Why does Windows 7 have such a positive image?

[Pika]

Positive reaction to Windows 7 by the IT community: http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=3103

OK, before I start, let me point out that I'm not on some kind of vandetta against Windows Vista. I use it at home, and despite its warts I rather enjoy it (especially the Sidebar).

Early on, there was a lot of speculation that Windows 7 was just lipstick on the Vista pig, a valid point given that Windows 7 is built on Windows Vista in much the same way Windows XP was built on Windows 2000 technology.

There are some genuine improvements in Windows 7, including some that address major flaws with Windows Vista:

• Win7 uses fewer resources (RAM, hard drive space, etc.)
• Win7 boots faster
• UAC can be dialed down or turned off (a welcome feature given that MS has admitted that UAC is not a security feature, despite what their previous marketing told us)
• The interface -- particularly the taskbar -- is much improved

Other than that, every complaint about Windows Vista still applies to Windows 7. Any hardware devices that don't work with Windows Vista still won't work with Windows 7. Any software (and there's quite a bit of it) that won't work with Vista still won't work with 7. Hardware-accelerated positional audio (e.g. EAX) still won't work without applying a crowbar to your audio drivers. Much of the interface is still "simplified" à la MacOS such that getting to certain dialog boxes takes more clicks now. Windows 7 will still come in a bewildering array of versions, with the useful ones being far more expensive than they oughtta be.

The list goes on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Again, I stress that I personally don't have a problem with Vista, but it really seems to me that Windows 7 is just Windows Vista re-packaged and re-marketed. It's a more elaborate version of Mojave, so why is it getting a much more positive reaction than Vista got?

Were the negative reactions to Vista really unjustified? Or were the issues addressed by Windows 7 the only problems most people had with Vista?

 

[FX120]

The reason IMO 7 is getting a positive reaction from people who use it, is because it is so much like Vista.

The biggest problem with Vista for many people, it wasn't anything like XP. Different drivers, new drivers that were poorly written dragging down the OS, new interface that moved things around to where they should have been, and general teething problems with the OS because there were so many changes to the core of the OS.

Fast forward three years, hardware drivers for Vista are mature and stable, application support is better (meaning older applications that didn't work at the launch of Vista have been updated), and people have adjusted to the way Vista works.

Because 7 shares so much of the core of Vista, nearly everything that now works on Vista, will work with 7 at launch. Instead of a "teething period" of a year while OEM's and 3rd parties get their asses in gear developing new drivers, existing drivers already work, making the experience much smoother.

Couple this with all the other improvements in the OS, and it should have a positive image.

 

[Melrose]

Well, I've never used Vista and had problems with the Win7 Beta so I don't understand it either, but here's my take..

I think Win7 is what Vista should have been - granted it still doesn't embody many of the features that Vista was supposed to have and didn't.

Also, I'd point to the lack of hooplah about Vista to Vista's bad timing in being released immediately prior to the iPhone/iPod Touch fanfare, bad press from myriad major delays, Mac hardware redesign, and no effective response to the Apple ads. Win7 has better press because it's released amid a flurry of (however misleading) M$ ads, the fact they've downplayed any connection with Vista, and lots of positive press that has inexplicably been hyped up on, really, a limited release beta version. confused

We'll see how it fares after Apple releases Snow Leopard - which you can be sure will ride the able shoulders of a clever ad campaign.

I thought it was weird with the Laptop Hunter ads not mentioning Vista - their primary, flagship POS (Piece Of Software) - but then I realized we're getting close to the launch of Windows 7, and in the interim M$ is distancing itself from it's own product.

 

[neiltc13]

I thought it was weird with the Laptop Hunter ads not mentioning Vista - their primary, flagship POS (Piece Of Software) - but then I realized we're getting close to the launch of Windows 7, and in the interim M$ is distancing itself from it's own product.

The people Microsoft are targeting with their ads would never buy an OS on its own. It's pointless trying to show the merits of a tiny part of the whole package and by selling the whole unit Microsoft still gets a cut.

 

[kastenbrust]

Any hardware devices that don't work with Windows Vista still won't work with Windows 7. Any software (and there's quite a bit of it) that won't work with Vista still won't work with 7.

You haven't done your research, Microsoft is purposely putting an XP compatablilty tool into Windows 7 to make sure all XP software runs, similar to the way Wine works for Mac, take a look:

Its going to be called 'XP mode'

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2598

 

[zap2]

It seems to be a step up from Vista from my use...admittedly, I don't think Vista was as bad as people bad it out to be(and I don't think Windows 7 is as great as people are making it to be)

 

[bruinsrme]

Vista was horrible. I loaded it for a week and reformated and reload XP

When Vista SP1 came about I tried it again and it remains on my laptop. It's been very stable, no major issues that stick out.

I am looking forward to Windows7 for the improvements mention by the OP.

Original vista was a debacle, IMO.

 

[FX120]

I think Win7 is what Vista should have been

It wouldn't have mattered if MS had released 7 as it stands now in 2006, the quality of Windows as an OS, and it's experience to the user is more than just what MS puts in. It is totally dependent on 3rd party devs, OEMs, and designers to have software that functions like it should when the core of an OS has been reworked.

That is what "brought down" Vista, a lack of 3rd party support at launch, and piss poor drivers.

7 couldn't be what it is today, without the last three years of Vista driver and software development.

 

[MikhailT]

You haven't done your research, Microsoft is purposely putting an XP compatablilty tool into Windows 7 to make sure all XP software runs, similar to the way Wine works for Mac, take a look:

Its going to be called 'XP mode'

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=2598

So what. You can just run VirtualBox, install XP on it and do the same thing on Vista.

The reason that W7 is getting a positive response is that it is much more streamlined than the "original Vista". Nobody is comparing W7 to Vista SP1/Sp2 but the original Vista image. W7 is faster than Vista SP1/SP2 in some way, it isn't the same codebase. W7 has years of improvements baked in the codebase, yes some of it are already in SP1/SP2. You can be sure that MS isn't going to market it, they'll be pushing W7 as they hope the positive image will achieve the sale numbers they needed from Vista.

The W7 is much faster, less buggier, more responsive and the subtle changes such as the overall blue tone change in the GUI is more calming then the Vista's black/blue/green mix.

 

[Pika]

More concerns about security in Windows 7:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-7-Hacked-controlled,7619.html#xtor=RSS-181

 

[Little HZ]

Original vista was a debacle, IMO.

I think a lot of people agreed that Vista was a debacle, so W7 looks great by comparison.

This review-- http://gizmodo.com/5069661/windows-7-walkthrough-boot-video-and-impressions --calls W7 "a fast, stable environment. There's a lot going on behind the scenes to make the OS more usable, one monumental improvement being how video memory is allocated for unseen windows. (Hint: It's not.) The result is a highly responsive machine that gets decent battery life. Though specs aren't out yet, Windows boss Steve Sinofsky confirmed that it could run on systems with just 1GB of RAM."

I still am using XP when I have to use my PC (), so I cannot weigh in w/ any personal experience ...

 

[MikhailT]

More concerns about security in Windows 7:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Windows-7-Hacked-controlled,7619.html#xtor=RSS-181

Nothing to be concerned about. I can do same damage without actually having any code to any linux/unix/osx machines by being in person as well. This code requires the person to be in presence of the computer.

 

[Designer Dale]

I'm no programmer, and not a PC user, but I have my observations. Win7 looks good because it has yet to face the real challenge of all MS operating systems, public release on retail computers to the general public. That's usually when the hacker and virus community shifts into high gear and pinpricks become gaping holes.

 

[tubbymac]

People that think that Vista and Windows 7 are basically the same thing haven't tried both on OLD hardware. We are talking machines with 512 megs to a gig of ram and outdated processors. On those types of machines, you can tell right away there is a huge performance difference. I hate Vista on old machines as it's so dog slow, but Windows 7 on an old machine runs as snappy or faster than XP on the same machine.

That is the big difference. Sure it looks the same, but looks aren't everything.

 

[Pika]

It doesn’t matter that some companies are choosing to stick with Windows XP, that more and more college students are switching to a Mac, or that Microsoft continues to patch critical vulnerabilities on a regular basis. For all the grandstanding, marketing, and finger pointing that exists, Windows will continue to be the dominant desktop operating system in the years to come. It covers all the bases: from the computer novice on a tight budget who walks into a Best Buy to the uber-geek who wants the more powerful system for gaming or multimedia creation.

Even so, Windows will continue to see its market share dwindle over time. This is not a reflection of any inherent failure in Windows, but the simple fact that it’s virtually impossible to gain market share in a world that’s already saturated.

UAC is just dumb.

"Firefox is attempting to access the internet, would you like to allow it?"
"Yes."
"Firefox is not made by a blah blah blah, are you sure you want to allow it?"
"Yes."
"Firefox is not made by Microsoft and is not Internet Explorer, we don't want you to use it, are you okay with allowing it to access the internet, are you sure?."
"Yes."
"Firefox may allow your computer to get viruses, allow it to access the internet?"
"Yes."
"Did you say no?"
"Yes, wait, no?"
"Okay, Firefox has been disabled from accessing the internet."
"GJFHGHDj#$$%%%^#$@!" *Broken keyboard.*

It maintains that Gamespy Arcade is malicious, that everything that wants to access the internet is a virus, including Steam, Halo 1, any game made by Blizzard, and these RPG games I used to play that were free.

And when you disable it, it still pops up asking if you're sure you want it disabled. And yes, yes I am sure it should be disabled.

 

[Eidorian]

It doesn’t matter that some companies are choosing to stick with Windows XP, that more and more college students are switching to a Mac, or that Microsoft continues to patch critical vulnerabilities on a regular basis. For all the grandstanding, marketing, and finger pointing that exists, Windows will continue to be the dominant desktop operating system in the years to come. It covers all the bases: from the computer novice on a tight budget who walks into a Best Buy to the uber-geek who wants the more powerful system for gaming or multimedia creation.

Even so, Windows will continue to see its market share dwindle over time. This is not a reflection of any inherent failure in Windows, but the simple fact that it’s virtually impossible to gain market share in a world that’s already saturated.

Nowhere to go but down for them.

Microsoft still makes the same amount on an OEM license if the computer hardware is $500 or $5,000. Apple on the other hand...

UAC is just dumb.

"Firefox is attempting to access the internet, would you like to allow it?"
"Yes."
"Firefox is not made by a blah blah blah, are you sure you want to allow it?"
"Yes."
"Firefox is not made by Microsoft and is not Internet Explorer, we don't want you to use it, are you okay with allowing it to access the internet, are you sure?."
"Yes."
"Firefox may allow your computer to get viruses, allow it to access the internet?"
"Yes."
"Did you say no?"
"Yes, wait, no?"
"Okay, Firefox has been disabled from accessing the internet."
"GJFHGHDj#$$%%%^#$@!" *Broken keyboard.*

It maintains that Gamespy Arcade is malicious, that everything that wants to access the internet is a virus, including Steam, Halo 1, any game made by Blizzard, and these RPG games I used to play that were free.

And when you disable it, it still pops up asking if you're sure you want it disabled. And yes, yes I am sure it should be disabled.

I have never ever seen this happen.

 

[Nyan]

Of course UAC is a security feature. Microsoft is also using it to strong arms their developers into respecting security guidelines, but it doesn't make it less a security feature (and you can disable UAC in Vista btw).

I really don't understand your (and a lot of people) fixation with UAC. It's not rocket science, it's just an implementation of mandatory access control.

 

[Pika]

The problem is that it's about as bad an implementation of mandatory access control as anyone could design. The dialogs are confusing and ask the user to decide whether to allow specific operating system calls, which is just daft. Why not also ask them to verify that this pointer is not a null reference, too? The typical Windows user is just not equipped to evaluate these questions - and why should they have to?

I have a similar problem with Firefox 3's mechanism for preventing the user from visiting a website with an invalid SSL cert. It's confusing, and unless you pay careful attention, you can permanently ban yourself from your own internal website with a self-signed certificate. And there's no way to turn it off for users who understand the risks.

 

[bashveank]

One more reason for 7 praise: the built in apps are, for the first time, pretty useful.

 

[Eidorian]

The problem is that it's about as bad an implementation of mandatory access control as anyone could design. The dialogs are confusing and ask the user to decide whether to allow specific operating system calls, which is just daft. Why not also ask them to verify that this pointer is not a null reference, too? The typical Windows user is just not equipped to evaluate these questions - and why should they have to?

The same applies to OS X's password prompts when you want to see the full details and Keychain Access.

 

[SactoGuy18]

The biggest problem up with Windows Vista up until Spring 2008 was the fact you needed a dual-core CPU and at least 3 GB RAM (32-bit mode) and 4 GB RAM (64-bit mode) for the OS to reach its "sweet spot." But since Spring 2008, almost every new build machine costing over US$400 at least have 3 GB of RAM and a lower-end AMD or Intel dual-core CPU, and as such all the complaints about sluggish performance on new-build machines essentially vanished.

Windows 7's memory design essentially takes Vista and made a large number of improved optimizations for hardware, and as such you can even run it on vastly lesser hardware like a netbook with the Intel Atom CPU and 1 GB of RAM with no noticeable performance loss. On a modern desktop or laptop with more powerful hardware, Windows 7 runs very fast, and even in its Build 7100 Release Candidate 1 form testers have said it is an extremely stable OS.

 

[ravenvii]

The truly insane thing about the RC that'll be released to the public this Tuesday is - get this - it's good until June 2010. That's right, you get to use Windows 7 for free for a year!

Another cool thing? The RC you get this Tuesday, it's basically Windows 7 Ultimate. You get Virtual Windows XP - Windows XP in a seamless virtual machine basically, where you can run Windows XP programs that won't run in Vista or Windows 7.

What I'm really curious about is: how is the performance with games? Does Virtual XP allow 3D acceleration, and is it good enough to play old games that Vista won't run (the newest game on my list, I think, is F.E.A.R.)

 

[tubbymac]

One more reason for 7 praise: the built in apps are, for the first time, pretty useful.

The embarrassing thing to admit is that I really like Microsoft Paint. For really basic stuff like image format conversions and simple crops sometimes loading up Photoshop to do it is overkill. Trusty old notepad didn't get any changes though whereas Wordpad, a program pretty much nobody uses, got an overhaul. Where's the notepad love, Microsoft?

The problem is that it's about as bad an implementation of mandatory access control as anyone could design.

Vista's UAC was absolutely horrible. So was XP and Vista's incredibly annoying notification system. Both really got in the user's face too much and led to people clicking OK on anything that popped up. Windows 7 really tackled and fixed this. Microsoft should have just went the unix + sudo route from the beginning, but in an extremely roundabout way they have finally come to something functionally equivalent with Windows 7.

On a modern desktop or laptop with more powerful hardware, Windows 7 runs very fast, and even in its Build 7100 Release Candidate 1 form testers have said it is an extremely stable OS.

The Windows 7 RC runs faster than OSX Leopard on the same machine. That's how much it has improved over Vista and XP. Snow Leopard should close that performance gap though.

What I'm really curious about is: how is the performance with games? Does Virtual XP allow 3D acceleration, and is it good enough to play old games that Vista won't run (the newest game on my list, I think, is F.E.A.R.)

I use the compatibility troubleshooter these days and haven't had to run XP in a VM as it seems to work for everything. It allows you to specify on any old game or application what operating system to emulate and hasn't failed yet. You can even pick which service pack, so Windows 7 can pretend to be XP SP1 or SP2 etc if the needs are super specific.

Game performance seems to be the same as XP, and definitely noticeably faster than Vista, at least in terms of frame rates.

 

[Sehnsucht]

UAC is just dumb.

"Firefox is attempting to access the internet, would you like to allow it?"
"Yes."
"Firefox is not made by a blah blah blah, are you sure you want to allow it?"
"Yes."
"Firefox is not made by Microsoft and is not Internet Explorer, we don't want you to use it, are you okay with allowing it to access the internet, are you sure?."
"Yes."
"Firefox may allow your computer to get viruses, allow it to access the internet?"
"Yes."
"Did you say no?"
"Yes, wait, no?"
"Okay, Firefox has been disabled from accessing the internet."
"GJFHGHDj#$$%%%^#$@!" *Broken keyboard.*

But have you heard the Windows fanboys' opinions on UAC?

To them, this...

...is no different than this...

WTF! If only they knew...

 

[twoodcc]

lol.

i personally am looking forward to windows 7. i like the betas so far, and i also like Vista. 7 to me is better than vista, probably the same way snow leopard will be better than leopard. we'll see. but so far i like windows 7