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.

[PlayTronic]

Overall I like what they changed in most of the user interfaces that were affected in new visual design, and function.

I have been running the beta for a while on my mac flawlessly, it is very similar to mac dock in the way applications are handled.

Its better then xp, visually and overall usability to be honest, it beats vista in my view as well.

[jgv115]

Those reasons aren't good enough to stay with Vista/XP

I have been a XP user since XP came out and on the first run of Windows 7 i was used to it. It's not THAT hard.

Sometime we will need to move on. If microsoft keeps staying with "simple" stuff they're going be stuffed.

We have to move on.

[jgv115]

Those reasons aren't good enough to stay with Vista/XP

I have been a XP user since XP came out and on the first run of Windows 7 i was used to it. It's not THAT hard.

Sometime we will need to move on. If microsoft keeps staying with "simple" stuff they're going be stuffed.

We have to move on.

[3rdalbum]

I don't see how Windows 7 can raise fewer prompt to escalate to root, yet be "as secure as Vista". It seems to me that programs must be able to escalate without a prompt, at least for certain actions, and so it could not possibly be as secure as Vista.

There's nothing wrong with Vista, IMHO. (well, apart from the DRM, but that's going to be in Windows 7 as well).

[BillWindows]

I think if people dont move from XP to Windows 7, they will die with XP. This is a much more polished platform than Xp. Some people are still using Commodore 64's, I suppose in 20 years time we'll be saying the same about XP users.
Me, I like to move on.

[Dimwit312]

Windows DLL-HELL continues to rear its ugly head. Because installation of Windows apps regularly modifies \system files, the user has to constantly OK the change for security. Since the MAC apps store their files outside the 'system' area, the MAC OS X user does not get barraged by modal authorization dialog boxes. Also, the MAC user can not set account to run in privileged user space all the time like on Windows. Therefore, Windows XP/Vista/7 will continue to be plagued by attacks because most users are flying blind with security prompting turned off.

[odaynasser]

Windows 7 Facebook Fan Page:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Microsoft-Windows-7/39012423321

[FedUp2009]

I've had 3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, 2000, XP, and Vista. Skipped NT. I just got Vista Ultimate (purchased, didn't want to hear "contact the vendor" for warranty support) a year ago because experience showed me to wait at least until SP1 for a decent release. 3.1 came out in 1992, 9 different versions of Windows in 17 years! That's a "new" OS nearly every 2 years! Do we all grow money trees in our backyards or what? I like Vista, but I still can not find out how to perform functions in the OS and Office, without referring to (online) Help that I've been performing for decades in earlier versions. I'm just tired of it all and tired of the expense that brings frustrations every version, and I DO NOT care how improved Win7 is or purports to be. I'm off the buying spree, permanently. Make what I still have, XP and Vista (and Office 2007 Ultimate & Pro) work properly and securely, darn it!!! Do not think for 1 moment that I for one am giving you any more dollars for an OS that works that way. Give me what I've paid for over and over and over again only to have what I paid for reach "end of life cycle" once it even approaches working properly. If MS wants more $ from me then 1) support XP and Vista and shove Win7, 2) stop being funny and shoving ads at me (such as on MSN where Spybot S&D for the 1st time EVER complained about click-jacking yesterday), and 3) start putting talent into alternative ways to interface (speech recognition big time, brainwave control for gamers, etc.) But I'm NOT buying yet another MS OS, guaranteed.

[actualtiger]

A Large Enterprise Perspective

In many large enterprises most desktop systems have NO connectivity to the Internet, and those that do must connect via multi-layer high security firewalls. Thus security threats are not an issue, at least as far as they are presented here.

The primary factor that saw large enterprises investing in upgrades from Windows 3.1 to 95 to 98 to 2000 to XP, was stability, not features or functionality. The drop off in support incidents for the 3.1 to 95 upgrade was about 15%, the 95 to 98 upgrade was about the same, but the upgrade from 98 to 2000/XP saw support incidents plummet by as much as 80%. So whilst the upgrade bore one off costs, it paid an ongoing dividend which, over a period, more than offset the one off costs - i.e. the upgrade made a profit!! Reduced support costs was just one part of the dividend, other major flow on effects also contributed to the dividend, including increased user productivity, lower staff turnover and improved developer productivity.

In large enterprises one of the major factors that prevents deployment of an alternative OS is Line of Business (LOB) software that they themselves have developed for the Windows platform, which in many cases interacts in real time with LOB software running under z/OS on their IBM mainframes, this is often implemented via commercial interprocess, inter-platform middleware . In many cases the middleware does not offer support for OS/X or Linux workstations.

For a large enterprise biggest components in the cost of upgrading Windows are labour, training and lost productivity, the M$ Tax is typically less than 20% of the total cost of change.

If an enterprise were to migrate from Wintel to Mac OS/X there would be the added costs of hardware replacement, support staff training, developer training, redevelopment of in house software etc - the costs are massive. Even the most enthusiast Mac supporter is unlikely to find sufficient dividends to offset those costs, let alone turn a profit.

A switch to Linux will, with the exception of hardware, bear the same costs as a switch to MAC OS/X, with the added complication of which Linux flavour. And the CIO can anticipate being under constant pressure to change from one flavour to another, something without which most can easily live.

It seems to me that changing the desktop OS to another version of Windows, Linux, Mac O/S or anything else will never again deliver the dividends that would offset the total cost of change. Hence most large and many medium enterprises are looking at (or deploying) alternatives to the traditional monolithic desktop via one or more of the server based workstation virtualisation models.

[Murrie0]

Some of you might want a real comparison of the Dock and the Taskbar, very different animals both with distinct plus and minuses.

http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/dock-and-windows-7-taskbar.ars

Enjoy!!

[sirtwist]

Regarding the portion of the article about corporate uptake of Windows 7, I think what a lot of people don't realize is that most corporate users have much more advanced computer setups at home than they do at work. Most corporate IT departments are on a 4 to 5 year hardware replacement cycle, and their OS upgrade cycle is often more infrequent than that. A certain Fortune 500 company that shall go unnamed was still running Windows 95 on the desktop until around 2004, I believe. During those long, drawn out upgrade cycles, the individual corporate users have probably replaced their home PCs at least a couple of times, getting the latest operating system each time they do.

Having worked in corporate IT, most of the comments we received from our users were not that they were reluctant to use new technology because they'd have to learn the new OS, but rather that they were annoyed they were still using stone age technology at work when they had the latest and greatest at home.

So, my point is that while it may be the perception of corporate IT departments that an upgrade will cost them a lot of money in retraining, I think that it's only a perception, and not reality. The unnamed corporation I referenced above, when they upgraded from Windows 95 to XP, required very little retraining, because most of their users had Windows XP on their home PCs.

[ITcomposer]

First they ***** about how Vista this vista that, now 7 fixes a lot of them and this cat here now starts bashing 7, although i've only seen the screenshots i tell ya what, i have a few fine points for this journalist

1. Enterprises operate (large companies) on an hardware upgrade cycle, last time i checked was 3 years, but for the sake of discussion and the economy lets say they held out and are using hardware from 2004
(think high end single core chips) when the cycle comes around either 2 things will happen, A) They get 7 preloaded already or a voucher to get it at a steep discount as ms may very well ship late this year or B) Their enterprise licensing agreement with ms will be up in which case 7 will be dangled in front of them at very deep discounts, as this is the sector where ms makes the most money.

2. Average joes will go through the same, if you have been holding onto that dinosaur XP HOME EDITION which came with XP SP1, you're likely ready for some new hardware, so again throwing the economy in the mix most people will wait till next year.

3. While WINDOWS 2000 was good, and still widely used, again as the hardware starts to become unprofitable to keep up, (read smaller businesses) new boxes will come with 7 preloaded, and although dan makes a good point about the added steps to perform the same function, its a matter of time before either old ass hardware finally withers and dies, and the end user will see 7 as a shiny new o/s worth the try. as they will be enamored with xyz feature(s).

4.To ROBERTMACEWAN, first off we're not Winsheep, secondly smarty pants, what games can you play in that sexy but ehem... useless MACBOOK AIR......Insert cricket noise here.... none, even if you got the newest air with has
the NVIDIA GEFORCE 9400M IGP, new games and osx ain't gonna happen pal, while apple makes good hardware, i don't give a rats ass about hacking my o/s, so stop trolling, if i decide to move to MACK OSX it will be my choice and not becuase of an absurd troll like you is trying to get me to switch by calling windows users names.

Lastly i advise you Don, use Windows 7 Beta as your daily machine, install your daily software on it, i know friends in the public Beta who have switched from xp to 7 BETA, as their production operating system, so please stop spreading FUD.

Techyworkz

3.

[toosday]

W7 is Windows just with an obvious evolution, the same way Mac OS X is Mac OS 9 with an obvious evolution (though more of a complete overhaul, actually). Microsoft could either keep creating operating systems that look and function like XP and risk looking antiquated or they can step it up a notch and do something creative. The latter seems to be what they did. At any rate, Windows XP users will find it easier to move to Windows 7 than to Mac OS, so the learning curve for XP users may not be as big a problem as one might imagine.

Enterprise users, however, may be a different story. After all, a learning curve equals time and time equals money in a business world.

[toosday]

Also, many people are saying that the interface looks more like a Mac and I don't really see how.

Sure, the taskbar now simplifies all of the open windows for you, but there doesn't seem to be much more like a Mac. In fact, the taskbar has many features that the dock doesn't.

W7's windows doesn't open or close like a Mac. Yes, there are animations, but the windows on my Mac don't animation open or closed. Nor are animations exclusive to Windows or Macs.

Peek shows a specific window while hiding the rest. Expose shows all of the windows or hides them all.

The applications in W7 don't function like a Mac (ie. when you hit the X in Windows, you close the entire application).

The Explorer doesn't function anything like the Finder.

Maybe I'm missing something! Other than what I've mentioned here, can someone tell me how is Windows 7 more like a Mac?

[SkateNY]

"Doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results is a type of insanity." - Albert Einstein.

Microsoft, by insistently attempting to emulate Apple, does the same thing, over and over again. Their OS is the most glaring offender; their Zune is the most glaring failure.

Stop trying improve yourself by being someone else. Do what you do best, and move on.

With all their resources, one would think that they would have figured this out by now.

[SkateNY]

The fact is, that after that the two debacles that were Microsoft Vista and Microsoft Zune, Microsoft has a lot of explaining to do.

If their next this-is-the-best-version-of-Windows-OS-we've-ever-produced doesn't live up to its considerable and dubious hype, what will Microsoft do next in terms of damage control? Co-opt Linux? Buy Apple? Become a bank?

The easiest way to see how desperate Microsft is, is to read the strained and straining posts from Microsoft apologists. If you weren't so desperate, you wouldn't need to be so defensive. Worse, if you weren't so desperate, you wouldn't need write posts that contain out and out lies.

You have my sympathy, but you lose me on your near-complete absence of integrity.

[donna37343]

Why can't Microsoft just offer an XP skin for Windows 7 for all of those people who are resistant to change?

[Ryan_R]

What learning curve? - just switch to the Windows Classic theme - force it via GPO - and you're problem is solved

[Tiger1964]

I have been using Windows 7 since the public beta came out. It actually works very nicely. I am a bit confused by the Mac comparison. I think it looks more like Linux with the dock and transparencies.

[Jelly Baby]

So PC Tools are now the gold standard by which all operating systems must be judged. And still the Mac / Linux faithful are trying to convince us to open our eggs at the other end.