While I haven't been unhappy with Windows Vista, it had a lot of rough edges:
This is a companion discussion topic for the original blog entry at: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/windows-7-the-best-vista-service-pack-ever.html
This is a companion discussion topic for the original blog entry at: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/07/windows-7-the-best-vista-service-pack-ever.html
Jeff,
we know you have to make money advertising products in your posts, but at least stick to the facts. There is nothing “horrible” about XP and we know very little about Windows 7 (aside from RC). It looks good but past experiences have taught us to be very cautious, until SP1 is released 
MS has insulted (financially) many of its customers with Vista. It has wasted our time, money and patience. We don’t need an apology, just an OS that works reasonably well with current hardware.
As you remember, MS and Intel had a “deal” before Vista release which allowed intel to make a few extra bucks out of their obsolete graphics. This is what ultimately sank Vista - it was not compatible with some of the “reference hardware” (as in “Vista compatible” sticker) which caused instability (to say the least) and performance issues.
Not to mention the stupidity of having two Administrator-levels in Vista - which is confusing and useless at best.
I am sure we will all eventually get Windows 7 (to keep in on hardware or in a VM cage) eventually, but let’s wait and see what comes out. I am looking at RC and if it disappoints me, Windows XP will be my last Windows OS.
okedokey?
@Rob:
Have you waded through millions of lines of Windows source code and seen “the problem” >that lies there? I’d really like to know what it is. I’m sure Microsoft would, too.
They know. You don’t need to be a clever guy to realize that the whole Registry Architecture, The Whole DLL infrastructure (that the .NET GAC was supposed to fix but it only 1/2 fixed), the default security decisions or the whole security idea in Windows, and similar Windows decisions, are part of the reason why Windows has been such a controversial OS. It has been proven that the OS is not stable for many things, it has been proven that it’s easier to destroy a Windows install than any other “major” OS (Linux? OSX? Heck even OS/2)…). This is proven by the number of people who acknowledges that you have to reinstall windows every now and then to make it work like it was when you finish installing everything.
Get real. Don’t come here as the “Microsoft Defender” (no pun intended). You don’t have to prove anything…
I use windows too. Heck i Code for windows. It’s a mess. The Microsoft Foundation Classes…L O L.
Gimme a break(point).
But money triumphed over anything else. Good marketing did it. Most vendors include(ed) Windows and will continue to do so. Most users don’t care. Life will go on. Get over it. Windows suck from a geek’s point of view. Everything in there is a pain. Except Wallpapers. Use them in peace.
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I develop on XP at work and use XP at home for everything and it’s absolutely fine.
I’m just in the process of switching to a 8GB Vista 64 bit system at work. Why? Because I love VMware workstation and regularly want 3 or 4 VMs running at once. Windows XP is a limiting factor and the ~3.5GB limit will become a problem. Yes, I know there’s 64 bit XP but personally I’d run away from that.
Rob.
So, how long is this build valid? I tried the release candidate, and it eventually expired. When will this RTM expire?
I note Jeff has some chirpy sound bites for why XP sucks, but no actual meat.
Standard FUD. Move along, nothing to see here.
so, Windows 7 is the best ever because of its cool startup screen?
awesome … i guess i, too, should get Windows 7.
For what it is worth, I am bullish on W7 and I will definitely get it with the next machine I buy. But, there is nothing in it that is compelling enough to make me blow the money and spend the time doing a clean install to move off XP on my existing machine.
Jeff said:
“But suffice it to say that Windows 7 finally offers a compelling upgrade path from Windows XP.”
Except that Microsoft doesn’t support upgrading from XP to 7.
Sure they do. They just don’t support leaving your data on the drive while you do it.
What’s with all the butt-hurt commenters?
Windows 7 is superior to XP and Vista in every way
-More secure: UAC is less intrusive, so people will be less inclined to disable it
-Faster: It’s been designed to work well on netbooks, so if you’re reading this blog you’ve probably got a computer that can run it at least as well as XP
-Polished: Everything’s been thought of, I use it and I’ve not once thought ‘Why can’t I do this the way I did it in XP/Vista’
-Stable: Even since beta, I’ve not even had a driver fail, let alone a full-on crash.
For people complaining about the need for fresh installs for XP to 7, Have you ever done a windows upgrade that happened perfectly? No. The old drivers get in the way, and general shite that accumulates on peoples PCs gets in the way. 9 out of 10 average joes need a computer wipe anyway; the number of people that have more toolbars in their browser than rendering area is atrocious.
Sticking to XP now is like sticking to 95 when windows XP was released.
And best of all, once everyone’s off XP the abomination known as IE6 will finally be a thing of the past.
As I use both Vista and 7 RC every day, I came to conclusion that releasing Vista was a bit of a mistake Microsoft would have made, should they promote Windows 2000 as a successor of Windows 98.
There would be the same amount of noise of the “pr0 hax0rz” who don’t see any difference and benefit to upgrading just because the UI is pretty much the same.
Yeah, Vista is nicer looking than XP with the glass, but people don’t see the benefit of inner workings, because their crappy software written by a crappy developer, who doesn’t have any idea how to create a decent win32 app, or a decent driver for that matter, doesn’t work anymore.
" And best of all, once everyone’s off XP the abomination known as IE6 will finally be a thing of the past."
Actually I beg to differ. Regardless of the complaining that we have done, until there is absolutely no other choice, management here (and at many companies) will never free up the money to update internal web apps that require IE6. Even IE8’s compatibility mode breaks a few of them. So, the best that I can hope for for the foreseeable future is W7 with IE6 running in XP compatibilty mode.
…we only do OS upgrades as part of a Hardware Refresh cycle,
Logical approach (I should have thought about it).
I do understand that moving to Win 7 will not be as ugly as moving to Vista, but there is nothing pretty about it (business wise).
If you are a developer you do have that quad core with 8Gb of RAM. That is 50 employees Vs the 5000 customer service representatives that need nothing more than 6 years old hardware from HP for $250 per PC.
As for the licensing: Two times half-price it is still two times more expensive. The ones that needed to run the old software are the 5000 CSRs not the 50 developers.
These are the same reasons Apple makes no business sense (and never will).
Apple is just a brand for the trendy brat, and never a business tool. Yes, it is the money. The crappy hardware does not justify the price tag. Take that money an buy twice the SAME hardware somewhere else.
Linux will be the right choice once it can do two things: Easy to use for your average Joe CSR and grandma Business Analyst Manager, AND be able to run the software made for windows that the company invested hundreds of thousands (if not millions). Linux is moving that way (not there yet though).
@Ric C.
I would add one more thing that Linux needs to do before widespread enterprise adoption is likely. Mature centralized management tools (i.e. AD, Group Policy Management, SCCM, etc.)
I actually completely disagree. I used Vista for a while, couldn’t stand it, and went back to XP. I tried the x64 release candidate of 7 and liked it more, but was still unimpressed. All of my hardware just works, which is fantastic, and it is a gorgeous operating system.
However, I have 2 issues with it. Firstly, for whatever reason, the software I use frequently just isn’t ready for 7. I had tons of software compatibility problems and it just wasn’t working for me. Secondly, while it’s lighter than Vista, it is by no means lightweight. It’s honestly ridiculous how much RAM it swallows. XP was only holding about 400 MB hostage from me during normal usage. Windows 7 is easily over 1.5 gigs. That’s just obscene for any operating system, regardless of how “cheap” RAM is.
Windows 7 is what Vista should have been, I think we are all pretty much agreed on that. So why not release it as a service pack? Charging people to upgrade from Vista is just incredulous.
Why have a new product (Windows 7)? No one has upgraded to Vista, everyone likes XP. The solution is simple, charge for a giant service pack for XP. And by service pack, I do actually mean a service pack. Only allow installing it via paying Microsoft directly online, sell it very cheaply, Mac OS 10.6 style. Make XP a prerequisite, eventually you want to create a version that is stand alone, but initially you want everyone to have the easiest possible eXPerience upgrading and make people want to upgrade. At work I use 10.5 and I can’t wait for 10.6 to come out. I know it will magically just work, it will be $30 (Or so?), and it will definitely be worth it. I’m not convinced Vista is worth more than about $50 over XP and I’m sure Windows 7 should be a similar price again. I’d love to see Microsoft actually try competing instead of just cruising for the last 3 years.
Don’t worry linux and google os will completly destroy microsoft.
Hi Jeff,
Awesome blog. Wanted to say that. 
Maybe - regarding this article - it might make sense to refer to Mike Nashs blog post here: http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx where he exactly explains the thoughts of Microsoft behind the versioning.
Regards,
Chris.