Really disappointed that this wasn’t addressed before the launch. Vertical columns allows quick access, monitoring and glance friendly visibility.

I appreciate the underlying adjustments sometimes requires some functionality to change, but to me this looks like a quick finish to a feature that should have been more complete.

I’ll subscribe to this thread in the hope of some future good news.

I’ll also be praying for the return of a dock-able, task bar that maximised windows can stop at – again for the purposes of an always visible area that doesn’t sit on top of other things.

I certainly welcome the improvements, but accept them with a half smile through the knowledge that they are often balanced with seemingly nonsensical and unnecessary shortcomings.

Windows 7 looked oddly attractive to me when I downloaded a third party look-a-like theme for Vista but seen as all the functionalities that I love about the existing start bar appear to be gone, I don’t need to bother upgrading seen as the only feature I like from Windows 7 I can get for free and already have.

If I wanted icons rather than a description and large icons for programs I’d prefer to start learning how to use a Mac OS =] I used Windows because it was familiar, if I have to relearn Windows why not migrate to an opperating system that seems to remain relatively similar and more importantly fixes what is broken and doesn’t make more things that need fixing.

The above article states that the taskbar height in Vista as 30px.

However, in practice, I’ve found it to be 32px (perhaps its because I have re-sized my screen from its native resolution to 1400×900?)

In any case, this is important for me as I always create my wallpapers to the available visible real estate (i.e. every pixel above the task bar, hence, my default canvas for wallpapers are 1400×868 –> thus my calculation for a 32px Vista taskbar height).

At any rate, what is W7’s exact taskbar height? 30px or 32px (if it is exactly the same as Vista in my experience).

Thanks!

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.

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.