
"With Windows 7, PC users will at last have a..." - tomh
http://www.marco.org/207584319
======
tptacek
Mossberg on Win7: _After using pre-release versions of Windows 7 for nine
months, and intensively testing the final version for the past month on many
different machines, I believe it is the best version of Windows Microsoft
(MSFT) has produced._

Mossberg on Vista: _After months of testing Vista on multiple computers, new
and old, I believe it is the best version of Windows that Microsoft has
produced._

Mossberg on Win7: _Like the new Snow Leopard operating system released in
August by Microsoft’s archrival, Apple (AAPL), Windows 7 is much more of an
evolutionary than a revolutionary product._

Mossberg on Vista: _Overall, it works pretty much the same way as Windows XP.
Windows hasn't been given nearly as radical an overhaul as Microsoft just
applied to its other big product, Office._

I do not care what this person has to say about operating systems, and by
extension, about anything anyone writes about what he cares about operating
systems.

~~~
foldr
What are you saying exactly? None of those quotes seems obviously false, and
they don't contradict each other. (It's of course perfectly possible that
Vista was the best version of Windows that MS had produced until Windows 7
arrived.)

~~~
tptacek
Mossberg on Win7: _In just two weeks, on Oct. 22, Microsoft’s long operating-
system nightmare will be over. The company will release Windows 7, a faster
and much better operating system than the little-loved Windows Vista, which
did a lot to harm both the company’s reputation, and the productivity and
blood pressure of its users._

Mossberg on Win7: _Even in beta form, with some features incomplete or
imperfect, Windows 7 is, in my view, much better than Vista, whose
sluggishness, annoying nag screens, and incompatibilities have caused many
users to shun it._

Mossberg on Vista: _It has taken the giant software maker more than five years
to replace Windows XP with this new version, called Windows Vista -- an
eternity by computer-industry reckoning. Many of the boldest plans for Vista
were discarded in that lengthy process, and what's left is a worthy, but
largely unexciting, product._

I'm saying, leaving aside his actual reporting on what the products do, his
editorial opinion doesn't appear to mean anything.

~~~
foldr
Again, all of those statements are perfectly consistent with each other. Being
"little loved" is perfectly compatible with being a "worthy but unexciting
product."

------
decode
Over the past three releases of Windows, I've noticed that I've become more
alienated from the UI with each release. First with XP, then Vista, and now
Windows 7, it seems like each release is just a little more annoying to use.
It's like the two stories Joel Spolsky tells in the first chapter of "User
Interface Design for Programmers". About every minute I try to do something
and I'm just a little frustrated with how the UI reacts. Consequently, the
first thing I do on any Windows computer is make it look and act as much like
Win98 as possible.

It's the same thing with OS X. Right now my favorite UI to use is Gnome,
because it acts mostly like Win98 with a few improvements that make sense to
me (primarily virtual desktops). It makes me simultaneously feel like an old
fogey shaking his cane at progress, and also like those ratpoison and xmonad
users I could never understand.

I have often asked myself why this is. The obvious answer is I'm set in my
ways and don't want to learn new things. Certainly possible, but I don't see
that in other areas of my computer usage (programming languages, web design,
etc). Sometimes I wonder if it's because these new UI improvements are largely
meant to help your average user, but don't help me much. For example, both OS
X and Win7 are optimized for only having one window per program open at once,
but I often have many open. It frustrates me that it's harder to switch
between those windows than in Win98.

I wonder if any of you other power users are experiencing the same thing.

~~~
raintrees
Here are my observations, fwiw: A few of my clients choose the same route:
Turn off the newer Windows XP Start Menu of two columns and go back to Classic
Win98 single column. I honor their choices and leave their systems the way
they want them.

But after forcing myself to use the newer version, I have found I can get to
programs faster from the Start Menu by having Printers, Control Panel, My
Computer, Network Neighborhood, etc. on the Start Menu, and keep my Desktop
less cluttered.

Likewise, a quick glance tells me what that person's default browser is, as
well as the default email program: They will be at the top of the first
column.

At times, I will take the time to present these observations to those clients
and I find that some will consider converting, while others will shoot me
down, because change=evil.

The ribbon in Office 2007 seems to be the same deal: Since I am a previous
version user, finding things is aggravating. If I hadn't clicked on the
"glowing" round Office icon, I would have searched for Save for quite some
time. This in a word processor!

But to a new user, the most obvious things I might need to do are right there,
without all of the noise of all of the items I don't need in my way. The most
basic markup tools are on the first ribbon presented. If I move to a slightly
more advanced task, like outlines or inserting graphics, I get a different
ribbon that has the exact tools I need.

Just because I forced myself to get used to the structure of the menus does
not mean it was the most efficient way to organize those tools. Reminds me of
what I have heard regarding qwerty vs. Dvorák.

So, just like going to a new restaurant and taking a chance on the house
special outside of my comfort zone rather than ordering what I am used to,
with each new operating system and version, I try them out for a few months
before passing judgment.

~~~
lurkinggrue
I do like Windows 7 but I have hated the direction of the start menu for
years.

I just keep a folder of program icons that I can launch from the taskbar, much
easier to deal with.

That and I do love pinning programs to the taskbar as I can keep the things I
run all the time in the exact same position.

------
wyday
_Has Mossberg always been the king of trumpeting diminished expectations, or
is this a new thing? Is Microsoft a major Wall Street Journal advertiser?_

So if a critic expresses a view contrary to your own views he's a shill? Great
argument. Windows 7 is actually really good. And here's the shocker: so is Mac
OS X.

Must we have religious wars over which bits are on your hard drive?

~~~
monos
it's an easy to understand piece about the advantages of win7 vs winxp, as
perceived by the average (definitly not HN-reading) user.

that, for me, reads like the ads on TV selling drugs.

please ask your doctor / sysadmin which OS to use, not that guy on TV / tech
column. or else we will make fun of you.

sorry for ranting so much, but it drives me crazy. my girlfriend actually was
asking about windows7, how much she needs it and how much better everything is
going to be.

of course i will encourage every normal person i know to install windows7
(just to get rid of IE6 within the next years, hopefully).

~~~
foldr
>please ask your doctor / sysadmin which OS to use, not that guy on TV / tech
column. or else we will make fun of you.

Maybe people would rather read an easy-to-understand column than ask a snobby
nerd.

------
makecheck
There are a lot of people working in the computer industry, and it moves much
faster than other industries. This is why 10 years seems like an eternity for
users to accept no real advancement.

Then again, if you aren't really into computers, and just use them, you might
look at it as a tool like any other. My car is 10 years old, there are
probably people at Ford who hate that I still have it, but I don't yet see a
reason to change it.

Similarly, while I'm very aware of how the actions of one dominant company
(Microsoft) have made the computing industry practically stand still, I am
also mostly aware of this because I'm _in_ that industry. There could be a
Microsoft of vacuum cleaners, that has kept us away from truly great cleaning
machines for the past 50 years, and I wouldn't know. People don't generally
have the time, or take the time, to figure out which products could be truly
great for them.

~~~
SamAtt
The 10 years line is kind of BS anyway. Yes XP has been around for 2 years but
there have been 2 massive overhauls of security (2 services packs). Tons of
Microsoft enhancements (Desktop Search for example) and even more tons of 3rd
party apps that add functionality.

It's not necessarily an OSs job to innovate. The OS is supposed to make it
easy to connect hardware to software and get the annoying hardware interaction
stuff off the 3rd party programmers plate. So XP is fine because it's solid
and allowed 3rd parties to innovate around it

------
barrkel
Windows XP hasn't stayed still for all that time. When XP came out, minimum
specs were 64MB and a 233MHz processor, 128MB / 300MHz recommended. Try
running an XP SP3 machine on those recommended specs today and you'll quickly
see how limited it is, especially with browsing the modern web, or running any
"big" productivity app, like a photo or video editor, or an IDE.

The fact is, XP has been quite scalable as hardware has moved on; it hasn't
been a significant factor in limiting the amount of hardware juice getting
through to applications running on top of it, which is one half of what you
want out of an OS; and in terms of virtualization of hardware resources across
multiple apps, the other half, for the majority of desktop usage it's been
fine.

Windows 7 for me primarily means an improved kernel with more API
functionality; a very confusing shuffle of configuration locations; a space-
inefficient shell UI; and a start menu / task bar combination that I dislike
compared XP's start menu and task bar. Oh, and less menus, for increased user
frustration. (I'm not a fan of whizz-bang GUI gloss, it's generally the first
thing I disable.) Win7 for me is a very mixed bag, but a necessary "upgrade",
simply to track what end users and customers are experiencing.

------
Goronmon
_To most computer users, overall industry progress has seemed stagnant for
nearly a decade._

If we are considering "most" computer users, then I'm not sure a majority
really care.

------
gord
What percentage of HN readers use windows?

I'm assuming : 70% mac, 25% linux, 4% BSD derivative ...

~~~
makecheck
This is a tough question to ask accurately.

What you'd really want to know is who uses an OS _by choice_ , subtracting all
other factors (e.g. if you're only using an OS because it runs some app that
your work requires). There are plenty of reasons anyone might be using several
different systems.

In my case, I use 3 different OSes. My only Windows machine is at work; and
while I use it for occasional development for Windows, it is mostly a dumb
terminal to access a Linux box. At home, I use a Mac by choice, but I can also
use it to access Linux at work. Am I a "Windows user" if I visit HN from work?
Well, I'd rather not be counted as one.

~~~
gord
My usage of windows over last 5yrs has been as you describe 'a dumb terminal
to access a Linux box'. [ A long time ago I was very much into the COM
electric cool aid, so have used it as a dev platform commercially, but not
recently. ]

To be fair my use of OSX over the last year has also been around 50% 'dumb
terminal' due to web work.

I just never see people hacking on windows laptops anymore, and on balance I
think its a good thing.

------
monos
exactly.

part of it reads as if he was defending it against macos (mentioned it 6
times).

then he describes in excruciating detail small GUI improvements that gnome (or
any other wm i guess) pushed through in 6month (oh wow windows-previews in the
taskbar).

he admits that in the area of networking there is still room for improvement
but at least "now you can see all available wireless networks by just clicking
on an icon in the taskbar". way to go!

but windows wins in other areas: windows7 has "some of the same kind" (!?) of
multitouch gestures the iphone made popular. yeah.. how would i even..

Compatibility is also satisfactory: firefox, adobe, etc. work. good job MS!
though he fails to mention that they don't work out-of-the-box. how could
they: they are not in the box.

let's just hope their migration plan gets better when the next BIG THING gets
pushed out in 10 years... or so. improving shouldn't be hard: it's not
possible to upgrade without whipping your HD - assuming you now have an XP
install.

oh right: that's basically everybody.

------
yumraj
So, according to Marco, Win 7 will have to be better than Mac OSX in "ALL" the
areas only then will it be able to better compete with it, else not. If
Mossberg's review is biased (not that I'm saying it is), Marco's take on it is
even worse.

