10 Things Windows 7 Must Do To Succeed?

[Spartan1000]

With the release of the Beta of windows 7, and, with the release of the final version coming out soon, there are 10 things, according to PC World, that Windows 7 must do in order to succeed:

1. Windows 7 should not be positioned in relation to Windows Vista, which is nonexistent in most businesses. Windows 7 needs to be related back to Windows XP, to which I think it is the legitimate successor.

2. I don't see Windows 7 as Vista SP2 or Vista Lite or anything like this. Windows 7 looks like a new OS to me and deserves to be treated as such. (Readers: Give Windows 7 a chance, OK?)

3. Windows 7 needs to run just fine on hardware the runs Windows XP just fine today. My sense, playing with Windows 7, is this is possible. Vista grabbed an early reputation as a resource hog. Windows 7 must avoid this.

4. Because Windows 7 cannot upgrade an existing Windows XP installation, Microsoft needs to provide easy transition tools. A copy of Windows 7 and a flash drive or small stack of DVDs needs to move all my data and my applications and my settings to the new OS. This may mean Microsoft needs to send an applications disc with Windows 7.

5. Just for emphasis: If I have to reinstall my applications, Windows 7 will not be a welcome upgrade.

6. If Microsoft does not or cannot accomplish the previous items, then it should not promote Windows 7 as an upgrade and offer it on new hardware only. This will avoid one of the major factors in Vista's failure: It's inability to run well on what people already owned.

7. Fortunately, the Windows 7 user experience is not wildly different from XP the way Vista is. This will make it easier for companies (or households) to have a mix of Windows XP and Windows 7.

8. I like what I have seen of Windows 7, but have yet to hear Microsoft offer a good reason besides "a wide range of improvements" for me to upgrade. If it comes only on new hardware, that's fine. And, yes, some people will then decide they like the new OS and upgrade older machines as a result. But, if Microsoft hopes to sell an upgrade it needs to look at how Apple sells its upgrades.

9. Speaking of which: Apple sells features and applications that are included with the OS as major upgrade benefits. If Microsoft included more significant applications with the OS, maybe it could make them as important as the iApps are to Apple customers. Apple manages to charge its best customers up to $300-a-year for upgrades of some sort.

10. I think we have solved the problem of linking Windows 7 too closely to the release of Office 14 now that the timing between two seems clearly offset. Delays, economic or technical, should not bring the two releases back together. At least, not until its clear from seeing the software that one won't drag down the other.

Personally, I do not agree with, especially, this statement: They say to relate Windows 7 to Windows XP, and not to Vista? Well, sure, it may attract more people, but, Windows 7 is something far more different than Windows XP - Both of what you can and can not see: it has changed.

However, the things that I do agree with, is that people need to give Windows 7 a chance. To me, there is nothing more annoying than people who bash OS's that they haven't even tried yet, and the same goes for Windows 7. Alot of people here on the [H] spent alot of time downloading the beta and are testing it (as am I, because im writing this on my Windows 7 Laptop) and I do like the Operating System, but, people really shouldn't say that it is like Windows Vista, because, in alot of aspects, it is not like Windows Vista.

Another thing that some people using Windows XP should do, is to "get outside of the Windows XP box" and expand their options a little bit. Because without trying Windows Vista or even Winodws 7 (either the Beta, or, the full version (when it comes out)) then there is no way to really see which is best for you.

 

[BinarySynapse]

Sounds to me like the guy who wrote that has never used Vista. It's all a bunch of bullshit. Windows 7 is closer to Vista than XP, because it's based on Vista. It's certainly improved, but it's still for the most part the same. You use the same drivers and the same API's, It still has Aero. It's crap articles like this that damaged Vista's reputation.

 

[YeOldeStonecat]

I look at Windows 7 as Vista SE.

I don't relate W7 to XP, it's really a refined Vista..which itself is substantially different than XP.

 

[DragonMaster]

If Microsoft included more significant applications with the OS, maybe it could make them as important as the iApps are to Apple customers.

Microsoft gets sued when attempting to do so.

Windows 7 needs to run just fine on hardware the runs Windows XP just fine today.

So it needs to kick ass on a PIII system.

Because Windows 7 cannot upgrade an existing Windows XP installation

It's apparently just disabled in the BETA installer.

 

[maven]

Microsoft's biggest obstacle to replacing XP with Win 7 is an upgrade path and it looks as though they've solved that issue;

http://edge.technet.com/Media/User-State-Migration-with-Windows-7/

 

[pxc]

PC World is a noob-zine written by like minded staffers. Geez, has that clown ever used Vista?

edit: the tag at the bottom of the article explains a lot:

David Coursey has already installed Windows 7 in a virtual machine on a Mac. And it works quite nicely, so far.

 

[Vermillion]

Just another worthless article coming from PC World (their credibility went out the door long ago). But FUD spreading and MS bashing is the "in" thing to do right now because it gets you readers.

1. Windows 7 should not be positioned in relation to Windows Vista, which is nonexistent in most businesses. Windows 7 needs to be related back to Windows XP, to which I think it is the legitimate successor.

Bull. Vista was XP's successor and Vista is far better then XP is. Vista just suffered from FUD, marketing, fear of change and major architectural changes in their driver model that made the change from XP to Vista miserable for some people.

Then again when you use 4+ year old EOL hardware, that is no longer supported by the manufacturer, and wonder why you can't get it working on a modern OS I guess you have a right to bitch.

2. I don't see Windows 7 as Vista SP2 or Vista Lite or anything like this. Windows 7 looks like a new OS to me and deserves to be treated as such. (Readers: Give Windows 7 a chance, OK?)

7 is a refined Vista. Just like 98 was a refined 95. Just like XP was a refined 98/2000 mix. Nothing new here.

3. Windows 7 needs to run just fine on hardware the runs Windows XP just fine today. My sense, playing with Windows 7, is this is possible. Vista grabbed an early reputation as a resource hog. Windows 7 must avoid this.

Vista only grabbed that reputation by FUD and idiot bloggers who didn't understand what it doing. RAM was cheap then and it's ridiculously cheap now.

4. Because Windows 7 cannot upgrade an existing Windows XP installation, Microsoft needs to provide easy transition tools. A copy of Windows 7 and a flash drive or small stack of DVDs needs to move all my data and my applications and my settings to the new OS. This may mean Microsoft needs to send an applications disc with Windows 7.

This is due to it being a Beta right now. MS has already started talking about how to handle the upgrade process. Did anybody with half a brain really thing MS would not have a migration process from XP to 7? But then again with so little to complain about with Windows 7 I guess the MS haters have to bitch about something.

5. Just for emphasis: If I have to reinstall my applications, Windows 7 will not be a welcome upgrade.

Who cares. Half of the age old applications that people are still using probably need to be upgraded to the latest version anyways. In the case of proprietary in-house software development time will have to be spent on making the software Windows 7 compatible anyways.

6. If Microsoft does not or cannot accomplish the previous items, then it should not promote Windows 7 as an upgrade and offer it on new hardware only. This will avoid one of the major factors in Vista's failure: It's inability to run well on what people already owned.

Blah blah blah. Way to continue spreading FUD there PC World. Once again people forget that XP went through the same thing. But since Vista was "new" it was bad for it to not run on 6+ year old hardware. Personally I think it's stupid that MS has to cater to people still running old EOL hardware that has no more driver support or support in general.

7. Fortunately, the Windows 7 user experience is not wildly different from XP the way Vista is. This will make it easier for companies (or households) to have a mix of Windows XP and Windows 7.

How is the experience not different from XP? 7 is a logical step past Vista and it's worlds beyond what XP was.

8. I like what I have seen of Windows 7, but have yet to hear Microsoft offer a good reason besides "a wide range of improvements" for me to upgrade. If it comes only on new hardware, that's fine. And, yes, some people will then decide they like the new OS and upgrade older machines as a result. But, if Microsoft hopes to sell an upgrade it needs to look at how Apple sells its upgrades.

If you have old hardware (say 4+ years old) there is no reason to upgrade which has been the case since Operating Systems were first developed. If you want to make use of the newer hardware you purchase and have a faster self-maintaining machine then you upgrade. Not to mention the added security. The AppLocker is friggin awesome. The updated GPO is nice. Built in biometric support. The new camera/phone/media player device center I find to be quite interesting. The 3D accelerated GUI that's far faster then LUNA ever was. The list goes on beyond that.

9. Speaking of which: Apple sells features and applications that are included with the OS as major upgrade benefits. If Microsoft included more significant applications with the OS, maybe it could make them as important as the iApps are to Apple customers. Apple manages to charge its best customers up to $300-a-year for upgrades of some sort.

Because they'd get sued for anti-trust again. Oh wait...they already do get sued for that every time they release a new OS. MS is damned if they do and damned if they don't. If they add wanted functionality they get sued. If they don't add wanted functionality so they don't get sued the bloggers go into a tizzy and spread FUD every where.

10. I think we have solved the problem of linking Windows 7 too closely to the release of Office 14 now that the timing between two seems clearly offset. Delays, economic or technical, should not bring the two releases back together. At least, not until its clear from seeing the software that one won't drag down the other.

Who cares if it does but I don't think MS will rush either of them. MS would do themselves a great service if they get Windows 7 out the door in time for Back to School sales. Office 14 won't matter as Office 2003 and Office 2007 are still readily available and fully supported under Windows 7.

 

[MurderCityDevil]

David Coursey has already installed Windows 7 in a virtual machine on a Mac. And it works quite nicely, so far.

fucking LOL

 

[rflcptr]

fucking LOL

I'll second that.

 

[Torq]

Microsoft (I am a former, 8 year, senior employee) seriously fucked up with Vista.

From marketing to holding third-parties feet to the fire when it came to drivers, Vista was a public-relations debacle. Most of the interesting changes were deep behind the scenes, affecting (and benefitting) developers far more than end-users.

The problem was NEVER with the product.

It was fuckwit vendors like HP dragging their heels with driver supports. I sit looking at an HP-Color LaserJet 2500n that could NOT print in color under Vista for 8 MONTHS after the retail release due to HP's inability to release a proper driver. Sure, you could run it as a PostScript device and get color, but native support was screwed until much later.

(Sorry HP, but fuck-off ... until this printer breaks, my non-laser printers will come from Epson, and color LASER printer purchases will be SERIOUSLY evaluated).

Windows 7 is a relatively minor evolution of Vista. Anyone telling you different never used Vista as a day-to-day operating system.

Now, there is plenty wrong with Vista, but on half-way appropriate hardware (/shame Microsoft/Intel) it worked as well or BETTER than XP on everything except games. And the difference there was never significant enough to matter unless you were already on borderline hardware.

 

[MurderCityDevil]

Microsoft (I am a former, 8 year, senior employee) seriously fucked up with Vista.

From marketing to holding third-parties feet to the fire when it came to drivers, Vista was a public-relations debacle. Most of the interesting changes were deep behind the scenes, affecting (and benefitting) developers far more than end-users.

The problem was NEVER with the product.

It was fuckwit vendors like HP dragging their heels with driver supports. I sit looking at an HP-Color LaserJet 2500n that could NOT print in color under Vista for 8 MONTHS after the retail release due to HP's inability to release a proper driver. Sure, you could run it as a PostScript device and get color, but native support was screwed until much later.

(Sorry HP, but fuck-off ... until this printer breaks, my non-laser printers will come from Epson, and color LASER printer purchases will be SERIOUSLY evaluated).

Windows 7 is a relatively minor evolution of Vista. Anyone telling you different never used Vista as a day-to-day operating system.

Now, there is plenty wrong with Vista, but on half-way appropriate hardware (/shame Microsoft/Intel) it worked as well or BETTER than XP on everything except games. And the difference there was never significant enough to matter unless you were already on borderline hardware.

this man speaks the truth

i agree with the last part especially. I personally hated vista at first - this was driver related. After more x64 vista drivers became available, I have not had any issues and never once looked back to xp. And as far as gaming goes, well, I never noticed a difference. Everything works like it should, I never get any retarded nondescript errors that are impossible to diagnose or investigate like I did with xp, and what can I say, i'm a sucker for aero

and windows 7, from what i've seen, takes vista and improves it even more. It takes all the awesome features of vista and adds on the snappiness/small footprint of xp. what's not to like?

 

[k1pp3r]

Microsoft (I am a former, 8 year, senior employee) seriously fucked up with Vista.

From marketing to holding third-parties feet to the fire when it came to drivers, Vista was a public-relations debacle. Most of the interesting changes were deep behind the scenes, affecting (and benefitting) developers far more than end-users.

The problem was NEVER with the product.

It was fuckwit vendors like HP dragging their heels with driver supports. I sit looking at an HP-Color LaserJet 2500n that could NOT print in color under Vista for 8 MONTHS after the retail release due to HP's inability to release a proper driver. Sure, you could run it as a PostScript device and get color, but native support was screwed until much later.

(Sorry HP, but fuck-off ... until this printer breaks, my non-laser printers will come from Epson, and color LASER printer purchases will be SERIOUSLY evaluated).

Windows 7 is a relatively minor evolution of Vista. Anyone telling you different never used Vista as a day-to-day operating system.

Now, there is plenty wrong with Vista, but on half-way appropriate hardware (/shame Microsoft/Intel) it worked as well or BETTER than XP on everything except games. And the difference there was never significant enough to matter unless you were already on borderline hardware.

I have to agree with this also, i'm still cursing Cisco for not having a 64-bit VPN client (Connect anywhere doesn't count)

 

[lodingi]

Microsoft's biggest obstacle to replacing XP with Win 7 is an upgrade path and it looks as though they've solved that issue;

http://edge.technet.com/Media/User-State-Migration-with-Windows-7/

Was just gonna make the same comment.

 

[Database]

I have to agree with this also, i'm still cursing Cisco for not having a 64-bit VPN client (Connect anywhere doesn't count)

Yeah that's getting a bit retarded... They need to get that shit out ASAP.

 

[Gott]

I have to agree with this also, i'm still cursing Cisco for not having a 64-bit VPN client (Connect anywhere doesn't count)

Yeah that's getting a bit retarded... They need to get that shit out ASAP.

You got that right.

Luckily we have PPTP configured so I can VPN into work.

But I do have my XP VM "just in case."

 

[bonsai]

I'm still not sure there is enough benefit in Win7 other than being the "latest and greatest" to warrant businesses investing the time and money to make the jump from Win Xp. Time will tell.

 

[heatlesssun]

I'm still not sure there is enough benefit in Win7 other than being the "latest and greatest" to warrant businesses investing the time and money to make the jump from Win Xp. Time will tell.

Lots of functional benefit, that all depends. Windows 7 has some nice security features, like AppLocker, that's a very nice tool to have in the enterprise.

The biggest benefit however is simply that XP is old and its support is wanning.

 

[Vermillion]

I'm still not sure there is enough benefit in Win7 other than being the "latest and greatest" to warrant businesses investing the time and money to make the jump from Win Xp. Time will tell.

That argument can always be used. If all you do is type e-mail and use MS Office at work why upgrade past Windows 2000 Professional when XP was released?

Windows 7 has updated GPO, the new AppLocker, it's self-maintaining and it's more secure. Not to mention far more stable...

 

[brucedeluxe169]

OP's post is epic fail...

 

[ScYcS]

The only thing Windows 7 needs in order for it to succeed is a firm release.

 

[undermined]

The only thing Windows 7 needs in order for it to succeed is a firm release.

Yeah since the majority of people who use windows get the OS when they buy their computer, all Microsoft has to do is not screw up in some unseen maner.

Currently laptops are outselling desktops and most folks are not rolling their own laptop either.

If you buy a new machine once windows7 is RTM'd it will either have it pre-installed or be available with a voucher.

It was a hugh mess when vista came out for multiple reasons like OEMs producing horrible drivers, too many changes to the OS and its code that affect it in non tangable ways ( ie the new driver models and dx10 had no imidiate perceived benefit unless you are coding) , strange network issues and constant Harddrive activity without a obivious source. etc.

Vista ran fine on machines made for it beyond some stupid OEMs unwillingnes to provide functioning drivers or removing features it ran ok for most needs just fine.

If Xp had not been out for as long as it was and if OEMs totally changed their attitude towards drivers, Vista would have been much better received.

The proof IS windows7, now that the main obsticles in vista have been smoothed out microsoft just tweaked as much as possible and looked on improving what ever it could using Vista as its base nad not realling adding "new" features or functions but rather refining what it already had to work with.

Its not a new concept. They did it pretty much every other time they released a OS. Win98 built on Win95 tech, WinXp on Win200 tech, and Windows7 on Vista. Apple did it for pretty much the entire span of OSX and Linux is a even better example of building a new OS by improving and tweaking the previous one's tech.

 

[TechieSooner]

Microsoft (I am a former, 8 year, senior employee) seriously fucked up with Vista.

From marketing to holding third-parties feet to the fire when it came to drivers, Vista was a public-relations debacle. Most of the interesting changes were deep behind the scenes, affecting (and benefitting) developers far more than end-users.

The problem was NEVER with the product.

It was fuckwit vendors like HP dragging their heels with driver supports. I sit looking at an HP-Color LaserJet 2500n that could NOT print in color under Vista for 8 MONTHS after the retail release due to HP's inability to release a proper driver. Sure, you could run it as a PostScript device and get color, but native support was screwed until much later.

(Sorry HP, but fuck-off ... until this printer breaks, my non-laser printers will come from Epson, and color LASER printer purchases will be SERIOUSLY evaluated).

Windows 7 is a relatively minor evolution of Vista. Anyone telling you different never used Vista as a day-to-day operating system.

Now, there is plenty wrong with Vista, but on half-way appropriate hardware (/shame Microsoft/Intel) it worked as well or BETTER than XP on everything except games. And the difference there was never significant enough to matter unless you were already on borderline hardware.

All I hear in that entire statement, is faults of third-parties. Sorry bub, but I don't care if you've worked for Microsoft since it was founded, they really can't be blamed for HP's lack of interest in writing drivers.

You know, what they should do is pre-release Vista to the OEMs to give them time to get their drivers together before going public....
OH WAIT, HOLY SHIT THEY DO!!!!!!



All Windows 7 needed was a new name, and the problem was solved.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

All Windows 7 needed was a new name, and the problem was solved.

pretty much...

im surprised by how much positive press its getting from the nerd corner... they really should know better....

*i like vista.... but come on... 7 is nothing new...

 

[Ur_Mom]

Why does everyone say that it has to run on hardware that XP runs on. XP was released in 2001. The hardware back then was a lot worse than now. I thought people wanted technology to get better. Why own a hardcore system if the OS is so lame you can't use shit.

Why not have it run fine on hardware that Windows 3.11 ran fine on? 486's would be fine.

Microsoft has learned from it's mistakes with Vista (which I am a huge supporter of), and are fixing those with the software, and with the consumer and enterprise education and outlook of the OS.

 

[spacetrader]

I'm still not sure there is enough benefit in Win7 other than being the "latest and greatest" to warrant businesses investing the time and money to make the jump from Win Xp. Time will tell.

besides security, ease of use, speed, features, security, sex appeal, security.... yeah it's a tough decision...

 

[Sovereign]

"I am Sauruman. Sauruman as he should've been"

- Gandalf the White

Windows 7 is Vista. Vista as it should have been. (Minus all the compatibility screwups, driver problems etc). Now, the drivers were not Microsoft's fault; it was third parties who created a self-fulfilling prophecy: People won't use Vista, let's not write drivers, drivers that were written made Vista suck, people didn't use Vista. Now the screws are being turned driver-wise and the Beta ATI and NVIDIA drivers have yet to give me a hiccup in 7.

Heck, I installed a DreamScene hack in 7. It runs better in 7 than it did in Vista (on my laptop's weakass X1300 no less).

 

[spacetrader]

pretty much...

im surprised by how much positive press its getting from the nerd corner... they really should know better....

*i like vista.... but come on... 7 is nothing new...

when i jump on my win7 box, i think about it's beauty (nice to look at), its taskbar (love how free it is, move your tabs and icons all over), and .... seriously thats all that stands out. the games folder is better, but meh.

 

[Vermillion]

Why does everyone say that it has to run on hardware that XP runs on. XP was released in 2001. The hardware back then was a lot worse than now. I thought people wanted technology to get better. Why own a hardcore system if the OS is so lame you can't use shit.

Why not have it run fine on hardware that Windows 3.11 ran fine on? 486's would be fine.

Microsoft has learned from it's mistakes with Vista (which I am a huge supporter of), and are fixing those with the software, and with the consumer and enterprise education and outlook of the OS.

That's what some of us said when Vista was released. But people are cheap, scared of change and want to cling to their EOL hardware that has no support for some reason.

Just you wait even with Windows 7 we're going to see people bitch, moan, groan and complain about driver issues. They'll have some end of life piece of legacy hardware that no longer gets any type of driver support or support in general and it won't function under Windows 7. But those people will just blame MS yet again.