Windows

Peek behind the GodMode curtains to reveal useful canonical names and GUIDs

Greg Shultz discusses the Control Panel canonical names of Windows 7 and shows you how to use them to create shortcuts to your favorite items.

In last week's blog post, "Exert Your Control with GodMode Folders in Windows 7," I discussed a few of the so-called "GodMode" folders in Windows 7. As I mentioned in that post, Windows 7's GodMode folders are simply special folders that are hidden until you enter a special, secret code.

Well, it turns out that the latter part of that sentence is only half true. The special folders are indeed hidden until you enter a special code, but the codes aren't really secret.

Apparently all Windows 7 and Windows Vista Control Panel items have what is called a canonical name and an associated GUID (the infamous "special codes"). In this context, Microsoft describes a canonical name as being a nonlocalized string that the Control Panel item declares in the registry. A GUID, or Globally Unique Identifier, is a special type of identifier that is unique in any context, which Microsoft uses to provide an internal access point to Control Panel items.

In last week's post, I used the GUIDs to create folders that provided access to the so-called GodMode folders. However, as I began investigating canonical names, I discovered that you can also create shortcuts to the Control Panel items that have canonical names. I also discovered that typing, or even copying and pasting, all the canonical names while creating the shortcut was a tedious operation. I found sixty Control Panel items that have canonical names.

So I created a short little VBScript program that reads a text file containing the list of canonical names and, one-by-one, creates each shortcut. You can download that text file and script in the accompanying free TechRepublic download to this blog post.

In this edition of the Windows Vista and Windows 7 Report, I'll discuss the Control Panel canonical names in more detail and show you how to use them to create shortcuts to your favorite Control Panel items. I'll then present the text file and script and show you how to use them. That way you can instantly create these canonical name shortcuts on your Windows 7 system and be able to easily conduct your own investigation to discern which of these shortcuts will be helpful to you and delete those that won't. What could be easier?

Canonical names

As I mentioned earlier, in the case of Control Panel items, a canonical name is simply a nonlocalized string that represents Control Panel items in the registry. Microsoft's canonical names use the format CorporationName.ControlPanelItemName. I discovered a list of Windows 7 canonical names on the Microsoft MSDN site in an article titled "Canonical Names of Control Panel Items." Here you'll find the list of sixty Windows 7 Control Panel items that have canonical names.

Accessing a Control Panel item using its canonical name is a pretty straightforward operation, once you know how. You use the Control Panel's executable file, a special parameter, and the canonical name. For example, to access the Action Center, whose canonical name is Microsoft.ActionCenter, you would use the following command line:

Control.exe /name Microsoft.ActionCenter

If you want to experiment, just type this command line in the Run dialog box.

The Script

The short little VBScript shown in Figure A will instantly create sixty canonical name shortcuts on your Windows 7 system. There are basically five sections to the script.

Figure A

Instantly create all sixty canonical name shortcuts on your Windows 7 system with this short little VBScript.

In the first section, the script accesses the File System Object, allowing it to manipulate files and folders. It then accesses the Windows Scripting Host object, allowing it to create and configure Windows shortcuts.

The second section determines the folder in which the script is running, gets the name of the text file containing the list of shortcut names and canonical names, and then combines the two. This will allow you to easily create the shortcuts wherever you want.

The third section opens the text file for reading. The fourth section uses a Do Loop to sequentially read each line of the text file and create the associated shortcut. The fifth section simply closes the file.

Figure B shows the contents the CanList.txt file, which contains the data for creating the canonical name shortcuts.

Figure B

The script will read each of the lines from this text file and create the associated shortcuts.

To create your canonical name shortcuts, just copy both files, CanList.txt and CreateCanonical.vbs, to the folder of your choice and run the .vbs file.

What's your take?

What do you think of the canonical name shortcuts? Have you found then useful? If so, what's your favorite? As always, if you have comments or information to share about this topic, please take a moment to drop by the TechRepublic Community Forums and let us hear from you.

To get the script file and the accompanying text file, you need to download them from the corresponding TechRepublic download.

TechRepublic's Windows Vista and Windows 7 Report newsletter, delivered every Friday, offers tips, news, and scuttlebutt on Vista and Windows 7, including a look at new features in the latest version of the Windows OS. Automatically sign up today!

About

Greg Shultz is a freelance Technical Writer. Previously, he has worked as Documentation Specialist in the software industry, a Technical Support Specialist in educational industry, and a Technical Journalist in the computer publishing industry.

48 comments
oldbaritone
oldbaritone

No matter WHAT the user may have messed up, this is a way to access Control Panel items. HOORAY! I never cease to be amazed by the creativity of innocent users' havoc! :-)

john3347
john3347

Seems to me that GodMode simply takes "a bunch of stuff" that is scattered off in many different locations (keeping one of low skill level from finding them) and reorganizes them all into one easy to follow list. Microsoft should have done that from the very start. It certainly makes it much easier to find "what yer lookin' for".

aphorist
aphorist

The ribbon is Microsoft's determination of better, so was Vista. Not liking the ribbon isn't necessarily rejecting change out of fear or of stunted intellect. If you prefer a screen without loads of pictograms, you can buy programs that will remove the eye calories, or Microsoft could have allowed us to choose. Some never find icons that intuitive. Save to Floppy anyone? Those who use keyboard shortcuts are missing the opportunity to stimulate those darling icons? And is it necessary to comment with snide swipes when someone like carlsf@ merely states his position? The invitation was for 'What do you think' not 'How do you feel'!

seanferd
seanferd

is a winner in my book. Thanks for the further adventures of god mode.

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

Greg has provided another convenient script to help you assess the usability of the little Windows 7 tricks he is describing. Are you going to give it a try? Tell us what you think?

carlsf
carlsf

We have NO use as we will NOT be moving to WIN7 REASON..... Microsoft have removed the "CLASSIC" Option. We use this to ensure all users are on the same page, and to asssist with support NO " CLASSIC" option NO WIN7 This also the same reson we wont move to Office 2007 and it looks the same for 2010 the "RIBBON" is not wanted or liked, we will stay on Office 2003. This is not a user problen it is a Microsoft problem. Unless MS decide to relent we will continue to evaluate and look to moving to another O/s and Office Suite, at such time it becomes imposssiable to use ( XP, VISTA, Office 2003).

Keith Hailey
Keith Hailey

There is a classic mode in Win7, it's just not listed as "Classic Mode". Just select View by Large (or small) Icons and, well, there it is. There is a lot more in the control panel than there used to be, too.

JackO'Neill
JackO'Neill

How sad your life must be! Still using a rotary dial telephone...or perhaps a crank model? Move with the times. Users will adapt. Customer support will have to get off their lazy complacent asses and do some real support.

verd
verd

How many other things are you stuck in not moving with progress? You still plowing fields with a mule?

Darren B - KC
Darren B - KC

Windows 7 is going to be adopted (even enthusiastically) by some users in your office on their home computers. Heck, maybe even MANY of your users. So, they're going to get exposed to it, even accustomed to it. Eventually, they're going to ask you, "Hey, when are we going to Windows 7?" (I've had users ask me that here in my office back in November already.) By refusing to plan for an eventual upgrade in your office, you're actually doing your users a disservice and your IT department will only begin to look more and more "behind the times" to them. Believe it or not, this DOES have an impact on how employees view their company in relation to the rest of the world and the status quo in technology. Besides, making the assumption that they can't learn something new is pretty much an insult towards them.

Mantei Woodcraft Ltd.
Mantei Woodcraft Ltd.

If that is indeed the case then why do you even read, and reply, to Win 7 articles? Guess what? NOBODY really cares that you won't be migrating. All you're doing is seeing if you can stir up some sh*t, which apparently a great many have responded to. Congrats.

The 'G-Man.'
The 'G-Man.'

all the uses that I have seen move from classic to 7 love it and can work 'faster'. Have you actually shown them it or is it YOU who are scared?

Osiyo53
Osiyo53

Very interesting point of view. Now, I actually prefer the classic option. Have that set up in my home systems, and on both my work laptop and desktop. With MS Office, on my personally owned systems I've stuck with Office 2003. Very simply because for my and my wife's non-business use anything from Office 2000 to Office 2003 does everything, and more, that we need. And particularly in her case she doesn't see a reason to HAVE to learn how to navigate a new app or version of an app ... unless absolutely necessary for some reason. i.e. The old app simply isn't usable any more for some reason, or a new version offers some new functionality that she sees a personal need for. As concerns myself, since I do work in one of the IT fields, and do work with a wide variety of customer's and their machines, etc ... I have Office 2007 on my work machines and have learned to get along with the new ribbon interface, etc. I'm not fond of it, the ribbon interface, but that's life. It is what it is, and things change. Heck, one doesn't even have to be using an MS product for things to change. Whether one likes the changes or not. At home, just a few months ago my wife got frustrated when she found out her favorite anti-virus program had just come out in a new version and the the maker of that app would no longer provide virus definition updates in a format usable by the older version. So she found out she HAD to download and install the new version. Or, she'd have had to start using someone else's app. But same problem, she'd have to learn new menus, setups, configurations, etc. So she went, "Grrrr", and grouched about it, but spent the time to install the new version, read the instructions, and figure out how to configure and use it. Is it different elsewhere? Where is that, exactly? Over the years, and I've been working with computer systems since the days of room sized main frames, punch cards, etc and stuff has changed regularly. And folks have had to adjust to the changes. And it hasn't particularly mattered who made the actual hardware or software. Stuff changed, at some point, for some reason. Sometimes for very good reasons, sometimes for pretty silly reasons. Now, in my professional life, I've had to accept change as just a fact of life. I don't always like it, don't always see a good justification for the latest whatever change, and its always a bother and a PIA. But it is also just a fact of life. Its like one, small portion of the work I do. The writing of custom control programs for specialized digital controllers. A particular line of such controllers had been manufactured for years and I knew the program language and hardware involved intimately. But, two things occurred. One the basic microprocessor used by that line of controllers became obsolete. Simply isn't manufactured any more. Secondly, the customer's who used the end devices had new requirements they expected the devices to do which the old controllers simply could not achieve despite any programming tricks or efforts. So the manufacturer came out with a new line of said controllers, different microprocessors and auxiliary microprocessors, with a new, modified programming language and environment (and the tools for working with such), etc. All of which was SIMILAR to the old, but also different, because it had to be. So I had to do some learning and adjustment, even when doing programming and setting up an end device that wasn't expected to use any "new" features or functions and abilities as compared to the old. None of this had anything to do with MS or Intel or any other "Evil Empire". No Windows OS or Intel chips involved. And I could provide MANY other examples in real life. As I said, I've been in one part or another of the computer biz for a long time. I work with several programming languages, and develop apps both for general desktop and laptop usage, as well as programs that reside in what are to all practical purposes a dedicated computer in a black box. Over time those programming languages and associated tools have undergone minor and significant changes periodically. And one had to re-learn and adjust. Same goes with networks and the associated hardware and software. Unix/Linux? I first worked with Unix back in the early and mid 80's. Now there are some basic stuff that hasn't changed significantly. But there is also a heck of a lot of other stuff that has changed quite drastically. And which continues to change regularly. And this is not to mention the many, many variations and versions of those 2 OS's. Or the endless list of tools each has. One area of my job today deals with systems that use a Linux based OS. One particular version, a commercial version. Even so, if you don't think I have to constantly keep on top of things and read about the latest change or revision or added "feature" or tool and learn how to use them, you'd be wrong. The manufacturer of those systems regularly changes stuff, whether I like it or agree or not. Sometimes requiring me to learn a whole new way of accomplishing something I'd previously done another way for a long time. It is what it is. Ditto as concerns things like Java. With which I also work. Over the years it has undergone revisions and changes, as concerns the core engine. Not even mentioning the tools one works with which are ever evolving and changing. And with some of the Java apps I develop I've got to be aware and conscious of the differences of the fact that a user's system may be loaded with some other version of the JRE than the very latest. Not to mention having to consider what actual hardware they may have and its capabilities. As concerns things like Open Office? I have used it, sparingly and not regularly. Just enough to become familiar with it. But a work associate of mine who has been using it for years told me that from time to time it or some element of it has changed significantly enough to require some relearning process and time. In any event, my only point is that this isn't really an MS thing. Anyone whose OS or app you deal with is from time to time gonna make changes, without asking your personal permission first, that will require some adaptation and adjustment and relearning on your part. The only way to avoid that, as far as I'm aware, is for you to start developing, building, and making ALL of your own hardware, and software (OS and apps) yourself. Now one can take the approach of not just going along with each and every change. I do that at home, for instance. Took YEARS before I moved my home machines (and those that belong to my children, grandchildren, and certain friends) from Win 98SE (modified) with Office 97 to WinXP. Very simply I had original, legal copies of everything, made sure I had spare hardware parts on hand to keep older systems working. Etc. Still have a number of Win98 systems running. But started to reach the real "end of life" cycle. i.e. Started running short of hardware spares for which I could find appropriate Win98 compatible drivers, or in some cases one of the family or friends would want to do something that Win98 and the older hardware simply wasn't up to handling. For instance, my wife is an avid amateur photographer, and does a bunch of photo and video editing, streams video to family and friends, etc. So had to buy her a newer system to handle that, plus OS to suit. At where I work, the decision was made some time ago that we wouldn't move to Vista right away. No particular reason for us to do so. Its a company with 800+ employees, with probably a number somewhere close to that of company owned laptops and desktops. Not to mention a bunch of servers. I don't know the total number, I'm not in our internal IT department, the company hires out my services. But the vast majority of our employees have either a laptop or desktop at work which they use, and some have multiples. Plus we maintain an inventory of loaners and another batch of laptops that're used for training sessions. Either internal training, or customer training. In any event, to make a switch, for us, is a big expense and PIA. And Vista simply didn't offer any increased functionality or features that seemed to make a move worthwhile. Plus, we're not in the habit of just jumping into whatever new revision of anything ... just because its new. We tend to wait some years so that the developers can work out the major bugs. There are ALWAYS bugs with major revisions (whether we're talking about Microsoft or anyone else). We like to avoid the majority of them. Win 7, so far, is looking more promising. We haven't moved to it yet, and are in no hurry to do so. Have bought a few copies and installed it on a few, very few, select machines for testing and evaluation. And so our internal IT folks can learn it and do tests with the systems we have and the apps we use. Undoubtedly we'll eventually move over to it. I'm not hearing bad reports as concerns it from our internal IT types. A major holdup is that we use a number of apps made by other manufacturer's than MS (which are critical to our business), and need to know if these will work with Win 7, or Win 7 with XP emulation, or whatever. Those apps HAVE to work. Or we'll be waiting longer. i.e. I already know one such vital app won't work with Win 7 (well, it does but with some glitches here and there), but the developer of that app is working hard and furious to fix that. Now I'm not recommending to anyone that they just jump into Win 7, or Office 2007/2010. If what yah have works for you and meets your wants and needs, why bother? And if you think now is the time to investigate another OS and set of apps, no argument from me. But if you think that just because you DO jump into another OS and set of apps that you'll not have a learning curve now, plus have to deal with major changes and new learning sessions later ... you're fooling yourself. The only thing that doesn't change ... is the fact that things change. Sooner or later.

dogknees
dogknees

Are you and your support people incapable of learning more than one interface? Are they not capable of learning the customization options and there effects? Can't the recognize the new interface and shift gears? Given you don't like change, why aren't you still on DOS or Win3.1? You obviously thought it worth going as far as WinXP, why did you stop there? I'm actually interested in people's reasons for this. It seems to me that people choose some arbitrary point in time to stop learning new things. Why? How do you choose the place to stop? It's like the idiots who think music stopped being made when they turned twenty. Why would you not want to hear new stuff? I certainly get bored pretty quickly with the current crop and look forward to learning new styles and ways of listening every year. I just don't get the whole thing of stopping and living in some historic period. Anyway, it's your choice to do so, but don't expect people to assist you in or reward you for your foolishness.

Ron_007
Ron_007

I wish I believed that enough people could take your stand to make it work, but MS won't listen. Personally I can't understand why the Ribbon GOOEY didn't include a "Menu" tab to provide backward compatibility. MS has done so much in other areas to support backward compatibility, it is sad that they actively decided not to support it in this case.

tokinwhiteguy0
tokinwhiteguy0

Sticking with Windows XP? Prefer the horse and carriage instead of cars?

tony
tony

Wow! - good luck with that. Unless your company only hires morons or Mac zealots, which I'm guessing it's not the users but management here holding everything back. If your user base (management) can't cope with the New start menu or a ribbon bar, good luck with moving to another O/S.

dogknees
dogknees

"No one likes the scroll feature of vista and windows seven " Wrong, I know several who do.

carlsf
carlsf

Libraries, the additions to Aero, Jump Lists, HomeGroup, etc too much changed that does NOT work well in a structured group already in place and believe me we have tried. MS answer move all systems to WIN7 sorry the cost would cripple us. SORRY Microsoft your loss.

dougogd
dougogd

a theme. it is a classic user interface in the start menu. Not everyone likes the scroll feature of vista and windows seven so they enable the classic mode which does not exist in windows 7. Keith listen to what i just said. We do not want and old display theme we want an old user interface.

The 'G-Man.'
The 'G-Man.'

provide the green and the upgrade can commence. Not much green around at the moment however.

pcteky2
pcteky2

Someone who is able to write more than half a sentence jumping down everyone's throat because they A. Didnt like what was written B. Didn't agree with them C. Thinks everyone should shutup and take whatever Microsoft gives them. D. Thinks everyone else besides themself is an whiner. Thank you for a thoughtful and refreshing post.

Mark W. Kaelin
Mark W. Kaelin

Thank you for making such a rational thoughtful response. As the host of the Windows Blog here, I certainly do appreciate it.

joseph_mcmanus
joseph_mcmanus

Well, when it comes to the XYL changing with the times, ONLY she really doesn't want to change unless it?s "Pretty." With XP almost out the door with regards to support by MS, I felt it necessary to move the houses OS of choice to Win7, only it was the RC1 (yeah I know about NOT running RC's as production machines) only my wife?s HDD crashed and burned, taking the OS with it and luckily I had a recent copy of her My Docs file, well She "Liked" the Win7 install on my machine so much that she "DEMANDED" it on her machine (and not to sound sexist, but any husband out there KNOWS, that if the XYL "DEMANDS" something that strenuously, if it doesn't happen there?s Hell's to pay UNTIL it does get done) BUT I didn't put office 2007 on it as she has a god awful time with any change in the office GUI (oh god, you should have seen her when we went from Office 97 to Office XP, I should have taken out stock in Zantac before that move), and I know that the support issues from her when it comes to "The Ribbon" would NOT be worth the acid that my stomach would be producing as a result of the change. Now don?t get me wrong, I am no fan of the ribbon for one good reason, it?s NOT customizable (I don?t care if the Quick access toolbar IS customizable, I WANT THE RIBBON to be customizable, there are a lot of commands on it that I will NEVER use and some of the ones I use allot are nowhere to be found except on the Quick access toolbar, not good enough! I use it for Outlook 2007 and that some of the things that I do and people I deal with (personally) use the new .docx format and it?s a P.I.T.A. not to use it. Moral of the story here is that sometimes, and in some situations, when the users are so entrenched with one way of doing things, it might not be worth the aggravation (and in the case of an Enterprise the cost to the bottom line in productivity and support calls) to change until your backs to the wall and you can bite on the bullet one way or another less comfortable way. Take care All.

carlsf
carlsf

Sorry WIN7 does NOT have the "CLASSIC" option. This means we will NOT be going there. Also the problems hooking up different O/S's (XP, Vista, to WIN7) is a nightmare. SORRY MS has made it NON cost effective (WIN7 upgrades, Training, LOSS of Productivity)we will keep what we have (XP, VISTA)and look at alternatives less costly and more productive that WIN7. The only alternative would be that MS relents and re-instates the "CLASSIC" option

AstroCreep
AstroCreep

Yeah, the larger benefits of moving to Win7 lie in conjunction with a Server 2008 R2 server infrastructure (Direct Access, BranchCache, etc), but that's not to say that Win7 by itself doesn't include any compelling new features. Libraries, the additions to Aero, Jump Lists, HomeGroup, etc are all fine, helpful additions, but are these additions alone worth updating your existing systems to Win7? Perhaps not; that all depends on your current system refresh outlook, budget, server infrastructure update timeline, and of course, your opinion. I work at a company that is a Microsoft Gold Partner (and that all our software NOW works with Vista/Win7), so the option to upgrade to Win7 is a simple "Yes", but only for any fresh installs going forward, whether it be new workstations or the need to format/redeploy an existing one.

whopper
whopper

You say "It has been proven that WIN7 is no more that Vista with certian options excluded and some new options still to be proved as better." Proven to who? Certainly not to me. I find it interesting that you embraced Vista but do not like Win7. My experience was exactly the opposite. We found no compelling reason to upgrade our computers to Vista, and are still running XP. However, after evaluating Win7, we are planning to move everyone to it this summer. Take another, open-minded, look at Win7 functionality, especially in conjunction with Server 2008R2. Your users may need a small bit of training, but the benefits are worth it.

carlsf
carlsf

We are using VISTA (32 and 64bit) read the post "gbently" VISTA had the option to use the "CLASSIC" option and YES we do accept change. BUT MS Change for change's sake NO WAY. It has been proven that WIN7 is no more that Vista with certian options excluded and some new options still to be proved as better. We use the classic interface due to the fact we have a range of users doing differing jobs and for security and tech support we have opted for the "CLASSIC" option. The cost of upgrading and the learning curve to our users is unacceptable and NOT cost effective. Hence our decision was moved by open vote all users and management (from top down)

john3347
john3347

The place to stop is when change is no longer synonymous with improvement and just becomes change for the sake of change. Microsoft crossed that line when they moved from Windows 2000 to XP and have just further strayed from that principle with each successive OS.

tony
tony

Perhaps it?s a religious choice, you know, like how the Amish: 1)Choose not to use electricity and automobiles 2)Kept their wives/woman submissive and illiterate Compares to not moving forward which is similar: 1)Keep using the things they know 2)Keep users with antiquated skillsets so its difficult to leave to a better job

Gerbilferrit
Gerbilferrit

..in absolute agreement with ya dude. why are people scared of change even working in IT?? - er, incase you haven't noticed it's technology, technology eveolves, it's part of what makes it exciting and challenging. You in charge of technology should espousing the benefits of the new interfaces and techniques and get yer head out of your arse. It's like all this bum-wipes who moan about microsoft, well at the end of the day if it wasn't for microsoft many of you wouldn't even have a job. If you're in some high paid job and canm't be arsed with it anymore because "things change" get out because i think there are plenty of young whipper-snappers out there who'd pick up the baton and run with it, without moaning their arse off about it.

The 'G-Man.'
The 'G-Man.'

With what? Do you know what backward compatibility actually means????

dougogd
dougogd

I read about a classic user interface not classic theme. Stupidity like this is why micrsoft will never bring this interface or start menu back. People always assumes that when you mention classic start menu you are talking about classic theme The ugliest not used theme in the world. So think before you answer seanferd.

AstroCreep
AstroCreep

Quote: Who said it had anything to do with the overall UI? Quote: There are a couple nice new features, but they are far counterbalanced by the more dumbed-down aspects. Hence, the usefulness of god mode. If the new interface is so great, why would god-mode interest you? Your statement reads as if GodMode offers something that is removed because of the newer interface. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's how it is written, and that's how I read it. As far as me and other being "Whiners", sorry, but that's the nature of this profession. Technology changes/evolves CONSTANTLY. In case you haven't noticed it, things have changed significantly in interface/functionality from Windows 98 -> Windows 2000 (even more if you jumped from 98 -> Windows XP). That's not to say you can't make them all look similar to each other, but you can still do that with Vista/Win7...just not as much as you could in the past. Hell, I dislike the so-called "Fisher Price" interface in XP and have it switched back to classic, and I had the Taskbar/Start Menu set the SAME way it was in 2000 for a good six years. It wasn't until I accepted a new job at a different company until I found how truly useful XP's new Taskbar/Start Menu could be. And this isn't even the only example; the whole underlying OS has been changed so much that you'll need to relearn it. If the UI alone is enough to bug you, wait until you find out that the "Documents and Settings" directory has been changed to "Users", and God-forbid I even mention "Junction Points". ;)

seanferd
seanferd

Gee, thanks for explaining "god mode" to me all over again, but I got it the first time. Who said it had anything to do with the overall UI? What it does is provide a less ridiculous method of finding the setting you want. Who claimed any "special features" were "unlocked".? The "Window Classic theme" is just that - a theme. It doesn't provide the old style UI, which was what some people wanted. You know what? You "hey, deal with the change" people are far bigger and more vocal whiners than the folks who indicate a preference for the old-style UI.

AstroCreep
AstroCreep

First, the so called "GodModes" aren't anything more than shortcuts and pragmatic interfaces for accessing Control Panel applets for use by application programmers, admins (scripting purposes), and the like. They may make getting into a particular function or setting faster than going through a couple of levels in Control Panel, but it's not like these are functions you do not have access to already. You're not unlocking special "Features" or anything! As for the UI/interface, there is the "Windows Classic" theme which doesn't use Aero or anything. The ribbon is still there for apps, but you still have all of the functionality (and them some) of the Windows of old. "GodMode" has no bearing on the UI's functionality (or perceived "Lack thereof") at all. If the interface bothers you and your users this much, you don't need to migrate to it, but you can't stay on 2000/XP forever. And good luck trying to get your users trained with a "New" interface; you're going to have that issue deploying any new OS...or application for that matter.

seanferd
seanferd

There are a couple nice new features, but they are far counterbalanced by the more dumbed-down aspects. Hence, the usefulness of god mode. If the new interface is so great, why would god-mode interest you? 7 sure is a nicer Windows OS, but being stuck with the only new UI is disappointing. Especially considering how limited the configurability of Windows UIs is in the first place.

nospam.online
nospam.online

I have been hearing from lot's of people in my area and the staff/teachers at the school all dont like the loss of classic shell fetures in Windows 7 or the ribbon menu of Office. The feedback here is correct. MS made a change that they dont like and took something they did. We (school network) are only thinking of upgrading to Windows 7 by using Firefox as Browser cause no on likes IE8. (They can forget IE9) And again as in past times MS made changes people dont like or want. They are out of touch with the general public and are if Linux was not such a learning curve they would loose market share like mad.

seanferd
seanferd

I don't know why you assume the case would be that the user base is too stupid to adapt. Assume whatever you want, although I hardly think that is the case. Thanks for the straw man, I dress it up and use it to keep crows away from the corn.

woad
woad

Not necessarily better, but i am sure certain aspects of it can be argued. I like the ribbon bar on the bottom of the page that then pops up a small window that displays miniature versions of the actual windows. It's a new useful feature. As far as the start menu, just different. FOlks who cannot change the way they do things and get used to new UI's go the way of the dodo bird. If the user base at your company is so stupid that they are incapable of adapting, then you have much greater issues than changing to a new OS...

seanferd
seanferd

Or do they just require that Fisher-Price look? Or. perhaps, you'd like to explain what is so much better about the non-classic UIs of any of the Windows OSes?

RKG
RKG

Gotta use the right english! ;>