Nearly everyone is in love with Windows 7

[Dominus Atheos]

Ars Technica

What killed Vista will make Windows 7 fly

I'm one of those users who has been using Vista with no problems ever since Microsoft gave out RTM copies to beta testers. However, as a writer, I've watched the media completely destroy the public opinion of Vista, leading many to stick with Windows XP or to look for alternatives, even before they had tried Vista. Even with SP1 out, many have not bothered trying Vista on recent hardware and therefore could not realize the fact that it really is worthy of being XP's successor. If I had to lay the blame on one party for Vista's poor public opinion, I wouldn't lay it on Microsoft, I wouldn't lay it on hardware companies incapable of producing good drivers, I wouldn't lay it on the fact that XP is so good, I would lay it on the media for blowing things out of proportions.

Yes, the problem is exaggeration (it's in this article's title too, in case you missed it); bloggers and journalists alike use their personal experiences to prove their point in their writing. The blame doesn't solely lie with us, as Vista was by no means perfect, but we did manage to amplify the problems beyond reason. And if the beta is anything to go by, Windows 7 is going to fly. This is, by far, the best beta operating system the software giant has ever released. The media has locked on to this, and is using exaggeration already, before Windows 7 is even ready for prime time. Here are two examples:

* Will Windows 7 stymie Mac OS X's growth?
* Windows 7 is enough to kill Linux on the desktop

Those type of headlines were nowhere to be seen when Vista was in beta, or even after it was released. Regardless of what you think of Windows 7, chances are you know it's not going to steal significant market share from Mac and Linux. That's not because Microsoft sucks, it's because more people are becoming aware that there are alternatives, and some fraction of them are trying them out. If one percent of those who learn about the alternatives switch, that's still a significant number in the grand scheme of things. Do I think that some will switch back to Windows when Windows 7 is released? Yes. That is, assuming that things keep going the way they're going. Most importantly though, many will use some combination of the three different operating systems, and that's really what is great: being able to take advantage of every operating system's pros.

But what I'm really getting at here is that bloggers know this is the best beta operating system Microsoft has ever released. They know Microsoft is really doing it right this time. They know that if they post a positive article on Windows 7, they'll get a lot more positive feedback, because even at beta, that's the general consensus: Windows 7 is good.

A friend asked me the other day: "Yo, what's Windows 7? Ive only heard good things about it so far, and I want it." Of course, I explained to him that it's not yet ready and that he shouldn't get his hopes up, but then I showed him the beta anyway.

Followup:

Even the competition and nontech media are praising Windows 7

I've already explained why I think it's important to watch the media's reaction to Windows 7, and I have to say that this past week has been probably the most intense orgy of Win7Love so far. Let's take a quick look around the Web, shall we?

When The Register asked Mark Shuttleworth, founder Ubuntu Linux and CEO of Canonical, about Windows 7, he replied "I'm not going to diss it." In fact, he went further and talked about his experience with the operating system:

I've kicked the tires on the [Windows 7] beta for a few hours and it was good. They've put concerted attention on the user experience with the shell. I think it's going to be a great product, and every indication is we will see it in the market sooner rather than later.

Steve Jobs is probably the last person you could get to tell you his opinion of Windows 7, but many Mac users have offered surprisingly positive thoughts about the beta as well—take the comments in this Gizmodo article as an example—with some even going as far as saying they're considering switching back.

Now even media aimed at a non-tech audience have started to give their thoughts on the public beta.

The Wall Street Journal's Walter Mossberg:

In general, I have found Windows 7 a pleasure to use. There are a few drawbacks, but my preliminary verdict on Windows 7 is positive. Even in beta form, with some features incomplete or imperfect, Windows 7 is, in my view, much better than Vista, whose sluggishness, annoying nag screens, and incompatibilities have caused many users to shun it.

The New York Times' David Pogue:

Now, plenty of people online are reacting to Windows 7 by muttering: "Oh, great. So I’m supposed to pay another $150 to get a version of Windows that actually works? How about you pay me for spending three years as your Vista beta-tester?" That's fine, but being bitter won't get you a better PC. Windows 7, on the other hand, probably will.

Pogue and Mossberg are, of course, tech-focused writers. Nevertheless, the fact that these two very popular general-audience publications ran positive stories on a beta operating system is worth noting. If this trend continues in other non-tech media, and it looks like it will, then Microsoft's marketing team will have a much easier time convincing users to upgrade—no Mojave necessary.

If you still haven't given the beta a shot, go grab it officially while you still can.

[Stark]

Turns out bribing idiots to agree with you is how the internet works? Who knew.

Uninformed hyperbole killing a product? CERTAINLY NOT LOL.

[Spyder]

* Windows 7 is enough to kill Linux on the desktop

Interesting claim. The thing is, a lot of Linux users that are also gaming at the moment are probably using XP-Pro as a secondary OS for gaming. If they're anything like me, they probably also find themselves playing with various things that in a Windows environment you'd use terminal services for. They're also probably going to be used to being an apt-get install away from their PC being a media centre, a VPN server, a web server, a DVD editor, a network monitor or whathaveyou. They're also not used to having to go through licencing hurdles if they have more then one machine or having to go through activation processes, ect.

Now, if you purchase a basic Windows Vista package, you can't just download any feature you want. If you purchase Home basic and decide you want Aero or a media centre you need to upgrade to Home Premium, if you have Home Premium and then decide you want to screw around with Terminal Services you need Vista Business (which means to need to drop the media centre and DVD authoring, high def movie creation and a few other things), if you want the whole lot then you need Vista Ultimate.

Linux users aren't used to this kind of treatment from their OS. If there's some feature available and they decide they want it, they just download it and there it is. If Windows 7 has a similar system of editions the way Vista does then a Linux user migrating back to Windows has to either decide what features they want at the time, pay more money to upgrade later or purchase Ultimate from the start to avoid being denied features later (like what most people did with XP Pro, except that was an easy decision as XP Pro wasn't that much more expensive).

The licencing problems also extend to what happens when you want to install on more then one machine. With Linux you download, install as many times as you want, no activation, no licencing and you've got a PC sitting there ready to use.

[Zixinus]

Vista is, what? Barely more than two years old? And Microsoft is already pushing a new, shitty OS? Because I'm quite certain that Microsoft didn't give 7 to anyone but who would write nice things about it.

[General Zod]

Vista is, what? Barely more than two years old? And Microsoft is already pushing a new, shitty OS? Because I'm quite certain that Microsoft didn't give 7 to anyone but who would write nice things about it.

Uhm, yeah, you'd be wrong on the last part. Windows 7 was made publicly available in beta form. I think you can still get copies from their website (I have one running as a VM right now). Vista's only been out for 3 years, but given Windows XP was around for 5 until Vista was released, it's not exactly an unreasonable development cycle. Especially since this is still in Beta, I'd say we're looking at another year or two before commercial release.

[Bounty]

Vista is, what? Barely more than two years old? And Microsoft is already pushing a new, shitty OS? Because I'm quite certain that Microsoft didn't give 7 to anyone but who would write nice things about it.

They gave 7 to everyone? Hell, they even lifted their initial limit of 2.5 million free beta copies. That's a shitload of people to bribe, don't you think?

I have it running right now. It's a great operating system, and this is coming from someone who gave up on Windows two years ago. Who cares if it comes just three years after Vista's release when it's a quality product?

[DaveJB]

Vista was originally scheduled for release in 2004/05, so it would have pretty much kept with that schedule (remember that they were also working on XP 64-bit and Server 2003 in this time). Partway through the development though they discovered that the codebase was pretty much completely broken, and ended up having to totally restart the project using the Server 2003 kernel as a starting point. It was partly for this reason that Vista was so much slower compared to XP, because they'd never had time to properly optimize the source code for its final release.

[phongn]

The licencing problems also extend to what happens when you want to install on more then one machine. With Linux you download, install as many times as you want, no activation, no licencing and you've got a PC sitting there ready to use.

"Linux on the Desktop" isn't about the already-converted. It's not about people who already use Linux as their primary operating system. It's about getting new customers. Who cares if Linux people are used to using "apt-get install" or "yum install"? Who cares if Linux users are "not used to this sort of treatment" regarding how Microsoft has multiple products to recoup consumer surplus? For that matter, the consumer market doesn't care about "one machine, one license" since, in general, people get a new operating system with a new computer. Microsoft doesn't have to get back away from Linux to kill Linux on the Desktop.

Vista is, what? Barely more than two years old? And Microsoft is already pushing a new, shitty OS? Because I'm quite certain that Microsoft didn't give 7 to anyone but who would write nice things about it.

The misinformation in your post has already been addressed by other users, but are you really too lazy to verify your assertions before posting?

Two years between new versions is nothing really special. XP - Vista was a very long time (about two years longer than originally scheduled IIRC), but such long waits are by no means normal.

Well, length waits have happened before. Lets look at the NT line:

NT 3.1: 1993
NT 3.5: 1994
NT 4.0: 1996
NT 5.0: 2000
NT 5.1: 2001
NT 5.2: 2003
NT 6.0: 2006 (Business), 2007 (Consumer)
NT 6.1: 2009-10

Windows 2000's development was fairly protracted as well.

Note that this isn't radically different than other vendors: Mac OS X for example puts out a new version about once a year. Linux distros also tend to offer new versions about once or twice a year.

RHEL tends to release every 1-2 years, Ubuntu does a twice-a-year release but "stable" releases are typically every two years, And if we really want to see torturous pain, we should see Apple's attempts to get a modern OS shipped.

[Spyder]

"Linux on the Desktop" isn't about the already-converted. It's not about people who already use Linux as their primary operating system. It's about getting new customers. Who cares if Linux people are used to using "apt-get install" or "yum install"? Who cares if Linux users are "not used to this sort of treatment" regarding how Microsoft has multiple products to recoup consumer surplus? For that matter, the consumer market doesn't care about "one machine, one license" since, in general, people get a new operating system with a new computer. Microsoft doesn't have to get back away from Linux to kill Linux on the Desktop.

When you ask "who cares" the answer isn't "no-one." There are plenty of people out there that have a use for desktop OS's that come without the licencing hassels. Linux adoption has always been slow and Windows 7, if it's as good as being claimed might slow it down but "killing Linux on the desktop" is a bold claim.

[RThurmont]

I don't really see any mass exodus of Linux users, but it is possible that Windows 7 will halt Microsoft's marketshare decline. Most Linux users I know also run Windows, myself included.

[phongn]

When you ask "who cares" the answer isn't "no-one." There are plenty of people out there that have a use for desktop OS's that come without the licencing hassels. Linux adoption has always been slow and Windows 7, if it's as good as being claimed might slow it down but "killing Linux on the desktop" is a bold claim.

No, people have a use for an operating system that runs their software. It's nice not to have licensing hassles, but it's nicer to be able to run what someone needs to (e.g. tax software). As for killing LOTD, I meant that Microsoft need only do a good enough job to keep people with them and not make the decision to switch to Linux.

[Spyder]

When you ask "who cares" the answer isn't "no-one." There are plenty of people out there that have a use for desktop OS's that come without the licencing hassels. Linux adoption has always been slow and Windows 7, if it's as good as being claimed might slow it down but "killing Linux on the desktop" is a bold claim.

No, people have a use for an operating system that runs their software. It's nice not to have licensing hassles, but it's nicer to be able to run what someone needs to (e.g. tax software). As for killing LOTD, I meant that Microsoft need only do a good enough job to keep people with them and not make the decision to switch to Linux.

I'm not sure what you're saying "no" to here, are saying no to my claim that there's people with a use for a licence free desktop OS? I'm actually typing this on an XP machine at the moment, my system in the lounge plugged into the TV is built from old upgrades. I don't have any spare XP licences and I'm trying to save money where possible so it worked out easier and simpler just to chuck Linux on it rather then go through the motions. There are also other examples of people cobbling together spare systems and some people that wind up building primary systems and just going with Linux anyway. Now of course these are niche examples but Linux has always been a niche OS and survival doesn't require any more then a niche existence. Microsoft can make Windows 7 good enough that most people that purchase a pre-packaged PC from a retailer wont start using Linux but unless they can get the niche Linux users out and get them to start buying OEM Windows 7 disks and going through the licencing hurdles then LOTD is not going to die.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Vista is, what? Barely more than two years old? And Microsoft is already pushing a new, shitty OS?

Two years between new versions is nothing really special. XP - Vista was a very long time (about two years longer than originally scheduled IIRC), but such long waits are by no means normal.

Windows 3.1 was 1992.
Windows 95 was of course 1995 - about three years later.
Windows 98 was three years later.
Windows ME was two years after that.
Windows XP came out in late 2001. This is the smallest gap - barely more than a year.
Finally, Vista came out in early 2007. And this is the biggest gap at about five years.

15 years, 6 major versions. The average between releases is thus two and a half years.

Windows 7 is simply following that same pattern; I doubt it will come out as a real release for at least six months, fitting right into the average.


Note that this isn't radically different than other vendors: Mac OS X for example puts out a new version about once a year. Linux distros also tend to offer new versions about once or twice a year.

Forgive me for asking such a trivial question, but how come it's called Windows 7? Don't Windows 1.0 and 2.0 count? Or is Windows 95 4.0 and 98 4.1, ME 5.0, Vista 6.0 and this one 7.0?

[Bounty]

Vista is, what? Barely more than two years old? And Microsoft is already pushing a new, shitty OS?

Two years between new versions is nothing really special. XP - Vista was a very long time (about two years longer than originally scheduled IIRC), but such long waits are by no means normal.

Windows 3.1 was 1992.
Windows 95 was of course 1995 - about three years later.
Windows 98 was three years later.
Windows ME was two years after that.
Windows XP came out in late 2001. This is the smallest gap - barely more than a year.
Finally, Vista came out in early 2007. And this is the biggest gap at about five years.

15 years, 6 major versions. The average between releases is thus two and a half years.

Windows 7 is simply following that same pattern; I doubt it will come out as a real release for at least six months, fitting right into the average.


Note that this isn't radically different than other vendors: Mac OS X for example puts out a new version about once a year. Linux distros also tend to offer new versions about once or twice a year.

Forgive me for asking such a trivial question, but how come it's called Windows 7? Don't Windows 1.0 and 2.0 count? Or is Windows 95 4.0 and 98 4.1, ME 5.0, Vista 6.0 and this one 7.0?

It's not a straight line from Windows 1 to Windows 7. Up to ME Windows was built on DOS, but for 2000 they started building on NT 4.0. XP was 5, Vista 6, and now there's 7 which doesn't appear to be getting a fancy name.

[General Zod]

It's not a straight line from Windows 1 to Windows 7. Up to ME Windows was built on DOS, but for 2000 they started building on NT 4.0. XP was 5, Vista 6, and now there's 7 which doesn't appear to be getting a fancy name.

I think Microsoft realized that playing cloak and dagger with details about your newfangled operating system and even going as far as to use codenames *cough*vista*cough* was a poor idea at getting the customer base really interested in trying it out.

[Bounty]

It's not a straight line from Windows 1 to Windows 7. Up to ME Windows was built on DOS, but for 2000 they started building on NT 4.0. XP was 5, Vista 6, and now there's 7 which doesn't appear to be getting a fancy name.

I think Microsoft realized that playing cloak and dagger with details about your newfangled operating system and even going as far as to use codenames *cough*vista*cough* was a poor idea at getting the customer base really interested in trying it out.

Since when are codenames something new? They're just a convenient way of referring to a product that doesn't have a final name.

And it's not like it's a grand industry secret that Windows 7 follows Vista. You know what'll happen when they actually call it 7? Customers are going to wonder what happened to Windows 6 and get confused. For evidence: see this thread.

[Uraniun235]

It's not a straight line from Windows 1 to Windows 7. Up to ME Windows was built on DOS, but for 2000 they started building on NT 4.0. XP was 5, Vista 6, and now there's 7 which doesn't appear to be getting a fancy name.

2000 was a long-in-development NT 5.0, and only later on was it named "Windows 2000". It was a pretty big jump up from NT 4.

XP was NT 5.1, and Server 2003 was NT 5.2.

[Zac Naloen]

It's not a straight line from Windows 1 to Windows 7. Up to ME Windows was built on DOS, but for 2000 they started building on NT 4.0. XP was 5, Vista 6, and now there's 7 which doesn't appear to be getting a fancy name.

7 was called Vienna for a short while.

[Bounty]

It's not a straight line from Windows 1 to Windows 7. Up to ME Windows was built on DOS, but for 2000 they started building on NT 4.0. XP was 5, Vista 6, and now there's 7 which doesn't appear to be getting a fancy name.

2000 was a long-in-development NT 5.0, and only later on was it named "Windows 2000". It was a pretty big jump up from NT 4.

XP was NT 5.1, and Server 2003 was NT 5.2.

Yeah, I'm not good with the details. The point I was trying to make is that ME was a dead end of sorts, so that "branch" of Windows development isn't counted in the version numbers. Please tell me I got at least that right?

[phongn]

Yeah, I'm not good with the details. The point I was trying to make is that ME was a dead end of sorts, so that "branch" of Windows development isn't counted in the version numbers. Please tell me I got at least that right?

Sort of. The present versioning scheme is based on the NT line (as I listed earlier).

As for something you mentioned earleir, ME represented the pinnacle of the DOS-Win16-Win9X development line, but it was not based on DOS. Starting with Windows 3.1, Microsoft began having Windows handle more and more things. Windows for Workgroups 3.11, for example, ceased using DOS for file access. Windows 95 used DOS only as a bootloader; ME removed DOS entirely from the system.

Windows 2000 had been intended as the unification of the NT and 9X lines of development but wasn't quite ready for home use yet, so Microsoft went ahead and published ME, to their detriment. XP ended up the true unifier of the lines.

I think Microsoft realized that playing cloak and dagger with details about your newfangled operating system and even going as far as to use codenames *cough*vista*cough* was a poor idea at getting the customer base really interested in trying it out.

There's nothing "cloak and dagger" about Microsoft's practices there. Codenames are used everywhere in the industry for projects!

[General Zod]

There's nothing "cloak and dagger" about Microsoft's practices there. Codenames are used everywhere in the industry for projects!

Well, I meant cloak and dagger as in withholding as many details as humanly possible before release than necessarily anything with the codename.

[Darth Wong]

The Vista experience is shitty. It didn't take "media hype" to make me come to that conclusion; I have tried Vista and the experience sucked. I hate using Vista, and it's a relief to go back to XP. Where does this turd get off claiming that all the people who hate Vista have necessarily bought into some kind of media campaign without trying it?

[phongn]

I think Microsoft realized that playing cloak and dagger with details about your newfangled operating system and even going as far as to use codenames *cough*vista*cough* was a poor idea at getting the customer base really interested in trying it out.

What the hell are you talking about? Microsoft releases plenty of information about their operating systems before release, and in the case of Vista they had multiple public betas to try the thing out.

The Vista experience is shitty. It didn't take "media hype" to make me come to that conclusion; I have tried Vista and the experience sucked. I hate using Vista, and it's a relief to go back to XP. Where does this turd get off claiming that all the people who hate Vista have necessarily bought into some kind of media campaign without trying it?

Microsoft did do an experiment where they relabeled Vista as a pre-release OS called "Mojave" and demonstrated it to people who had a poor perception of Vista. There is a lot of negative press about Vista (in many cases, well-deserved) affecting public perception, yes, but quite a few people are making up their minds without ever having used it (your case being an obvious exception).

[Zablorg]

Microsoft did do an experiment where they relabeled Vista as a pre-release OS called "Mojave" and demonstrated it to people who had a poor perception of Vista. There is a lot of negative press about Vista (in many cases, well-deserved) affecting public perception, yes, but quite a few people are making up their minds without ever having used it (your case being an obvious exception).

It should be noted that the experiment only showed a fraction of the responses compared to the people Mojave was demonstrated upon. The exact details of what the customers experienced is also speculative, as it was something of a guided tour.