StarDestroyer.Net BBS

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.

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.

Dominus Atheos wrote:* Windows 7 is enough to kill Linux on the desktop

Zixinus wrote: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.

Zixinus wrote: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.

Spyder wrote: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 wrote: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.

Destructionator XIII wrote: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.

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.

phongn wrote:"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.

Spyder wrote: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.

phongn wrote:

Spyder wrote: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.

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Zixinus wrote: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.

Lord Woodlouse wrote:

Destructionator XIII wrote:

Zixinus wrote: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 wrote: 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 wrote:

Bounty wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

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.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Bounty wrote: 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.

Bounty wrote: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?

General Zod wrote: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.

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

General Zod wrote: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.

Darth Wong wrote: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 wrote: 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).