programming and human factors
by Jeff Atwood
While I haven't been unhappy with Windows Vista, it had a lot of rough edges:
This is why the screenshot of the Windows 7 Calculator, although seemingly trivial, is so exciting to me. It's evidence that Microsoft is going to pay attention to the visible parts of the operating system this time around. I'm a fan of Vista, despite all the nerd rage on the topic, but I'll be the first to admit that Vista had all the polish of a particularly dull rock. Let's just say the overall user experience was.. uninspiring. This led many people to shrug, sigh "why bother?", and stick with crusty old XP.
Vista was like a solid B student who shows up at your doorstep reeking of body odor and dressed in shabby clothing from the local thrift shop. There's something decent at the core, but it's a real challenge to get past the obvious surface deficiencies.
Thus, I've been following the development of Windows 7 with cautious optimism. It's important to me not because I am an operating system fanboy, but mostly because I want the world to get the hell off Windows XP. A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem. Nobody is forcing anyone to use Windows, of course, but given the fundamental inertia in most people's computing choices, the lack of a compelling Windows upgrade path is a dangerous thing.
Now that Windows 7 has reached its "release to manufacturing" milestone, I had the opportunity to install it for myself and see.
Within 5 minutes of installation it was immediately obvious to me -- Windows 7 is the best Vista Service Pack ever!
The core of the operating system isn't that different, but the experience is absolutely what Vista should have been on day one. Microsoft took that B student, gave him a bath and a makeover, and even improved his grades ever so slightly.
It sounds like a subtle thing, but it's not. Sit down and use Windows 7 for even a few minutes and you'll find an operating system that is faster, cleaner looking, and filled with lots of little useful, thoughtful touches utterly lacking in Vista. Where Vista was half-implemented and often clunky, Windows 7 is competent bordering on pleasant. I won't bore you with all the details, as Windows 7 has been getting lots of positive press from all corners of the web. There's no need for me to add my voice to the chorus. But suffice it to say that Windows 7 finally offers a compelling upgrade path from Windows XP. So from my perspective, mission accomplished. Three years late, but hey, who's counting.
(Note that this is not an invitation to rekindle the eternal OS flame war, as I'm much more interested in the cool stuff you're creating than what OS you use to create it with. I'm sorry, but screwdrivers just aren't that sexy to me.)
I normally do clean installs for operating system upgrades, but I've been busy recently, and I don't have any new PC hardware builds scheduled. If you're already on Vista, the upgrade path is perhaps more compelling than it otherwise would be. All the breaking fundamental changes were in Vista, so if you've made it over the Vista hump, then an in-place Windows 7 upgrade is relatively painless -- or at least, it has been for me on the two machines I've tried so far.
I think Windows 7 works well as a de-facto Vista service pack. I guess that's not surprising if you compare the version numbers.
C:\Users\Jeff>ver
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
C:\Users\Jeff>ver
Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
Here's to exactly 0.1.1598 worth of improvement for the Windows ecosystem. Now can we please get the hell off Windows XP already?
Jeff,
we know you have to make money advertising products in your posts, but at least stick to the facts. There is nothing "horrible" about XP and we know very little about Windows 7 (aside from RC). It looks good but past experiences have taught us to be very cautious, until SP1 is released :)
MS has insulted (financially) many of its customers with Vista. It has wasted our time, money and patience. We don't need an apology, just an OS that works reasonably well with current hardware.
As you remember, MS and Intel had a "deal" before Vista release which allowed intel to make a few extra bucks out of their obsolete graphics. This is what ultimately sank Vista - it was not compatible with some of the "reference hardware" (as in "Vista compatible" sticker) which caused instability (to say the least) and performance issues.
Not to mention the stupidity of having two Administrator-levels in Vista - which is confusing and useless at best.
I am sure we will all eventually get Windows 7 (to keep in on hardware or in a VM cage) eventually, but let's wait and see what comes out. I am looking at RC and if it disappoints me, Windows XP will be my last Windows OS.
okedokey?
securityhorror on July 27, 2009 2:01 AM@Rob:
>Have you waded through millions of lines of Windows source code and seen "the problem" >that lies there? I'd really like to know what it is. I'm sure Microsoft would, too.
They know. You don't need to be a clever guy to realize that the whole Registry Architecture, The Whole DLL infrastructure (that the .NET GAC was supposed to fix but it only 1/2 fixed), the default security decisions or the whole security idea in Windows, and similar Windows decisions, are part of the reason why Windows has been such a controversial OS. It has been proven that the OS is not stable for many things, it has been proven that it's easier to destroy a Windows install than any other "major" OS (Linux? OSX? Heck even OS/2)…). This is proven by the number of people who acknowledges that you have to reinstall windows every now and then to make it work like it was when you finish installing everything.
Get real. Don't come here as the "Microsoft Defender" (no pun intended). You don't have to prove anything…
I use windows too. Heck i Code for windows. It's a mess. The Microsoft Foundation Classes…L O L.
Gimme a break(point).
But money triumphed over anything else. Good marketing did it. Most vendors include(ed) Windows and will continue to do so. Most users don't care. Life will go on. Get over it. Windows suck from a geek's point of view. Everything in there is a pain. Except Wallpapers. Use them in peace.
>If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I develop on XP at work and use XP at home for everything and it's absolutely fine.
I'm just in the process of switching to a 8GB Vista 64 bit system at work. Why? Because I love VMware workstation and regularly want 3 or 4 VMs running at once. Windows XP is a limiting factor and the ~3.5GB limit will become a problem. Yes, I know there's 64 bit XP but personally I'd run away from that.
Rob.
Rob N on July 27, 2009 2:04 AMSo, how long is this build valid? I tried the release candidate, and it eventually expired. When will this RTM expire?
Matt on July 27, 2009 2:35 AMI note Jeff has some chirpy sound bites for why XP sucks, but no actual meat.
Standard FUD. Move along, nothing to see here.
Eric on July 27, 2009 2:38 AMso, Windows 7 is the best ever because of its cool startup screen?
awesome ... i guess i, too, should get Windows 7.
For what it is worth, I am bullish on W7 and I will definitely get it with the next machine I buy. But, there is nothing in it that is compelling enough to make me blow the money and spend the time doing a clean install to move off XP on my existing machine.
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 2:47 AMJeff said:
"But suffice it to say that Windows 7 finally offers a compelling upgrade path from Windows XP."
Except that Microsoft doesn't support upgrading from XP to 7.
JM on July 27, 2009 2:53 AMSure they do. They just don't support leaving your data on the drive while you do it. :)
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 3:00 AMWhat's with all the butt-hurt commenters?
Windows 7 is superior to XP and Vista in every way
-More secure: UAC is less intrusive, so people will be less inclined to disable it
-Faster: It's been designed to work well on netbooks, so if you're reading this blog you've probably got a computer that can run it at least as well as XP
-Polished: Everything's been thought of, I use it and I've not once thought 'Why can't I do this the way I did it in XP/Vista'
-Stable: Even since beta, I've not even had a driver fail, let alone a full-on crash.
For people complaining about the need for fresh installs for XP to 7, Have you ever done a windows upgrade that happened perfectly? No. The old drivers get in the way, and general shite that accumulates on peoples PCs gets in the way. 9 out of 10 average joes need a computer wipe anyway; the number of people that have more toolbars in their browser than rendering area is atrocious.
Sticking to XP now is like sticking to 95 when windows XP was released.
And best of all, once everyone's off XP the abomination known as IE6 will finally be a thing of the past.
John on July 27, 2009 3:01 AMAs I use both Vista and 7 RC every day, I came to conclusion that releasing Vista was a bit of a mistake Microsoft would have made, should they promote Windows 2000 as a successor of Windows 98.
There would be the same amount of noise of the "pr0 hax0rz" who don't see any difference and benefit to upgrading just because the UI is pretty much the same.
Yeah, Vista is nicer looking than XP with the glass, but people don't see the benefit of inner workings, because their crappy software written by a crappy developer, who doesn't have any idea how to create a decent win32 app, or a decent driver for that matter, doesn't work anymore.
Maciej Rutkowski on July 27, 2009 3:07 AM" And best of all, once everyone's off XP the abomination known as IE6 will finally be a thing of the past."
Actually I beg to differ. Regardless of the complaining that we have done, until there is absolutely no other choice, management here (and at many companies) will never free up the money to update internal web apps that require IE6. Even IE8's compatibility mode breaks a few of them. So, the best that I can hope for for the foreseeable future is W7 with IE6 running in XP compatibilty mode.
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 3:10 AM
@EBGreen
> ...we only do OS upgrades as part of a Hardware Refresh cycle,
Logical approach (I should have thought about it).
I do understand that moving to Win 7 will not be as ugly as moving to Vista, but there is nothing pretty about it (business wise).
If you are a developer you do have that quad core with 8Gb of RAM. That is 50 employees Vs the 5000 customer service representatives that need nothing more than 6 years old hardware from HP for $250 per PC.
As for the licensing: Two times half-price it is still two times more expensive. The ones that needed to run the old software are the 5000 CSRs not the 50 developers.
These are the same reasons Apple makes no business sense (and never will).
Apple is just a brand for the trendy brat, and never a business tool. Yes, it is the money. The crappy hardware does not justify the price tag. Take that money an buy twice the SAME hardware somewhere else.
Linux will be the right choice once it can do two things: Easy to use for your average Joe CSR and grandma Business Analyst Manager, AND be able to run the software made for windows that the company invested hundreds of thousands (if not millions). Linux is moving that way (not there yet though).
@Ric C.
I would add one more thing that Linux needs to do before widespread enterprise adoption is likely. Mature centralized management tools (i.e. AD, Group Policy Management, SCCM, etc.)
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 3:18 AMI actually completely disagree. I used Vista for a while, couldn't stand it, and went back to XP. I tried the x64 release candidate of 7 and liked it more, but was still unimpressed. All of my hardware just works, which is fantastic, and it is a gorgeous operating system.
However, I have 2 issues with it. Firstly, for whatever reason, the software I use frequently just isn't ready for 7. I had tons of software compatibility problems and it just wasn't working for me. Secondly, while it's lighter than Vista, it is by no means lightweight. It's honestly ridiculous how much RAM it swallows. XP was only holding about 400 MB hostage from me during normal usage. Windows 7 is easily over 1.5 gigs. That's just obscene for any operating system, regardless of how "cheap" RAM is.
Bob Somers on July 27, 2009 3:34 AMWindows 7 is what Vista should have been, I think we are all pretty much agreed on that. So why not release it as a service pack? Charging people to upgrade from Vista is just incredulous.
Hardeep Virdee on July 27, 2009 3:40 AMWhy have a new product (Windows 7)? No one has upgraded to Vista, everyone likes XP. The solution is simple, charge for a giant service pack for XP. And by service pack, I do actually mean a service pack. Only allow installing it via paying Microsoft directly online, sell it very cheaply, Mac OS 10.6 style. Make XP a prerequisite, eventually you want to create a version that is stand alone, but initially you want everyone to have the easiest possible eXPerience upgrading and make people want to upgrade. At work I use 10.5 and I can't wait for 10.6 to come out. I know it will magically just work, it will be $30 (Or so?), and it will definitely be worth it. I'm not convinced Vista is worth more than about $50 over XP and I'm sure Windows 7 should be a similar price again. I'd love to see Microsoft actually try competing instead of just cruising for the last 3 years.
Chris on July 27, 2009 4:00 AMDon't worry linux and google os will completly destroy microsoft.
Bob Springstly on July 27, 2009 4:17 AMHi Jeff,
Awesome blog. Wanted to say that. ;-)
Maybe - regarding this article - it might make sense to refer to Mike Nashs blog post here: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx where he exactly explains the thoughts of Microsoft behind the versioning.
Regards,
Chris.
first, why the heck are so many people saying Macs are better, last i checked they were for grannys who dont know how to drag and drop.
and to all the idiots saying windows 7 is just as slow as vista look at this http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-7-Pentium-II,8110.html those specs are practically embedded systems.
@EBGreen
>Mature centralized management tools (i.e. AD, Group Policy Management, SCCM, etc.)
Ahhh.. Certanly! Another thing we mere selfish users oversee (if even aware), and yet we all have the answer to solve world hunger and cure cancer.
People in your field of work (software developers not included) are the ones that know the real story, we just ramble about it.
Ric C. on July 27, 2009 4:32 AMThere's some simple but twisted logic about all of this: win 3.1 check, win 95 skip, win 98/NT4 check, win ME skip, win XP check, win Vista skip, win 7 - may be, but most probably not; mostly because I'm not keen on upgrading hardware (which in means of notebooks most probably means throw-them-away-and-buy-a-new-one anyways).
Being from Europe means almost to none support for Windows (you even have to pay for the call to activate) and Macs, therefore Windows gets at least pirated while Macs stay off the market due to hardware/general unavailability of gadgets for the iStuff (yes, you can eBay them, but there's nothing like tingling around with your hands before actually buing).
Tried the Intel-patched MacOS, was not impressed - seems to me much like win98 with a bunch of cool-looking icons - nothing I couldn't get an equivalent for in WinXP, and most probably opensource/otherwise free without having to pay some fancy applestore/iTunes etc.
So I'll guess I'll stick with XP and e.g. Ubuntu on dual-boot/virtual/ssh-access just for that command-line and network-tool goodness.
"So you still use Internet Explorer 6, I take it?"
IE 6 was a broken application. XP is not broken, I'll use it as long as I can. I need my OS to run applications, format drives and connect me to a network - how does Windows 7 do these things better?
Steve on July 27, 2009 5:06 AMSo, how long does this RTM last before expiring, like the RTC's?
Matt on July 27, 2009 5:18 AM> Three years late, but hey, who's counting.
Ummm, everyone but you, apparently.
XP will remain my Windows OS of choice for some time. Its role to me is little more than a hardware/software interface, and works well enough to run good software on top of it (a good deal of which happens to be open source, incidentally).
For doing what I really want to do, I can't go past Linux (Ubuntu) at home. Please forgive me if I'm sceptical about Win7 offering that.
Microsoft just created a major problem for themselves, IMO. I think W7 is so good, people won't see a reason to upgrade for another 8 years or so, just like with XP.
DMB on July 27, 2009 6:09 AMgod, what a bunch of dicks! I can't believe how many people got their panties in such a twist over this post.
terry on July 27, 2009 6:18 AMI use XP every day, and I use W2K every day.
Vista was a bad experiment, and hopefully W7 is better.
Why all the fuss?
Steve on July 27, 2009 6:29 AMHoly Moly - all these comments. I'm shocked! I thought there was a bit better community on this blog role...
#1 If you're not always upgrading to the latest whatever version of everything, you are reading the wrong blog.
#2 If you don't love all-things OS - MacOS, Linux, Windows; multi-boot, VM, desktop server, 32/64, etc, you are reading the wrong blog.
#3 If you don't love to pave-over, rebuild, debug, and performance tune your boxes, you are reading the wrong blog.
How can a new OS be anything but good times.
That's how I see it. Bring it on! The last thing any of us should wish for is "keep playing with the same old crap".
Bill on July 27, 2009 6:33 AMI love all the comments about how this OS is better than that OS and how 'I will never move to W7' etc.
Use XP if it suits you; nobody is forcing an upgrade upon you (yet) :)
I'm using W7 and I love it.
Lenko on July 27, 2009 6:34 AMAnd with this co-inciding with my PC replacement schedule, it means I can commit Vista to the same category as Windows Me - an operating system curio that is best avoided. (Not saying either is bad per se, just that better options bookend them).
Stewart on July 27, 2009 6:38 AM@Eric - "A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem: so unix is too old to use too?" - exactly what I thought when I read this. If you need to rewrite your operating system every 4 years, does it not occur to you that you are doing something wrong?
Andrew on July 27, 2009 6:41 AM> Let's just say the overall user experience was.. uninspiring. This led many people to shrug, sigh "why bother?", and stick with crusty old XP.
If you honestly think people didn't use/install/go for Vista because of an "uninspiring" user experience, I can scarcely in words the magnitude of your error. It truly is awe-inspiring.
People stayed away from Vista because of its lack of peripheral support, its crashes, the fact it gave a new meaning to "resource hogging", and it... just ... didn't work very well.
The "user experience" was about the only thing that was worth 2c of it, actually.
Granted, that's uninspiring.
could not resist...
first!!!!
argatxa on July 27, 2009 7:32 AMI've been using the RC on a main computer and a netbook for a while now. The netbook remains as fast, if not slightly faster than when it was running xp so really good work from microsoft their.
I really like the new task bar, this will also get better as programs start using the jump lists for more program tasks.
The only trouble I have had is a driver bug related to my hard drive sometimes after I have hibernated the computer I go to create/rename or delete a file and explorer freezes for a little while or I have to refresh to see the action.
All in all no it's not a major set of new features it's incremental changes but can we really expect a revolution at this stage.
Pete on July 27, 2009 7:34 AMSo, why aren't they calling it Windows 6.1? Where did "7" come from? George Costanza?
Jim Dodd on July 27, 2009 7:38 AMAfter trying/seeing the disaster called Vista and hearing only bad things about Windows 7 - I'm keeping my XP for at least a couple of years. Primary reason for sticking to XP - install the newest OS on my perfectly adequate laptop and make it inadequate - yes please sir, I'll take two!. That's every geeks true dream...
vnuk on July 27, 2009 7:39 AMif you don't find screwdrivers sexy, why do you want to convince us to get a new one? :)
prengel on July 27, 2009 7:42 AM> [...]I'm much more interested in the cool stuff you're creating than what OS you use to create it with.
> [...]I want the world to get the hell off Windows XP.
You contradicted yourself. What exactly is so wrong with XP? I use it every day at work and at home. It is stable, reliable, and allows me to get my actual work done without spending time thinking about the OS or spending money on new hardware.
Really, how have we come to accept the idea that every few years all our tools are obsolete and must be thrown out? Can you imagine any other industry operating this way?
@Bob Somers
You aren't reading the ram usage correctly you can't compare xp and vista (windows 7) that way. Memory management is completely different. XP was designed to basically load the minimum into RAM keeping RAM free for programs, things would get cached on hard drive and so on.
Now we are in the multi-gigabye RAM world vista and 7 load up as much into RAM as possible this is not just system files but your frequently run programs lookup superfetch. If a program is not already cahced in memory and their isn't enough free windows can just drop one of the cached programs freeing memory very quickly. This makes the whole system very responsive.
Makes you think why wasn't this being done in windows xp (I suppsoe there wasn't much RAM back then in comparison).
Pete on July 27, 2009 7:50 AM@vnuk Where did you hear something bad about windows 7? I read a lot about it and this was 90% positive. My own experience (using it as main-os since beta 1) is very positive as well.
@Jeff
Microsoft said that they changed the version number so slightly because they wanted to avoid further incompatibilities because software checks for the major-version. Changes in minor-version is much less a problem, so that every app that runs vista should run w7!
Windows 7 IS a major release, even when the version number doesn't show it.
It's amazing how hard they tried to convince that Vista was an outstanding OS (when in fact it sucks compared to XP) and now the new idea is that Seven is very different from Vista (when they are almost identical except for the taskbar and performance tweaks).
alex on July 27, 2009 7:56 AMYeah, Windows 7 is so awesome. 12 GiB to install practically nothing compared to Ubuntu's full featured suite with 1/3rd of that size. Plus all that excellent closed source software and an OS that encourages malware to still take it over, since UAC can be turned off, since users are still mental defectives.
LavosPhoenix on July 27, 2009 7:59 AM> Really, how have we come to accept the idea that every few years all our tools are obsolete and must be thrown out? Can you imagine any other industry operating this way?
So you still use Internet Explorer 6, I take it?
Jeff Atwood on July 27, 2009 8:01 AM> if you don't find screwdrivers sexy, why do you want to convince us to get a new one? :)
I'm saying you should avoid using the rusted screwdriver which is liable to burst into fragments and cause a crippling hand wound at any time!
Jeff Atwood on July 27, 2009 8:02 AM@Alex
The reason is the same for OS as it is for web browser. At some point, progress gets vastly more complicated when having to support older technology. If you don't actually want to make progress, then you and Jeff don't really disagree.
I'm definitely excited to check out Windows 7. I was supposed to play with the beta, but never really got around to it. I hear that the upgrade to Windows 7 is going to be ridiculously cheap though, which means I basically HAVE to pay for it.
Never would have thought I would pay for a Windows upgrade, but I most certainly will for this one!
jlgosse on July 27, 2009 8:07 AMIt seems people love tossing 'service pack' around despite having no clue what it really means. If anything Windows 7 is the complete _opposite_ of a service pack - name me one SP that has seriously overhauled the front end and left the back end relatively alone? Historically service packs are cumulative (security) patches rolled up into one download.
Please stop perpetuating the Apple and Linux zealots fud as it marginalises what is for once a decent MS release. Using their SP logic pretty much every software release past 1.00 is a service pack unless it is a total rewrite.
"OSX is just BSD with a Service Pack"
"Photoshop CS4 is just Photoshop 5.0 with a Service Pack"
"Firefox 3.5 is just Mozilla with a Service Pack"
"Safari is just Konqueror with a Service Pack"
"Ubuntu is just Debian with a Serive Pack"
etc.
It's just FUD and services no purpose (not even reality) except to be a cheap jab at Windows.
Anonymous on July 27, 2009 8:11 AMIt's not a service pack for Vista, it's Windows Vista SE, like Windows 98 SE.
Dave on July 27, 2009 8:13 AM"It's not a service pack for Vista, it's Windows Vista SE, like Windows 98 SE."
So despite being universally accepted as being an order of magnitude better than Vista in terms of looks, usability and hardware requirements it's just 'Vista SE'. Right.
Go back to the Ubuntuforums to convince people the superiority of The Gimp.
Anonymous on July 27, 2009 8:17 AMIsn't the math wrong? From [Version 6.0.6002] to [Version 6.1.7600] would be 0.1.1598, not 0.0.1.1598
Anonymous on July 27, 2009 8:20 AM>So despite being universally accepted as being an order of
>magnitude better than Vista
Which universe would this be then? Your own private one?
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been from the start, in the same way that 98SE is what 98 should have been.
(I just hope the next version of Windows doesn't repeat the Windows ME experience).
Dave on July 27, 2009 8:22 AM@LavosPhoenix:
Users aren't typically mental defectives, but people who aren't as interested in computers as you or me, and who just want to get something done. Microsoft started with single-user single-tasking OSes, and even while moving towards having a modern OS has supported apps written as if they owned the machine, or at least had to run with maximum privileges. UAC is a compromise between actual security and accomodating apps that people need. We can criticize Microsoft for how it handled this (and I often do), but it isn't an easy situation to handle.
Linux benefits from the Unix culture, in which apps run with limited privileges, and never had that problem. Apple changed to Mac OSX by allowing imperfect backwards compatibility (the Classic environment) for several years (until the Mac switched from PowerPC to Intel chips). Microsoft can't follow the Apple way without messing up a lot of customers, being more of an enterprise OS than Mac OSX.
A lot of the recent history of Microsoft has been dealing with backward compatibility. Unless you realize that, you won't understand what Microsoft is doing with Windows.
David on July 27, 2009 8:22 AMReally, Windows 7 is a real improvement over XP.
Yes XP is stable and easy to use, but it's also built for ancient technology. Time to move on and use the tech we have today.
What's the problem with a 12Gb install? I have 1.25Tb in my PC and I don't care much about a few Gb's extra for the OS. It doesn't have to be a 4Gb complete install just because it can be. I want full fancyness. Windows 7's interface is fast, that is what I care about.
I'm not eager to see everyone drop XP, I don't care that much. There's just a big risk with sticking to an OS forever: Once you HAVE to upgrade you'll face an OS that's 4 generations further and it will be even more difficult to adapt.
Herman on July 27, 2009 8:22 AMWindows 2000 is version 5.0
Windows XP is version 5.1
Draw your own conclusions.
I think you're being a bit unfair to XP - I'd actually date its maturity as an OS to when SP2 came out, and it has been updated and patched pretty well since then (much more so than previous operating systems had been).
While I do agree that we all have to move on (I switched to Ubuntu following the 9.04 release), XP still is a useful and decent OS.
I also don't think I'll take Win7, though - MS still have to deliver the new filesystem and graphics revolution that they promised more than five years ago for me to really consider before I take another MS OS.
horuskol on July 27, 2009 8:24 AMI've noticed that the products from Microsoft had gone down in quality since the post XP period. The all time low being the initial launch of Vista.
The consumer backlash has been a major wake up call for the company and I've also noticed since the launch of the 07 products (like Office 07) the quality and the overall user experience has improved considerably. I've also used 7 beta and i agree that even though the front end has not gotten a major overhaul (discounting the task bar) 7 just FEELS good.
One other thing, is this observation of worsening and then getting better products over the recent years reflect the state of affairs at Microsoft? :) ;)
Karan Kurani on July 27, 2009 8:29 AM"(I just hope the next version of Windows doesn't repeat the Windows ME experience)."
Best comment ever.
Windows Lovers (Like Jeff) are excited because they finally got an OS that more or less, performs decently. Until the registry (which still exists) starts choking again…
I've used W7 since Beta1/RC and it DOES work better than vista, way better. I hate Vista, it's as bad as Windows ME was. A disaster in every aspect. Bad drivers, bad launch, bad marketing bad response, etc.
Win7 apparently improves all that (at least in RC stages). You get the feeling that everything works ok and the UI is way better (Taskbar == no no situation).
However, don't forget that it is still Windows Behind the Scenes. Those who don't like it, will not find a new world to explore. C:\Windows is still there… so is \system32…
Get ready for Wi-Fi driver hell with W7. I've installed the beta/rc in a different number of laptops and only one (HP) could use the WiFi out of the box. The others? Hunting high and low for Vista / XP drivers.
Surprisingly, some boxes (a Toshiba Tablet PC) only were able to use Wi-Fi with the Windows XP Driver…
I'd use W7 if I had to use Windows. But I use OS X and I find it vastly superior in terms of usability and technology; despite its own set of annoying bugs and inconsistencies.
Martin Marconcini on July 27, 2009 8:34 AMvnuk wrote:
> After trying/seeing the disaster called Vista and hearing only
> bad things about Windows 7 - I'm keeping my XP for at least a
> couple of years.
That's funny, I've had the opposite experience. I have been using Windows 7 in various states for months now, and it's been a great experience. Windows 7 even does a lot of stuff better than OS X (my primary OS). Everyone I have talked to around the office (a non-MS shop, mind you) has been raving about it. Virtually every review I have read from reputable magazines and websites has been good to excellent. There are a couple quirks here and there that will be worked out, but certainly nothing major, nothing to justify sticking with XP.
Add to that the fact that you implied that you have not even bothered to install Windows 7 and only "tried" Windows Vista (before the kinks were worked out, no doubt), and your comment means zilch.
Jumping on the "XP forever, screw Vista" bandwagon simply cannot be justified now that Windows 7 is here. It really is an improvement over Vista, and even over XP.
William Brendel on July 27, 2009 8:35 AMThat's good to hear. Thanks for offering your quick review. I'm a little less apathetic toward the new release now :)
Practicality on July 27, 2009 8:39 AMWindows... I can hardly remember it. When I switched to Mac I stopped caring for Microsoft and Windows and I'm not really looking back. XP was the last Windows I saw, never worked longer than 5 minutes with Vista - was just a better looking XP to me with minor functional changes but not so many that an old XP user could not immediately find everything in the same places it has always been. I'm considering OS X an OS that is about one decade ahead of whatever MS is doing and I'm not really talking about the UI here, more about the system as a whole (from the kernel to the UI process and everything in between). Microsoft will start producing a grown-up operating system when they completely drop those ridiculous driver letters one day; who came up with those in the first place? They can keep them internally for backward compatibility (mapping a drive letter to a certain folder in the directory tree), but as long as they expose them to the user and as long a user is supposed to know what F: or G: currently is Windows is still not out of kindergarten.
Mecki on July 27, 2009 8:44 AMThe hell it "can't be justified" - why on earth must I upgrade just because people say I should? What a load of rubbish.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I develop on XP at work and use XP at home for everything and it's absolutely fine.
None of what people have written here have convinced me remotely that I should pay more money and go through the usual pain to upgrade my OS.
Dave on July 27, 2009 8:45 AMI would stop whining that people still use XP, and be happy that they have a platform like .NET which will run about the same on both. That cannot be said of OSX updates.
Now if we could move everybody off of IE6/7, that would be another story.
Steve on July 27, 2009 8:45 AMI've been running Windows 7 for a while now. I don't have the RTM (where'd you pick it up, Jeff?) but I am running the latest RC.
While I thought that the anti-Vista hype was stupid marketing propaganda, I think that the pro-Windows 7 hype is also marketing. The anti-Vista flagellating on the web made people stick with XP and made my job harder. Vista was actually just fine for nearly everyone except perhaps extremely screen-refresh conscious gamers. And Vista is a heck of a lot easier for little old ladies to keep secure, which is what actually matters.
So I'd like people to switch to Windows 7 (or at least Vista). But I can't really notice that many differences. The new taskbar is different, but not really better. Nothing else really strikes me as that different from Vista. Windows 7 is, more than anything else, a second chance for Microsoft's marketing department.
Thras on July 27, 2009 8:46 AMMy XP 64-bit machine stomps your colon, Jeff. Vista sucks. I know this because I paid a ridiculous amount of money for it, only to turn around and buy XP a month later. I am sure Windows 7 will be Vista++ which is to imply that it has *even more* shit bundled within that I do not need or want. You're just a shameless promoter of brand-spanking new operating systems that don't increase your efficiency, simply because you enjoy wasting as many GB of RAM as you can afford.
Josh Stodola on July 27, 2009 8:49 AMThis was one of the more uninformative posts on this site I've seen. You basically gushed over Windows , no reasons given, just better. And then you want people to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP -- but maybe you're forgetting that XP-to-7 means *complete reinstall*. That sucks, and it's not happening for a great many people.
I'll consider putting Windows 7 on a new PC, but without a viable upgrade path, the throngs of XP boxes are going nowhere.
Tim G. on July 27, 2009 8:49 AMWell, the deciding factor for me will be: "Does this make my games go another 10% slower?". But the first tests I've read say that games run a bit faster then Vista. Promising!
Carra on July 27, 2009 8:49 AMWell, the deciding factor for me will be: "Does this make my games go another 10% slower?". But the first tests I've read say that games run a bit faster then Vista. Promising!
Carra on July 27, 2009 8:49 AMI use Windows XP every day at work, and it's a great OS. I've never had it crash once while at work (i've only had it completely crash maybe 4-5 times and 1 of those was hardware related: unseated RAM module). It's not a perfect OS by any means, but it's certainly not a "rusty" or "obsolete" tool. And to compare Windows XP to the complete GARBAGE that was IE6 is totally incorrect. I have to work with (and continue to support apps for) the ungodly creation that is IE6. Windows XP is a far better OS than IE6 is a web browser, not even close.
I've played with Vista, and the UI lift was just kind of "meh" to me. So they added some translucent windows (I'm a sucker for eye candy so I was really excited at first), but something just seemed lacking in Vista. They ditched their antiquated rendering engine, but that's the only thing I can recall that I actually liked about Vista. Moving away from bitmapped-based graphics rendering is not a reason to actually PAY to upgrade in my case.
Trey on July 27, 2009 8:50 AMThis was one of the more uninformative posts on this site I've seen. You basically gushed over Windows , no reasons given, just better. And then you want people to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP -- but maybe you're forgetting that XP-to-7 means *complete reinstall*. That sucks, and it's not happening for a great many people.
I'll consider putting Windows 7 on a new PC, but without a viable upgrade path, the throngs of XP boxes are going nowhere.
Tim G. on July 27, 2009 8:50 AMjust want to point out in addendum to my original post: I'm not some kind of Windows XP fanboy. I'm running the holy triad between the work box, laptop and home desktop: *nix, OS X and Windows.
If I had a single choice of an OS, Windows might not be it. But I say take your Vista AND your Windows 7 and keep it >:\
Trey on July 27, 2009 8:54 AMMartin Marconcini wrote:
> Get ready for Wi-Fi driver hell with W7. I've installed the
> beta/rc in a different number of laptops and only one (HP)
> could use the WiFi out of the box. The others? Hunting high
> and low for Vista / XP drivers.
First, installing a wi-fi driver is not driver hell. It's called par for the course when installing a new operating system. Plus, Vista drivers generally "just work" in Windows 7. If you have to search high and low for drivers, blame your manufacturer for 1) not working with MS to get it included in Windows, and 2) not making their driver website easy to navigate/search. For example, Dell does a good job making drivers easy to find.
Second, most consumers--the 95+% of people that will never do a clean install themselves--will never experience this. Having to download and install drivers manually might be an inconvenience for you and me, but the average person will never notice it. In my book, calling your experience "driver hell" is an exaggeration.
William Brendel on July 27, 2009 8:57 AMLet's not move too fast.
I do believe Win 7 is the next operating system to get. And I will be pleased to throw away my crusty rusty old screw driver. My Window PC will finaly keep up a little with Ubuntu and Mac OS.
But we still have a long way to go. There are a few months before the "in store" release, and even then, it won't be time to upgrade yet. Let's let the Dell custumers and other "average users" smash themself right in the wall with the first Win 7 PCs and quietly wait for the SP1, and then, only then, Win XP will finaly be history.
Franck on July 27, 2009 9:01 AM@Jeff "Now can we please get the hell off Windows XP already?"
No-oh! We like XP.
Rod on July 27, 2009 9:01 AMI'll continue to use XP thanks, for the following reasons:
1. My wife's computer is an ancient 1.4 PIII. It works just fine for her and with the constant threat of not having a job buying a new computer "just 'cause" seems like a bad idea.
2. My computer is slightly more modern (3 Ghz HT), but the video card doesn't support DX10. It also does what I need it to do.
3. The shared (Compaq) laptop barely runs XP decently. I also shudder at the thought of trying to find Win7 drivers for its little Compaq quirks.
4. My XP licenses are paid for. When Microsoft stops trying to suck $200 a license (if you're counting, that's $600) out of me I might upgrade. A while back Apple had a package deal, three OS licenses for a couple hundred bucks. MS needs to offer the same kind of deal.
Craig on July 27, 2009 9:08 AM@Martin Marconcini:
The actual figure is somewhere between 80% and 90% of overall Windows sales come from PC makers, depending on which report you believe. I was a few percentage points off, but that doesn't negate my argument.
More to the point, I hesitate to base my opinion of an operating system on anyone's experience upgrading. Certainly Vista was full of problems at first, but it has improved dramatically in terms of driver compatibility. Because I know most major OS releases have problems at first, I gave MS a pass for a few months, and I'm glad I did. Vista turned out to be not all that bad, as long as you are running it on recent hardware with a good amount of RAM. It sucks on old, slow hardware, granted. Most of the negative reports I have heard about Vista come down to, "I tried running Vista on my Pentium 3 with 512MB of RAM, and it SUCKS!" Well, yeah, that's really old equipment. Again, people I know with adequate hardware like Vista just fine.
I guess what I'm saying is that based on the positive feedback I've heard from people using Windows 7 in is beta/RC state on everything from netbooks to laptops to desktops, I can imagine the out-of-box experience for the average consumer being very good, even excellent. It's too bad that your hardware specifically doesn't work well with Windows 7, but I truly think you are in the minority here. I realize that hat doesn't make things any better for you, but again, most people will buy it from an OEM that has done all the work ahead of time. Even the people who buy the $400 Dell tower will be happy with it. Poor performance on low-end hardware is Vista's most significant problem, and Windows 7 fixed that problem well...
William Brendel on July 27, 2009 9:08 AMI put Windows 7 on about 3 weeks ago, with a dual boot to Vista. I have yet to reboot my Vista.
I love Windows 7, the new taskbar is GREAT.
David on July 27, 2009 9:11 AMI've been running the RC on all my computers since it came out. My newest machine is a Core 2 Quad running 64 Bit. Windows 7 runs slick as a whistle on it, and it should, with 8 gigs of RAM in the rig.
What's important, though, is that it runs *just as well* on a seven year old box with a single core @ 2.8Ghz and 2 gigs of memory, and runs well and smoothly, if not quite as fast, on machine with a 1.8 Ghz CPU and 512 *Megs* of ram.
Everybody seems so focused on the visible changes in Seven - and to be fair, many of them are very nice. I've been enjoying the new super bar quite a bit, and as Jeff said, there are a LOT of really nice little touches that make Win7 very polished. It's as important, though, to point out that a great deal has been changed out under the hood of the OS, and that the improvements seen from Vista, and even from XP, are quite impressive.
There's nothing wrong with XP - I still run a VM of it for development at work, and until a couple days ago it was on my work machine as the live OS. However, after ten years, the time is right for an upgrade, and while XP is still a good, stable, viable OS, the simple fact is that Windows 7 is, thus far, an absolutely excellent OS. Upgrading now means moving to a modern OS that will continued to be supported in the future - how long before XP is abandoned by developers, to say nothing of MicroSoft?
Aquaricat on July 27, 2009 9:18 AMWhile it might be Vista-as-it-should-have-been, it's not really a service pack if we have to pay to upgrade.
Sam on July 27, 2009 9:19 AMXP is like my 9 year old car. I have maintained it well and replaced worn parts (IE 6). It does not slow me down from getting where I need to go. Going to Windows 7 is like trading in that perfectly good car because the new one is prettier or get better gas mileage when I only commute 5 miles each way. When a truly compelling reason shows itself I will be ready to upgrade but not until then.
Doug Cummings on July 27, 2009 9:20 AMCan windows 7 be installed on a machine with a 400mhz cpu and 64mB ram? If it can, will it run at least as good as windows XP?
Breton on July 27, 2009 9:21 AMJust curious - did you download the GM through legal channels or did you pirate it?
I was under the impression that the first people outside of MS to get their hands on it legally would get it 8/6 and that was limited to OEMs.
Hunter on July 27, 2009 9:22 AMI loved the Beta and I'm looking forward to it hitting the shelves. Maybe I'll start using WPF now too.
Steve-O on July 27, 2009 9:24 AM"Again, people I know with adequate hardware like Vista just fine."
And requiring new hardware is the mark of a good OS?
Breton on July 27, 2009 9:24 AMSpeaking of price, I use Linux and get a free, virus-free operating system that gives me no grief at all and provides endless opportunity to learn with 1000's of free programs, some of which are clearly better than paid proprietary alternatives.
Why bother with Vista/Windows 7?
Pete on July 27, 2009 9:25 AMNew Windows versions coming out are always amusing. Every two-bit tech site trips over themselves to carry stories about Windows because it means lots of traffic...especially if it paints it in a negative light. Nerd rage builds and builds (especially on the echo chamber that is Slashdot) but ultimately nothing ever comes of it. All of the emotionally charged rants do nothing to change the world (who would have thought?)
Several years later, everyone has forgotten about the heinous, heinous sins of the former release. Additionally, it is no longer seen as bloated.
Matt Green on July 27, 2009 9:28 AM> if you don't find screwdrivers sexy, why do you want to convince us to get a new one? :)
>>I'm saying you should avoid using the rusted screwdriver which is >>liable to burst into fragments and cause a crippling hand wound at >>any time!
>>Jeff Atwood on July 27, 2009 7:02 AM
And I would argue that XP is a Snap-On, it will be reliable for years to come. What will Windows 7 do for me that XP does not? Not allow me to run some of the games I still enjoy? Allow me to upgrade my computer to handle the new specs? Those don't really sound like selling points to me. The screwdriver I have is working quite well thank you, when I notice that the edges are getting rounded off, I may think about getting a replacement, but until then I'm fine.
7's calculator sucks. If you're in "Programmer" mode, you can do binary/hex/decimal conversions, but you're restricted to integer arithmetic. If you're in "Scientific" mode, you can do decimal arithmetic but you can't convert between bases.
Joe on July 27, 2009 9:31 AMWindows 7 is a marketing stunt, to polish Vista a bit and provide an OS that is marginally better then the 10 years old predecesor is not realy an advance.
bear in mind that many of the security risks and flaws in the windows kernel (remeber? its based in VMS ideas) are still there, and only a masking using the UAC is able to help.
I still keeping windows XP with the existing flaws, instead of upgrading to a bloated OS for no real benefit.
daniel on July 27, 2009 9:32 AMI truly appreciate your opinion on the matter, Jeff, but let's be honest: you have a pro-Microsoft track record. Forgive me if I decide to wait until someone a little less biased -- http://frankkoehl.com/2009/01/jeff-atwood-still-wrong-about-php -- weighs in on the matter.
Anonymous on July 27, 2009 9:33 AMLOL - let me tell you the true story about the version number. We were shooting for 7.0.7777, but, alas, one of the things we discovered the hard way with vista was that there are many, many programs out there that check the version number incorrectly.
Instead of going "If the first number is higher, it's a newer OS. Or, failing that, if the second..." they compare "Let's make sure the first number is equal or higher. Or worse, they just check for equality to the version they thing there ought to be. And the second number is equal or higher. And..."
The result is of course, that installers quit claiming that you're running a version of the OS that's too old. That's not the kind of pain you want to put customers through. So, after a lot of investigation of the programs out there in the wild, a small adjustment was chosen that works for all that we tested, but we had to pass on a great number :(
Me on July 27, 2009 9:33 AM"with 1000's of free programs" one of them has to work!
Trevor Power on July 27, 2009 9:35 AMI'm a pretty happy user of XP (x64). I'm a developer and use it as my primary OS on a few machines, all of which have 8G of RAM. Granted, x64 XP is a few years newer - shares the same codebase as Server 2003 - but I'm at a loss as to why I would upgrade. I had nothing but pain with hardware compatibility with Vista, and since Windows 7 is more of the same I don't have great expectations.
"the lack of a compelling Windows upgrade path is a dangerous thing. "
Only to those with a vested interest in maintaining the microsoft dependency that the computing market is involved in today. True competition through alternative OS's like OSX and hopefully one day a real *nix worth using by an end user is the real solution to this "dangerous thing", not another windows upgrade.
phreakre on July 27, 2009 9:40 AMWindows Vista's underlying architecture fixed many issues with Windows XP. It was the first version of Windows that could actually function without having to run as an administrator. It was the first version of Windows that fixed the predictable dll memory location problem. It was the first version of Windows that honestly handled security issues. I would recommend that anyone who can, switch from Windows XP to Windows 7. Windows 7 is really that much better an OS.
But after almost nine years, I have to wonder if it was really worth it for Microsoft. Is Windows 7 better than Mac OS X Leopard? And, how does it compare to the upcoming Snow Leopard. How does it stack up against the latest revisions of Linux based operating systems?
Think about it: Microsoft poured billions into Vista and Windows 7. Microsoft received terrible publicity over Vista and may have started a tread in the business world to abandon its complete dependence upon Windows. And, what is the end result? An operating system that Jeff Atwood compared to a B student.
What IBM, Apple, and Google long ago realized is that operating systems may be so complex that it is almost impossible for one company, no matter how big or strong, can produce by themselves. IBM tried their hands at OS/2 and later AIX. Neither of those two operating systems got anywhere despite the billions IBM put into them. And, IBM had been producing operating systems before Bill Gates was born. It took a long time, but IBM finally abandoned their own OS pursuits and became a main backer of Linux.
Apple almost failed as a company as they burned through almost a billion dollars trying to create their own OS from scratch. They ended up buying an OS based upon BSD and the Mach kernel, and despite the lack of resources in people and cash, created a compelling platform that practically saved the company.
Google, from the very start, never even attempted to go on their own. They based their entire corporate operation on Linux, JavaScript, and Python. Their Chrome browser is based upon WebKit which is an open source project from Apple which itself is based upon the open source KHTML.
What if Microsoft, instead of trying to rewrite the underpinnings of Windows with Windows Vista instead simply conceded defeat and defected to the pinko commie open source side? What if they simply used Unix or even Linux as the underpinnings of Windows and saved the effort to rewrite the basic kernel and underlying architecture?
This doesn't mean that Windows would be an open source operating system or that Windows would be based upon either KDE or GNOME or even X11. No more so than Apple's Mac OS X or Palm's WebOS are open source (and Palm's OS is based upon Linux!).
Instead, Microsoft could have spent all their effort polishing the layers of the OS that really count. Clean up the Windows API, fix the various Windows protocols that allow Windows to so effortlessly network. Figure out a system that offers strong security, yet doesn't get in the user's way.
With the resources at Microsoft's disposal, they could have produced a new compelling and thoroughly polished OS back when Vista should had been released years ago. Instead, Microsoft is playing catchup in the consumer market and in the server market. If Microsoft wasn't so entwined in corporate networks and didn't have its death grip on PC manufacturers, Microsoft may have found itself in a similar position as Adobe or Sun.
As of now, Windows 7 comes out just in time. Another year or two, and corporations and manufactures would have abandoned Microsoft.
David W. on July 27, 2009 9:41 AMI'm not going to upgrade my XP machine or my Vista machine because the upgrade is too expensive. I'll probably buy my next machine in 3 years and that's when I'll get 7.
If they would have kept the $50 pricing for Home Premium around longer, I would have bought two upgrade licenses. They ended that promotion way too quickly (that should be the regular price anyway). Instead, I'll just wait until I get it preinstalled on my next machine.
Cory R on July 27, 2009 9:43 AMIt's amazing how this post has managed to draw the few percent who are going to stick with XP out of the woodwork. By their own admission, most of them haven't so much as looked at the feature lists or read a blog about it, or they'd know that it has less default software (much of the defaults in Vista were moved to Windows Live extras), more uninstallable features (IE8 can be completely removed), higher stability and performance than even XP (It's true, go look it up!). I bet these *are* the ones who still use IE6 and love it. =P Little wonder Microsoft is so eager to get rid of XP's official support.
Aurrin on July 27, 2009 9:43 AM@LavosPhoenix
12Gb install? Where are you dling the Win7 RC from?
Waiting for SP2 of windows 7 to be released. Only then will I seriously consider using Windows 7.
mayur on July 27, 2009 9:45 AMshit...
I have been with Windows XP since i moved to it from Win98SE right after XP SP2.
I will eventually moved to 7, but not yet, my computer would choke and die on 7, sadly. Hardware isnt expensive, but when you are barely making ends meat, the price is just too steep.
My tool isnt rusted or broken, its a venerable old workhorse that causes me no problems. I know how to use it, I know how to hack it to pieces and make it do what I want. I know how to fix it.
that is far more important than having the most up to date crap they throw at you.
Nesetalis on July 27, 2009 9:47 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email
|
|
Traffic Stats |