Simplify your laptop buyingReporters' Roundtable Podcast: Significance of 7
Is Windows 7 just Vista done right, or is it a real departure for Microsoft? This week on the Roundtable, we discuss what Windows 7 means for the industry as well as its impact on vendors like Apple and Google--with special guests Farhad Manjoo of Slate and Mary Jo Foley of ZDNet.
Listen now: Download today's podcast
Subscribe with iTunes (audio)
Subscribe with iTunes (video)
Subscribe with RSS (audio)
Subscribe with RSS (video)
Reporters' Roundtable #6: What Windows 7 means
We are days away from the launch of Windows 7. There is, to put it mildly, a lot riding on this release. Vista never lived up to expectations. Even today, three years after release, Vista has less than 19 percent of market share, and it's declining, according to Net Applications. Many people never upgraded from XP or got a machine with XP instead of Vista. Some are even abandoning Vista for the not-for-sale-yet Windows 7 through various pre-release programs. What can Windows 7 really do for Microsoft, and the tech industry? Click past the jump for the full show notes for this episode of Reporters Roundtable and for the full content, play the podcast, above.
Show notes
Windows overall still holds more than 92 percent market share, but it's the old and creaky XP that people are using, not Vista. Meanwhile Apple continues to win new converts and fans with OS Ten, which keeps getting better, not worse. The Mac platform recently topped 5 percent market share.
Windows 7 is Microsoft's attempt to recover from Vista. Can it, and will it, work? To discuss what Windows 7 means to Microsoft and the industry overall, we have two great guests on the Roundtable.
In the studio with us is FARHAD MANJOO, author of a fantastic tech column at Slate. Farhad is also author of the book, "True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society."
And coming in over the internets, MARY JO FOLEY, author of the always insightful All About Microsoft blog over at ZDNet. It's a great read if you want to know what's going on with Windows, and I'd said it's required reading if you're responsible for supporting Windows installations. Mary Jo is also author of the book, Microsoft 2.0.
Talking points
First: What the hell happened with Vista?
What has changed inside Microsoft as a result of it?
How important is Win 7 to MS?
Can Win 7 turn the tide?
Isn't Win 7 really Vista SP2?
Is Win 7 more important for Microsoft on the consumer or the business customer side?
Consumers - what do they want?
Businesses - How did MS fail them w/ Vista, what is different about 7?
Most important features in Win 7 (UI? XP mode? Sleep? Revised UAC?)
Importance of Netbooks. Is Windows too big?
Is Apple a threat? What are they doing right, wrong? How about Google?
What has MS learned from Apple, Linux?
Finally: What's next? Do OSes really matter in the era of the Web and x-platform AIR apps?
Rafe Needleman writes about start-ups, new technologies, and Web 2.0 products, as editor of CNET's Webware. E-mail Rafe.
Rafe Needleman is editor of CNET's Webware. He's been covering technology since 1988, and has interviewed thousands of tech execs. He blogs at 
Therefore you cannot say that Vista sells at all - in fact, I really doubt if more than a very few copies of Vista have ever been bought as voluntary upgrades from XP. A lot of people bought XP as an upgrade from Win2000, Win NT4, and the Win9x series, and I can see some people upgrading from XP to W-7 - especially those who "downgraded" their machines from Vista to WinXP, but there isn't the "need" to upgrade that there was when Win95 came out to replace Win3.11.
'Nuff said.
Is it an asset for large companies, government agencies and other outfits that still have huge piles of money after the executives get their bonuses?
I can't say for sure - - - but the company I work for is still using Windows 95 on most of their boxes, and the IT guy seems happy - and busy.
Absolutely agree with you. I have been using VISTA since November 2008 when I bought a new laptop. I never really had any problem like Crashing/Bluescree death etc. I way annoyed by the UAC but turning it off was not a big deal.
The performance seemed to improve after SP1. Last week I upgraded to Windows 7 and I dont see a big difference at all, So its the media guys who never used VISTA, complaining about VISTA and hailing Windows 7.
Vista was the best thing that ever happened to Apple.
Vista has something like a 3% adoption rating among enterprises, so I'm not surprised.
"...and the IT guy seems happy - and busy."
Preliminary testing on Windows 7 shows he'll be just as busy if they switch to that... and his IT budget will get smaller. The latter is because SCCM and ForeFront servers will set you back by quite a bit of bank, not counting hardware. Atop that, it'll be months, if not a year, before folks actually get their back-end installs going to a point where they can actually use it without tweaking and disruption (at least on the back-end side of things).
So what was your problem with VISTA ?
As for the brains dept. Win 7 and Vista. The cerebral mass requirements are not that high. Both are fairly idiot proof. The only problem some users seem to have is not having an idiot around to help them if something breaks. But if you need it to be simple, it is. My 12 year old learned on an old XP box, then I upgraded her to Vista, and now she has the prerelease of WIn 7 64Bit ultimate on her system. She picked it up almost instantly and hasn't touched Vista or XP since, even though they are still on her system.
The problem here is that the people who complain about Vista are those who don't actually use it day in and day out. The people who do use it... are too busy using it to complain.
I remember the growing pains of Win95 and WinXP. I was fustrated when I couldn't find xyz that used to be in the old spot. But hey, some of us evolve and some fall behind.
I am waiting for my copy of Windows 7 to arrive soon, since I pre-ordered for only 50 bucks! The reason isn't because I don't like Vista. I just really liked the look of 7.
No, it's Vista SP3.
But there are also application enhancements in some of the classic apps of Windows.
So yes, it is a direct non-major version upgrade. It's exactly like Win 3.0 vs Win 3.1 or Win 95 vs Win 98.
Win 7 worked much better on that machine, but should still never be installed on it for a daily use computer.
Back in the Win 98 days thousands upgraded to XP with only 128 meg of ram and wondered why thier PCs where slowed to a crawl.
Vista and Win 7 work VERY good on my PC and laptop, but then they are new machines with 8 and 2 gig ram respectively.
I guess what im getting at is this.... you want the latest greatest OS, make sure you have the machine to use it and will take advantage of its new toys.
Minimum memory requirement 64MB, minimum processor 233Mhz. Indeed, Many PC manufacturers were selling PCs with 128MB of RAN with XP preinstalled. I know, because I bought 4 of them for Christmas.
I think MS does people a great disservice by publishing inadequate minimum hardware configs. Especially when they are charging much more for a retail copy of Windows than a PC manufacturer pays. I piad for an XP upgrade for a Pentium 3 450Mhz machine with 128Mb of RAM. I wanted to get rid of 16-bit Windows to ease my support. THe machine booted and functionally worked, but it never got much use because it was much much slower thatn under WIn98. THat was a badly spent $90.
I learned my lesson from that -- never buy a MS OS upgrade. You're much better off buying a new PC
No. Really.
Wow.
I have an old P3 with 256 megs of ram that has been acting as a print server (with a full desktop GUI) for (runs uptime command) about nine months.
I think we had a power outage back then...
XP: Pentium 233 Mhz, 64 MB RAM
W7: 1Ghz processor, 1GB RAM.
So MS is recommending the the processor be 4.5 times faster and that you have 16 times the RAM to use W7 over XP. While I don't think those ratios apply across the board, the message is clear: Don't try to run W7 on an older PC. You would absolutely hate XP on a 233Mhz box with 64MB of RAM. I am confident that I would hate W7 on a 1Ghz machine with 1GB of RAM too.
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/314865
Minimum memory 64MB. 128MB recommended. 128MB was not nearly enough.
You stand corrected.
Just a week? The only time I turn off most of my machines are when I'm physically moving them, or on the rare occasion when the power goes out in a storm. Otherwise they run 24/7/365. 'course, none of them run Windows (the missus' laptop does, but that gets shut off each day, sometimes multiple times).
I don't bother shutting down machines either. However, I *DO* reboot them as the OS requires for the varous updates that happen. That occurs on both the Mac and Windows systems fairly regularly. iTunes needs a reboot to take effect, as do the Windows patches snce a lot of those have to be applied with some services turned off in the state you get without a user logged in.
But powering them off? Nope, haven't had to do that in several years now. Power outage? Nah, no problem there- I have battery and generator backups.
Now that said, I do send machines to sleep/hibernate though. Leaving them up and running if you're not there just isn't responsible to the environment or my wallet. Win7 has improved the sleep/hibernate system to equal that of the Mac.
It runs beautifully, except for the eye candy due to the video card being only FGA.
As for bootup, try 22 seconds.
The new Jump Lists and Tasbar enhancements are real timesavers.
As far as security, W7 leaves Snow Ostrich in the dust.
Wanna bet that Apple will try to add some or all of the new security advances in their next version?
i have several industry-wide whitepapers, by totally unbiased sources, that show Windows 7 to be way out in the lead as far as security goes.
So far, after running the RC and RTM versions, as well as the final version, I have had NO hangups, no slowdowns and no attacks.
I expect to see the Apple Fanboys get more and more agitated, as Oct 22 nears...
If you are content running W7 on that box, then you are a patient man indeed.
They *thought* they wanted a streamlined internet appliance, but what they really wanted was a real computer instead.
Microsoft allows you to install on any computer with a legal copy. Apple does everything in its power to stop you from installing on non-apple built machines.
As for running linux apps without running linux.... what do you think OsX is
Really? Where's the PPC version of Windows 7 then?
"can windows run apple software legally and without hacking. can it run linux soft without running linux"
All depends if you can figure out how to open the box on the software package, I suppose. Microsoft certainly doesn't care or regulate what you do with your computer.
Apple is the one that restricts end users from doing what they want.
@Random_Walk:
"Really? Where's the PPC version of Windows 7 then? "
There isn't one, but then there isn't any EULA saying you aren't allowed to install the product on non-Windows branded equipment either. ;) If you want to run it on a PPC, I imagine we'll see some hacker sites out there soon enough to do that- however, we won't see Microsoft shutting the sites down or threatening legal action against them or their users.
I think you got confused with Apple's practices there.
Being a Mac user you should have known that.
BTW, Mac users were installing windows on PPC macs for years using virtual PC. even I had windows running on a G4
Absolutely spot on.
But in response to the article, MS has everything riding on W7. If W7 flops there will be a mass exodus the likes of which MS has never seen.
I wouldn't know. I never saw an Apple or Linux application that I couldn't find a same or better windows version of.
If you think XP Rocks and Win 7 sucks, then you have not tried Win 7. I have, and I am no MS fan by any means. But I have to respect this OS, they finally got one right. To flame something without having any knowledge of it is ignorance. Which is another reason that our world is in the messy state it is in.
windows 7 is a result so everyone that hated vista will buy windows 7.
anyone can see it's just so people would buy the software.
Should someone point out to Rafe Needleman that Vista already has a SP2:
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=a4dd31d5-f907-4406-9012-a5c3199ea2b3&displaylang=en
So his Talking Point would actually be: "Isn't Win 7 really Vista SP3?"
I've used Vista for the past several months. I have had zero problems with it. It is my opinion that the media too often misleads the general public. Vista is without fail. It had a couple minor cosmetic changes between XP and Vista. No big deal. It is my opinion that Windows 7 appears to be Vista with uncanny positive comments in the media. Thank you, journalists.
I also have had Vista since it was released with no troubles. Some people just cant take change, others just have to hate the biggest company.
BTW, I think Windows 7 is great and will purchase it as soon as my RC1 expires on my main PC (AMD phenom II 945, 8gig ram), but will go back to Vista Ultimate on the lappy since it came with it.
I've been in this industry since Window 3.11 and I haven't had a virus, malware, or any of the problems reported in all that time over numerous systems I've had. Security is more of an awareness and process of thought than the OS itself.
I also don't run around on the freeway naked shouting, "Look at me- I'm invulnerable!"
Because I have to tell you, windows 7 is smooth. For one thing, as soon as you get the desktop, there is no waiting for extra things to load. It's usable right away. It seems to settle down almost instantly. My boot time is about 14 seconds. On another machine it's about 21. Everything is faster than before and much more responsive. If you open up drives to look at folders they seem instant. On the task bar, there is a new feature that makes each running application appear as little TV windows into what's running. For example, say you have 10 browsers open at once and 4 of them are youtube videos that aren't paused, but playing. As you look at it, you can see 10 little TV windows each showing what is happening in each window, including showing each video updating and playing.
So you can easily at a glance see visually what each one is doing in real time. They try to say that MS borrowed this from apple, but the task bar has been around for 10 years now. And the TV, picture in picture thing is new and something leopard does NOT have. I like osx, but I'm being totally honest when I say they've put a LOT of new little features in that simply makes leopard seem dated at this point.
It's also been rock solid here. In fact more so than leopard. Neither OS's have crashed ever, but on leopard I have seen far more frequent browser crashes. Especially with safari and while using anything that's complex such as youtube, or java etc. Sure if the page does nothing, then it works great. Within 7 it's been more stable in firefox, and I'm not sure I've seen IE8 crash even once. But it may have. IE8 seems to handle sites like youtube better. I've also seen crashes in some of leopards included applications. Chess for example forgets to give me a close gadget and often crashes in mid play.
I'm not going to claim leopard is far worse, but for those thinking windows 7 isn't as good. Think Again. I know people always claim osx is better, but in going back and forth between OS's I'd be lying if I agreed with that in this case. If anything 7 feels easier to do simple tasks and there are more options available. One thing that bugged me about previous windows was the lack of video and native mp4 support. That's one thing osx has had in the past. However in 7, they now include native support for all of that and even more types than osx now supports. Seriously. I can just open any mp4 file right on my desktop with no downloading codecs etc. They also support many other types. I'm not saying osx doesn't have any strong points now, but that windows 7 is proving to be great in pretty much all respects. It's like they really tried to polish it and succeeded in doing so. And I won't go into games because that will be an obvious advantage. But here we have typical biased CNET. Too bad it has to be that way.
One thing I disagree with is your praise for IE8. Do the world a favor and download Firefox and use it instead. While IE8 is much better than older versions, it's still a buggy browser. I spent my entire afternoon yesterday reworking a web page because IE8 was refusing to display bullets on an unordered list. Safari, Chrome, Firefox were fine, IE7 & 8 both had a problem when certain text was included. The world's web developers waste countless hours trying to make their pages presentable in IE because it is non-compilant and buggy. We would be much better off if MS never developed it in the first place.
He also forgot to mention Charlie Miller, tell you what shelly, in honour of your insightful post I`m going to celebrate by advertising the fact I run my Mac without a firewall active and no anti-virus, as well I`ll leave the machine running for a week solid. So shelly go get Chuck Miller and get him to PWN my machine.
I`ll be patiently waiting
proud of you!
I did the same for years with XP and I think XP sucks compared to Vista. I haven't rebooted my vista machine since the last service pack came out, and I use that computer daily.
-
by casanegro
October 16, 2009 9:30 PM PDT
- Windoze 7 sucks compared to OSX.
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
-
-
by cbscowards
October 17, 2009 6:47 AM PDT
- Substantiate you statement with some examples of why OSX os better than WIndows 7. Otherwise you just make OSX users look like a bunch of morons, and I don't appreciate that.
-
Like this
-
-
by celticbrewer
October 19, 2009 8:18 AM PDT
- Go up a few posts to jz33040's and learn something.
-
Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (140 Comments)Or are you just angry because OSX deleted your data?
http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/vulnerabilities/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=220600670