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?
I guess the urgency of the need to change is somewhat based upon how well what you've got works. We had a family business that ran DOS 6.2x and related apps quite successfully until 2003. What we had worked well and there was really no compelling business reason to shell out the money for new software and hardware. The coolness factor of windows (and life using a mouse) was there but at the end of the day, everything ran just fine - accounting, engineering, payroll.
That said, Windows 7 looks good and we'll definitely be using it.
itsmatt on July 28, 2009 7:52 AM@JM, EBGreen, and others...
You can install Windows 7 (upgrade edition) from Windows XP *without* formatting your disk. It will just move your Windows, Program Files, and Users directories into a new "Windows.old" folder. Then you can take whatever you want from there.
Of course backing up your stuff is always a good idea before any OS upgrade, but moving stuff to a different drive or formatting isn't strictly necessary.
Anonymous on July 28, 2009 7:55 AMHey, If you read it on the internet then it's got to be true!
Hey Dom; "Say it ain't so..."
Mac on July 28, 2009 7:56 AMWhile I'm still using Windows XP until the non-RC version of Windows 7 comes out, I can say that Win7RC is very nice software. Looks like Vista, but actually works the way you'd expect. Is crazy fast. I still prefer to use MacOS, but if they can get the cost of Win7 Ultimate down below $200, I might be convinced to keep it.
Adam on July 28, 2009 8:01 AMJeff,
Thanks for this posting. I have a request to make, if you don't mind. I'm requesting that when Windows 7 is officially released and you start using it if you wouldn't mind posting your opinions on the good (and if there's anything you don't like, that too please) things in Windows 7. In particular, what I would love to read is your opinions about the developer environment. That, and things like the issue which recently burned you with the version of Vista and the amount of memory supported on your server. I would like to hear some more about the versioning software, visual studio, filesystem performance, cpu usage, developers' tools, etc.
As a Linux user, I don't use Windows myself but I do value your opinion on all things Microsoft. You strike me as a "call them as you see them" kind of guy. I especially enjoyed reading your postings on version control software.
Johnny on July 28, 2009 8:56 AMI'm sure no one is going to read this, and it has already been stated above BUT
the reason its windows 6.1 instead of 7 is due program installations. They did not want programs to fail installing because of a windows version check failure.
Either the retail verion will be windows 7.0.xxxx or it will keep being 6.1
Louis Tovar on July 28, 2009 9:14 AMAwww Jeff, really? You glossed over something that I've been using heavily for 7 months and came up with little of interest. Thanks for starting another 2 bit, incorrect phrase that'll echo around the internet for months to come. Did you come up with that "Vista is bad" thing too?
JC on July 28, 2009 10:03 AMSeriously, I you haven't given Win7 rc a try, don't try to convince other people that your choice to stay with XP is the best.
I've been using RC for quite sometime and I shudder at the thought of installing XP or Vista on any of my systems. Only where the drivers for a specific/necessary piece of hardware is needed, do I revert to the old. - I do have a p3 with windows 2000 running my printer servers. lol
JR on July 28, 2009 10:10 AM"A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem"
Jeff - How do you justify this statement? Surely an OS lives or dies by the hardware drivers and software applications that it runs. XP has drivers for the most modern of hardware, and the most ancient. And XP can run the most modern and ancient of software. XP is a fine example of a modern general purpose operating system that allows us to get real work done. How is this not healthy?
XP is just fine for me.
If I want a vista look and feel, i just download a few themes available on the web legally, for free, made by creative samaritans.
For real security of personal documents I use TrueCrypt and I write down passwords on a paper and put it in a place that holds my other personal sensitive paperwork.
Sometimes I use Windows inside VirtualBox under Linux.
But you are free to use whatever OS you want or need to use.
Vista seems to be an improvement in some ways, going by many expert opinions. And 7 would be even more so, I guess.
Not sarcasm, I've never used either since I can afford to purchase only one expensive piece of software.
Hello my names AJ, and I'm an XP user.
My computer is not riddled with spyware / viruses.
I prefer a UI that isn't so flashy that it distracts me from my task.
I also own a netbook that runs beautifully with XP.
I use great free tools such as Launchy and XYPlorer to make me even more productive.
Please Microsoft, I'm sorry for using a 9 year old OS but if you gave me a real reason to upgrade to Vista / 7 I'd do it tomorrow.
In the meantime I'd love to give you $200 just to have the latest flashy toy, but I can't quite justify it right now.
I am open to upgrading my OS, you just show/give me something I can't refuse.
AJ on July 28, 2009 10:23 AMi have used vista for near on 2 years now
would never contemplate going back to XP as vista does lots of things better
will admit that XP does somethings vista makes more difficult
have tried windows 7 on a virtual machine and it is very vistaísh
will go to windows 7 some time in future
xp users-move on
try windows 7 and you may find out xp is old hat now
@Dinesh Gajjar
Right between the eyes!
In addition, OS X can not be installed on this Dell I have in here. How is OS X a competitor to Win7? Simply, it is not.
Apple took BSD dress it like a whore, and shackle it down. It is free no more. You can buy her favors by paying a steep sum to the pimp; Apple.
Ric C. on July 28, 2009 10:36 AMAccording to the latest data, 43% of our users are on IE6. There's almost 1M of them, and they actually do their work on the site. So, yeah, we would love to be able to drop support of IE6, but we can't.
Oh, yeah, and I don't see a particular problem with XP either.
Anonymous on July 28, 2009 10:40 AM"Can 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?"
I'm going to say "No."
Hell, Windows XP supports 64MB of RAM as its bare minimum (Source: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865 ). In fact, we'll call a system with 64MB RAM "Windows XP Capable" since it can run the OS and nothing else.
R. Bemrose on July 28, 2009 10:47 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 10:20 AM"
It should be pointed out that Windows 7 will ship with a *fully* licensed copy of windows xp sp3. You'll only need to pay for the windows 7 license.
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/07/17/windows-7-sold-out/
211 comments, all of them like an astronaut farting in space. I don't like Gabba, shall we all debate that ad-infinitum?
Chris on July 28, 2009 12:04 PMIs Windows a Virus
No, Windows is not a virus. Here's what viruses do:
1.They replicate quickly - okay, Windows does that.
2.Viruses use up valuable system resources, slowing down the system as they do so - okay, Windows does that.
3.Viruses will, from time to time, trash your hard disk - okay, Windows does that too.
4.Viruses are usually carried, unknown to the user, along with valuable programs and systems. - Sigh.. Windows does that, too.
5.Viruses will occasionally make the user suspect their system is too slow (see 2) and the user will buy new hardware. - Yup, Windows does that, too.
Until now it seems Windows is a virus but there are fundamental differences: Viruses are well supported by their authors, are running on most systems, their program code is fast, compact and efficient and they tend to become more sophisticated as they mature.
So Windows is not a virus.
It's a bug.
jAcKoOoL on July 28, 2009 12:27 PMWhat is exactly wrong with XP? Why should I upgrade? Why replace something finally working? Noone can answer.
Anonymous on July 28, 2009 12:49 PMHere is someone who has a very different opinion: http://blogs.microsoft.co.il/blogs/sasha/archive/2009/07/27/windows-7-is-not-a-vista-service-pack.aspx
Manu on July 28, 2009 1:04 PMWhat a surprise, a bunch of Microsoft developers harping about how a 12gb bloatware os isn't a big deal. How they harp on about the superiority of Windows 7 without qualifying it.
Quickly, lets go back to arguing about whether we're Engineers or Craftsmen!
Embarrassing.
Sam on July 28, 2009 1:35 PM
>So you still use Internet Explorer 6, I take it?
Believe it or not, the company where I work puts IE6 in all our boxes, allegedly due to compatibility issues with in-house developed software.
yuck!
Enrique on July 28, 2009 1:43 PM@Thras I built a completely new computer, on Vista compatible hardware. Even under these circumstances Vista's driver support was very touch-and-go.
An operating system is only as good as its driver support. If Linux doesn't work with a person's wifi card, do they blame the manufacturer? No, they blame Linux. When Ubuntu works out of the box on my PC but Vista needs constant hand-holding, I blame Vista. It sucks.
@Enrique
That is not at all uncommon.
EBGreen on July 28, 2009 1:50 PMFirst Quote: "As for personal use: I wish they would make a completely stripped down version of W7 - get rid of all the messaging/office/etc and just give me the components required for windows games. That's the only thing I use my XP anyways."
Reply: "Oh no, let's not have that mess again... It's both insane AND mental to have different "versions" of the same operating system. It's confusing and guarantees your shop-bought PC will come with the wrong version for your needs, meaning you have to buy another copy just to have the installer twiddle a few bits in a config file to switch it from "home" to "business".
Let's just have "Windows 7" so that all the non-IT literate people can wander into their local PC shop and say "I have a laptop, it's got Windows 7 on it and I want a webcam that'll work with it", or you take your store-bought laptop into work and it connects to the company domain without needing a total reinstall because it contains the "home" edition."
Sounds to me you don't know the difference between an operating system and application software. It's "insane and mental" to believe that messenger/office/etc. is and/or should be a part of the OS. The sane thing is to realize that these are application software parts that run ON TOP of the operating system, and shouldn't be forced on end users so that maybe they don't NEED the 12GB install of the "OS".
HardCode on July 29, 2009 3:06 AMI 'm willing to use Windows 7, but our company stil use Windows XP and it seem there's no plan for upgrading:(
Betty on July 29, 2009 3:18 AMIt seems there's no plan to use Windows7 in our offce:(
Betty on July 29, 2009 3:20 AMFirst Quote: "As for personal use: I wish they would make a completely stripped down version of W7 - get rid of all the messaging/office/etc and just give me the components required for windows games. That's the only thing I use my XP anyways."
I think what this guy needs is an Xbox.
Bender on July 29, 2009 3:36 AM>our company stil use Windows XP and it seem there's no plan for upgrading:(
Sorry, I'm not seeing what the problem is here...
Alan G on July 29, 2009 3:44 AMJust buy latest and best hardware your money can buy
And you would happy running Windows 7 or even Vista, which i did
just to throw in some points:
* XPs design is inherently and insecure. Say what you want about UAC, but in XP, everyone is working with admin privileges. I cant count how often I had to wipe my girlfriends box. After she bought a new Laptop with Vista SP1 it-just-works.
* In XP, everything ends up in My Documents or on the Desktop.
* I wouldn't want to run XP on a System with less than 2gigs of RAM nowadays too. All those browser have become a bloatfest that let Vista seem conservative.
* All this ranting happend back then when XP was new. "Oooooh what a piece of crap, i want win2000 back".
The real WTF was not Vista. The Engineers did a great job. The Marketingfucks who forced vista on every new Notebook with 1GB shared RAM are to blame for the shitstorm that followed.
Thomasz on July 29, 2009 3:52 AMI think the real version number is hidden in the built number 7600.
Because If you check the Windows 2008 Server version
It's Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6001]
Vista is Microsoft Windows [Version 6.0.6002]
If your calculations are correct there is only 0.0.0001 of difference.
7 is Microsoft Windows [Version 6.1.7600]
I don't think It's about 0.1.1598 difference in versioning.
Yusuf Cengeloglu on July 29, 2009 4:06 AM4gigs of RAM, new and better graphics card, better read/write speeds fro hdd. Its not about upgrading your OS, but to find the best OS for your needs. For me, with this config, I have to go for Windows. Linux and Mac, hell no, simply cuz I am a gamer, and not even fucking interested in playing stupid games in linux.
If I ever have a system with very low config, I would rather opt for netbook version of any Linux Distro, but for my main PC, windows is the only option. Can any of Linux or Apple fanboy suggest me anything else, to play crysis???
jitendra garg on July 29, 2009 4:19 AMJeff, really, this post has severely disappointed me. You're usually so reasonable and pragmatic. This time, however, you sound like a marketing drone.
What happened to "Don't fix what ain't broken?". What can Vista or W7 offer that my perfectly smooth XP experience lacks?
Sure, I may find a thing or two in the undoubtedly big feature list of W7 that I may seem to miss, but let's face it: XP has accompanied me for so long, and it did everything I wanted it to. It din't stop doing so just because W7 is out. My computers didn't suddenly start crashing because W7 is out. Why should XP not make me as happy as before just because W7 is out?
XP is still at the bottom of the bathtub curve of software reliability, and its artificial end-of-life does not have technological reasons. Its architecture still does the job nicely, its UI is as middle-class as it ever was. Do you remember the W9x days? THAT were the days you really /needed/ the new OS version(s).
XP is not a rusty screwdriver. It is the trusty old tool you'd never throw away, because it is proven -- including it's quirks, but lacking any real deficiencies. Let it be ugly, compared to the Apple and Linux folks. But it didn't get uglier just because W7 is there.
Moreover, a large number of (novice) users couldn't care less about the OS, as long as it doesn't get in the way. After all, for them the OS is just a way to launch MS Word.
I have no problems having W7 shipped with new machines, I guess it will be shiny and full of eye candy, and I guess I will like it. But what the hell (to use your own inadequate language) makes you claim that suddenly, XP is no longer enough? It is.
Disappointed on July 29, 2009 4:43 AMAt least people are debating XP vs. Vista vs. 7 and not saying we all need to use that "Ubuntu" junk.
PR on July 29, 2009 5:01 AMCouldn't agree more Jeff: let's get off XP
Tom on July 29, 2009 5:51 AMMicrosoft blew it.
Windows users wondering if you'll be able to pop in a shiny new Windows 7 disc, push the Install button, and watch as your computer is upgraded while leaving your data and programs in place, rejoice; Microsoft has released the official list of supported Windows 7 upgrade paths. Here are the highlights:
* Windows XP and below users are out of luck. You must have Windows Vista SP1 or newer to upgrade to Windows 7.
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/07/28/microsoft-reveals-upgrade-paths-for-windows-7/
XP is sticking around a while.
Johnny on July 29, 2009 6:04 AMYou "XP people" crack me up. Do you seriously see yourself using XP for rest of your lifetime as a computer user?
The "why upgrade?" argument is lame. If there's no point in ever upgrading because what you have "works fine" then why isn't everyone still using Win98 (or 95, or 3.11 for that matter) those all "worked just fine" at the time when that's all we had and knew.
When XP first came out (and probably until SP1) plenty of people we're doggin' it calling it "Fisher-Price, toyish, and unprofessional and a resource-hog. Sound familiar?
Ten years from now when we're running "Windows 2020" or something we'll say, "Damn, XP, Vista, and 7 all sucked, what were we thinking!?".
I've been using Windows 7 since the RC and I'm f'ing loving it!
Paw Baltzersen on July 29, 2009 7:29 AMWhy use Windows 7? Because others will use it, and they will want software that works with it. Period. I think Windows 7 is cool. Yes XP works pretty good for now, but I don't see a problem with switching. It's extremely stable and feels a lot fresher.
Honestly, people are afraid of change/unwilling to change/unwilling to simply try new things/have some beef with Microsoft for absolutely no reason.
Alberto on July 29, 2009 7:44 AMCraig, I don't think win98 worked just fine. LOL
But I agree with you on everything else. I'm so tired of hearing people complaining about vista. They even complain about all the updates...I guess they would rather have a locked down system that nobody can do anything with... If macs had the percentage of users that windows had, it would be just as insecure. Imagine their winning if windows looked and felt as lame as any Linux OS... If your not ready to upgrade your hardware, then don't add a newer OS. Just seems like common sense to me.
Jeff I simply don't get any of your logic. You are making statements without giving reasoning. For instance, I could say "A world that celebrates Christmas is terrible".
Right... without context or reasoning that statement is - in and of itself - meaningless. But that's exactly what you have done.
For instance:
"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."
It's so strange to hear such strong words for an internet devloper. In what serious way does the OS matter for you??? But what's more important, your explanation is a "want", which isn't a reason. I want people to buy my software. Why? because because it will make me rich... THAT'S a reason!!!
"A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem."
??? and how do you arrive at that conclusion ??? I would argue the opposite:
"A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is proof of a solid OS that stands the test of time and is great value for money."
Obviously you don't agree, so where do you draw the line? Should people install new OSes the day of the release - spending time and money upgrading as frequently as possible? No? So somewhere in between? Where is your line in the sand and WHY?
Imagine an operating system so dynamic, so well tuned and so flexible that it could be placed on any hardware and automatically optismise itself to work as efficiently as is possible. To me this would be a PERFECT situation, and I wouldn't care how hold the OS was. But it seems that even in this perfect world the OS would need to be replaced after a nubmer of years or the software ecosystem would suffer?????
I just don't get the logic.
Philip on July 29, 2009 10:25 AM
There is nothing wrong with XP. All the software I want to run, I can run flawlessly on XP. The only draw to upgrading is being able to run DirectX 10.
Tim on July 29, 2009 11:42 AMOh Jeff, c'mon!
You are dare enough to call IE 6 a tool? Or you want to compare a browser with an OS?
And why do you think that XP is a rusty screwdriver. It does what is expected from an OS. It runs software and it does not fail (not more than any other Windows OS).
So please, be fair. And it's not a shame that you are an OS fanboy :)
Juergen on July 29, 2009 12:13 PMTotal bullshit... This is brand new OS, with major changes in kernel, UI and scalabillity... All you looking is for version number???
Alex on July 29, 2009 12:24 PMWindows 7 is fine but windows xp is cheap, compatible and with the classic toolbar.
My god, so many fuckin idiots...
commenter on July 29, 2009 12:54 PMI love the way commenters argue that "W7 is better than Vista".
.. sure, but shouldn't you really be comparing W7 against XP, which is the real comparison people and companies will be making. "Better than a turd" is not an achievement to strive for.
That being said, I am fairly confident my Windows work machine will be running W7 once the company ditches XP. If they still try to offer me Vista, I'll just have to live with developing in different environment than the rest of the team, namely some KDE Linux variant.
As for personal use: I wish they would make a completely stripped down version of W7 - get rid of all the messaging/office/etc and just give me the components required for windows games. That's the only thing I use my XP anyways.
JD on July 29, 2009 1:09 PMWill Windows 7 be the last OS MS does based off this "same" codebase? Will they finally start something from scratch for the next one. There's only so much you can do to polish a "turd" so to speak...
I think its time to start anew...
Chrome OS Blog on July 29, 2009 1:20 PM12Gb for doing what kind of new things? Does it deserve buying a new computer?
Will I wrap my car with a marvellous but heavy 12 Ton lead bodywork, and then buy a new engine for moving it (because old one can't) just for going to work every morning, driving the same kilometers, and do the same things I did yesterday?
You say that complaining is the same as using Internet Explorer 6 forever; however, wrapping your OS with pretty growing lead layers is a "healthy computing ecosystem". Sure it is, for those who earn money selling pc's!!
Spending money and resources in new computers just for carrying heavy visual enhancements is not my definition of "healty". It's rather the sign of an ill society, obsessed with appearances, and an ill economy, based on the endless wheel of always-consuming.
Please don't pander to the fanboys! Windows Vista was a solid OS and probably the most stable Windows OS I've ever used. I might buck the trend and stick with Vista for a while longer, at least until I replace my current system.
Mike on July 29, 2009 1:35 PM"As for personal use: I wish they would make a completely stripped down version of W7 - get rid of all the messaging/office/etc and just give me the components required for windows games. That's the only thing I use my XP anyways."
Oh no, let's not have that mess again... It's both insane AND mental to have different "versions" of the same operating system. It's confusing and guarantees your shop-bought PC will come with the wrong version for your needs, meaning you have to buy another copy just to have the installer twiddle a few bits in a config file to switch it from "home" to "business".
Let's just have "Windows 7" so that all the non-IT literate people can wander into their local PC shop and say "I have a laptop, it's got Windows 7 on it and I want a webcam that'll work with it", or you take your store-bought laptop into work and it connects to the company domain without needing a total reinstall because it contains the "home" edition.
James on July 29, 2009 1:44 PMI'm getting tempted with all the good press I'm hearing, but Microsoft has priced it out of my market.
The Ultimate version, which is the only one that will do everything I want, costs nearly as much as I spend on the hardware in a new PC. Really doesn't seem worth it.
Mike on July 30, 2009 2:13 AMI downloaded the RC with the intention to install on the computer. I tried it on VirtualBox just because I have no DVD-R now.. and I will not install this thing on my comp not. It takes 10GB to run the notepad and calculator and.. he... some cards game. It takes 650MB of RAM to show a empty desktop. It heats a lot of CPU cycles idle. Is a piece of garbage. XP is also bad (It need 64MB doing nothing) but is x10 times less a piece of garbage than "Vista 7"
Tei on July 30, 2009 3:40 AMI don't feel any difference at all. None. I don't see why I should pay so much for a shinier startup experience, really.
The whole thing seems to be one big marketing stunt to get over the Vista PR disaster.
BmB on July 30, 2009 5:33 AMYour whole argument against Windows XP is that its minimum requirements are low. That's ridiculous.
Charles on July 30, 2009 5:43 AM@ Alberto
"Honestly, people are afraid of change/unwilling to change/unwilling to simply try new things/have some beef with Microsoft for absolutely no reason."
No, we're unwilling to fork out cash for new hardware + new OS just for the sake of it. I use XP for gaming and it works. That's it. I have no need to upgrade. Even if there was some really revolutionary tech in W7 that would change the way I do computing I wouldn't upgrade. Would I be curious? Sure! Would I upgrade? No. I'm waiting for the minimum of the first service pack before I think about moving. Then I'll know what the issues are, what real world spec my machine needs to be to run the thing and whether or not the software I already own will run.
buggy on July 30, 2009 6:08 AMVista is cool in core, but stupid and useless when working with.
XP is complete, all i need is there and my productivity won't increase with 7.
So why bother and get the new OS?
Omar Abid on July 30, 2009 6:15 AMMy PC is not broken, it works fine, I can run all the programs I need to and any new ones seem to work fine ... on XP
Why should I upgrade? To do so I would need to :
Buy Win7
Buy a New PC (Or severely upgrade my current one)
Learn how to use Win7
Learn the eccentricities of Win7
Find the workarounds and trick to get work done ....
It comes down to the old adage, if you can remember what operating system you are using then it is the wrong one because it is getting in the way. A PC is for running applications, not for running the operating system ....
I'm sticking with Vista. I like the under the hood changes on Win7, but the UI changes just suck.
vista rox on July 30, 2009 8:29 AM"The "why upgrade?" argument is lame. If there's no point in ever upgrading because what you have "works fine" then why isn't everyone still using Win98 (or 95, or 3.11 for that matter) those all "worked just fine" at the time when that's all we had and knew."
That's because we would like to wait a while. Microsoft's best OS so far has been XP. We'd like to let it die naturally. Don't kill it when its usership is so huge. Why force me to upgrade? Show me something exclusive. Maybe if VS11 or VS12 is Win7 only, then I'd HAVE to upgrade, of my own appeal.
"When XP first came out (and probably until SP1) plenty of people we're doggin' it calling it "Fisher-Price, toyish, and unprofessional and a resource-hog. Sound familiar?
Ten years from now when we're running "Windows 2020" or something we'll say, "Damn, XP, Vista, and 7 all sucked, what were we thinking!?"."
Well, when we're running Windows 2020, then hopefully, we'll be out of the NT kernel. XP was the last good NT kernel. Maybe try something new? That actually compells me to upgrade? If I had driver hell with the NT and non-NT, I'd upgrade.
And as far as the holding on, the OS market should be like the video game console market. People WANT a new console. They want to save up to get them. But computer users hang on to an old OS. Why? We're not compelled. Point restated thrice. People see a new next-gen game, they WANT it.
It seems that people think that they will only have one OS, and that is easily true for plenty of people. One laptop or whatever. Game consoles are different. People have racks of NES's, Saturns, PS1's, XBOX's, Wii's, etc. If computer OS's got CHEAPER, as well as the hardware, then we'd be able to have 2-3 computers cheaply. Then people would WANT a new OS because they could preserve their old ties. I would take Win7 if I had a new machine. But I don't.
The problem, as well is the speed of upgrades for PC's. If we could just have smaller performance gains, then we could stick for a PC spec for a while and wait till the stuff on the shelves got cheaper.
Adam on July 30, 2009 8:38 AMI just love the maths at Microsoft lets see now...
#1 - Windows 3.11
#2 - Windows 95
#3 - Windows 98
#4 - Windows 98 SE
#5 - Windows ME (named after a disease)
#6 - Windows 2000
#7 - Windows XP
#8 - Windows Vista
#9 - Windows 7
I thought it fair not to include Windows NT 3.51 and Windows NT 4.0 as they were not really aimed at the home market originally, the only trouble was that their home market OS core was so bad they decided to dump it and use the NT core, so really in fairness it could be included in the list above making Windows 7 the 11th OS - lol
"Nobody is forcing anyone to use Windows" -- not accurate
Jim on July 30, 2009 10:51 AMWindows 98 and 98 SE are not considered two separate Operating Systems like that, though SE did provide much needed improvements to 98. I'm guessing that 3.11 should not be included in that list either since it wasn't actually an Operating System; it was closer to a graphical front-end for DOS.
SHamman on July 30, 2009 11:12 AM"Heck, if it ain't broke don't fix it."
I still use a Commodore Pet. 4k and a green screen - works fine for me.
Why bother going to see the new IMAX films in 3D when everything was just fine in sepia and the sound was a guy playing a piano.
If you want to enjoy the latest stuff then you need to buy the latest stuff, if you just want to be an old crusty fart then stay with whatever worked decades ago.
Whatever floats your boat man...
@Sci-Fi Si
ummm... not quite.
Windows (MS-DOS Based)
* Windows 1.0
* Windows 2.0
* Windows/286 and Windows/386 (Windows 2.1)
* Windows 3.0
* Windows 3.1, Windows 3.1 for Workgroups, Windows 3.11, and Windows 3.11 for Workgroups (WfW)
* Windows 95 (Windows 4.0)
* Windows 98 (Windows 4.1)
* Windows Millennium Edition (Windows 4.9)
[edit] Windows NT
* Windows NT 3.1
* Windows NT 3.5
* Windows NT 3.51
* Windows NT 4.0 including up to Service Pack 6a
* Windows 2000 (Windows NT 5.0) including up to Service Pack 4
* Windows XP (Windows NT 5.1) including up to Service Pack 3
* Windows Server 2003 (Windows NT 5.2) including up to Service Pack 2
* Windows XP Professional x64 Edition (Windows NT 5.2) including up to Service Pack 2
* Windows Fundamentals for Legacy PCs (Windows NT 5.1) including up to Service Pack 3
* Windows Home Server (Windows NT 5.2)
* Windows Vista (Windows NT 6.0) including up to Service Pack 2
* Windows Server 2008 (Windows NT 6.0) including up to Service Pack 2
* Windows 7 (Windows NT 6.1)
* Windows Server 2008 R2 (Windows NT 6.1)
ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows
@Ric C.
I not so sure that calling NT 3.1 and 3.5 etc... Is a different operating system, nor would I say it is correct to include server OS's, I don't thing the home users really go round installing Windows Server 2008 do you?
Bozz on July 30, 2009 11:18 AMAt least Windows 7 will make installing apps that use .NET 3.5 SP1 a lot easier.
Well, until .NET 4.0 comes out anyway :)
Rick Brewster on July 30, 2009 11:43 AMI'll just play it safe here...
I will wait until they release at least the SP2 on Win7 before I consider downloading an illegal copy and install it in one of my Guinea-Pig-CPUs just to make sure my actual CPU wont burst out in flames with it. After that I'll just wait until some of my friends plays the "early adopter" card on his own PC and just hear his opinion. Then and only then I would seriously consider purchasing a OEM copy and installing it on my PC.
After all, My first XP installation happened on 3Q 2005. XP is relatively new to me =P
OS changing is like dumping you all time lady for a blond with fake boobs... you might get the time of your live... or you could en up finding out that the blond has an Adam apple and a rocket in "her" left pocket.
Chepech on July 30, 2009 1:48 PMWell, I just like Windows XP, what can I say ... I can understand the pain of a developer, who has to support multiple operating system versions, but let's face it - this is still a reality, that some customers use even Windows 2000 as their operating system. Especially in the rough times of an economic downturn we may find even big companies keeping their computers not just for 3 years, as it used to be a custom, but even longer.
Of course, the pressure is on and gradually they migrate to the newer OS version, but this process has not finished yet.
Tomasz Lisowski on July 31, 2009 7:10 AMSticking with Jeff's original point and ignoring the Holy Wars that invariably come up with Operating System posts...
Network support is about 1000X better with Windows 7. Vista's most frustrating thing was tring to share a folder so that you can access it from another PC.
Davide on July 31, 2009 11:03 AMdopes....
some of you dont see the point that they put this resource hogging OS on new (cheapy) laptops and give you no choice if you are a consumer to choose XP. I bought a $350 celeron laptop, no choice of XP, no support for XP, luckily im no fool and i installed it after I experienced the ass dragging speed of a celeron loading Vista.
The idea that it is forced with no other option or help otherwise is a crappy idea. Luckily there were still drivers available. Thats all that got me off and running. Still my Toshiba Hotkeys and a few other stupid features dont work with vista and they will not support anyone with an XP idea in their brain. The minute i muttered "XP" tech chat nearly had a fit and wanted every bit of info they could from me.
So, just because its installed with Vista..... that means I cant put XP on it?
Joe on August 1, 2009 10:32 AMapparently they axed the option to diable Auto-Arrange in Explorer. Now someone has to include that in the new Tweak UI...
Sebas on August 2, 2009 4:00 AMHope that Windows 7 is not flop as Vista !!!
Kunal Shah on August 4, 2009 11:34 AM"Windows 7 is the best Vista Service Pack ever!"
Agreed, my problem is being offended by MS in that they demand payment for a full new OS when it's really a fix for a crappy OS that I was lied to in order to get me to buy it.
I have been testing W7 for several months and it is definitely better than Vista. But, it still suffers from requiring new hardware, lack of driver support for older hardware, can't (directly) run a lot of my older programs, and being slower than XP.
Microsoft is creating a situation where it is going to be easier and cheaper for people and corporations and governments to switch to Linux rather than having to pay large sums for an OS that was absolutely no advantage other than being a fix for a prior OS that was shipped in a fundamentally broken form.
To be perfectly honest, everybody bashing on Vista is pretty much doing it just for the hell of it. Also, Windows 7 shows almost identical performance on my home system than when I was running Vista Business. I've run benchmarks, tests, viewed memory management, etc. And everything is almost /exactly/ the same. You really can't say that the performance is 'way' better, when both OSes are currently running on the /SAME/ kernel.
Also, for the people are arguing why they should stick with XP, by your logic we should all still be using Windows 3.11 for Workgroups.
Daniel Tolin on August 6, 2009 4:19 AMI am an OS Fan. I love to partition and install new OSs on my home computers. I have installed just about every version of SuSE Linux since 1994, and equally all of Microsoft Windows since Windows 3.0. IBMs OS/2 Wrap was also one of my favorites and a couple of the less 'unknowns': BeOS, and every flavor of BSD. The last couple of years I have been playing with different Linux distributions as well.
I never really had any problems with my hardware being recognized by the OS, specially my aging HP Scanner 2200C, Canon L80 Digital Camera, or Orange Micro Firewire Webcam. With a little bit of research and luck I always found drivers or instructions on how to get 'them' to work with all the OSs. That all stopped when I installed Microsoft Vista and it frustrated me that I could not find any help on getting my hardware working. After over 2 months of searching I gave up and removed the OS. I must confess, I haven't tried to install or work with Vista since then, but it left a bad taste in my 'mouth'. So with all this hype about how Windows 7 is in many ways the same as Vista I don't really have the urge of trying it.
Funny, I see it like McCain being compared to Bush and loosing voters for it.
rohuezo on August 6, 2009 6:24 AMStill very happy with Vista, with little or no evidence of the issues people keep complaining about (but I entered the game at SP1 with mainstream hardware devices). Still, I am upgrading to Windows 7 tonight, as it certainly is faster and much more consistent.
The biggest problem I did see was that many software and hardware manufacturers just ignored Vista and hoped they could hold everyone back on 32-bit XP. Hardly Microsoft's fault, is it? Even Symantec appeared to be demanding Vista's security be dropped to allow some nasty hacks rather than write good code. And don't get me started about the Creative Audigy ZS2 fiasco...
Annoyances with Windows 7? For some reason it uninstalls Tinker, etc, rather than leave it there. I know Ultimate Extras are discontinued, but why take them away if you already have them?
Fortunately, it is trivial to put some of these features back in with a little hack or two. I will miss the stream/forest DreamScene which I used to relax while doing lightweight tasks, as I am not prepared to hack something that risky back into the system (even if it were possible).
As for XP - yes, it has its moments and it makes a great lightweight virtual machine, but it is a lot of work to secure it properly (takes a lot of setting file permissions and tweaking applications). The great thing about Vista is that it is locked down out of the box, and applications that were not even XP-compatible (ones that assumed admin rights) worked properly for the first time with no adjustments.
I would suggest that people hitting back at Jeff over XP should read between the lines a bit and realise that dropping XP is more about the enormous number of people out there running unsecured botnet pawns. Sure it does everything YOU want it to, but it may be doing everything that the criminals want as well...
If you are running XP from an administrator account for day-to-day work, have not locked down your file system, and are under the mistaken impression that having multiple antivirus, spyware and firewall applets will protect you, you are now a menace to society.
If you know how to protect yourself for real (not by forum rumour, water-cooler anecdote, or marketing hype which so often passes for professionalism), no problem. Even so, you can still lock Vista and 7 down to a greater extent, with more functionality retained, for far less effort.
I don't really care what Windows 7 does better, just that the windows team hopefully stopped trying to dress up DRM as an OS, like with Vista.
Ben Hurr on August 8, 2009 7:40 AMdude u rock serously...
Anonymous on August 9, 2009 9:55 AMHaving used all the MS OSes from late version of MSDOS onwards, I have formed the impression that they alternate between good an bad:
Win3: Big step up from what came before
Win95: slow and flaky
Win98: much better
WinME: slow and flaky
WinXP: much better
Vista: slow and flaky
If the pattern continues to hold then Win7 is a winner.
I generally skip every other every major release edition on MS software (SQL svr, VS, Office) and I advise clients to do that with server s/w. Upgrading is expensive - think s/w cost, effort, disruption, training - and the new features usually do not warrant it.
Win7 looks like a worthwhile upgrade.
michael g on August 13, 2009 5:33 AMW7's calc.exe is only better than Vista's because it's a ripoff of the one in KDE 4.0. Like most of Windows 7...
ant on August 14, 2009 8:28 AMWhy would anyone choose a slow resource hogging "Unused RAM is Wasted RAM" OS such as Vista or Windows 7 when a lean Windows XP Professional performs faster in every operation?
Spackie on August 17, 2009 4:55 AMI develop software for clients and users. If the users are still on IE6 then my web apps have to be usable in IE6. If the users are still on WinXP then my apps have to be usable on WinXP, else I have no work, my mortage doesn't get paid, my house gets reposessed and my family starve (not really, but you get the gist).
No matter how cool and efficient Win7 is, I have to stick with XP until Win7 reaches critical mass and I can afford to ignore the laggers.
Brian Lowe on August 18, 2009 2:48 AMI have been using Windows 7 RTM for about 2 weeks, and I'm really disappointed. I had seen positive reviews about 7, but what I see is just a polished version of Vista. Ok it looks better, but for example the slow copy/move/delete problem of Vista is present at 7, it still can't do those functions as fast as XP. And I really can't get used to this libraries thing and the new Windows Explorer. I'm not even getting into the horribly messed up control panel. I can mention loads of other stuff, I am really fed up with M$, if I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't wait a second to install Linux, but now I'm going back to XP. Vista & 7 will always be great reminders of how you can take a working thing and make it much worse while trying to improve it, just like the new episodes of Star Wars.
Hanuman on August 18, 2009 5:38 AMso we've all been beta testing windows 7 for the last 3 years ( beta name - vista ) and now we have to PAY for the finished product ( final release name - windows 7 )
outrageous , microsoft should be giving all us beta testers ( vista users ) free copies of windows 7 - at the very least , its totally totally wrong to be charging again for this.
it is 'vista v1.0 final release - post beta' called windows 7 .
"Win3: Big step up from what came before
Win95: slow and flaky
Win98: much better
WinME: slow and flaky
WinXP: much better
Vista: slow and flaky
If the pattern continues to hold then Win7 is a winner." - Micheal G.
And I think you really have it nailed. The reason that people stick with their previous releases is because, though MS is predictable, they KNOW they have a quality, once in a while product.
If they have something that sucks, they will go to it immediatly.
If the world was using Vista, and MS left the Win7 prospect alone for 6 more years, then there wouldn't be much trouble with upgrading. But, MS releases these things so quickly that sticking with an old version until the next is proven is still a good prospect. I really don't see the problem with sticking with a 9 year old OS.
Its not the OS that counts nearly as much as the programs. If XP can be modularly upgraded through DLL's to be able to run the latest software, then why upgrade? I don't have sympathy for the users of Win98, since that OS is dated. But, XP isn't feeling dated. Its feeling relatively modern. It can run the latest Visual Studio. It can run Blender 4.9a. It can run IE8 / Firefox 3.5. These programs are highly modernized, and are reliable and usable. The OS is a shell. The ability to give us acess to the yoke on the inside is what counts.
Adam on August 25, 2009 4:53 AMI don't have sympathy for the users of Win98, since that OS is dated. But, XP isn't feeling dated. Its feeling relatively modern. It can run the latest Visual Studio.
links of london on August 26, 2009 2:00 AM"Windows 7: The Best Vista Service Pack Ever"... not really: try Ubuntu... ;-)
Luigi R. Viggiano on August 26, 2009 6:04 AMAbercrombie & Fitch on Sale, Hoodies, Jeans, T-Shirts, Pants, Polos abercrombie and fitch abercrombie fitch abercrombie cheap abercrombie fitch Abercrombie Men Tee abercrombie womens polos Abercrombie & Fitch Men, women, and children's clothing
abercrombie and fitch on August 28, 2009 1:26 PMI would definitely use an Abercrombie & Fitch OS.
Click the Polo to start.
Jason on August 31, 2009 10:13 AMJust to throw my two cents into the fray:
I have nothing against Vista, yet I use XP. Why?
I've obtained 4 different copies of Vista, various copies of 32b and 64b with and without SP1 preinstalled, and NONE of the installers will get past the opening screen on my computer. The upgrade advisor doesn't have an issue with my computer, and I've tried both upgrading from XP and clean install.
Here's hoping that Windows 7 is not so fundamentally broken.
Matthew on September 15, 2009 7:22 AMWhen Windows 7 offers more something more than XP, then ill think about moving. Fan boys want Windows to have the "coolness" of MacOS and what is what Microsoft are trying to do.
Who cares what it looks like ? performance is what counts. Going to Windows 7 is a decreased in performance.
What you get in return is.... more annoying pop ups, that users will click "continue" to blindley... how is this better security? Sure the model is better, but that means nothing if you dont teach your users.
As pointed out, Windows 7 is just the next revision of Vista... so why not just release (yet) another Service Pack? Microsoft are steping away from the Vista name because of its bad rap, and rightfully so.
I'm not fooled by Microsoft's attempt to fool its users into buying yet another god damn operating system they simply dont need!
If you want a pretty OS, then sure... Windows 7 away...
Conspiracy Man on September 23, 2009 4:49 AMI have remained on XP because they've made a disaster out of Windows Explorer. No question of upgrading.
Snowman on September 24, 2009 11:19 AMhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_Vista
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_removed_from_Windows_7
Enuf said. XP FTW!
From multiple sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_desktop_operating_systems), it's quite evident that XP is still the OS of choice and willl be for many years to come. Even at the end of 2009, XP dominates with what? 70%!!!! If you only consider US, still 60%!!!!! Are these all ghost people using XP subconsciously?
Market share on September 24, 2009 11:43 AMProof windows 7 is a service pack, Read windows 7 dialog box during Windows defender installation, it says defender is already installed on VISTA. Photo proof on my web page:
http://sites.google.com/site/windows7isavistasevicepack/home
I like 7 but don't like getting conned into thinking it is a new os.
Jeremy Huber on October 27, 2009 9:05 AMI've had enough of the REGISTRY, VIRII, DEFRAG, NTFS, EXPENSE, TIME & GIGABYTE WASTING, OVERBLOATED, UNRELIABILE, RIGID, INCONSISTENT, BACKWARDLY HALF-COMPATIBLE, USW...ETC M$ products. Flexiware is the future.
ZKD
zippozappo on November 3, 2009 6:26 AMThis is only natural, after all windows XP was just windows 2000 SP4 :)
mike johnson on February 6, 2010 11:16 PM12 gigabytes?! Ooohhhhhh, noooooooooo! Oh, man! 12 gigabytes! How am I ever going to find enough hard drive space for all 12? I'm going back to Windows 2000!
anon on February 6, 2010 11:16 PMThe comments to this entry are closed.
Subscribe in a reader
Subscribe via email
|
|
Traffic Stats |