morloc.com: Timothy Kline Talks Technology

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!