Windows 7 is out and about. Microsoft has been unusually secretive about Vista’s successor, but now that PDC is under way, they have unveiled the various enhancements to the user interface. Windows 7 might not have any significant under-the-hood changes (in fact, all your applications and devices will still work), but on the outside, Windows 7 represents the biggest change for the Windows user interface ever since Windows 95 came out.
Ars Technica walks us through the various improvements in the user interface. Please note that these changes are not yet part of the build handed out to attendees of PDC – these changes are in the newer build shown during the keynote.
The most prominent change is the completely new taskbar. Entries are now strictly per-application, and hovering over them will show thumbnails of the application’s child windows. Taskbar buttons lack text – they are icon only – and you can (finally!) rearrange and pin them in whatever way you like. Another new feature are jump lists:
Jump lists provide quick access to application features. Applications that use the system API for their Most Recently Used list (the list of recently-used filenames that many apps have in their File menus) will automatically acquire a Jump List containing their most recently used files. There’s also an API to allow applications to add custom entries; Media Player, for example, includes special options to control playback.
Microsoft also made a number of changes to window management. Dragging a window to the top of the screen will maximise it – dragging the titlebar down will restore it. Dragging window to the side of the screen will make them take up 50% of the screen, so you can quickly get two windows side-by-side. These changes are there to reduce the number of clicks, and are based on Microsoft’s data.
You can also ‘peek’ at windows, so you can see their contents without actually switching to them. By scrubbing your mouse over a obscured window’s taskbar entry, al other windows will turn into glass outlines, allowing you to see what’s going on in said window. This also works for the desktop, and is handy since gadgets now live on the desktop (the sidebar is gone). A sort of Aero glass variant of Expose.
Microsoft listened to its users when it comes to one of the most hated parts of Windows: the system tray. Effectively, it not longer exists. Scrap that – it’s still there, but each new entry into the system tray is hidden by default, and must be specifically enabled by the user. Personally, I use WinPatrol which more or less achieves the same. Microsoft also made the regular system tray entries (wireless, sound, etc.) more useful by allowing you to do more with their menus (like switching wireless networks).
Another change concerns Windows Explorer, the file manager. While WinFS may never come to fruition, its features do find its way into Windows 7: you can create arbitrary libraries of files (which look like toppled-over stacks), with default sorting criteria already available (for instance, libraries by year).
The idea I’m getting from all this is that Microsoft is working to really refine the Windows interface – which was sorely needed as it had become quite apparent that what worked 13 years ago, didn’t work any more today. While it’s hard to tell without actually using it, it seems as if the company is working towards a more unified and less cluttered interface that requires fewer clicks to do stuff.
I love the new UI, it seems well thought out, and not overwhelming. I also hope that the option to go back to clasic mode exists (for those who fear change). over all this is good to see that Windows 7 is moving in the right direction.
With extensive use of MRU Lists I hope there is an easy way to exclude porn and other sensitive files.
They are finally reducing the number of clicks required to get things done. Frankly, 7 looks more like OS X, and that’s a good thing.
And yet, just hiding system tray icons by default isn’t enough. They shouldn’t be allowed to install without user consent. That goes for all auto run applications.
Edited 2008-10-28 19:27 UTC
I think it resembles KDE 4. I’m thinking more in terms of the task bar and not so much the Windows.
This new set up is not that different from my old Litestep interface. The last couple of pictures look a lot like KDE to me too.
I heard they licensed KDE4. They couldn’t afford that ugly thing in the right-upper corner, though.
Edited 2008-10-28 21:09 UTC
It all looks and sounds good, but what kind of hardware will be required? How smooth will it really be? A big part of the experience running an operating system is the smoothness factor for me. How much hesitation is there when I try doing something?
They say it requires the same hardware as Vista, which is totally plausible seeing nothing in Windows 7 so far seems to use any hardware tricks that Vista doesn’t already support.
In fact, Sinofsky even said Windows 7 reduces the memory footprint. So who knows.
Well, so far this is just marketing bullshit.
Judging from MS track record Windows 7 will use more memory and be slower than Vista.
Unless benchmarks tell a different story a new Windows will always require more resources. That is how it has been so far.
Actually… I believe for today’s keynote Steve Sinofsky used a netbook with a 1 GHz Atom cpu and 1GB of memory.
<sarcasm>
I’d say a dual quad core processor (3ghz+). Quad video card setup. 8GB of DDR4 memory. SSD will be required for the OS with a minimum of 64GB of free space. That of course is the Windows 7 ready system. The recommended system is still being designed by Intel.
</sarcasm>
Why werent these kind of changes put into Vista? Vista took so long to create, they couldnt bother testing the UI until now? Windows 7 is shaping up to be the OS Vista should have shipped as.
And it took you this long to figure that out?
There’s going to be no hype about Windows 7 like there was for Vista then?
I was reading an interview with Sinofsky in a trade journal awhile back. He said that they tried to be very transparent about the Vista development process, and inadvertently built up alot of expectations. Instead of transparent, he said he would make windows 7 communication “opaque”. This is why this is the first real information we have about the OS, and it comes with a CTP so this is only stuff they have done, not stuff they were planning but got dropped.
In other words, Windows is finally getting something very similar to the Dock in Mac OS X. Now *that* would be a reason to upgrade from XP.
(Yes, I know there are several third party dock clones available for Windows, but a standard API to control it, as the quote mentions, makes all the difference)
The taskbar and the dock have always been slightly different ways of doing the same thing. Still, even with the new one in 7, they are different in the exact same ways as they used to be. The taskbar has just gotten some new features, that’s all.
Don’t think that just because it’s entirely icon-based, it’s suddenly the same as the Mac OS X dock.
I know, I’ve had the discussion about task bar/launch bar/dock similarities & differences several times on this very same site
Hmm what is so great about the dock anyway? I never understood why the dock is so much favored over the Windows taskbar. From my experience so far, the taskbar lets you do a lot more than the dock. But I could be wrong of course, so maybe you could explain the features of the dock.
In my opinion the best part of the Dock is the elimination of duplicate entries in the notification area and the launcher. A dock icon can launch an application, control an application, and represent a minimized window. A taskabr generally requires 3 different icons to do the same thing. One for launching the application, one entry in the notification area to control the application, and one entry to represent the minimized window. It’s a lot of clutter.
I’m still waiting for a real dock for Gnome. I’m using AWN right now but notification is still separate from the icons and probably requires a lot of changes in the API to allow for a true dock.
It’s not just the icons that make it more dock-like. There is only one icon per application instead of per instance. Then with the addition of jump lists that allow you to control some application features directly from the minimized window the new taskbar resembles a dock a lot more than it did before although ultimately it still is a taskbar.
“Text descriptions on the buttons are gone, in favor of big icons. ”
stupid stupid stupid. If you want to copy mac, copy the good parts, not this
“Peeking at the desktop is particularly significant, because the desktop is now where gadgets live. Because people are increasingly using laptops, taking up a big chunk of space for the sidebar isn’t really viable; Microsoft has responded by scrapping the sidebar and putting the gadgets onto the desktop itself.”
where they will be hidden by windows 100% of the time. What’s the point of that?
Hence the new peeking feature. It’s in the article.
It seems to work for apple
Edited 2008-10-28 21:05 UTC
it’s one of the things that prevents me from considering a mac. Style over substance.
That is exactly why I don’t use Windows. I like OS X because I forget I am using an particular OS and am instead working in a particular application. If you want a really cool looking interface, add a theme to Windows or Linux. The Mac has one interface that works properly and does the job with no flash except in areas where it is used tastefully for function like Expose or Dashboard. It is like people saying they think deign is unimportant because they see most designs don’t assist the content. Proper design should enhance the function.
Edited 2008-10-28 21:51 UTC
I’m talking about icon only in the taskbar. It’s great for showing off but it hurts productivity
Edited 2008-10-28 21:58 UTC
My workflow completely ignores the dock. I don’t keep applications on it that aren’t running and it’s size the smallest possible with only a slight magnification setting.
I use Quicksilver to launch and end up using command-tab to switch between applications. I honestly am looking for a way of killing the Dock permanently.
I understand but it’s annoying to play peekaboo every few seconds.
This is definitely not making it to the final release. MS cannot force users to memorize which icon belongs to what app.
don’t quote me on this, but, there’ll probably be an option to have the old-style taskbar.
but, i have to disagree with you. there are so many (arguably dense) users that *only* know applications by their icons. could i see a show of hands for people who know at least one person that thinks the ‘internet’ is ‘the little blue e thingy’? it would be funny if it weren’t so… tragic. that’s actually such a common happenstance that it’s become a cliche.
not to mention, so many windows users love to refer to ‘stupid/simple mac users’. well, those mac users have been fine with textless icons since, what, 2001?
for the record, i’m not a windows or mac user at home, so i’m not really pulling for either way of presenting a dock/taskbar. but, users are *definitely* capable of functioning without text next to dock icons.
it’s not about even knowing the apps but rather what’s in them. for example, next to the firefox icon is the title of the website, next to the chatzilla icon is my user name and the IRC channel I’m focused on.
actually, i was replying to the OP, who *was* referring to knowing the apps.
but, that being said, hovering over an icon for more info is a fair replacement for lots of people.
like i said, i’m not advocating either way of doing the dock/taskbar. just pointing out that it can work either way for most people.
You still won’t get the nice unix core. Still, it’s something.
unix is not the best out there. as far as kernels go NT is pretty amazing, you should look into it
Unix is not the end all and be all of OS’s. The NT kernel is pretty mature and very functional, Windows problem has always been it’s messy userland.
Yes, by and large NT is a solid kernel, leaps and bounds above Windows 9x.
Still, some very annoying problems with Windows seem to be kernel related.
1) You cannot delete, move or rename a file which some process has open for reading or writing. Even worse, Windows sometimes keeps the file lock after the process has terminated! I can’t even start to describe the trouble this creates on a daily basis. On Unix systems, you can delete any file at any time. If a process was reading or even writing the file, it will happily continue to do so. Only when the last file handle is closed, the file system actually reclaims the space used for the content.
2) I have some programs configured to access parts of my disk through network shares. This is necessary because they should also work from other machines. But when my computer is not connected to a network, I cannot access the shares on my own computer! So I have to connect to some random WiFi hotspot or something just to access my localhost. I wish they had heard of loopback devices in Redmond.
Granted, the second problem could be caused by the userland. NT probably does have a loopback device, but it’s only up when one of the other network devices is connected.
The first issue most certainly is kernel related, however, and this is by far the worst shortcoming of Windows in my opinion.
It still looks sort of messy. Not too many differences from what they have right now. And icon-only taskbar? I bet some 10 people are going to find this useful. It’s just not going to work – either you totally reinvent the whole UI paradigm or just stick to what has worked without problems for a long time. I just don’t get it. Just look at how much criticism Apple has received for changing something as trivial as the menubar transparency.
Edited 2008-10-28 21:19 UTC
I’ll be you can turn the text back on, MS always lets you fall back to classic mode.
And indeed, here’s a picture of the taskbar with text:
http://channel9.msdn.com/forums/Coffeehouse/436140-Windows-7/?Comme…
I bet:
a) They tested it with more than 10 people.
b) More than 10 of those people liked it just fine.
And you can turn the text back on if you want.
Lol. Looks like KDE now
)
One of the things that bugs me about Vista (and I haven’t used it to know if there is a configuration option to fix this) is the default behavior of the sidebar.
When I have a bunch of windows open and I want to interact with the sidebar, it seems reasonable to me to click on the “Show Desktop” icon. Unfortunately, Vista (by default anyway) does not consider the sidebar as part of the desktop so it disappears right along with the rest of my windows. So, to interact with the sidebar, I have to shuffle all my windows around.
I much prefer OS X’s dashboard because it offers me immediate and easy access.
I hope Windows 7 fixes all the little UI gaffes like this one. Not for my sake, because I probably won’t use it anyway, but for all of yours.
yeah, that’s odd. Never noticed it until now. The switch between windows keeps it there though, very odd.
Dave
Taskbar = gimped OSX dock 2001
Desktop Gadgets = gimped BeOS replicants 1999
Libraries = BeOS queries 1997
Explorer Previews = OSX Expose 2005
Keep in mind that Windows 7 will probably be out late 2009-mid 2010. Ah Microsoft, shoving the future down your through for all 90% of the population a decade behind the other computer users.
I cant wait for Windows 8. It will bring us the following:
– sliding window title tabs.
– seperate the maximise and close buttons
– maximise does a resize to fit, not fullscreen
– vertical taskbar, since monitors are widder than they are taller.
– unified menu bar for all applications
– right click directory navigation
– live queries
And in Windows 9, we’ll get:
– a preemptive desktop where each view is a seperate thread (pervasive multithreaded OS)
– scheduled performance time for media sources
– a context switch less than 3ms
– customisable node based media path
And in Windows 10, we’ll get:
– modular component / servers which can be restarted dynamically.
– A new C++ API which is designed by someone who actually undestands OO.
– A reworked file layout that actually makes sense.
Again, Microsoft is dragging the unwilling populace into the future, 10-15 years behind the competition, whether the people want to or not.
Yeah, I guess that’s a given.
Are you really starting spewing that again?
The changes to the taskbar are really kinda minor, and probably reversible. The taskbar has been around for over 14 years. It’s still not the dock, as you can tell the difference at a glance between a running app and a app launcher, little dots or triangles don’t really do it.
Desktop gadgets have existed for decades, and MS demoed the sidebar with gadgets in the earliest Longhorn builds. The first destop widgets could be considered oldschool DOS TSRs (if you don’t remember them, you don’t know enough computer history to be even commenting) or Apple desk accessories, both in the mid 80s.
Yeah, like BEOS is the only OS that can search and save File searches. Windows 95 could, only the underlying technology is different. Beos is dead, get over it.
i see where you’re going with this… but, not so fast. TSRs are really not equivalent to desktop widgets. while they could be (in a limited capacity) used for things that widgets might provide nowadays, most people only used TSRs for things like mouse drivers, and did not have any direct knowledge of their existence. not to mention the difference in ease of use. mac desk accessories, better comparison. but, it’s not really a fair assessment to say that people who “don’t remember” TSRs shouldn’t be commenting. not everybody needed knowledge of them, for one. average users probably were just happy that everything was working. not to mention that back in the DOS days, many users were still running classic macs, amigas, C64s, and many others. they’d have no reason to remember TSRs.
just saying…
(edited for clarification)
Edited 2008-10-28 22:58 UTC
You can’t comment on the history of computers and computer interfaces without knowing about the history of computing and computer interfaces.
It’s that simple.
um… no, it’s not ‘that simple’.
actually, you CAN comment on the history of computer interfaces when the particular computer interface being discussed (the freaking taskbar) is the one you’re familiar with.
heck, half the people here could probably say “well, geez, back in *my day* we only saw OUR running processes and apps if we ran ‘top’!” the other half, that was raised on a strict diet of DOS and windows would likely have no idea what that meant. and, frankly, ‘top’ is every bit as critical in the ‘history of computing and computing interfaces’. furthermore, it’s still being used today. regularly.
the history of computing is vast. frankly, you’re fairly nuts if you think you can sum up ‘people who shouldn’t comment’ with ‘those who don’t remember TSRs’.
Actually, we’re discussing desktop widgets. Oh, and how they weren’t invented at Be, in 1999. The concept probably goes back farther than the TSRs and desktop accessories.
Maybe I was a bit harsh, but the whole song and dance about MS copying everyone is just nonsense. There isn’t too much new under the GUI sun.
Try this:
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars
or this:
http://www.sensomatic.com/chz/gui/history.html
The whole history of the GUI is just one theft after another, by everybody. It’s the same with widgets/gadgets. They are basically little utilities that do a simple task, that are easy to access, and easy (relatively) to make.
I never mentioned top, but you are certainly correct, but I would think that it’s also a precursor to desktop accessories. My point was that computers aren’t new, and most OSs and applications are based on decades of ideas and concepts.
Anyway, my point is that MS hasn’t done anymore copying then anyone else.
TSRs with things like a calculator or a pop up telephone list that launched on a key press were used on DOS where I used to work. So you could do something useful while running WordPerfect. They were certainly the functional equivalent of widgets and accessories today.
i made clear in my post that certain functionality was common with today’s widgets. i also made clear that the ease of use and knowledge of this functionality is what set TSRs apart from today’s widgets. TSRs were more likely used in other contexts (hardware drivers, etc) than that by most users. those users usually used them in an out-of-sight-out-of-mind sort of way. that is my point. they are not equivalent to today’s widgets because of that.
Buddy, the first program I ever typed into a computer was on a teletype printer connected to a Dec PDP11/50 series back in 1978. Thats right, no monitor. My first computer was a Vic20 back in 1981. Terminate & Stay Resident programs are ancestors of Desktop Widgets? The interrupt driven crap that was intended to convey the illusion of running multiple programs under DOS was the ancestor of Desktop Widgets? Can I have some of what your smoking?
My entire quote was about publishing an interface to allow applications to embedd views into the desktop. Geez,
I understand the concept of your argument, but the examples you gave were very very poor.
Let me correct a few factual errors you made:
They are seperate in classic mode. Always have been.
Windows has done this since the dawn of the windows taskbar. Just drag and drop it.
Not everyone likes unified menu bars. I certainly don’t.
You’ll have to expand on what you mean there, but directory navigation isn’t any harder in Windows than in any other OS i’ve used.
This feature has been around since Windows 2000 (maybe even longer). Granted it’s not enabled by default, but the setting isn’t hidden away either should anyone want to find it.
Media processes do get a greater processor schedule than non-media processes. In fact this is one of the very features linux fanboys use against windows.
NTFS holds a great deal of metadata about media and there’s plenty more options hidden around XP (for example) if you know where to look.
You mean like windows services?
Many people seem to like .net. Personally I don’t, but then it’s been some years since I was a heavy developer for the windows platform.
Windows directory structures make sense. It’s just a pity Windows, its users and its software developers aren’t stricter about adhearing to the structure. But I guess that’s one of the prices you pay for allowing users to install applications manually rather than via software reposatories
So, to summarise: I don’t have a problem with people taking a dislike to Windows (I personally can’t stand 90% of Windows releases either). But, for the sanity of this site, please at least keep your grievences factually accurate.
Edited 2008-10-29 01:50 UTC
don’t know about vista, but in xp they are seperated
unified like in osx? it’s one of the worst ui-concepts i’ve ever seen
like in winXP?
http://temp.funtech.org/WinXP-1.png
or like in beos?
Actually, it’s been an option since the original taskbar appeared in Windows 95. You can dock it to any side of the monitor. You’d be amazed at how many helpdesk calls we get regarding “broken taskbars” because someone inadvertently dragged theirs to somewhere other than the bottom.
Personally, I’ve had the taskbar in Windows at the top of the screen, set to auto-hide, since Windows 98.
What I’d like to see in Windows, is the ability to separate the application launcher from the taskbar. Let me put the app launcher at the top of the screen, with the app menu on one side, the systray on the other, and a set of quick launch buttons in the middle, all set to auto-hide. With a separate taskbar at the bottom of the screen that just shows what apps are running. It’s a much nicer setup than everything crowded together in one bar.
i’m honestly not trying to troll; but, what you want sounds a lot like a default GNOME desktop. you’d just have to set the panels to autohide.
what would be neat with windows, or the mac os, would be if the user could add additional panels and customize as needed. the GNOME (and KDE) way is to have everything that could be in a panel/dock to be treated pretty much like individual objects/applets that can be placed in any panel that you create. that includes menus, launchers, clocks, system tray, etc.
edit: i just noticed your avatar… i’m guessing you’re a bsd guy and probably fairly familiar with *nix DE conventions already. teehee.
Edited 2008-10-29 18:00 UTC
Similar, yes, although I started out with this setup back in the LightStep/DarkStep days on Windows 98, before I got into Unix. However, I (personally) can’t stand GNOME or even GTK apps. There’s just something … not … quite … right about GTK apps. I prefer QT apps, and KDE in particular.
As an aside, I really, really, really dislike how the new KDE4 panel works, as you can’t set the size of the system tray applet, and it takes up all the space on the panel when you remove the taskbar applet.
Agreed. Customisability of the app launcher, taskbar, systray, etc would be very nice to have on the Windows side of things.
Correct. I’m a FreeBSD user at heart and at home (desktop/server), a Debian Linux user at work (desktop/servers), and a Kubuntu Linux user on the road (laptop/netbook).
Edited 2008-10-29 18:22 UTC
indeed, GTK apps (and GNOME, by extension) have a very… errr… ‘special’ look and feel. but, that being said, i am not horribly fond of QT, either. the only QT apps i use regularly are amarok and qjackctl.
but, WOW, i couldn’t agree more about the kde panel thing. it’s one of the several reasons i can’t feel at home in a kde4 environment. it’s really a shame the way plasmoids are handled in the panel. i just don’t feel in control of my workspace. oh, well.
when i’m doing any serious work, i usually operate from fluxbox and try to avoid the whole desktop environment mess.
Because it always appears in a different order than what you are used to. Recent documents may be useful, but just a frequently used for everything feels kind of meh.
I’d rather go directly to the place i put the stuff into.. nothing wrong with directories when.
Strange days.
If you wouldn’t know it’s windows, you couldn’t be sure if it’s a Linux distro or Windows you are looking at.
Seems microsoft has learned from Apple and Linux Distros. (Looks a bit like SuSE/Ubuntu?)
If they just give me the classic “UP Arrow” button and ability to access directories by “\” in the folder address bar I will be very happy. Perhaps I am outdated, but just make it an option to have these as defaults. Then I don’t care what else they change or rename.
People complain that KDE4 has too large of borders around everything … and yet think this looks good? The borders around windows and in-window separators are at least 3 sizes too big.
And what’s with the Paint ribbon? Am I the only one who finds it to be horribly cluttered, messy, with too much wasted space everywhere?
Yes, the graphics look pretty. But why is everything so big?
<sad attempt at humor>
Microsoft says you will like it. They did studies. They have proof. You only hate it because of the slanderous Mac commercials and the communist Linux people.
Now come. Sit here at the computer. Let me walk you through the desktop. Let me show you the great features that the Windows has. Look at the new task bar…
And then you say: Wait isn’t that KDE?
MS Rep: No. It’s Windows 7.
You: Why does it say KDE then?
Rep: Um.. that’s… um… the code name of Windows 7.
You: Well, it looks like KDE 4.
Rep: No. Now look into my eyes. You are getting sleepy, sleepy. You will buy the Windows. You will love the Windows. You will hate all else.
You: I will buy the Windows. I will hate the Windows. I will be stuck with the Windows.
Rep: <click>BOOM!!!
Rep: Bring in the next victim… er.. I mean customer.
</sad attempt at humor>
Actually, I don’t think Windows 7 looks like KDE 4 but I do know I wont be using Gnome again unless the UI in 3.0 transforms in an equality significant way as KDE 4 has from 3.5.
I personally think Gnome is stagnating and needs “rejuvenating lotion”.
Now… back on topic.
Edited 2008-10-29 02:39 UTC
I suppose I can consider these UI changes small advancements in the right direction but nothing revolutionary or spectacular.
Apart from the taskbar and a couple new features in Start menu and Explorer, it looks about the same as Vista–which is fine, I guess.
I think Windows 7 is shaping up to be an XP killer. However, people such as myself, who’ve adopted Vista will unlikely be compelled to upgrade just for a few usability improvements.
It’ll only cost you an additional $200 to upgrade. Well, that is assuming you aren’t running photoshop or programs like that. The older versions won’t work with the new windows.
(Once again I’m with the sarcasm.)
Windows usability problems go as deep as the sewer that is the file system and the weirdly architected dependencies like changing Outlook preferences through a control panel.
While smaller UI improvements are appreciated, I can’t help but feel like it’s putting direction signs into a house of glass until they make truly major re-organizations to the underlying structure.
Youtube video displaying the taskbar in action. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipg6ltIZRw0
On the one hand, Windows 7 sounds like it’s got some interesting ideas. On the other hand, it’s obviously just Vista Version 2.0, and will continue to have those things I disliked then, and I’ll continue to dislike when Win7 comes out. In typical Microsoft fashion, this seems like the usual “one step forward, two steps back” style of ‘evolution’. To be fair, Microsoft does seem to be doing things better with Win7 than Vista, so I’ll at least try it at the local Staples on their demo units when it’s released.
I’m not expecting much, but I’d love to be proven wrong. On the other hand, I’ve grown quite a strong dislike towards Microsoft in general over the last several years, starting with my last years on XP, so at the same time I can’t see myself purposely buying it just to run Windows. Unfortunately, though, I’ll probably be forced into it when I buy a new PC, since OEMs usually sell their better hardware combinations with Windows only… leaving Linux users screwed (if they sell Linux at all).
Why don’t you people just assemble your own computers? It’s fun and you get to know every peripheral and get to choose that elusive ‘ideal’ config. I always used to do just that before going the Mac way.
So far so good. I’m not a Microsoft fan at all but this looks like a good start. The improvements are needed and it even looks better. Lets hope they stay on this path. I’ll be disappointed if they fisher price the interface before release like they did with XP and Vista.
I love how every new version of Windows is the “most innovative since Windows 95”.
The new looks are very close to KDE and mix of VISTA. Well this is a welcome change, however it was not necessary as people never complained about Windows looks! They complained most of the time about Slow speed, crapy registry and too many holes.