Is 7 really the big leap from Vista The name implies? ZDNET is sceptical:
Windows 1: Shipped in 1985 and nobody cared. Windows 2: Shipped in 1987 and few cared. Windows 3: Came out in 1990 and PC users cared, especially with Windows 3.1 in 1992 (And I include here the introduction of Windows NT, which I believe was given a 3.x number.) Windows 4: Windows 95. Huge. The last DOS-based version. Windows 5: Windows 2000. The transition to the NT kernel. Windows 6: Windows XP. Still gotta love it. Window 7: Vista. Incorporated a number of Longhorn elements. Windows 7.5: What Microsoft is calling Windows 7.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=5126&tag=content;col1
As is BetaNews:
As folks have asked me outright, why buy it? Some have qualified this a little more delicately: Why do we have to buy it? Or as some have put it more pointedly, if Windows 7 truly is "Vista Service Pack 3," as I've observed before, then why didn't Microsoft actually release the product for free, maybe as Windows 6.1?
http://www.betanews.com/article/Windows-7-Vista-without-the-crap/1256137973
So Vista users have to pay for what could be seen as s service pack, when XP users eventually got all the bugs knocked out in XP SP3 for free.
On top of that, XP SP3 is actually faster in performance tests.
So does it make sense to be using XP getting on for a decade after it was releases?
Maybe, seems to be the answer:
Meanwhile, many very intelligent XP users who skipped out on the whole Vista debacle, may be considering whether to purchase a Windows 7 "upgrade" package, or a new computer with Win7 already on it. The dilemma for them has less to do with the operating system than with the state of their computer: Too many 2002-era single-core PCs out there have a single hard drive that's littered with media files and documents that have never been offloaded, perhaps never even backed up. Many are running Office XP, because their businesses run Office XP (on Windows 2000), perhaps because they can't install a newer version of Office without breaking their VPN software. Like bacteria cultures, their computers have become mossy, overgrown hives of inactivity, where sometimes the Internet works and sometimes it doesn't.For these folks…it’s time already. The world has evolved, and it’s a lot nicer out here now. It’s time for that long-overdue visit to the toxic waste disposal facility.
On the other hand, if you are running Windows XP on a modern, multi-core system, that’s well-managed with its data files on an independent drive from the system device, whose networking is fast and crystal-clear, whose media files are all well organized, and that’s secured by hardware and software firewalls along with non-intrusive anti-malware utilities, then is there a compelling reason for you to consider keeping the hardware and upgrading the operating system to Windows 7?
I say there is: The genuine advances that the Vista kernel (especially the 64-bit kernel) made to system security are all present in Windows 7 (which even technically speaking is really Windows 6.1). The truly good ideas that Vista advanced, especially with regard to software access policies, are all present in Windows 7. But you’re not paying a significant performance penalty for them.
In fact, with proper self-administration, you may be able to overcompensate for any performance hit: The poor performance with which many XP users are typically plagued, on account of lousy security software whose cost in aggravation and lost productivity is greater than any harm that malware could intentionally inflict on your computer, can be remedied with Microsoft Security Essentials. Although it’s basic, it’s free. And in Betanews tests of Security Essentials on a quad-core Win7 system, there was no performance hit. None. In fact, some of our apps were mysteriously faster with anti-virus turned on.
How come? Windows 7 is better at managing parallelism than Vista, which is probably the biggest reason its speed is best appreciated on quad-core (or AMD triple-core) systems, and Microsoft (once again) knows the secret. It knows how threads can be used to better prioritize running applications, and that anti-virus does not have to be run with high or even regular priority. This is also why Security Essentials may have an architectural edge even against some commercial anti-virus products.
Recently, some independent sources have claimed that the Windows 7 speed delta over Vista they observed is less than 17%. However, their tests were said to be run on single- or dual-core systems upgraded from Vista, with all applications intact. Possibly among those apps are third-party anti-malware utilities, whose working relationship with Vista has been poor enough. Break your dependence on bad anti-virus software (especially the brands pre-installed by dealers) and you’ll gain more than six weeks of your life back, easily.
There will be some who will remain quite comfortable in their XP-driven environments for the next few years, and with good reason: It’s a pretty decent OS, when it’s well-maintained and well-secured. Nonetheless, the principal reason for users to consider replacing their old computers is because they’re old, tired, and single-core. The multicore era is upon us, and Windows 7 takes better advantage of multicore than its predecessor.
Does it make sense to pay for an upgrade to 7?
Microsofties will be pleased to hear the answer is yes (except those maybe who paid for an upgrade to Vista).
Even after reading this, one question probably still remains on many readers' minds: If Windows 7 truly represents the level of functionality that Vista should have provided from the beginning, then shouldn't Microsoft be paying for it and not the public?If Vista were an insecure system, then I would say yes. It was not. It was an annoying system, especially with “features” like the Black Screen of Death. But it was not Windows Me, the travesty of code that represents the absolute nadir of Microsoft’s development history, the “Disco Era” for Windows.
Even then, however, I said Windows XP was worth paying for. XP – the first version, the one I said in hindsight was desperately in need of a transplant. The fact that I value my time (with a calculator) is just one reason. The fact that I value the developers’ time spent making this work, is the other. Yes, I’ve said Windows 7 is “Vista Service Pack 3,” and I stand by that. But in terms of the work Microsoft’s people are genuinely devoting to improving the quality of this product (whose quality needed improvement), I do believe it is worth the investment. Windows Me was not worth the investment; Windows 98 (pre-OSR2) was not worth the investment.
But as anyone who’s done the work knows, cleaning up crap is a dirty job. Someone has to do it, and there are days I’m glad it’s not me. Windows 7 is cleaner, brighter, and sanitized for your convenience. And that’s worth the tip.
