Things to Know About Windows 7

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

OVERVIEW
* Cannot "upgrade" from Windows XP-- only from Vista. XP users will have to do a full-package clean install
* Significant incompatibility with Windows XP
* Only the pricier versions offer an XP-compatible mode
* To upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7 with XP-compatibility will cost users $199
* Twelve confusing releases to choose from, with hidden "gotchas" in eight of them
* Doesn't really bring anything new to the table, nor give users a reason for upgrading from Windows XP-- especially at a $199 price tag

Questions of the day:
* Is Micro$oft trying to force loyal XP users to upgrade to a package they neither want nor need-- and charging them through the gills to do so?
* What makes Micro$oft think that an operating system is worth the price of a new computer?

WINDOWS 7
The top topic in the computer world this week is Windows 7.

The following information is gained from tech reports, manuals and personal experience. As far as I am aware, the following information is reliably accurate.

TYPICAL MICRO$OFT CONFUSION
As with past releases, instead of releasing one version that applies to everyone, Micro$oft has once again seen fit to put out SIX releases (12 if you count the OEM release. More about these later).

Of course, this causes considerable headache for the customer trying to figure out which version to buy-- and for the salesman who has to repeat the same information over and over. Thus this article.

The six primary versions:

Home Premium: Upgrade and full
Professional: Upgrade and full
Ultimate: Upgrade and full

The OEM version is available only in FULL... but comes in separate 32 bit and 64 bit versions (the retail packages contain both).

So that's right... twelve confusing versions. Enjoy!

TYPICAL MICRO$OFT PRICING
The price of Windows 7 ranges from $119.99 for the "Home Premium Upgrade" version to $319.99 for the Ultimate Full Version. This is about DOUBLE what Apple charges for a similarly-configured OS X Snow Leopard package. It's pretty obvious that Micro$oft continues to fail to recognize the financial status of the typical Windows user... or the needs of the public in general.

MICROSOFT PARANOID LICENSING
The EULA (package license) that comes with Windows can IMO only be described as "excessively paranoid". Each license is good for one computer, not even making provision for a customer to install Windows on his desktop and laptop (a foreseeable and typical user need). Does anyone out there want to pay $400 to upgrade to two W7 packages? Not satisfied with this, the company goes to the extreme, even attempting to prohibit how many processors you can use with the package. The licensing states W7 is licensed only for up to two processors (duo core)... so you quad-core users out there are breaking your license the moment you install Windows 7. And that's just the start of W7's extremist licensing concepts.

BEWARE THE PR
Despite Micro$oft's much promoted "can run XP programs!" propaganda... no, you really can't. Well, you can, but...

Only the Professional and Ultimate versions have the ability to run XP. The Home versions do not. In addition, you'll have to have a modern computer with special virtualization chips built in. Older computers won't do it at all, no matter how powerful.

In order to get the P/U versions to run XP items, you have to download an XP virtual system which ties in to the W7 version. The operating speed of this virtual system as well as disadvantages haven't been reported yet (beta testers are largely sworn to silence)... but one can only imagine.

W7 is an entirely new concept, reportedly highly XP-incompatible. This is unfortunate, especially considering that for most people... XP works just fine (well, as fine as Windows has ever worked, anyway).

An OS that isn't XP-friendly right out of the box might be considered by some as an excellent opportunity to consider migrating to Linux, especially with the recently-announced IBM-adoption of Ubuntu and the professional support this predicts. Others are migrating to Apple, which sales have reportedly increased dramatically.

BEWARE THE VERSIONS
Right out of the box, Windows 7 is an upgrader's nightmare.

1. You cannot upgrade from Windows XP. Only Vista installations will upgrade.
2. The FULL version costs almost twice as much as the upgrade.
3. Installing a FULL version requires wiping your entire Windows system (as well as existing utilities and program settings) and installing W7 from scratch.

This is not exactly endearing to Micro$oft customers. A Micro$oft OS that can't upgrade their most popular OS in history? Major blundering mistake. Predicted results:

1. People will just stick with XP
2. People will migrate to Linux-- which is FREE (simple download)

In truth, the only real reason these days to not upgrade to Linux is gaming. When it comes to business, just about anything one could want is available in Linux-- online-- FOR FREE.

(Yes, I know I'm mentioning Linux quite a bit here. Interesting, isn't it... that Micro$oft's latest wonder toy is becoming Linux' strongest argument.)

NOT ALL THAT IMPRESSIVE
To learn more about W7, I purchased a book that shows all the ins and outs of Windows 7 and has a nifty chapter on all the "new features". As I read through the list of supposed goodies-- despite the fact that most would call me a serious "power user"-- all I got was "don't need that... don't need that... for SURE don't need that... no value... not enough... too little too late..." etc etc etc. In truth, there wasn't a single new "feature" in Windows 7 that impressed me all that much. Most importantly, there wasn't a single feature that will change the way I use my comptuer. My guess: most XP users will feel the same way. In the end, I think the major impression will be the same that has existed with Vista, namely: "Why should I spend $300 to upgrade when XP works just fine?"

The next question of course will be, "If my XP stuff is going to be incompatible YET AGAIN with Micro$oft's own OS... why not switch to a new OS entirely and put an end to this run-around?"

BOTTOM LINE
The bottom line is that if you update to Windows 7 from Windows XP, you are going to wind up spending $119 to $300+ for the privilege. If you want XP compatibility, it will cost you around $200-- and if XP compatibility is an issue, why not just stick with XP in the first place?

I don't know what marketing genius ever came up with the idea that an OPERATING SYSTEM is worth $300... but that may be one of the reasons so much software piracy goes on these days, and why many people take the opportunity to just upgrade to a new computer that comes with the OS already installed (thus bypassing Micro$oft entirely).

Some day, in a Utopian world where people actually have common sense, Micro$oft is going to realize that an operating system is worth $49.95 for a 3-user version (uh... like Apple)... that they only need sell ONE version that meets all needs (uh... like Apple)... with their OS being backward-compatible for prior software (uh... like Apple). If they ever do so, they may be amazed to discover that their sales significantly increase (uh... like Apple. Hmmm, are we seeing a pattern? WAKE UP MICRO$OFT!!!).

Until that day, Micro$oft seems doomed to keep making the same ME / Vista blunder, trying to sell overpriced, badly-behaved, incompatible OS updates that few people actually want or need. As long as M$ continues to make these OS blunders, they will continue to get bad reviews, people will resist upgrading-- and more and more people will convert to Linux or Apple just because they're tired of the incompatibility and runaround of a product line that hasn't really expanded our computing horizons in the last five years.

SUMMATION
Considering the historically bad M$ OS releases (ME and Vista) as well as serious backward-incompatibility, Windows 7 probably should not be considered a good investment at this time. In truth, it is probably time for businesses and even hobbyists to strongly consider whether they can switch to Linux for less cost and considerably less headache. Linux has remained stable, virtually virus-free and backward-compatible since its inception. Maybe Micro$oft needs to learn a thing or two from the Linux / Apple playbook. I doubt that will happen... so it will be interesting to see what the market does over the next five years, when people finally start realizing that they're tired of being bent over the Windows barrel.

I've seen some over-the-top, paranoid EULAs over the years, but Micro$oft's is beyond anything the industry has ever seen. It would seem apparent the company is totally out of touch with their customer base, unaware or the needs / finances of the typical user.

To Micro$oft: you're stuck in a rut, you're charging too much for your product, and we're tired of having our software outdated with each release. The company needs to start thinking about actually improving the product (not just adding needless bells and whistles), working smarter, and striving toward a product that actually increases our computing ability while retaining compatibility with past products.


--o--

[Zauber Paracelsus]

And in addition to all of the above, there is Windoze 7's dirty little secret that Microsoft has been trying to irresponsibly brush aside and cover up: http://fsfe.org/news/2009/news-20091019-01.en.html

[Zauber Paracelsus]

btw, you also forgot Micky-shaft's other bad software release: Windows 95, Windows' first release as an actual operating system. It was later superseded by Windows 98, which was meant to fix the blunders of 95, just like Windows XP did for Windows ME, and how Windows 7 (allegedly) is going to fix the blunders of Windows Vista.

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

And interestingly enough, that particular bug does not affect Windows XP.
I have long thought Microsoft has this all backwards. Instead of releasing new OSs every 5 years or so and charging through the nose for them, they should charge people $29.95 per year for a 3-computer license (roughly $10 per computer) and just update them during that year. Instead of putting out garbage packages that no one wants... focus on good, quality updates. This would prevent them from having to mess up the system to come out with "new" and "better" that no one wants. When they DO come up with something revolutionary, they're not in a time crunch to release it-- and can do it right.

These companies just really have no clue. Micro$oft is incredibly wealthy, but has more enemies than Linden Lab (which is quite an accomplishment). That's no way to run a company.

[Cinnamon Raymaker]

indeed :) I luvs my Mac ;P

[Wayfinder Wishbringer]

It's odd, but that seems how M$ does things:
98 was basically a fix of 95
XP was a fix of a horribly bad ME
W7 is a fix of Vista

Seems like a pattern there. And the bad thing is: we're paying through the nose for it. People who bought Vista basically threw $$$ down the tubes. IMO, anyone who purchased a copy of Vista should be given a copy of W7 (or greatly discounted) as apology for releasing an OS that should have never been foisted on the market. As it is, they're just paying double for what they should have gotten in the first place.

What amazes me is that it took me all of 2 hours to determine that Vista was not a good OS. So I have to wonder how it is that the system got through their coders, their system managers, their reviewers, and magazine PR guys without anyone saying, "Uh, hey folks... this isn't good." You'd think someone would have given them a heads up.

Or, if they were too close to the project, just find someone like me who's been in the business a few years and say,"Here, check this out and let us know what you think." (Of course, a check with a couple or three zeroes on it for such examination wouldn't hurt either). :D

I could have spent less than a week on Vista and pointed out most of the flaws in the system. Then when they released it-- in proper form-- people might have had a reason to buy it.

I have to wonder how many tens of thousands of copies of Vista are left unopened on the shelves... and who it is that gets hit by that cost. It seems it would be far more financially sound to hire someone to seriously review the package before market release. It's fairly obvious at this time that the beta testing / release candidate method Microsoft now uses is not working. They need to get a pro or two in there to objectively test the system-- someone who isn't afraid to tell them his honest opinion.

[Zauber Paracelsus]

You know, I think that pattern was deliberate. That accusation was leveled at M$ back when Windows 98 was released, because prior to it, M$ and their customer service had been denying that 95 had any bugs at all.

[Zauber Paracelsus]

Five reasons to use Windows 7, and five reasons NOT to use it: http://www.daniweb.com/news/story232652.html

[Zauber Paracelsus]

Most of the "new" features in Windows 7 and Vista were stolen from Linux and Mac OS X: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/opensource/?p=1009

[UniQue Serrao]

Man am I glad I use Linux... hahahahaha, dint cost me nuffin' and it ain't full of bugs, viruses, worm, trojans, malware, spyware, or nuffin' like dat!! Just dwagons, purrsnicketies, wyrms, elves, pixies, orks... hahahaha and I don't eben run a antibug program at all.. not in over 3 years. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

[UniQue Serrao]

You would think they are operating under the same philosophy, wouldn't ya???