows XP, Vista or 7. I'm not entirely sure if it'llconnect toNT 4 terminal services or Windows 2000 boxes with TS. With the client side of Windows, there IS a limit of one user/connection at a time. With the server end, the default is also 1 connection - but you can install the full terminal services package and add as many CALs as needed.

In Windows XP and Vista, there was an option in the "Folder Options" -> "View" tab to "Restore previous folder windows at logon". So if I restart my computer with 5 directories open in Windows Explorer, upon rebooting those same 5 directories will be open and in the same location on my desktop. But in Windows 7 RC, that option is gone from the "View" tab, and I can't find it anywhere else. Does anyone know where it is hiding? Thanks.Originally posted in the "Windows 7 User Interface" forum, but moved here on advice of moderator:http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itproui/thread/80609b61-eed5-494e-bb40-3e571c20323b

Windows Vista had handy buttons to change the sort order of any directory in Windows Explorer. In Windows 7 RC, those bottons are gone unless you are viewing that directory by Details. But I like to view by List, and still have any easy way to change the sort order. As it stands, if I want to sort by descending Date, I have to right-click in an open space in the folder, select "Sort by", select "Date modified", then right-click AGAIN in an open space in the folder, select "Sort by", and select "Descending". That is compared to a simple double-click on the "Date modified" button in Vista.The Vista buttons also displayed the current sort criteria and order, whereas in Windows 7 there is no way to know on which criteriaa given folder is sorted by. This is a dramatic step backwards in usability. I understand that there is a push to simplify the UI, but I should at least have the option to display the "sort order toolbar" (or whatever you want to call it) in some or all folders if I choose to. Does anyone know if there is a way to restore this functionality in Windows 7? Thanks.Originally posted in the "Windows 7 User Interface" forum:http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en/w7itproui/thread/eaed7f8b-9011-41ae-97cf-23135a045888?prof=required

RC IS A BIG DISAPPOINTMENTLet me be clear: I love Windows 7. But, the incredibly few changes in the UI between the Beta and the RC are very disappointing. There are masses of really good comments and suggestions in these forums - some of them are so obvious as to be "no brainers", and many of them would be genuine improvements.Like many people I put a lot of effort into making a number of carefully thought out and constructive suggestions for improvement. Browse these forums and you will find dozens of really great suggestions, many of which would almost certainly be perfectly feasible to implement (I'm not talking about major things like bringing back the XP-style start menu).I'm sure there must be many people wondering why Microsoft set up these forums, invited our feedback, only to ignore the vast majority of it (in terms of the UI, virtually all of it).W7 is really good, but those remaining stupid annoyances and inconsistencies in the UI are stopping it from being really great. What a terrible shame!Thack

I have been using windows 7 for a while now. I have two displays. Desktop is extended to the secondary display. One thing I find annoying is that whatever happens on one of the display area also effects the other. For instance, lets say I have a movie running on the secondary display, if I hover over the taskbar on the main display (over an app running and pinned to the taskbar), the movie window on the secondary display also gets hidden along with the windows on the main window. Wouldnt be more convenient to have an option to set these two desktop areas as almost indenpendent desktop areas?

Windows 7 Start button (Windows logo button) glow is overdone. It should be more subtle. Small windows appearing above icons (when hovering on icon) in the task bar arent updated if the corresponding application window is minimized. Perhaps its a deliberate behavior, but Id wish if they would update even if their application window is minimized. Windows Media Center Settings > TV > Guide > Edit favorite lineups - Renaming of existing favorite list not possible TV > Guide > Right click on any channel > Sort by Name / Number - The channel list is not updated. Need to exit/enter TV-Guide to apply sorting Media Player 12 Application freezes for 5-10 seconds every few minutes during gathering of media information (e.g. album cover art) from the internet. Application always freezes for 5-10 seconds when clicking Music, but not when clicking Album, Artist or Genre (4.300 tracks in music library). Play tab: Track appears multiple times in playlist if currently playing track is drag-dropped to a position further down in the list. The false track listings can appear multiple times above or below, or both, the original track when it is dropped at a new position in the playlist further down from its original position. Library list occasionally shows wrong cover art for tracks. When it happens it is usually like this: The coverart is repeated twice once for the right track, and then again immediately below for the following track (even if the track below already has a correct coverart embedded). Wishlist : ReplayGain in WMP12 Cheers! Steffen

Just a thought....I don't know if it has been addressed or not....so please forgive me if this isa repeat...but one thing I noticed is that when you move files, the parent application can't find them, you have to tell it where it is. Can MS come up with a way to update the system, so that when you move a file, all the parent apps know where the new location is?

RC IS A BIG DISAPPOINTMENTLet me be clear: I love Windows 7. But, the incredibly few changes in the UI between the Beta and the RC are very disappointing. There are masses of really good comments and suggestions in these forums - some of them are so obvious as to be "no brainers", and many of them would be genuine improvements.Like many people I put a lot of effort into making a number of carefully thought out and constructive suggestions for improvement. Browse these forums and you will find dozens of really great suggestions, many of which would almost certainly be perfectly feasible to implement (I'm not talking about major things like bringing back the XP-style start menu).I'm sure there must be many people wondering why Microsoft set up these forums, invited our feedback, only to ignore the vast majority of it (in terms of the UI, virtually all of it).W7 is really good, but those remaining stupid annoyances and inconsistencies in the UI are stopping it from being really great. What a terrible shame!Thack Well, I shall see for myself, once I get an .iso burned. But somewhere between burning the Win7-Beta .iso's and now, both my Vista machines got someupdate and can no longerburn dvd's correctly. GuessI'll just relax and wait forVista-SP2-RTM tobecome generally available for download. Then maybe I'll be able to burn an .iso again. But alsomaybe, I might be so pleased with Vista-SP2-RTM that I won't bother upgrading further.Think I strayed off-topic again.

>Win7-Beta .iso's and now, both my Vista machines You have more than one vista machine, and the dvd drive(s) on them cannot burn an ISO, at least correctly. Now comes the part I guess at, and then the deleter comes with the axe (this is my repeating nightmare).Do you have Any other OS? If you Do, eg build 7000 of win 7, does it have access toI just officially lost interest. This is too predictable. What is it you really want? I will try to read it before it gets deleted, or was it someone else you wanted to see?I don't like you, deleter, I'll never fit your idea of an attitude, just like you hate my sass (or something). See? I've made derosnec look saintly, thats a biggie. Derosnec, I like you and most of your posts. The rest of you, I'm nice, I just get silly a lot.

Vietnamese collation still not correct Ifound out thatWindows 7 RC still has not got the Vietnamese collation right. It is the same error as in previous Windows versions. The previous attempt to fix the bug in Vista, which had initially been reported back in 2005,had it wrong. We would hope that Microsoft would get it right in Windows version after Vista, but it seems it has been completely forgotten or fell by waysides during the course of Windows 7 development. HopeMicrosoft will correct this serious bug -- I'm speaking from the perspective of Vietnamese developers and users -- and get the fix into the final release. Thank you very much. Quan Nguyen Background info:http://vietunicode.sourceforge.net/charset/vietalphabet.htmlhttp://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2005/08/27/457224.aspxhttp://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/archive/2008/03/26/8337198.aspxhttp://www.eggheadcafe.com/forumarchives/NETinternationalization/Aug2005/post23518788.asp

An option in the media center for changing the size of the live tv buffer would be quite usefull.

Hi all. Why are we allowed to have large "recently used" items in the start menu but the start menu itself is tiny?! ARGH! http://members.iinet.net.au/~scottylans/hamham.jpg You could have it much bigger in XP and Win2k by default! why are these damn icons so small, it's hard on the eyes.

I'd second that, Vietnamese collation is still not correct in Windows 7 RC release. Please fix it in the final release of Windows 7. Many thanks! Thanh Ba Nguyen MS Partner / Senior Project Manager - COASolutions Founder of VNInformatics.com - A non-profit online community for Vietnamese IT professionals.

RC IS A BIG DISAPPOINTMENT Let me be clear: I love Windows 7. But, the incredibly few changes in the UI between the Beta and the RC are very disappointing. There are masses of really good comments and suggestions in these forums - some of them are so obvious as to be "no brainers", and many of them would be genuine improvements. Like many people I put a lot of effort into making a number of carefully thought out and constructive suggestions for improvement. Browse these forums and you will find dozens of really great suggestions, many of which would almost certainly be perfectly feasible to implement (I'm not talking about major things like bringing back the XP-style start menu). I'm sure there must be many people wondering why Microsoft set up these forums, invited our feedback, only to ignore the vast majority of it (in terms of the UI, virtually all of it). W7 is really good, but those remaining stupid annoyances and inconsistencies in the UI are stopping it from being really great. What a terrible shame! Thack This is exactly how I feel about windows 7. Is a great system already, but by totally ignore the amount of good comments and suggestions we can find every day in this forums, Microsoft is justing let pass a chance to design a system without precedents. We already have a mature system in compatibility (Vista was like a real big beta testing for this, and XP Mode solves most of another problems people can have). We already have a mature system in performance (it does MUCH better than vista, and even better than XP in most hardware I tested. Hey, it can run well in a netbook!) But now, really near to the final step, the system have many annoyances, most of them in the User Interface, and, of course, the USER interface can irritate the USER a lot, if the user keep beeing annoyed by little things that make me think: They could do a brillant technical work in here. WHY they cant tweak just a few points of usability to deliver the user a amazing user experience, instead of a "yeah, it works, but could be better" experience?

@GoodThings2Life You quote: "At some point, no matter how much we love/hate an interface, it becomes imperative --- ESPECIALLY AS IT PROFESSIONALS --- to embrace the new interface to make it work for us, even if it means re-learning new tricks to make things as efficient as they were under a previous version." You could not have said it any better. As IT Professionals, it is incumbent on us to be up to speed on what is happening in the computer world. Regardless of what we personally like or dislike, there is going to be a customer somewhere that loves a feature that we just hate and is going to ask us for help. The last thing they want to hear is a fanboi-like rant about how messed up things are and how they should be. Microsoft is a republic, I get it, but if there was ever a time to rant, wouldn't it be here? now? Wait, I'm quoting from multiple posts in my head, hang on, OK my grandmother is dying, but I might want her to have a softer pillow, and if the home-care nurse shows up and says "Deal with it", I might be slightly P.O'd. (Or if the landlord came and evicted me because I complained to the nurse).Enough metaphors. I think the last time I called Microsoft was 1996, and they interviewed me for something (MVP?) 1999 or so, I got paranoid and declined. But I sort of thought you wanted rants that you would statistically collect and possibly send to the designers. If we're being windy It's because some of us do not Profess to be IT's (de facto ones maybe, certainly unpaid).

I am afraid to admit that I prefer Windows 7 to Mac OS X.

I've been running the RC for a little over a day and I have to say I haven't been as impressed with a Microsoft product as I am with this one.I deliberately skipped Vista because of everything I had read and actually regretted upgrading to XP from Win 2k for several reasons, mostly stability performance-related issues.I have an older Pentium 4, of which I have upgraded theRAM to 1.5 (I have a bad SIMM I think), bought a DVD drive (strictly for this OS installation) a BFG card (Nvidia 6200) and an external drive.The only problems I have experienced were with IE8 hanging, which was corrected with new video drivers.This OS loads faster, I can mult-task again with impugnity and basically fool around. Just today I ran concurrently: an active ioloAnti-Virus scan, defrag of my drive, Messenger, IE8 and Live Mail. I have two widgets running and a pretty video-intensive theme. There was no apparent slowing of anything. I assure you I could not do this with XP.As far as the comments from others here, I can certainly understand how people get comfortable, and more efficient once they accustom their habits to what an OS has to offer. At the same time I know I risk upsetting some by saying that I tend to embrace change, In other words I'll work with what I have, always looking for ways to become more productive.Years ago I worked for the City of Mesa, AZ to convert their old databases to Access because of Y2k issues. I listened to end-users and tried my best to incorporate their wants and desires. I couldn't resist adding what I thought was functionality and ease-of-use enhancements. Well, I learned very quickly my thinking didn't always jibe with theirs. Enough users were interested (and happy) I sometimes improved their productivity that I continued to refine things, turning off features and settings others didn't wish to use. But those who resisted did so strongly; almost universally these users wanted my version to duplicate EXACTLY how they did things before. I did my best to convince them, but it didn't always sway them.In other words, my way wasn't their way. So I adapted. This is the situation I believe Microsoft continually finds itself facing. Developers add and subtract those things they believe enhance the "user experience." They conduct vast amounts of testing I'm sure through focus groups, beta and RC releases.Each release of an OS brings with it greater stakes. All one has to do is read the trade mags to get a feeling what the "experts" believe, but in the end it is users such as myself, testing on a perfectly good Saturday afternoon, whose opinions matter. And I believe Microsoft is listening to me and everyone here.My opinion? Great job - so far. But we should all keep in mind that even though an OS goes from development to beta to RC to retail, it is, and always should be, a work in progress.

OK this is just a copy of another post I wrote here, and I've just been told this could help if I commented here too:guys, there was a new feature concerning power management for the hard disks when running Seven: "AHCI link power management" . I use to have it in the beta, but for some reason not anymore in the RC.AHCI is still enabled in the bios, and the registry key that shows it was detected by the OS is set to the correct value: HKLM\System\CurrentControlSet\Services\Msahci (start=0). If AHCI wasn't detected anyway the OS wouldn't boot.Someone toldme on another forumhe doesn't have it anymore either. So that's either a bug in the RC or the feature was remove

Windows 7 Ultimate RC1Group and Stack have disapeared from the column drop downs in Details view in Windows Explorer. I can still get Group views by Alt-View-Group By but this is hardly a convenient method.This functionality was present in the beta and I can see no reason to change it.Please bring back Group and Stack.thx

Taskbar background left behind I have just installed Windows 7 RC 64-bit and have observed some buggy behaviour when moving and resizing the taskbar. The general issue is that the taskbar background is left behind, leaving a frosted effect over the top of everything (windows, start menu). Steps to reproduce 1: 1) Ensure taskbar is configured to display large icons 2) Dock taskbar to top of screen 3) Open and maximise an application window 4) Display the Taskbar and System Menu Properties dialog 5) Check the 'Use small icons' box then click Apply 6) Note how some of the taskbar background remains on top of the maximised windows titlebar Steps to reproduce 2: 1) Dock taskbar to top of screen 2) With 'Lock taskbar' unchecked, use mouse to increase height of taskbar then decrease 3) Note how taskbar background remains on screen even after decreasing height Steps to reproduce 3: 1) Dock taskbar toleft sideof screen 2) Drag taskbar to top side of screen 3) Note background for taskbar remains on left side of screen, and appears on top of every other window including the Start menu 4) Move taskbar to right or bottom sides of the screen to make the remains of the taskbar background disappear Screenshot: The black square is a snapshot of the top right corner of the screen http://img158.imageshack.us/img158/5146/taskbarlargetosmallicon.png http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/7064/taskbarlefttotop.png Software: Windows 7 RC 64-bit, build 7100 Screen resolution: 1600x1200 at 32bpp Hardware: AMD Athlon X2 5200+ processor MSI M2N-SLI Deluxe motherboard 4GB OCZ Something or other Gold memory Nvidia GeForce 7600 GT (256MB) graphics card WD 36GB Raptor HDD

Windows 7 Ultimate RC1Group and Stack have disapeared from the column drop downs in Details view in Windows Explorer. I can still get Group views by Alt-View-Group By but this is hardly a convenient method.This functionality was present in the beta and I can see no reason to change it.Please bring back Group and Stack.thx looks like the stack by function has been completely removed in the RC, wonder why...

the wifi issue when resuming from standby or hibernation was in the beta, it's corrected in the RC (and there was a workaround in the beta, not worth mentioning anymore :).

Hi. I would like to report 3 problems iv found using the Windows 7 RC x64 english version. ... Second, not worth mentioning that the visualizations that come with Windows Media Player 12 are still the same old and crappy, the full-screen settings tab for them is still broken (as it is also in wmp11). There is an option to set the full screen resolution for the battery visualizations but it doesnt change anything - in full screen, the resolution still remains the same poor as in the window (512x384 max). Wouldnt it be time to fix this? ... Thank you for your attention. here is a screenshot of Windows media player bug: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_AIJ1WOm9bKQ/SgcNiW7cyHI/AAAAAAAAADQ/3fId7jkat_k/s320/Buggy+player.png

With respect to the Task Bar: In general, I love it, but to make it perfectomondo: Active items, when launched from shortcuts that are in toolbars on the task bar, appear on the active area instead of stacked where the icon for the launch actually was. For instance in the image below, I have MSN, Firefox, Fireworksand IE all started. They are shown as active on the left, but I clicked them from toolbar areas further to the right. Intuitively and to save space, I would have thought they would stack where they shortcut was located (and have preview window behavior of the active programs). http://i44.tinypic.com/219s8hz.png In the absence of this kind of toolbar behavior (I create my own toolbars and populate them with shortcuts of the programs I want to group), some way of grouping pinned toolbar items would be very nice indeed. Moreover, I cannot "pin" documents to shortcuts on the toolbar created in this way, which is a double blow because it means I have to give up some great features of the new taskbar in order to organise my programs into groups. As a side comment also related to the task bar, I have trouble with icon/toolbar layouts. For example, the picture below shows how it looked when I'd set everything up how I wanted it: Picture 1: what it looks like when nicely organised: http://i39.tinypic.com/281qzoh.png (items groups as above using toolbars with shortcuts inside) but after restarting 7 RC, it was all rather messed up: http://i41.tinypic.com/4j8fgj.png It seemed to have convinced itself it was only 1 row high; changing the height of the task bar did not force the icons to stack properly again.

Just happened while using internet explorer.two times IE icons on thetaskbar with different pages. didnt change any settings before that, not even unlocked the taskbar.It's all about Windows.

Bluescreen while defragging, just after W7 install (x64) nothing else installed no programs no drivers NOTHING and bluescreen while defrag.ALWAYS bluescreens after waking from SLEEP MODE! ALWAYS EVERY TIME!!This beta is even more unstable than the last one.WOW You have a LOT of work to do.

notification area strange behavior "xp like"...I saw that twice today for the first time, all icons in the notification area getting hidden, and that smal arrow still there. Clicking on the arow makes the tray appear normally again, with wanted icons showing up, and others chosen as hidden, hidden. Also, anoying bug that remains from the beta with windows live messenger. Say it's minimized (pinned or not doesn't make any difference), you minimize another window, and wlm gets un-minimized. I mean guys this is really upsetting, that doesn't happen all the time but very often.

Bluescreen while defragging, just after W7 install (x64) nothing else installed no programs no drivers NOTHING and bluescreen while defrag.ALWAYS bluescreens after waking from SLEEP MODE! ALWAYS EVERY TIME!!This beta is even more unstable than the last one.WOW You have a LOT of work to do. BSOD is not normal. This has something to do with the OS unable to cope with a particular problem related to your hardware; Every machine is different, and even on identical machines you can observe unidentical behaviour. With regards to your question, do you have S.M.A.R.T. enabled in your bios (you know the thingy that observes the physical state of your disk)? And do you use sleep mode or hybrid sleep?RegardsRem

yes, this new defragmenter, still very resource demanding in the RC, and still taking ages with 10 passes+ to defragment any drive. If at least it could run on a low priority process...I'm talking about manual defragmenting, the scheduled one is OK when it runs (no resource intensive) but it doesn't always do his job, likeit seems to skip the system drive very often.

yes, this new defragmenter , still very resource demanding in the RC, and still taking ages with 10 passes+ to defragment any drive. If at least it could run on a low priority process...I'm talking about manual defragmenting, the scheduled one is OK when it runs (no resource intensive) but it doesn't always do his job, likeit seems to skip the system drive very often. And lacking of a graphical GUI showing the work done is very annoying. Also, it needs the capability of freeing a given amount of space from the end of the partition, so the partition size can be reduced. It forces to use Gparted on a Linux Live CD. A shame.

yes, this new defragmenter , still very resource demanding in the RC, and still taking ages with 10 passes+ to defragment any drive. If at least it could run on a low priority process...I'm talking about manual defragmenting, the scheduled one is OK when it runs (no resource intensive) but it doesn't always do his job, likeit seems to skip the system drive very often. And lacking of a graphical GUI showing the work done is very annoying.Also, it needs the capability of freeing a given amount of space from the end of the partition, so the partition size can be reduced.It forces to use Gparted on a Linux Live CD. A shame. I think the data at the end of a partition, if any,is being moved when you shrink a drive. Anyway I've shrinked a couple of partitions already with windows native disk manager, and experienced no issue.As to a gui for the defragger, yes I wouldn't mind having one again. According to some articles I read long ago, the graphics shown while defragging are not very reliable...anyway, they at least give an idea of what's going on, which data is being moved...nice also to have the ability to exclude some data, the big files for instance, from the defrag process. Not mentioning that defragging the big files brings no extraperformance, and isvery resource consuming (and they get fragmented the next time you use them :) )

... I think the data at the end of a partition, if any,is being moved when you shrink a drive. Anyway I've shrinked a couple of partitions already with windows native disk manager, and experienced no issue. ...) See this screenShot: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AIJ1WOm9bKQ/SgdEfhe46uI/AAAAAAAAADY/lCnCaDOJKAs/s1600/Shrinking%2Bpartition.PNG the Windows 7 partition have more free space that allowed to reduce. It is because it contains files that Windows does not allow to move, even during boot.

To all forum users: Please use this thread to note any comments that you haveabout Windows 7 Release Candidate (RC). Do not use this thread for any specific question or issue that you are having - just for comments or feedback. For questions/issues that require an answer, createa new thread. Thanks -Tony Mann Windows Client IT Pro Audience Manager for Web Forums This webpage is taking too much time to load, because is too largue, and contains too many messages. It need to be divided in multiple pages.

Yes, I can't believe experienced people would create one thread to receive all comments on an operating system. How do they even read this or assign the concerns to engineers? This should be an entire forum category , not a topic. But if they insist: Inapplicable menu items should be greyed out , not just deleted from a menu. A perfect example of this is the inability to delete themes. If you right-click on the active theme (which is the first one most people would try), there's no option to delete it. So you hunt around the UI for some other way to do it. And you don't find it. But if you happen to right-click on an inactive custom theme, suddenly the "Delete" menu item appears. That item should always be present in the context menu, but greyed out when it doesn't apply. That's how users learn where to find functions, and how they determine when they're applicable. It has also been a tenet of UI design for decades. Also, there's no apparent way to load a theme from a local file. You can browse the Internet for themes, but not the local machine. Why? I keep my favorite themes on a thumbdrive, so I can share them amongst machines. Finally, there's no apparent way to modify a theme. If you make a change, Windows creates a new theme; when you save it with the same name as the previous theme, the previous theme doesn't get overwritten. Now you have two themes with the same name. Why?

The Windows Help file is illegible on some systems. If you set up a nice color scheme that does away with the glaring white background, like this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1157/528235909_4cc019ddda_o.jpg the Windows 7 Help file is essentially illegible, because it overrides the system text color with black, but doesn't set the background to white. This is the result: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3509136002_d2906f226c.jpg DEAR MICROSOFT, PLEASE REMIND ALL ENGINEERING GROUPS : An application or document can't safely override one of the user's colors (text or background) unless it overrides both . Otherwise, you don't know that the text and background colors aren't the same. I see this error on Microsoft's own Web site, and it's appearing in MS products with greater frequency. You must test your apps and documentation with non-inverse color schemes, like the one above. Plenty of people don't want to stare into a glaring white background all day long; thankfully, Windows has offered the ability to do away with it for almost 20 years. Don't break that functionality by overriding users' preferences half-assedly.

In-place editing is broken in the left pane of Explorer. Explorer seems permanently stuck in this baffling mode where every file and folder in the left pane is a "hyperlink", turning colors and underlining when you roll over it. First of all, what is the point of this mode (which existed in XP, but you could thankfully turn it off)? Why are we being forced into it now? Second: This breaks in-place editing. On the second click (which used to highlight the name so you could change it), nothing happens. So you now have to right-click and dig through the context menu to rename something. ALSO: Why are the expand/collapse controls (+, -) missing from the folders in the left pane whenever the cursor's outside that pane? Not only is this pointless, but it keeps users from determining at a glance whether a folder is empty. It also wastes the user's time when he goes into the view preferences to try to bring them back. FINALLY: Why are Explorer's view options now buried under a button called "Organize"? As far as I can see, every item under this menu is view-related, and doesn't "organize" anything. We all know what to expect under "View". "Organize" is misleading, even to brand-new users. Please rename this to "View" or at least "Options".

... I think the data at the end of a partition, if any,is being moved when you shrink a drive. Anyway I've shrinked a couple of partitions already with windows native disk manager, and experienced no issue....) See this screenShot: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_AIJ1WOm9bKQ/SgdEfhe46uI/AAAAAAAAADY/lCnCaDOJKAs/s1600/Shrinking%2Bpartition.PNG the Windows 7 partition have more free space that allowed to reduce. It is because it contains files that Windows does not allow to move, even during boot. yeah, I don't know what I was thinking of, you're right. This said careful with Gparted on Windows partitions, I've had bad surprises, off topic here.

yeah this thread will most likely be very uselful for the devs patient enough to scroll it (on one page :) )...and evenwhen excluding questions, it will quickly become unreadable with tens of topics mixed in the same...thread.

There's no apparent way to create program groups and organize programs under the Start menu. This used to be easily accessible under the "Customize" option for the Start menu. Now, even if you guess that you can get into the Start menu's program list by right-clicking on "All programs" (which is itself preposterous: a context menu on a menu item?), the groups you create in there don't work properly in the Start menu. Why don't submenus under Start open when you roll over them? How do you break 20 years of menu functionality, standardized across pretty much any operating systemthat hasa GUI? A logically organized program list, like the one below, appears to be impossible to create in Windows 7. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3332/3513561131_72a9ac5704_o.png This is a deal-breaker. There is no way I (and I'm sure enterprise customers) will accept an OS whose application list is an unmanaged mess, organized at the whim of ill-behaved installers that don't even ask where you want the app's shortcuts placed.

woud be nice if the left pane in Explorer was automatically scrollable when one hovers over it with the mouse, instead of having to click to focus on the pane; I find that annoying every time I need to browse that pane...then when you're where you want to be and you click anything in the main explorer window...say yu want to go back to the left pane, you'll have to click on it again before being able to scroll, that's upsetting, not a flaw in the GUI but upsetting...

I want classic taskbar option and my hidden system icons by the clock and not some freaking Aero border line. Like Vista way taskbar option just like windows classic. Get better wallpapers that don't suck! my god I thought windows 95 had the worse wallpapers... (vista and XP wallpapers are gr8) Sounds Themes that don't act same the way. Have avatars and achievements (for solitaire, chess, minesweeper and etc.) for Games for Windows live (xbox 360 way) it will make the bult-in games more enjoyable! have a list of programs and games demos without have to go to your web browser (like ubuntu does) Have Windows XP theme the same way as windows classic theme. Fix the broken standby on most newer computers!!! Have Windows Login to check mail on Microsoft office outlook/Windows Live Mail just the same way as windows xp expect it was only for the worlds worest outlook express aka windows mail. bring customize back on Games Explorer. Somehow its missing!!!

woud be nice if the left pane in Explorer was automatically scrollable when one hovers over it with the mouse, instead of having to click to focus on the pane; I find that annoying every time I need to browse that pane...then when you're where you want to be and you click anything in the main explorer window...say yu want to go back to the left pane, you'll have to click on it again before being able to scroll, that's upsetting, not a flaw in the GUI but upsetting... BIG yes to it. I totally agree.

On the whole, I really like the Win7 user interface, particularly the rearrangeable taskbar. However, there are two things that I HATED about Vista's shellexperience that Win7 does not address. They seem simple to implement, so perhaps they could be addressed by RTM.1. I have a tablet/touch-screen laptop, and I use the touch-screen for most interaction, but I want to use the pen every so often, and when I do, I want to shut off the touch input, because it's waaaaay too easy to "click" by resting my hand on the screen while using the pen. Unfortunately, it takes something like7 clicks to turn off touch input...that's way too much effort for something that I want to do semi-frequently. Perhaps you could add a new tile to Windows Mobility Center to enable/disable pen/touch input? Or a taskbar icon I could use to control this? Or some documented powershell-accessible API that I could call to shut this off programmatically (if it's there, I couldn't find it)? Anything!2. The auto-restore window behavior is driving me NUTS. If I have two full-screen windows open, and I minimize the first one, then close the second one, the window manager decides to restore the one I just minimized, once again filling the screen. Stop fighting me on this, Windows! I minimized that window on purpose, and I was probably trying to reach something on my desktop, but you slowed me down bythrowing up a window THAT I HAD INTENTIONALLY HIDDEN to block me. Windows that I minimize should stay that way until I call them back. If there's an option in the control panel to disable this behavior, I couldn't find it after 10 minutes of looking. If there's not, there should be.Thanks...looking forward to RTM. :-)

Inapplicable menu items should be greyed out , not just deleted from a menu The menus are cluttered as they are, and even more entries would make it worse. But +1 for theme modification (but there could be some issues with commercial themes [or in general with themes which authors want to stay closed source])Regards, Kristaps.

I'm unable to rename the default libraries or their Start Menu buttons under 7100 :( Anyone else with this problem?Regards, Kristaps.

It should be, or should have been, obvious to MS that the jump from Windows XP to Vista was a failure. Therefore, why they would have decided to introduce yet another Vista-like OS is a mystery to me and many others, yea millions of others. I did not make up the tens of thousands of blog entries ranting against Vista. Those were others who found fault with it. Here's the thing... XP worked. It did what we needed it to do. The fact remains that the vast majority of users want a simple, intuitive OS that does what THEY want it to do, not what some 20-something designer THINKS we want. Had that designer gone out into the real world and asked a thousand users what they thought of this or that feature, he might have simplified it. Or perhaps not. What most users want is to get on the internet and browse, write a letter or paper and maybe do a spreadsheet. Others might want to set up a home network. Other than that, all the rest is just flotsam and jetson. XP does all that admirably and it explains why people cling to it. If XP needed improvement, then improve features, evolutionarily, not explosively. Let's face it, we were able to play music and watch a movie clip on Win95, along with the other things. Vista did nothing to change that and I wager Win7 won't either. There is another possibility, of course. It just might be that Microsoft needs another 20 billion dollars, so the best way to do that is throw yet another OS into the market and convince us that we cannot live without it. If you look at the evolution of Windows, it is obvious that the path from 95 to 98 to 98SE to Millennium to 2000 to XP was very contrived. The entire period only took six years. Probably MS should have designed a better OS to begin with, in 1995-6 and not introduced it to the public, and certainly not released the plethora of followons up to Vista. Just my thoughts. Those and a dollar will buy you a coffee at McDonalds (used to be a dime).

Or if everyone is using Linux or some other OS that is designed around what people ask for, instead of what MS gives.

Why did some of the Screen Savers disappear? I liked the Aurora one. Also why won't you put back the Windows Calendar, I can't find in anywhere and really liked it. Try putting it back, and then linking it to the calendar that comes up with the clock when you click the time on the Taskbar. I copied the program files from my vista install as well as my AppData and it worked fine so it couldn't be that hard to put back.

I have been considering to switch to MacOSX for a while now, tested a MAC for a while. I liked XP but it is almost 8 years old. I hated vista...It was most of the time getting in way of doing things...popping up questions randomly...and slowing down like snail once you start installing software. I wanted to give one more chance to MS. Installed the RC...so far, things are looking promising. Navigation is quite fast. Dekstop and taskbar, overall the whole UI, is efficient. To me, I still observe rough edges here and there. I am hoping that by the time it goes primetime, those will be corrected. Considering the competition, I think windows 7 is a move in the right direction.

Screen redraw issues/corruption aplenty! Am using Windows 7 RC x64 with latest nVidia 185.85 and 8800GTX.

The Windows Help file is illegible on some systems. If you set up a nice color scheme that does away with the glaring white background, like this: http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1157/528235909_4cc019ddda_o.jpg the Windows 7 Help file is essentially illegible, because it overrides the system text color with black, but doesn't set the background to white. This is the result: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3608/3509136002_d2906f226c.jpg DEAR MICROSOFT, PLEASE REMIND ALL ENGINEERING GROUPS : An application or document can't safely override one of the user's colors (text or background) unless it overrides both . Otherwise, you don't know that the text and background colors aren't the same. I see this error on Microsoft's own Web site, and it's appearing in MS products with greater frequency. You must test your apps and documentation with non-inverse color schemes, like the one above. Plenty of people don't want to stare into a glaring white background all day long; thankfully, Windows has offered the ability to do away with it for almost 20 years. Don't break that functionality by overriding users' preferences half-assedly. Yes, I ran into this problem changing to a dark color scheme. The text in windows explorer became invisible. Microsoft, please fix this before RTM.

Back after 2 more days of testing.- I found a problem with the HD Audio driver in W7 - it gives me sound only in the Right speaker - nothing in the left. I have an Realtek HD onboard codec. Problem soved by installing the latest Vista driver from Realtek site.- I don't understand why the driver for the Microsoft FingerPrint Reader is not included with W7 at least as a download. I know it's an old product, But it's a Microsoft one and the Vista driver works fine on W7.- I've tested WMP with AVCHD files - again the codecs are not optimised. Using software decoding WMP uses 100% the processor and drop frames. PowerDVD 9 use at maximum 80% the processor.- Also WMP plays m2ts files ( AVCHD ) but not plays AVCHD DVD's ?!?!? Does not recognise them.- Also the switching from library to player windows is annoying due the different sizes of windows - I fixed this by dreagging the windows until they got same sizes, but why not come as factory set ?- Windows/Microsoft Updates - seems to incorrectly recognize already installed updates. I've installed Office 2007 and update it using standalone SP2 and Help files updates. After running Windows Update - it ask me to install SP1 and an other update Helpfile already installed. Finnally I let him to install only the update help file and after restating later - it does not offered anymore the SP1...More to come after I install more programs.

This'll be a long post, replying to other posts dating back to the 7th... o.o! Guillermo Marraco:I tried to add a bat file to my SedTo folder, but then started the HHell of the SenTo folder being forbidden access even to administrators. You're likely trying to access your \Username\ShellTo folder, don't use that. The new folder is located elsewhere, type "shell:sendto" into either the Start Menu or the Windows Explorer address bar to be taken to the new location. What you're looking at is simply a link left for the sake of compatibility. Irfanbulu:Can we get rid of the title bar at some point? Or come up with a sleeker design. Right now, it is taking a lot of screen real estate, considering that it is most of the time not used or experienced by the user. And it is truly ugly :-) One suggestion might be to have an auto-hide feature. I love the interface of Gadgets: clean and sleek...no title bar, no close, minimize buttons...these buttons are there but they show up only when you need them. Why not a similar interface for the rest of the apps? Gadgets don't need titles or caption buttons and regular forms do and they have less user controls than a regular application, which means more draggable surfaces. If the titlebar were removed from Explorer, for example, the only way to drag the window would be by using the space between the search and address bars and the command bar (which I do frequently, this was something I missed in build 7000). Not to mention Scenic Ribbon (Paint, Wordpad) apps have Quick-Access up there. Removing or auto-hiding the would be inconvenient. Some applications with custom interfaces (Zune) don't use them but many leave blank open spaces so the application can be dragged. Sirius B:What I would really like to see is Microsoft including XP Mode & Windows Virtual PC as part of the RTM release. ANSWER: I don't think that would be a good idea at all, it's going to be about 2GB disk space overall, and a tiny bit more when patches for XP and VPC are added later down the line. The real problem is that not every with Windows 7 can use XPM. Itwill only work with Windows 7 Professional and greater, and even then it is only a subset of these people that can use XPM because VT or AMD-V is needed. Then consider that even not everyone in that subset will even use XPM and, from what I hear, it's interface isn't really end-user oriented yet.Kristaps:I'm unable to rename the default libraries or their Start Menu buttons under 7100 :( Anyone else with this problem? Works just fine for me. Renaming the entry immediately changes the name of the Start Menu link and the Library itself, like it should on my PC. Otzen:Why did some of the Screen Savers disappear? I liked the Aurora one. I heard (I don't use screensavers, I just let the monitor sleep) some of the Vista screensavers, Aurora inparticular, were pretty resource heavy. If anything, during the screensaver mode most users expect there PCs to be doing less but this wasn't the case. I know my mother's XP laptop's fans goes crazy when her fish screensaver turns on. rct0725:This OS loads faster, I can mult-task again with impugnity and basically fool around. Just today I ran concurrently: an active ioloAnti-Virus scan, defrag of my drive, Messenger, IE8 and Live Mail. I have two widgets running and a pretty video-intensive theme. There was no apparent slowing of anything. I assure you I could not do this with XP.That's not multitasking, that's what happens when I turn on my computer! At least open Wordpad! :-) Logos7:looks like the stack by function has been completely removed in the RC, wonder why... If I were to hazard a guess, I'd say the removal of the sorting bar and the de-emphasis of stacks and grouping were for performance reasons. These tasks were slow and Vista and continue be be slow in 7.Active items, when launched from shortcuts that are in toolbars on the task bar, appear on the active area instead of stacked where the icon for the launch actually was. RobinsonUK:The point of the toolbars is to provide a launching surface separate from the window management. You're likely to not see your request fulfilled. Pinning to the taskbar might be more appropriate here. As for pinning specific folders, look into target redirection (note: it forces new instances of Explorer) and jumplists. W7RC:two times IE icons on the taskbar with different pages. didnt change any settings before that, not even unlocked the taskbar.If you are on Windows 7 x64: what is likely happening is that you are viewing both 64-bit and 32-bit IE windows. Ensure all your links (Start Menu, Taskbar... Desktop... if that's your thing...) point to the same executable. MartinBriley:There's no apparent way to create program groups and organize programs under the Start menu. False, this works just fine.

To whom it may concern:The localized french version of RC is not identical to the US version. Driver management is a major problem (windows 7 drivers in US version, need to use XP drivers in the french version). Disk management is only partially translated, etc.Now come on guys. Microsoft has done a terrific job by making their best OS ever. Now don't spoil the benefits of that by bad localization.As a matter of fact I prefer the english beta over the french rc, but in order to keep the wife happy (always keep the wife happy), I installed (not upgraded) the RC, and nowI do run into a couple of problems I didn't have before.RegardsRem

I would like to see the networking tray icon animations to come back, and to work like XP's where actual network activity results in a solid light for the duration of data flow. Front monitor to indicate data being transmitted, back monitor to indicate data being received. The local connection status screen via network and sharing center seems to indicate activated, but not seperate indications for upload and download - both screens seem to illuminate and go out at exactly the same time whatever I do using the network. I would like the wireless networking tray icon to have different color bars depending on signal strength. I also prefer the other tray icons to be different colors (speaker, system messages, printer etc.), not just monochrome for the sake of style or to "blend in" as colours are more distinguishable. I would like to see a splash screen during boot up. At the moment I the Win7 RC1 I am running on a Dell GX260 displays the exact splash as on Vista - just a green scrolling bar with (c) Microsoft Corporation along the bottom.

I would like to see a splash screen during boot up. At the moment I the Win7 RC1 I am running on a Dell GX260 displays the exact splash as on Vista - just a green scrolling bar with (c) Microsoft Corporation along the bottom. But there is a nice W7 splash screen with the Windows logo recomposed by 4 sparkles. I' ve got complaints also on my forum from few users who in both beta and RC have the Vista splash screen but I was unable to reproduce it. Also I've got complaints about different right clicks menus - some have some extra facilities but other missing. This I was able to reproduce by installing W7 on a old PC without Aero capabilities and only 512 Mb memory. When clicking on the desktop I got a different Menu than on my main computer.

I have a few thoughts regarding the RC. I have installed it over my working XP install, and find several problems.I tried to use USMT to help migrate files and settings, and then I installed and used the Virtual XP device.I am not an IT professional, but am an enthusiast.USMT is incredibly powerful....and completely out of reach for anyone other than IT departments. For me to write the "simple batch file" that Jeremy Chapman talks about in his Springboard video, is equivalent to me writing the code for the next Mars landing. USMT, given a user friendly UI, would make the upgrade path from XP to Win7 far more liveable, and appealing.Without it, the upgrade is as painful as all previous upgrades.A user friendly USMT would obviate the pain and I feel would therefore help convince more users to upgrade.The virtual XP device suffers from the same problems as USMT. I already have a working fully licensed copy of XP, with everything installed and tweaked the way I like it. What I reaaly want is to be providedwith a way to convert my XP install to a VHD. Even if it is a one time, one way conversion. Acronis and others have found ways around HAL and kernel issues. Why not for Win7?Otherwise I need to reinstall everything, get settings tweaked, etc, ....a significant time sink.Then there is the issue of paying again for applications I already have fully paid for on my present XP install. Why do I want to potentially pay twice?Finally, the virtual XP appliance takes considerably longer to instantiate than any other XP virtual machine I have worked with. Virtual PC 2007 on my beta install was considerably quicker to boot and become usable. This again is a detraction and tarnishes the appeal of something that has great promise.Bill Ducey

Screen redraw issues/corruption aplenty! Am using Windows 7 RC x64 with latest nVidia 185.85 and 8800GTX. 8800 GT here and same drivers x64 running. No issues so far.W7 RC x64 running....

But there is a nice W7 splash screen with the Windows logo recomposed by 4 sparkles. I' ve got complaints also on my forum from few users who in both beta and RC have the Vista splash screen but I was unable to reproduce it. Also I've got complaints about different right clicks menus - some have some extra facilities but other missing. This I was able to reproduce by installing W7 on a old PC without Aero capabilities and only 512 Mb memory. When clicking on the desktop I got a different Menu than on my main computer. Ah okay - that could be it then. The GX260 I running Win7RC1 on has Intel 82845G chipset onboard graphics controller, and is unable to run Aero. If that's the case then I stand corrected about it not having a decent splash :-)

Vistaline,You're absolutely correct - using the term multi-task was improper given the examples I gave.Hopefully when someone out there in my locale see a need for Access development THEN term will be correct. I guarantee that will stress my system.I also spoke too soon as to my Nvidia 6200; it is VERY cranky and requires patience while it recovers itself. Hopefully the next rev of drivers will improve that.

It should be, or should have been, obvious to MS that the jump from Windows XP to Vista was a failure. Therefore, why they would have decided to introduce yet another Vista-like OS is a mystery to me and many others, yea millions of others. I did not make up the tens of thousands of blog entries ranting against Vista. Those were others who found fault with it. Here's the thing... XP worked. It did what we needed it to do. The fact remains that the vast majority of users want a simple, intuitive OS that does what THEY want it to do, not what some 20-something designer THINKS we want. Had that designer gone out into the real world and asked a thousand users what they thought of this or that feature, he might have simplified it. Or perhaps not. What most users want is to get on the internet and browse, write a letter or paper and maybe do a spreadsheet. Others might want to set up a home network. Other than that, all the rest is just flotsam and jetson. XP does all that admirably and it explains why people cling to it. If XP needed improvement, then improve features, evolutionarily, not explosively. Let's face it, we were able to play music and watch a movie clip on Win95, along with the other things. Vista did nothing to change that and I wager Win7 won't either.There is another possibility, of course. It just might be that Microsoft needs another 20 billion dollars, so the best way to do that is throw yet another OS into the market and convince us that we cannot live without it. If you look at the evolution of Windows, it is obvious that the path from 95 to 98 to 98SE to Millennium to 2000 to XP was very contrived. The entire period only took six years. Probably MS should have designed a better OS to begin with, in 1995-6 and not introduced it to the public, and certainly not released the plethora of followons up to Vista.Just my thoughts. Those and a dollar will buy you a coffee at McDonalds (used to be a dime). What's the point of agonizing over a new OS? Resistance to change syndrome? MS is not forcing anyone to use it, it's a matter of personal choice. If you are still content playing music and watching movie clips on windows 95, by all means do it, it's your choice. And oh, instant technology is not a given, otherwise mobile phones would have existed in world war. Just a thought as well.

What's the point of agonizing over a new OS? Resistance to change syndrome? MS is not forcing anyone to use it, it's a matter of personal choice. If you are still content playing music and watching movie clips on windows 95, by all means do it, it's your choice. And oh, instant technology is not a given, otherwise mobile phones would have existed in world war. Just a thought as well. agreed, "the old one was better" syndrome is hitting harder these days :) just the same is happening in the Linux community, opposing KDE 4 opponents to those adopting the new interface.OK this said, I made a mistake in this thread yesterday when I said the "stack by "feature disappeared from Seven. It didn't, I saw it in the beta but forgot about it, and it was still called "stack by" then IIRC. Now it's still there in the RC, just called "arrange by..."...but this is not the point. the point is that it's only available in library view. And that's not really cool guys. That simply means that whenever you wanna run the feature on a folder, or on folders, you must add it or them first to the libraries.

agreed, "the old one was better" syndrome is hitting harder these days :) Do you REALLY think the "new" windows explorer is better? In xp the toolbar was customizable, now its not. In xp, we had the file sizes of the current folder in the botton of the status bar, now, we dont. In xp, we had the free space available in a drive in the status bar too. Now, we dont. In xp, If I need my files to be "arranged" in a folder, I just press F5. Now, it "auto arrange" everything. In xp, if I want to know if a folder have subfolders, I look in the left pane, and see a plus sign in front of it. Now, they are hidden by default. In xp, if I select 50 files, windows update the status bar instantly and show me the sum of all sizes. Now, It dont. If I need to customize the toolbar now, there is not a single way. If I want the file sizes in the botton (status bar or details pane) there is not a single way. If I want to see the free space available, I need to leave the current folder Im working and go to (My) Computer just to see it. If I want to disable the autoarrange feature, I cant. No way. period. If I want to see the "plus" signal to know if a folder have subfolders, I need to hover the mouse. Much like a nice hide and seek game.... oh, well. If I need to see the sum of 15 files, I can look at the preview pane. If I select 16 or more, the info in there is hidden and replaced by a stupid "Show more details" I have to click it to get the information I used to have in a millisecond before. AND, to make it even worse, if I select another file, the info disapears AGAIN and I have to click again in that "more details" stupid button. I have to click "show more details EVERY TIME I select a new file to include in the original selection. Do you think the "new" start menu is better? People keep asking for the "classic" menu to return. Lots of people. I dont want classical menu back. I will not use it. I use the "new" start menu since windows xp. But, In xp, I click "All Programs" and a nice fly out menu appears and let me use the space of my big monitor to click in the program I want. Now, I dont have a option to fly out menu. I have to scroll and scroll in a little corner of my screen and have NO OPTION to change it. I saw some people that are blind, and need help of screen readers software to use a computer. The new start menu is much more complicated for this people to use. Im not blind, but I feel for then, and giving this people no option to change it, will simple make using Windows 7 much harder (or even impossible) to them. Now, tell me. Im really sick with a "the old one was better" syndrome, or Im professionaly talking like a grow person about features that WAS better for REAL before?

We should be able to edit a save theme instead of having to make another one. Especially since using the same name doesn't overwrite the old one.

I personally find the new taskbar and explorer way better than the old ones. For me, it is very logical to arrange things in libraries. I dont have to worry about where certain files are stored in the HD. I might have stored, say, stored pdf files in many different locations in HD. But I dont need to know where they are once I add that location to a library, say "Research". But things, can be always better. I still find some design inconsistencies...There are still some dialogs or windows that remind me XP. For the sake of consistency please correct these design issues. For instance, "Task Bar and Start Menu Properties" window has an XP look, where as "Secreen Resolution" window has the new look and feel.

this reminds of something, the computer management interface, already bothered me with Vista. It's just too XP like, no difference with the GUI. Lots of new functions, but for instance, talking consistencies with the OS interface, the disk manager looks just terrible, it hasn't changed since XP. It could look better (how the drives are represented)and also feature a couple of buttons for misc actions.Same for device manager, not the new one that shows external devices, the old one that shows everything.

agreed, "the old one was better" syndrome is hitting harder these days :) Do you REALLY think the "new" windows explorer is better?..........Now, tell me. Im really sick with a "the old one was better" syndrome, or Im professionaly talking like a grow person about features that WAS better for REAL before? to your question about explorer: yes. Now understand that we have to deal all the time with people suffering from this widespread syndrome, it's not a myth, it does exist. You just proved it. Don't expect me to stop saying it, because I'm sick too with the recurring bashing everytime something new comes out. What are you gonna do when no app runs anymore in XP, what are you gonna do anyway...do you expect MS to redesign Vista and Seven like XP or what ? do you expect that :) Got some good news for you, the solution is, at least for now, immediately available: that's your XP CD. Reminds me that some of those bashing Vista the most a while ago were alsorunning the obnoxious transformation pack at the same time, and advertizing it everywhere they could,lol, the irony. Same people advertising in forums that Vista would get your PC infected with a billion viruses, no kidding I read it, and most of all those who do not understand how a new interface works, who are just too lazy to learn, or completely unable to understand. They don't understand how the product works, so the product is bad right...I've said it already in this thread, the Linux community is experiencing something very similar at the moment with KDE 4. Oh, and i forgot those whose dream would be keeping running their Pentium II /64MB ram until 2200 after Jesus Christ :)

I would add the scrollbar to this list as well. Its current look just doesnt suit the new interface. Of course, I am only speaking for myself :-) It would also be nice to have a couple of more options for the caption buttons on the title bar. I find the close button a bit too flashy, it is hurting my eyes ;-) It can be a little bit more subtle.

So far, I am really impressed with this RC. Most seems to be in order and running well.I must echo the clicking of stacked icons though, please return the most recent window.But, (and a big one at that), BFE and WFP are eating Windows 7s lunch. I am a fully systems and network admin and find these two components infuriating. I have been working on issues where WFP is blocking packets are my issues are as follows:1) Very difficult (if at all possible) to determine policy causing block2) Modifying policies do not result in the expected outcome. i.e. inbound policy - allow anything originating from port 80 - packet blocked3) Disabling associated services does not disable filtering. Policies still blocked.I believe that BFE and WFP can be extremely good tools if the following are done:1) Get rid of instance IDs and assign each policy a static policy number.2) Report the number from 1 above to the reporting in the event logs.3) Expose all policies, even those implemented by the system.4) No policy should be untouchable.5) Make sure use configured policies trump system policies.Thanks,

No, I would say you hit the nail on the head. That's all I was trying to say earlier when I posted my rant. Let me say it again: If it works, leave it to ____ alone! If if doesn't work, improve it. I mean how many ways can you list the contents of a folder? How many things can you tell about the contents? If it worked in XP, leave it to ____ alone. Eye candy is fine, but what it really means is that people have to buy a new computer in order to accommodate higher demand video, and more memory. Please don't tell me there is no collusion between PC makers and software developers, including MS. They want to sell PCs, so software demands more and more hardware. And on and on it goes. Let's be brutally honest here: Older PCs with only 128K memory were able to run word processing, spreadsheets and data bases. Not that much has changed.

LIKE IT A LOT BEST SINCE 98SE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!BOOTS FAST CLEAN LOOK,& FIND THINGS FAST.INSTALLED FAST ON FIRST TRY,INSTALLED ONE PROGRAM AND RAN FINE

Before I reveal my not so positive thoughts about Windows 7 RC 7100 I must reveal my positive ones. * Looks beautiful: the graphics are exquisite and extremely pleasing to the eyes. The Clear Type (clear...that's a joke...right)could still use a little more refinement but it sure looks better than it did with XP and Vista. * Toolbar (Quick Launch Hybrid): I love it. The Areo Peek is really is neat as heck. I like the added feature of More Toolbars so that I can stick the Quick Launch folder (something that I have made very useful for a long time)on the main Toolbar. Adding the Quick Launch extends the capability of the new Toolbar. With the main Toolbar and the addedQuick Launch folder to itI don't really need alot of shortcuts (yuck...that ugly bigger arrow)on the Desktop, if any at all.* Search bar in the Start Menu. Saved me a great deal of hassle and time in getting to know Windows 7, made setting up a great deal easier too. You type, it see's it and show it to you, and you're off.* It is remarkably more fluid and quicker than XP and Vista. The programs coming on to the Desktop are really crisp yet not in-your-face, smoothe.....* Some of the sounds are really nice....eh...kinda.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Okay. Now comes my not so positive sentiments. Some are downright negative...politely spoken.* The Windows Updates: Is the Windows Update Interface for the RC going to stay as it is in the full releases? Windows 7 RC's Windows updates -- how and when are they being installed?Nothing is shown buy a Status bar. Does it follow the near rule of how Windows Update or Automatic Updates installs from the bottom up? There is no way to know. Probably within a year of using XP (since when it was first released) I began doing my own Windows Updates (downloading, extracting, installing) manually just like I just recentlypointed out. I didn't much care for how Windows or Automatic updates installed everything. When I started doing it manually many of the problems I was having with XP vanished and the more I learned the better XP ran. I'm not to comfortable with not having that ability with Windows 7. Vista took the first step in not allowing me to customize my Windows Updates simply by doing away with the flags for extracting, installing, no-backups, passive or quite installs, then automatically restarting if necessary. Yeah...you could download the updates...but that was it. No thanks.* Where are all the so called Compatabiliy Improvements?? I've installed about 3 or 4 Vista compatable applications so far and all of them were significantly downgraded.* What's with the RC dumpingfiles for System Restore on my ALL of my additional internal HDD (I have 3 of them)? I didn't even know it till I was cloning via the network in DOS. Got to wondering why the data size was way too big. I go back into Window and there's a $Recycle Bin folder loaded with 10MB'sof restore points and I don't even have System Restore enabled at all!!! Why? When I've got better than 60GB of free-space on the main drive after installation and still OOB. Again...no thanks._______Okay.Enough of being positive and negative... Well, maybe not. I'm on the fence but leaning towards the direction of havingnot having anyinterest of buying it when the full version is released. XP Pro hasand continues to serve me very well. Microsoft's got a lot of work left to do Windows 7, otherwise it's going to be Vista all over again. I'm not an expert by any means and I would assume that the majority of PC users are not experts either. Once you get past all the niceties it's a bear and the bigger loss of many of the "older" features is not going to be easy for some to swallow either.

to your question about explorer: yes. Now understand that we have to deal all the time with people suffering from this widespread syndrome, it's not a myth, it does exist. You just proved it. Yes, I proved Im with your non myth syndrome by pointing in a very clear and compreensive list all the points that I think was better before and not so good now. You helped a lot with your: "Yes, I like explorer. Very, very informative. you just pointed all the points about why the new is better, thanks. very professional. Oh, I think your LOL and smiles and talking about KDE (I prefer to keep the discusion in a Windows 7 level) and, oh, sure, your Pentium II / 64mb.. all really, really improved the discussion, thank you very much! Ok, I dont want to start a flame war here. but, do you mind in re-read all my posts? Can you find something like: I hate windows 7, will stay with xp for ever? No. You will not find something like it, because I want something new, I want to buy a better system once it is released, because I dont love the old good xp. I just pointed where it was BETTER. If I dont put a point, Its better in windows seven. So, with simple math, you can see I like Windows 7 more than I dislike it. BUT, I would like to have OPTION to turn on old features I miss, and that used to be very good for me. If you dont want, I dont care, because I never said REMOVE IT, I said, give us OPTION. That simple.

I posted a full thread about the issue HEREbut the moderator thought it would be best noted in this forum.The nut of the issue is that I can not get desktop search to return values from Outlook 2007 SP2 on Win 7 Ult 32 bit which had been upgraded from Vista Ult 32 bit:My RC1 shows results like: http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/win7_start_menu_search.jpgBuy I want: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/04/Windows_7_Start_Menu_-_search_results.pngIn my many hours of goofing with this prior to posting, I confirmed Outlook was set to be indexed and I have twice REBUILT the index from scratch. Rebuilding solved the problem on one machine (which was upgraded from 7 Beta) but it did not solve the problem on a different machine (which was upgraded from Vista Ult).Outlook results showed on this machine without problem when it ran Vista.I do not expect a response from this thread. It is mearly an FYI post as per the moderator. If you have any ideas as to the cause please respond to the original thread. Ian Matthews www.commodore.ca

Windows 7 x64 RC installation has the same problem as Windows Vista with monitors that report resolution and refresh rate information ambiguously. Near the end of the installation Windows 7 changes the screen resolution to the maximum reported by the Monitor. There is no response required for the user it is just done. There also is no verification request or fall back to the previous 800x600 resolution used in the later stages of installation. The possible result is a black screen along with a rather convoluted procedure to set the resolution to something that the Monitor actually supports. While I have not tested this is Windows 7, Windows Vista offers no obvious way to change Montior resolution in safe mode. It just runs at 800x600. To recover from this it is necessary to install some remote access software in safe mode and then reboot. Then remotely access the system with the black screen and right click on the desktop and select personalize and reset the Monitor resolution. While I haven't tested this on Windows 7 RC, the same thing happens when setting up a new user account in Windows Vista. After desktop creation the system resets the resolution to the maximum reported by the Monitor with no user intervention ofr fallback rather than using the resolution that is set in the Administrator account that is used to set up the new user. Admittedly there are not too many Monitors that report their capabilities ambiguously. However, I have managed to run across one. It would be nice if Windows 7 could be modified before release to play "nice" with the user and politely ask if it is all right to change the Monitor resolution to maximum and then require a positive response after the change and automatically fall back in the case of no response.