You provide absolutely NO factual basis for any of your assertions here, save the calculator example. I know you can do better.
Windows 7 is the best windows ever. But Windows is such a stupid
operating system. Microsoft is slowly fixing things here and
there, but they don’t see that the problem lies in the
core of the OS. Eventually it will work.
@Martin Marconcini, would you care to enlighten us as to why “Windows is such a stupid operating system”? Or perhaps elaborate on “but they don’t see that the problem lies in the core of the OS”. Do you see the problem in the core of the OS? 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.
“Now can we please get the hell off Windows XP already?”
Why? What is so horrible?
John
I’m using Windows 2000 and IE 6.0 is there something wrong with me?
I also have FireFox 3.0, but IE is so much faster and more stable.
I will never understand this amazing hatred towards Microsoft. If it’s so hated then don’t use it? If it’s so awful than I’m unsure why there hasn’t been any great company around to dethrone it. Isn’t that capitalism at its finest? There’s still a shred of that left these days, isn’t there?
XP was the height of MS dominance. XP was arguably the best OS that MS has ever created and every single feature that has been added to vista or vista 2.0 could have easily been added to XP half a decade ago.
Only a very small group of die hards have converted to either Vista or 7. And only a small group plan to do so. The majority of people that get a box with the latest and “greatest” OS from MS immediately downgrade to XP or install Linux.
For somebody extolling the virtues of Windows, it would be nice if you actually knew why the version number was 6.1. It has nothing to do with being a “service pack” for Vista.
In fact, anyone who thinks Win7 is a service pack shouldn’t be allowed to write technical blog posts.
I think he knows that Nick…I think Jeff might have been…dare I say…sarcastic?
People that can’t recognize sarcasm shouldn’t be allowed to read blogs?
Windows 7 is anything but a service pack. A service pack contains no new features, no significant UI changes, and only includes the minimal changes necessary to fix a targetted set of bugs (generally limited to security issues and deployment blockers).
Service packs are built by a small “sustained engineering” team.
Windows 7 was built by 5000+ engineers over 3 years. It contains hundreds of new features, new APIs, and major changes at every layer of the system - including very significant changes to the kernel (including removal of the dispatcher spinlock, all the WDDM 1.1 features + optimizations, memory usage and virtualization improvements, etc).
Windows 7 is version number 7. As explained on the E7 Blog months ago, the GetVersionEx API returns “6.1” for compatibility reasons. One example for the reasoning behind this is this common buggy version check implemented in many applications:
if (dwMajorVersion >= 5 && dwMinorVersion >= 1)
{
// Work on Windows XP and Windows 7.
}
else
{
// Fail on Vista.
}
@Adam Lassek
When I run into drivers problems on Windows, I generally fault A) the hardware manufacturer and B) myself for not checking compatibility before buying the hardware.
I didn’t run into any driver issues with Vista. But I installed in on new hardware that I had checked out for compatibility first.
If you’re looking for compatibility with older devices, then I’m afraid that Vista is the wrong operating system for you. Luckily that sort of thing is a nerds-only problem. The vast majority of people only get Vista with a new computer.
I agree without reading the article.
XP is a bit holder, not a screwdriver. IE6 is a bit that can be replaced easily to a better one. Windows 7 may be better and shinier bit holder, but, as with real tools, not every one needs new and shiny pro tools, especially if they don’t use screwdrivers to earn for a living. Operating systems are a part of our lives, the difference being that to someone that part is larger. People will upgrade only when they see benefit to it. So, you are saying we all should use power drills just because they are better than regular screwdrivers, but you forget that not everyone does drywall mounting for a living.
captcha: “buying income”, great.
Sorry Jeff, but I will stick with XP as long as possible.
A world where people regularly use 9 year old operating systems is not a healthy computing ecosystem
I disagree. In fact, I find the opposite to be true. There’s something about a product that has been through 3 service packs that I find much more appealing than a cutting edge new shiny thingy. What was the word? Can’t remember…
Oh wait: Reliability.
If only Microso$t could have put a Windows XP theme on Vista…
Calling XP a 9 year old system is a little shallow. It’s not the same system it was at the beginning.
First of all, the service packs are more than just security fixes. The SP2 introduced Windows Firewall among others, the Security Center, and had all the files rebuilt. Seriously, even the Calculator has been replaced by SP2.
Then of course there is no single Windows XP, it comes in various flavors. After XP Home and XP Pro, there was XP Media Center, and I believe it was released in 2005.
And then there was SP3, IE 7 and IE 8, the Zune theme, so if you compare an XP install from 2001 to an XP from 2009, they’re different at so many levels, that saying “yeah but it’s still NT 5.1” is biased to say the least.
Since when did service packs come with a price tag?
I really don’t see what all the competing between OS’s is about.
Does the OS do what you need it to do? If so than it is good enough. Are you willing to pay the cost for the license to use that OS (whether it be $200 or free doesn’t matter)? If so than it is good enough. If you are completely satisfied with your environment then it is good enough for you.
If you can’t or don’t want to use the new features, then don’t buy the new version. Someone out there can use them, and they will buy the new version. Every OS out there is useful for someone. There is no reason that one OS has to be better or worse than another, they just have different design goals.
If you want better security, choose this OS. If you want a cleaner interface, choose that OS. As long as it does everything you want/need it to it is good enough. There is no reason to bash OS’s that don’t fulfill your every need. Just acknowledge that this OS isn’t for you and move on.
I am quite happy using XP x64, but I know people that love OSX, people that love Ubuntu, people that love BSD, people that love Vista, people that love W7. As far as I’m concerned those other people don’t have bad choices, or terrible taste, or use crappy OS’s, all it means is that those people have found that those other OS’s cater to their uses better than to mine. Whether it be actual uses, design philosophies, or even interface feel, there is no “bad OS”, merely “the wrong OS for you”. If people could just remember that then there would be significantly less OS bashing and negative OS posts flying around.
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…”
Wow, I remember an MSDN discussion of this exact issue when Windows’95 came out, because vendors were getting it wrong back then too. This sort of shows up the difference between Microsoft and the OSS community, MS will bend over backwards to support existing users (even if what they’re doing is technically wrong) while with OSS things just break when you upgrade and you’re expected to rewrite your app/scripts/macros/whatever every few years (I’m thinking Python, emacs, and a bunch of other things here). The OSS approach is arguably technically cleaner, but it’s the MS one that keeps the users happy.
I have to say: I’m a little dissapointed that people have such a bad attitude toward XP.
Just because its old, its bad? There’s no reason to say that. The reason people stick with it is because IT WORKS. ITS TESTED. ITS PROVEN. ITS QUALITY.
I like a new take on an OS as much as the next guy, but I also understand that the geekier people learn not to be addicted to the fresh and new: they want what works. Since they do, they turn to tried and true OS’s, of which XP is probably the best example in the recent computing world.