Comments on: What scares me about Windows 7

Windows 7 beta is a fine operating system, but that doesn't mean it's not suffering from some issues. Don Reisinger takes a look at those issues.

[terminalblue]

As soon as i saw the title i knew it was Don Reisinger.

this article is nothing but FUD and trolling. Journalism at its finest.

[boydp182]

Every time I read one of his articles I think to myself-what a tool.

[smithrl]

Yea I would I have to agree with the previous poster's comment about the article having FUD. The PC Tools study isn't a valid study (wasn't independent and performed by an antivirus/anti malware vendor) and also the way the author references, he is implying all the threats that penetrated the systems were even caused only by Microsoft and operating system expliots, If the PC was infected through Adobe Acrobat or other 3rd party application exploit or if it was a trojan horse the end user installed it counted.

[kheechun]

To open another window, you need not right click and click another option. Just a middle click or wheel click will do the trick :)

[Get_a_life_Leo]

He published a separate column on what he did like (and there were lots of kudos). I think it is a valid observation that W7 borrows from the OS X lineage and will be more challenging to XP users. It makes no sense for MS to be targeting Mac users (the base is way too small) so offering an OS which is more OS X-like is more likely to reinforce a potential switch to OS X than retain them on Windows.

As for security, there is a problem with user notification frequency being user-modifiable. People will turn it way down, essentially ignoring potentially dangerous connections. Perhaps companies will be able to lock in high notification but the problem of infections is primarily one of un-informed home users. Vista is highly secure when set up properly. If users can override security warnings for the sake of convenience, then their security will be diminished.

[ecotopian--2008]

Has anyone noticed that the first comments on a CNet article are almost invariably from nasty little trolls with nothing but hate to contribute? If I was running a news site, I'd be thinking about weeding out habitual trolls, who do nothing but deface these web pages.

[seannj427]

Don writes:
"According The security company PC Tools found 639 unique threats over the first six months of 2008 for every 1,000 machines running Vista. That tally is actually better than XP, which was plagued with 1,021 issues. Ironically, Windows 2000 was safest, suffering 586 threats that penetrated the operating system's defenses.

But as CNET's Ina Fried reports, as far as Windows 7's security goes, "it appears to draw heavily from the investments the company made with Windows Vista."

"The most notable change," Fried writes, "is probably the fact that users now have the option to choose how often they are required to authorize changes to their system. One of the most frequent criticisms of Vista was the annoyance of the User Account Control dialog boxes that forced users to authenticate many types of changes to their systems."

In other words, Windows 7 is about as secure as Windows Vista, which was plagued by 639 threats over a six-month period. That's an improvement over previous iterations of the software, so sticking to XP probably isn't advised if security is a major concern, but let's face it -- that track record isn't ideal."

Don, with all due deference to Ina (who's generally dead-on), how can you make this conclusion, unless Windows 7 itself has been tested and rated (and I don't think it has). Until someone like Mark Russonivch enligtens us on the actual nuts and bolts differences between win 7 and Vista, the jury's out. The reason I am somewhat skeptical of your comment is that windows 7 is SMALLER than Vista after installs. So they clearly paired Vista down, AND, I am hoping, made it more secure along the way.

Many arguments can be made that because they support things like NTLM, that they used windows explorer, that IIS still lives and breathes, etc that Win 7 will not be secure.

However how many TCP/IP exploits have you seen on vista? Probably not so many. I think you'll see even less on Win 7.

"A major issue I see with Windows 7, which is underscored throughout this discussion, is the operating system's long learning curve. Some say Windows 7 is more "intuitive" than previous versions of the software. Intuitive or not, unless you're a Mac user or a Vista convert, it will probably take some time to get used to Windows 7. Some enterprises didn't switch to Vista for that reason and I'm afraid Microsoft will face that same issue with Windows 7"
I liken this to the switch from office 2003 to Office 2007. Some will love it, some will hate it, most will initially be horribly lost at first, unless they run lots of operating systems all the time (like those of who run ubuntu, windows 2000, windows 2003, XP, Vista, redhat, Suse, etc).
The simple fact is Microsoft had to do something and do it quickly to get away from the stigma of Vista. Windows 7 is good enough to win over the pundits. It also appears to me that it's fast and light enough to run on business desktops, whereas Vista, well let's just say that XP is still our desktop operating system where I work and we have a lot of desktops.
Hey Mr. Bott, you out there? I'd love to see a comment from you on this article, as I think this would generate lots of 'healthy' discussion.

All in all, remember it's a BETA.....

-S
PS It runs great on virtualbox. Vista never did.....

[MaggieRed]

The majority of commenters simply have their panties in a wad. If Don wrote a gleaming report that said nothing but good things, true or not, and then made sure there were a few lines in there to trash Apple, I'm sure these people would still find something to complain about.

[Solaris_User]

You might be aware... Microsoft is one of those companies that in many places has skipped vista.

[bdaughtry]

I mostly agree with the article. Certainly the things I also like about the Windows 7 beta just happen to be the things I also like about Mac OSX. :-)

There are things I like about Linux, Windows, and MAC. I just wish I could combine the best of all three and throw out what I hate.

[The_Information]

I like both of Don's reports. They offer a balance that allows any reader to jump in and understand the meaning of the article, even if like Don himself they are not totally tech-savvy. One was great, but then a CYA part II that mentions "it won't be easy". I like all of this! Yes Windows 7 is HOT, yes Vista was NOT, and while there may be challenges I think we can all agree it will be worth it! Apple designed it, ObjectDock ripped it off, and now Microsoft just does it better. De Ja Vu!

[brian.lee]

Microsoft should give windows 7 away to anyone who purchased Windows Vista. It's the least they can do, I still can't believe that to this day I can't send a basic Fax with my install of Vista Home Premium x64 but I can with my old XP laptop or even Windows 95/98. The fact that they try to charge me for a feature I've had for years is insane. And to be quite honest I don't care how nice the new OS look I just want it to WORK and be FAST and STABLE. An Operating system is NOT a STATUS SYMBOL it's not a BMW, or BENZ no one cares people just want to do their work quickly.

[donald17]

Having read the article, I'm still puzzled as to what's 'scarry' about Windows 7. The article doesn't live up the the headline.

Donald

[terminalblue]

I didnt need to leave examples in my comment, most of the other commentators did a fine job of pointing out how much this BLOG lacks any real substance.

[evilshite32]

I've had a chance to play around with Windows 7 and I have to agree, the UI is certainly a bit more user friendly but does take a bit of digging to uncover some of the aspects that XP users might be more comfortable with (e.g. traditional quicklaunch). I agree with the author that security will prove to be the biggest make or break with this next OS. While no OS can be free from exploitable holes appearing, if Microsoft can take a page from the Open source community and issue patches quicker, rather than waiting for service pack releases or dragging their feet in releasing patches.

[Galphanore]

Don, I imagine the other comments have a lot to do with your comments along these lines :

"But what other choice do they have? Windows 7 is a superior operating system to XP. Switching to Microsoft's latest OS needs to happen eventually."
"Although the issues outlined above could pose some trouble for Microsoft, they aren't major enough to justify sticking with XP or Vista. There will be growing pains and undoubtedly some companies will have trouble switching, but Windows 7 isn't Vista and moving into the next phase of the storied software's history is worth it. Just don't expect it to be easy."

It's your underlying assumption that Microsoft's OS must remain the dominant enterprise OS. The biggest mistake MS is making with Vista and 7 is something you identified, it's not the windows the average user recognizes and MS is making this change during a slump in the economy. That means that enterprise solutions have a choice, they can pay money, quite a bit of it, for something that all their users will have to learn to use all over again or they can get for free something that all their users will have to learn to use all over again. Personally, I think 7 is going to herald an increase in the amount of open source enterprise installs.

Your main suggestion as for why someone would want to switch now is security, which open source OS's have above and beyond MS. If you already have to force your users to relearn an OS, there are a number of open source ones out that have much better security then anything MS puts out and are about as similar to XP in usability as Vista, and I imagine, from your descriptions, the same remains true of 7. The issue is that we may be at the start of a paradigm shift, and you don't seem to care.

[jeaverage]

I see now reason to go to Windows 7. XP is fine for low security needs like gaming, especially if the computer being used is a new one where the OS HP requirements are just not important.

For day to day use Linux Mint (or PCLInuxOS or TinyME for low spec machines) is more than enough for the casual user, student, e-mailing/surfing user, etc. Actually I think Linux is MUCH better than that but all the basics are well covered with the Linux selection of free software. I love it and have for several years (like 5+).

I just don't see any reason to keep moving forward with MS and new hardware requirements. FWIW we also have a new MacBook and it also offers a better user experience. Nope, not going to pay the MS Tax anymore. Prob won't need to pay the MacBook tax for a long time again either. Looks like a good machine that ought to last us about eight years - just like our current home built PC.

[evilshite32]

I've had a chance to play around with Windows 7 and I have to agree, the UI is certainly a bit more user friendly but does take a bit of digging to uncover some of the aspects that XP users might be more comfortable with (e.g. traditional quicklaunch). I agree with the author that security will prove to be the biggest make or break with this next OS. While no OS can be free from exploitable holes appearing, if Microsoft can take a page from the Open source community and issue patches quicker, rather than waiting for service pack releases or dragging their feet in releasing patches.

[robertmacewan]

As a long time Linux user than slowly moved into OS-X use with the purchase of an Air I find these Windows promoting articles amusing. At the same time I'm sadden by the torture the poor uninformed Winsheep go through in their quest for happiness.

Apple provides the complete package all wrapped up for easy use.

Linux, in my case Ubuntu, provides a more hackable package similar to Apple. Minus the hardware.

Windows provides cost after cost then headache after headache.

Somehow we must discover a path to intervention. We must help these poor souls.

[Inconnux]

The interface is one of the main reasons why I hate Vista. If Microsoft wants their OS to look more like a Mac then why shouldn't consumers go with the real deal?. I plan to stick with XP until I can't. Microsoft really sounds like it is out of touch with its customers and needs a reality check.

Great article Don, you hit the nail on the head with this one.