could not resist...

first!!!!

So, why aren't they calling it Windows 6.1? Where did "7" come from? George Costanza?

After trying/seeing the disaster called Vista and hearing only bad things about Windows 7 - I'm keeping my XP for at least a couple of years. Primary reason for sticking to XP - install the newest OS on my perfectly adequate laptop and make it inadequate - yes please sir, I'll take two!. That's every geeks true dream...

if you don't find screwdrivers sexy, why do you want to convince us to get a new one? :)

> [...]I'm much more interested in the cool stuff you're creating than what OS you use to create it with.

> [...]I want the world to get the hell off Windows XP.

You contradicted yourself. What exactly is so wrong with XP? I use it every day at work and at home. It is stable, reliable, and allows me to get my actual work done without spending time thinking about the OS or spending money on new hardware.

Really, how have we come to accept the idea that every few years all our tools are obsolete and must be thrown out? Can you imagine any other industry operating this way?

@vnuk Where did you hear something bad about windows 7? I read a lot about it and this was 90% positive. My own experience (using it as main-os since beta 1) is very positive as well.

@Jeff
Microsoft said that they changed the version number so slightly because they wanted to avoid further incompatibilities because software checks for the major-version. Changes in minor-version is much less a problem, so that every app that runs vista should run w7!
Windows 7 IS a major release, even when the version number doesn't show it.

Yeah, Windows 7 is so awesome. 12 GiB to install practically nothing compared to Ubuntu's full featured suite with 1/3rd of that size. Plus all that excellent closed source software and an OS that encourages malware to still take it over, since UAC can be turned off, since users are still mental defectives.

> Really, how have we come to accept the idea that every few years all our tools are obsolete and must be thrown out? Can you imagine any other industry operating this way?

So you still use Internet Explorer 6, I take it?

> 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!

@Alex
The reason is the same for OS as it is for web browser. At some point, progress gets vastly more complicated when having to support older technology. If you don't actually want to make progress, then you and Jeff don't really disagree.

I'm definitely excited to check out Windows 7. I was supposed to play with the beta, but never really got around to it. I hear that the upgrade to Windows 7 is going to be ridiculously cheap though, which means I basically HAVE to pay for it.

Never would have thought I would pay for a Windows upgrade, but I most certainly will for this one!

It seems people love tossing 'service pack' around despite having no clue what it really means. If anything Windows 7 is the complete _opposite_ of a service pack - name me one SP that has seriously overhauled the front end and left the back end relatively alone? Historically service packs are cumulative (security) patches rolled up into one download.

Please stop perpetuating the Apple and Linux zealots fud as it marginalises what is for once a decent MS release. Using their SP logic pretty much every software release past 1.00 is a service pack unless it is a total rewrite.

"OSX is just BSD with a Service Pack"
"Photoshop CS4 is just Photoshop 5.0 with a Service Pack"
"Firefox 3.5 is just Mozilla with a Service Pack"
"Safari is just Konqueror with a Service Pack"
"Ubuntu is just Debian with a Serive Pack"
etc.

It's just FUD and services no purpose (not even reality) except to be a cheap jab at Windows.

It's not a service pack for Vista, it's Windows Vista SE, like Windows 98 SE.

"It's not a service pack for Vista, it's Windows Vista SE, like Windows 98 SE."

So despite being universally accepted as being an order of magnitude better than Vista in terms of looks, usability and hardware requirements it's just 'Vista SE'. Right.

Go back to the Ubuntuforums to convince people the superiority of The Gimp.

Isn't the math wrong? From [Version 6.0.6002] to [Version 6.1.7600] would be 0.1.1598, not 0.0.1.1598

>So despite being universally accepted as being an order of
>magnitude better than Vista

Which universe would this be then? Your own private one?

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been from the start, in the same way that 98SE is what 98 should have been.

(I just hope the next version of Windows doesn't repeat the Windows ME experience).

@LavosPhoenix:
Users aren't typically mental defectives, but people who aren't as interested in computers as you or me, and who just want to get something done. Microsoft started with single-user single-tasking OSes, and even while moving towards having a modern OS has supported apps written as if they owned the machine, or at least had to run with maximum privileges. UAC is a compromise between actual security and accomodating apps that people need. We can criticize Microsoft for how it handled this (and I often do), but it isn't an easy situation to handle.

Linux benefits from the Unix culture, in which apps run with limited privileges, and never had that problem. Apple changed to Mac OSX by allowing imperfect backwards compatibility (the Classic environment) for several years (until the Mac switched from PowerPC to Intel chips). Microsoft can't follow the Apple way without messing up a lot of customers, being more of an enterprise OS than Mac OSX.

A lot of the recent history of Microsoft has been dealing with backward compatibility. Unless you realize that, you won't understand what Microsoft is doing with Windows.

Really, Windows 7 is a real improvement over XP.

Yes XP is stable and easy to use, but it's also built for ancient technology. Time to move on and use the tech we have today.

What's the problem with a 12Gb install? I have 1.25Tb in my PC and I don't care much about a few Gb's extra for the OS. It doesn't have to be a 4Gb complete install just because it can be. I want full fancyness. Windows 7's interface is fast, that is what I care about.

I'm not eager to see everyone drop XP, I don't care that much. There's just a big risk with sticking to an OS forever: Once you HAVE to upgrade you'll face an OS that's 4 generations further and it will be even more difficult to adapt.

Windows 2000 is version 5.0
Windows XP is version 5.1
Draw your own conclusions.

I think you're being a bit unfair to XP - I'd actually date its maturity as an OS to when SP2 came out, and it has been updated and patched pretty well since then (much more so than previous operating systems had been).

While I do agree that we all have to move on (I switched to Ubuntu following the 9.04 release), XP still is a useful and decent OS.

I also don't think I'll take Win7, though - MS still have to deliver the new filesystem and graphics revolution that they promised more than five years ago for me to really consider before I take another MS OS.

This is only natural, after all windows XP was just windows 2000 SP4 :)

I've noticed that the products from Microsoft had gone down in quality since the post XP period. The all time low being the initial launch of Vista.
The consumer backlash has been a major wake up call for the company and I've also noticed since the launch of the 07 products (like Office 07) the quality and the overall user experience has improved considerably. I've also used 7 beta and i agree that even though the front end has not gotten a major overhaul (discounting the task bar) 7 just FEELS good.

One other thing, is this observation of worsening and then getting better products over the recent years reflect the state of affairs at Microsoft? :) ;)

"(I just hope the next version of Windows doesn't repeat the Windows ME experience)."

Best comment ever.

Windows Lovers (Like Jeff) are excited because they finally got an OS that more or less, performs decently. Until the registry (which still exists) starts choking again…

I've used W7 since Beta1/RC and it DOES work better than vista, way better. I hate Vista, it's as bad as Windows ME was. A disaster in every aspect. Bad drivers, bad launch, bad marketing bad response, etc.

Win7 apparently improves all that (at least in RC stages). You get the feeling that everything works ok and the UI is way better (Taskbar == no no situation).

However, don't forget that it is still Windows Behind the Scenes. Those who don't like it, will not find a new world to explore. C:\Windows is still there… so is \system32…

Get ready for Wi-Fi driver hell with W7. I've installed the beta/rc in a different number of laptops and only one (HP) could use the WiFi out of the box. The others? Hunting high and low for Vista / XP drivers.

Surprisingly, some boxes (a Toshiba Tablet PC) only were able to use Wi-Fi with the Windows XP Driver…

I'd use W7 if I had to use Windows. But I use OS X and I find it vastly superior in terms of usability and technology; despite its own set of annoying bugs and inconsistencies.

12 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!

vnuk wrote:
> After trying/seeing the disaster called Vista and hearing only
> bad things about Windows 7 - I'm keeping my XP for at least a
> couple of years.

That's funny, I've had the opposite experience. I have been using Windows 7 in various states for months now, and it's been a great experience. Windows 7 even does a lot of stuff better than OS X (my primary OS). Everyone I have talked to around the office (a non-MS shop, mind you) has been raving about it. Virtually every review I have read from reputable magazines and websites has been good to excellent. There are a couple quirks here and there that will be worked out, but certainly nothing major, nothing to justify sticking with XP.

Add to that the fact that you implied that you have not even bothered to install Windows 7 and only "tried" Windows Vista (before the kinks were worked out, no doubt), and your comment means zilch.

Jumping on the "XP forever, screw Vista" bandwagon simply cannot be justified now that Windows 7 is here. It really is an improvement over Vista, and even over XP.

That's good to hear. Thanks for offering your quick review. I'm a little less apathetic toward the new release now :)

Windows... I can hardly remember it. When I switched to Mac I stopped caring for Microsoft and Windows and I'm not really looking back. XP was the last Windows I saw, never worked longer than 5 minutes with Vista - was just a better looking XP to me with minor functional changes but not so many that an old XP user could not immediately find everything in the same places it has always been. I'm considering OS X an OS that is about one decade ahead of whatever MS is doing and I'm not really talking about the UI here, more about the system as a whole (from the kernel to the UI process and everything in between). Microsoft will start producing a grown-up operating system when they completely drop those ridiculous driver letters one day; who came up with those in the first place? They can keep them internally for backward compatibility (mapping a drive letter to a certain folder in the directory tree), but as long as they expose them to the user and as long a user is supposed to know what F: or G: currently is Windows is still not out of kindergarten.

The hell it "can't be justified" - why on earth must I upgrade just because people say I should? What a load of rubbish.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I develop on XP at work and use XP at home for everything and it's absolutely fine.

None of what people have written here have convinced me remotely that I should pay more money and go through the usual pain to upgrade my OS.

I've been running Windows 7 for a while now. I don't have the RTM (where'd you pick it up, Jeff?) but I am running the latest RC.

While I thought that the anti-Vista hype was stupid marketing propaganda, I think that the pro-Windows 7 hype is also marketing. The anti-Vista flagellating on the web made people stick with XP and made my job harder. Vista was actually just fine for nearly everyone except perhaps extremely screen-refresh conscious gamers. And Vista is a heck of a lot easier for little old ladies to keep secure, which is what actually matters.

So I'd like people to switch to Windows 7 (or at least Vista). But I can't really notice that many differences. The new taskbar is different, but not really better. Nothing else really strikes me as that different from Vista. Windows 7 is, more than anything else, a second chance for Microsoft's marketing department.

My XP 64-bit machine stomps your colon, Jeff. Vista sucks. I know this because I paid a ridiculous amount of money for it, only to turn around and buy XP a month later. I am sure Windows 7 will be Vista++ which is to imply that it has *even more* shit bundled within that I do not need or want. You're just a shameless promoter of brand-spanking new operating systems that don't increase your efficiency, simply because you enjoy wasting as many GB of RAM as you can afford.

This was one of the more uninformative posts on this site I've seen. You basically gushed over Windows , no reasons given, just better. And then you want people to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP -- but maybe you're forgetting that XP-to-7 means *complete reinstall*. That sucks, and it's not happening for a great many people.

I'll consider putting Windows 7 on a new PC, but without a viable upgrade path, the throngs of XP boxes are going nowhere.

Well, the deciding factor for me will be: "Does this make my games go another 10% slower?". But the first tests I've read say that games run a bit faster then Vista. Promising!

Well, the deciding factor for me will be: "Does this make my games go another 10% slower?". But the first tests I've read say that games run a bit faster then Vista. Promising!

I use Windows XP every day at work, and it's a great OS. I've never had it crash once while at work (i've only had it completely crash maybe 4-5 times and 1 of those was hardware related: unseated RAM module). It's not a perfect OS by any means, but it's certainly not a "rusty" or "obsolete" tool. And to compare Windows XP to the complete GARBAGE that was IE6 is totally incorrect. I have to work with (and continue to support apps for) the ungodly creation that is IE6. Windows XP is a far better OS than IE6 is a web browser, not even close.

I've played with Vista, and the UI lift was just kind of "meh" to me. So they added some translucent windows (I'm a sucker for eye candy so I was really excited at first), but something just seemed lacking in Vista. They ditched their antiquated rendering engine, but that's the only thing I can recall that I actually liked about Vista. Moving away from bitmapped-based graphics rendering is not a reason to actually PAY to upgrade in my case.

This was one of the more uninformative posts on this site I've seen. You basically gushed over Windows , no reasons given, just better. And then you want people to upgrade to Windows 7 from XP -- but maybe you're forgetting that XP-to-7 means *complete reinstall*. That sucks, and it's not happening for a great many people.

I'll consider putting Windows 7 on a new PC, but without a viable upgrade path, the throngs of XP boxes are going nowhere.

just want to point out in addendum to my original post: I'm not some kind of Windows XP fanboy. I'm running the holy triad between the work box, laptop and home desktop: *nix, OS X and Windows.

If I had a single choice of an OS, Windows might not be it. But I say take your Vista AND your Windows 7 and keep it >:\

Martin Marconcini wrote:
> Get ready for Wi-Fi driver hell with W7. I've installed the
> beta/rc in a different number of laptops and only one (HP)
> could use the WiFi out of the box. The others? Hunting high
> and low for Vista / XP drivers.

First, installing a wi-fi driver is not driver hell. It's called par for the course when installing a new operating system. Plus, Vista drivers generally "just work" in Windows 7. If you have to search high and low for drivers, blame your manufacturer for 1) not working with MS to get it included in Windows, and 2) not making their driver website easy to navigate/search. For example, Dell does a good job making drivers easy to find.

Second, most consumers--the 95+% of people that will never do a clean install themselves--will never experience this. Having to download and install drivers manually might be an inconvenience for you and me, but the average person will never notice it. In my book, calling your experience "driver hell" is an exaggeration.

Let's not move too fast.

I do believe Win 7 is the next operating system to get. And I will be pleased to throw away my crusty rusty old screw driver. My Window PC will finaly keep up a little with Ubuntu and Mac OS.

But we still have a long way to go. There are a few months before the "in store" release, and even then, it won't be time to upgrade yet. Let's let the Dell custumers and other "average users" smash themself right in the wall with the first Win 7 PCs and quietly wait for the SP1, and then, only then, Win XP will finaly be history.

I'll continue to use XP thanks, for the following reasons:

1. My wife's computer is an ancient 1.4 PIII. It works just fine for her and with the constant threat of not having a job buying a new computer "just 'cause" seems like a bad idea.

2. My computer is slightly more modern (3 Ghz HT), but the video card doesn't support DX10. It also does what I need it to do.

3. The shared (Compaq) laptop barely runs XP decently. I also shudder at the thought of trying to find Win7 drivers for its little Compaq quirks.

4. My XP licenses are paid for. When Microsoft stops trying to suck $200 a license (if you're counting, that's $600) out of me I might upgrade. A while back Apple had a package deal, three OS licenses for a couple hundred bucks. MS needs to offer the same kind of deal.

I put Windows 7 on about 3 weeks ago, with a dual boot to Vista. I have yet to reboot my Vista.

I love Windows 7, the new taskbar is GREAT.

I've been running the RC on all my computers since it came out. My newest machine is a Core 2 Quad running 64 Bit. Windows 7 runs slick as a whistle on it, and it should, with 8 gigs of RAM in the rig.

What's important, though, is that it runs *just as well* on a seven year old box with a single core @ 2.8Ghz and 2 gigs of memory, and runs well and smoothly, if not quite as fast, on machine with a 1.8 Ghz CPU and 512 *Megs* of ram.

Everybody seems so focused on the visible changes in Seven - and to be fair, many of them are very nice. I've been enjoying the new super bar quite a bit, and as Jeff said, there are a LOT of really nice little touches that make Win7 very polished. It's as important, though, to point out that a great deal has been changed out under the hood of the OS, and that the improvements seen from Vista, and even from XP, are quite impressive.

There's nothing wrong with XP - I still run a VM of it for development at work, and until a couple days ago it was on my work machine as the live OS. However, after ten years, the time is right for an upgrade, and while XP is still a good, stable, viable OS, the simple fact is that Windows 7 is, thus far, an absolutely excellent OS. Upgrading now means moving to a modern OS that will continued to be supported in the future - how long before XP is abandoned by developers, to say nothing of MicroSoft?

While it might be Vista-as-it-should-have-been, it's not really a service pack if we have to pay to upgrade.

Just curious - did you download the GM through legal channels or did you pirate it?

I was under the impression that the first people outside of MS to get their hands on it legally would get it 8/6 and that was limited to OEMs.

I loved the Beta and I'm looking forward to it hitting the shelves. Maybe I'll start using WPF now too.

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?

New Windows versions coming out are always amusing. Every two-bit tech site trips over themselves to carry stories about Windows because it means lots of traffic...especially if it paints it in a negative light. Nerd rage builds and builds (especially on the echo chamber that is Slashdot) but ultimately nothing ever comes of it. All of the emotionally charged rants do nothing to change the world (who would have thought?)

Several years later, everyone has forgotten about the heinous, heinous sins of the former release. Additionally, it is no longer seen as bloated.

> if you don't find screwdrivers sexy, why do you want to convince us to get a new one? :)

>>I'm saying you should avoid using the rusted screwdriver which is >>liable to burst into fragments and cause a crippling hand wound at >>any time!

>>Jeff Atwood on July 27, 2009 7:02 AM
And I would argue that XP is a Snap-On, it will be reliable for years to come. What will Windows 7 do for me that XP does not? Not allow me to run some of the games I still enjoy? Allow me to upgrade my computer to handle the new specs? Those don't really sound like selling points to me. The screwdriver I have is working quite well thank you, when I notice that the edges are getting rounded off, I may think about getting a replacement, but until then I'm fine.

7's calculator sucks. If you're in "Programmer" mode, you can do binary/hex/decimal conversions, but you're restricted to integer arithmetic. If you're in "Scientific" mode, you can do decimal arithmetic but you can't convert between bases.

Windows 7 is a marketing stunt, to polish Vista a bit and provide an OS that is marginally better then the 10 years old predecesor is not realy an advance.

bear in mind that many of the security risks and flaws in the windows kernel (remeber? its based in VMS ideas) are still there, and only a masking using the UAC is able to help.

I still keeping windows XP with the existing flaws, instead of upgrading to a bloated OS for no real benefit.

I truly appreciate your opinion on the matter, Jeff, but let's be honest: you have a pro-Microsoft track record. Forgive me if I decide to wait until someone a little less biased -- http://frankkoehl.com/2009/01/jeff-atwood-still-wrong-about-php -- weighs in on the matter.

LOL - let me tell you the true story about the version number. We were shooting for 7.0.7777, but, alas, one of the things we discovered the hard way with vista was that there are many, many programs out there that check the version number incorrectly.

Instead of going "If the first number is higher, it's a newer OS. Or, failing that, if the second..." they compare "Let's make sure the first number is equal or higher. Or worse, they just check for equality to the version they thing there ought to be. And the second number is equal or higher. And..."

The result is of course, that installers quit claiming that you're running a version of the OS that's too old. That's not the kind of pain you want to put customers through. So, after a lot of investigation of the programs out there in the wild, a small adjustment was chosen that works for all that we tested, but we had to pass on a great number :(

"with 1000's of free programs" one of them has to work!

I'm a pretty happy user of XP (x64). I'm a developer and use it as my primary OS on a few machines, all of which have 8G of RAM. Granted, x64 XP is a few years newer - shares the same codebase as Server 2003 - but I'm at a loss as to why I would upgrade. I had nothing but pain with hardware compatibility with Vista, and since Windows 7 is more of the same I don't have great expectations.

"the lack of a compelling Windows upgrade path is a dangerous thing. "

Only to those with a vested interest in maintaining the microsoft dependency that the computing market is involved in today. True competition through alternative OS's like OSX and hopefully one day a real *nix worth using by an end user is the real solution to this "dangerous thing", not another windows upgrade.

Windows Vista's underlying architecture fixed many issues with Windows XP. It was the first version of Windows that could actually function without having to run as an administrator. It was the first version of Windows that fixed the predictable dll memory location problem. It was the first version of Windows that honestly handled security issues. I would recommend that anyone who can, switch from Windows XP to Windows 7. Windows 7 is really that much better an OS.

But after almost nine years, I have to wonder if it was really worth it for Microsoft. Is Windows 7 better than Mac OS X Leopard? And, how does it compare to the upcoming Snow Leopard. How does it stack up against the latest revisions of Linux based operating systems?

Think about it: Microsoft poured billions into Vista and Windows 7. Microsoft received terrible publicity over Vista and may have started a tread in the business world to abandon its complete dependence upon Windows. And, what is the end result? An operating system that Jeff Atwood compared to a B student.

What IBM, Apple, and Google long ago realized is that operating systems may be so complex that it is almost impossible for one company, no matter how big or strong, can produce by themselves. IBM tried their hands at OS/2 and later AIX. Neither of those two operating systems got anywhere despite the billions IBM put into them. And, IBM had been producing operating systems before Bill Gates was born. It took a long time, but IBM finally abandoned their own OS pursuits and became a main backer of Linux.

Apple almost failed as a company as they burned through almost a billion dollars trying to create their own OS from scratch. They ended up buying an OS based upon BSD and the Mach kernel, and despite the lack of resources in people and cash, created a compelling platform that practically saved the company.

Google, from the very start, never even attempted to go on their own. They based their entire corporate operation on Linux, JavaScript, and Python. Their Chrome browser is based upon WebKit which is an open source project from Apple which itself is based upon the open source KHTML.

What if Microsoft, instead of trying to rewrite the underpinnings of Windows with Windows Vista instead simply conceded defeat and defected to the pinko commie open source side? What if they simply used Unix or even Linux as the underpinnings of Windows and saved the effort to rewrite the basic kernel and underlying architecture?

This doesn't mean that Windows would be an open source operating system or that Windows would be based upon either KDE or GNOME or even X11. No more so than Apple's Mac OS X or Palm's WebOS are open source (and Palm's OS is based upon Linux!).

Instead, Microsoft could have spent all their effort polishing the layers of the OS that really count. Clean up the Windows API, fix the various Windows protocols that allow Windows to so effortlessly network. Figure out a system that offers strong security, yet doesn't get in the user's way.

With the resources at Microsoft's disposal, they could have produced a new compelling and thoroughly polished OS back when Vista should had been released years ago. Instead, Microsoft is playing catchup in the consumer market and in the server market. If Microsoft wasn't so entwined in corporate networks and didn't have its death grip on PC manufacturers, Microsoft may have found itself in a similar position as Adobe or Sun.

As of now, Windows 7 comes out just in time. Another year or two, and corporations and manufactures would have abandoned Microsoft.

I'm not going to upgrade my XP machine or my Vista machine because the upgrade is too expensive. I'll probably buy my next machine in 3 years and that's when I'll get 7.

If they would have kept the $50 pricing for Home Premium around longer, I would have bought two upgrade licenses. They ended that promotion way too quickly (that should be the regular price anyway). Instead, I'll just wait until I get it preinstalled on my next machine.

It's amazing how this post has managed to draw the few percent who are going to stick with XP out of the woodwork. By their own admission, most of them haven't so much as looked at the feature lists or read a blog about it, or they'd know that it has less default software (much of the defaults in Vista were moved to Windows Live extras), more uninstallable features (IE8 can be completely removed), higher stability and performance than even XP (It's true, go look it up!). I bet these *are* the ones who still use IE6 and love it. =P Little wonder Microsoft is so eager to get rid of XP's official support.

Waiting for SP2 of windows 7 to be released. Only then will I seriously consider using Windows 7.

shit...
I have been with Windows XP since i moved to it from Win98SE right after XP SP2.

I will eventually moved to 7, but not yet, my computer would choke and die on 7, sadly. Hardware isnt expensive, but when you are barely making ends meat, the price is just too steep.

My tool isnt rusted or broken, its a venerable old workhorse that causes me no problems. I know how to use it, I know how to hack it to pieces and make it do what I want. I know how to fix it.

that is far more important than having the most up to date crap they throw at you.

@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

I 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.

Sorry 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.

I 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!

Well, 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...

Mojave.

"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.

Windows 7 is still insecure and virus prone, and XP is still faster.

I'll stick with XP.

Windows 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.

I 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.

It 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.

"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.

I 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 :)

I 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.

>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.

"[...] 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?

@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.

Sure, 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. :)

Well, 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.

Blah, blah blah: "My OS is better than yours because ". Yes, and you have a small dick too.

The screwdriver analogy is perfect: the OS is a TOOL. Microsoft are releasing a new TOOL which will hopefully be adopted by the corporates who are still on 2000\XP.

There's way more of them than you fanboys.

>> 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.

jeeezus! 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.

>> 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.

>> 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.

"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.

@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.

@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.

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.

@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?

Completely 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.

I wouldn't mind using Vista or Windows 7, so long as I could keep the Windows XP user interface - in particular, Windows Explorer (including start menu) and the control panel etc. layout.

>> 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.

I'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.

@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.

@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.

David 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.

Sorry for the dual post...silly captcha lied and said it errored. :(

Like 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.

I'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.

Interesting 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.

sorry 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."

It'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?

God I love these topics that bring all the prius driving, mac rubbing d-bags out of the woodwork...

'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.

I this a piss take? didn't find it funny.. if not- wow, the major version stayed the same to help compatability..

>> 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…

I 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.

@Jeff-

You provide absolutely NO factual basis for any of your assertions here, save the calculator example. I know you can do better.

>> 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.

"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?

XP 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.

For 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.

I think he knows that Nick...I think Jeff might have been...dare I say...sarcastic?

People that can't recognize sarcasm shouldn't be allowed to read blogs?

Windows 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.

I agree without reading the article.

@remmelt

A number of your points are inaccurate. For example, Windows has had file encryption (EFS) since long before OS X offered an equivalent. Furthermore, EFS is built into the filesystem and is superior in many ways.

Bitlocker is different from EFS. It is full-drive encryption and works in tandem with a TPM to secure the boot process. OS X does not offer this functionality (and neither does TrueCrypt). Also, both Bitlocker and EFS have a great deal of enterprise management functionality built-in.

Jeff,

we know you have to make money advertising products in your posts, but at least stick to the facts. There is nothing "horrible" about XP and we know very little about Windows 7 (aside from RC). It looks good but past experiences have taught us to be very cautious, until SP1 is released :)

MS has insulted (financially) many of its customers with Vista. It has wasted our time, money and patience. We don't need an apology, just an OS that works reasonably well with current hardware.

As you remember, MS and Intel had a "deal" before Vista release which allowed intel to make a few extra bucks out of their obsolete graphics. This is what ultimately sank Vista - it was not compatible with some of the "reference hardware" (as in "Vista compatible" sticker) which caused instability (to say the least) and performance issues.

Not to mention the stupidity of having two Administrator-levels in Vista - which is confusing and useless at best.

I am sure we will all eventually get Windows 7 (to keep in on hardware or in a VM cage) eventually, but let's wait and see what comes out. I am looking at RC and if it disappoints me, Windows XP will be my last Windows OS.

okedokey?

@Rob:

>Have you waded through millions of lines of Windows source code and seen "the problem" >that lies there? I'd really like to know what it is. I'm sure Microsoft would, too.

They know. You don't need to be a clever guy to realize that the whole Registry Architecture, The Whole DLL infrastructure (that the .NET GAC was supposed to fix but it only 1/2 fixed), the default security decisions or the whole security idea in Windows, and similar Windows decisions, are part of the reason why Windows has been such a controversial OS. It has been proven that the OS is not stable for many things, it has been proven that it's easier to destroy a Windows install than any other "major" OS (Linux? OSX? Heck even OS/2)…). This is proven by the number of people who acknowledges that you have to reinstall windows every now and then to make it work like it was when you finish installing everything.

Get real. Don't come here as the "Microsoft Defender" (no pun intended). You don't have to prove anything…

I use windows too. Heck i Code for windows. It's a mess. The Microsoft Foundation Classes…L O L.

Gimme a break(point).

But money triumphed over anything else. Good marketing did it. Most vendors include(ed) Windows and will continue to do so. Most users don't care. Life will go on. Get over it. Windows suck from a geek's point of view. Everything in there is a pain. Except Wallpapers. Use them in peace.

>If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I develop on XP at work and use XP at home for everything and it's absolutely fine.

I'm just in the process of switching to a 8GB Vista 64 bit system at work. Why? Because I love VMware workstation and regularly want 3 or 4 VMs running at once. Windows XP is a limiting factor and the ~3.5GB limit will become a problem. Yes, I know there's 64 bit XP but personally I'd run away from that.

Rob.

So, how long is this build valid? I tried the release candidate, and it eventually expired. When will this RTM expire?

I note Jeff has some chirpy sound bites for why XP sucks, but no actual meat.

Standard FUD. Move along, nothing to see here.

so, Windows 7 is the best ever because of its cool startup screen?
awesome ... i guess i, too, should get Windows 7.

For what it is worth, I am bullish on W7 and I will definitely get it with the next machine I buy. But, there is nothing in it that is compelling enough to make me blow the money and spend the time doing a clean install to move off XP on my existing machine.

Jeff said:
"But suffice it to say that Windows 7 finally offers a compelling upgrade path from Windows XP."

Except that Microsoft doesn't support upgrading from XP to 7.

Sure they do. They just don't support leaving your data on the drive while you do it. :)

What's with all the butt-hurt commenters?

Windows 7 is superior to XP and Vista in every way
-More secure: UAC is less intrusive, so people will be less inclined to disable it

-Faster: It's been designed to work well on netbooks, so if you're reading this blog you've probably got a computer that can run it at least as well as XP

-Polished: Everything's been thought of, I use it and I've not once thought 'Why can't I do this the way I did it in XP/Vista'

-Stable: Even since beta, I've not even had a driver fail, let alone a full-on crash.

For people complaining about the need for fresh installs for XP to 7, Have you ever done a windows upgrade that happened perfectly? No. The old drivers get in the way, and general shite that accumulates on peoples PCs gets in the way. 9 out of 10 average joes need a computer wipe anyway; the number of people that have more toolbars in their browser than rendering area is atrocious.

Sticking to XP now is like sticking to 95 when windows XP was released.

And best of all, once everyone's off XP the abomination known as IE6 will finally be a thing of the past.

As I use both Vista and 7 RC every day, I came to conclusion that releasing Vista was a bit of a mistake Microsoft would have made, should they promote Windows 2000 as a successor of Windows 98.

There would be the same amount of noise of the "pr0 hax0rz" who don't see any difference and benefit to upgrading just because the UI is pretty much the same.

Yeah, Vista is nicer looking than XP with the glass, but people don't see the benefit of inner workings, because their crappy software written by a crappy developer, who doesn't have any idea how to create a decent win32 app, or a decent driver for that matter, doesn't work anymore.

" And best of all, once everyone's off XP the abomination known as IE6 will finally be a thing of the past."

Actually I beg to differ. Regardless of the complaining that we have done, until there is absolutely no other choice, management here (and at many companies) will never free up the money to update internal web apps that require IE6. Even IE8's compatibility mode breaks a few of them. So, the best that I can hope for for the foreseeable future is W7 with IE6 running in XP compatibilty mode.

@EBGreen

> ...we only do OS upgrades as part of a Hardware Refresh cycle,

Logical approach (I should have thought about it).

I do understand that moving to Win 7 will not be as ugly as moving to Vista, but there is nothing pretty about it (business wise).

If you are a developer you do have that quad core with 8Gb of RAM. That is 50 employees Vs the 5000 customer service representatives that need nothing more than 6 years old hardware from HP for $250 per PC.

As for the licensing: Two times half-price it is still two times more expensive. The ones that needed to run the old software are the 5000 CSRs not the 50 developers.

These are the same reasons Apple makes no business sense (and never will).

Apple is just a brand for the trendy brat, and never a business tool. Yes, it is the money. The crappy hardware does not justify the price tag. Take that money an buy twice the SAME hardware somewhere else.

Linux will be the right choice once it can do two things: Easy to use for your average Joe CSR and grandma Business Analyst Manager, AND be able to run the software made for windows that the company invested hundreds of thousands (if not millions). Linux is moving that way (not there yet though).

@Ric C.

I would add one more thing that Linux needs to do before widespread enterprise adoption is likely. Mature centralized management tools (i.e. AD, Group Policy Management, SCCM, etc.)

I actually completely disagree. I used Vista for a while, couldn't stand it, and went back to XP. I tried the x64 release candidate of 7 and liked it more, but was still unimpressed. All of my hardware just works, which is fantastic, and it is a gorgeous operating system.

However, I have 2 issues with it. Firstly, for whatever reason, the software I use frequently just isn't ready for 7. I had tons of software compatibility problems and it just wasn't working for me. Secondly, while it's lighter than Vista, it is by no means lightweight. It's honestly ridiculous how much RAM it swallows. XP was only holding about 400 MB hostage from me during normal usage. Windows 7 is easily over 1.5 gigs. That's just obscene for any operating system, regardless of how "cheap" RAM is.

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been, I think we are all pretty much agreed on that. So why not release it as a service pack? Charging people to upgrade from Vista is just incredulous.

Why have a new product (Windows 7)? No one has upgraded to Vista, everyone likes XP. The solution is simple, charge for a giant service pack for XP. And by service pack, I do actually mean a service pack. Only allow installing it via paying Microsoft directly online, sell it very cheaply, Mac OS 10.6 style. Make XP a prerequisite, eventually you want to create a version that is stand alone, but initially you want everyone to have the easiest possible eXPerience upgrading and make people want to upgrade. At work I use 10.5 and I can't wait for 10.6 to come out. I know it will magically just work, it will be $30 (Or so?), and it will definitely be worth it. I'm not convinced Vista is worth more than about $50 over XP and I'm sure Windows 7 should be a similar price again. I'd love to see Microsoft actually try competing instead of just cruising for the last 3 years.

Don't worry linux and google os will completly destroy microsoft.

Hi Jeff,

Awesome blog. Wanted to say that. ;-)

Maybe - regarding this article - it might make sense to refer to Mike Nashs blog post here: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx where he exactly explains the thoughts of Microsoft behind the versioning.

Regards,
Chris.

first, why the heck are so many people saying Macs are better, last i checked they were for grannys who dont know how to drag and drop.
and to all the idiots saying windows 7 is just as slow as vista look at this http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-7-Pentium-II,8110.html those specs are practically embedded systems.

@EBGreen

>Mature centralized management tools (i.e. AD, Group Policy Management, SCCM, etc.)

Ahhh.. Certanly! Another thing we mere selfish users oversee (if even aware), and yet we all have the answer to solve world hunger and cure cancer.

People in your field of work (software developers not included) are the ones that know the real story, we just ramble about it.

There's some simple but twisted logic about all of this: win 3.1 check, win 95 skip, win 98/NT4 check, win ME skip, win XP check, win Vista skip, win 7 - may be, but most probably not; mostly because I'm not keen on upgrading hardware (which in means of notebooks most probably means throw-them-away-and-buy-a-new-one anyways).
Being from Europe means almost to none support for Windows (you even have to pay for the call to activate) and Macs, therefore Windows gets at least pirated while Macs stay off the market due to hardware/general unavailability of gadgets for the iStuff (yes, you can eBay them, but there's nothing like tingling around with your hands before actually buing).
Tried the Intel-patched MacOS, was not impressed - seems to me much like win98 with a bunch of cool-looking icons - nothing I couldn't get an equivalent for in WinXP, and most probably opensource/otherwise free without having to pay some fancy applestore/iTunes etc.
So I'll guess I'll stick with XP and e.g. Ubuntu on dual-boot/virtual/ssh-access just for that command-line and network-tool goodness.

"So you still use Internet Explorer 6, I take it?"

IE 6 was a broken application. XP is not broken, I'll use it as long as I can. I need my OS to run applications, format drives and connect me to a network - how does Windows 7 do these things better?

So, how long does this RTM last before expiring, like the RTC's?

> Three years late, but hey, who's counting.

Ummm, everyone but you, apparently.

XP will remain my Windows OS of choice for some time. Its role to me is little more than a hardware/software interface, and works well enough to run good software on top of it (a good deal of which happens to be open source, incidentally).

For doing what I really want to do, I can't go past Linux (Ubuntu) at home. Please forgive me if I'm sceptical about Win7 offering that.

I don't share any of the resentment of Vista's UI or other characteristics described in this article, I thought Vista over XP was remarkable and game-changing. Sometimes I wonder if you are just not looking.. or for that matter if you're just a calc user.

These things said, I like Win 7, too.

I don't share any of the resentment of Vista's UI or other characteristics described in this article, I thought Vista over XP was remarkable and game-changing. Sometimes I wonder if you are just not looking.. or for that matter if you're just a calc user.

These things said, I like Win 7, too.

sorry for the double-post .. re-captcha is hard to read and I couldn't tell if it worked.

Microsoft just created a major problem for themselves, IMO. I think W7 is so good, people won't see a reason to upgrade for another 8 years or so, just like with XP.

god, what a bunch of dicks! I can't believe how many people got their panties in such a twist over this post.

I use XP every day, and I use W2K every day.

Vista was a bad experiment, and hopefully W7 is better.

Why all the fuss?

Holy Moly - all these comments. I'm shocked! I thought there was a bit better community on this blog role...

#1 If you're not always upgrading to the latest whatever version of everything, you are reading the wrong blog.
#2 If you don't love all-things OS - MacOS, Linux, Windows; multi-boot, VM, desktop server, 32/64, etc, you are reading the wrong blog.
#3 If you don't love to pave-over, rebuild, debug, and performance tune your boxes, you are reading the wrong blog.

How can a new OS be anything but good times.

That's how I see it. Bring it on! The last thing any of us should wish for is "keep playing with the same old crap".

I love all the comments about how this OS is better than that OS and how 'I will never move to W7' etc.

Use XP if it suits you; nobody is forcing an upgrade upon you (yet) :)

I'm using W7 and I love it.

And with this co-inciding with my PC replacement schedule, it means I can commit Vista to the same category as Windows Me - an operating system curio that is best avoided. (Not saying either is bad per se, just that better options bookend them).

@Eric - "A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem: so unix is too old to use too?" - exactly what I thought when I read this. If you need to rewrite your operating system every 4 years, does it not occur to you that you are doing something wrong?

> Let's just say the overall user experience was.. uninspiring. This led many people to shrug, sigh "why bother?", and stick with crusty old XP.

If you honestly think people didn't use/install/go for Vista because of an "uninspiring" user experience, I can scarcely in words the magnitude of your error. It truly is awe-inspiring.

People stayed away from Vista because of its lack of peripheral support, its crashes, the fact it gave a new meaning to "resource hogging", and it... just ... didn't work very well.

The "user experience" was about the only thing that was worth 2c of it, actually.

Granted, that's uninspiring.

I've been using the RC on a main computer and a netbook for a while now. The netbook remains as fast, if not slightly faster than when it was running xp so really good work from microsoft their.

I really like the new task bar, this will also get better as programs start using the jump lists for more program tasks.

The only trouble I have had is a driver bug related to my hard drive sometimes after I have hibernated the computer I go to create/rename or delete a file and explorer freezes for a little while or I have to refresh to see the action.

All in all no it's not a major set of new features it's incremental changes but can we really expect a revolution at this stage.

@Bob Somers

You aren't reading the ram usage correctly you can't compare xp and vista (windows 7) that way. Memory management is completely different. XP was designed to basically load the minimum into RAM keeping RAM free for programs, things would get cached on hard drive and so on.

Now we are in the multi-gigabye RAM world vista and 7 load up as much into RAM as possible this is not just system files but your frequently run programs lookup superfetch. If a program is not already cahced in memory and their isn't enough free windows can just drop one of the cached programs freeing memory very quickly. This makes the whole system very responsive.

Makes you think why wasn't this being done in windows xp (I suppsoe there wasn't much RAM back then in comparison).

It's amazing how hard they tried to convince that Vista was an outstanding OS (when in fact it sucks compared to XP) and now the new idea is that Seven is very different from Vista (when they are almost identical except for the taskbar and performance tweaks).

I would stop whining that people still use XP, and be happy that they have a platform like .NET which will run about the same on both. That cannot be said of OSX updates.

Now if we could move everybody off of IE6/7, that would be another story.

@Jeff "Now can we please get the hell off Windows XP already?"

No-oh! We like XP.

@Martin Marconcini:
The actual figure is somewhere between 80% and 90% of overall Windows sales come from PC makers, depending on which report you believe. I was a few percentage points off, but that doesn't negate my argument.

More to the point, I hesitate to base my opinion of an operating system on anyone's experience upgrading. Certainly Vista was full of problems at first, but it has improved dramatically in terms of driver compatibility. Because I know most major OS releases have problems at first, I gave MS a pass for a few months, and I'm glad I did. Vista turned out to be not all that bad, as long as you are running it on recent hardware with a good amount of RAM. It sucks on old, slow hardware, granted. Most of the negative reports I have heard about Vista come down to, "I tried running Vista on my Pentium 3 with 512MB of RAM, and it SUCKS!" Well, yeah, that's really old equipment. Again, people I know with adequate hardware like Vista just fine.

I guess what I'm saying is that based on the positive feedback I've heard from people using Windows 7 in is beta/RC state on everything from netbooks to laptops to desktops, I can imagine the out-of-box experience for the average consumer being very good, even excellent. It's too bad that your hardware specifically doesn't work well with Windows 7, but I truly think you are in the minority here. I realize that hat doesn't make things any better for you, but again, most people will buy it from an OEM that has done all the work ahead of time. Even the people who buy the $400 Dell tower will be happy with it. Poor performance on low-end hardware is Vista's most significant problem, and Windows 7 fixed that problem well...

XP is like my 9 year old car. I have maintained it well and replaced worn parts (IE 6). It does not slow me down from getting where I need to go. Going to Windows 7 is like trading in that perfectly good car because the new one is prettier or get better gas mileage when I only commute 5 miles each way. When a truly compelling reason shows itself I will be ready to upgrade but not until then.

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?

"Again, people I know with adequate hardware like Vista just fine."

And requiring new hardware is the mark of a good OS?

@LavosPhoenix
12Gb install? Where are you dling the Win7 RC from?

If 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.

Don'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.

Sometimes 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.

"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!"
Hum, Software does not decay (unless you count the automatic updates as decay). Though I think I know what you're trying to say, that metaphor just does not hold up. The OS did not add holes, they were there always. Plus, Microsoft has been pretty good at fixing XP as it bobbed along.
I think you need to make your point better of how XP is inadequate (and comparing to IE6 is really not a fair comparison. Its design was bogus).
Last thing, I find it funny that you mention 7 is an upgrade path from XP, when there is no xp->7 upgrade available. But hey, who's counting?

What 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.

XP 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.

Sorry 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.

If only Microso$t could have put a Windows XP theme on Vista...

Calling XP a 9 year old system is a little shallow. It's not the same system it was at the beginning.
First of all, the service packs are more than just security fixes. The SP2 introduced Windows Firewall among others, the Security Center, and had all the files rebuilt. Seriously, even the Calculator has been replaced by SP2.
Then of course there is no single Windows XP, it comes in various flavors. After XP Home and XP Pro, there was XP Media Center, and I believe it was released in 2005.
And then there was SP3, IE 7 and IE 8, the Zune theme, so if you compare an XP install from 2001 to an XP from 2009, they're different at so many levels, that saying "yeah but it's still NT 5.1" is biased to say the least.

Since when did service packs come with a price tag?

>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.

>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.

What 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.

@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.

@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).

;)

Windows 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...

"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.

I 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.

So, Microsoft is finally at 2004?

for a number of reasons I utilise Virtual Server 2005 R2 SP1 instead of Virtual PC 2007 SP1 (sometimes i still do) on my Win Vista workstations. when i upgraded one to test out Win 7 i was dismayed Virtual Server 2005 is no longer supported and had to uninstall it before allowing me to upgrade.

I 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.

I 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.

My 1985 Toyota Corolla still works FINE. Ain't nobody who can convince me to get one o' them Prius's or Honda Civics or other senseless wastages of good money, no, not even used. And don't tell me I'm not a serious driver, I drive EVERY DAY, from home to work, it's a fifteen mile drive!

Seriously, though, actually I do own a 2002 Toyota Echo (made circa Windows XP release date) and I think I could use an upgrade.

@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.

"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.

I like rusted screwdrivers; they are made of better steel than the cheap chinese imports that are available today...

Hey, If you read it on the internet then it's got to be true!

Hey Dom; "Say it ain't so..."

While 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.

Awww 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?

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.

@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.

"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.

"@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?

make the voices stop!

Here 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

>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!

@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.

I 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.

I 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.

>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.

@ 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.

I'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.

@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.

sorry for the bad english, it is not my language, I tend to write what phonetically think in english.

Dammit, 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'?

"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?)

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.

@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.

Jeff,
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.

I'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.

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/10/why_does_window.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_tech_beat

Either the retail verion will be windows 7.0.xxxx or it will keep being 6.1

Seriously, 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

"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?

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.

i 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

According 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.

Is 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.

What is exactly wrong with XP? Why should I upgrade? Why replace something finally working? Noone can answer.

I 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.

"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.

I 'm willing to use Windows 7, but our company stil use Windows XP and it seem there's no plan for upgrading:(

It seems there's no plan to use Windows7 in our offce:(

>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...

Just 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.

I 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.

Couldn't agree more Jeff: let's get off XP

Microsoft 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.

I've been using Windows 7 since the RC and I'm f'ing loving it!

Why 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.

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.

Windows 7 is fine but windows xp is cheap, compatible and with the classic toolbar.

Will 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...

http://www.chrome-os-blog.com

12Gb 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.

First 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".

First 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.

4gigs 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???

Jeff, 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.

At least people are debating XP vs. Vista vs. 7 and not saying we all need to use that "Ubuntu" junk.

You "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!?".

Craig, 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.

Oh 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 :)

Total bullshit... This is brand new OS, with major changes in kernel, UI and scalabillity... All you looking is for version number???

My god, so many fuckin idiots...

@ 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.

Vista 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?

My 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.

I 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

Windows 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.

"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?

At least Windows 7 will make installing apps that use .NET 3.5 SP1 a lot easier.

Well, until .NET 4.0 comes out anyway :)

I'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.

I'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.

I 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"

I 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.

Your whole argument against Windows XP is that its minimum requirements are low. That's ridiculous.

"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.

Well, 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.

Sticking 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.

dopes....

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?

apparently they axed the option to diable Auto-Arrange in Explorer. Now someone has to include that in the new Tweak UI...

Hope that Windows 7 is not flop as Vista !!!

Dear guy,
I was on reddit.com/r/programming and I saw "what programming blog do you read the most?" and somebody commented your blog.
I came to your blog and read "I want the world to get the hell off Windows XP."
I was on Windows XP.
I installed Arch Linux.
I have made this switch many times before. I usually go back to Windows because all I do is talk in Ventrilo to my friends, play Warcraft III, and browse websites with Flash content.

But, I am on Arch Linux.
Thank you,
Brandon

"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.

I 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.

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.

Still 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.

dude u rock serously...

hey really nice post...
but is there any facility of face recognition software to give my vista based PC a more security...

Having 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.

W7'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...

Why 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?

I 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.

I 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.

so 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.

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.

"Windows 7: The Best Vista Service Pack Ever"... not really: try Ubuntu... ;-)

Abercrombie & 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

I would definitely use an Abercrombie & Fitch OS.

Click the Polo to start.

Just 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.

When 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...

I have remained on XP because they've made a disaster out of Windows Explorer. No question of upgrading.

http://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?

Proof 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.

I'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