Who should judge Win7's success?

[zridling]

For the most part, we DC members are power users and can find our way around any software. And based on early reviews and beta use, Win7 is a hit. But those same testers and early reviewers had good things to say about Vista, too. Whom should we trust to be the better judge of Win7's success?

• Mom/Dad?
  
• Niece/Nephew?
  
• The mythical "Average User"?
  
• Win7 party attendants?
  
• College students?
  
• Your co-workers?

[JavaJones]

"The market", of course. What other measure of success is there for a commercial software product?

And for my part I don't remember much early praise for Vista except from a vocal minority of Windows-lovers and apparent apologists, or people who just thought it was uncool to jump on the Vista bashing bandwagon. Win7 has been much different in that regard, at least from what I've seen.

- Oshyan

[nite_monkey]

personally I would think that you should just use 7 yourself, and not bother with what other people have to say. Different people like different things. One person might love 7, while another person can't stand it. the best option is to just try it and see if it is right for you.

[Josh]

Exactly! Just like I absolutely love vista and other vocal people do not.

[rgdot]

I, as well, don't recall early Vista reviews being very positive and 7 has been as near unanimous as I have seen from any MS product.
Who should judge? each end user and DON'T judge only based on security.

[zridling]

It was mostly the usual [mainstream] suspects:
— ZDnet's Ed Bott went crazy over it, attacking anyone who had a negative experience of Vista, and called it a killer OS.
— PC World’s Preston Gralla and Paul Thurrott were enthusiastic overall.
— BusinessWeek’s Steve Wildstrom (Vista: Upgrade–or Trade Up?)
— CNET’s Robert Vamosi
— PC Magazine’s John Clyman
— NYTimes' David Pogue praised the UAC
— As did WSJ's Walt Mossberg
— USAToday's Ed Baig loved the look before ever really using it.

Simply put, Win7 was what we were expecting Vista would be. Thus it should be fun.

[Innuendo]

So far I have turned loose a barely computer-literate couple in their 50s and a just-got-her-first--laptop-it's-really-mine 18 year-old. Both the couple and the teenager were coming from XP environments and everyone was enthusiastic about Windows 7 and generally loved the new OS.

I was especially worried about the couple as they had never been exposed to UAC before and were going to be resistant to change, but as soon as I explained UAC to them they really embraced it. They'd been victims of drive-by adware, toolbars, and malware while browsing & they were really keen on anything that might help stop that kind of misfortune from hitting again.

If Microsoft is careful they just might have a hit on their hands.

[tanis424]

I never understood the Vista hate. Certainly a number of hardware companies dropped the ball when it came to their drivers but other than that it's been fine and stable for me since release.

I'm yet to see a compelling reason to pay for an upgrade to 7.

As for judging the success of Windows 7, the commercial results will give an indication of it's adoption rate I suppose. As others have said though, if you like it and it improves your own computer time then it's a success for you. No doubt, people with ancient hardware will try to install it and then complain bitterly that it doesn't work as well as [insert OS designed more than 10 years ago].

[JavaJones]

Vista is a funny thing as far as like/dislike goes, or perhaps better to say, as far as the reported and/or perceived user experience goes. And it doesn't necessarily seem to have anything to do with computer expertise or even demand placed on the system, or hardware, or anything else.

Take me for example. I've been using computers for over 20 years. I've seriously used every version of Windows since 3.0 and DOS before that, of course. Windows 2000 was my favorite OS for a long time, and it took me a while to embrace XP, but eventually I did and now I love it. XP was going to be tough to beat for me, but I tried Vista with an open mind. Hated it. Nonetheless I bought it (for business reasons) and figured I might as well give it a real chance. So I used it for a year. Hated it. What was the problem? There are a lot, I'm not sure which order to go in. I'll keep it short for now and elaborate if anyone is interested (probably not).

I think the main things were the new Windows Explorer was *less* usable and functional for the way I work (despite having some good ideas). The new search functionality also sucks in my opinion (I wrote a blog post partly about this and how to fix it in Win7). The new Taskbar and Start menu changes were not appealing to me (I always set XP to "Classic" mode and turn off taskbar grouping, and turn on Quicklaunch). UAC was also a major annoyance. As a savvy computer user I've seldom, if ever, had major security issues, so it was - for me - a solution in search of a problem, and really just turned into an annoyance. Fortunately I could turn it off, but Vista still bitched about that (Security Center warning). I've also never been an appreciator of flash and glitz, shiny, pretty UIs for the sake of just shiny and pretty (a shiny, pretty UI that improves *functionality* on the other hand is wonderful), and I felt like a lot of the "upgrade" in Vista was things like Aero and Glass, neither of which I needed or wanted. Last but not least, subjectively and objectively, by almost every measure, Vista was slower for me than XP, except in resume from sleep time (boot time was still slower than XP).

The biggest thing, which I did find odd considering all the new tech and optimizations, was that despite running it on a very nice (for the time) quad core with a healthy amount of RAM and a nice graphics card, Vista still felt sluggish and "chunky". It seldom crashed, yes, but it somehow often felt like it was going to crash, and I even feel like maybe my apps themselves were more prone to crash, or at least freeze, under Vista. Overall it just felt less polished, solid, and performant than XP.

Windows 7 fixes that last big problem pretty darn well, at least. The Explorer and Start issues are still there, not to mention the Taskbar is now *irrevocably* changed to something I don't like (did MS forget spatial memory is an important part of UI interaction?). But at least using Win7 *feels* nicer, faster, more solid. Win7 is what Vista should have been, and I'd have been happy to wait a couple more years for MS to get there, avoiding the entire Vista debacle entirely.

So anyway what I'm saying is I'm one of those people who hated Vista with, I feel, good reason, and I do like Win7 and consider it a worthwhile upgrade. Though I do wish MS charged less for it like Apple does. Fortunately one of my newer machines is apparently eligible for a free upgrade.

- Oshyan

[tanis424]

I think the main things were the new Windows Explorer was *less* usable and functional for the way I work (despite having some good ideas). The new search functionality also sucks in my opinion (I wrote a blog post partly about this and how to fix it in Win7). The new Taskbar and Start menu changes were not appealing to me (I always set XP to "Classic" mode and turn off taskbar grouping, and turn on Quicklaunch). UAC was also a major annoyance. As a savvy computer user I've seldom, if ever, had major security issues, so it was - for me - a solution in search of a problem, and really just turned into an annoyance. Fortunately I could turn it off, but Vista still bitched about that (Security Center warning).

The biggest thing, which I did find odd considering all the new tech and optimizations, was that despite running it on a very nice (for the time) quad core with a healthy amount of RAM and a nice graphics card, Vista still felt sluggish and "chunky".

-JavaJones (October 15, 2009, 03:52 PM)

I haven't used Windows Explorer since Directory Opus was released for the pc so that was a non-issue for me. Opus also goes a long way towards making UAC less annoying. No more multiple prompts for creating folders/moving files etc. I can understand you not liking Explorer in Vista but I don't understand how you could use Explorer with XP either.

Vista can be set to Classic mode, in fact that's what I am using now - a change is as good as a holiday, I couldn't stand the cartoonish blue Luna on XP either - Classic does fail miserably if you use the sidebar though - looks horrible.

As for your 'feeling' that it's sluggish, I've never had this impression (dual core, 2Gb ram and 640Mb GT8800 gfx here). That said, I always turn off window/menu animations (restore/minimize etc), they always seem to make things feel slower - I much prefer the snappier instant change.

Still, each to their own, and I still haven't read a reason to upgrade

[Stoic Joker]

I've also never been an appreciator of flash and glitz, shiny, pretty UIs for the sake of just shiny and pretty (a shiny, pretty UI that improves *functionality* on the other hand is wonderful)

-JavaJones (October 15, 2009, 03:52 PM)

I usually sum this up with the 3Fs rule - Form Follows Function. It's one of my favorites.

[Tuxman]

Windows 7 is, basically, Vista with a unusable task bar. So I can't see a sense in "upgrading".

[jgpaiva]

Windows 7 is, basically, Vista with a unusable task bar. So I can't see a sense in "upgrading".

-Tuxman (October 16, 2009, 07:16 PM)

Why do you say that?
There have been no changes in the inner workings? It takes as much space as Vista? It takes as much time to boot as Vista?
About the taskbar, you found studies showing that people are less productive when using win7?
Have you been using it yourself and finding that you worked much better with vista?

[Tuxman]

It takes as much space as Vista? It takes as much time to boot as Vista?

-jgpaiva (October 16, 2009, 07:39 PM)

According to the recommendations, it takes at least twice as much of resources.

About the taskbar, you found studies showing that people are less productive when using win7?

-jgpaiva (October 16, 2009, 07:39 PM)

I performed studies myself. The one I performed them with was I. You see, if you are keen with a certain way to handle your OS (having been using Windows since 1996), it is a huge loss of productivity if you'll have to change your behavior entirely.

No more actual "task" bar, no more classic start menu; two big disadvantages for me. Of course, computer newbies (starting with Vista or sth) won't have these problems.

[rgdot]

Less CPU hogging is always good but shouldn't be the only issue, I know nobody here says that it is but I am just saying. Even security shouldn't be the deal breaker in of itself. Of course if I write an OS which practically attracts viruses and uses 100%CPU all the time no body would use it but in a stable computing environment something that 'fits your needs' goes beyond 5% less cpu and less chance of this or that.
Success of Win7 should be measured on how users individually adapt to it.

[Stoic Joker]

No more actual "task" bar, no more classic start menu; two big disadvantages for me. Of course, computer newbies (starting with Vista or sth) won't have these problems.

-Tuxman (October 16, 2009, 07:46 PM)

Ya know the "Classic" start menu really only had about a five year run 95-2k ... The Start Panel introduced (to the public e.g. the rest of us had it earlier...) in 2001 when XP was RTM is looking at about a 10 year run at this point. So... Why is it still being treated as some new evil thing?!?

[bluesear]

It's said that Vista is somewhat stabler and compatible than Win. 7.

[jgpaiva]

It takes as much space as Vista? It takes as much time to boot as Vista?

-jgpaiva (October 16, 2009, 07:39 PM)

According to the recommendations, it takes at least twice as much of resources.

-Tuxman (October 16, 2009, 07:46 PM)

Do you mean the computer performs slower than with vista?
I didn't know about that.. I only read a few of the first articles I could find about vista vs win 7 they mentioned improvements in speed when using the system (some of them even mention some stuff faster than XP  ).
Or do you mean it just uses more resources in general? But I always heard that "unused ram is wasted ram", don't you agree?

No more actual "task" bar, no more classic start menu; two big disadvantages for me. Of course, computer newbies (starting with Vista or sth) won't have these problems.

-Tuxman (October 16, 2009, 07:46 PM)

Oh, then you meant that it was unusable for you. I misunderstood, I assumed you meant it was a general thing, and that sort of went against what I read about microsoft having made studies on how it was an improvement in usability for the general public.

[jgpaiva]

It's said that Vista is somewhat stabler and compatible than Win. 7.

-bluesear (October 17, 2009, 03:51 AM)

Doesn't windows 7 have a small update to WDM? I wouldn't be surprised if vendors still haven't upgraded their drivers to fit it. From what I understand, it isn't such a major leap as it was with XP->Vista, so wouldn't be surprised if it was actually a smoother transition than it was back then.

[Tuxman]

Ya know the "Classic" start menu really only had about a five year run 95-2k ... The Start Panel introduced (to the public e.g. the rest of us had it earlier...) in 2001 when XP was RTM is looking at about a 10 year run at this point. So... Why is it still being treated as some new evil thing?!?

-Stoic Joker (October 16, 2009, 11:54 PM)

This is the first time that "the public" is forced to use it...

Or do you mean it just uses more resources in general? But I always heard that "unused ram is wasted ram", don't you agree?

-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)

Unused RAM is cache for me. More resource usage = less performance with the same resources, right?

what I read about microsoft having made studies on how it was an improvement in usability for the general public.

-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)

Do you really trust Microsoft's studies? Of course they will never result in "this sucks".

[Stoic Joker]

I always heard that "unused ram is wasted ram", don't you agree?

-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)

Anything to a point (i.e. 4GB of RAM on an x86 machine would be 750MB of wasted RAM), but better to under use it that over use it. Too many XP machines with 256MB RAM (which was 4x the install min...) ended up gnawing a hole in the HDD where the PageFile isn't any more because of scuttling the HDD due to insufficient RAM.

Ya know the "Classic" start menu really only had about a five year run 95-2k ... The Start Panel introduced (to the public e.g. the rest of us had it earlier...) in 2001 when XP was RTM is looking at about a 10 year run at this point. So... Why is it still being treated as some new evil thing?!?

-Stoic Joker (October 16, 2009, 11:54 PM)

This is the first time that "the public" is forced to use it...

-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)

...And with a 10 year warning it's about damn time it went the way of 16bit software. Frankly I'm tired of having to fight my way around the missing UI improvements when I get stuck working on the machine of some spastic user that thinks that life is simpler if you have less (or compare-ably no) options.

Now, true, 10 years ago I wasn't tickled to death with the at-the-time new-fangled contraption. But, as an IT professional I was obligated to take the time to learn how the then new OS worked...UI improvements and all. It ended up taking less that a week for me to realize just how incredibly handy (and superior) the Start Panel was.

Do you really trust Microsoft's studies? Of course they will never result in "this sucks".

-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)

Sure they will, they just won't blame it on somebody else on TV like Apple does.

[Tuxman]

...And with a 10 year warning it's about damn time it went the way of 16bit software

-Stoic Joker (October 17, 2009, 07:39 AM)

Why? "Never change a running system". After all, there wasn't a need for that, unlike 16 bit software (as 32 bit CPUs came up).

UI improvements and all.

-Stoic Joker (October 17, 2009, 07:39 AM)

Why do you think this is an improvement?

[Darwin]

I think Windows 7 will be judged a success or a failure in both the market and the press. I loved Vista (and agree with Josh - Windows 7 is probably NOT worth a paid upgrade, though I suspect that a lot of people will do just that to get away from Vista) and its sales seem to have been more than adequate, but it has remained a PR nightmare for MS since it was released. If reports start filtering out post-Oct 22 about real users having trouble free upgrades to Windows 7 on older hardware that was designed for XP or even 2000, I think Windows 7 will have a shot at doing well in the press and blogosphere and this will be reflected in the marketplace.

However, if MS REALLY wants a hit on its hands, they should do something about their pricing scheme. From what I've seen, Windows 7 will be very expensive.  If MS took a page from Apple's playbook and released a single DVD with all flavours of Windows 7 on it and one license key for a flat sum of $100-200, it would sell like hot cakes. Instead this is the price point for lower-end version UPGRADE LICENSES, which will still require clean installs. Not smart marketing in my opinion.

[jgpaiva]

Or do you mean it just uses more resources in general? But I always heard that "unused ram is wasted ram", don't you agree?

-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)

Unused RAM is cache for me. More resource usage = less performance with the same resources, right?

-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)

Yes, exactly, that's the reason Vista used more memory than XP, it used unused ram for cache. So you didn't notice the performance improvements mentioned in several reviews and you even noticed your computer being slower? I'd love to have the time to test it on my computer and see if it actually matches up to what's being said.

what I read about microsoft having made studies on how it was an improvement in usability for the general public.

-jgpaiva (October 17, 2009, 05:49 AM)

Do you really trust Microsoft's studies? Of course they will never result in "this sucks".

-Tuxman (October 17, 2009, 06:31 AM)

I though microsoft wouldn't invest of money on creating a whole new interface if it didn't bring better usability results... If they faked the studies, and they launched an operating system with an unusable taskbar, wouldn't they lose even more costumers to other OS?

I've seen a microsoft presentation about how and why they developed the new taskbar. It's really interesting, they have the explanations for why they developed it like that, and show the usability results and the costumer experience data which led them through the design process.
Honestly, since I've tried windows 7, I've been trying to find something similar to its taskbar in Ubuntu. I've found dockbarX, and think it's a fantastic improvement because the taskbar gets way more organized. Its only problem is its paradigm doesn't work so well with multiple desktops.

[Darwin]

I quite like the new taskbar in Windows 7. It takes a bit of getting used to but it works. So much so that I have removed (though have not yet uninstalled) TrueLaunchBar64 from the taskbar and find that I really do not miss it.

Hovering the cursor over an icon pops up a small window showing you what apps are running associated with the icon (ie if you have two Firefox browsers and a download window open you will see these represented in the popup):



PS Screenshot from SnagIt 9 - I couldn't figure out how to use MS' Snipping Tool (which is otherwise quite good) to invoke without using the mouse and thus having the pop-up disappear

EDIT: add the postscript...