Print
Windows 7 is almost upon us.
It’s odd to write those words, because most of the tech press has been using, commenting and reviewing Microsoft’s new progeny for months now. Maximum PC proclaimed it to be “unquestionably the best version of Windows that Microsoft has ever released, and is the true successor to Windows XP.” I’d certainly agree with Will Smith’s assessment.
Given all the hoopla, Windows 7 almost seems like old hat. (When’s Windows 8 coming out again?) But for normal humans who don’t travel at Internet speeds, Windows 7 arrives on October 22nd. And for Microsoft, Windows 7 is something of a missed opportunity.
Wait, what?
To understand what I mean, we have to go back in time.
Windows XP officially launched on October 25th, 2001 – almost exactly eight years prior to the launch of Windows 7. Windows Vista shipped in January, 2007. That means that Vista arrived on the scene more than 5-1/2 years after Windows XP. Vista had an exceedingly gestation time, even by Microsoft standards. Windows XP shipped only a little over three years after the original ship date of Windows 98, which had two updates (Windows 98SE and Windows Me) during that interval.
In other words, the average interval between major Microsoft operating system launches has been about three years, at least since the Windows 95 era. The exception, of course, is Vista, with its nearly six year gestation – and Windows 7, which took less than three years.
Quite a few pundits have stated that Windows 7 is what Windows Vista should have been. Will Smith’s review, by calling Windows 7 the true successor to Windows XP, essentially says the same thing.
The implication is that Vista was something of a side trip. In fact, Vista was necessary. The Windows XP driver model was becoming increasingly creaky, and the user interface was still mired in GDI – and Vista took the first step to move the Windows GUI out of the GDI era. A lot of the underlying plumbing was re-architected, including new driver models that were much needed. Underlying configuration data for key features were implemented in XML files.
That’s all well and good. But Vista originally started out as a much more ambitious project, including a new file system, font size accurate compositing engine and more. As the schedule for Vista was pushed back, quite a few advanced features were cut. When Vista actually shipped, most users felt it was just an enhanced version of Windows XP with a new shell – and a really bloated version, at that. That’s not correct, but it’s understandable. Toss in the hefty hardware requirements, unstable initial driver versions and Vista’s reputation plummeted.
This all means is that Windows 7 essentially exists to clean up the mess left by Windows Vista.
What did happen, internally to Microsoft, was another kind of re-architecting. The development process for Windows 7 was substantially different. The teams were more streamlined, more accessible and the entire development process more transparent, both internal to Microsoft and external to the world. That bodes well for future versions of Windows.
I’m not one of those who believe that Windows 7 is “Vista Service Pack 3.” That’s too facile. Windows 7 is, as Will Smith notes, the best Microsoft operating system to date. But it’s also a missed opportunity, because Windows 7 could have been much more than just the OS that Vista could have been.
Had Windows Vista been what it should have been, then Windows 7 would have been a much more interesting operating system. In today’s constantly connected world, increasingly dependent on mobility and cloud computing, Windows post-Vista should have been more closely integrated with web services. Instead, Windows Live and related services are bolted on top – and you have to manually download them to boot.
As it stands, Windows 7 is the best OS Microsoft ever shipped. But it could have been so much more.
Comments are closed on this article
rcolbeck
October 23, 2009 at 8:32am
For those who are pi$$ed at Win 7 for removing the old features we have come to know and love. This is a happy solution to getting a quick launch bar back so we do not have to press shift and click on the pin to open a new instance of app if one app is already running or clicking the middle button.
For me, to get Xp/Vista taskbar back I followed the instructions in the link and then I unpinned all the apps from my taskbar and go to properties to select "never combine". Behold I got the old taskbar back. However, the apps will still oragnize apps together not by the order of opened apps.
For example, if I opened IE, then X app, then another IE. It will show IE, IE, X instead of IE, X, IE.. I guess I can live with that...
As for other people who think that we are nothing but complainers, you can see that on MS forums, alot of ppl are pi$$ed and are requesting Win 7 to provide option to enable classic taskbar, etc.
Now on to fixing these $tupid folder sharing issues.
sp991
October 20, 2009 at 7:57pm
Great to see your articles again. I've missed them since extreme tech imploded.
BlazePC
October 20, 2009 at 3:23pm
The con·trar·i·an trolls on this site have gotten pretty bad lately.
Sheeesh!
What gives?
Furien
October 20, 2009 at 2:17pm
I think you could argue that real innovation with Windows started slowing even back at Win 95... maybe even earlier, but I'll limit myself to the versions I had the most experience with. Yeah, 98 was slightly better, 2000 was as well, ME was God AWFUL though, and thankfully XP was better than anything previous, but none of those updates had features that I recall fundamentally changing my computing experience.
Fast forward from XP to Vista... a LOOOONG fast forward at that... and other than changing things behind the scenes and forcing people to upgrade their computer for the first time in nearly a decade so they could turn on some completely superfluous graphical bells and whistles, you still haven't done much of anything to change the every day computing experience in a fundamentally positive way.
The thing that "killed" Vista was the realization of just that, coupled with the fact that it was audacious enough to give you some headaches that you never had with "good ole' XP" which you had been using pretty much exclusively for... how long was it again? Basically Microsoft got you too used to one platform (XP), and waited too long to release the next one so that any changes they made, even if they weren't as horrible as some would have you believe, were still inconveniences that were compounded based on the fact that it had been so damn long since we had to "learn" anything new. No one wants to take a step backward, even if it just "feels" like it.
Now, I haven't been able to play with the Holy Grail that some call Windows 7, but based on everything I've seen, read, heard, whatever... I don't believe it's even going to come close to transforming my every day computing experience in a fundamentaly positive way. I'll definitely take a small step forward as opposed to a step in the opposite direction, or no step at all, so I think Loyd is right... but I think Microsoft has been missing opportunities for far longer than just between XP and now. But isn't that what always ends up happening when you're essentially a monopoly though?
JIFF
October 20, 2009 at 12:21pm
Stupid ideas like the browser ballot would not allow MS to merge the live addons
I can see how nvidia helped bring down Vista's reputation with their lousy initial drivers, but most netizen use the computer for netbook tasks, they are ok without gpus
I built a computer with vista on mind but SP1 took a long time and XP was doing everything I needed so I decided to wait for this release
mrvander
October 20, 2009 at 12:20pm
Look at all these comments about Vista - in a Windows 7 article. That is exactly the point of this piece - Windows 7 is good enough to stand on its own merits. Instead, it's already been relegated to "This is Vista fixed/service pack/should have been" etc.
darkstar09
October 20, 2009 at 11:29am
But I LOVED it! Vista SP1 ran beautifully on my laptop. I loved Aero and all the other features.
But I reecently upgraded to 7 and I see almost no performance increases? The bootup is maybe 5sec faster though.
So when people say that windows 7 is what vista should have been, I really disagree. I think 7 should have had some really amazing new upgrades but it was just a slimmed down, revamped vista. Not an OS upgrade.
Fiercedeity
October 20, 2009 at 11:25am
Hmm... I have to say I am a bit dissapointed with this article. You spend many paragraphs on XP and Vista's history, but you don't get into the meat of your article until the second to last paragraph (explaining why Windows 7 is a missed opportunity). It feels like that should have been the meat of the article, but it feels more like a footnote. I can't really say that I've taken away anthing useful or insightful.
wicked72
October 20, 2009 at 10:56am
I have been running vista since it came out, ( way better than XP64 ) and stil use Vista64, other than having to replace my old printer, I have no problems with it.
most of the troubles are made by ppl runnig "New Software" on old hardware. when box stores sell a pc with vista with a slow cpu and 512ram, yes vista does suck, for those who remember XP has same troubles, ppl were upgrading there 98 system up to XP.
So Mirosoft is always to blame, Im glad to see an OS that will use more of my hardware
johnny3144
October 20, 2009 at 12:16pm
vista is better than XP. period. like every piece of software out there, it's not gonna be perfect. and it's not gonna always be compatible with everything. Vista included many improvement over XP. it makes life so much easier(especially with networking between vista to vista, compared to XP to XP). i run vista since it was released and i rarely have issues with it, and ironically XP gives me all the headach.
rcolbeck
October 20, 2009 at 10:53am
Been a long time XP user. I supported users with Vista but never had it myself. Now I took the leap to Windows 7.. There is alot of features that pi$$ed me off.
-I hate the combined quick launch buttons. I am a person with tons of open applications, and with combined buttons, it slowed me down considerable to get to the specific IE page I want to go to. Uncombining the quick launch buttons makes the taskbar uglier.. WHY COMBINE THEM? Widescreen monitors is standard, we have plenty of space on our taskbar!!
-I'm pi$$ed that I have to right click on the quick launch buttons to OPEN A NEW APP if one is already open. It wastes my time. - 2 clicks instead of one click in XP. PLEASE tell me that there is a way to get back the old quick launch bar in XP and Vista.
Minizimg MSN is a hassle, because to open them again, I had to click on MSN taskbar then choose MSN. I like the old way. Were it goes into the notification area.
-They broken the status bar. I enabled status bar for windows explorer, but it shows NOTHING!!! I like how XP shows total MB size of your folder on the status bar and the remaining HDD space. Beautiful.. I have TBs of data, I need info like that. Also recycle bin doesnt show total size of all files in the bin. I tried selecting all and click properties and it doesnt work. How the hell do I know how much space is being used up in the recycle bin? I dont want to go to disk clean up to see the full size of what is in the recycle bin. I dont care for hovering on each folder to see how much is inside. I WANT total size on the status bar.
-I have 2 TB worth of files while installing windows 7 on the OS HDD. Now, I have to be administrator to delete any files that were saved while under Windows XP, even though the user name remained the same. This produces two clicks to delete a file instead of 1 click. (New files is one click).
-Beside homegroups, file sharing is much more harder now. I tried to share a folder that was previously shared in XP. Other computer cannot see it, even with specific location (\\192.168.1.105). I am still unable to get it to work properly. Also, it pi$$ed me off that the folder doesnt show any indication that it is being shared. I have to click on it and look at the information below to see that it is shared. Suppose I have 100 folders and I have to click on each one to see if it is being shared or not.
If Micro$oft fixed these issues, I may consider Windows 7 as a leap forward. But at this moment, it is a leap backwards..
snapple00
October 20, 2009 at 11:01am
Simple solutions to those problems. You are the typical complainer who would rather complain about something than try to fix it.
Why don't you stick with XP? You are obviously not ready to learn something a bit newer.
rcolbeck
October 20, 2009 at 11:58am
There is no solutions to these problems. I am a long time IT support technician. I know my stuff and I read the manuals, etc. I google for solutions. The ones I list are the ones I cannot solve or the ones that is completely removed from 7.
I tried to fix the shared folder issue by changing the folder icon to show that it is being shared. I am unable to do so. I like how older OSes show hand wrapping over the folders to indicate that it is being shared.
Feel free to provide solutions that you say is so easy.
snapple00
October 20, 2009 at 12:20pm
Funny how all these 'problems' you speak of aren't problems at all. They are design changes that don't need 'fixes'.
However, you can indeed change a lot of these things but will require knowledge above an IT support technician. But you probably already knew this, and just needed to find something to complain about.
Zazubovich
October 21, 2009 at 11:36am
but increase work load (number of clicks, etc.) are FAIL. And your comments are not only sphinctery, they are counterproductive and ignorant because you don't propose any alternative solutions.
Microsoft's new design trend of trying to more closely emulate Apple user interfaces are a big FAIL, in my opinion, because they have spent 20 years training users to do things a certain way, and now they are making important functions less visible and less transparent.
Fiercedeity
October 20, 2009 at 11:29am
I've experienced a few of the op's problems myself, especially the one about not seeing the size of files in the status bar... that is really annoying. The shared folder issue is also an important.
What are the fixes for this that you speak of?
snapple00
October 20, 2009 at 10:52am
"This all means is that Windows 7 essentially exists to clean up the mess left by Windows Vista."
I guess I will just never understand this statement. What mess? Vista runs great for me, and it seems a lot quicker and definately smoother than XP was, not to mention it will run every one of my old XP programs. The only people I hear complain about it are the people that have no idea what they are doing, or people that don't even use Windows.
Win 7 is great too. In fact, I don't think I've had a problem with any of MS's operating systems.
Fiercedeity
October 20, 2009 at 11:36am
"The only people I hear complain about it are the people that have no
idea what they are doing, or people that don't even use Windows."Well that would be a mess in itself. The experience of using an OS should be seamless to a user regardless of their technical knowledge. If a user has to struggle to do anyting really, that is a sign of poor design. Vista had that in spades. Though, honestly, I don't think XP was much different. It was designed poorly too. People were just used to XP and Vista changed many things around. I think Win 7 alleaviates many of those issues. Heck, when I first installed Win 7, I didn't have to install a single driver for any of my devices. They just worked. That was certainly not the case for XP or Vista, in my experience.
MeTo
October 20, 2009 at 10:41am
If Microsoft wanted to WIN back there customer trust they would give a free copy of Win 7 to everybody that bought Vista or a Vista PC if they want it. Sure Vista is better than it was at launch but it still has it's hiccups a few IMHO. I will not buy Win 7 to fix whats broke in Vista.
win7fanboi
October 20, 2009 at 12:39pm
I kinda agree except doing that would be admitting that they botched vista... and for all those who say vista is way better than xp then I guess you are not a power user.... after sp2 vista is usable IMO. I have two Vista Ultimate copies that I have not used. From XP > 7 ... Not to mention as apps/drivers start getting optimized for Win7 the performance will get better. 150$ price range DirectX 11 video cards have already started to enter the market ... will be a good holiday season for a pc owner... and retailer.
Modred189
October 20, 2009 at 10:51am
... so you will stick with what you consider to be a 'broken' OS?
MeTo
October 20, 2009 at 11:29am
I will stick with Vista I have been playing the upgrade game since Win 3.1/95 A,B,C/98/98 SE/ME/XP/SP1,SP2,SP3/Vista/SP1,SP2 and all the incremental updates im done. I will stretch Vista out as long as i can. The "BUCK" stops here.
nHeroGo
October 20, 2009 at 10:24am
Don't be so negative, man! You are misdiagnosing the problem. You know that if Microsoft would ship Win7 with Live they would get another billion dollar lawsuit on their hands. It's not a missed opportunity.
Fiercedeity
October 20, 2009 at 11:39am
I do think, however, it should be more apparent to the user that Window's Live is available, and what they need to do to get it. I could only find a few references to it in the OS and only when I was looking for them. On the other hand, I wouldn't want my OS to be an advertisement for MS software. I just think that since people are gonna miss all those features, more efforts need to be made to let the user know how to get it back.
Modred189
October 20, 2009 at 10:41am
I have to agree. I think that the Live components are separate in order to keep a low-profile, and even as a good-faith effort toward the EU, considering their craziness around IE.
At this rate, it will be too expensive to sell windows in the EU...
