Is Windows 7 just
an update to Vista?
Of course it is!
Microsoft has said all along that Windows 7 is going to be more compatible with
Vista then Vista was with XP. In the computing world, the only way
to do this is to keep changes to a minimum. Changes break applications
and drivers, because they are expecting a specific input or connection
that is now moved - or worse, missing. It is impossible to design an
application to be ready for some future interface that is not yet
designed or implemented.
Picky, Picky, Picky
I recently got a new PC at work, and I have suffered through the
issue of computer applications not working when something is in the
wrong place. for example, most applications get installed on the C:
drive in the Program Files folder. One old program refused to run
unless installed under C: root. It simply couldn't find its own files
if they weren't exactly in the right location.
This is not a problem normally found on a Mac, which has a history
of letting you install applications where you like. Unix and Linux are
the opposite and can require a very specific filesystem hierarchy
standard for applications to follow.
Stumbling Out of the Gate
The problems with the launch of Vista were nothing new to longtime
Mac users. We can remember the introduction of Mac OS X 10.0. I
remember all the bad reports and the fact that Mac OS 9 was much
faster.
I skipped over OS X 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2. It wasn't until 10.3
that things started to settle down. Even then, I would dual boot into
OS 9 on occasion and be surprised at how much faster it was.
OS X is a much bigger resource hog than OS 9, and to this day
I think networking was better under OS 9.
Yet here I am happy to use OS X and almost never give a thought to
using OS 9.
What changed? Apple kept making improvements, adding underlying
technology (Core Audio, Quartz, Bonjour, POSIX compliance, etc.) to
take more advantage of newer, more powerful hardware. Eventually the
hardware and the software caught up.
Microsoft's Opportunity for Redemption
Microsoft has the same opportunity, but it oversold Vista and
created a lot of bad
karma in the process. It is looking to change the name to Windows 7
and start over. In their favor, the available hardware will be faster
when it launches, and Microsoft will do a better job setting system
requirements. And a relaunch under a new name will give them that fresh
start.
It's okay that Windows 7 is just an update to Vista. You may think
that sounds like a rip-off (a common concern for cheapskate users), but
Microsoft will spend a billion dollars over the next year sprucing up
the fundamentals, and marketing will spend $300 million revamping the
image of Windows.
Ease of Transition
Apple was better at providing users the means to slowly but surely
switch over to the newer OS. Apple provided Mac users a way to continue
using OS 9 in a virtual environment as third-party software caught
up, and they used to provide a copy of OS 9 with each copy of
OS X sold.
None of this backward support was provided for Vista, so many users
found it easier to stay with XP. On top of that, Microsoft left the
barn door open by offering business vendors a way to downgrade to XP - a nice
way to sell the more expensive Business and Ultimate versions of Vista,
but Microsoft didn't provide an easy way to switch from XP to Vista
later on without doing a full install.
Imagine if Vista came with a copy of XP and if virtualization was
enabled to let you run XP in a separate window without exiting Vista.
Users would have been happy and Vista wouldn't be the black mark on
Microsoft's reputation.
This shows how badly Microsoft handled the transition to Vista - in
order to instill confidence it has to drop the Vista name. As
bad as OS X 10.0 was, Apple didn't have to come up with a new name
to hide its first release. (In a few years, none of this will matter -
as long as Microsoft doesn't screw up a second time.)
With Macs selling like
crazy and Linux
gaining a toehold in the netbook market, Microsoft simply cannot
afford to screw up again. To steal a line from Apple, you'll see why
2009 won't be like 2006 (cue throwing the hammer).
