morloc.com: Timothy Kline Talks Technology

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

This may come as as surprise to many, but the next Operating System being released by Microsoft is still Beta.

Apparently, the majority of people who heard that a Beta version would be getting released to the public for free do not understand this. Just a sampling of the questions that arise from Live Search Q&A’s “Windows 7″ keyword verifies this, with questions like “I upgraded to Windows 7 and now this doesn’t work; what do I do?” or “Why isn’t Windows 7 recognizing my [fill-in-the-blank-hardware-device]?”

Judging by the posts I’ve seen on there over the past few weeks, the majority of those posting their questions had no business installing Windows 7’s beta release. Unfortunately, in their eagerness to take advantage of something free from Microsoft, they didn’t read the warnings before downloading the beta test version, nor did they understand that this is a beta test version or even that it will expire on August 1, 2009.

It also made sense for me to continue my series on the Windows 7 Beta Release by first explaining who should and should not be meddling with the beta version.

First, the obvious:Anyone that has to ask why such-and-such isn’t working now that they upgraded or did a fresh install of Windows 7 Beta should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out around 85-90% of you. A Beta release means that things are not going to work, or, they are not going to work right. It could be due to lack of support, unfinished code, incompatibility, or any number of other possibilities.

Second, anyone feeling frustrated, disappointed, or otherwise irritated because of the new Windows 7 features, user interface, or cosmetics should automatically be excluded from using the Windows 7 Beta release. That should weed out another 5% of you. A Beta release means that this is not the final product. Some things are either still being finalized, may yet be changed, or tossed out entirely by the time that the finalized retail version hits the store shelves.

That leaves us with around 5-10% of viable Windows 7 Beta testers who are more than qualified to install and run the beta version.

Obviously, there are going to be those people who complain that Microsoft should have been a lot more clear about who should’ve and who should not have downloaded and installed the beta testing version. Then again, if Microsoft would’ve never released it to the public like they had, there would likewise have been other people who would’ve complained that Microsoft should’ve been more open and free with their new OS during beta testing stages so that any inherent issues would’ve manifested themselves. It is definitely a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation, and I, for one, am only too happy that they decided to release it to the public.

That’s because a major advantage of having access to a pre-released version of an operating system is that it affords us an opportunity to know with plenty of advance notice whether our computer system or—in the case of us IT guys—whether new systems being introduced into our intranet will have issues. Although the OS code is not yet finalized, there is more than enough there for us to know right out of the starting gate what’s going to happen. A lot of commendations need to be given to Microsoft for making sure that the vast majority of drivers that worked for Vista will likewise work with Windows 7. That is going to save us from a tremendous amount of grief.

We can also, by participating in the beta testing stage, participate in reporting bugs back to Microsoft, as well as offer feedback and suggestions. Whether or not Microsoft actually will listen is a whole other topic; nevertheless, the option is there.

So now that I’ve narrowed down who I am going to be talking to throughout this serious of articles, let me spend a few minutes explaining what I intend to do with this series.

I will be covering my own experience with Windows 7 Beta, from installation to feature coverage. I’ll also be touching on various options as to security and system protection. I’ll also be giving my thoughts and opinions throughout each stage of the series, as appropriate to the given situation, and I will strive to do so fairly.

I hope that you find this series of articles helpful and insightful.

Windows 7: Vista Second Edition

By now, you’ve either heard that Microsoft has issued Windows 7 Beta or you’ve downloaded it, or both. No matter, because one way or another, PC desktops soon will be sporting the latest Operating System produced from Redmond, Washington. Early reports from testers and reviewers alike indicate that this version of the Windows operating system is a far better fare than Vista, although the majority of the Vista functionality and appearance are in Windows 7, as well.

Indicators are, then, that Windows 7 should rightly be considered as Vista Second Edition—a term many of us long-timers are familiar with and a reaffirmation that history really does repeat itself. In a previous life, the Windows operating system was essentially overhauled after the release of Windows 3.11. The result was Windows 95. It took the GUI-based operating system to a whole new level for us PC owners, introducing countless new features that could never have been implemented under the Windows 3.11 core or kernel.

However, Windows 95—as fantastic as it was—had issues. It served its purpose, of course, by creating a new level of expectation from the enduser in one’s operating system, and it also opened up a whole new world of potential. But the issues were pretty serious, nonetheless. Who remembers the catchy phrase “Plug and Pray,” for example?

But then, along came Windows 98, which built on the technology behind Windows 95—and more! Finally, Microsoft had an operating system that demanded attention. Still, it, too, had some serious issues, and shortly after Windows 98 was on the streets and in PCs, along came Windows 98 Second Edition. Nearly all of the issues that had plagued the operating system based around the Windows 95 concept had now been resolved.

Windows 98 Second Edition became the operating system to own.

That is, until Windows XP was released.

Now, you’ll notice that I passed over two Windows operating systems between Windows 98 SE (Short for Second Edition): Windows ME and Windows 2000 Professional.

Windows ME was a laughable, horrible operating system in itself. Everyone that knows anything, knows that. I could go on for days, weeks even, and still not even begin to scratch the surface of the debacle surrounding that operating system. Think of the ME—which supposedly stood for Millenium Edition, according to Microsoft’s ad department—as Massive Error. And Microsoft knew it.

Windows 2000 Professional Edition, on the other hand, is still considered one of the most stable Windows operating systems ever produced by Microsoft—but it wasn’t really for the home user, either. Personally, I still think Windows 2000 is amazing. Microsoft certainly got something right on it. And thousands if not millions who still continue to use it on their business systems would agree.

Microsoft, though, wanted to save face with their Windows ME joke, and set out to take the stability of Windows 2000 and dress it up with the curtains of Windows ME. The resulting version of Windows was Windows XP.

Clearly, they got their act together, because Windows XP continues to enjoy a commanding share in the world’s desktops and laptops as the operating system. While early adopters had a number of issues because of how the “rules” changed with the new operating system’s core and kernel, everyone seemed to agree that it was the bandwagon to jump on, and within a couple years, we saw the support for Windows 98 SE dry up and fade away in spite of cries and screams from loyal 98SE users.

But according to Microsoft pundits, Windows XP has been showing its age in light of advancing technologies, and a new operating system had to be developed to meet the incoming demands and capabilities of that technology.

Their response was Windows Vista.

Response to Vista was mixed at best. For me, personally, it’s fine as far as operating systems go. It’s certainly prettier than Windows XP! But you can dress up Windows XP with countless third-party packages.

Driver support has been slow in coming for Vista owners, unless you buy OEM desktops and laptops. For me, Creative Labs and NVidia were among the worst in supporting Vista, and to this day, end-users continue to have issues relating to both Creative Labs/Soundblaster and NVidia. Adaptec and Promise seem to have handled the Vista operating system in much the same way, by either producing driver updates compatible with Vista in an unbearably slow manner—or not at all, instead considering products incompatible with Vista as “EOL” (End of Life) and forcing their userbase to upgrade to new products.

In spite of all the drama, Windows Vista made inroads in the one area that mattered: it brought 64-bit into the mainstream in a way that Windows XP 64-bit didn’t seem to be able to do. It is, in fact, the 64-bit capability of Windows Vista that keeps me sticking with it in spite of the occasional hiccups. Everything works in my system, including my XFi card (a MAJOR issue in early drivers from Creative Labs). I, for one, absolutely enjoy being able to use the full 8GB of RAM in my system. I enjoy the stability afforded by a 64-bit operating system. But I’m also smart enough to admit that the next PC user may not be having a similar experience with their installation of Vista.

Does that mean I’m not looking forward to the street release of Windows 7? Absolutely the contrary! I am very much looking forward to it because every indication so far is that the issues with Vista seem to be getting addressed. But it’s a scenario that almost immediately reminded me of when Microsoft released Windows 98 Second Edition. This seems to be a repeat of that. There isn’t any real driving reason that I’ve seen that one should leave Windows XP for Windows Vista. Similarly, I don’t see any justification for one to abandon Windows XP to upgrade to Windows 7 once it’s released. Not if their Windows XP is doing everything that they need it to do.

Now, when I say that there’s not any reason or justification, I say that with a single caveat: 64-bit. Windows Vista brought 64-bit into the mainstream, as I already mentioned. But Windows 7 will continue that trend. And eventually, we will see the pattern repeat itself, just as in the gradual abandonment of Windows 98SE in lieu of Windows XP. Eventually, Windows XP will be committed to days past—even though it really is no less functional and is actually faster and more efficient at this point than Windows Vista OR Windows 7. But the only real reason that will happen is because for us to take full advantage of the processing power that we can tap into today, we need an operating system that can do it. The Windows XP operating system can do so, but not so well as the Vista/Windows 7 core and kernel can do. Further, 64-bit access just makes more sense today. It provides additional security and stability, and seems to handle 32-bit softwares just fine, which is another plus.

Does the average end-user need more than 4GB of RAM in their computer? Not yet. And again, that is why Windows XP will continue to dominate. But it’s equally nice to know that those of us who do need more RAM in our systems have the ability to use it in order to work more efficiently. It’s also nice to know that if our system works under Windows Vista, that it will most likely work under Windows 7. So, no worries there, either.

But I still hold to my opening opinion: Windows 7 is not a new operating system. It is Windows Vista Second Edition.

And I’ll be offering further insights and opinions into Windows 7 beta soon! So watch this space!