It is Windows 7. Get over it. I have seen on at least two different occasions people referring to Windows 7 as Vista SP2 or Vista blah blah blah. No. It isn’t. Windows XP was NOT Windows 2000 SPX or Second Edition. It was Windows XP.
I really don’t know why I keep reading PC WORLD articles. They drive me bat crap crazy.
Microsoft doesn’t know how to manage digital downloads. Nor does Microsoft know how to title its own applications–this isn’t Windows 7, not by any means. It’s Windows Vista SP2.
No, David Murphy, it isn’t. You are wrong not just on the naming, but the digital downloads (are there analog downloads?). When I downloaded Windows 7, I was presented with a Java based download manager that worked quite well and provided very snappy download speeds. So you probably are just “doing it wrong“.
That criticism aside your article seemed pretty good and covered the experience fairly well. Sort of… the article was dripping with sarcasm and was way too cynical for it to be considered good technical journalism. It was obvious that you were not a fan and that you were clearly intending to come away from the experience unimpressed. You can’t objectively evaluate software if you aren’t willing to go in with an open mind. Clouded your judgment is.
You do know that you are playing with a beta release right? That it is geared for more stability than performance initially? So the additional 3 minutes or 16% as you mention it probably won’t be there come the RC or RTM version?
One of the core problems with Windows 7, which Microsoft will invariably not fix, stems from its utter similarity to Windows Vista. Sure, the taskbar is a little different, Windows Explorer has a newer feel to it, and the desktop looks like it requires a GPU of its own for all the fun little transparent gimmicks and what-have-you. But at its core, this is Windows Vista. Windows Vista (remix), perhaps, but still Windows Vista.
Yes, I agree. That was a huge problem with XP is it was too much like 2000. If I recall correctly everybody pitched a fit because Vista looked WAY different than XP. Now you are complaining that Win7 looks too much like Vista? There is just no pleasing people is there? I guess not.
I will say that I have often said that Windows 7 looks like what Vista should have been. That is not to say that they are one in the same. It would be fantastic for MS to offer a very cheap / free upgrade to Windows 7 from Vista. I would jump on it. I can definitely see it becoming the recommended OS for new PCs. I think there are more than enough improvements to make the upgrade worth it. Especially if you consider some of the points you made:
Truly novel innovations: an extensive Firewall system, a brand-new Backup and Restore tool that would actually keep me from buying an off-the-shelf solution, PC Safeguard…
Consider the cost you have given us for a “likely” upgrade license of $125. Now, lets consider that a decent back up application is $50. Let’s also say that the PC Safeguard, the update UAC, Windows Defender, and Windows Firewall make for a good start of a security suite, another $50-75. Now factor in some of the other nice features, especially those with Home Group (did you see the demo from CES with the “Play on device” feature? I would LOVE to easily play my movies etc from my PC straight to my XBox 360 without having to jump through all the hoops you have to do now to get it working) The VALUE of this upgrade, exceeds the COST. Especially for those whom do not have backup software or a good suite of security tools, or those that just want to save time (objective, non-benchmark comparison of performance between XP, Vista, and Win 7).
