Win7 reviews
Jonah Falcon
My favorite:
Cult of Mac
"I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."
Benjamin Gawert
I like the quote from The Inquirer:
"Windows 7 is as pretty as Apple stuff, just as easy to use, and does
not treat you like a moron."
Benjamin
Tim O
Its a dude named Leigh. He needs to stop reviewing anything, get a
granola bar and go back to browsing the J Crew website and listening
to Phish in his queer ass Prius.
Read the comments on the full review. Even the Mac people are calling
him an asshole.
Gamer Goo
wrote:
Just a fun fact:
The percentage of consumer marketshare owned by Macs is suspciously
aligned with the total percentage of gays in the US.
Jellybean
A lot of the reviewers and the general public's perception of Vista is
so way off base that they just look like fools with their dumb comments
like "Win7 is the OS Vista should have been". There really is not all
that much different between current updated version of Vista and Win7.
The less annoying UAC level that is in Win7 can easily be added to Vista
with a 3rd party hack called TweakUAC. I have Win7 and it is decent but
for reviewers to make it look like Vista was shit and Win7 is the best
thing since sliced bread is just moronic.
Andrew
wrote:
>A lot of the reviewers and the general public's perception of Vista is
>so way off base that they just look like fools with their dumb comments
>like "Win7 is the OS Vista should have been". There really is not all
>that much different between current updated version of Vista and Win7.
>The less annoying UAC level that is in Win7 can easily be added to Vista
>with a 3rd party hack called TweakUAC. I have Win7 and it is decent but
>for reviewers to make it look like Vista was shit and Win7 is the best
>thing since sliced bread is just moronic.
Most peoples view of Vista seems based on their experiences of when it
shipped and them trying to run it on old hardware. Personally I have
been happy with Vista all along, I have just gone with 7 as I wanted
to go 64bit and it was cheap. People go on about how fantastic XP is,
I remember the real problems a lot of people had when it was released,
and even today it is still pretty bad, and I have to do tech support
on it daily at work.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Jellybean
> Most peoples view of Vista seems based on their experiences of when it
> shipped and them trying to run it on old hardware.
I think a good percentage of them never even ran Vista and made their
comments based on mainstream media reviews and nothing else.
Memnoch
I've been using Vista for over a year now and I've had no major problems with
it apart from an initial one, before SP1 was released. For some reason,
shortly after installation, it was not possible to view scheduled tasks. They
wouldn't run either and the only fixes on the MS forums were to re-install. I
took it off and went back to XP but when SP1 was released everything was
shiny!
Jonah Falcon
"Jellybean" <je...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:9kZEm.36036$cL1....@newsfe20.iad...
My view is that I've owned Vista from the start, and I'd like a new OS that
isn't such a memory hog.
Trimble Bracegirdle
experienced experts ;) a Darkly Comic spectacle.
VISTA is still in the Retail Comp. outlets sellers marketing
as 'Special'...'the Best Choice' & a Newish image.
Now 'They' have to explain why WIN 7 is also 'The Best' &
does poor Mr. & Ms Ordinary have to abandon there VISTA ?..
Microsoft has to say its great new Windows is not any better than it's older
one
while also saying it is.
The relatively quiet release of Win 7 IMO is very, very much about
not upsetting / confusing the poor masses. The plain style of WIN 7 name
versus colourful VISTA name is all part of that.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") mouse(Marketing Tricks Will Destroy The World)
PW
wrote:
>On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:06:12 -0400, "Jonah Falcon"
><jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>http://gizmodo.com/5387822/27-takes-on-windows-7
>>
>>My favorite:
>>
>>Cult of Mac
>>"I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."
>
>Its a dude named Leigh. He needs to stop reviewing anything, get a
>granola bar and go back to browsing the J Crew website and listening
>to Phish in his queer ass Prius.
J Crew? I bet he's a loyal Abercrombie and Fitch customer. You know,
the people that exploit kids for their catalogs.
Lou
"Jellybean" <je...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:9kZEm.36036$cL1....@newsfe20.iad...
I want to see a review on how it runs PC games, new and
old. How compatible.
Kory
wrote:
Can you be more specific? I've seen lots of reviews of Windows 7
benchmarks with games, so I'm inclined to think that's not what you're
referring to? In terms of compatibility if it runs on Vista it's
going to run on Windows 7, plain and simple. If it ran on XP and ran
on Vista it will run on Win7. If it ran on XP but had problems on
Vista (I'm not aware of any titles like that), it would likely have
problems on Win7 too. There weren't any fundamental architectural
changes that would break things, like the driver model introduced in
Vista.
Performance-wise, everything I've seen is the OS itself is a little
faster, a little better with memory management, and the overall
performance boost in games averages about 5-10%, but that really is an
average and can be higher or lower. I would expect that as more time
is spent on driver optimization for Windows 7 by vendor (alot of time
they allocate resources for that based on current marketshare rather
than projected, which is arguably stupid but they do it), it's
possible we could get much better than 5-10%.. I think drivers and
software were not optimized for Vista as far as they could have been,
because game companies thought "well half the gamers still run XP so
why spend a lot of time optimizing for it".
At least Windows 7 will be the reason many people finally get off of
XP which benefits us all. This will be the mainstream OS we all use
for the next 5 years or so... good computing times ahead :)
Jonah Falcon
(Okay, that's a word and a number).
Jonah Falcon
Win7.
Mark Morrison
wrote:
>Jonah Falcon wrote:
I meant that it worked out of the box - 2 years patching not needed to
make it work.
Vince
> Just a fun fact:
> The percentage of consumer marketshare owned by Macs is suspciously
> aligned with the total percentage of gays in the US.
So what?
noman
> I think the smartest thing Microsoft ever did was doing the open beta
> with Win7.
I have to agree. Considering that the biggest issue Win7 had to
overcome was the bad word of mouth attributed to Vista, when it was
vastly better than WinXP for years, MS made the right marketing moves.
They'll surely succeed in moving a lot of XP-holdouts and in general
improving the public perception.
As I have said before in this newsgroup many times, Vista x64 has been
the best gaming OS since Aug-Sep of 2007 (for ATI card owners) and Dec
2007 (for nVidia card owners), and Windows 7 (largely being Vista) will
easily build on that.
Anandtech's review concludes the same way,
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=3666
"7 vs. Vista
I�ve never been entirely convinced that Microsoft was looking to
significantly move away from Vista with Windows 7, and the final
release version has not changed that. Win7 certainly has a number of
new features, some of them such as the interface overhaul are even big
enough to be classified as �major�, but none of them are important
enough to be significant.
The analogy I�d like to use here to call Windows 7 Vista�s XP, but even
there the change from 2000 to XP was more significant. There are a
number of edge cases where this isn�t the case, but overall, in the
general case, Windows 7 just isn�t a significant change from Windows
Vista. The inclusion of more audio/video codecs is the only improvement
that I think most users are going to encounter and benefit from.
................................"
7 vs. XP
.........The vast majority of big improvements in Windows came with
Vista, not with Win7. Microsoft did fix some edge cases for Win7 such
as marginal performance and laptop battery life, but the dissent over
Vista went far beyond those edge cases. If your hardware didn�t work
under Vista, it still won�t under Win7. If you didn�t like UAC, you
still won�t like it under Win7. If you found XP to be snappier than
Vista even on a fast computer, then you�ll still find XP to be snappier
than Win7. At best, if your software didn�t work under Vista, it might
work under Win7 if you can put up with the Windows XP Mode virtual
machine.
So if Win7 succeeds where Vista failed, it�s going to be because of
marketing and word of mouth. It will be Microsoft convincing users that
Win7 is great before anyone can convince them otherwise, because if
that negative mindset were to set in, it can�t be erased no matter how
good any of the service packs are. Vista had its problems, but what
kept it down since SP1 was word of mouth much more than it was
technical issues for edge cases.
The one exception to this is netbook users, and as we didn�t get a
chance to test any netbooks, we�re not going to make any judgments. If
Microsoft has Win7 to the point where it performs comfortably on the
average netbook, then they�re going to be in a much better position
than if it crawls like Vista. In which case the bigger problem will be
weaning OEMs off of cheap XP licenses.
On a proper system, Vista has always been the better choice for
Windows. So our recommendation isn�t really changing here. If you�re
not on Windows Vista or Windows 7, you should be. XP has been outdated
for quite some time.........."
--
Noman
Tim O
> MaximumPC ran some benchmarks comparing XP,Vista and Win7:
>gaming mostly faster in XP.
I guess it's going to be all over the map. Gamespot ran tests and
Windows7 won most of them. XP won a single competition, and it was by
so much that it seemed like an aberration.
http://www.gamespot.com/features/6237831/index.html?tag=topslot;thumb;2
I've gone 64 bit and I'm not looking back. Windows 7 is the best
choice for me in that department now.
Dan Lingman
Lord of the Rings - Battle for Middle Earth. The damn copy protect just
would not work properly under vista 64 bit for me. I wound up with an XP
partition (for that, and a few other legacy bits that I still wanted to
talk to), but it installed, and runs fine under win 7 ultimate 64 bit.
(and yes, I've ran it past the point where the copy protect usually auto
kills the entire party)
It also fixed the adobe update problem that plagued my use of CS2 under
vista 64.
Dan.
Sleepy
"Beckett" <bec...@work.invlaid> wrote in message
news:jdvae5pn2osrc37as...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 23:52:02 -0400, Kory <kor...@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Performance-wise, everything I've seen is the OS itself is a little
>>faster, a little better with memory management, and the overall
>>performance boost in games averages about 5-10%,
>
> That's not what I saw recently. A website ran benchmarks comparing
> Win7 to Vista with games and Win7 has no advantage over Vista for
> gaming purposes. None, zilch, nada.
you may want to look at this then
http://www.hardcoreware.net/windows-7-vs-vista-performance-comparison/8/
it 'seems' that in some scenarios Windows 7 may give better performance
because its use of multicore CPUs is better
than Vista and XP.
Sleepy
"Jonah Falcon" <jonah...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:xIKdnf8SO-PZfHnX...@earthlink.com...
Well I've just upgraded from Vista Home Premium 32 to Win7 Home Premium 64
and my memory usage
has gone from 800mb to 1.2gb on bootup. So I had only 3.5Gb available and
now I have 4gb but I'm using up 400mb of that
for the privilege of having 64bit. Whoopee doo.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
>On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 11:25:55 -0000, "Vince" <vi...@nospam.co.uk>
>wrote:
>Nothing wrong with that, he was just saying. It does explain why all
>the Mac people have a penchant for sandles with black socks and care
>more about how tidy their desk area is than what's inside the Mac.
LOL! My main propeller head tech at work is also a petrol-head who loves
Cisco, Alfas and...Mac Osx. Should I be worried...? >8^D
--
Nostromo
Tim O
> gamespot ran tests and you believe them??? lol
>
>Maxi,umPC test lab results:
>
>http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0%2C3
>
>
>Legion
No more or less than anyone else. Everyone's hardware is different.
You apparently run the gutted pirate versions of all your games, so
the numbers of any of them might not even be applicable to you.
Elmer Fudd
> Well, it's managed a win for me in one respect.
>
> Lord of the Rings - Battle for Middle Earth. The damn copy protect just
> would not work properly under vista 64 bit for me.
Either because you installed it to programx86 folder, didn't run it as
admin or you never looked for an updated 64bit driver for the particular
CP it used.
Dan Lingman
news:mnAFm.5349$aD1....@newsfe19.iad:
Lets try - None of the above.
I'd had it installed on vista under c:\EA\lotr
Tried multiple varients of run as admin, (selected for all the executables
I could find), run in compatibility mode etc.
The forums there pretty much indicated that the CP just wouldn't work under
vista 64. I tried downloading the 64 bit versions from the CP vendor site,
but still no go. It did work under vista 32, but not 64.
Dan.
Elmer Fudd
> Lets try - None of the above.
>
> I'd had it installed on vista under c:\EA\lotr
>
> Tried multiple varients of run as admin, (selected for all the executables
> I could find), run in compatibility mode etc.
>
> The forums there pretty much indicated that the CP just wouldn't work under
> vista 64. I tried downloading the 64 bit versions from the CP vendor site,
> but still no go. It did work under vista 32, but not 64.
>
> Dan.
OK, what type of CP was it?
Sleepy
"Elmer Fudd" <e...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:ZDNFm.35449$eJ4....@newsfe07.iad...
just on this note - a whole bunch of people are playing the newly released
Russian
version of STALKER : Call of Pripyat on Windows 7 with ease because the
Starforce
copy protection used doesn't function on Windows 7. (they are the ones
claiming,
on the forum, that they have a Russian friend who posted them a copy)
Anssi Saari
> From MaximumPC labs:
>
> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/reviews/windows_7_review?page=0%2C3
It doesn't have much on old games and the benchmarking results are
variable, as usual. DirectX 10 is definitely a point in favor for
Windows 7, but I'm not sure of its significance today.
Interestingly, DirectX10 benchmarks show mostly faster results than
the same game with DirectX9, but they don't say if it was the same
benchmark.
Anyway, I don't see a compelling reason to upgrade right now. I'll
probably switch when games or apps start dropping XP support or
there's an otherwise significant reason.
rob
"Elmer Fudd" wrote...
The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy and
invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just described is as
good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll take less time mucking
around over a few frames per second anyday.
noman
> The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy
> and invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just
> described is as good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll
> take less time mucking around over a few frames per second anyday.
Problems happen for various reasons. Any time a game comes out, someone
would complain that it doesn't work on his PC, regardless of operating
system.
Vista x64 (and Windows 7 x64) is an immense improvement over WinXP x86.
One of the best things about Vista x64 is the WoW (Windows on Windows)
abstraction layer, that runs any 32 bit application without any issues
and without requiring a single additional step from user.
For what it's worth, LOTRO ran fine on my Vista x64 system. Didn't have
to do anything special.
--
Noman
Andrew
wrote:
>The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy and
>invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just described is as
>good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll take less time mucking
>around over a few frames per second anyday.
If you want to use a 8 year old buggy OS that is 2 DirectX versions
behind the current instead of a sleek reliable modern OS, that is up
to you, but I sure as hell can't see why anyone would.
--
Andrew, contact via http://interpleb.googlepages.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.
Spalls Hurgenson
>On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 21:44:57 +1300, "rob" <rob...@xtranope.co.nz>
>wrote:
>
>>The real question is who gives a fuck? OSs are supposed to be easy and
>>invisible. Having to go through the amount of crap just described is as
>>good a reason as any to have avoided Vista. I'll take less time mucking
>>around over a few frames per second anyday.
>
>If you want to use a 8 year old buggy OS that is 2 DirectX versions
>behind the current instead of a sleek reliable modern OS, that is up
>to you, but I sure as hell can't see why anyone would.
Actually, a major advantage for XP is its memory footprint is still
significantly less than Vista or Win7. Many games state a minimum RAM
requirement of 512MB on XP vs twice that for Vista.
The aforementioned compatibility is another reason to stay with XP.
However, running older programs on newer a OS has always been a
hobgoblin users have to face. There will always be some programs that
won't run well, or at all but Microsoft has been very good at
providing backward compatibility. Ultimately, I expect the whole
problem will be solved with virtualization; already DOSBox offers us a
awesome solution for most DOS-era games; hopefully in the near future
we'll get a virtualization solution with proper 3D-acceleration for
more modern applications.
Also, the "two DirectX versions behind" isn't really as big a problem
as it sounds. The DirectX API makes it easier for developers to
unleash the full potential of modern video adapters, but it is in no
way essential. Back when there were many competing brands of
video-cards, each with their own separate internal APIs, DirectX was a
necessary standard but these days -with only two real manufacturers
(ATI and Nvidia) to worry about- most programmers can get by with
DirectX9 plus any specific extensions they write themselves. That's
not to say modern versions of DirectX are worthless; far from it. But
it is a fallacious argument to claim that sticking with XP means they
are going to have significantly substandard graphics (I reminded of
Crysis, where practically all the "Dx10 effects" were later unlocked
for Dx9 users by hacking the config files)
Furthermore, while MS has made some strides with Vista (and apparently
Win7, although its really too early tell with the latter), a properly
patched XP is a stable platform. Security issues are a concern, but
common sense can deal with most of these (use a firewall, don't
download crapware, don't run as admin).
Ultimately, I expect I'll upgrade to Win7 myself -skipping Vista
entirely- but I don't see a compelling or urgent need to jump to the
new OS right away.
Dan Lingman
september.org:
I agree completely - it's why I jumped to vista 64 (and the win 7 64) as
soon as it had come out.
Not tried lotro, this was the older, single/multi player (not mmo)
strategy game I had been originally talking about.
Just installed the free xp mode virtual machine - it's a custom version
of virtual PC, and a free windows XP machine to run in it.
Cheers,
Dan.
Elmer Fudd
> Cult of Mac
> "I need to go wash my eyes out with bleach."
I despise Mac zealots and is reason enough for me to never buy a Mac.
Apples advertising is always BS too which rubs me the wrong way.
Elmer Fudd
> Actually, a major advantage for XP is its memory footprint is still
> significantly less than Vista or Win7. Many games state a minimum RAM
> requirement of 512MB on XP vs twice that for Vista.
Yes, but I have 4GB of ram on Win7 64bit and most games are hard coded
to use a max of 2GB so it is a non-issue. It will be be an issue for XP
users when there are many games that can use way more than 2GB of ram
but they won't be able to access it because the OS only has about 3.5GB
available to it once you subtract memory for hardware devices. On Win7
Home Premium 64bit I can install up to 16GB of ram and have it all
accessible.
Nostromo
Anno Domini:
The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?),
though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers,
are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...?
<G>
--
Nostromo
Spalls Hurgenson
It's more accurate to say that MacOS X is BSD-based, not Linux. More
precisely, it uses the Mach kernel, which was intended as a
replacement for the BSD kernel (although some current implementations
of BSD now also use the Mach kernel), with various other parts of BSD
Unix subsystems glommed onto Apple's own software.
It can't really be called a BSD OS, except as a distant derivative but
it is definitely closer to that implementation than Linux.
Which is all pedantic and irrelevant... but that's what Usenet is all
about so I won't apologize for the digression ;-)
Nostromo
01:52:17 -0400, Anno Domini:
That's right! I used to know that, but had forgotten it (like most things
Apple). I stand/sit re-educated - tx Spalls! ;)
--
Nostromo
noman
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> > Actually, a major advantage for XP is its memory footprint is still
> > significantly less than Vista or Win7. Many games state a minimum
> > RAM requirement of 512MB on XP vs twice that for Vista.
>
> Yes, but I have 4GB of ram on Win7 64bit and most games are hard
> coded to use a max of 2GB so it is a non-issue.
Actually a lot of 32-bit games are coded to never go beyond 1.3-1.4 GB
of usage, let alone 2GB. However since the operating system can cache
the game resources in the OS managed memory space (outside of the
application/game controlled area), playing 32bit games like Oblivion on
a 4GB machine with Vista x64 is *much* better than trying it even on a
3GB XP machine. A 4GB Vista x64 machine pretty much eliminates any
pause (loading screens) in Oblivion wilderness areas. While the game
gives up on an asset, the OS still keeps it in another RAM area, and
makes it available to the game when it's needed. That's also because
Vista's caching (SuperFetch) is a huge improvement over XP's prefetch
scheme.
By the way, Windows 7 SuperFetch is pretty much same as Vista's.
--
Noman
Scatter
> The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?),
> though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers,
> are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...?
MacOSX doesn't have any linux code in it (it would need to be open
source if it did). It's based on BSD.
I use linux a lot but don't consider it suitable as a mainstream OS
due to its constantly changing (often apparent change for changes
sake) nature - it's very mercurial which is why some IT support people
I know hate it with a passion.
Nostromo
09:39:50 GMT, Anno Domini:
>On 2009-11-01, Nostromo <nos...@forme.org> wrote:
>> The best thing about MacOsx is that it's built on a Linux core (Debian?),
>> though heavily butchered. :) But yes, Mac zealots, though few in numbers,
>> are a very legionary vocal minority. Hey, maybe there's something to it...?
>
>MacOSX doesn't have any linux code in it (it would need to be open
>source if it did). It's based on BSD.
BSD is open source last I checked. So, it's open source, it's Unix, I wasn't
that far off! ;-p
>I use linux a lot but don't consider it suitable as a mainstream OS
>due to its constantly changing (often apparent change for changes
>sake) nature - it's very mercurial which is why some IT support people
>I know hate it with a passion.
Apart from security patches (something you get a lot less of than Windoze!),
you need only install very few core changes in the OS over a 2-3 year
period, compared to 100s/1000s of from 'tweaks' to service packs for Win.
Can't comment on MacOSX updates though.
Have you tried Ubuntu as yet perhaps?!
--
Nostromo
Schrodinger
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:05:46 -0700, Jellybean <je...@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> A lot of the reviewers and the general public's perception of Vista is
>> so way off base that they just look like fools with their dumb comments
>> like "Win7 is the OS Vista should have been". There really is not all
>> that much different between current updated version of Vista and Win7.
>> The less annoying UAC level that is in Win7 can easily be added to Vista
>> with a 3rd party hack called TweakUAC. I have Win7 and it is decent but
>> for reviewers to make it look like Vista was shit and Win7 is the best
>> thing since sliced bread is just moronic.
>
> Most peoples view of Vista seems based on their experiences of when it
> been happy with Vista all along, I have just gone with 7 as I wanted
> to go 64bit and it was cheap. People go on about how fantastic XP is,
> I remember the real problems a lot of people had when it was released,
> and even today it is still pretty bad, and I have to do tech support
> on it daily at work.
I am pretty impressed by 7 so far - admittedly, I bought a new hard
drive and did a clean install of the 64 bit - but it just gets on with
stuff that would normally need a net search and some messing (i.e.
driver updates etc.).
The one problem I had with my SB Audigy 4 ended up solving itself after
I BSODd whilst installing the latest Creative Driver. After reboot it
downloaded something else without complaining and now it works perfectly
(so far)!
As far as I could tell it didn't even need to reboot after a Gcard
Driver update.
The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window thing
when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting somewhere or did
it get removed because it's pointless?
KCB
"Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
news:SszJm.11691$TK7....@newsfe18.ams2...
Maybe it works the same as Vista:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Using-Windows-Flip-3D
Shawk
> "Schrodinger" <n...@way.com> wrote in message
> news:SszJm.11691$TK7....@newsfe18.ams2...
>>
>> The only thing I want to do now is have that fancy floating window thing
>> when you alt-tab that was in Vista - is that a setting somewhere or did it
>> get removed because it's pointless?
>
> Maybe it works the same as Vista:
> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Using-Windows-Flip-3D
Its not there anymore. Having owned both OS's I can say I believe it
was dropped because it was completely pointless and was never used after
the day of installation. The new way of looking at open windows in Win7
is much better IMHO.
Shawk
...and then he tries an experiment and finds he is talking from a lower
orifice. Press the Windows key and then tab....
Sheldon England
They dropped alt-tab? :o
I use it. A lot.
Or did they just drop some fancy effect and retain the function?
- Sheldon, still an XP luddite
Shawk
No - they improved alt-tab. Its my preference still... :)
Andrew
wrote:
>...and then he tries an experiment and finds he is talking from a lower
>orifice. Press the Windows key and then tab....
Good find, thanks :-)
Sheldon England
> Sheldon England wrote:
>
>> They dropped alt-tab? :o
>
> No - they improved alt-tab. Its my preference still... :)
Phew! Okay ... had me worried for a bit there.
Thanks for clarifying.
- Sheldon