Windows optimize

Windows 7: Not a question of if, but when

Windows 7 is a clear winner, ultimately replacing Windows XP as the corporate standard, and IT departments will be happy to make the change. Scott Lowe provides his thoughts and plans.

Windows 7 will prove to be a hit and is likely to be the next "Windows XP" in the NT line. There are a number of reasons that this the case. First of all, after the fiasco that was Windows Vista, there has been little negative news regarding its successor, Windows 7. In fact, just about every review has been quite positive regarding Windows 7. This is due in no small part to Microsoft learning to under promise and over deliver. During Vista's development, the development news was rarely positive; features were constantly removed and the entire development was even scrapped at one point in a sort of "development reset". This kind of news truly set the stage for a string of disappointments that eventually culminated in a release that disappointed on almost every level. Although many of Vista's flaws have been addressed, the damage was done. With Windows 7, development simply seemed to improve all the time and has culminated in a release widely considered excellent.

Although there has been significant positive reaction to Windows 7, many people remain disappointed by the fact that Windows 7 is not, in general, a free upgrade. Sure, there are various licensing programs in which organizations participate that bring the upgrade cost down - often to nothing - but for those that simply purchase Windows with each new computer, a mass upgrade of existing machines requires the purchase of new Windows 7 licenses. For many, Windows Vista was an abomination that was unsuitable for general deployment. To them, Windows 7 is nothing more than Windows Vista R2 and is undeserving of a price tag. Microsoft thinks differently about the situation, although the company has reduced the price for Windows 7. That said, Windows 7 is still not a free upgrade.

Now, let's talk about bugs. There has been conflicting information regarding a flaw in Server Message Block 2.0 (SMB 2.0). The flaw results in the easy remote takedown of any system running Windows Vista or Windows Server 2008. Worse, it's been discovered that the Windows 7 release candidate is also susceptible to this flaw, which led to fears that every new Windows 7 installation would be at risk for random attack. Rest assured, however, that Microsoft has corrected this critical flaw in both the RTM version of Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

As far as application compatibility goes, just about every application that was readied for Windows Vista will run under Windows 7 with no modifications necessary. For those applications that don't run under either Windows Vista or Windows 7, Windows 7 includes XP Mode, designed to allow Windows 7 flawless backward compatibility for programs that do not support the newer operating systems. XP Mode allows you to run a virtualized application alongside your Windows 7 applications. As you might expect, the use of Windows XP Mode does add to the overall hardware requirements that are needed for Windows 7. First off, any computer on which you intend to use XP Mode must have a processor that includes hardware virtualization capabilities. Microsoft also recommends that the computer have at least 2GB of RAM; personally, I think this would be a bare minimum and 3GB would be a much better minimum.

Speaking of hardware requirements, Windows 7 retains the same minimum hardware requirements as those necessary for Windows Vista - 1GHz processor, 1GB RAM (32-bit) or 2GB RAM (64-bit), 16GB to 20GB disk space and a DVD drive. The fact that Windows 7 performs noticeably better than Windows Vista on the same hardware speaks volumes about the efficiency of the code and the product.

When it comes to deployment, I see Windows 7 becoming the corporate standard on new PC purchases sooner rather than later. Notice that I say "new" PCs. Because of increased hardware requirements, I don't foresee that many organizations reimaging older PCs to move to Windows 7, although some recently purchased PCs might fit the bill. The reason I don't see older PCs being included in Windows 7 upgrade plans is simple: If Windows XP Mode is necessary for compatibility, the hardware requirements will be too steep to go back and upgrade older inventory. This will mean that a full migration to Windows 7 will ake some time, but it will happen and the process will start sooner rather than later.

Finally, what are my plans for Windows 7 at Westminster College? We've tested our enterprise applications under Vista and everything runs quite well on the 32-bit platform, but not the 64-bit variety. Upcoming releases of these applications are slated to support 64-bit Windows Vista and Windows 7. Once we're sure that our applications can support the operating system, we begin a plan to move to Windows 7 64-bit during the summer 2010. If testing does not go well, we'll stick with the 32-bit version of Windows 7. At the same time, if the product is available, we'll move to Office 2010 since we also plan to move to Exchange 2010 upon its release. We're currently running a mix of both Office 2003 and Office 2007 and will standardize on Office 2010 for new rollouts, if possible.

About

Since 1994, Scott Lowe has been providing technology solutions to a variety of organizations. After spending 10 years in multiple CIO roles, Scott is now an independent consultant, blogger, author, owner of The 1610 Group, and a Senior IT Executive w...

36 comments
ScarF
ScarF

There is no IF. Due to the applications we use, we have no other choice but staying with MS. So, we have to continue using their OSs. But! We plan to migrate to Windows 7 when all of the following conditions are met: - There will be one SP for Win7, at least - MS will no longer support WinXP - All the applications and drivers for the current devices will support 64-bit Win7 - The hardware will be mature enough to provide a good support for Win7 Although ? after testing the RC, I haven?t much to say against the Win7 (except for the UI), we still consider WinXP to serve extremely well our purposes. Anyway, we continue to research the Linux option. Without success, though.

Scott Lowe
Scott Lowe

Personally, I like the UI. I have, however, beena Vista and Server 2008 user for quite some time and have grown used to the changes that have been made since XP so that could be the difference. After using Vista, I find the Windows 7 UI to be easier to work with, although I couldn't put my finger on any one thing except the new taskbar.

microface
microface

As the IT consultant for over a dozen small businesses here in the Sacramento California area I can tell you that unless you have new hardware, read at least a dual core Windows 7 is just another DRM, sloth. These businesses have financial, and hardware oriented software with peripherals that cost as much as 250K being run by a computer that is interfaced through ethernet, serial and/or SCSI devices, and none of these pieces of software work completely in Windows 7 XP Mode. BUT ALL THESE PIECES OF SOFTWARE RUN UNDER WINE!!! These companies will not upgrade to Windows 7, these companies have all agreed that when XP pro is no longer supported they will migrate to Ubuntu or Mint versions of Linux. They are all in the process of converting Microsoft Office to Open Office, and have no intention of ever being tied to Microsoft ever again.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Another? are you one of those that actually believe that Vista is DRM protected? To bring you up to speed, Linux is DRM restricted. Vista will work with both DRM protected and non protected files, Linu on the other hand will NOT work with DRM protected files. The new BD disks that have DRM protection when sold in the US are no problem either, the DRM in Vista is easily disabled. DRM protection ignores international copyright laws, sure they can get away with it in the USA but I'm sure MS wouldn't cut their nose off (or most of the rest of the actually 'free' world) to spite their face. Now I wonder, did you mislead all of those super big companies that make the world rotate on axis too or if they are just going to have to get up to speed with others.

rambo919
rambo919

The world's poor student population has always had it right I say, never pay for software unless you are sure its worth the money, if they overcharge give em the finger and get it from some less official channel. The software itself is its biggest advertisement campaign after all, cheap tricks never go well with a IT literate crowd.

john3347
john3347

I have been using Windows 7 since the servers came back online the day after beta intro date. While there are several useful new features in Windows 7 over XP (forget Vista, I used Millennium for 3 or 4 years and I pitched Vista after about 3 months), there are also MANY UI features that we all used and appreciated in XP that are gone in Windows 7. I feel that there is really very little real functional improvement in 7 over XP and while there is some euphoria sweeping the IT world over this new kid on the block, this euphoria will soon fade and, while there will not be the re-programming of new computers to a previous OS as there was with Vista, there will be a less than stellar acceptance of 7 after the "new" begins to wear off. The user interface of Windows 7 is actually a step backward from even XP. Libraries only adds to the confusion that was Vista Windows Explorer. Our classic start menu is gone. As with Office 2007 over 2003, we now have significantly more "clutter" to wade through and click, click, click,click to do what we did with one or two clicks in previous OSs. While Vista definitely gets a solid "F" in performance, Windows 7 barely squeaks out a "C-" - - barely. To compare previous systems on this grading system, Windows 2000 get a "B" and XP (after 6 years of improvements) gets a "C". I will most certainly will not be rushing to move to Windows 7 as my primary OS! I want to see some positive response to user desires and needs first.

spinebarry
spinebarry

Every new iteration of the Microsoft operating system is touted to be faster, better and more stable. And after it's out for a while, we find out it falls short in all 3 areas. Windows 7 is in line to be more of the same. It was supposed to be faster, but I've read that the increase in speed is an insignificant 5%. Five percent???!!! Microsoft still doesn't get it. This is another piece of bloatware. My message to those of you who write about this stuff - stop giving Microsoft a free pass.

Darren B - KC
Darren B - KC

I can't think of ANY company, in ANY industry, that comes under fire and scrutiny more than Microsoft. ExxonMobile could spill 100,000 gallons of crude into the Pacific Ocean but Microsoft would still get more flak for not including a desired feature in their latest OS. Give me a freakin' break. A few IT people around the globe that are willing to see what Windows 7 has to offer doesn't even qualify as a DREAM about giving MS a free pass. A free pass???? Are you serious????? Obviously you need to spend less time paying attention to what the mainstream media has to say about it and actually put your hands on a computer once in a while.

lowtimeppl
lowtimeppl

It's all a joke. We use MS products because we're stuck with them, if we want someone to blame when it all goes wrong. Like many others, I have bought a couple of Vista machines recently and their performance was diabolical. They were hobbled by Vista. I downgraded to XP whereupon the machines were much, much faster and I could secure them satisfactorily using the myriad of well-known techniques and applications. Because of the 'big hardware'[Intel, HP, Dell etc]/MS cartel, where MS deliberately codes each OS version to be too much for 'current' CPU/tech to cope, 'big hardware''s market for new hardware sales, is secure ad infinitum. That's partly why they hate Linux so - it keeps hardware fresh for a little longer (I'm no big Linux fan, btw). The point is that XP is now *mature* - sure, it took some time to get there (as did NT 3.51, and NT4, and W2K - pattern here?), and now, most decent tech guys understand the structure and mechanics of XP very well, certainly to maintain it an keep it secure. There is a lot of software and hardware out there that supports it very nicely thank you. So the next MS move? Change it. Sweep it all away and bring in non-compatible, structural and functional change. How else are we going to keep making money from the suckers? (In the UK, we call them 'punters'). Look, MS is in the business to make money, and that won't happen by retaining XP, or Vista for that matter, or what comes after 7, in the field for any longer than is needed..i.e. whilst they can still sell to people believe they need the newest hardware, the fastest PC etc. The fact that no-one does, is irrelevant. But it would be interesting if sudddenly those punters wised up and realised how they are being ripped off by the OS and hardware vendors. For those who really need speed & power, then they should move to 64bit...but then that opens the other question... Why has 64bit XP not 'taken off'? Why is every PC sold not as full-on 64bit-capable machine? Because x64 supports tons of memory (and disk space) as standard. So no-one would have to buy a new, whole PC..they could just expand memory to 'vastly more than I really need, but it's cheap so why not?', and then not buy a new PC every 2 years because they have been told they 'need' to. That's my rant. I use what I have because it's given to me. I don't have to feel all warm and fluffy when MS releases this SP or that patch. I work in IT but it luckily not in desktop/server support anymore, so I can back off from the whole Linux vs MS argument.

david
david

I have been using the BETA version of Windows7 since Microsoft asked me to test it as a beta tester. I have found it to be secure stable and error free and I would recommend it whole heartedly to everyone. Thank you for your daily news.

The Daleks
The Daleks

This is the latest in a series of positive reviews I've read about W7. I don't think I've read a negative one, yet. I'd been a MS Partner for several years and decided not to renew because their software became so bloody awful and all my customers hate it. However, I do agree that W7 should be a free upgrade from Vista, on principle alone. But if reasonable upgrade pricing is what's required to extricate people from the Vista nightmare, so be it.

cboys
cboys

Okay, W7 has lots of new whistles and bells and possibly not so many annoying flashing lights on it, but in the end, the backend is still MEII? opps sorry still Vista. Its going to be a great little O/S for new and existing Vista users, there is no argument to that. But to the true computer user that has been in the IT industry for, well for a lot longer that most of the people that are bowing down and praising W7, (and hoping that they are predicting it right this time!); then W7 is just as mush garbage as it was when it was called Vista. Okay you can scream and shout and say t hat I and all the other old fogies? are wrong and don?t know what we are talking about, but it is us old fogies? that have watched the computer become what it is today. There is more to an operating system that the whistles and bells. And MS are closing as many doors as they can in the operating system so that it can not be customised for the better or worse (depending on the needs of a user). MS are trying to remove this ability of customisation and trying to keep it all in there hands. so thwarting the people that know what they need or want to do with a machine. So how can that be a good thing. And as for updates on both Vista and W7 your not going to get much choice as to what you do or do not doo. Home users are just going to accept everything that they have thrown at them, the ability to limit or lockout is no longer there. (And MS are renowned for sending out drivers that fail in the real world, resulting in audio, video or networking failures.) At least with XP and it?s predecessors the user was able to keep MS and there updates, upgrades under control, selecting what was wanted or needed, and locking out what was needed or deferred till it was debugged properly. Vista and W7 removes a lot of what professional users should and have the right to do. Yes there are praises from on high and every direction, claiming that W7 is the new computer messiah! Well sorry to pop the bubble, but its not. Its more of a case of MS controlling and dictating what the user can or can not do with ?there? property, as MS see that you may have bought it, but they are deciding what you can and can not do. Maybe in a year or two when they have stopped trying to take control of the computer world, will MS finally realise that it is the people that buy and use their product that has the right to do what they want with it and not MS . And the lame excuse of tighter security is not going to cut it either. From someone that was already long in the tooth when MS was just starting out in a garage! ( and sometimes thinks that they should have stayed there too!)

IBeHim
IBeHim

I wonder if you spend as much time counseling as you do complaining about this and that. Some much energy spent on useless efforts that consume you to no end. And I must say, thank you for all of your great accomplishments in the industry.

IT Chick
IT Chick

Amen!!! I couldn't have said it better myself!!!

aandruli
aandruli

I agree -- IT's switch from Win95 to XP was due to a more efficient kernel, which is not the case here. Even more importantly, most hardware manufacturers didn't bother to make drivers for Vista which is a serious concern here for Win7. Until it is established that there are drivers for all the current hardware in Win7, IT will take a pass. And also, there should be a version without all the fluff and bloatware -- a Win7 IT. MS is pushing hard for Flavors of the Month and want to chage everyone's OS every so often just for the bucks, whether it is a good idea or not. Win7 is a long, long way from proving itself as a good idea.

david.valdez
david.valdez

We've already started our planning and testing. We're seeing an odd situation that I think I should let others know about, though. It appears that Dell has been spec'ing a proc that appears to be compatible XP Mode (in our case, the E7400), but using a SKU that isn't compatible. Of the six SKUs of E7400, only ONE has HW virtualization capabilities and it isn't the one Dell is selling. Moreover, their website doesn't make this distinction clear and even includes a vPro reference on the "Help Me Choose" pop-up. So...the real key is making sure that not only are you intentionally buying VT-enabled processors, but that what you're being sold IS VT-enabled.

Lazarus439
Lazarus439

I bet XP Mode going cause Microsoft a lot of grief, not because it doesn't work per se, but because it's being oversold in light its hardware requirements. If XPM took advantage of hardware virtualization, but didn't REQUIRE it, this problem would go away. However, there are way too many machines that "ought" to be able ruin XPM that won't, as the above post points out. I was astounded the other day to learn that a more powerful Core 2 Duo CPU (3 GHz) does not support virtualization by that the lower powered one (2.4 GHz) one I replaced did. I'm fully prepared to hold up Intel, too, because hardware support for virtualization today is like a math co-processor used to be - necessary. (Remember when a math coprocessor was actually a separate chip with its own socket?). Contemporary chips today should have this as a standard feature. That said, Microsoft set itself up because it did not take a good look at what was actually being sold.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

As soon as MS moves to Vancouver, they get better. ;) When XP was released it was the worst garbage Microsoft had ever put the Windows logo on, well there was ME but that was just a bad dream. Three years later, XP was the best OS to date and people were horrified at the mere thought of a new OS form MS. Most had just finally saved up enough cach to buy a machine that XP would run on, as it's hardware requirements were insane! Then Vista came out, vista was light years beyond XP (when released) due to its improved security, stability, compatibility etc. However now that XP has been 'fixed' Vista was deemed garbage, people quickly forgot saying the same things about XP when it came out, unreliable, insecure, unstable, incompatible, hardware requirements were ridiculous etc. And they now quickly stuck all those burdens, whether true or not, on the shoulders of Vista. Again, people who had saved up andbought a neqw box to run XP on were at a loss to run Vista. Therefore if you can't use it yourself, SLAM IT!! Vista offered increased security, increased stability and increased functionality over older releases, if you had sufficient hardware. Of course, as always, those who did not SLAMMED IT!! The people who were stuck with XP, after intially slammign it too, were now saying "I'm too cool and savvy to use Vista [i](actually meaning , I can't afford a new box and Joe Blow said Vista sux)[/i], so I'll wait for the all new Windows 7 to come out. You fools can waste yoru time on Vista but I know better and I know that Win& will be the answer". Of ocurse, there were also the IT managers who talked up XP to be the future of mankind and got the oss ot invest in new PC's to run XP, they found out it was a nightmare to administer for the first two years and had so many problems, they didn't DARE try it again with Vista, but they are so obvious. So now, these people who have a 2-3 year old box can finally justify an upgrade, so they get all hyped up over Win7. Users have been asking for their opinions for a couple of years now, and as they know nothing about Vista first hadn tehmselves, they just tell users to avoid it and wait for Win7. I've even seen guys in an office "downgrade" user with new PC's to XP, not realizing that the new PC would have been fine with Vista if tweaked and often the process management would be improved also. So now these self proclaimed "guru's" can conveniently slip on the back of Win7, had it een a flop they could just complain about crappy development and a bloated OS, intoning that had THEY programmed it or been in charge at Miscrosoft, it would have worked properly. In short, IT Staff, for the most part, are insecure, whiny prima donna's who think they are actually folloing peopel into thinking they KNOW what's around the corner in the IT world, that they KNOW what is good and what is a waste. When downgrading your new box to XP they'll even talk to you sympathetically as if, "you weren't to know any better when buying it" but don't worry, I'll sort it out for you. It's a mental mind f***k and so many office workers are sucked into it when IT staff know NOTHING more, and usually far less, than many others who have simply played with it for themselves and found out the sterngths and merits first hand. I recommend hearing what your IT department recommends but doing your OWN homework, not just reading IT blogs and websites. Find out what yruo needs are and if the OS will do what you need it to do for YOU. As for what IT staff say, in one ear and out the other, I was told Vista was a horror show, but it runs like a top on my notebook, haven't had ANY issues, it's secure, all of my countless apps run flawlessly, it renders graphics faster than XP did on the same machine etc. I dual boot to a hacked Win7 and 7 is noce too, but it's not as if it is such a massive improvement over Vista that Vista should not have been released, it's justa cut down version really. They did it before with WinME, a completely stripped version of Win2K when they tried to move home users to a more home user specific OS, keeping the focus on Win2K towards business use. But they failed at it before finally releasing XP, which wasn't that much better back then either. What humour me is that so early in the game, people are sayign how wonderful Win7 is and, while many have never even used Vista for more than 20 minutes, they will say how much better it is than Vista. Such a predictable game for the insecure and wary to try and look all knowing and cool. Laughable really.

IBeHim
IBeHim

The OS is upgradable, how about you. I've worked with pc's seems DOS 4. Another OS, more complaints, but we do need to move forward in all things, including your OS. So how's your attitude, are smiling in the mornings, or just letting everyone know you hate your life.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

My life is fantastic, much richer and more fulfilling than most, I find. I love watching you guys get all upset when someone comments on your "field of expertise". What always slays me with It guys is that, instead of offering some counter points to try and prove otherwise or show the validity which you like to think you deserve, you just shoot down my comments as if it elevates you a bit. Maybe the people who pay for IT staff to be on hand just get tired of geeks who think they know what's best for business when they are actually just trying to beel cool and fit in with their peer groups. I have seen less than a handful of IT staff in my life that actually know how to judge/recommend what's best for a business. In most cases I find their decisions are based loosely on fact and riddled with forum gossip that they take verbatim and with little testing or experience of their own. I've played your game for years, you aren't going to change the reality of IT that I've seen. If you've been around IT as long as you suggest, surely you have seen the same old same old every time MS releases a new OS and you have seen the overt bias offered with little to no personal experience witha new OS but simply based on the comments of peers. I have a friend who's a senior programmer at one of the larger software developers, he sees it all the time too. He also has a degree in business administration and was a sales manager for 20 years. He said he just shakes his head at all the IT/CEO wannabes who are all of a sudden proposing to know what's best for business when they don't even know how to calculate profit margin and cost per desk. The chances of most of them understanding true ROI, not just initial cost recovery are none to negative one. How can one suggest what's best for an entire organization when their only understanding is what peers tell them to avoid because it's extra work to maintain? Right, you can't/won't answer any of this, I wouldn't expect you to, flame me instead it's a lot easier that way. Have at 'er ;)

ScarF
ScarF

for enlightening us. I am always proud to see a fellow Canadian tarnishing all the IT managers, CIOs, CTOs a.s.o., like this. However, your brilliant analysis lose value due to the spelling errors. So, next time, please use some kind of spell checking before posting.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

Firstly you are most welcome, it's always nice to hear from a Torontonian that's not busy shovelling the drive. Do you [i]REALLY[/i] think I care to take time and spell check on an internet forum? Priceless, it's important to you? I'm sorry if you couldn't understand what I was saying, you've obviously been given the false impression that I give a crap what readers think. They are called typos, not spelling errors, typos illustrate a lack of typing prowess, not an inability to spell. Typos are usually shown as orphaned letters, reversed letters etc. If you actually judge people's credibility based on their keyoarding skills, you are in need of help and some common sense. Since when does seeing reality TARNISH all the IT managers, CIO's, CTO etc.? The fact that most of them are employed to begin with is a joke, I've worked with C level IT staff for over a decade now and I can tell you that VERY FEW of them base such decisions on what the commpany actually needs. VERY few actually have ANY real business sense at all, and just [i]think[/i] that becase they have a title they have business sense. I've seen so many of these 'seasoned professionals' jump on the bandwagon and slam products simply because their peers do. I've also seen many who [i]think[/i] they are acting in the company's best interests when they are essentially just thinking of their own workload too. Also, as I didn't say all IT managers, you might be able to realize that I was indeed speaking of many and not all It staff. If you think IT mindsets are similar to actual business administration and operational mindsets, you are sadly mistaken. Many of these IT managers/idiots belong back in the stockroom with a desk behind a stack of empty boxes and far away from any operational activity. Your inability to grasp simple comments and follow the context used, despite the simplest of typographical errors, illustrates just that. Thank you kindly for your worthless comments that don't address the topic at hand. Way to correct me and prove otherwise!

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

amazing what time does for one

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

So you disagree by flaming me and ignoring the original poster's comments entirely. I then reiterate what I meant and again you simply have no worthy or qualified reply. Do you have a point or are you just excited to see your very own keystrokes displayed on the World Wide Web? If you disagree, do so, don't just cross your arms and pout. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. I am talking from experience as a C level administrator, a business owner, a former network admin and consultant (eeew, consultant now THERE's a dirty word!) If you have experiences that show otherwise, this would be the correct place to enlighten everyone, unless you simply have nothing to say other than to bitch and whine about what I've said. Bottom line, and you'll have to face it one day no matter how important you THINK your decisions may be, an IT staff member is not a revenue generator, they are an expense to any company not focused solely on e-commerce. However too many IT staff think they are the backbone of a company, yet have little to no actual knowledge of what the company needs, how to evaluate cost per seat and build a network that considers everyone and not just their own hands on time. I've seen people here say there's no reason to make a change (as 'it' works for them), meanwhile they are not considering how they can ease the work flow of others who actually DO generate the revenue to pay IT staff.

ScarF
ScarF

Yeah. Right.

Maarek
Maarek

My company has Windows 7 already and is installing it on new PCs. This is so companies can get settings and company drivers to work by the time the release hits store shelves.

jackie40d
jackie40d

I think since i got to fix their crap they should send me a FREE CD of the O/S so I can see how easy it falls apart and how to fix it ! . . And then I was wondering why I got so many SMB errors when I went to send out E-Mails . . It was the SERVER ERROR by MS AGAIN ! ! . . haha I will tell my ISP to get a LINUX server so I do not get any more SMB errors

BlueCollarCritic
BlueCollarCritic

I tried to install/use Winders 7 on a recently reforatted box (that did meet hardware reqs for Vista) and after less then an hour of unsucessfully install attempts of Microsofts own latest products like OPffice 2007 (and yes I was logged in as the local admin) I said to heck with this and reverted back to XP. i kep getting elevation messages when trying to Install Office 2007 and in my mind if you are logged on as the local admin you shouldn't get error messages like this when installing something that is supposed to be installable on Winders 7. But even if I didn't have install isssues I certainly woudl have reformatted and dumped Winders 7 for Windows XP after seeing how the Winders 7 interface had taken the Office 2007 Ribbon approach of 'F the user' and forcing users to use Winders the way Microsoft believes we should. AT least in Vista if you did not like the way the taskbar & start menus worked you could opt to go back to a "Classic" view but not in Winders 7. I've read numerous posts about thsi and heard the BS argument from Microsoft backers about how it would be hard to support multiple interfaces and that is just a bunch of BS. If done right, the way the menus and such are presented to the user should be easily changed. When you are at a command prompt does it really matter what the fon size & type are or is the actual command that is most improtant? Same goes for the stupid Ribbon in Office 2007 & 2010 and for the anti-user interface in Winders 7. It shouldn't matter how the menus animation plays out but what selections the user makes. I see this forced approach thrust onto users as a way to get us used to doing things the way they want instead of how we as the paying customers want. I've always been pro Microsoft but this Office 2007 Ribbon fiasco and now the Winders 7 Taskbar BS has gotten me thinking more and more like the non-Wintel platform crowd may have the right idea.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

People spent much longer than that trying to get a bug riden, unsupportive and insecure XP to work when it came out, but now it's the uneatable cat's meow? Why would you give a brand new OS less than an hour of your time? Do you always commit to your line of work with such limited stamina? People said the same about Vista, "I gave it a half hour and knew it was junk." Sure, so that's a qualified opinion then? This is exactly what I was talkign about below, people like to run in packs to find security in peers, it is mroe prominent in geeks as they generally have more limited social skills when growing up which results in a fear of inacceptance, thus the peer following. 'Hey, I think Vista sucks too, I'm cool now, not like them n00b dummies.....right?" I've used Win7 for about 5 months now, I dual boot to Vista. Win7 has it's merits but I've never had any issues with Vista either.

BlueCollarCritic
BlueCollarCritic

FYI , I use and actually like Vista so your assumptions about my not liking Winders 7 meaning I don't take the time to fully check out something or that I simply run with teh pack is a bunch of BS.

BlueCollarCritic
BlueCollarCritic

"People spent much longer than that trying to get a bug riden, unsupportive and insecure XP to work when it came out, but now it's the uneatable cat's meow? Why would you give a brand new OS less than an hour of your time? Do you always commit to your line of work with such limited stamina?" ~ Oz_Media One does NOT always need to spend a lot of time to properly detrmine if something is bad. If you went to the car lot to check out the new Dumb Car, err I mean Smart car and in the first 15 minutes you were: 1) Uanble to get the car to start 2) The sales rep was unable to get the car to start 3) Once the sale manager got another Smart car to start (after trying 3 different cars) you found it too several minutes to get up to 60 MPH WOuld you A) Say "I really need to spend a few more hours looking ath these to be certain they suck" or B) Decide to not waste any more time on what is clearly not been fully/properly built and move on to something else that does meet your needs? It is the fool who wastes time to verify that which he already knows.

jasondlnd
jasondlnd

What the programmers and software developers at Microsoft need to take a look at the history of computing and UI design and integrate some sense of legacy design into Windows 7 and Office 2007. Typically, the first thing I hear from new "home users" of Office 2007 and Vista is "Can I still do the same things I used to do in XP?" or "Can I still do the same things I used to do in Office 2003?" The answer should be "yes," but alarmingly, more often than not, the answer is "no."

santeewelding
santeewelding

I delight in change. Well, mostly. Then I just remind myself that I changed from a moment ago. It is the reference point of change that matters, every time.

Oz_Media
Oz_Media

They did change the UI but with a mere few minutes of learning, it's all there are even easier to get to than before, well just as easy anyway. Ribbons look 'different', which bothers some people, but turn off ribbons and all is back to normal. Even with ribbons enabled it is actually laid out better than in the past, click the windows icon for your file access and the rest is laid in in an almost tab like structure. I'm a heavy user of Dreamweaver, Illustrator and Fireworks. They used ot be Macromedia products and then Adobe bought them out. I cringed at the thought, I figured Fireworks would be dropped for Photoshop, but it wasn't, thank God! Adoe did change th einterface a BIT and it po'd me for a little while and now it's no problem. IN the end, while it was different, just as MSOffice is, and took me a while to get around, now I find it much better than previous versions. Change isn't always a bad thing, it just takes an ability to take time to explore it to find it's advantages. In both cases I found the HELP menus and online tuturials wills help you learn it, if needed, and in the end it results in faster means of doing what you used to do with the old UI.

RookieTech
RookieTech

Corp. have windows 7 already when will it come out for us well time will tell the consumers are always the last to get the goodies