One of the most obvious changes you’ll see when you first boot into Windows 7 is the new taskbar dubbed the “superbar”. Most people like it, some don’t, but I think overall its a large improvement over that little strip of screen real estate which has not had a major renovation since Windows XP.
For some users, one hurdle of the new “superbar” is its enormous size, or so it appears. To set the record straight, I conducted a little side-by-side experiment with two quick-launch items and two active applications on both Vista and Windows 7. Together with a measuring tape in one hand and a magnifying glass in the other, I counted. Soon enough, I grew impatient and resorted to Photoshop instead. Here’s how they measured up.
In conclusion, some interesting findings. The Windows Start “pearl” button actually shrunk by about 8 pixels. Quick launch items are given more than twice the width and three times the width with Windows 7’s small and large icons respectively. Application buttons have relatively remain unchanged from Vista (and do not change in width with small icons), at the same time appearing much more elegant.
In summary, if you want a taskbar experience as close to Vista as possible in terms of real-estate, then enabling “small icons” will get you there. On the other hand, the default “large icons” won’t kill you either. In fact, if you don’t pin anything to the taskbar, then you’ll only lose 2 pixels per application whilst gaining 8 pixels from the Start button. What will you ever do with all those extra pixels.
61 Comments
MJ
First!
I always wanted to do that.
Anyway, Why won’t they put back the rounded corners? They’re so much better.
Rob Cannon
I am not a big fan of the new task bar, so far. It’s hard to tell what icons are for open windows and which ones are just to start apps. Maybe that will be better in the beta.
But I HATE what they have done to the start menu search text box. I used to be able to type a couple of characters and train the start menu to know what I mean. For instance, type SQL (assuming you have SQL Server installed). The first time it will show SQL Configuration Manger (not what I want), and then I cursor down and select SQL Management Studio. From then on, typing SQL will result with SQL Management Studio as the first selection. A great time server and it has become a critical feature for me.
Windows 7 (at least the PDC build) does not seem to do this anymore. This ommission alone lead me to repave my laptop and go back to Vista.
SinNiji
I really hated the space between icons in small view.
Hope they change it.
p
“that little strip of screen real estate which has not had a major renovation since Windows XP”
How has the XP taskbar been ‘renovated’ from that of 98 except the useless ‘group similar taskbar button’ and the endlessly confusing tray notification management?
; )
Long Zheng
@p: Personally I find “group similar taskbar buttons” very useful
CalumJR
I think the new taskbar is amazing! In fact, I’d appreciate it if they let us have icons larger than you currently can in Windows 7. Nonetheless, the new taskbar looks and functions amazingly. It’s even better when you turn labels off in the taskpane
(they’re shown in the tumbnails…)
Sibbl
Finally there’s someone who summarizes the facts about the “superbar”! Thank you for doing this.
The only thing I hate is the fact that there’s a lot of wasted space above and below the tray icons … When you drag the taskbar to the left or right there are two columns of tray icons … But if the taskbar is on the top or bottom there’s only one row … So there’s enough space, why does the MS team doesn’t use it? It’s a possibility to save more space on the taskbar.
E.g. I don’t like the idea of the missing tray icon of the new Live Messenger. You always have the big icon in the taskbar although you don’t have opened a conversation… That’s waste of space.
CalumJR
@Long: I also find that useful and don’t know how I’d live without it to be honest. Even with that, in Windows XP and Windows Vista, the taskbar can still become cluttered. Windows 7’s taskbar, in its default settings is so tidy and looks very nice.
Nicko
Up a bit late, eh Long?
tino
Thank you for doing this little research
Not to mention that you save space because pinned items become there own Taskbar buttons once started.
I just wish that we were able to minimize all windows of an app by clicking the Taskbar button a second time even in the new default mode with grouped buttons.
Nicko
Hey Long, do you reckon I’ll be able to fit the Win7 superbar in okay?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/widerangle/3167172062/sizes/l/
Darn. Doesn’t Flickr store the original size anymore (it’s 2560px btw, lol)?
DG
44px for “quick launch” icons in case of “small icons & labels”… way too much empty space.. It just looks ugly.
gary
you didn’t compare vista with large icons and labels.
i autohide a double width taskbar, large icons with quick launch and links on the bottom and tasks on the top. so, the size doesn’t bother me too much. but the size of vista’s and win7’s icons does. whether on the desktop or taskbar, they’re just too big, especially when compared to the icon size in xp, i am talking about the entire selection, not just the icon picture. why does the icon background have to be so big in vista / win7?
bradey
I think the super bar is 100% a step in theright direction. And there are a few little things needed to be changed, im sure microsoft will manage to fix them before windows 7 is out.
im stoooked on windows 7.
Mark
It would be easy to differentiate program shortcut icons from open program icons if Microsoft employs the same approach that they took in the Quick Launch and System Tray portions of the Taskbar in XP & Vista. Using this approach, there would be an Expand/Collapse button next to the Start button and another next to the Clock on the Taskbar. Open program icons would reside in the System Tray by the Clock and program shortcut icons would reside in the Quick Launch by the Start button. To view these icons, the user would simply click on the appropriate Expand button next to the Start button or Clock. The icon options to “Always Hide”, “Always Show” & “Hide When Inactive” could be configured by the user as per current practice by right clicking the Taskbar and selecting Properties. I would also like to see a user configurable option to make the background of the “Super Taskbar” transparent. I believe that the desktop would look very clean if the above recommendations are incorporated into Windows 7.
CalumJR
@Mark:
There is already a clear distinction between shortcuts and open programs – they clearly have a very nice border around the program icons which are currently running.
I don’t like your suggestions of more expand and collapse options and all this. What is wrong with teh current default configuration? It is tidy and neat.
I also like the combination of ‘quick launch’ and running instances together as it is.
Andrew Banks
I think this is a clear case of you cant win them all, I think the problem for most people is that the new taskbar is different and as a culture we do not accept change lightly, but from what I gather the new car runs more efficiently and faster than Vista so it in turn will be worthwhile getting used to it. Dont knock it until you have tried it, and I mean really try it.
Mark
@ CalumJR:
I didn’t realize that there will be a border around the icons for programs that are running. Thanks for the clarification. I still believe that commingling program shortcut icons with open program icons will take some getting used to. Visually, I still like the idea of using the Quick Launch & System Tray approach, but that is just my opinion. I am open to new things and will give Windows 7 a try when the public beta opens. It is unfair for me to pass judgment until I have given the new OS a whirl so to speak.
Have a happy & peaceful 2009,
Mark
Michael
Looks good but I just don’t get why is there such a huge gap between the quick launch icons? Damn, I hope they’ll change that.
asf
Its way to big for my taste, the way it should be: http://bayimg.com/image/jamgiaabm.jpg
David Washington
@Rob Cannon
Sorry about the frustration with the start search behavior. This is a known bug with the PDC build. Thanks much for your feedback.
Regards,
David Washington
Microsoft
DeathSeeker
Pixels used in Vista: 13,470
Pixels used for the same task in 7: 20,200
Pixels wasted by increasing the size: 6,730
Functionality gained by increasing the size: None
That’s sure looks like a step in the right direction. :-/
Ben
um, maybe some people forgot that windows 7 is being designed with touch in mind. Therefore the “wasted space” makes sense, especially if you ever tried jabbing a little tiny icon with your fat fingers. Sure, a lot of people won’t use touch, and perhaps we should be able to choose between “wide” and “skinny.” However, i think if you don’t used text labels (MS is pushing visual identification of windows) then you save a lot more horizontal space.
Joseph
I thought the open applications were going to just be shown with a big icon and it opens a menu or something… Hold on, on second thought. I’m totally confused haha. So I’m taking that you turned on the labels manually, that’s why it is similar to Vista’s representation of an open application?
You should write a post on everything about the “superbar” now. Forget the size hahaha.. Wait maybe you did already; now I have to go search..
RC
I like a lot of the ideas in the Win 7 taskbar, I just think that when it comes down to the little details (spacings, etc.) that there might be a somewhat better version of the same thing that they’re not using.
Chad
Long, do you use Firefox, or Internet Explorer?
Long Zheng
@Chad: I use Firefox 3 almost exclusively.
Win7
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/01/05/warning-windows-7-beta-could- corrupt-your-mp3s
So much for Win7 Beta 1 build 7000 or should it be called Vista SP2/Mojave.
someone
I like the new taskbar however what was grouping in XP and Vista is now combining and grouping is different. “Combining” is vertical grouping when taskbar is cluttered (which I prefer) instead of “grouping” (horizontal grouping together of same app windows) whose behavior I haven’t been able to customize in Windows 7 and would like to change so that the newest window appears at the farthest end.
It’s not a question of better or worse, just preference. Has the IE team removed the ability to disable tab grouping (not combining)? Why the taskbar then?
Also, the new Start menu is certainly a step forward overall but still does not:
- Utilize valuable screen space requiring needless vertical scrolling (cascaded menus weren’t better but they made use of available screen space)
- Offer Shift+click to retain the menu to launch more than 1 program. Now its Start => Program 1, Start => Program 2. Shift + Click opens in Admin mode instead now. Have they forgotten Ctrl?
- Is designed primarily for searching, inconvenient for mouse-only users.
Leeisl
One bug in a “beta” leaked through unverifiable means and people are already lining up to call it a failure.
The world makes less and less sense every day.
CalumJR
@someone:
The new ’start’ menu navigation introduced in Windows Vista is designed for ‘mouse-only’ users as well as other users. All you have to do is organise your ’start’ menu shortcuts into folders.
This makes it much more organised, easier to find things and quicker to find programs.
Doing this also means you don’t have to scroll. I don’t even have to scroll at all the way I organise it.
Therefore, I ask, why do you say such things? Just because your ’start’ menu must be cluttered and un-organised, you can’t blame Microsoft (even though I suppose they do put all of their shortcuts in the ’start’ menu without putting them in folders :S).
Virgil Clay
MS is wasting precious screen real estate so they can say they did something. So Win7 is designed to be used with touch? Yeah, that’ll really take off. I remember when the light pen came out for the Apple ][ and people predicted it would replace the mouse. They failed to realize that after about 5 minutes of working with a lightpen, your hand starts to cramp horribly. MS is once again “fixing” what isn’t broken, refusing to fix what is broken, and wasting the talents of the world’s best computer programmers. I still see no reason to upgrade from XP.
Rob
Measuring a few pixels here and there is not the issue with the new taskbar. It’s just outright ugly and awkward looking. Bad design. The Start Orb is no longer special..it just blends in with all the other icons. Toss in too-large icons (default view), horrible spacing, and the odd way that running vs. non-running apps are differentiated from, and you have quite a mess. It looks like one of those fan mockups you see on the web.
Nick Carchidi
I think everyone could use a little bit more screen real estate. Windows 7 is looking better and better each day.
Excellent post Long — Thanks!
Sterling
I’m looking forward to the new taskbar. When Windows 7 comes out, I’m buying a new computer with a bigger monitor (17″ flat panel right now) so I think haven’t the “superbar” in its default side won’t be an issue, and I actually think the “superbar” with small icon looks kind of “weird.”
No labels either, just icons.
Horseradish
On all but my laptop (with its limited screen resources), I’ve been using double-height taskbars in both XP and Vista; both versions do a nice job of consolidating task icons as well as quick launch buttons in the increased real estate, as well as providing a richer time display (by adding day & date).
@Long:
Would you be willing to repeat your analysis with this permutation? (I don’t have access to 7, or I’d do it myself)
Kevin
I used to be a real stickler for every extra pixel I could squeeze out of my screen space. I eventually realized that 10 pixels in either direction does absolutely nothing for my productivity. We’re in the age of 1680×1050 laptops and 1920×1080 desktops, so I really doubt losing 10 pixels of vertical space is going to actually do anything but make a bunch of curmudgeons whine.
Phil
@ someone
I understand what you mean by having problems with too much vertical scrolling in the start menu (i have the same problem) . The easiest fix would be to just make to start menu tall enough for your needs. (right click taskbar,properties,start menu,customize and increase the number of recent programs displayed.
@sibbl
i read at winsupersite that if you want messenger as a tray icon you would need to search for ‘msnmsgr’ right-click then properties, compatibility, then run in compatibility mode for windows vista.
Brad
Pixel real-estate is cheaper than ever!
But the important thing is that the superbar looks much shinier than Windows Vista’s taskbar…
Mmmmmm… Shiny…
Pissed off Windows user and IT
I for one am sticking to Windows XP…vista just really doesn’t work for me…all it does is eat memory and slow things down.
CalumJR
@Pissed off Windows user and IT:
What about Windows 7? It is much snappier and faster than Windows Vista. In fact, a blogger on ZDNet did some benchmarks compared to Windows XP and Windows 7 beat it
Not to mention all of the amazing features and user interface.
Windows XP looks like some kids Fischer Price toy…
Paul
@Long: Do you/would you use Windows 7 as your primary OS in it’s current state?
ikyouCrow
@DeathSeeker:
well buddy, i’d like to see you use multitouch in the previous layout.
Long Zheng
@Paul: I don’t use Windows 7 as my primary OS, bad idea to begin with. I dual-boot it on my laptop only to experiment with. I’d only use it full-time at RTM.
Frank
“all it does is eat memory ”
Because memory is only good if you don’t use it, right?
Nate
@Virgil Clay:
“Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.”
Nate
@DeathSeeker:
What exactly are you measuring? By default, the items in the taskbar under Windows 7 don’t have labels. Also, by default, the items are always grouped. I find it hard to see how any number of items would take more space under Windows 7 than Vista, unless you’ve changed the default behavior by showing labels and turning off grouping.
Javaman
The engineering team should remove “start” from CLASSIC THEME.
ORCACommander
everything is great except the new quick launch size. I prefer the denser quick launch where I could have 3 frequently used programs in the same space new quick launch takes with 2. If it stays this way I hope they have a feature that will let you adjust it.
Thobtzckmalm
@Javaman
Where the hell do you find the Classic Start menu in 7 ?!? Otherwise 7 looks neat – once you got all the uhm…services stopped, the send feedback button out and the test info on the desktop removed. But beware of changing processor accelerator drivers. Screws the system, you have to do a repair and your MS Office is all gone. Funny – Nero, AVG and all the Non-MS-Apps are not touched by a system repair – only Office.
ups
Interesting review on the taskbar.
All the empty space seems strange and in incongruence with the idea of “saving space” “show more information”.
I would love to find a way to tweak those distances…
Loren Segal
Hey guys. Keep in mind that if you think you’re wasting too much horiz. space you can actually bring back the old quicklaunch and ignore pinned icons altogether..
Just right click on the taskbar and add the Quick Launch (or any directory) as a “New Toolbar…” (in Toolbars).
I wrote about it on my blog http://gnuu.org/2009/01/11/windows-7-quicklaunch-the-rumors-of-my-deat h/
DeathSeeker
@ikyouCrow (First note: nothing in the taskbar uses multitouch.) It’s harder to touch things in the new taskbar because the horizontal width is sometimes less than half what is use to be. The taskbar use to be 30 pixels and anything above 23 pixels works perfectly fine with touch. Plus being at the bottom of the screen you’d need less room for error because it’s not possible to accidentaly click anything below cause your screen end at the taskbar.
@Nate, Measured with labels as in pictures. XP groups things by default, that’s not new to 7 or even Vista. All the wasted space is because it’s a third taller than in Vista; unneededly. Disabling labels is useless, it does nothing but causes empty space and provides less information. In default Windows 7 if you have seven windows open you end up wasting half your screen with empty space. But with any other version of the taskbar that empty space is used to with title text. This would be a problem with more windows open but: In a default Vista build 15 open windows will take the same amount of horizontal space as in Windows 7 because they get small when needed in the old taskbar.
ikyouCrow
@DeathSeeker:
it is a lot easier to touch a 32×32 icon with your index finger than it is a 23px high bar. you can try this with a tablet and stylus if you like. i have and i can tell you big square is always easier to hit quickly than short rectangle.
i understand your argument about less horizontal width but the way you propose the scenario, you are always located at that 30px high region and moving horizontally. that’s like saying a horizontal 12 button toolbar is easier to navigate than say a 2×6 layout.
at the end of the day the new default (always combine, no labels) allows you to cram more onto the taskbar in the same space by creating tiers. it’s a ribbon for the application switching.
DeathSeeker
#1 In both XP and Vista grouping is enabled by default. I don’t know why anyone bring this up as a new space saving feature to Windows 7.
#2 The old taskbar size varies between 30*160 and 30*40. There is no way a reasonable person wouldn’t find touching a screenedge element at that size easy.
#3 The new taskbar does NOT allow you to store more things. The old way dynamicly adjusted to fit when more windows where opened. Example: http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6052/taskbarjz8.png Here’s 20 open windows in Vista(Notepads the only thing I can run this many times and have a usable computer, just pretend those are all different programs), see how the old taskbar looks just like the current now? That’s because it’s only small ||when needed|| Plus! If you did that in 7 you’d have overflow because they’re always 60 pixels wide. That 20 pixels increase in width(when compared to a full Vista taskbar) means 33% LESS items fit on the taskbar in 7 compared to Vista.
#4 Disabling labels doesn’t save space, it creates empty space. There’s a big differance.
ikyouCrow
#1 i for one am a firm believer in if you have it, use it. it definitely applies here with the empty space on the taskbar. while disabling labels creates empty space, this is space you can use to put more things in front for quicker access.
the taskbar does allow you to store more things. sure you can achieve the same effect with XP and Vista, but because of that extra horizontal space you can save, you can do things like add a bunch of folders to the taskbar for easy access.
example: http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/8120/alwayscombinetaskbarfolsk9.png
of course in my example, my monitor is 24″ so it might not look like much but imagine someone with less screen real estate, being able to squeeze more items into a smaller space is a plus. #2 as for your touch argument, you don’t have to touch the edge of the screen to get at the taskbar items if it is set to double height, whether it is XP, Vista or 7. it is easier to touch these since they are larger and further away from the screen edge. i purposefully used large icons to demonstrate (with the raised chevrons) how much easier it would be to expand the mounted folders using fat fingers.
DeathSeeker
You’re not getting the point still. There are NO repeat NO repeat again NO circumstances where the Windows 7 taskbar gives you more room for windows or folders than in Vista. Even with 9 windows open, 4 others pinned, and 6 toolbar folders; you’re STILL wasting a full 20% of your taskbar with empty space. In Vista that was used AND the icons in Vista get SMALLER, /when needed/ than the ones in Windows 7. See how with a few Windows open the space is used? http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/8323/pointlessnesszk8.png And with more Windows open you have things the same as they are in 7? But 33% smaller? I can fit the same amount of Windows with a 1280 pixel wide monitor in Vista as you can with 1920 on Windows 7.
Repeating this again. You’re NOT saving space by disabling text. Windows 7 ALWAYS wastes more space and ALWAYS fits less windows. http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/8046/12409343on2.png
You said yourself that 32*32 was fine for touch(Vista has them between 30*160 and 30*40). And if you knew the basic of touch, which it seems you don’t. Making things larger is NOT the point. As Microsoft states “The goal isn’t to have giant controls—just easily touchable controls.” The thing that makes touch not easy in most cases is accidentaly touching things on one of the wrong sides of the control. Being at the edge of the screen makes it so you CAN NOT mistouch on one side. Which means you don’t need as large of controls as you do on other screen elements.
ikyouCrow
i don’t recall saying that you need giant controls to facilitate touch, but the fact that giant controls are already easier to hit (i’m only using giant here because you did; keeping trend), and also giant taskbar controls are just easier to access without hitting the edge of the screen. you would also discover that when you have a touch screen connected to a Windows 7 machine, the padding around all clickable elements are automatically expanded to prevent said accidental wrong side touching (sounds dirty). i don’t think this padding is actually touchable, and it seems to be a new consideration put into the default taskbar layout. just look at the padding on the not-running applications.
and what’s the problem with empty space? i still don’t see how you can view empty space as wasted space when clearly it is space that’s available. condensed information/accessability presentation, and some people also think that empty spaces are aesthetically pleasing. next you’re going to tell me that disabling the desktop icons and putting the desktop on my taskbar is just crazy.
AndrewLGP
This might have been mentioned in the comments but there is no quick launch section in the Windows 7 taskbar. Because the quick launch section is a part of the application section of the new taskbar.
jtdjhd
the large icons would be helpful if u are using a touchscreen, since they are easier to press
hry3w
i think the worst part of Windows 7 is the start menu, i want XP start menu back or the classic start menu!
Leave a Reply
Dew Drop - January 4, 2009 | Alvin Ashcraft's Morning Dew
[...] Measuring Up Windows 7’s New “Super” Taskbar (Long Zheng) [...]
Windows 7 - discussione ufficiale - Pagina 134 - Forum di Tom's Hardware Italia
[...] trovato sul sito di Long Zheng questo articolo a proposito della Superbar: Measuring up Windows 7’s new “super” taskbar – istartedsomething Mi sembra evidente che non poi cos drammatica l’altezza della Superbar rispetto a quella [...]
DeskMundo » Taskbar do Vista x SuperBar do Seven
[...] Postado na(s) categoria(s) Windows 7 Imprimir este post O site istartedsomething fez uma interessante comparação entre a Barra de tarefas (taskbar para ser mais [...]
TaskBar Vista X Se7en « WindowsART
[...] « Utopia Wallpaper TaskBar Vista X Se7en 5 05UTC Janeiro 05UTC 2009 O site istartedsomething fez uma interesante comparação entre a taskbar do vista e a “superbar” do [...]
TecnoNew - The New Generations Of Technology » Blog Archive » Taskbar do Vista vs SuperBar do Seven
[...] Web Site IstartedSomething interessante comparação entre a barra de tarefas (taskbar) do Vista com a chamada “SuperBar” [...]
A nova barra de tarefas do Windows 7, saiba mais sobre ela! « Connection Life
[...] Fonte: istartedsomething [...]
Taskleisten im Vergleich - die “Superbar” in Windows 7 | Windows Vista Blog
[...] Zheng vergleicht in seinem Artikel “Measuring up Windows 7’s new “super” taskbar” die Größen der Elemente der Taskleisten in Windows Vista und Windows 7. Unter Windows 7 [...]
WrapUp: Firefox Considered Most Vulnerable App, Windows 7 Performance, and More
[...] Windows 7 Taskbar vs. Vista Taskbar in Pixels The Windows 7 Taskbar looks like it’s bigger than the Taskbar we’re used to seeing in Vista, but is it? There is a small icons mode which is actually the same size (30px high) as Vista, but Windows 7 also offers a large icons mode (40px high). That means you don’t have to give up the extra space to large icons unless you really want to. [...]
Newly Noted #1 | Patrick Verbruggen's Blog
[...] Measuring up Windows 7’s new “super” taskbar: Long Zhen compares the Windows 7 taskbar to the current Windows Vista one. [...]
Measuring up Windows 7’s new “super” taskbar - istartedsomething | WinSe7en
[...] but it’s not all that much bigger with the large icons present. See the original post at: Measuring up Windows 7’s new “super” taskbar – istartedsomething Tags: Features, Taskbar Categories: WebLinks Views: 0 views Posted By: Joe Last Edit: 07 [...]
Geral PC » Blog Archive » Comparando a Superbar do Windows 7 com a Barra de tarefas do Vista
[...] Zheng fez uma comparação bastante detalhada das barras de tarefas dos Windows 7 e Vista. Não só em relação à espessura, mas também dos [...]
Windows 7 speriamo bene « sALVO pINELLA
[...] Altre informazioni su : istartedsomething, [...]
Windows 7 QuickLaunch: "The Rumors of My Death…" // connect nothing, f. cried
[...] supposedly "superior". Better yet, by using the old QuickLaunch, I even get back all that wasted horizontal space that comes with the pinned [...]
Windows 7 experience | Patrick Verbruggen's Blog
[...] die-hard. I hardly ever use the Start menu, 95% of the apps I use are on the Quick Launch bar. The Win7 taskbar is a bit bigger, so you can’t get as many icons on it, but as soon as you’ve launched a couple of apps, it does [...]
Comparativa: Taskbar Windows 7 VS. Windows Vista « Windows 7 - Blog no oficial
[...] istartedsomething Escrito en SuperBar, Windows [...]