I love Windows 7, anybody else? :)

I love this lovefest for Windows 7. Everyone's so happy that Windows actually works right, seemingly forgetting that it's what it should have done in the first place. It shouldn't be that "Windows 7 is awesome!" but "Hey! Windows is finally mostly working right!"

 

win 7 is good.

but it still need more polish.
there are still a lot of gui quirks that leaves the os feeling half bake.

 

I thought Windows was awesome since NT. I just think it's improving.
It didn't go from crapfest to lovefest, at least not for me.

 

If anything, I'd like to see what this new Midori project they are working on.

 

How does it need more polish? I have yet to get an error message or see anything weird happen for 2 months.

 

I went straight from xp to Win7. Never used vista much, but when I did I didn't think it was so terrible like everybody was saying.
Anyways, I just wanted to say I love windows 7 as well.

 

not errors, graphical inconsistencies and quirks.
window 7 has being very stable for me.
there just small things that should be improve.

like Notification Area Icons Customization window, the only way to clear past icon is to regedit, its not very user friendly.

or like the Notification Area Icons rollover effects, they are the only one that have the soft fade effect. rollover the clock or pinned icon, no fade effect.

show desktop fucntion flashes desktop icon sometime taskbar, it just "looks" glitchy.

resizing window still have "glitchy looking" graphics on the right side.

its just the small things, they dont really bug me, but these thing shouldn't happen.

more quirks
http://www.windows7taskforce.com/

 

Yeah, small things IMO.

I'd rather Microsoft start working on the next generation of UIs. Like automated memo generations.

It will generate an interesting intro for me. I then type the body and it will generate a conclusion paragraph out of the body I typed.

Or an automated email generator that will periodically send emails to my old friends, so I can keep in touch. SPAM ftw.

 

Things Microsoft should continue to do
1)Reduce the set of Windows services to a few essential core set.
2)Rename the "Program Files" to something else.
The stupid space has been a horrible nightmare for parsing
3)Reduce the set of Icons in Control Panel
4)Eliminate the "Start Up" use the Task scheduler instead
5)Clear up the directory structure in C:\Windows
It is horrible inside
6)Reduce the number of registry keys.
A new filesystem will be great NTFS is too old and prone to fragmentation.

 

Things MS should continue to do (my list...):

1) Allow core folders to be placed on different partitions at will - during setup would be even better. For eg. the Users folder, the Program Folder(s) and the Program Data folder.

2) A default directory and naming structure like:

C:\P = Programs
C:\P\PF32 = Program Files (x86) (current name)
C:\P\PF64 = Program Files (current name)
C:\P\PD = Program Data (current name)
C:\U = Users (current name)
C:\W = Windows (current name)


the above would suit me fine.

Anything else would be a bonus.

Cheers!

 

You can currently place directories on a different partition. Use NTFS hardlinks.

 

Oh?

I don't want to simply move the user's folders to another partition, I want to move the 'Users' folder to another partition.

Same with Program Files and Program Data too.

During setup.

Cheers!

 

If you can do it post setup (which you can), you can write a script and add it to an OEM folder on your setup disk to do it during setup.

 

for the first one: i would beat you really hard if you would set me up just one system where the system relevant components would be spread over more than one unreliable disk, so they cummulate the chance of a full system crash when one dies. no way this should ever be made easy, no way!!


to the second one: where is the length of the path name ever an issue? on teh command line? then i'll introduce you to the magical button called tab.

 

The NTFS hardlinks are real low level. Microsoft uses them all the time for backwards compatibility.

They show up as real files on Explorer, because that's how low level they are. Think of it this way. Lets say you had File A. Then you made a hardlink to it and call it File B. Well, if you delete File A, the data still exists because File B still points to the data. Only when you finally delete File B is the data marked as deleted.

 

yeah. each file is a actually a location (the data) and a reference (the entry in the file system).

hardlinks are just other such references. they can have different places, and different names. the file system is then reference counted, means once 0 references anker to some data, the data is freed (trimmed on an ssd, nothing happening on a hdd).

the only difference is, the system marks hard links as such, just to see the difference. they are physically identical to the first hard link of a file: the "actual" file location you saved it at.



edit: afaik the whole WinSxS is based on this, and thus reports even in the os wrong foldersize

 

A couple of comments:

- Hardlinks are filesystem constructs, which means that they are local to a partition. You cannot create hardlinks that span partitions. What you can do is either use Junctions (NTFS reparse points), or the (new in Vista) Symbolic Links.

- You cannot move the Program Files folders to a different partition. Believe me, I tried. While you can physically do this (if you really, really know what you are doing, mind you), you will break some OS functionality. Most importantly, you may run into serious problems related to Windows Side-by-Side, which are precisley rooted in my first point above: By default, Windows Vista and above implement certain OS patches via hardlinks between code in the WinSxS subfolders and the Program Files subfolders. Since hardlinks cannot span partitions, that operation will fail. There are also additional issues related to File System Virtualization which make it highly inadvisable to move the Program Files folders. I have talked to a number of fairly high-level people at Microsoft about this a long time ago, and the final answer is that such configurations (program folders relocated to different partitions) are not supported, period.

- It is possible, and configurable at installation time, to move C:\ProgramData and C:\Users to different partitions. If you want to do this, you should, however, do a fair bit of reading first. I'll leave it at that.

P.S.: Of course, simply renaming folders like "Program Files" to something like "PF" is easy to do as long as the files remain on the system partition.

Yes, it is possible to do these things post-setup, but it's very hard to do right. Again, I have a lot of experience with this kind of thing. You have to be very careful, and have a thorough understanding of NTFS filesystem structures to do this correctly, without breaking anything, and without compromising system security and functionality. Be aware that simple copy operations are not sufficient for this purpose. There are a number of nontrivial filesystem constructs that are used in C:\ProgramData in particular.

 

right, and thanks for the info.

and yeah, it should stay complicated, so people don't mess this up. they sure would

 

Well, as you can tell from what I said, I have felt in the past, and still do so, that there can be valid reasons for using separate partitions for various folders of the Windows 7 system, and the fact that this is not possible really is a consequence of some really ugly kludges that are fairly close to the foundation of current Windows systems. There's also real shortcomings in the implementation of the advanced filsystem constructs I talked about above. None of these things are likely to change anytime soon, simply because backwards compatibility severely restricts the options there. Since this is Microsoft we are dealing with here (and not Apple, who typically don't give a fig if their new products will break their customers' software), we are locked into these things for a long time, I fear.

Oh well, we are just going to use the Windows we have, not the one we wish we had... On the plus side, as a PC user, you can still pretty much run every single piece of software you ever bought for a PC.

 

the pros far outweight the contras (else, microsoft wouldn't do it.. but they don't want the 5-10% market share of apple )

and while i know you feel that need, i can just say drop that feel, and the need is gone. it's that simple.

i will from now on only have single-disk single-partition systems, and all those problems and fiddlings are gone for ever. which is great. another ghost of the past gone. i really suggest to try it out. even with the knowledge of being able to split the stuff somehow. having knowledge and using it just because you can, those are different things.

 

Heh, that is, in fact, almost precisely what I did. I still have my user data on a separate partition, for very good reasons, but otherwise I leave things the way they are. Even for that, all I use is shell folder redirection (in other words, the Location option in the shell folder properties for "My Documents"), and nothing fancy.

There is, however, a fundamental difference between original documents, and OS and program files and structures, which can always be re-installed if need be. If we are talking about irreplaceable user data, the situation is different, backups (which are a given, of course) notwithstanding. As a consequence, my user data are on a RAID1 array, while the rest of the system is in a RAID0 volume.

 

well, my only disk per system is an ssd, and they get backed up to the home server. thanks to the win7 libraries, home-server shares (which are raid1style-secured) are directly accessible like local folders.

so i don't even care about that. disk fails, new disk in, restore, done. as i always have a recent backup there's no need to care in any special way about user data.

data i know that should be immediately secured and shared to other systems, i just move it around in a library from the local part to the server part. done.

i love to learn how to do such things. but then, i just feel satisfied by the knowledge, and still go the most easy way for myself


this choice is partially based on the fact that quite some of my systems can't even have more than one disk. having more than one partition is just a virtual savety that won't help in most cases, a.k.a. when the hdd (or in my case the ssd) dies. so i don't even care about that virtual saveguard anymore. just more easy.

 

I'm pretty sure a few months ago I was arguing for single disk/single partition setups, and you were arguing in favor of multiple partitions. If not, my bad. If so, glad to see you come to the light side

 

I have some plans to upgrade my netbook to Win7 in the distant future, I found a place here where they sell Home Basic and Home Premium (I live in the Philippines, where Home Basic is sold). The cheapest Home Basic I can find in the smaller stores is PhP4,700 or around $101.66, while Home Premium is PhP6,000 or $129.77. Its also the full version, they dont sell upgrades here.

Also, I'm planning to upgrade a netbook from XP to 7. so I dont need Media Center and aero with transparency, these might bog down a humble netbook.

 

nah, that wasn't me. partitions never got support by me on this forum, i learned that years before i got member here.


to misterq. areo could actually help the netbook, as it shifts all the drawing from the cpu, which is very slow at it (especially on a netbook) to the gpu. still slow on a netbook, but sure better than doing it on the cpu, which has too much other things to handle for its small heart.

 

Not the same as having Windows do it. Not that I'm too lazy - I mean 'do it' internally from within the Windows core.

 

Well, different requirements will lead to different solutions. It all depends on your specific needs and usage profile. Other than that, having your personal data on a separate partition will make OS reinstalls/upgrades slightly easier and more straightforward: Simply reformat your system partition and install; no need to worry about first backing up your data, and then restoring it.

But, I am not telling you how to run your computer, nor would I claim that my approach should be adopted by anybody else, let alone everybody. All I claim is that my approach is best for my needs.

P.S.: disk fails, new disk in, restore, done. Nah, it's not as simple as that when you get sometimes dozens of new items a day, with quite a few of them emails in a 1GB+ Outlook store. Some of as have quite a bit of value riding on some of our documents, and for some of us a daily backup is not good enough. Of course, there's a number of ways to deal with this scenario, and quite often multiple layers of security may be appropriate. Such as combining RAID1 with real-time backup solutions, etc. But that would lead me too far out here.

 

lol...

davepermen, in the case of a notebook, this would be on one 'unreliable' disk with multiple partitions. So no extra cause for concern and I get to be saved from a beating!

What this will give (me) is a partition where the unchanging (static) apps/data is on an unchanging partition and the ever changing (frequently modified) data is on the first 100GB or so of the outer edge or fastest part of the platters.

I know - just get an SSD - but that is not a solution for the millions and probably billions of HD's still in use!

The length of the path name is just me: I can read 'U' faster than I can read 'Users' by .012 ms! This inflexibility is slowing me down!

Cheers!

^^^QFT^^^!

Thanks for all the info on 'hard links' I knew that they were deeply ingrained into Windows, but didn't realize how far until I read your last few posts.

I have changed these things a long time ago, but there were always issues you had to be aware of or nothing would work right. Nowadays, it is easier to use the tools as close to as-is rather than trying to bend them to do something they weren't meant to do.

Cheers!

davepermen, messing up is not quite as bad as you think. That's how people learn and grow.

Cheers!

 

Just installed Win7 myself. Liking it so far, other than a few add-ons, not much different that Vista, unless I am missing a bigger picture.

Seems to run a little smoother/faster, but haven't had it long enough to decide for sure.

 

Honestly it just feels like Windows XP with Vista features, which is good, but I wish there was more to it.

 

Well that's a new one.

 

I love it. On windows XP and Vista, whenever I want to maximize a window, I would sometimes drag the window to the top only to forget it's not windows 7 lol. Same with "show desktop" in the lower right corner of the taskbar.

 

but partition-jumping is slow. ntfs does restructure the data in a more effient way than your manual fiddling. even while you know better.

and you believe that this would gain you. and you know that it's not worth the hazzle. and you still believe it, and want it

oh it does. they will be perfect data-disks in your home server. oh wait..

nice, i parse words faster than individual letters.

nowadays?

microsoft thinks others: imagine suddenly 10% of the user base messing up. talking about millions of customers having their oses hosed at about the same time.

now tell me those millions ALL LEARN AND GROW instead of complaining, killing all hotlines, etc..

 

Can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not.

 

i guess, somehow, both..

 

I wasn't being sarcastic. Rarely do I meet someone who compares XP with Windows 7.

 

That, of course, is nothing but wishful thinking. NTFS does no "restructuring" of our data in any useful sense of this word. It's a filesystem, nothing more, nothing less. Yes, that means it does have some minimal logic regarding the placement of the clusters belonging to individual files built-in, but NTFS does not, and cannot, have access to any higher-level information allowing it to "restructure" our data. And, yes, transitioning from one partition to another may require more head movement than accessing neighboring files, but placing different parts of an OS installation and user files on different partitions, if done right, can, in fact, reduce head movement, and lead to a (marginally) more responsive system.

 

ntfs does partially do it (small files are together in the MFT, where the folder structure is). and especially defragmentation tools (like the one from windows itself) do. i was a bit random about that yeah. but non-the-less. if you don't manually set up walls between your data, the os (including defrag) or additional apps can optimize above everything. there's no boundary between your data, your programs, your system.


so as f.e. (just a too simple example) all you do is you use word (winword.exe), and all it uses is gdi32.dll (to draw it's letters and vectorgraphics), and all you type is Protocol.doc, a defragmentation tool is free to place those 3 files besides each other. it can't, if you have set up partitions for os, for programs, for data.

so your doubleclick on Protocol.doc will never be able to be as fast in your partitioned environment, than in a non-partitioned environment if optimized well.

partitions where good in their days, and still good for the specific need. performance is not one of them.

 

Yes, but I have argued before that there can be excellent reasons to at least keep my data separate from the rest. For one, full restoration of the system to a known state (after a botched software install, say... ) is so much easier if I have my data on a separate partition, so that I can simply reinstate a system image I have. And don't even start telling me about System Restore...

That's a nice theory but, unfortunately, there are no defragmentation tools that do what you describe. But you knew that already, didn't you?

Yep, that would be true, if only such a defragmenter existed.

For innocent bystanders, while Windows' built-in defragmenter (and some of the third-party defragmenters) do take into account access patterns for (some) executables, none of them does the same for data files, and for good reasons.

It all depends. The pronouncements you make are sometimes too general. But you knew that already, didn't you?

 

Ok after using windows 7 for a little bit now I have found something I don't like about it.

The frickin!!! permissions to write to folders. If i'm an administrator, I will never understand why I would need to have permissions.

This like pouring salt into old wounds back when Vista was released. I remember when you were logged in as Administrator, but weren't really an Administrator. This is what Windows7 is reminding me of.

 

If it annoys you, just disable it.

 

There are very good reasons to restrict access to certain folders. Obviously, not all folders require special permissions. For the ones that do, there are excellent reasons for requiring them. As you say yourself, you clearly do not understand filesystem security. Until you do, I would suggest you don't mess with it. If you see UAC prompts when writing to folders, then, more likely than not, you have no business writing to these folders anyway. You might want to think about whether or not you know what you are doing, then.

If you want to go back to DOS, and willy-nilly write whatever files you want, wherever you want, be my guest... No modern operating system can allow you to do this, which is why they don't.

 

I disagree with this, there are a ton of reasons files might be written to those folders, and it happens all the time simply installing a program. He also may very well know what he's doing, I don't think it's fair of you to assume he doesn't.

 

Yes, and program installation requires an administrator token, because it potentially entails fundamental alterations to OS functionality. The UAC prompt is there to remind people that this is the case. Like you said, you can disable the prompt. I might add that you can disable prompts just for the administrator, not ideal, but a much safer alternative to disabling UAC altogether.

 

I'm not an idiot, so get off your high horse.

Now that that is out of the way, it wasn't UAC that prompted me, it was something else. Also I was writing to a folder on the desktop. Yeah I'm sure that a folder on my desktop is something I shouldn't be messing with.

Windows7 restricted me from copying a file from my external to my desktop, I'm not so sure how this is a threat to my security.

 

I never said nor implied that you are an idiot. All I was saying is that you may not know what you are doing. I emphasize that there is absolutely nothing wrong with that; I don't expect everybody to understand NTFS file permissions. Many, many people have better things to do with their time or worry about, and that is perfectly fine.

Now that we have that out of the way, it is clear that indeed you don't understand file permissions at all. If you are writing to a folder on your desktop, that you have created yourself as the user this desktop is associated with, then you will not see any messages of any kind. The only reason this can happen is that, either you created the folder from a different user, or something is very wrong with your system. The first thing to do is to check the security properties of the folder you are talking about. Right-click on it, go to Properties, select the Security tab, and click on Advanced. Then go to the Permissions tab and check what permissions apply to the folder, and also go to the Owner tab, and check who the owner of the folder is. Feel free to report on your findings, and ask if you have more questions.

No normal Windows system will act this way, unless one of the above applies. You might say that "Windows is not an idiot"...

 

Folders which are protected.
C:\Program Files and subfolders
C:\Windows and subfolders
and C:\Users but not its contents.

 

Not really in love with 7, but I'm satisfied with it. It has its quirks sometimes, and it is an improvement over Vista SP2, but not enough for me to really see it as a new OS over Vista, especially if they share the same stuff. Sure the productivity is better in 7 with Aero Snap, but I haven't had drastic improvements over Vista in anything, battery, performance, etc, it's all really been minimal performance gains in my eyes. If it wasn't for that 30$ deal for students, I wouldn't have upgraded to 7 at all from Vista. But all in all 7 works wells, just like Vista did for me.

 

You implied that I didn't know what I was doing, you don't have to pretend to be sympathetic.

Anyway, I copied a file to a folder on a desktop, or copied the file just to the desktop and I got the same result.

This problem happened a while ago and I already worked around it, but I was merely stating that little annoyances like this really ticks me off. If something like this annoys me, how would an average joe handle this?

I don't see a reason why Windows7 have to enforce such impractical security measures. If a user doesn't know how to surf the net safely, nothing is gonna stop that computer from being compromised. The only people that these security features are hurting are the people who do know how to use a computer.

 

Windows doesn't impose such restrictions by itself; Pirx already stated that.

Either the install went bad somehow, or some tweaks messed it up.

Windows 7 doesn't have to enforce security measures: you can turn it off.

I don't know if you can do the same in OS/X though?