In-depth look at Windows 7
Summary: Given that I knew most of you would be virtually blasted out of your chairs by a "shock and awe" of Windows 7 reviews once the news embargo on the OS was lifted (combined with the fact that I only got my hands on a copy of Build 6801 a couple of days later), I decided to take my time to get to knows the OS before I shared with you my thoughts and feelings about Microsoft's latest OS.
Given that I knew most of you would be virtually blasted out of your chairs by a "shock and awe" of Windows 7 reviews once the news embargo on the OS was lifted (combined with the fact that I only got my hands on a copy of Build 6801 a couple of days later), I decided to take my time to get to knows the OS before I shared with you my thoughts and feelings about Microsoft's latest OS.
Check out the Windows 7 install/UI gallery here!
Previous gallery here
UPDATE: Also check out Windows 7's troubleshooting tools post!
Installation
Installing Windows 7 is quick ... very quick! I managed to get Windows 7 installed and ready to go in under 15 minutes on one system - a time that makes Vista seem like a lumbering dinosaur.
Beyond the speed boost, the setup process for Windows 7 Build 6801 is pretty much the same as for Vista in that you interact with it at the beginning and the end of the process, but for the most part it gets on with the install by itself.
Next -->
OS Speed
Once I'd recovered from shock of the speed of the install (I'd set aside 45 minutes, and was done in 15!), I was next struck by how fast Windows 7 is. There's none of the sluggishness and lag that I remember with early builds of Vista and XP. Everything is snappy and responsive ... Start Menu, Control Panel applets, applications ... everything. About the only thing I've come across so far that was slow was the Magnifier tool ... this tool about 20 seconds to load. Side by side, Windows 7 is far snappier and more responsive than Windows Vista. That alone is promising for the future.
Also, bootup and shut down times are faster. Basic tests show that bootup is some 10% faster and shut down some 15%. Impressive.
UI
If there's one word to describe the Windows 7 UI it's this - Unfinished! In fact, using Windows 7 puts you in a wierd wonderland of Vista mixed in changes for Windows 7.
That said, there's a lot of new stuff to see - desktop tweaks, taskbar tweaks, Windows Explorer tweaks, Control Panel tweaks. Some long-time Windopws applications such as Paint, WordPad and Calculator have received a fresh lick of paint too, although I'm not sure how the Ribbon UI (which debuted in Office 2007) will go down with users who've not seen it before.
Next -->
UAC Tweaks
It seems that Microsoft has taken on board the constructive criticism it received over User Account Control (UAC) and provided users with setting to make it less annoying. Windows 7 provides four settings, ranging from "Always notify" to "Never notify." The default setting is "Only notify me when programs try to make changes to my computer," which seems to offer a happy middle ground.
Windows Updates
Not many changes here yet, but Microsoft has made it easier to see what updates are being offered.
Next -->
Windows 7 in VMware 6Does Windows 7 work inside a VMware virtual machine? Yes. I set my virtual machines up as "Windows Server 2008 (experimental)" and "Windows Server 2008 x64 Edition (experimental)" with 512MB or 1GB of RAM and a 24GB IDE disk and everything worked fine.
Overall
OK, enough messing about! Down to the real questions:
- Is Windows 7 better than Vista?
- Is Windows 7 better than XP?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say yes, but with conditions. It's too early to know whether the performance gains will translate into the RTM release, and there's still a lot of work to be done, but the OS that I'm seeing in Build 1601 has potential. It's also without a doubt easier to use (setting up a new theme, configuring a printer or finding out what's wrong with your network is a lot easier and takes fewer steps).
The UI is also cleaner, and little tweaks such as clicking in the bottom right hand corner of the taskbar to get to the desktop makes more sense than having a separate icon and so on. Little things like this make the UI cleaner and ultimately easier to use.
Looking forward to the next build!
UPDATE: Also check out Windows 7's troubleshooting tools post!
<< Home >>
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
How much ?
Good point ...
No argument from me on this thought. NT
ummm....
Apple is anything but cheap.
If you already have the HW...
Although Apple charges for upgrades far more frequently
Apple charges for each service pack, MS doesn't. To keep up with the latest security patches and OS improvements, you would have had to pay for 4 OS X upgrades in the same amount of time that Windows users paid for 1.
MS does charge for SP's actually
Um, what?
Ha Ha. Not
It would appear
Just throwing you an idea. We'll give you more from time to time as we should all help the disadvantaged. ;)
Versions and SP....
While I see your point in where your going with this... I feel inclinde to point out that SP's are upgrades to an existing version codebase.
Win 3.1 - Win 3.11 would be the same codebase.
Win NT is on a separete codebase.
Win 95 stems from the Win 3.1 code, but is versioned as 4.0
Win 98 could be called a major SP if you wanted to, but 98SE and XP share very little codebase as XP is built from the NT tree. it is also versioned as 5.1 making it more of a SP to 2000 which is 5.0
Confused yet? It's not that hard really. 98SE and XP are both from different code and different major versions.
Versions work like this:
Major.Minor.Build
Win 98 = 4.10.1998
Win 98SE = 4.10.2222
Win Vista = 6.0.6000
Win Vista SP1 = 6.0.6001
SP only increase the build number. If it changes the minor it is an R2. If it changes the major it is considered a new OS as enough has changed to make it different enough to be a new product.
OSX.... 10.1.1 to 10.5.5 are all the same OS, just multiple SP and re-releases.
The point that Apple does technically charge for its SP does stand. The confusion comes in how they label it. Mac doesn't use the term service pack. Instead it chooses to call it a build which is correct, however misleading to some users in making them believe it is more then it really is.
Most users don't upgrade until they have passed a few builds anyway, but at least MS gives you the option to increase your build for free for the lifetime of the minor release.
Win 95 was a major release as it increased from 3.1 to 4.0. Win 98 was a minor release because it was version 4.1. 2000 was major at 5.0 and XP minor at 5.1. Vista major at 6.0 and Win 7 minor at 6.1.
Clueless as usual...
98 (and SE), ME are part of the MS DOS flavored codebase. They can trace their origin back to Windows 3.0, 3.1x and 95. 2000, XP, Vista and 7 are based on NT. Different critter entirely.
Not this again!
Microsoft has clearly defined what an SP is: Software they release that is called a "Service Pack". There's no ambiguity about it.
Apple has essentially done the same thing (except they don't specifically call them service packs). It is that software which increments the third digit of the version number. While not formally defined they have been very consistent with this method since the release of OS X.
So please, let this argument die.
LOL - the lights on but nobody's home - nt
Guys, guys...
He obviously knows it all.
@ye. wasted words.
Hey fr0thy2
They kind of remind me of the Cheech and Chong bit about the look, smell and taste of excrement. They actually tasted it.
Congrats!
Apple does NOT charge for service packs
points doesn't make them minor service
packs. XP was only a single point up
from 2000 (NT 5.0 and 5.1).
OS X 10.5 Leopard was a major OS
release compared to 10.4 Tiger, just as
Vista was a major step from XP. 10.6
Snow Leopard promises massive speed
and efficiency gains from older systems
when run on Intel hardware, and
represents a major shift in the platform
just as Windows 7 moves beyond Vista.
Even XP wasn't a front-line OS for 7
years, and its service packs did nothing
to change the core system features or
functions.
Apple does do service packs, but like
Microsoft, it gives them away for free on
its update service. Currently we are on
10.5.5, the fifth service pack for 10.5.
Doesn't matter what you call it
OS X users don't get anything for free and have had to pay for 4 updates in the same time frame that Windows users only had to pay for 1.
Quite frankly, I don't care if you call it a point release, service pack, or Hello Kitty, the end result is that Windows users end up having to pay for OS upgrades far less frequently than OS X users. Apple's $25 [b]billion[/b] didn't just magically appear you know, it had to come from your pocket! :)
Actually...
points doesn't make them minor service
packs. XP was only a single point up
from 2000 (NT 5.0 and 5.1)."
It may seem like a single point to you... but if you had programming experience you'd know how much code has to change just to increase the build number, let alone the minor number.
Version = Major.Minor.Build
Technically they could call it anything they want, but they usually stay pretty close to what is universally excepted. 2000 was a major release and XP was a minor release. 10.1.1 to 10.5.5 is still the same major release.
"Even XP wasn't a front-line OS for 7
years, and its service packs did nothing
to change the core system features or
functions."
SP2 changed alot under the hood and added new features and changed some applets and gui features. Alot of people think SP was closer to an R2, but MS choose not to charge or re-release and instead offered it as a SP. Part of this was probably to make up for the horrible failure that WinMe was, and the troubles it caused. Alot of feature sometimes get back ported into the older OS's after the new ones get released in the form of downloadable updates. This helps further the thought that MS tends to be more forgiving in charging then a lot of people think they are. If they wanted to, they could charge for every build increase. Instead they know if you give them pieces then later they will buy the whole thing.
Nothing against Apple, but I feel they would fair better if they let you upgrade minor releases for free considering they control the hardware you use. Just my opinion.