Microsoft's Windows 7, as viewed by the Mac faithful
What is it about operating system launches that get computer geeks so riled up? Judging from the early reviews, at least, Microsoft's Windows 7 appears headed for a successful debut -- promising to erase from our collective memory all those problems we had just getting our printers to work with Vista.
But rather than waiting for Oct. 22 to try Windows 7 and judge for themselves, some of the popular Apple enthusiast blogs are taking a hard line and looking for every opportunity to declare Microsoft's new OS a disaster even before it hits store shelves.
Last week Mac Daily News picked apart a favorable but evenhanded Windows 7 review by the Wall Street Journal's Walt Mossberg. And today Mac Observer is spotlighting a Microsoft video tutorial that explains how to upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7.
"We'll be honest, it could take a couple hours," concedes Kellie Eickmeyer, a Windows senior program manager, at the outset of the video.
The problem, as we've documented in the past,
is that the upgrade from Windows XP requires a clean install, backing
up data and applications and then reinstalling them after Windows 7 is
on the machine. The shift from the newer Windows Vista to Windows 7 can
be done "in place," sidestepping that hassle.
As Mossberg pointed out in his WSJ review last week, "It’s tedious and painful to upgrade an existing computer from XP to 7, and the variety of editions in which Windows 7 is offered is confusing."
But at least Microsoft is being up front about it. And don't forget that Windows XP is almost 8 years old. Given the underlying changes in computers since then, some level of difficulty is to be expected.
Yes, it's Microsoft's fault that so many people are still using the ancient operating system. Many of them are terrified about upgrading to Vista, given all the problems the OS has experienced with device and application compatibility. Apple, in contrast, deserves credit for steady advances and regular releases of Mac OS X.
But we'd challenge even the most expert Mac user to make the upgrade to Snow Leopard from Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" -- released around the same time as Windows XP -- in less than two hours.
Oh wait, that's right, Puma ran on PowerPC machines, and Snow Leopard requires Intel processors. In other words, we'd challenge the most expert Mac user to make that upgrade at all.
Read more of Todd Bishop's posts at TechFlash.com, and follow him on Twitter @toddbishop
Bill on October 13, 2009 at 04:48 AM
I find Windows 7 (and Vista for that matter) quite capable. They're good Operating Systems. Both however, are butt ugly - especially the Aero window interface. Microsoft is always being accused of stealing stuff from the Macintosh, why don't they just steal the look and feel. MacOS X is just prettier. Not a particularly deep comment, huh?
Locomotive Breath on October 13, 2009 at 04:52 AM
"But we'd challenge even the most expert Mac user to make the upgrade to Snow Leopard from Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" -- released around the same time as Windows XP -- in less than two hours.
Oh wait, that's right, Puma ran on PowerPC machines, and Snow Leopard requires Intel processors. In other words, we'd challenge the most expert Mac user to make that upgrade at all."
The difference is that Apple hasn't gone 8 years between releasing OS versions that don't suck.
Mr. Bingley on October 13, 2009 at 04:53 AM
Can you run Windows 7 on a pc machine from 2001 when OS 10.1 came out?
Ray Ciscon on October 13, 2009 at 05:02 AM
Todd,
You need to do a little more research on your subject before you get as snarky as you did in your last couple of paragraphs.
In the history of the Macintosh platform, Apple managed to successfully transition their hardware and OS to entirely different microprocessor families with a minimum of difficulty for the end user... TWICE!
How many processors has Intel and other companies tried to introduce to the Microsoft world that failed completely because they did not include compatibility with 10, 15, even 20 year old versions of Microsoft operating systems?
Apple has kept their competitive edge over the last 25 years by carefully managing processor transitions twice as many times as Microsoft has.
Sure, you can't run software written for Macs in the late 80's, but the question should be, why do you want to?
Mike G on October 13, 2009 at 05:05 AM
I'm all for Windows actually releasing a version that people want, both of the main operating systems need the competition of the other to stay sharp, but I have to agree with that comment about Microsoft's aesthetics-- just because you can make all those colors, doesn't mean you need to use them all at once! Honestly, when I use a Windows pc I feel like I'm staring into a neon sign...
ern on October 13, 2009 at 05:11 AM
Bingley: why would you even want to? Hardware has advanced so much since then, that running it on old hardware would be pointless. None of the new features would work on the old system because the hardware is antiquated. The whole point of new OSs is to do new things that couldn't be done on old hardware.
As it is, I'm running the Windows 7 system on a five-year-old system that I built in 2004. Now, that's not 2001, but it's an old system. Single core. Hardly any memory compared to the newer laptop I've got, and guess what: Windows 7 works perfectly. Mostly I use that old system for a media server, but I've also run newer versions of Photoshop on it, and it runs great. Faster than XP.
I, too, found Vista a perfectly fine if not inspiring OS. Nearly all of the major criticisms of Vista were overblown. I don't find it ugly. I *do* find the Mac OS to be ugly, but that's just me. These things are subjective. Mostly I want the OS to look clean and stay out of my way. I don't need a lot of eye candy. I find the Mac minimalist aesthetic to be a bit stifling, and I like the look of Aero compared to XP.
But the bottom line is that Macs and PCs appeal to people with different computing priorities, so it's no surprise that Mac afficionados would rail against Windows 7 no matter what it looks like or does. I don't understand that perspective. If you like Macs, fine. If you like PCs, fine. What's the big deal? Are you just trying to make yourself feel better about a purchase? There are more important things to worry about than which OS you're running on your system.
Hucbald on October 13, 2009 at 05:16 AM
"But we'd challenge even the most expert Mac user to make the upgrade to Snow Leopard from Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" -- released around the same time as Windows XP -- in less than two hours."
LOL! As Locomotive Breath pointed out, Apple has gone from Power PC to Intel machines between those two versions, and Snow Leopard is the fist release that does not work at all on the old Power PC machines (That OS X worked on both platforms for so long is AMAZING in itself). If you'd have said update from OS X 10.1 to 10.5 - which is doable on a Power PC machine that is fast enough - I could have taken that challenge and won.
PC's are like Harleys: Every Lone Wolf poseur rides one, but the real motorcyclists ride Beemers, like the real computer aficionados use Macs.
daxx on October 13, 2009 at 05:19 AM
@Mr. Bingley:
Sure you can. Windows 7 only needs a 1GHz processor and a gig of RAM. A 1.4GHz AMD Athlon-based systems runs the release candidate just fine. It wouldn't set any performance records but for basic surfing, email and office-type stuff, it's okay.
hiscross on October 13, 2009 at 05:30 AM
I use Windows 7 on my BootCamp partition. I've also used Vista and even have XP on a VM to log into work. Vista is quite goofy, but 7 is OK. I find XP in another lost century. Oh 10.6 is better than any of them because it is so fluid. I am happy Apple is on Intel so I run just about any OS I want.
brian on October 13, 2009 at 06:09 AM
@Mr. Bingley
I have the RTM of Windows 7 Pro running on my 6 year old Thinkpad X31. Runs better than XP on the same hardware.
I also have the RC (soon to be Pro RTM) running on a machine I built in (wait for it) 2001. Athlon XP Barton 2.2 GHz, 2 GB RAM, GeForce 7600 GS. It's not as quick as a C2D 6600, but I used it for an entire month as my main machine just to see how it would do. I was surprised by how well it ran.
Windows 7 is what Vista SHOULD have been.
(ob jab) - And when is Apple going to fully implement ASLR? Microsoft had it in the first release of Vista!
lplimac on October 13, 2009 at 06:17 AM
Computers are tools. nothing more, nothing less. You use the tool appropriate to the task. At work I use Mac OS X on my video editing Intel Mac and at home I use XP on a PC (self built) for gaming. Both do what I want them to do, so I'm happy.
hoipolloi on October 13, 2009 at 06:28 AM
The Mac vs. PC debate is increasingly irrelevant. People are used to using all kinds of different devices and having different devices interface with one another. It comes down to price and value and aesthetics and how comfortable you are with repeatedly opening your wallet.
dpatten on October 13, 2009 at 06:34 AM
Yes, Mr Bingley, you can run Windows 7 on a machine from 2001. As a matter of fact you can run it on one from 1999 if you have enough RAM and have upgraded the CPU.
Also, I can run 20 year old 16 bit Windows 3.0/3.1 programs on the 32 bit version of Windows 7 or use XP mode for XP only programs. Can you run classic Mac apps on Snow Leopard?
I thought not.
Michael Chaney on October 13, 2009 at 07:04 AM
The problem with your Puma/Snow Leopard analogy is that Apple has turned out 5 good reasons to upgrade since 2001, whereas Microsoft is now set to turn out their first. For most users, Vista got skipped, so a lot of people who are upgrading are likely doing the upgrade from XP.
I'll just be getting a new computer if I decide to get Windows 7, or I'll let it run under Parallels. Upgrading seems too painful.
Max Bassett on October 13, 2009 at 07:47 AM
Not only can you run Windows 7 on a pc machine from 2001 when OS 10.1 came out it runs pretty well on hardware that old and OLDER. The 1Ghz processor 1GB ram Windows 7 minimum requirement are actually real numbers that give you a acceptably working computer. I am running Windows 7 on several 2000-2001 vintage computers and it runs well.
Microsoft has managed something that has not occurred before, they have released a significant OS upgrade that actually has greatly reduced hardware requirements from it predecessor.
Greg D on October 13, 2009 at 07:52 AM
The problem is that the upgrade from Windows XP requires a clean install, backing up data and applications and then reinstalling them after Windows 7 is on the machine.
So much for trying to get people to leave XP.
Should Mac sites be spending time trying to "prove" 7 sucks? No. That's silly and pointless.
Are you damaging your credibility by defending really piss poor behavior by Microsoft?
Why yes, you are.
Microsoft can't figure out how to upgrade from their most popular OS without completely wiping the hard drive? Indefensible, inexcusable, incompetence.
I've got a laptop and a tower running XP. Neither will be "upgraded" to Windows 7. If Windows 7 turns out to suck less than XP, then I'll let that get installed on my next Windows machine. But Microsoft's inability to manage an acceptable upgrade path means I won't be upgrading existing machines.
Lance on October 13, 2009 at 08:27 AM
"Given the underlying changes in computers since then, some level of difficulty is to be expected."
What a howler. PC's haven't fundamentally changed in twenty years. The hardware that works with XP will work with Windows 7. It's the operating systems that have changed, becoming more and more complex.
Aric A. on October 13, 2009 at 09:41 AM
@Hucbald: I ride a Bimmer ('74 R90/6) and I consider myself a "real" computer aficionado. And I mostly use Linux. I have a Windows 7 PC and a Mac as well, and I like them all for various reasons, but Linux is the OS I get the most work done with.
MHA on October 13, 2009 at 09:53 AM
OK, I'm a Mac user and a Windows user, and I happen to think Windows 7 is a fantastic step forward, and it runs great on suitable hardware -- including a recent Mac. But Todd's comparison of upgrading from Windows XP to Windows 7 to upgrading from Mac OS X 10.1 to 10.6 is inane at best. No one has bought a Mac running 10.1 lately, whereas Windows XP has continued to be a popular platform of choice on new computers for many users.
Doug on October 13, 2009 at 09:56 AM
More than 10 times as many people prefer PCs to Macs. Obviously, despite incessant Mac fanboy whining, most people get it.
Macs do have their place though. They are perfect for computer illiterates who just want to (unreliably) surf the net and that don't need to get any real work done.
Brian Gulino on October 13, 2009 at 10:06 AM
"Given the underlying changes in computers since then, some level of difficulty [in upgrading from xp to w7] is to be expected."
No its not.
What's the point of having a OS desktop monopoly and complete control of the code in both versions if you can't make the upgrade seamless. Too much work? Not enough money? What?
CG on October 13, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Microsoft (or more accurately, PC software companies in general) is moving closer and closer to Apple's excellent standard in terms of software design. Meanwhile, to their credit, Apple is dropping their silly proprietary commitments and utilizing more and more traditionally PC hardware (Intel, NVIDIA, etc).
I would not be surprised if, 10 years down the road, Windows and OSX are as indiscernible from each other as Coke and Pepsi. Sure, people who care will be able to tell the difference (Pepsi ftw). But most people just want a drink. And at that point, market share is destiny.
This is why it's crucial for Apple to dramatically expand its market share before then. Whether they can do this remains to be seen (if there's sticker shock in the US and UK, imagine how consumers react in emerging economies like India and China).
D on October 13, 2009 at 11:34 AM
so, everyone is willing to go back to a brand new souped up pentium III on a camino or carmel chipset, just to test if you could run Win7 on it? That was the newest thing in 2001, and I had to go look it up. Those were the chipsets that would take above a Gb of RAM, and the P-III was the first CPU to have a 1+GHz. clock.
Is that what we are talking here?
The comparisons are fruitless. Just got the kids a mac, so my ex will stop calling me to troubleshoot every.little.problem. that they have with it. A mini is $600. Works with the same monitor and key/mouse they already had. Same printer too. Haven't had a call in weeks. Clearly an 80/20 law issue. Most people just want to surf, write a note or email. Turn on the computer and it works. For the same reasoin people buy boring cars, and minivans/crossuv's.
They don't care as long as it works. A company has a whole group of people like me to keep PC's working. It's a job. Consumers don't have that. You can say, "but a mac is an extra $400." Yeah? over the life of that computer? What is your TIME worth?
Louis Wheeler on October 13, 2009 at 11:45 AM
I've got no heartburn about System Seven. It will never hurt me, because I will never use it. If you do and you like it, it's no skin off my nose.
Even so, most of these arguments get started from Windows advocates saying that System Seven is in the same league with Snow Leopard. It is not, for many reasons.
Windows has hidden technical flaws, carried on by System Seven, which make it unwise to use on the Internet. Its foundations are about as bad as the original Mac OS was back in 1996. Apple got many dings from Microsoft fans from this; it is only fair for us to return the favor.
Snow Leopard's purpose is to prepare for future developments. Its most important attribute is that it allows a rapid migration to 64 bit applications which use Grand Central Dispatch and OpenCL. There will be many benefits arising from this.
The developers will be leaving behind old procedural code based on the Carbon API's. They will be forced to migrate to Object Oriented programing. This is no panacea, but it is the wave of the future. Object Oriented programing means a more flexible program which is smaller and is usually faster. Also, upgrades are easier. When Apple upgrades and optimizes the Cocoa API's then all programs get faster.
Apple needs to complete this process to Cocoa; its professional applications are still 32 bit and in Carbon.
We must revisit this comparison between Snow Leopard and System Seven in about a year. By then, 90+ percent of Apple Applications will have converted to 64 bit code which is 50 to 200 percent faster than Windows Seven apps on the same machine. Also, the way that the applications are organized will change allowing for plugins to be sold to provide more features.
The iPhone Apps store will likely be extended to regular Mac Applications after Apple solves its logistical problems. The Apps store will provide a convenient means of selling those 64 bit Apps. Since the developer will get paid for every application in use, then the price is likely to come down. Currently, 70 to 80 percent of the applications in use are stolen.
Franklin Jones on October 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
"Sure, you can't run software written for Macs in the late 80's, but the question should be, why do you want to?"
Ah, yes. "Why would you want to run a program that does exactly what you need it to do the way you've been used to for years, compatible with all the files you've piled up over decades of operation?"
There's a reason that an IBM z Series can still run programs written for the S/360 forty years ago, and a modern Vista PC can run programs released in 1981 for DOS. It's because they're serious machines for grown-ups with real work to do, not nonce toys for permanent adolescents.