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?
@Craig:
There will be a family pack for windows 7.
"I know there have been some rumors going around about a “family pack” for Windows 7. We have heard a lot of feedback from beta testers and enthusiasts over the last 3 years that we need a better solution for homes with multiple PCs. I’m happy to confirm that we will indeed be offering a family pack of Windows 7 Home Premium (in select markets) which will allow installation on up to 3 PCs. As I’ve said before, stay tuned to our blog for more information on this and any other potential offers."
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windows7/archive/2009/07/21/when-will-you-get-windows-7-rtm.aspx
Damien on July 27, 2009 9:48 AMI haven't tried Windows 7 yet, so I'll withhold my judgment about whether or not it's better. However, experience with past Microsoft Windows releases has proven to me that they have a knack for taking any advance in hardware efficiency and speed over the years and nullifying it. I hope that Windows 7 really is a performance-tuned, bug fixed, usability-enhanced version of Vista. If so, I'll probably like it. If not, I'll stick with XP.
Mike on July 27, 2009 9:49 AMSorry Jeff, give me another 5 years. I tend to buy a computer every 6 years, and bought one last year with XP. That'll coincide with the end of extended XP support in 2014. Whether I am ready to buy a new computer at that point or not, XP will have to be deleted from my lappy.
I avoided Vista because of the cluster I have dealt with keeping my girlfriend's Vista machine marginally working. I'm not about to spend $200 or more to upgrade my backup operating system. I might spend the $30 most OEMs spend for new licenses though. Doubt Microsoft will offer a $30 upgrade program from XP.
colinnwn on July 27, 2009 9:51 AMI will fight my hardest to remain on XP as long as humanly possible to spite this article. It'll only be more satisfying to upgrade when I finally do, anyway - more things to explore, more new features, etc. Windows 8, here I come!
Anonymous on July 27, 2009 9:51 AMWell, I bought an Acer 751 netbook after the free upgrade offer from Vista to 7. Unfortunately, it came with Vista Basic.
I bought the netbook after the free upgrade date (Aug 26th?) but I can't get this 'service pack' for free, not eligible :(
In the mean time, the netbook runs well with Ubuntu 9.04 Netbook remix booting from an SDHC card. It has problems, but I have a couple of Windows apps I would like to continue using.
I think you're right; this absolutely is a service pack. I'm reminded of your "Oh, You Wanted "Awesome" Edition" post; at this point I would settle for a "usable" edition...
Phil Brooks on July 27, 2009 9:55 AMMojave.
twmcneil on July 27, 2009 9:59 AM"A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem."
[..]
"Windows 7 finally offers a compelling upgrade path from Windows XP"
That there are no changes for 9 years is bad, I agree. And windows 7 is nice and polished, of course. I have used the RC for a while and I like it a lot. It's certainly a big step in the right direction.
But a compelling upgrade? I use XP at work and go days without missing a feature from 7. That's not a compelling upgrade! To me it feels more like going from a 9 year old OS to a 7 year old OS.
The compelling part is that you will want to upgrade your PC some day, and by then windows 7 will be the only choice.
Windows 7 might be what longhorn was supposed to be, but longhorn was supposed to be out by 2004.
Console on July 27, 2009 10:05 AMWindows 7 is still insecure and virus prone, and XP is still faster.
I'll stick with XP.
Regis on July 27, 2009 10:07 AMWindows 7 doesn't have to be good enough to convince people to upgrade their existing machines - upgrading an old machine is often a sucker's bet anyway. It just has to be good enough that people will accept it on NEW machines, and not downgrade back to XP for new hardware. I think it will meet that goal.
Kevin Dente on July 27, 2009 10:13 AMI like Vista. It's a massive improvement in usability for me over XP. I am excited to use W7. Everyone I've heard who's used it and reported on it says it's great.
Paul Nathan on July 27, 2009 10:17 AMIt looks like the Microsoft marketing strategy works more or less this way:
1) sell something that sucks (still marketing it as the best of the best)
2) attract inane bad reviews
3) improve it a little (still marketing it as the best of the best)
4) the small improvements now generate a lot of positive buzz, due to the contrast with point 2.
5) profit
If it works, it's a strategy....
I remember when Win 95 came out, and I knew someone who pined for the DOS command line days cause they thought all the clicking was annoying. Don't know if that has any relevance whatsoever to the current thread, but I always think of that story when I hear people complain about new stuff.
J on July 27, 2009 10:22 AM"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."
Why?
What, exactly, is really so wrong with XP?
I'd rather live in a world of a long-lived OS where all the day-to-day stuff just works than one where I have to install a major OS upgrade every two 1/2 years.
kazoolist on July 27, 2009 10:24 AMI gave Ubuntu a good try (several months). Very nice system but not without defaults and I was annoyed to permanently keep VirtualBox to run a few important softs in XP.
Now using Windows 7 since latest RC and I think won't go back. I liked it within 5 minutes of use :)
Philippe on July 27, 2009 10:25 AMIf we could only get a good sized group of ace developers to finish up ReactOS, we could have an open source, free version of XP for life! Then Microsoft can stop supporting XP, and we can stop supporting Microsoft. I would actually be happy to buy a Windows "bare ass naked" edition for 50 bucks.
Justin on July 27, 2009 10:25 AMI have a Vista on my laptop, and it isn't horrible but it also isn't an improvement over XP. When I recently purchased a new computer, I built it for XP.
I fully disagree with Atwood's comment: "A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem"
I'm really very fine with that. There's been an over-emphasis on the operating system for far too long. It should just shut up and get out of the way. As long as it continues to be updated and has plenty of drivers, we don't need to be changing operating systems very 3 years. XP has ushered in a period of relative stability to our industry that's been very good thing and, unsurprisingly, people are reluctant to move away from that.
Unfortunately, XP is really at the end of it's life due to the move to 64bit. I'm confident that Windows 7 is an improvement over Vista, but I'm not yet convinced that it's the next 9 year operating system.
AlmostAlive on July 27, 2009 10:29 AM>Get ready for Wi-Fi driver hell with W7
>But I use OS X
Nice, real nice. A class act.
>It's amazing how this post has managed to draw the few percent who are going to stick with XP out of the woodwork.
There's a lot of arrogance surrounding the subject of the move from XP to Vista/7. Stupid is as stupid does. Stupid is quite the loudmouth.
>Forgive me if I decide to wait until someone a little less biased
If you dislike this blog enough to bitch about it in your own blog more then once then you not only need to get out more, but you need to find content that you enjoy reading rather then reading shit you hate.
Marcus on July 27, 2009 10:30 AM"[...] The core of the operating system isn't that different, but the experience is absolutely what Vista should have been on day one [...]"
so now you are quoting me: http://twitter.com/dani3l3/status/1475716374
How could you possibly think you would not relaunch the holy war between operating systems devotees?
Joke aside, i'm interested in a business review of Windows 7 and you seem to be able to do that honestly.
I'm a corporate windows system admin, and a happy one, because if you do things by the book, windows and active directory are realy good tools for the job. But we stick to XP as the cost of vista is just not worth it. And no software requires the upgrade, which means that with a correct maintenance, our old screwdriver is just not rusty.
And as i got everything outside my company running leopard (unix rulez and aqua is the only good interface for it - YEAH ! - ahem, sorry for that) I wont test it except on a dual boot macbook.
What does windows 7 brings us in term of efficiency in the corporate world, in your opinion?
Zof on July 27, 2009 10:31 AM@Mecki
>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).
LOL... OS X is nothing else but BSD with a pretty dress!!! I am sorry but no, OS X is not a decade ahead of windows.
Anyways...
I am not a MacHead, nor a MS fanboy. I like Linux because is free and solid, and yet I am an XP user. I prefer XP because is where I found a middle ground on usability and control without having to dig 10 man pages to do a task. I am not willing to pay $2000 for a Mac (a PC) with a ripoff BSD.
Windows 7 seem OK in beta, but in my opinion it has many quirks to be worked out before I am willing to move.
As for all of us getting off XP, well, it will not happen anytime soon. The company I work for has more than 3000 desktop computers running XP in single processor 2.7 Ghz with 500 MB of RAM. You do the math. they will not change unless they get forced to.
No silver bullet for any of us. Like it has been said before: Use the right tool for the right job.
Ask yourself what are you need and then chose an OS. Linux for your server, XP for the office, Win 7 for the entrepreneur, and OS X for grandma and your aunt so you don't have to spend time fixing their PCs.
Ric C. on July 27, 2009 10:33 AMSure, screwdrivers aren't sexy, but using one that is bent at a 90 degree angle day in and day out gets a bit... how shall we say... retarded. I'll go for the power drill (e.g. osx), thanks. :)
BJ Neilsen on July 27, 2009 10:38 AMWell, I won't upgrade my old Celeron 733MHz PC, for obvious reasons. I will be upgrading at work (8GB, 3GHz Core 2 Duo) and my media centre at home - I want the new 7MC features!
Have just bought a new laptop with Vista Home Basic and will put 7 Business on it straightaway.
Richard Gadsden on July 27, 2009 10:46 AM>> Speaking 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: Yes, when you think of it, it's rather insane why everybody still uses Windows so much, but from a historical point of view understandable.
But also most people do not buy Windows separately, they buy a new pc or laptop with Windows pre-installed and so you don't 'feel' the added price, it's all in the package...
But since i have always build my own pcs, i usually pay the full price, which is quite a lot i think, especially when i have to pay that same amount again within two years.
I like using Vista, i think it's a great OS, really, it does everything a good OS should do, but knowing there is an alternative that's free, has always made me doubt to finally switch to a linux distro.
For now the only thing that really keeps me, is the Adobe Software family which i use very frequently. I really hope it will one day be available on linux.
Sander Versluys on July 27, 2009 10:47 AMjeeezus! On one hand you have Linux:OS-X:Windows fanboys, and now on the other we have XP:7 fanboys. And the PPC:Intel for the macs.
Personally, I prefer to live the 1700s, back in those days women had no votes; actually, no-one had any votes, but then voting is for pussies anyway so it never bothered me so there; the health system consisted of some leeches and a hack-saw (who really needs all this so-called 'medicine' anyway, it's just eye-candy), and oh how I miss those witch hunts, back then we really knew how to fix bugs in our society. And for farming let's be honest, all you really need to feed 6 billion people is a horse and some turnips. For these reasons I see no reason to 'upgrade' to a little 'service pack' for these so-called '2000s'
I am, of course, exaggerating. Or not.
nony on July 27, 2009 10:49 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
Many of us thought of that a long time ago and moved to Mac or Linux.
I wonder how Windows 7 will handle those things that made me move--the fact that closing and opening the case caused XP to crash more often than not, the fact that XP degrades significantly over time, the fact that XP is pretty much always infected with some virus or keylogger...
I would not move from XP for looks/sexyness, if that's really what you are after move to a Mac or Ubuntu (which has far sexier graphics than pretty much anything out there once they are enabled...)
On the other hand, I won't know if 7 works until it gets loaded up with dell's crappy drivers, the crappy drivers that come with the video card, some crappy mouse and network drivers and an anti virus system; yet is fully usable within a second or two of opening the lid of my laptop.
Win7 has all the good things WinXP has but better.
- fast boot up & shut down
- Built to take advantage of multi-core processors
- Hard drive encryption
- Takes full advantage of graphic cards with the new "DirectX Compute"
http://www.nvidia.com/object/dxcompute.html
- No pre-installed garbage
- Windows search is waaaaaay better
I know its not as great as the "Copy-Paste" feature that
Apple added to there iPhone, but its not a bad list of new features.
(btw - this has to be the worst captcha ever!!!!!!)
@Thras I see comments like this EVERY time Vista is brought up. You were lucky, and had a good experience. Good for you. I installed it despite the nerd rage because I figured by SP1 it should be stable enough. I built a new system on Vista-compliant hardware, and suffered for months until I finally had enough and put XP back on.
The majority of my problems can be attributed to driver problems. I wiped it when the USB system quit working completely, even in safe mode, so I was totally unable to do anything. Before that I was plagued by sound problems, wifi problems, you name it. It was just beyond frustrating. Win7 will be a better experience just by virtue of the fact the the drivers are finally getting stable.
Some of us have just had a really bad experience with Vista through no fault of our own. And there are a lot of us.
Adam Lassek on July 27, 2009 10:54 AM>> Speaking 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: Here is my problem with your comment: "some of which are clearly better". "Some" is not good enough for most of the world and "clearly better" is completely in the eye of the beholder.
Rob Ringham on July 27, 2009 10:55 AM"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?
I'm not getting it Jeff....
if it's patched and up-to-date, who cares if you have the whiz bang new feature if you dont need it?
I went so far as to subscribe to TechNet just to get Win7 earlier.
Mythokia on July 27, 2009 11:00 AM@Damien,
Great news about the Family Pack for Win7. Unfortunately from the comparison chart at Microsoft's web site it looks like I'll need Professional in order to connect up to my domain at home. I may very well be wrong about that as the feature comparison chart is rather, uh, light in details.
I'm just reluctant to replace something that is working just fine for me with something new and shiny just 'cause. I was more than happy to jump from the Win9x ship to XP, but my machine will run for weeks without a reboot now, so I'm just not seeing the compelling reason to put Win7 on my old computers.
Craig on July 27, 2009 11:02 AM@Zof
For corporate users I think one of the most important features of W7 hasn't even been mentioned yet. Windows XP app virtualization. I am also an Enterprise Windows admin and this one feature makes W7 an easier upgrade than any previous version of windows.
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 11:07 AMDon't worry, it is going to be a while before any OS takes the most popular crown away from Windows XP... and that's okay.
Bill K says:
"I wonder how Windows 7 will handle those things that made me move--the fact that closing and opening the case caused XP to crash more often than not, the fact that XP degrades significantly over time, the fact that XP is pretty much always infected with some virus or keylogger..."
You know, maybe you should stop visiting random porn websites and run alien binaries with no discretion? No operating system will protect you from your stupidity. I never had a single virus/malware infection in Vista with no antivirus ever since January 31, 2007. AND yes there are lots of other ways to check viruses without installing anti viruses.
wbkang on July 27, 2009 11:19 AM@EBGreen
Have in mind that you will need to pay for two licenses, one for Win 7 and one for XP in order to use virtualization.
So now you company have to buy 3000 Win 7 licenses in top of the 3000 XP ones. Upgrade all the hardware. Oh!! and don't forget: It is 3000 clean installs!!! I love to see all the missing documents these users will have.
And all of this for what? What makes this a good business decision to upgrade?
Ric C. on July 27, 2009 11:20 AMCompletely agree - I migrated from XP to Vista early on and was very impressed with it. But, after 6 months of using it (and losing my XP installation disc), Vista was on the verge of becoming completely unusable. I reformatted 4-6 times while on Vista.
As soon as the Windows 7 beta was released publicly, I installed it as my primary operating system and I haven't looked back since! This is truly the best operating system to ever come out of Redmond.
Captcha: $1 chicks - hilarious.
Michael Wales on July 27, 2009 11:20 AM>> Speaking 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?
You are clearly out of mind.
It's virus-free because less than 1% of world population uses it. It gives you endless opportunity to screw up your system if that's what you mean.
AND tell me, what are "some of which are clearly better than paid proprietary alternatives." out of your 1000+ programs. I guarantee you, with rare exceptions, 900+ of them are all crap.
For example, give me an FOSS equivalent MS Office Suite. Like Excel, Word, OneNote, Outlook and stuff. No, OpenOffice, and Tomboy don't count. Their functionality is equivalent to like MS Office 97 with 10x more memory usage.
wbkang on July 27, 2009 11:24 AMI've long thought that the only things keeping people on XP (besides plain old fear of change) are (1) that they are locked into Microsoft document formats and (2) aging hardware.
Obviously an OS with higher hardware requirements doesn't solve problem 2. Linux is more and more user-friendly. I think many people would be surprised that a light Linux distro on their aging hardware can perform better than XP.
But for that to be reasonable we also have to solve problem 1. We need a real Linux office suite that interfaces well with MS formats (OO.o doesn't count last I checked). Until we have that, or until everyone has oodles of money to throw at new machines, XP will always live on.
CynicalTyler on July 27, 2009 11:24 AM@Ric C.
You are correct regarding the dual license issue. I don't deal with the aquisitions stuff, but we usually get pretty good terms. 20,000 licenses gives a reasonably good bargaining chip. I also wonder if the XP licenses we already have could be migrated? I doubt it, but who knows.
As for the clean install issue, we only do OS upgrades as part of a Hardware Refresh cycle, so that part isn't really a concern.
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 11:24 AM@Ric C.
I don't deal with the money side of things, but in the past we have been able to get pretty good volume license agreements. Plus, I doubt that we would need to have all users have the XP ability. Just the fact that we have the option for the ones that do is a vast improvement.
As for the clean install, we only do OS version upgrades as part of a Hardware Refresh cycle anyway so that really isn't an issue.
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 11:28 AMDavid W.:
That's exactly what I always say. MS' lousy business practices aside, I don't really dislike Windows that much. It's just that even with loads of brilliant programmers, more money than god, and a standing monopoly over the PC market, Vista (and now w7) is all they can come up with.
It's just so disappointing.
If that means that I have to be part of the couture crowd, so be it. At least I go down in style.
remmelt on July 27, 2009 11:28 AMSorry for the dual post...silly captcha lied and said it errored. :(
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 11:30 AMLike Zof, I am curious how it will affect corporate IT. Because XP is 9 years old, few people who have only been working IT for the last 8 years have done a large desktop rollout of a new OS. I would suspect that XP will be around for a while longer until Corporate IT just rolls out new computers with the OS already installed. I don't see them upgrading thousands of computers that currently have a working XP installed on them.
Jeff Martin on July 27, 2009 11:32 AMI'm weighing in on the discussion in favor of Win7, and this is coming from someone who could only stand Vista for a month before reverting back to XP. I've been using Win7 x64 RC since it was released. My video (ATI Radeon) and sound (SB Xtreme Music) are both running on beta drivers, and the whole thing is more stable than any version of Windows I've run on since Windows 2000. I agree with Jeff that Win7 is what Vista should have been from the beginning.
I still have no idea why, after utter disinterest in Vista from the beginning, I'm actually excited abt Win7. I'm very much looking fwd to getting the RTM installed (available to MSDN subscribers Aug. 6) and leaving XP behind for good.
Craig Boland on July 27, 2009 11:37 AMInteresting article, i always said Win7 was like a service pack also (usually when replying to people saying Snow Leopard is one) and both are true. I have to honestly say that XP was my 1st operating system and the only windows one i use often, i have had a lot of experience with especially when having to fix things that have gone wrong with them.
It was actually this that made my 1st laptop a mac (no haters please) and i chose to have windows XP as my virtualisation of choice. Though if Windows 7 is as good as its hyped to be it will be my secondary OS and will get a lot more use than my XP currently does.
Siddif on July 27, 2009 11:39 AMsorry i meant to say " i have had a lot of experience with Vista especially when having to fix things that have gone wrong with them."
Siddif on July 27, 2009 11:40 AMIt's 6.1.7600 for application compatibility, not because it is 0.1.1598 better.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
Donny V, you're not serious, right?
You say:
Win7 has all the good things WinXP has but better.
1- fast boot up & shut down
2- Built to take advantage of multi-core processors
3- Hard drive encryption
4- Takes full advantage of graphic cards with the new "DirectX Compute"
5- No pre-installed garbage
6- Windows search is waaaaaay better
And then diss Apple for finally (admittedly, very very late!) providing the iphone with copy and paste. Well.
WinXP has:
1- the ability to hibernate. Computer is off (zero power) and starts super fast.
2- Who has a SMP/MC system? Next upgrade, sure. But that's not what this is about, we're talking existing systems. Also, there won't be that much to gain with dual core systems.
3- TrueCrypt is free.
4- Unless applications start using it, there is no need. Also, you need a DX10 card. Existing systems, remember?
5- Get your computer from somewhere else than the box pushers. Or do a reinstall.
6- There are plenty searching apps out there for XP.
Then, you burn Apple.
Here we go with another list.
1- System standby is perfect, it is way, WAY better than anything I've experienced with Windows, hands down. I do not need to reboot, ever. Hibernate also works.
2- See Snow Leopard.
3- At least since Tiger (that's the next to last version. Go W7!)
4- See Snow Leopard.
5- See any OSX version. (Also, deleting applications actually throws them away! What do you know!)
6- Hello? Spotlight? At least since 1885.
Poor guy. Is it the price?
remmelt on July 27, 2009 11:42 AMSometimes I find that I have a very unique opinion over the matters.
In this "XP-Vista-W7" debate, I think that XP sucks, Vista SP1 is great, but there is no real difference between W7 and Vista (for current hardware!).
Besides maybe improved font smoothing I did not notice any real advantages in W7 over the Vista SP1 which, again, is good.
Vista a good OS and I don't understand why it should target for 400MHz CPU if you could not buy one even 5 years ago. I've just doubled my RAM (4-> 8Gb) and I did notice the difference.
Of course, until very recent there were problems with drivers, especially 64-bit ones. My Canon MF3110 works in 64-bit OS only if I do some magic and install x64 drivers from different model. Sony released 64-bit photo raw files "driver" not very long ago. Preview handlers for Adobe PDF does not work in 64-bit OS even today.
What Microsoft ideally had to do was to introduce Blame Wall Website where they would rank top hardware vendors on their ability to support their hardware both in mere availability of drivers and quality of drivers. Unfortunately, because of stupid US laws of yours, MS would be sued to death for that.
God I love these topics that bring all the prius driving, mac rubbing d-bags out of the woodwork...
scott on July 27, 2009 12:01 PM'Poor guy. Is it the price?'
case in point.
@remmelt
Let me get this right....
First you tell me to stay on WinXP because I should
stay on old hardware and use third party add-ons to get Win7 functions.
So you then compare the new Mac OS to the old WinXP and tell me
I should buy a Mac that runs on a Intel Dual Core (which you tell me you don't gain much from with Win7).
....alrighty then.
To the pro-Win7 crowd: it doesn't matter how much "better" Windows 7 is. No matter how many new features, security improvements, and visual facelifts you give the OS, Regular Joe isn't going to upgrade unless it offers him a ** compelling improvement over his current setup **.
Regular Joe can browse the web, play games, IM, and write documents on XP just as well as he can on Win7. In fact, he can do it better because he doesn't have to learn anything new.
Without a clear benefit to non-techies (which naturally makes up the bulk of commentators here), the rollout of Windows 7 will trickle in similar fashion to Vista.
Frank on July 27, 2009 12:05 PMI this a piss take? didn't find it funny.. if not- wow, the major version stayed the same to help compatability..
Stephen on July 27, 2009 12:18 PM>> Without a clear benefit to non-techies (which naturally makes up
>> the bulk of commentators here), the rollout of Windows 7 will
>> trickle in similar fashion to Vista.
@Frank, there are many benefits to non-techies, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_7
Non-exhaustive list: touch screen support, speech & handwriting recognition improvements, better SSD support, much better taskbar UI, Device Stage, DirectX 11, and a whole slew of other new features.
I dislike when people refer to Win7 as a service pack to Vista for those very reasons. 3 years of major development work isn't a service pack. It's a major release and it's my opinion that it is silly to perpetuate this thinking that it's simply a service pack.
William Brendel wrote:
>First, installing a wi-fi driver is not driver hell.
I don't have to install any driver on OS X, I don't have to install any driver on Linux.
I don't have to install such driver on Windows XP Tablet PC 2005.
>It's called par for the course when installing a new operating system.
Not for six laptops that are between 1 and 2 years old. The chipsets are the usual suspects. We're talking about LG, HP, Sony, Toshiba stuff here. Not "Alienware-weird".
>Plus, Vista drivers generally "just work" in Windows 7.
How many boxes have you installed from scratch with W7 to say "Vista drivers 'just work'" ? I did it with twelve boxes so far. Two virtual machines, ten real boxes. Did I have bad luck?
>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.
You have got to be kidding me… hahahahaha. Why don't I blame Canada too, just in case.
>For example, Dell does a good job making drivers easy to find.
Therefore, Windows 7 Driver base is good… ok. Good argument.
>Second, most consumers--the 95+% of people that will never do a clean install
Where did you get that number from? Why is microsoft offering upgrades so aggressively so users who purchased the crap of Vista can easily upgrade to W7?
What makes you think that your nice Windows Vista box will continue to work (driver-wise) with W7?
Might not. (In fact, I've seen it FAIL as I just said before)
>In my book, calling your experience "driver hell" is an exaggeration.
Well, apparently you don't read much, do you?
Stop defending an OS who has "just been not-released", an OS in which you don't seem to have much experience apart from toying with the Beta or RC if anything. I don't know what you do, but I am a MS GOLD partner (not that I really like it) and have to make sure that W7 works on LOTS of hardware we sell.
Guess: It doesn't.
Windows 7 is the best windows ever. But Windows is such a stupid operating system. Microsoft is slowly fixing things here and there, but they don't see that the problem lies in the core of the OS.
Eventually it will work.
If I had to use a machine it would be XP or 7, no doubt. But thank god there are alternatives. Good luck installing your new printer on W7…
Martin Marconcini on July 27, 2009 12:53 PMI want to buy a new computer, my XP computer is 4 year old. I will buy a windows 7 pc in november, looking forward to it.
Theo on July 27, 2009 12:54 PM
@Jeff-
You provide absolutely NO factual basis for any of your assertions here, save the calculator example. I know you can do better.
Chris on July 27, 2009 1:03 PM>> Windows 7 is the best windows ever. But Windows is such a stupid
>> operating system. Microsoft is slowly fixing things here and
>> there, but they don't see that the problem lies in the
>> core of the OS. Eventually it will work.
@Martin Marconcini, would you care to enlighten us as to why "Windows is such a stupid operating system"? Or perhaps elaborate on "but they don't see that the problem lies in the core of the OS". Do you see the problem in the core of the OS? 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.
Rob Ringham on July 27, 2009 1:10 PM"Now can we please get the hell off Windows XP already?"
Why? What is so horrible?
John
I'm using Windows 2000 and IE 6.0 is there something wrong with me?
I also have FireFox 3.0, but IE is so much faster and more stable.
I will never understand this amazing hatred towards Microsoft. If it's so hated then don't use it? If it's so awful than I'm unsure why there hasn't been any great company around to dethrone it. Isn't that capitalism at its finest? There's still a shred of that left these days, isn't there?
K.R. on July 27, 2009 1:25 PMXP was the height of MS dominance. XP was arguably the best OS that MS has ever created and every single feature that has been added to vista or vista 2.0 could have easily been added to XP half a decade ago.
Only a very small group of die hards have converted to either Vista or 7. And only a small group plan to do so. The majority of people that get a box with the latest and "greatest" OS from MS immediately downgrade to XP or install Linux.
Jimmy the Geek on July 27, 2009 1:25 PMFor somebody extolling the virtues of Windows, it would be nice if you actually knew _why_ the version number was 6.1. It has nothing to do with being a "service pack" for Vista.
In fact, anyone who thinks Win7 is a service pack shouldn't be allowed to write technical blog posts.
Nick on July 27, 2009 1:27 PMI think he knows that Nick...I think Jeff might have been...dare I say...sarcastic?
K.R. on July 27, 2009 1:29 PMPeople that can't recognize sarcasm shouldn't be allowed to read blogs?
EBGreen on July 27, 2009 1:32 PMWindows 7 is anything but a service pack. A service pack contains no new features, no significant UI changes, and only includes the minimal changes necessary to fix a targetted set of bugs (generally limited to security issues and deployment blockers).
Service packs are built by a small "sustained engineering" team.
Windows 7 was built by 5000+ engineers over 3 years. It contains hundreds of new features, new APIs, and major changes at every layer of the system - including very significant changes to the kernel (including removal of the dispatcher spinlock, all the WDDM 1.1 features + optimizations, memory usage and virtualization improvements, etc).
Windows 7 is version number 7. As explained on the E7 Blog months ago, the GetVersionEx API returns "6.1" for compatibility reasons. One example for the reasoning behind this is this common buggy version check implemented in many applications:
if (dwMajorVersion >= 5 && dwMinorVersion >= 1)
{
// Work on Windows XP and Windows 7.
}
else
{
// Fail on Vista.
}
@Adam Lassek
When I run into drivers problems on Windows, I generally fault A) the hardware manufacturer and B) myself for not checking compatibility before buying the hardware.
I didn't run into any driver issues with Vista. But I installed in on new hardware that I had checked out for compatibility first.
If you're looking for compatibility with older devices, then I'm afraid that Vista is the wrong operating system for you. Luckily that sort of thing is a nerds-only problem. The vast majority of people only get Vista with a new computer.
Thras on July 27, 2009 1:34 PMI agree without reading the article.
shaharyar on July 27, 2009 1:35 PMXP is a bit holder, not a screwdriver. IE6 is a bit that can be replaced easily to a better one. Windows 7 may be better and shinier bit holder, but, as with real tools, not every one needs new and shiny pro tools, especially if they don't use screwdrivers to earn for a living. Operating systems are a part of our lives, the difference being that to someone that part is larger. People will upgrade only when they see benefit to it. So, you are saying we all should use power drills just because they are better than regular screwdrivers, but you forget that not everyone does drywall mounting for a living.
captcha: "buying income", great.
Carlos on July 28, 2009 2:09 AMSorry Jeff, but I will stick with XP as long as possible.
> A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem
I disagree. In fact, I find the opposite to be true. There's something about a product that has been through 3 service packs that I find much more appealing than a cutting edge new shiny thingy. What was the word? Can't remember...
Oh wait: Reliability.
Treb on July 28, 2009 2:11 AMIf only Microso$t could have put a Windows XP theme on Vista...
Jérôme RADIX on July 28, 2009 2:29 AMSince when did service packs come with a price tag?
Martin on July 28, 2009 2:44 AMI really don't see what all the competing between OS's is about.
Does the OS do what you need it to do? If so than it is good enough. Are you willing to pay the cost for the license to use that OS (whether it be $200 or free doesn't matter)? If so than it is good enough. If you are completely satisfied with your environment then it is good enough for you.
If you can't or don't want to use the new features, then don't buy the new version. Someone out there can use them, and they will buy the new version. Every OS out there is useful for someone. There is no reason that one OS has to be better or worse than another, they just have different design goals.
If you want better security, choose this OS. If you want a cleaner interface, choose that OS. As long as it does everything you want/need it to it is good enough. There is no reason to bash OS's that don't fulfill your every need. Just acknowledge that this OS isn't for you and move on.
I am quite happy using XP x64, but I know people that love OSX, people that love Ubuntu, people that love BSD, people that love Vista, people that love W7. As far as I'm concerned those other people don't have bad choices, or terrible taste, or use crappy OS's, all it means is that those people have found that those other OS's cater to their uses better than to mine. Whether it be actual uses, design philosophies, or even interface feel, there is no "bad OS", merely "the wrong OS for you". If people could just remember that then there would be significantly less OS bashing and negative OS posts flying around.
SHamman on July 28, 2009 2:51 AM>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..."
Wow, I remember an MSDN discussion of this exact issue when Windows'95 came out, because vendors were getting it wrong back then too. This sort of shows up the difference between Microsoft and the OSS community, MS will bend over backwards to support existing users (even if what they're doing is technically wrong) while with OSS things just break when you upgrade and you're expected to rewrite your app/scripts/macros/whatever every few years (I'm thinking Python, emacs, and a bunch of other things here). The OSS approach is arguably technically cleaner, but it's the MS one that keeps the users happy.
Dave on July 28, 2009 2:57 AMI have to say: I'm a little dissapointed that people have such a bad attitude toward XP.
Just because its old, its bad? There's no reason to say that. The reason people stick with it is because IT WORKS. ITS TESTED. ITS PROVEN. ITS QUALITY.
I like a new take on an OS as much as the next guy, but I also understand that the geekier people learn not to be addicted to the fresh and new: they want what works. Since they do, they turn to tried and true OS's, of which XP is probably the best example in the recent computing world.
Adam on July 28, 2009 3:04 AM>higher stability and performance than even XP (It's true, go look it up!).
I'm typing this in a machine running 64-bit Vista. It's running on a 3Ghz Core2 Duo with 2GB RAM and equivalent hardware for the rest of the system. After I hit the power switch, I can go downstairs, put some water on to boil, grab a cup and some milk, carry them upstairs, go down again to fetch the water (it's a quick-boil kettle), take that upstairs, pour it in the cup with the teabag (yeah, I make tea wrong, so sue me), and then usually still have to wait a bit before the Vista desktop is ready (it's so bad that I've gotten into the habit of hitting the power and then wandering off to do something else while it boots. The Vista PC's at work are just as bad, it's actually changed the way the tea-lovers have their tea break because now you go and make it while waiting for Vista to start up).
On an older 2Ghz P4 running XP I can locate and plug in my headphones, and not much more than that, after which the system is ready to use.
But obviously Vista is much faster, because someone has said it is on their blog, and that must be right.
Dave on July 28, 2009 3:12 AM>So you still use Internet Explorer 6, I take it?
No, not personally, but I'm posting this from work where we are mandated to use IE 6. Why should you care? Because I'm one of 30k federal employees within this agency!
Thank you, SHamman. I wish more people would realize this. I use to be a real Windows basher until I woke up one day and realized that it has it's uses, just like Linux, MacOS, BSD, etc.
Matthew Morgan on July 28, 2009 3:30 AMWhat irks me as a Mac user (but a programmer nonetheless, hence me reading and following Jeff's musings on his blog) is that for YEARS smug Microsoft Windows users have been labelling OS X releases as "paid service packs" and boasting that MS release service packs for their operating systems that fix bugs, add new programs and generally make things run smoother -- for free -- whereas OS X releases are just prettied up interfaces and have some things moved around (those who actually use OS X would know that differences in versions are much more deeper than frivolous GUI changes).
Now that Windows 7 is coming out (which I think is a great OS and a huge improvement over Vista), you guys all slap yourselves on the back and happily anticipate the handing over of hard-earned cash (and a lot of it IMO) for what basically Jeff has labelled a "service pack".
Now me being one of the, if not the solitary, Mac user(s) that frequent this blog, I am prepared to have my arse flamed to hell and back, but could someone explain to me the reasoning or thought process in why there are double standards in this regard? It just seems to me that something that PC users portrayed as a deadly sin, is OK when Microsoft do something similar with their OS.
And no, the reasoning of "Mac OS X just sucks" won't cut it for me.
George on July 28, 2009 3:31 AM@David W.:
I must agree with your statement, that no single company alone in the world can really build a successful OS, unless you are willing to make lots of compromises regarding quality. That's why I love OS X so much. It has a rock solid BSD subsystem (which is all OpenSource BTW), it is one of the very little OSes that have reached full POSIX compliance - whether I think the microkernel is great or not... I'm not sure how meaningful a microkernel is that is embedded into a huge monolithic BSD kernel; either just have a microkernel or just have a monolithic one - the hybrid approach of Apple seems to have almost no benefits, but it has drawbacks (e.g. performance is worse than it could be). The default Obj-C API bases on NextStep (also not Apple!); so OS X is not just an operating system of a single company, Apple picked stable components form all places and merged them together into a single OS.
Mecki on July 28, 2009 3:43 AM@ Jeff
"Can you imagine any other industry operating this way?"
Nuclear, Aerospatial, Manufacturing, Logistics, etc. All industries need reliable technology and unfortunately windows is not reliable. No one will ever use windows at factory level. Many Industrial apps are still text mode, and if windows is used is only to connect to a main server.
Examples: Emergency networks (police, ambulances, etc.) use HP-UX systems. Airbus and Boeing use linux for non navigation software (navigation soft is under regulations and win, lin, osx does not fit regulations). PLC are used in 99.9% to control factory plants. Even nuclear plants still have analog computers.
All of us, programmers, computer addicts, techies... we live in a cloud that is far far far, far away from reality. Many people is still programming in assembler for many industrial appliances.
So, the only industry concerned about windows versions, windows versus linux versus osx, kde versus gnome, etc. are us, the 'real' software industry. I mean, software that do not need to interact with any hardware. I mean, hardware lime machines, robots, CNC, not computer hardware. :D
Sorry for my bad English.
Jaume.
Jaume on July 28, 2009 4:02 AMI've been visiting this site for many years, and this was the most wrongheaded nonsense I've ever read.
I stayed on Win95 until I HAD to upgrade, then went to 98. Then I went to XP around SP1. Vista offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. In fact I've bought three computers that came with Vista. I immediately wiped the hard drive and installed XP.
I need better hardware just to run it at a comparable level with my XP install. I mean really it's a case of "It's like XP but requires more expense and less software will run on it."
I find it insane that people seem to be PRAISING the fact it takes so many gigabytes of space. "Oh I don't care, I have 1 terabyte of space." What sort of ludicrous mentality is that. "Hey, this new car I bought has FIVE seats. I must immediately fill one with boxes so I can't use it!"
Compare this with Snow Leopard where one of Apple's marketing points is the fact it takes LESS HD space than Leopard.
This attitude that you MUST upgrade, and anyone who supports it, can stick it. I'm a gamer. A fair few games don't even SUPPORT Vista. Now you can say "Well that's not MS' fault", which is a fair point. But perhaps if they hadn't foisted an incomplete abortion of an OS onto the world we wouldn't have these issues. Anyone could see Vista was going to be a disaster when MS kept dropping features from it.
Regardless of the reasons, there is software that won't run on Vista. Go look at your local game store and you'll see small print saying it's not guaranteed to work on Vista. Windows, the PRIMARY OS OF THE MAJORITY OF THE PLANET, and THE computer gaming OS, and there's titles being released that don't work on it. THAT right there should tell you all you need to know about Vista. It is GAMING that has driven the hardware revolution. Do you think we'd have such amazing graphics cards out there if it wasn't for gamers? No, we wouldn't.
When an OS, on a system whose development is driven by gaming, isn't support by developers of said software, that's a far bigger condemnation of the OS manufacturer than the game maker.
Basically anyone who uses Vista has paid to be a beta testers for MS and now the release candidate is coming and you're expected to pay again. You promote MS, all I can say is PT Barnum would have loved you.
I'm using a Mac lately. Windows has been reduced to essentially a Gameboy with a web browser. I run Boot Camp on my Macbook just for games. I'll be sticking with XP. Eventually I know I'll be forced to upgrade to carry on. That's not going to happen for AT LEAST 3 years as game companies will NOT want to exclude chunks of the market. Meaning my beloved XP that JUST WORKS will be around for a while yet. And when I reach the point where I HAVE to upgrade, then I guess I'm done gaming on the PC.
People crow on about "stability" etc... And how much BETTER Vista and W7 are, and yet I'm sitting here unable to remember the last time XP crashed on me.
I always felt Jeff was a tool for a variety of reasons, but this article has finally been the light at the end of the tunnel. You are a tool Jeff. You are either in the pay of Microsoft, which makes you a whore. Or you're evangelizing for free when MS should be paying you for such glowing commendations, which makes you an idiot.
People could spend MONTHS dissecting this articles many lies, falsehoods and flat out insane declarations. The fact Jeff seems to be worshipped in certain corners is rather disturbing. It's like computings answer to Scientology.
Spinky on July 28, 2009 5:07 AM@George:
>Now me being one of the, if not the solitary, Mac user(s) that frequent this blog,
Not at all. I'm another one. But I program under Windows (Vista/XP/7 now) using Visual Studio 2008.
Since the 1st Intel Mac, I rarely touch windows outside a Virtual Machine, except when testing TabletPC Hardware or our own sofware on real machines.
Yet I still read Jeff's blog. Sometimes he goes nuts, but sometimes he writes nice stuff (even if 50% of the articles tend to be huge pictures and big quotes from books).
;)
Martin Marconcini on July 28, 2009 5:27 AM@Dinesh Gajjar
I'm one of those persons that really believe that each task got its own tool that rightly fit with the job.
As I said, I'm a happy windows corporate admin. Because I can tightly control my users behaviour with group policies, because a decent computer with windows is cheap to buy so my company have always decent computers. We in fact got a what I think is a good hardware policy: every year we replace a third of all our workstation (let them be desktop or laptop). So none of our hardware is more than 3 years old, and the cost is even every year (not true, every year the cost is diminishing). So this policy is easy to sell to our CFO.
But, I have to disagree with Jeff. You see, what is computing except a tool for the enterprise? But what is really the tool of the enterprise? The software. The software is what makes the business run every day. The software needs an os to run, which in turn needs a hardware. Software performance is in the real world more directly affected by a faster hardware than a faster os (given that windows, or OS X, or *nix are pretty mature and hence don't have core major performance issue).
Well no software crucial to the windows business world needs anything more recent than XP SP2. So XP SP2 *is* still a pretty decent tool or the job. Then you have to consider the micro computing world: micro computing is about compromise: it's not the best computing solution, it's the one enough decent with a price tag you can afford. Ethernet, wifi, pentiums, all those technologies were and are not the best you can achieve, their the best you can afford, or, to put it another way: they are the best commercial achievements, not the best technological achievements. And that's what is windows: the best commercial achievement, and the best value vs technology you can buy. In this point of view, vista is less interesting than XP.
Where does 7 stand?
PS: And for all the other holy wars, Os X, for the independent basic user with no technology background and for the high end geek, is in my opinion the best OS. For everything that stands between, it is rubbish. Because it's more easy and more polished and that apple is the true evil in the control of what's inside, it is better to the lame luser (who will any way loose 400 bucks paying a far cousin to make is windows box work like it should). Because it's a true unix overly optimized for it's beautiful and tailored hardware is perfect for the maniacal geek. I love my home mac, and I love my corporate windows. I feel I got the right tool avery where for the respective job they got to do.
Zof on July 28, 2009 5:33 AMsorry for the bad english, it is not my language, I tend to write what phonetically think in english.
Zof on July 28, 2009 5:52 AMWindows ME, Windows Vista..
maybe windows should stop naming their OS ? :)
I think my bad experience with Vista came with a pre-installed HP laptop, was just terrible. Have not used Vista since. I know you should reinstall yourself, but no OS should be as bad as that.
Windows7 on the other hand, hands down the best OS by microsoft.
Still ALOT that could be better...
peter palludan on July 28, 2009 5:55 AMDammit, I like my Windows XP. Good gaming platform, doesn't force me to buy new hardware. And paid for.
NR
P.S. What happened to 'Orange'?
Norman Ramsey on July 28, 2009 6:19 AM"A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem"
Why? You can't just state something so counter-intuitive as though it's a fundamental axiom.
Dave Hemming on July 28, 2009 6:22 AMI upgraded from Vista to Windows 7 RC and it fucked my PC in 14 different ways.
7 is zippy, and pretty, and a better user experience, no doubt--but I won't be installing it again anytime soon.
Joe on July 28, 2009 6:30 AM"Vista a good OS and I don't understand why it should target for 400MHz CPU if you could not buy one even 5 years ago."
Well then I see no reason to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7.
(what, you want me to just throw away a computer that still works for the opportunity to spend thousands of dollars for something that in all probability runs slower, and takes longer to boot?)
So, Microsoft is finally at 2004?
Victor on July 28, 2009 6:57 AMI had Vista come pre-installed on two different Dell machines I had bought, one when Vista was fairly new, another several months later.
No problems with either.
HP laptop, no problems there.
Built a machine from scratch (intel mobo, ati video card -- standard stuff) -- no worries.
Even worked with my networked Brother printer just fine.
Maybe some of ya'll should stop buying shitty computers.
Especially those who are still experiencing problems on Windows 7.
Hey, I know, maybe you just can't handle regular Legos and should stick with Duplo blocks (Mac) instead.
N on July 28, 2009 7:18 AMI read several people claiming OSX is true competition and it doesn't have Driver problems etc.
But people do you know Apple is the only company that manufactures whole hardware as well as the software for Macs ? They can't be a true competition. By definition they are evil. They want to control everything, they are worst then Microsoft.
Those that are happy with Macs, why do you care to read and comment on this post? Windows 7 is going to hitback at growing Mac market. Only people who would love to use Macs are those who don't have too much work on PC or the designers.
Dinesh Gajjar on July 28, 2009 7:25 AM@Dave:
>But obviously Vista is much faster, because someone has said it is on their blog, and that must be right.
nothing wrong with making tea that way boyo, as long as it's hot who cares?
But my experience is the polar opposite of yours - with more or less the same spec - I've had my machine for a year now, with tons of crap installed on it including SQL Server 2005 - and it still boots to the desktop in about 30 seconds, ready to go.
Stephen on July 28, 2009 7:31 AM"I'm much more interested in the cool stuff you're creating than what OS you use to create it with."
That's a strange thing to say in a post about what you consider a minor update to Vista.
M on July 28, 2009 7:31 AMI like rusted screwdrivers; they are made of better steel than the cheap chinese imports that are available today...
Mac on July 28, 2009 7:52 AMThe comments to this entry are closed.
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email
|
|
Traffic Stats |