Windows 7: The upgrade Vista users deserve
Mousing over Internet Explorer icon shows open tabs.
(Credit: Larry Magid)I don't know why it took so long, but Microsoft has finally fixed Vista. Only it isn't calling it Vista. Instead the company is working on what it's calling a new version of Windows, Windows 7. The operating system isn't commercially available, but is likely to be out by the end of the year.
I don't know how much Microsoft plans to charge for the upgrade once it's officially available, but the company should give it away free to anyone who bought Vista or a PC with Vista preinstalled. Even though there are some new features, Windows 7 strikes me mostly as a bug fix. It speeds up Windows and fixes one of its most annoying "features" and makes one particularly useful change to the user interface. It seems to me that anyone who paid for Vista is entitled to this upgrade.
Microsoft has launched a free, public, beta test of the software, but to participate you must download it by Feb. 10. It's not for everyone. Microsoft strongly recommends that "only experienced computer users sign up" for the beta program. Displayed on the screen is the caveat, "For testing purposes only." The beta will expire in August, but should be replaced by a newer beta or the real product. If you're game, you can download the beta test of Windows 7 at Microsoft's Web site
I installed it on two machines, a brand new desktop and an older notebook PC. The notebook installation was an upgrade of an old copy of Vista that I've had for a couple of years. As is often the case with Windows, the OS on that machine got pretty slow after two years of use. But Windows 7 sped it up. Until now, every new version of Windows was slower than the one it replaced.
Aero dynamics
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. Like Vista, it retains the translucent "aero" and much of the operating system's look and feel. But with Windows 7, aero is more than window dressing.
For example, the task bar at the bottom of the screen now displays icons for all running programs. If you mouse over that icon, you'll see the window translucently appear in a preview mode over part of the bottom of the screen. If that program has more than one window you'll see all of them. With Internet Explorer (but not yet Firefox), you'll also see all open tabs. You can mouse over one of those windows to see a full-screen preview and click on it to bring it to the foreground.
Based on my limited tests, Windows 7 also seems to go to sleep and wake up faster. When I open the lid on my notebook PC, the computer comes to life almost immediately and--as is the case with Macs--it immediately restores my wireless networking connection, so I don't have to wait or click around to get back online. It's as if Microsoft finally entered the 21st century.
You can also "pin" icons to the task bar so that they're always there. And Windows 7 features "jump lists" that show you files you recently opened with that program. Another change is that the dreaded "user account control," or UAC, which nags you whenever you try to install software, is more granular. With Vista it was either on or off. But with Windows 7, you have more control over how it operates. For example, you can tell UAC not to notify you when you make changes to Windows settings, or only when programs try to install software or make changes to your computer (a good idea to protect you against malicious software).
Although none of my PCs supports it, Windows 7 comes with multitouch. So if you have compatible hardware, you'll be able to use gestures with your fingers for all sorts of tasks, including zooming in and out of Web pages and photos. It's too early to know whether Windows 7 will work with the vast majority of programs and devices out there. In my tests, it performed well. It works with my old printer, router, and other peripherals, plus all the programs I've tested. But it will take months of testing before we know if it will work with the millions of possible combinations of hardware and software. That's why it's not a good idea to install it on a machine that you use for real tasks.
Bottom line: Windows 7 is prettier, cleaner, faster, and generally better than Windows Vista. But it's not really a new operating system as much as a fix for things that are wrong with Vista. It looks like Microsoft got it right this time. Let's hope it does right by its existing Vista customers by offering it as a free or very low-cost upgrade.
For more on Windows 7, check out Beyond Binary by Ina Fried.
Podcast: Larry Magid talks about Windows 7 with CNET's Ina Fried.
Listen now: Download today's podcast
Larry Magid is a technology journalist and an Internet safety advocate. He's been writing and speaking about Internet safety since he wrote Internet safety guide "Child Safety on the Information Highway" in 1994. He is co-director of ConnectSafely.org, founder of SafeKids.com and SafeTeens.com, and a board member of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Larry's technology analysis and commentary can be heard on CBS News and CBS affiliates, and read on CBSNews.com. He also writes a personal-tech column for the San Jose Mercury News. You can e-mail Larry or follow him on Twitter @larrymagid. 
Re: "Citi Jet Purchase: $50 Million, 12-Seat Plane Despite $45 Billion Bailout"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/citi-jet-purchase-50-mill_n_160807.html
The overarching question is (and, with all of that "bailout-cash" in circulation around the world)".... can "Redmond" really deliver at length and at last with Windows 7(Code-Base OS/2)?
This is yet to be seen!
Gordon
Those of us with Vista already installed on our computers, didn't get an option. When I ordered my Dell a few years ago to manage my Safety and Security web site, I didn't get a choice. Not knowing I was being sold faulty goods, I feel stuck now.
Hopefully, the advertising pressure Mac is putting on PC, Microsoft will replace it for free.
Windows 7 rocks :)
It is like saying Windows 98 should have been free for Windows 95 users because it looked pretty much the same but it ran better.
However, the upgrade should be sold for under $100.
When it comes from Apple. I doubt Snow Leopard is gonna be free.
Snow leopard has a new kernel, all apps rewritten in cocoa, live full disk compression, built in exchange support, 64 bit flash (this is big for macintosh because adobe half-***ed the mac version.) a completely rewritten version of quicktime (in a macintosh environment almost any media app uses the quicktime libraries so this will bring huge speed benifets), OpenCL which allows you to use your graphic card for computation, Grand Central which allows it to use multi-core processors more efficiently, Also It will also be 100% 64 bit and will be able to handle 16 terabytes of ram. (however your computer must be able to support that much...)
So basically what you are saying is that OSX was busted, Apple overhauled it, and they are going to charge people for it?
Windows 7 has some big changes too. The ones I like: Homegroup, the ability to broadcast media to any Windows 7 computer in your house, shell changes of course (new task bar, areo shake, snap, peek), libraries, better performance, and tons and tons of usability improvements outlines in this picture show for those that don't like to read: http://content.zdnet.com/2346-12354_22-249285.html
Will they have to purchase Vista? I installed 7 clean on new home-built so after the beta expires, I won't be able to use the box.
No way I downgrade to Vista.
So you installed the FREE, BETA Windows 7 knowing its expiration date and expect Microsoft to do something about that? It's simple: when the beta expires you re-install XP or VIsta or Linux or whatever. You made the bed now you can sleep in it. If you're lucky Windows 7 will be out by then but you shouldn't install the final version over the beta. Only stupid people do that. Oh wait....
You are an *****. I asked a seriuos question here. I know the beta is free and I might consider upgrading if and when the beta expires while a release of same is available.
But if not, I'll deal with the situation. I merely stated that I would not be intersted in going to back to Vista since I don't own that POS.
I though M$ gave up on FUD after the beat down of IBM back in 1996 but I guess I was wrong.
Only shows what a big bag of money gets us these days.
Now that doesnt mean it should be expensive. I think Apple has it right with $129 for an upgrade.
I agree with your assesment that MS should make money of this version and most of all, I agree that the Programmers should be rewarded.
With the understanding that Windows 7 is right now in Beta,
The following has to be mentioned.
As a beta tester of Win 7, I have seen many very good and nice improvements to the interface as well as the interaction between the operating system and hardware.
It was a fantastic experience that the Operating system gave me a working internet connection right of the box per say.
However, just like I have submitted many emails on what to improve to MS, I must say that a lot of the underlying code is Vista Based.
I could go on quoting many of the very good things Win 7 has and many that need corrections, but it will take to long.
One that I could not understand, is that on transfering 45 GB of mixed files to an external usb hard drive in Win 7 took about 70 minutes while in Vista Sp1 it only takes 35 minutes.
And yes I set the rules for the external hard drive to increase the transfer rate to the best Win 7 can handle.
Another one is that even transfers between different partitions within the same drive have increase from Vista Sp1
I found this very strange and of course I send my collection of imformation to Microsoft.
The other thing people should keep in mind is that the Beta is representative of what the Ultimate Version offers not the lower SKU'S or higher if any.
And this is important, because every piece of news that is being printed right now is about how Ultimate works and what it offers.
But this is not about the goods and the bads, is about Win 7 being free to Vista Users.
I would say based on my testing, that Microsoft has to fair to User's of Vista, if Vista Sp2 brings Vista to the likes of Win 7 then fine, charge for it but charge a fair amount to those using Vista.
Retail Upgrades from XP to Win 7 should be full and reasonably priced.
And OEM's well that is built into the price of the computer one purchases.
As someone mentioned here, his pc was not entirely capable or running Vista, but that was not entirely the consumer's fault as it falls on the shoulders of MS on advertising and being clear on what is what in respect to the many SKU's that MS put out with Vista.
In terms of usability and productivity, Vista offers me the same that the Beta of Win 7 offers me right now, So I don't agree with paying full price for an up-grade to Win 7 from Vista.
I do want to mention once again, yes the programmers should get paid for their effforts, I hope they listen to all the Win 7 Beta testers.
While not everything can be incorporated, many of us help many and we know how exactly an individual with less experience reacts to the changes and how to find things and how to put them to good work for them.
Regards,
Secondly, Vista's vast majority of updates are for performance tweaks to soothe ur whining, and thus so far vista has been much more secure, as it used the WINDOWS SERVER 2003 SP1 core, so um yea if you're still using XP, good luck, and sure Bill gates will miss the 2 of you going to mac. Myself, i have apple hardware in my enviroment, but there are apps i need which are only avaliable in the pc side, hence i won't update to MAC OSX anytime soon, and yes i've used osx and its a decent os.
pS: please post the specs of your machines, here are mine
DELL INSPIRON 6000
Pentium M @ 1.7GHZ
2GB of PC6400 DDR2
40GB ATA 5400rpm mobile hard drive
ATI RADEON X300 M
Onboard sound
Vista Home premium SP1 X86
* the only feature in this machine turned off is AERO
So already, quit your whining, no one is forcing u to use windows, or WINDOZE as the trolls like to call Vista.
PSS: I am a former I.T Administrator with 3 years experience, A+, NETWORK+, and i'm currently a freelancer, so yes, i kinda of have a clue of how windows behaves.
As much as I'd love Microsoft to make Windows 7 free or really low cost to Vista users, I doubt it will happen. If it's free, I'll switch to it; otherwise I'll wait for Windows 8 or 9. Until then, I'm sticking with Ubuntu.
Every single comment, every single article on every single site I've looked at says otherwise. Either the entire internet is lying, including quotes from Windows developers about using the same kernel, or you're an idiot.
Gigabyte EP35-DS3L
Intel E2200 @2.75Ghz, stock HSF
combo deal on the above two items $165 at Fry's
Sapphire Radeon 4850HD
$150 shipped
4GB Corsair XMS2 DDR2-8000
$24.99 after mail in rebate ($54.99 retail price)
500GB Samsung Spinpoint
$79,99
I re-used my existing case and power supply, which I got the case 2 years ago for $19.99 after rebate and the PSU for $40 after rebate. So the whole system as currently configured cost me less than $500 and it runs Vista just as fast as XP if not faster (I have them triple booted along with Ubuntu 8.10). Vista seems to scale to multi-core processors better than XP so that may be some of the reason. But really I'm about ready to ditch XP, I never use it anymore.
seriously...best thing you can do to fix Vista isn't to whine about being entitled to a free Win7 upgrade. Instead, go max out your RAM, it's really cheap these days. I guarantee you that RAM is cheaper than a Windows 7 license. Granted Win7 does have a bit better memory mangement that allows it to run like XP on older machines with 1GB of memory, but if you throw a lot of hardware at it, it scales up and uses just as much memory as Vista. Win7 x64 on my Core2Duo laptop with 4GB of DDR2 uses over 1GB of RAM just to boot up to my desktop.
Lastly, if you want to whine about anyone, whine about Intel, they pressured Microsoft to declare some older chipsets "Windows Vista Ready" when in fact they weren't, at least for Aero. This was done to allow Intel to clear out old stocks and thus keep Intel's quarterly earnings up. I do feel bad for people who bought XP laptops that were "windows vista ready" as the video can't be upgraded to DX9 capable in them so you will never get Aero.
Mac OS X 10.5 does not require that Mac OS X 10.4 be already installed. Each is a fully functional OS in its own right.
Mac OS X 10.4 does not require that Mac OS X 10.3 be already installed. Each is a fully functional OS in its own right. All the way back to 10.0.0.
Get the picture?
Mac OS X point updates are numbered 10.5.0, 10.5.1, 10.5.2 .... for example. They are all free.
I agree that there is plenty to not like about Microsoft, but Apple isn't much better and is worse than Microsoft in some respects. I don't like Microsoft, but you seem like a Apple fanboy.
As long as Microsoft gave users a choice, XP or Vista, on their system purchased, then I say Vista users got what they deserved. :-)
As for the people that think Vista works just fine. I have always been amazed at the really crappy software people were willing to use and swear by. If you think Vista is all it should be, then it's all you deserve in my opinion. Flame away. ;-)
If u try it for sometime.. you will like it (or i can say you will not hate it the way u do now).
People want win7 free just because it has a bit similar appearence... may be they should have changed some colors? wooo greedy...
I'm using a Pentium 4 at 1.87 GHz with 512 MBs RAM. My visual effects are stunning, my programs load just as quickly as XP ever did and they don't slow down. I currently have 2 instances of my browser, 3 chat programs, a program downloading podcasts from the internet, a software firewall and several open chats with friends and my PC is running as quickly as XP did with 2 programs open, just 2. My visuals include having 4 virtual desktops, a 3D cube with full capability to rotate in a 3D space, windows that stretch and snap into place and bend fold and can be dragged from desktop to desktop. I have preview windows so I don't have to move back and forth between then to see what's going on with each. I've actually previewed a window playing video while chatting with a friend so that I could do both without losing part of the video underneath the chat program.
In other words, it's not the hardware. Windows just isn't designed to fully utilize what's available. If Linux can make my old system run this well, why can't Windows?
Uh... No. It won't be. Not Microsoft.
- by Dan7637 February 2, 2009 5:54 PM PST
- windows7 is just a over hyped OS, Vista is a good OS- it just recieved a bad rap because people were fu(king retards and used underpowered hardware
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by tm_anon February 2, 2009 8:05 PM PST
- People unfortunately believed the companies which told them that the software installed on the computers they were buying would work. If I buy a car and the salesperson says that the engine installed in the car will not fall out and won't cause any problems with the integrity of the body of the vehicle, am I a moron for believing him? I mean, isn't that exactly why most people don't build their own cars?
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (69 Comments)If I buy a computer with an OS preinstalled, I take it for granted that the OS should work perfectly on that hardware. If it doesn't, I expect it to be taken care of and made right by the people who lied to me in the first place or I will sue for the full cost of the hardware with software and lost productivity time because of the inability to use a system I was mislead into believing would actually be worth a flying crap.
Unlike so many, I switched to Linux and now my old hardware works better than their new stuff. For those who believed that they were being taken good care of and that no company would be that stupid to sell product which simply could not work appropriately in its current configuration, they deserve not only Windows 7, completely free of charge with a full, professional installation and test, but they also deserve an apology for how poorly they were treated.