Comments on: I'll wait for Windows 7 before buying a new PC

Don Reisinger says Windows 7 is an outstanding operating system, but there's more to this story than its superiority.

[ace-on-tech]

It's amazing to see people give rave reviews to Windows 7 while all 7 is, is Vista with optimizations and a few new features tacked on. Shows you how shallowly Windows Vista was evaluated when it came out... Yet again, proof that perception can totally kill something unrighteously. Pop a new wrapping on and a new name and it's all forgotten. Windows Vista was fine. And so is Windows 7.

[josealva17]

"ace-on-tech" in a couple of sentences you have summarized what Windows Vista and Windows 7 really are. Maybe you should be writing Cnet instead of clueless Don here.

[Mark_Anderson]

And in a couple of sentences both of you have demonstrated why no-one would ever employ you as a technical blogger.

Or probably anything else come to think of it.

[homercles82]

"Originally, a version of Windows codenamed Blackcomb was planned as the successor to Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Major features were planned for Blackcomb, including an emphasis on searching and querying data and an advanced storage system named WinFS to enable such scenarios. Later, Blackcomb was delayed and an interim, minor release, codenamed "Longhorn" was announced for 2003.[7] By the middle of 2003, however, Longhorn had acquired some of the features originally intended for Blackcomb. After three major viruses exploited flaws in Windows operating systems within a short time period in 2003, Microsoft changed its development priorities, putting some of Longhorn's major development work on hold in order to develop new service packs for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. Development of Longhorn (Windows Vista) was also "reset" in September 2004.

Blackcomb was renamed Vienna in early 2006,[8] and again to Windows 7 in 2007.[3] In 2008, it was announced that Windows 7 would also be the official name of the operating system.[9][10] The first external release to select Microsoft partners came in January 2008 with Milestone 1 (build 6519).[11]"

Vista is actually a copy of Windows 7. LONGHORN (VISTA) BORROWED ELEMENTS FROM BLACKCOMB (WINDOWS 7). get your dam facts straight.

[Inconnux]

Homer what we are saying is that they are close to identical products, what order they are supposedly developed in is irrelevant. Vista and Win7 are basically the same except Win7 has been 'slimmed down'. Your argument is mere sophistry

[myles taylor]

What I don't get Don is that you're comparing an upcoming product that is probably at least 9 months out (but given Microsoft's track record, probably longer) with an OS that is a year and a half old. Apple isn't sitting on their hands right now. You're just assuming that Windows 7 is going to be better than anything Apple will come out with in that same time. Is that because there has been no Snow Leopard Beta? I just don't get it. I'm honestly asking.

I have heard good things about WIndows 7 and I actually have high hopes for it myself. I think that you're being very pre-mature in calling it "the best OS that Microsoft will ever release" and saying it will be better than anything else that comes out between now and then.

[craigar]

My interest will be in how does it work when it is released with all of the necessary elements that aren't required in beta? Also, what will Microsoft's pricing structure be? Will there be a multiple tiered release? Home, Home Premium, Business and so on? Will the levels of release also create different headaches? All of these questions should cause a good reviewer such as Don to not make hasty decisions (especially on searchable posts). But he fails to match the subject of the headline with the content of his report. If he needs a new computer, he can buy a new Mac and add Windows to it later when released. Why wait?

[tfkfan]

most of your comments are whack, most of you probbably havent even tried the beta, im running it on my family's pentium 4 machine w/ 1gb of ram and my whole family likes it and says that it's much better than the last 2 operating systems on that machine which were linux ubuntu and windows xp, im just afraid of when the beta expires, because im gonna have to reinstall everything. Windows rocks, Microsoft rocks, Ballmer rocks, Gates rocks. mac os x sucks, unix sucks.

[sapporobaby]

This guy is funny. To actually take anything he says seriously would be a waste of time. How did he get a column? Was CNET holding a raffle for the most senseless writer with a lot of time to waste? As a beta tester of Snow Leopard and Windows 7, I can say that SL will run circles around 7. Stability is what users will gravitate towards and Mac OS X has YEARS of stability behind it. Apple is building on this and not panicked by the site of 7 which MS can not say the same.

[sythara]

"Stability is what users will gravitate towards "

Actually, I think usability and versatility would be what users gravitate towards. Stability is a nice to have, especially for those of us who like to do more than check our email and post poor quality videos on youtube (not saying there is anything wrong with youtube videos).

[El_Gringo_Guapo]

I have Win7 on my iMac as well...it's not nearly as "great" as it is better than Vista.

I wouldn't say it's better than OSX....not by a longshot.

[Mac OS XP]

I, too, am well versed in Macs and PCs, including Tiger, Leopard, Windows 95, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows Vista AND Windows 7.

In my opinion, Windows 7 is the best Windows yet. However, I do not see how it is superior to Leopard. It is faster than Vista but still not super fast, it burns ISOs but doesn't mount them, it has a Dock-taskbar but still lacks Stacks, it has backup tools but nothing as good as Time Machine, etc. You can probably tell I'm a Mac guy (for the few years). I guess what I'm saying is that Microsoft, as usual, just copied from Apple and is a little behind the times. In my book, Windows 7 equals a slightly unintuitive and slow Tiger. And you may not be waiting for Windows 7, you may be waiting for Snow Leopard which will be out before Windows 7 and it will have amazing performance, compatibility, and usability boosts. Did you try Snow Leopard betas yet?

[josealva17]

There was so much hype around the time Vista was released. The promised the world but they did not deliver. Now with the upcoming Windows 7 release, hype is again through the roof.

Windows 7 is really is really Windows Vista 1.1. While it appears they improved performance, it probably still has the same compatibility issues that Vista has. An issue that will continue to plague the corporate world.

By the way, I am running the Windows 7 beta. I love the "new dock." I disappointed with the Cnet editor. I expected more insight and deeper analysis, than regurgitating Windows hype. Shame on you for falling for the Windows hype machine.

[homercles82]

IT IS NOT VISTA 1.1 you freaking drone.

Did you call Windows ME Windows 98 1.1? Or did you call XP Windows 2000.1?

[Inconnux]

WinXP was basically w2k with a new interface... perhaps you don't remember when it was released.
WinXP was based on the NT kernel, so to say that WinXP was a minor upgrade seems just fine.

Just like Win95 was still DOS with the win32's extended, as was Windows up to WinME.

Win7 is based on the same kernel base as Vista with relatively few modifications (mainly they reduced the
overhead "bloat" for performance) and some minor updates to the GUI. Thus to people who have been around computers more than 10 yrs, its is JUST like Vista 1.1

Gorgias would be proud of your debating skills

[jmikeda]

I love this article, mostly because it's about an operating system that hasn't come out yet. While I've been continually using the very best operating systems at home for the past 8 years ( I.E. Mac OS), I have to hate my life at work with a windows PC running XP. It's old, clunky and tends to crap out when I need it the most. Right now you might be happy to hop back on the Windows wagon, but in 8 years when you're still using windows 7 and it's old and clunky, I'll have been using the latest a greatest from apple.

P.S. just in case you were wondering my home and work computer have the same specs and I am an apple fan boy because they make quality products.

[homercles82]

Keep paying $129 fro service packs.

[TimGray--2008]

Oh come on. I have been beta testing Windows 7 for a while and it certainly is not "superior" to OSX. It's far better than Vista for now.. Until microsoft starts putting things back in to re-vistize it... I'll hold my breath until I get a retail package and see that it performs the same. But windows7 is still windows. It cant run final Cut pro suite so it's a major fail for professional video editing (only other choice is AVID, no vegas and adobe are NOT professional). It has a plethora of viruses and spyware waiting in the corner to suck up your productivity. (My mac does not run a virus scanner, my windows 7 does because there are already viruses out for windows 7 exploits.)

Mac's do a lot of things different than windows but you sound like a paid microsoft ad. you need to give real reasons other than being distracted by a new shiny. I found windows 7 to be the saim pain in the rear as Vista for installing hardware drivers. my OSX machines magically find and install the printers on the network no intervention on my part.... WHY does windows 7 not do this? It should. I have a big list of where Windows 7 still falls short. I also have my list of where it does have major pluses. but the verdict is still out until I see the real thing and not a beta.

[sythara]

As far as your drivers go, there are hundreds of thousands of companies (don't know for sure so i made a number up) that make hardware for windows. How many are there for mac? Seriously, the markets are not even comperable, which is why Mac can do drivers so much easier. And personally I never had problems with drivers for any hardware with any versions of Windows, but I must be special or something.

If all you do is Final Cut Pro, then blame the company that made it, and not Microsoft. And if all you do is video editing / publishing the mac is probably the best option. Especially if you do that sort of stuff for a living... but not everyone is a movie director or a newspaper publisher.

[sapporobaby]

@Mac OS XP,

I am using the SL beta. It is simply wonderful. Apple gets it right. In this day and age, people want it to work first and to tinker with it under the hood later. This is the approach Mac OS X has taken. While SL will not be revolutionary, but evolutionary it will still be miles ahead of the copying (I do sometimes hate to label something as copied, but 7 copied Mac OS X) Windoze 7. No doubt it will be good, but no where near as good as SL.

[sythara]

Tinker under the hood? With a mac?

yeah...

and stop with who copied who. Did you know that GM copied Ford by using an internal combustion engine?

seriously, stop.

[Kev_Orng]

@sythara
I tinker under the hood with Macs all the time. And with Windows machines.

Major difference is, I'm usually tinkering with the Windows machine because I HAVE to, and I'm rushed because I need the system back up for a rush job.

[sapporobaby]

Game, set, match: kev_Orng....

Apparently sythara has zero point zero clue that Macs simply do what they are bought to do. They perform. First time, every time. I would rather tinker with software applications like iPhoto or Aperture and be productive than worrying if I had better save my work because a crash is coming on. I have seen very few people that have switched to Mac going back to Windows. The author of this post might because well, he has shown that he has no clue....

[Mark_Anderson]

"Major difference is, I'm usually tinkering with the Windows machine because I HAVE to, and I'm rushed because I need the system back up for a rush job."

Then you're incompetent.

Sorry.

[john55440]

I use Vista SP1 Preinstalled, and it works just fine. I would never, ever, go back to Windows XP.

That said, at this point, it makes sense to wait for Windows 7 Preinstalled, because it will be even better.

Windows and Windows Applications can be run on HP, Dell, Toshiba,... Custom-Built, and Self-Built computers. With Mac OSX and Mac OSX Applications, your only computer hardware choices are Apple, Apple, and Apple. No thanks.

[Ben_Pasmore]

Computers are inexpensive enough that spending a year with a slow, old machine is not economically sensible. For $600 you can get a very strong desktop or an acceptable laptop that will last you 12 to 18 months until Windows 7 ships and maybe the first SP is ready. Your revenue will also help computer vendors (and their employees) survive this recession.

Waiting for the next best thing is a fools game. There will always be something better available in the near future. If you have the need now, go fill it.

Even better advice, use this as an opportunity to free yourself of the Windows habit, go for a Linux system or Mac.

[seven7dust]

well in the windows world you can hold your breath
that they won't be a new O.S for another 6 years after 7 comes out
So he's right to wait until it ships to decide !
but you r right with the helping computer vendors part
it doesn't look good for the consumer techology world right now !

[sapporobaby]

Wasn't there an article a while back that the fastest Windows runs on a Mac in virtualization?

[Mark_Anderson]

Yes, in 2007. Using a selected range of machines. Which were soon surpassed when they used comparable Windows OEMs.

Next.

[aggiekat]

Actually, according to PC World, the fastest Vista laptop tested was a MacBook Pro (through 10/25/07). It wasn't running in virtualization...you just reboot the machine as a Windows machine and it's running native.

If you want to run it in virtualization, you can run VMWare or other software, but it's not as fast. But the performance is still respectable.

[Mark_Anderson]

Yes, aggiekat, that was actually the test I was referring to.

[macandwindowsuser]

Windows 95 & 2000 were kick butt releases so everyone knows Windows is capable of releasing a quality OS when it actually feels like it. But Don, for you to say that Win7, a Beta product, is superior to Apple's software on almost every level is simply retarded. Let's wait till Win7 and Snow Leopard actually release and then we can start the comparisons.

[kcotham]

There hasn't been a good piece of software come out of Redmond in.... well, never. Don't waste your money on another version of Windows. If you want something that is going to get the job done and be cheap, and not a Macintosh, then get a generic PC, put Solaris on it and never look back.

I've used the Windows 7 beta, it still suffers from the same poor design rules that the previous versions have. It appears and works like it was designed by committee. Microsoft will never get it right. Any operating system that IMMEDIATELY starts bugging me to put virus protection on the computer, is not for me. The interface is clunky and some software like IE are just absolutely horrible in design. Not to mention how slowly it performs some of the most mundane tasks. I know this is a beta, but it's actually a bit better than the commercial final releases of Visa, XP, 2000, etc. I've had to deal with.

The author needs to reexamine this article, then burn it for the trash it is. It's either written as a flame piece or he's on the take at Redmond.

[Mark_Anderson]

Sure that's why most Mac users use Office and not iWork.

[aggiekat]

iWork is a superior piece of software to Office. iWork is also $79 vs. $370. And Keynote kicks PowerPoint butt! Much classier...

[Mark_Anderson]

Really? If it's superior then why do most Mac users choose Office?

Because it isn't, that's why.

[H4MM3R]

I too need a new laptop. I am waiting for Windows 7 and USB 3.0, before buying.

[htcstech]

Who's paying him?
He has a point that W7 is worth waiting for if you're going to buy a new computer, but W2000, NT4 and XP are superior Windows products. W7 is pretty much of a slim clone of Vista, so I just don't see why he's all virginally excited about being the first on the block to get screwed. He also forgets that with new processors, chipsets and ram speeds, the Vista/W7 core will run faster, but not on legacy systems and that is one of the things industry is worried about, apart from compounded software incompatibilities.
A fancy gui doesn't make a good OS.
Many more people will gladly buy W7 in favour of Vista thanks to articles like this.
Let's not all be stupid! "I'm a firm believer that Windows 7 will be remembered as one of the greatest operating systems Microsoft has ever released." - I thought Dos 6.2 was... :)

[homercles82]

"W7 is pretty much of a slim clone of Vista"

So because Windows 98 had windows and a task bar like 95 was it a slim clone?

[unifex_]

Well, I am not sure about the corporate world, I only care about my computers at home - at work, they've got a sysadmin to do that - and I've never found a reason to upgrade Windows on the existing machine. Sure, Vista or 7 will not be a good choice for my old Pentium III system - but I'm running Windows 2000 there and I am quite happy with it. My new desktop came with Vista pre-installed and despite all the noise about how bad it is - it works just fine. I am not sure if a Mac would do the same things better and faster, but first of all, I am quite happy as I am, second, I would have to pay a lot more for a Mac, and last but not least, I simply cannot get over this one toolbar for all windows design that the Macs have, sorry guys, I can't stand it. I am testing 7 beta myself and - besides from a few quirks that will probably be resolved by the time the final product ships - it actually is better than Vista, so I can understand the idea of holding on until it appears unless you urgently need a new PC right now.

[waltermax8]

I, also, have a MacBook Pro. I have been playing with Windows 7 in both Parallels and VMware. I really like it, but will never get rid of my MacBook. This way I have the best of both worlds. I have always had XP on my MacBook and it has served me well. Can't wait until 7 gets out of Beta. I'm giving as much feedback as I can to help them polish it. I have no negative words for either system. I think it's great that we CAN have our cake and eat it, too.

[dumbspammers]

I guess the real question is why anyone thinks that they have to buy a new computer to change the OS. Didn't anyone at CNET ever hear of installing an OS on existing hardware? Or of upgrading the hardware (I mean *really* upgrading it, by replacing cards and adding RAM, not replacing the computer)?

But I guess PC manufacturers like Dell and HP wouldn't pay for as much ad space if CNET didn't try to make people think they had to buy a new PC every year. Sheep make the economy go around. Right now, it's swirling around the drain.

[kcotham]

Very well put dumbspammers! Computers have moved into the realm of commodities now, it seems.

[homercles82]

I installed the BETA (dual boot) on my 4 year old machine. It works perfectly.

[unifex_]

Well, dumbspammers, I actually heard about putting a new OS on existing hardware, but I never understood why would I bother? My old machines work just fine with old Windows. What would be the point of installing a new OS that really wasn't designed to run on low resource systems? As far as upgrading, I guess this depends on what did you buy in the first place. Not everyone buys future-proof, top-of-the-line rigs. With my old Dell for example, there is no way to upgrade it, unless the only piece you leave would be the yellow case (with the new power unit :). Honestly, I do not understand buying an OS from a shop on a DVD. I actually think that's where all of the problems with Windows come from. I have always bought it pre-installed and never had any problems with it, like many people allude to. I could not even get what BSOD were for a long time, until someone has actually explained this to my.