Windows 7 Team Improves Speed of Start Button

joy, i still think windows xp is better and windows 7 is nothing but microsoft's effort to put lipstick on vista pig and shake us all for more money because their stock price has fallen off the cliff since it's high.

jsloanjoy, i still think windows xp is better and windows 7 is nothing but microsoft's effort to put lipstick on vista pig and shake us all for more money because their stock price has fallen off the cliff since it's high.
Stop your trolling, you post the same crap on every Windows 7 article. We get it, you will be sticking with an aging OS.

It is good that they are doing such detailed investigations and fixes. Here is hoping that UAC gets a bit more of this, such as a more intelligent version of UAC that is directly linked to anti-virus software. The truth is that UAC is a worthless device with the exception of self propogating virus's that somehow lauch themselves silently. When you click something and want it to run, that little reminder is just going to be clicked yes every time. Thus, unless windows comes back and says that the file is a virus, everyone just clicks yes.

Current UAC

Are you sure you want to run program you downloaded from internet?
Yes
Are you sure you want to run program that is unsigned/signed?
Yes
Program wants to make changes to your system, do you want to allow it access?
Yes
Program wants access to the internet, Allow once, always allow, block?
always allow

There is no ability to make that file permanantly click and use. First, through infinity times you click that file it goes through the same
UAC steps, and the only part that is not is the access to internet. Thus UAC is a constant nag that never learns a thing.

What I think a good UAC would be like.

Windows recognises that actual mouse hardware clicks were used to click the download file as well as to initialize the start of said file and then refers to anti-virus software to see if any action needs to take place.

No virus, no popup.
Virus, popup.

While not perfect, there are also heuristic virus scans that look for virus type activities of files to decide if there is a new unbranded virus present.

It can, as an option selected by user in settings, warn that a file is an installation type as compared to a run type. Instead of saying system changes, it would say install software. Settings could even be setup to warn for specific system changes. Such as, adding files to start launch menu, or to registry, or any other bootup sequence database, giving some actual information to the user as to what the file is actually doing. Then I would actually welcome a popup. Once the popup is intialized the system should then allow the user to select check marks as to how to handle this file in the future.

Here is another idea for a really good way to cut back on virus'. Have windows run a virtual version of itself during installations. Put an icon on the desktop or taskbar once the virtual installation is completed, the user then has a chance to verify that they like the installation and can click the taskbar icon to either have that virtualization deleted or appended to windows. Any virus would only be in a virtual windows that once shut down would be gone forever. So, as long as the virtual windows installation is secure from the actual windows, there would be no chance of a virus getting free because a click on the delete installation or a simple reboot would wipe the virtualized virus off the system.

These things add actual security, give actual information to the user, and are valued added, as compared to what UAC does now, which is give every user a terrible spouse in the form of a computer that constantly nags you as to what you are doing.

Cuddos for Microsoft working on the details, now to see them move that detail oriented thinking into where it is going to matter most for people who will not use Vista, because Windows 7 as it stands is just Vista with a couple curtains and blinds installed over the windows.

While I like Windows 7 alright, I have to partially agree with Stoner... I definitely like 7 more than Vista, but it really lacks any real innovation. I recently wrote MS (probably uselessly) in a feedback that I don't understand how 7 warrants the money to uprade from Vista, assuming it's the same price as Vista upgrades/ full editions are. I'm not a Mac lover, but since literally being forced to buy one for school, I've come to appreciate OS X. QuickLook lets me hit the space bar for an almost instant preview of a file. Time Machine, while not exactly full-featured backup, is painless to use and pretty intuitive. Expose is an excellent alternative windows management method.

So what does Windows 7 have over Vista? Aero Peek? Ok that's kinda nice. Little tweaks here and there, but my enthusiasm for Windows 7 has seriously waned since I first installed it because it does seem to be simply a fresh coat of paint. There is no innovative feature that says "this will increase your productivity, or your entertainment while using this OS." It's a lighter weight system, and I'm sure many will appreciate that, but they need to update it a heck of a lot more than that to convince me to spend a couple hundred dollars to upgrade. In that way Stoner's likening it to a service pack is actually very accurate, I think.

Anyway, I don't want to rant, and I like Windows 7. But it kills me that they're parading this as a brand new OS. For XP users, sure charge the full amount. But especially for Vista users, how could this possibly be worth more than $50 for an upgrade?