XP is like my 9 year old car. I have maintained it well and replaced worn parts (IE 6). It does not slow me down from getting where I need to go. Going to Windows 7 is like trading in that perfectly good car because the new one is prettier or get better gas mileage when I only commute 5 miles each way. When a truly compelling reason shows itself I will be ready to upgrade but not until then.
Can windows 7 be installed on a machine with a 400mhz cpu and 64mB ram? If it can, will it run at least as good as windows XP?
Just curious - did you download the GM through legal channels or did you pirate it?
I was under the impression that the first people outside of MS to get their hands on it legally would get it 8/6 and that was limited to OEMs.
I loved the Beta and I’m looking forward to it hitting the shelves. Maybe I’ll start using WPF now too.
“Again, people I know with adequate hardware like Vista just fine.”
And requiring new hardware is the mark of a good OS?
Speaking of price, I use Linux and get a free, virus-free operating system that gives me no grief at all and provides endless opportunity to learn with 1000’s of free programs, some of which are clearly better than paid proprietary alternatives.
Why bother with Vista/Windows 7?
New Windows versions coming out are always amusing. Every two-bit tech site trips over themselves to carry stories about Windows because it means lots of traffic…especially if it paints it in a negative light. Nerd rage builds and builds (especially on the echo chamber that is Slashdot) but ultimately nothing ever comes of it. All of the emotionally charged rants do nothing to change the world (who would have thought?)
Several years later, everyone has forgotten about the heinous, heinous sins of the former release. Additionally, it is no longer seen as bloated.
if you don’t find screwdrivers sexy, why do you want to convince us to get a new one?
I’m saying you should avoid using the rusted screwdriver which is >>liable to burst into fragments and cause a crippling hand wound at >>any time!
Jeff Atwood on July 27, 2009 7:02 AM
And I would argue that XP is a Snap-On, it will be reliable for years to come. What will Windows 7 do for me that XP does not? Not allow me to run some of the games I still enjoy? Allow me to upgrade my computer to handle the new specs? Those don’t really sound like selling points to me. The screwdriver I have is working quite well thank you, when I notice that the edges are getting rounded off, I may think about getting a replacement, but until then I’m fine.
7’s calculator sucks. If you’re in “Programmer” mode, you can do binary/hex/decimal conversions, but you’re restricted to integer arithmetic. If you’re in “Scientific” mode, you can do decimal arithmetic but you can’t convert between bases.
Windows 7 is a marketing stunt, to polish Vista a bit and provide an OS that is marginally better then the 10 years old predecesor is not realy an advance.
bear in mind that many of the security risks and flaws in the windows kernel (remeber? its based in VMS ideas) are still there, and only a masking using the UAC is able to help.
I still keeping windows XP with the existing flaws, instead of upgrading to a bloated OS for no real benefit.
I truly appreciate your opinion on the matter, Jeff, but let’s be honest: you have a pro-Microsoft track record. Forgive me if I decide to wait until someone a little less biased – http://frankkoehl.com/2009/01/jeff-atwood-still-wrong-about-php – weighs in on the matter.
LOL - let me tell you the true story about the version number. We were shooting for 7.0.7777, but, alas, one of the things we discovered the hard way with vista was that there are many, many programs out there that check the version number incorrectly.
Instead of going “If the first number is higher, it’s a newer OS. Or, failing that, if the second…” they compare “Let’s make sure the first number is equal or higher. Or worse, they just check for equality to the version they thing there ought to be. And the second number is equal or higher. And…”
The result is of course, that installers quit claiming that you’re running a version of the OS that’s too old. That’s not the kind of pain you want to put customers through. So, after a lot of investigation of the programs out there in the wild, a small adjustment was chosen that works for all that we tested, but we had to pass on a great number 
“with 1000’s of free programs” one of them has to work!
I’m a pretty happy user of XP (x64). I’m a developer and use it as my primary OS on a few machines, all of which have 8G of RAM. Granted, x64 XP is a few years newer - shares the same codebase as Server 2003 - but I’m at a loss as to why I would upgrade. I had nothing but pain with hardware compatibility with Vista, and since Windows 7 is more of the same I don’t have great expectations.
"the lack of a compelling Windows upgrade path is a dangerous thing. "
Only to those with a vested interest in maintaining the microsoft dependency that the computing market is involved in today. True competition through alternative OS’s like OSX and hopefully one day a real *nix worth using by an end user is the real solution to this “dangerous thing”, not another windows upgrade.
Windows Vista’s underlying architecture fixed many issues with Windows XP. It was the first version of Windows that could actually function without having to run as an administrator. It was the first version of Windows that fixed the predictable dll memory location problem. It was the first version of Windows that honestly handled security issues. I would recommend that anyone who can, switch from Windows XP to Windows 7. Windows 7 is really that much better an OS.
But after almost nine years, I have to wonder if it was really worth it for Microsoft. Is Windows 7 better than Mac OS X Leopard? And, how does it compare to the upcoming Snow Leopard. How does it stack up against the latest revisions of Linux based operating systems?
Think about it: Microsoft poured billions into Vista and Windows 7. Microsoft received terrible publicity over Vista and may have started a tread in the business world to abandon its complete dependence upon Windows. And, what is the end result? An operating system that Jeff Atwood compared to a B student.
What IBM, Apple, and Google long ago realized is that operating systems may be so complex that it is almost impossible for one company, no matter how big or strong, can produce by themselves. IBM tried their hands at OS/2 and later AIX. Neither of those two operating systems got anywhere despite the billions IBM put into them. And, IBM had been producing operating systems before Bill Gates was born. It took a long time, but IBM finally abandoned their own OS pursuits and became a main backer of Linux.
Apple almost failed as a company as they burned through almost a billion dollars trying to create their own OS from scratch. They ended up buying an OS based upon BSD and the Mach kernel, and despite the lack of resources in people and cash, created a compelling platform that practically saved the company.
Google, from the very start, never even attempted to go on their own. They based their entire corporate operation on Linux, JavaScript, and Python. Their Chrome browser is based upon WebKit which is an open source project from Apple which itself is based upon the open source KHTML.
What if Microsoft, instead of trying to rewrite the underpinnings of Windows with Windows Vista instead simply conceded defeat and defected to the pinko commie open source side? What if they simply used Unix or even Linux as the underpinnings of Windows and saved the effort to rewrite the basic kernel and underlying architecture?
This doesn’t mean that Windows would be an open source operating system or that Windows would be based upon either KDE or GNOME or even X11. No more so than Apple’s Mac OS X or Palm’s WebOS are open source (and Palm’s OS is based upon Linux!).
Instead, Microsoft could have spent all their effort polishing the layers of the OS that really count. Clean up the Windows API, fix the various Windows protocols that allow Windows to so effortlessly network. Figure out a system that offers strong security, yet doesn’t get in the user’s way.
With the resources at Microsoft’s disposal, they could have produced a new compelling and thoroughly polished OS back when Vista should had been released years ago. Instead, Microsoft is playing catchup in the consumer market and in the server market. If Microsoft wasn’t so entwined in corporate networks and didn’t have its death grip on PC manufacturers, Microsoft may have found itself in a similar position as Adobe or Sun.
As of now, Windows 7 comes out just in time. Another year or two, and corporations and manufactures would have abandoned Microsoft.
I’m not going to upgrade my XP machine or my Vista machine because the upgrade is too expensive. I’ll probably buy my next machine in 3 years and that’s when I’ll get 7.
If they would have kept the $50 pricing for Home Premium around longer, I would have bought two upgrade licenses. They ended that promotion way too quickly (that should be the regular price anyway). Instead, I’ll just wait until I get it preinstalled on my next machine.
It’s amazing how this post has managed to draw the few percent who are going to stick with XP out of the woodwork. By their own admission, most of them haven’t so much as looked at the feature lists or read a blog about it, or they’d know that it has less default software (much of the defaults in Vista were moved to Windows Live extras), more uninstallable features (IE8 can be completely removed), higher stability and performance than even XP (It’s true, go look it up!). I bet these are the ones who still use IE6 and love it. =P Little wonder Microsoft is so eager to get rid of XP’s official support.
@LavosPhoenix
12Gb install? Where are you dling the Win7 RC from?
Waiting for SP2 of windows 7 to be released. Only then will I seriously consider using Windows 7.