With the release of Windows 7 RC1, it's a good time to see what it tells us about the future of operating systems — and that of Microsoft.
Microsoft is giving this release candidate away with more than a year's grace before users have to purchase the full version. It's not the first time the company has used test versions of its operating system to mollify the industry after a flop: in the 1980s, MS-DOS 4 was such a failure that Microsoft had almost a year's very public 'beta testing' of MS-DOS 5 by way of penance.
It's also not the first time that Microsoft has been woken up by competition. Vista was a product of a company used to taking its time delivering rather lacklustre features that conformed more to the company's business plan than to the needs of its users. That worked fine — when Apple was floundering and desktop open source was a quirk — much as Internet Explorer 6 was fine for five years after the crushing of Netscape.
But the rest of the world has moved on and continues to move on ever faster. As Firefox stirred up IE, so the arrival of OS X and Ubuntu as credible alternatives have riled Windows. Security is more sane, the user interface is less cluttered and compatibility is more important in Windows 7 than with Vista. Most significantly, Microsoft is prepared to forego a year's cashflow in what must be the longest try-before-you-buy scheme ever, outside rank piracy.
There's more for the company to learn. It continues to insist on a plethora of editions, including one aimed at netbooks — a creation of considerable inanity that will only run three applications simultaneously. True, Ubuntu also has a netbook edition: it works better than the mainstream version rather than worse, an approach that Microsoft would do well to emulate.
As a sign of a company learning to adjust to new realities, Windows 7 is a positive and welcome move. But it is reactive — virtualisation included primarily for backward compatibility, security improved by removing features — rather than innovative and has little by way of new directions. The competition is already moving towards the cloud with ideas like Eucalyptus, and towards a far more diverse set of client platforms. Windows can't easily follow without changing dramatically, and dramatic change has never been its forte. Something different is needed for next time.
Windows 7 will prove to be the best client version of Windows ever. It will also be the last that matters.
Talkback
If the competition is racing away towards the cloud then it may be well to have computers lying around with the "old" style client applications running on them. It would be wise to have some powerful and heavy feet planted firmly on the ground!
Concur with all arguments made.
In the end, it's incumbent on all users, yes even Microsoft's users, to support <b>strong</b> competition to Microsoft. It's the only way they will bother to improve their products.
This is one of the truisms of an dealing with an entrenched monopolist.
MS has never been about what the users wanted, it was MS telling you what you needed. They are finally starting to listen to the user as their user base shrinks. But, will they be able to destroy the competition this time?
Apple Mac OS X: Anyone would has had to support 'the fruit' know its not all rosy in the orchard. File Permissions/Missing/incorrect Kext files can cause problems causing the spinning rainbox of doom but overall it works as long as you don't try and be too clever on Apple's limited hardware.
Windows XP - which I like to call the swiss army knife of OS - its simple enough, nearly every bit of kit works with it - in terms of throwing things at it, it holds up well. It being around a while but its fundamental design mean its hard to rid of completely - its useful, even given its flaws. Its pretty stable now if you regularly image it - Trueimage (to revert it back after you get a virus) /use a good AV (Comodo-free&good.) - notice I don't use might get a virus - let your kids use it - you will.
One thing Apple is very good at is the intuitive interface, you only have to look at the ipod/iphone, its attention to detail, its simplicity, the app-store, the music store - they know how to build a good interface. If I were a competitor or worked for Nokia/MS - I think that first view of the iphone would have left me with an empty feeling in my stomach and sweaty palms.
Back to Win7.
Windows 7 installation (which is very straightforward), though still lacks drivers (Older Intel 82855/915/945 full Chipset support looks unlikely) worked well.
Once installed - the first thing I needed to do is connect to the wireless network - this turns out to be 5-6 menus deep to select the correct network , the correct 'security' tab and finally enter your Wireless password. Its awful, a combination of remaining bit of Vista/XP Menus, and as tedious as the guy in MacDonalds trying to change your order on the till, while you wait while your Happy Meal goes cold.
The MacDonalds analogy starts to show through - Win7 is designed for the masses to be uncomplicated and broken down into a series of steps so you are slowly edged towards the solution to your problem.
So in order to change the wireless password, you need to understand what a wireless password is (its a password!), so Win7 shows you first you don't have a network - a nice graphic - but I already know that from opening my browser.
Windows 7 RC1 is definitely more likeable than Vista (it would be hard not to), its fast, seems very stable and as a basic installation runs faster than XP on 512MB. IE8 is faster opening too. Its not crashed, but I wasn't expecting it to considering the competition.
But this is where I come back to Apple, as for all the good features Windows 7 is a bit of a 'Zune'
It's like comparing the Zune player with Ipod, and its the overall picture you get from the ipod - the halo effect is a perfect one.
Windows 7 is still clunky (though much more useable), its still too much like Vista (its is Vista underneath). MS have pulled out the stops to really try and improve things but the interface still isn't intuitive, its messy - drawn out and lots of small inconsistences.
The drivers are still a major problem. Talk of intel not providing drivers for 915/945 Chipsets even though they sold 14m netbooks with that chipset in 2008.
Windows 7 is a Zune player in the 2009 'Ipod' World/Generation.
Apple Mac OS X: Anyone would has had to support 'the fruit' know its not all rosy in the orchard. File Permissions/Missing/incorrect Kext files can cause problems causing the spinning rainbox of doom but overall it works as long as you don't try and be too clever on Apple's limited hardware.
Windows XP - which I like to call the swiss army knife of OS - its simple enough, nearly every bit of kit works with it - in terms of throwing things at it, it holds up well. It being around a while but its fundamental design mean its hard to rid of completely - its useful, even given its flaws. Its pretty stable now if you regularly image it - Trueimage (to revert it back after you get a virus) /use a good AV (Comodo-free&good.) - notice I don't use might get a virus - let your kids use it - you will.
One thing Apple is very good at is the intuitive interface, you only have to look at the ipod/iphone, its attention to detail, its simplicity, the app-store, the music store - they know how to build a good interface. If I were a competitor or worked for Nokia/MS - I think that first view of the iphone would have left me with an empty feeling in my stomach and sweaty palms.
Back to Win7.
Windows 7 installation (which is very straightforward), though still lacks drivers (Older Intel 82855/915/945 full Chipset support looks unlikely) worked well.
Once installed - the first thing I needed to do is connect to the wireless network - this turns out to be 5-6 menus deep to select the correct network , the correct 'security' tab and finally enter your Wireless password. Its awful, a combination of remaining bit of Vista/XP Menus, and as tedious as the guy in MacDonalds trying to change your order on the till, while you wait while your Happy Meal goes cold.
The MacDonalds analogy starts to show through - Win7 is designed for the masses to be uncomplicated and broken down into a series of steps so you are slowly edged towards the solution to your problem.
So in order to change the wireless password, you need to understand what a wireless password is (its a password!), so Win7 shows you first you don't have a network - a nice graphic - but I already know that from opening my browser.
Windows 7 RC1 is definitely more likeable than Vista (it would be hard not to), its fast, seems very stable and as a basic installation runs faster than XP on 512MB. IE8 is faster opening too. Its not crashed, but I wasn't expecting it to considering the competition.
But this is where I come back to Apple, as for all the good features Windows 7 is a bit of a 'Zune'
It's like comparing the Zune player with Ipod, and its the overall picture you get from the ipod - the halo effect is a perfect one.
Windows 7 is still clunky (though much more useable), its still too much like Vista (its is Vista underneath). MS have pulled out the stops to really try and improve things but the interface still isn't intuitive, its messy - drawn out and lots of small inconsistences.
The drivers are still a major problem. Talk of intel not providing drivers for 915/945 Chipsets even though they sold 14m netbooks with that chipset in 2008.
Windows 7 is a Zune player in the 2009 'Ipod' World/Generation.
It is really interesting, could you please specify features, that were removed to improve security rather than innovate?
It's really simple to criticize especially not saing anything particular.
Vista is much more secure than XP, the same is about W7.
MS isn't ideal company and sometimes it needs a good kick, but it's been they that made it possible for you, me and everyone else to live in software world and enjoy innovations.
Critics is suitable only when it's argumented.
I would say the same thing to you... please provide details of WHY Vista is supposedly "more secure" than XP? Just because Ballmer says it is? Just because Microsoft's propaganda machine says it is? Do the statistics on number and severity of patches for Vista compared to XP support this? I would claim just the opposite, many of the changes made in Vista actually make it significantly LESS secure than XP. As an example, I would offer the ridiculous User Access Control (UAC) fiasco. The unexpected appearance of windows, asking questions which the average user has no understanding of, and requesting "permission" to continue, is a sure way to condition people to simply click "Yes"/"OK"/"Continue" no matter what the situation or question actually is. The only "advantage" I can see to this is that Microsoft can subsequently claim that whatever problems occur were the user's own fault, because he/she "agreed" to let it continue. Good security? No. Good passing-the-buck? Yes. Typical Microsoft? Yes.
jw 14/5/2009
I just use win7 (64bit) RC, for this new OS, I buy one new PC, win7 is excellent, I never use vista, jump from xp to win7, but for newbies, some functions seem hard to be found, some small tools, such as <a href="http://www.softsea.com/review/Tweak-7.html">tweak 7</a>, can optimize and control windows 7 for newbies. In one word, win7 is best, I will buy one formal version when it ready.