anybody else having trouble installing photoshop CS3? illustrator CS4 installed fine. downloading a trial of PS CS4 now to see if maybe that version will work..

1/15/2009 9:41:03 AM

^ CS4 installed just fine for me...haven't tried CS3

1/15/2009 9:48:22 AM

Quote :

"anyone else having trouble installing logmein?"

Hamachi works just fine. Use that.

1/15/2009 12:19:57 PM

quagmire, I'll suffice to say a couple of things.

Statistically you are in an ungodly minority with most of your quips. And I would really be interested to know why PADDING bothers you so much?

I consider myself a pretty extreme power user, and I have YET to run out of space on the taskbar in Win7, where padding would be any sort of issue whatsoever.

Quote :

"for example, if i have firefox open and i want a second window (not another tab), i have to click TWICE to get it, instead of the one click i would use previously (i have 4-5 key programs that i use on a regular basis and i want those to ALWAYS be available as links, even if it's already open, without extra clicks to find the option)"

No you don't. You can mouse-roll to the other window. It's called a gesture. Or you COULD alt-tab. If you are this damn obsessed with efficiency, why in the hell are you using the mouse to navigate windows in the first place?

For your second quip, just drag the application onto the taskbar and it will stay there. No options, no mess. It's DEAD SIMPLE.

People overwhelmingly HATED the Sidebar always-on-top in Vista. You are the first person ever that I have heard remark counter to that. Ever. Seriously.

Quote :

"gripe #eleventy billion: you STILL can't easily relocate the "my documents" stuff (or maybe you can, but i'm not used to this library scheme, yet, so i might just not have figured it out)...i can't believe that more people don't have their my documents located on a separate partition (laptop) or a whole separate drive (desktop)...such a pain in the ass to do it in vista/win7"

You can, and always have been able to relocate your profile. It's not that hard, I'll post instructions later.

1/15/2009 1:57:14 PM

Quote :

"People overwhelmingly HATED the Sidebar always-on-top in Vista"

really? I like it, even when I'm only using one monitor. besides, what's wrong the unchecking the always on top button?

1/15/2009 2:06:58 PM

yea, i use the sidebar always on top at work all the time, i use the gadgets to monitor performance while i work, quite useful

1/15/2009 5:57:35 PM

^^weird. mine was never on top. or maybe i unchecked it without knowing.

1/15/2009 6:07:55 PM

Quote :

"If you are this damn obsessed with efficiency, why in the hell are you using the mouse to navigate windows in the first place?"

qft

1/15/2009 6:28:55 PM

quoted for people that don't use mouse gestures maybe.

1/15/2009 6:33:30 PM

there's only so much you can do with a mouse gesture.

1/15/2009 6:47:04 PM

^^And again, if a click is an efficiency concern (which, his ENTIRE rant on what he doesnt like in Win7 seems to be centered around the idea that padding visual elements and the new taskbar is inefficient), then why wouldn't he use the MORE efficient path of keyboard nav, or gestures. He is mad because he cannot use his old interaction on a new form.

You might really like the way a toaster works, but if you apply the same interaction to a car, you are going to be frustrated.

See, quagmire, contrary to your personal taste, there are decades of research that show results exactly the opposite of your argument. Packing visually interactive elements together on a pointing GUI results in decreasing efficiency in direct proportion to how close together AND how small those targets are.

1/15/2009 7:13:29 PM

ps. Instructions for moving my documents: right click my documents and go to properties. Use brain to figure out the rest.

1/15/2009 7:48:11 PM

lol

1/15/2009 7:52:45 PM

Woot to finding buffer overflows in telnet! I now know what a Windows 7 blue screen looks like.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 7:59 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2009 7:57:46 PM

buffer overflows ftl

1/15/2009 8:02:42 PM

i don't like that my mkv / hd files can't be shown in folders with a video preview.

oh and windows media center can't play the mkv files. super lame. i even registered it with WMP and it plays fine there.

[Edited on January 15, 2009 at 8:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/15/2009 8:38:10 PM

Quote :

"Statistically you are in an ungodly minority with most of your quips."

your opinion, not facts...unless you have facts, your opinion means less because you pass it off as factual evidence

Quote :

"And I would really be interested to know why PADDING bothers you so much?"

you really don't understand why wasted space (it serves NO purpose, and looks like crap) "bothers" me? it must be nice having a 32" monitor and a $texas x $nevada resolution screen

Quote :

"I consider myself a pretty extreme power user, and I have YET to run out of space on the taskbar in Win7, where padding would be any sort of issue whatsoever."

i have, at this moment, 18 different apps/windows/whatever open...on one screen...too many? maybe...necessary? for me, yes

how many have you got?

Quote :

"No you don't. You can mouse-roll to the other window. It's called a gesture. Or you COULD alt-tab. If you are this damn obsessed with efficiency, why in the hell are you using the mouse to navigate windows in the first place?"

i'm sorry that reading comprehension is a skill you lack, but i'm not talking about shifting focus to another, already-open window, you stupid son-of-a-bitch...i'm talking about OPENING an all-new window...does your alt+tab magically open a new instance of the program you're thinking of? if so, you should pass along that nifty program to the rest of us, so that our computers can read our minds, too

example: i open firefox...the link icon goes away from the superbar (or, rather, expands)...now, in order to open an NEW firefox window (not tab, not switching to another one), i have to click twice, instead of how it is with the quick launch, where the icon is ALWAYS present...do you still not get it?

as for gestures, no, i don't use them...so disregarding your completely off-base point (really, you should learn to read effectively), i use the keyboard to switch windows (most of the time, but especially if i'm on a laptop)

Quote :

"For your second quip, just drag the application onto the taskbar and it will stay there. No options, no mess. It's DEAD SIMPLE."

i'm not in there right now, and i might be wrong, but doesn't the icon for the program stay wherever it was put, even if you open up a window on either side of it? for example, if i have three icons on the superbar (we'll say winamp, firefox, pidgin) and i open up winamp and pidgin, then the firefox link icon remains between those two expanded units on the superbar, right? again, i could be wrong since i don't have it in front of me...but when you have a dozen apps open and you want to open something else on your superbar (let's ignore the fact that you can't quickly open a second instance of one of those apps without going through a menu), you have to SEARCH for your link, since it will have shifted location (rather than with the quick launch, where it's always in the same place)

Quote :

"You can, and always have been able to relocate your profile. It's not that hard, I'll post instructions later."

that would be GREAT (seriously, no sarcasm)...please review the bottom of the previous page so you'll know specifically what i'm looking to do...i suspect you don't actually have a solution (i want the WHOLE profile moved, not just those stupid file-specific folders), but if you can show me how to EASILY and TOTALLY move the %PROFILE% symlink (i know that's not the operator, but i think you know what i mean) so that the default location forever and ever will be a new partition, i will gladly and with great enthusiasm thank you

Quote :

"Packing visually interactive elements together on a pointing GUI results in decreasing efficiency in direct proportion to how close together AND how small those targets are."

i'm sorry that so many people are imprecise and clumsy oafs when it comes to using the computer...i am not, however, and so it frustrates me that the lowest common denominator, those who are obviously my inferior based on the research you fail to quote, must waste my time and desktop real estate so that they can effectively navigate their operating system with all the dexterity of person using his toes instead of fingers

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 10:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/16/2009 10:17:33 AM

Quote :

"but if you can show me how to EASILY and TOTALLY move the %PROFILE% symlink (i know that's not the operator, but i think you know what i mean) so that the default location forever and ever will be a new partition, i will gladly and with great enthusiasm thank you "

i've done it before.. i don't remember the exact method but you can change a registry entry to change where all of your profile information is stored. i've had to do it before because i was running out of space on one drive and needed to move all of the profiles to another without it being a cluster fuck..and it worked well

1/16/2009 1:38:44 PM

Quote :

"To specify a different folder for the "Documents and Settings" folder during installation, follow these steps: 1. Use the /UNATTEND switch with Winnt.exe or Winnt32.exe and insert the following entry into the Unattend.txt file, where z:\foldername is the path and folder name you want: [GuiUNattended] ProfilesDir = z:\foldername 2. Install Windows. The path you included in the Unattend.txt file is used instead of the default "Documents and Settings" folder. -------- To specify a different folder for the "Documents and Settings" folder after you install Windows for a particular user, follow these steps: 1. Identify the user's profile path. There are two methods to identify the profile path. Either by user path settings or user SID. The user SID method is preferred. * User SID method 1. Use the GETSID tool from the Windows Server Resource Kit to obtain the SID. Use syntax similar to the following example: GETSID \\SERVER1 UserName \\SERVER1 UserName 2. Once you obtain the SID, use Regedit.exe or Regedt32.exe to select the user's SID under the following registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList * User path setting 1. Log on to the computer as the user, and then type SET at a command prompt. Note the setting for USERPROFILE, and then close the command prompt window. 2. Log on as an administrator of the computer. 3. Use Registry Editor to add the USERPROFILE setting to the following registry key: HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList 4. Click the registry key, and then click Find on the Edit menu. 5. In the Find box, type the value of the USERPROFILE setting, and then click Find Next. 2. Change the ProfileImagePath value to use the new path you want in the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\ProfileList registry key. 3. Close Registry Editor, and then log on as the user. Type SET at the command prompt to verify the path has changed."

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/236621

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 1:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2009 1:47:41 PM

^^ if we're thinking of the same thing, that does not do it all the way...at least, not a single registry entry...you have to do it in a number of places and mess with the way the symlink/junction points work

if you find a link, let me know

^ that article (supposedly) only applies to windows server 2000/2003...since it refers to "documents and settings" and that structure is gone from vista/win7 (i think), i'm inclined to believe that it isn't valid (could be wrong, though)

1/16/2009 2:55:41 PM

http://joshmouch.wordpress.com/2007/04/07/change-user-profile-folder-location-in-vista/

1/16/2009 3:43:51 PM

Quote :

"does your alt+tab magically open a new instance of the program you're thinking of?"

No, but Ctrl + N generally does!

1/16/2009 3:49:42 PM

^Nope, it still works. They only changed the directory name from "documents and settings" to "Users" for Vista/Win7.

Here is the MS Knowledge Base article It gives you the methods to change a single user data folder (very close to propsero's quoted instructions), AND the instructions to move the ENTIRE "Users" folder to another location.

It will work for Vista, and it should work for Win7.

1/16/2009 3:56:37 PM

^^ yes, it does...ONLY if you're in the program itself (and then, that only applies to certain programs)

all of you are intentionally missing the point - the FACT is that they added ANOTHER step to opening a new instance...how is increasing the number of steps required conducive to efficiency? yes, i'm quibbling over an extra couple of seconds...but i don't see how making things more complex is good or effective

all i can say is that microsoft is lucky to have people who are more about form than function, because you'll never convince ME that adding steps and/or making tasks more complex is good for usability (ESPECIALLY when they had a perfectly viable and effective design before)

^ i'll check that out when i get home, then...i would love for it to be that simple (i distinctly recall it being more complex than that in vista, and you check the vista thread to see where it was discussed...at least, at the time, the only quoted procedure was more complex)...i'll let you know if that's what i'm looking for

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 3:59 PM. Reason : arrows]

1/16/2009 3:57:28 PM

quagmire02 you are arguing only one side of the efficiency. yes, so now you have to click twice, but there's efficiency sometimes found in grouping windows of the same time or from the same app. while i agree with your point, there's also the cleaner, simpler interface of only having one icon displayed, then having 18 different tasks in your taskbar.

what i will argue though is that there should always be a way to divert back to ungrouping tasks, like there was in XP, where they gave you the option of grouping or ungrouping tasks by app.

1/16/2009 4:29:38 PM

Quote :

" your opinion, not facts...unless you have facts, your opinion means less because you pass it off as factual evidence ... you really don't understand why wasted space (it serves NO purpose, and looks like crap) "bothers" me? it must be nice having a 32" monitor and a $texas x $nevada resolution screen"

Look, I can't help that you have no clue what you are talking about. Feel free to peruse ACM or IEEE. You can read the 20+ years of research done on target acquisition, proximity error, and coordination with pointing devices on graphical user interfaces.

It's not my job to educate you with the reasons why your statements are ignorant and incorrect.

I work on a 12" laptop, and 22" lcd on the desktop. No uber resolutions present.

Quote :

"i have, at this moment, 18 different apps/windows/whatever open...on one screen...too many? maybe...necessary? for me, yes how many have you got?"

Reference and Ref2

Plain and simply, you aren't part of the optimized audience. You are an EXTREME outlier in how you use the OS, and my guess is (and just purely speculation) that your work style is self-imposed, not system-imposed. I doubt very very seriously that you actually NEED those 18 windows constantly opened, rather you just don't "clean as you go".

Quote :

"all of you are intentionally missing the point - the FACT is that they added ANOTHER step to opening a new instance...how is increasing the number of steps required conducive to efficiency? yes, i'm quibbling over an extra couple of seconds...but i don't see how making things more complex is good or effective all i can say is that microsoft is lucky to have people who are more about form than function, because you'll never convince ME that adding steps and/or making tasks more complex is good for usability (ESPECIALLY when they had a perfectly viable and effective design before)"

See, they did research on this. Please to read my links. The facts are that they added a step to an extremely infrequent activity in order to increase the efficiency of frequent activities. And it's not an extra couple of seconds. That extra mouse click takes you less than 1/2 second, including acquisition time.

All I can say is that Microsoft is lucky to have real researchers who care about user data and research over personal opinions which run contrary to decades of accepted research.

I will bet you any amount of money you wish to wager that I can prove to you that adding steps to a task can make it more efficient and less complex. There's a reason for UI constructs like Wizards, tabs, dialogs, context menus, toolbars and menus exist. It's to ADD STEPS to TASKS in order to REDUCE the per-step complexity.

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 4:38 PM. Reason : .]

1/16/2009 4:30:03 PM

Quote :

"what i will argue though is that there should always be a way to divert back to ungrouping tasks, like there was in XP, where they gave you the option of grouping or ungrouping tasks by app."

There is, see the taskbar buttons dropdown in the dialog I posted on the last page:



It lets you ungroup, ungroup if space allows, or always group.

1/16/2009 4:40:15 PM

i figured there was... then it's a non-issue

1/16/2009 4:43:26 PM

lol, it's funny so many of these issues are basic shit that have an extremely obvious way to fix them to your liking.

so far I really like windows 7.. I hate to say that because I hated Vista so bad..but whatever, so far windows 7 has been good to me

Quote :

"^ CS4 installed just fine for me...haven't tried CS3"

yea, CS4 installed fine.. illustrator CS3 worked fine, not sure why PS CS3 wouldn't but whatever.. I like CS4 better anyways

[Edited on January 16, 2009 at 7:24 PM. Reason : asdf ]

1/16/2009 7:23:48 PM

I used it all yesterday, and it's probably the best GUI MS has ever done, but it still has all the nagging Windows is known for.

I would love if they officially ended the use of C: and D: and switched to mount points (which Vista and maybe even XP supports).

They also need a better way of navigation the control panels.

1/17/2009 12:22:56 PM

moving from C: to something else sure would break a lot of poorly coded programs out there, many of which we use i'm sure

1/17/2009 12:51:12 PM

^^Yeah I agree with you and agentlion on that one. The control panel is a mess

1/17/2009 4:18:58 PM

for the control panel navigation I just hit ctrl+f and start typing what i want to find.. the search works incredibly..well..like it should, lol. and it's fast.. a hell of a lot faster than trying to find what i'm looking for in there

1/17/2009 4:38:10 PM

Quote :

"moving from C: to something else sure would break a lot of poorly coded programs out there, many of which we use i'm sure "

The whole drive name letter causes problems too. If you have an external drive for a laptop, and one of your apps stores files/preferences on it, if the drive mounts as a different letter for some reason, the app won't find its preferences/files.

[Edited on January 17, 2009 at 5:06 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2009 5:06:11 PM

^you can set reserved drive letters for exactly that purpose, but I agree with you more generally

1/17/2009 5:42:41 PM

I was hoping that Windows 7 would allow spanning task bars and full dual screen wallpaper like Ultramon does. Even with Ultramon on Windows 7 (I know it's really early for this support) I can't get the new Taskbar to span both screens.

Nevermind about the full dual screen wallpaper comment - kudos Windows 7. Dual monitor taskbar hidden in here somewhere too?

[Edited on January 17, 2009 at 6:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/17/2009 6:14:07 PM

Quote :

"People overwhelmingly HATED the Sidebar always-on-top in Vista."

I hated the Sidebar in Vista, period. When I read your post, I actually had to spend a bit of time figuring out what the "sidebar" was... I've had it completely turned off for so long that I forgot it even existed.

1/17/2009 7:05:44 PM

Just noticed that it has up to 7.9 on the windows experience index rater.

anyone got 7.9s? it only goes to 5.9 on vista

I only got a 5.9 on my HD, rest is lower, but im running it in a VM, with only access to 1 proc and 1.5GB mem.

1/17/2009 10:36:27 PM

I got a 6.1.

1/18/2009 3:03:16 AM

Quote :

"Here is the MS Knowledge Base article It gives you the methods to change a single user data folder (very close to propsero's quoted instructions), AND the instructions to move the ENTIRE "Users" folder to another location. It will work for Vista, and it should work for Win7."

i tried it and it did not work...i'm sure it does exactly what it says for the specified operating systems (XP flavors), but it does not work...the instructions are not difficult, so it's easy to follow, but the steps are not valid for win 7, plain and simple

Quote :

"quagmire02 you are arguing only one side of the efficiency. yes, so now you have to click twice, but there's efficiency sometimes found in grouping windows of the same time or from the same app. while i agree with your point, there's also the cleaner, simpler interface of only having one icon displayed, then having 18 different tasks in your taskbar."

this is true...for ME, the unchangeable and completely unnecessary second click is NOT efficient...i'm sure that for some people, it may be, but i will always argue that in that PARTICULAR instance, something that takes more time to accomplish the same thing is NOT more efficient...it's that simple: something that takes longer to accomplish the EXACT same thing is not more efficient than something that takes less time...if the end result is EXACTLY the same, less time and effort will always be more efficient

Quote :

"Look, I can't help that you have no clue what you are talking about. Feel free to peruse ACM or IEEE. You can read the 20+ years of research done on target acquisition, proximity error, and coordination with pointing devices on graphical user interfaces. It's not my job to educate you with the reasons why your statements are ignorant and incorrect."

i do, without a doubt, know exactly what i am talking about in regards to myself...i am telling you that it is less efficient for ME...you can argue all you want, but you're a dumbass if you expect me to think that you know more about me than i do

it's not your job to educate, obviously...you can quote whatever you want, but you will never know what it's like from MY point of view...microsoft PERMANENTLY changed something for NO reason (my point is that it cannot be changed, not that they added another option) that negatively impacts my efficiency

Quote :

"Plain and simply, you aren't part of the optimized audience. You are an EXTREME outlier in how you use the OS, and my guess is (and just purely speculation) that your work style is self-imposed, not system-imposed. I doubt very very seriously that you actually NEED those 18 windows constantly opened, rather you just don't "clean as you go"."

i'm quite aware i'm not part of the optimized audience...your "guess" is retarded, because you know none of the relevant facts past the 18 windows quote i gave you, so your guess is, at best, the assumption that i fall into a pre-defined category (although you JUST pointed out that i'm an outlier)...which is it? am i an outlier or am i in one of your groups? i absolutely do clean as i go...18 windows is my average, though, regardless of whether you wish to believe facts of my life or not

Quote :

"I will bet you any amount of money you wish to wager that I can prove to you that adding steps to a task can make it more efficient and less complex. There's a reason for UI constructs like Wizards, tabs, dialogs, context menus, toolbars and menus exist. It's to ADD STEPS to TASKS in order to REDUCE the per-step complexity."

alright, then...in my particular situation, PROVE to me that adding more steps that take more time will increase my efficiency...go for it

look, i'm more than willing to admit that microsoft at least attempts to research certain things before they make changes...it even appears that they're making an effort to improve the horrific windows experience they're known for BEFORE the first service pack

i think it's sad, however, that you try to blanket MY experiences and needs into a group and say that microsoft ALWAYS knows the best...they don't

their changes negatively affect me, plain and simple...and no amount of you PRETENDING to understand my particular situation or quoting research that does NOT apply to me, at all, will change the FACT that their changes are not beneficial

[Edited on January 18, 2009 at 9:33 AM. Reason : .]

1/18/2009 9:28:21 AM

Hey now buddy. Good pack-pedaling attempt! You have argued for a page and a half that this is a general argument, and now are back-pedaling to "OH IM JUST TALKING ABOUT ME NOW".

Now, you are bitching about an efficiency change of a fraction of a second. A change that, for a majority of users, based on the data I provided, is not a concern at all. And because of that change, it makes the REST of the experience that much better.

Quote :

"it's not your job to educate, obviously...you can quote whatever you want, but you will never know what it's like from MY point of view...microsoft PERMANENTLY changed something for NO reason (my point is that it cannot be changed, not that they added another option) that negatively impacts my efficiency"

Let's connect the dots for you. In making a change that positively affects an overwhelming majority of users, they were forced to cut an infrequent, small impact feature (click for a new instance). That is change for a reason, and a damn good one at that.

Quote :

"which is it? am i an outlier or am i in one of your groups? "

An outlier is a very distinct group. So you KNOW you are an outlier, yet you bitch about STUPID, completely insignificant gripes, then try to defend without base.

If this was a task that took you 2 minutes to do every time, you would have a legitimate complaint. This is ONE CLICK DUDE. ONE CLICK. Over the entire span of your life you will lose maybe 10 minutes of time.

Quote :

"alright, then...in my particular situation, PROVE to me that adding more steps that take more time will increase my efficiency...go for it"

That's not what you said. You said ANY task. And I'd still bet I could find tasks you specifically do that would be faster with more clicks, but of course that is a stupid exercise because I have absolutely no incentive. Again, because I know the research and you don't, you have no idea how spacial ordering and proximity speed up comprehension.

Here's the hilarious part. You have complained about this stupid 2-clicks thing, but I would wager that the other changes in Win7 have more than made up for that loss of one click for your productivity and you don't even realize it.

1/18/2009 2:58:20 PM

64 bit of win7.
windows update no longer works after my lateest update. crashes explorer. going to 32 bit now

and win7 doesn't like mkv containers, i guess haali will need to update how they integrate with explorer to allow previews for them to work properly. just weird they don't even work in windows media center even though they'll play in wmp12.

[Edited on January 18, 2009 at 3:07 PM. Reason : ]

1/18/2009 3:05:41 PM

damnit, vista won't shrink my partition enough to make a new one

[Edited on January 18, 2009 at 5:26 PM. Reason : .]

1/18/2009 4:57:00 PM

VNC Viewer doesn't work on 32 bit or 64 bit

1/18/2009 6:17:42 PM

nevermind, got the partition

1/18/2009 10:27:43 PM

Quote :

"Here's the hilarious part. You have complained about this stupid 2-clicks thing, but I would wager that the other changes in Win7 have more than made up for that loss of one click for your productivity and you don't even realize it."

again, do you have examples or is this just standard "i'm noen, and i know everything, so you should just take my word for it" bullshit? i'm sorry, bud, but you know nothing about my work environment, what i do, or what's better for ME...because of this MASSIVE flaw in your argument, you can't POSSIBLY speak to what improves MY efficiency...you provide links that spout evidence that applies to SOME people, but not all...you're not so stupid as to assume that there's a one-size-fits-all solution, but you fail to admit that microsoft might NOT know what's best for everyone...you are such an obnoxious fanboy and you don't even realize (or you do, and are content to walk around with your eyes closed)

all i've said as a blanket statement is that increasing the number of steps in a given process cannot possibly increase the efficiency of that single process (and as such, the more that single process is engaged in, the more inefficient the overall process becomes)...and until you can provide evidence that INCREASING the amount of time it takes to perform a certain task actually speeds up the task (a complete and utter contradiction, i hope you'll agree), you have nothing of value to contribute aside from your fanboyism...your links are a joke...two of them are general links to organizations (and one of those doesn't even link anywhere...do you KNOW how to use the internet?) and your "references" are a graph you pulled from who knows where, a link that is just a general overview of some of the ideas the dev team had regarding changes in the taksbar and one that (again) goes nowhere

the MSDN link (the only one of the 4 you've posted that has ANY value...congrats, you're coherent a whopping 25% of the time!) give you this:



in which, by your same stupid logic, i could say that people want a quicklaunch more than they want to group similar items...let's ignore, for the moment, that both of these options are turned on by default in all recent windows versions, so it represents those who are lazy or don't know how to change it as much as it represents those people who actually LIKE and USE both of those features

you're talking completely out of your ass...when you have something to offer OTHER than your opinion (because, really, that's all i'm offering...the difference is that you get up on your soapbox and act like gates' personal gift to TWW while i'm at least just waiting for you to PROVE something)

also, when are you going to comment that your dumbass "oh, this should work in win7, too...durr" shit isn't valid? did you even bother to try out the steps (you know, the ones that are SPECIFICALLY tagged as working ONLY in XP, but that you CLAIM work in both vista and win7...which they don't)? of course you didn't...microsoft fanboys don't need common sense, do they?

1/19/2009 9:07:09 AM

microsoft is designing their OS for most people, not individuals and what they want. so if it doesn't work for you, find something else.

and your logic is flawed. according to your logic, all the files on the entire computer should be in the root folder, hence you can access any file with one-click instead of sorting by folders. organization does increase productivity

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 9:37 AM. Reason : ,]

1/19/2009 9:36:51 AM

Oddly, I still cannot get this thing to install on my system. I formatted the drive completely and tried it and the install still is totally unresponsive, taking 30 minutes to get from the Windows Splash screen to the "install now" button, then freezing up at "Starting Setup". I tried 64-bit and 32-bit ISOs. I threw the 32-bit ISO in my wife's 3 year old Dell and the setup works beautifully (though I didn't actually install it since she only has one partition).

So, that means the disc is fine. So what's different?

1-It could be the DVD drive, but unlikely. I used the same DVD drive to burn the ISOs and I haven't had a problem using it for other installations.
2-I have 4GB RAM, she only has 1.5GB. Not sure why having more would cause the install performance to go to shit.
3-Both have SATA hard-drives. Her's is 100GB, mine is 250. But I'm talking about performance before you even start installing on the hard-disk.
4-Could be an issue with MB compatibility. I didn't take the time to investigate what MB the Dell is using, but mine is a MSI P8N SLI board. I see sporadic reports online of other people with SLI boards having problems, but I'm not sure I would call it a pattern.
5- CPU: I have a Core2Duo 2.6ghz. She has a P4 3Ghz. Again, don't see how having a better CPU would cause the install to go to shit.
6-Video: 8800GT vs 6800. It doesn't look like display lag, anyway.

So at the moment I'm thinking it's a MB compatibility problem or Windows 7 doesn't like my DVD drive. Used the same dvd drive to reinstall XP64 with the quickness. I guess I'll have to wait for a later release and just live vicariously through you guys.

1/19/2009 10:04:19 AM

Quote :

"and your logic is flawed. according to your logic, all the files on the entire computer should be in the root folder, hence you can access any file with one-click instead of sorting by folders. organization does increase productivity"

really? that's what you took from what i said? you're truly saying that my point is that organization NEVER increases efficiency? jeebus, you people just don't pay attention...if all of your files, links, EVERYTHING could be kept in a single space where it required NO scrolling/shifting/management and it was all visible and easily found...sure, that'd be quicker...but you have to take into account searchability, visibility, and organization (as has been noted)

you are, of course, taking an EXTREME view and intentionally (and stupidly) twisting my words around...i am noting a SINGLE AND SPECIFIC INSTANCE...and there is no way for anyone to argue that the additional step, in that SINGLE AND SPECIFIC INSTANCE, increases the efficiency of that process...in this case, it slows the user down (every single user in the entire world, too), regardless of how little the extra time is...sure, it's minor, but it's also COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY, which is my point

my suggestions are perfectly valid, even if you (and everyone else in the entire world, for all i care) disagree with me...it would take VERY little effort for them to include the OPTION (even if it's not the default) to let people customize their OS experience (i mean, come on...they're just rebadging vista here, not starting from the ground up...so how hard would it be to leave IN the features and then simply turn them off by default?)

Quote :

"so if it doesn't work for you, find something else."

well, durr...it's not like i paid for this copy, and i have no intention of paying for any copy of windows 7...when they create an operating system that caters to ME, as a user, in a way that i deem valuable (before noen shits his britches and turns that phrase into me saying they should tailor an OS specifically for one individual instead of my assertion that they allow the user the option)...i'll pay for it

until that point, i'll stay away from windows 7...it's more of a pain in the ass than vista (in my humble opinion), and so i went back...i've chosen my OS, and i'm content...i'm (apparently) the only person in the world who doesn't like it (i mean, after all, noen's pointed out how i'm in a group all by myself and no one could ever possibly share my viewpoint)...so i guess i'll just be the only person who doesn't cream his pants over the windows 7 beta

i'm done for now...i suspect there'll be a number of changes in the actual release that are closer to the way XP/vista operates...i no longer have win7 on my machine because it was more effort and time than i could justify in a working environment, and so i'll revisit the thread when microsoft reverts back to a format that makes more sense (or, rather, comes to a happy medium between the two)

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 10:53 AM. Reason : .]

1/19/2009 10:47:29 AM

quagmire02 stop being a jerk, all you do is come on here and B&M when someone has a different opinion than you, then you fail to address the topic at hand and then proceed to insult the other person. this is not how a mature, professional, friendly person acts. oh wait, i'm on TWW, nevermind.

Quote :

"all i've said as a blanket statement is that increasing the number of steps in a given process cannot possibly increase the efficiency of that single process (and as such, the more that single process is engaged in, the more inefficient the overall process becomes)...and until you can provide evidence that INCREASING the amount of time it takes to perform a certain task actually speeds up the task"

Quote :

"i am noting a SINGLE AND SPECIFIC INSTANCE...and there is no way for anyone to argue that the additional step, in that SINGLE AND SPECIFIC INSTANCE, increases the efficiency of that process...in this case, it slows the user down (every single user in the entire world, too),"

first of all, yes, i did take from your previous posts that you forgo organization for mere lowest number of clicks (or rather lowest amount of time is how you put it) to be the most efficient, without once mentioning the fact that with that second click they've added organization to the taskbar, henceforth that extra click is just extra work and thus less productive.

here's where your logic is flawed. first of all clicks is not the only factor in the amount of time a task takes, you have to be able to find the object you want before clicking even occurs. so with organization, if you can find the tasks quicker, those two clicks can happen quicker than one single click.. particularly when you have so many tasks where the title is truncated.

while i agree with you, increasing the amount of time is less productive, there is time saved by not having to find or search for the task you need or want to open, so while it may be an extra click, those two clicks could happen quicker than a single click if you have a hard time finding which of the 18 task you want to open without organization. that's where the time is saved, by not having to search for stuff, that's where the efficiency is. again though as we've BOTH noted, this isn't always the case for every user, so just add a check box to turn the feature off, please microsoft?

Quote :

"you are, of course, taking an EXTREME view and intentionally (and stupidly) twisting my words around."

no that's what you do

Quote :

"it would take VERY little effort for them to include the OPTION (even if it's not the default) to let people customize their OS experience (i mean, come on...they're just rebadging vista here, not starting from the ground up...so how hard would it be to leave IN the features and then simply turn them off by default?)"

i agree with you on this.

I mean Noen's right, for a majority of users this is beneficial. while i agree that there should be an option to disable it, arguing that it should be turned off for everyone (default user) is not something worth arguing about... particularly if your situation is in the minority.

[Edited on January 19, 2009 at 11:15 AM. Reason : .]

1/19/2009 11:00:19 AM