Windows 7 – More of the same?

In a months time, Microsoft’s ninth Windows Operating System, bizarrely entitled – Windows 7 (clearly Microsoft doesn’t count Windows 98 SE or Windows ME as Operating Systems, and I remember why), hits the shelves.

This is hugely important to Microsoft, having lost a lot of face, and users, with the disastrous Windows Vista, this could be their last chance to prove that they are top dog when it comes to Operating Systems. If things go wrong again, then it really could signal the end of Microsoft’s dominance in the Operating System market.

Windows

The first version of Windows was released way back in 1986, but it wasn’t the dominant, or even the first Operating System to use a graphical user interface (GUI) system or ‘windows’.

Apple got there first in 1984 with their famous, and uncannily prescient, ‘1984′ advert featuring a well endowed blonde lady hurling a sledge hammer at a screen featuring a bespectacled man who represented a ubiquitous and monolithic institution. Unfortunately smashing screens only destroys computers in Hollywood, and said man and monolithic institution merely used another screen to go on to dominate the computing world.

This dominance only really came about with Windows 3.1, probably the Windows version most people remember as being the ‘first’ Windows Operating System as it was used in many workplaces, colleges and universities, which was released in 1992 and had soon given Microsoft a 90% market share. This domaince only increased with the release of Windows 95 in 1995, Windows 98 in 1998 (and Windows 98 SE in 1999) and then the dire Windows Millennium Edition (ME) and Windows 2000, both in 2000, followed the following year by Windows XP.

This was around the time when Microsoft were criticised for introducing operating systems far too often with very little changes. Hence the rather long wait (six years) until Windows Vista.

It was with Windows XP that Microsoft secured it’s largest ever market share, around 97.5% in the middle of this decade. Even today, eight years after it was released, Windows XP alone still accounts for more than 70% of the operating system market.

Vista

Vista on the other hand, despite being just 2 years old, accounts for only 22% of the market and is widely blamed for Microsoft’s market share dropping to around the 90% mark this year. But why was it such a disaster?

The criticisms are many, and to be fair cannot all be blamed on Microsoft, but the first one can – price. Vista was extremely expensive, especially for British consumers who had to pay double what US consumers paid.

Users of Vista discovered what it is like for many Linux or Mac users, when, having installed their new operating system, they discovered that their printer, scanner, and many other hardware, particularly older hardware, simply would not work. And those manufacturers that hadn’t gone out of business or disappeared since XP, simply were not interested in producing new drivers for their old hardware just for Vista users.

The lucky ones spent hours, days or even weeks tracking down the new drivers for Vista, the not so lucky ones were forced to replace their perfectly good printers, scanners and assorted hardware with new ones just to run on Vista. Others opted to downgrade back to Windows XP.

Another problem, again not entirely Microsoft’s fault was UAC (User Account Control) an attempt to make the operating system more secure, that backfired somewhat. UAC was triggered when a program needed administrator privileges to function, sadly because Microsoft previously made all users administrators in other versions of Windows, it meant all software was designed to run with administrator, rather than standard privileges, by default.

This meant that virtually all programs made the UAC pop up every few minutes, even when carrying out simple functions (add to that the Firewall and/or Antivirus pop-ups and Vista as a constant interruption!), or the programs didn’t work at all. Needless to say, soon after Vista was released guides appeared everywhere showing how to turn the damn thing off! This of course completely negated the security benefits of it. 

One of the biggest gripes about Vista was it’s performance. Many users complained that it reduced their computing to a crawl, despite having top of the range computers. Vista requirements stated that it needed 1GB of RAM and a 1GHz processor, but even those with far in excess of those requirements found it slow and unresponsive. Many netbooks for example meet Vista’s requirements, few, if any, are capable of actually running Vista.

Linux

Compare this to Linux, specifically the popular Ubuntu, which requires just a 700MHz processor and 384MB of RAM and yet offers Aero-like effects and a swift and efficient operating system; and it is easy to see why those who splashed out on an expensive new computers, that ended up being slower than their old one, were not happy.

Netbook owners discovered that they couldn’t use Microsoft’s new operating system, being forced to go back to the eight year old XP, or move to the free Linux operating system like Ubuntu. Those that did found that Ubuntu offered a faster, slicker and more stable experience than Vista and more importantly made their new PC or netbook feel like it was supposed to – new.

Apple Mac

Others still, switched to Mac, pushing Apple’s market share up beyond 5% for the first time since 1993. Apple’s OS X was also faster, slicker and much better looking than Vista, and like Linux far more secure, immune to spyware and other forms of malware.

The major downside however was that it meant purchasing a new computer, specifically to run Mac OS X, and Apple Mac’s are very expensive.

So the question is, what can Microsoft offer to compete with the free, virus immune, secure, customisable, Aero-beating effects of Ubuntu; and the secure, polished, beautiful and extremely desirable Mac OS X?

Windows 7

I have to admit, with Windows 7 they have offered a worthy competitor. Unlike Vista it is slick, fast loading and doesn’t hamstring your computer, indeed there didn’t appear to be any difference in speed between Windows XP and Windows 7 on the computer it was tested on – a netbook! Yes Windows 7 runs without any problems on a netbook, despite Windows 7 having the same hardware requirements as Vista.

There was talk of a stripped down version of Windows 7 for netbooks last year, but that now appears not to be the case, not to mention unnecessary, Windows 7 runs fine on netbooks, demonstrating that Microsoft have managed to get rid of the bloat of Vista, whilst retaining it’s look and feel. The Aero effects also ran fine on the netbook we tested.

The taskbar has been altered to something similar to Mac OS X, not in looks, but in making it simpler and easier to use. Rather than having an icon on the taskbar for each application, it now has one and displays all open windows when hovered over. Making things much simpler and productive when working with multiple applications and documents.

There are still problems however. UAC is still a nightmare. While you can install programs as an Administrator, some programs, such as anti-virus and firewall packages, don’t automatically start unless started by an administrator because of UAC. When it is disabled things run smoother, although not safer.

There is also the same driver and software problems that plagued Vista at launch, although Windows 7 hasn’t officially launched yet, but fortunately most of the time the Vista versions of the software or drivers appears to work OK.

All in all this appears to be the best and most polished release of a Windows Operating System for a long time, possibly ever, but one can’t help but wonder whether that is because Microsoft has had millions of beta testers helping to iron out the kinks for the past two years, otherwise known as Vista users.

Windows 7, good as it is, it still doesn’t quite stack up to the much more customisable and safer Ubuntu, nor the better looking and much more polished Mac OS X, it may well be too little too late for Microsoft.

Vista may well have done what the busty blonde with the hammer could not, end Microsoft as a monolithic and ubiquitous entity.