Henk van de Goor's Bloggers@large

As I was getting more and more flaky errors from my Vista Home Premium installation, I recently reinstalled my Del XPS 420. Since I got my hands on Windows 7 Ultimate (legal, MSDN), I decided to take the step and install that. I reviewed some beta versions of Windows 7 before and it looked promising, but it is alway a bit of a gamble with Microsoft. Previously when I beta-tested Windows Vista it was a nightmare: with every new Beta it seemed that Vista got worse and worse instead of better.

So when the final version of Vista came out I tried my best to avoid it. However, when I bought my Dell XPS 420 I could not get it with Windows XP; instead I got Vista Home Premium. And since the first time I booted it, I have had a thorough love-hate relationship with it. To this day I am convinced it is the worst Windows version ever made by Microsoft (even worse than Windows ME). Simple tasks require seventeen mouse clicks and then you end up with the annoying UAC popping up asking for your permission to do whatever you wanted to do. In short: Vista is a nightmare unless you tweak it seriously.

Anyway: Windows 7 final is released (to manufacturers) and will be out for the general public on October 22nd of this year. So what better timing than to wipe out Vista? So I backed up all my stuff and popped in the installation DVD.

And here is what happened.


As I noticed before when installing a beta version, it took less than 25 minutes to install. More impressing: I only needed to answer a minimum of questions and off I was. After installation I more or less expected that I would need to go in search of drivers and such specifically for my XPS hardware. But low and behold: every part had all the necessary drivers installed and everything worked: my Logitech Webcam, my Dell remote control for Windows Media Center, my Samsung ML-1610 laser-printer etc. etc. Now that's what I call a nice "OBE" (out-of-the-box-experience).

And my first impressions have not been spoiled so far. In fact: Windows 7 delivers where Vista failed miserably.

So what makes Windows 7 better than Vista in my opinion? Well, it boils down to user interface improvements and enhancements and some actual new and useful features.

At the heart of the (improved) interface is Aero Peek: making every open window transparent except the one you're focusing on at the moment so you can find what you're looking for (I consider it a variation on Exposé on Mac). Now, it does break with my 15 years of maximizing every window I use; that needed some adjustment from me. Instead, I simply let windows put, because it is easier to use them. In other words: it does reorient the Windows UI around multitasking.

The redesigned taskbar is also nicer than Vista. Other new options include: pinning applications/shortcuts, using jump lists, Aero Shake, Left/Right alignment, full-desktop gadgets, themes and new shortcuts in Windows Explorer. I had to get used to it, but it works and I like it.

In fact; after just one week of using Aero Peek behind my belt, and the new launcher taskbar, going back to XP's taskbar (still running on two other PC's I have) and digging through collapsed app bars, or using Alt+Tab just feels... I don't know.. Old fashioned?

Another really handy feature I like, are jump lists. When you right-click an application you see a history of files you opened with it and you can also "pin"it to the taskbar. In Internet Explorer, it shows your recent browsing history; in Windows Media Player, it'll let you play recent videos; and Windows Explorer will give you quick access to pinned and frequently used folders and files. Nice.

There are other things there as well, like Aero Snap, Aero Shake and such, but I find them not that useful (so far). I guess Microsoft was just trying to squeeze in some eye-candy there.

You can quit your complaining now
So, my impression after about a week (reinstalling a lot of stuff; so I did play around many, many hours) is very positive. My biggest complaint about Vista - performance - has been addressed. My second big issue; the shitty (pardon my French) UAC that hassled you with every little mouse click, is gone (no verdict yet on what it does to security). Other than that you get some nice new features that - unlike the eye-candy in Vista - actually have a function other than just trying to impress (remember the dumb Vista commercials? "The wow, starts now"?).

So to all Vista users out there I say: get Windows 7 and you can quit your complaining. And if you still use XP because you hated Vista or wanted to skip it: Windows 7 will change the way you are used to work, but I think it's worth it.

The good and the bad:

What I like:

+ It works!
+ They put a muzzle on the UAC!
+ Clean install is lightning fast (don't know about upgrading; I hear mixed results)
+ Clean interface: less clicks to do what you want
+ Nice enhancements to the GUI: Aeropeek is handy and so are jump lists
+ Media Center is clean and improved
+ Way faster than Vista (but then again, how could it not be)
+ Detects hardware better and even installs a smaller footprint on Netbooks and such

Dislikes:

- Why wasn't Vista like this in the first place!
- Internet Explorer 8 (still sucks like all IE versions)
- Still a bit slower than XP (in benchmarks, in the real world you probably won't notice)
- Evolution, not revolution

Overall I give Windows 7 an 8,5 out of 10 (as there is always room for improvement).

After just two years I am already forced to reinstall Winblows Vista on my Dell XPS420. I have a legal (MSDN) copy of Windows 7 as well, but I wonder if I should do a clean re-install of Windows Vista first (as it has all Dell drivers), or if I should just attempt a clean Windows 7 install? Usually the latter is better. I’m now in the process of backing up my stuff to a 1TB USB disk. It’s slow and annoying. Another reason why I want to reinstall, is because the RAID 0 (stripe for speed) config of my Dell is showing an error. Nevertheless Windows just boots and seems to have no problems.

Anyway; I have all disks from Dell so I don’t expect any big problems: just a whole lot of time will go into this. I also hate the fact that I will have to reinstall all my games and with many of them I will have to start from scratch again.

Yup, I know: I should have got a Mac. Except not all my games run on it – unless I use Bootcamp or something.

Big news in IT land today. Google announced officially it's working on Chrome OS. As usual the press immediately translated this news into something like "Google declares war on Microsoft Windows", which is complete and utter nonsense. I used to be a journalist myself and I find it increasingly annoying how the press nowadays is just giving a twist to news that is besides the truth. Just another hype then?

Don't get me wrong: I love competition and the choice for consumers that comes with it. But Chrome OS is not intended to compete with Windows per se, simply because it is targeted at a different group of users. The idea and business model behind Windows is completely different and Chrome OS may become popular - but I don't think it will replace Windows. I simply do not see companies getting rid of Windows in favor of Chrome OS.

So yeah, Microsoft might lose some market share but I predict that will be mainly in the consumer market. To really hurt Microsoft there needs to be a competitor for the business market. We all know IBM tried that once with OS/2, and failed miserably.

Now, the consumer market is another animal. That's where Google has been ripping Microsoft a new asshole as they dominate the web. Google has launched the Google Chrome browser, which has become my standard browser for the web but it hasn't had the impact yet that many people predicted (or hoped for): at the moment Internet Explorer is still loosing market share, but mainly to Mozilla Firefox, not Chrome.

Android, which is a different Google project, is targeted at almost the same audience and devices as Chrome OS will be: netbooks and other mobile (phone) devices. Google admits there is an overlap between the two projects, but states that it believes that "choice will drive innovation for the benefit of everyone, including Google." I second that.

As Google explains: "Google Chrome OS is being created for people who spend most of their time on the web, and is being designed to power computers ranging from small netbooks to full-size desktop systems." That is not the average person. Or better said: that is not the average person now. But we all see how the market is shifting towards a complete "always on, always mobile" .

As I see it there will be a short-term and a long-term effect. Short term effect will be that many manufactures of cheap netdevices (netbooks, mobile phones etc.) will definitely consider Chrome OS as it cuts costs (no license needed as it is open source). But the use of it will be limited or equal to the amount of usefull applications that will developed.

So let's say I want to play the latest cutting edge games: I won't be doing that with Chrome OS. That's not what its for. Say I work for a bank: I'm sure they will not use Chrome OS. Now, if I am a consumer that travels a lot (commuting), I want a no frills lean and mean fast way of getting online. And that's where Chrome OS will score.

Oh, and by the way people: both Android and Chrome OS are based on... Linux! So actually Google is just building on existing experience with existing open source technology and I see it as proof that Linux will become mainstream in the near future. And let's not forget: Mac OS/X is based on several BSD derivatives which is a cousin of Linux.

Bottom line: does Microsoft need to worry about Google Chrome OS? Hell yes! But not for the reasons that the press is trying to make you believe.

It's more because the long-term effect I foresee.

I blogged about it before, but in back in 1995 when Microsoft launched Windows 95, I attended a press meeting with Larry Ellison CEO of Oracle. He predicted the future (of Internet) in a way when he said "the network is the computer".

What he meant was, that he predicted a shift from big 'bloathed' desktop computers to lean, mean machines that connect to the network and 'load' their applications from there. In fact your PC will become a 'dumb terminal' again (like in the old mainframe days) and all that you need will be in a virtual 'cloud computing network' (essentially: the Internet).

Back in '95 this seemed very unlikely because the infrastructure of the Internet was just to weak. We had no ADSL, cable internet was sparse and (fast) connectivity was expensive and unreliable. But low and behold: it is 2009 and the infrastructure has improved so much and costs has come down. So I believe Larry Ellison's vision will become true.

And that's where all the Google pieces come together (also Google Wave etc).. Google understands the future. Google is the Microsoft of the future.

So yes: it maybe is a hype today (explained the wrong way by the press), but it will be a reality tomorrow.

The future is bright. The future is Google online.

Every evil empire has it's henchmen that do the dirty work. At Microsoft it just must be Steve Ballmer. I mean: the guy is a real PR nightmare! There are many embarassing video's of him around, but I didn't know this one yet: a compilation of a bunch of terrible Ballmer video's. When you see the really old stuff you can only come to one conclusion: he has always been this way. Because of his outrageous behaviour there have been many speculations that he's a coke head. Who knows. He might be just plain crazy.

I like to say: credit where credit is due. And this time it seems like Microsoft finally deserves some credit. I just downloaded the just released Vista Windows 7 build 7000 Beta1 as a Virtual PC and the install DVD. I haven't had the chance yet to do a clean install of Windows 7, but I did just run the Virtual PC version, and I am already impressed. The beta versions of Vista where really bad (and I mean: bad!Bloggers@large: Vista articles). In fact, every release of a new Vista Beta just got worse instead of better. But this time it seems that Microsoft nailed it and it looks like Windows 7 is going to be all that they promised for Vista: better, faster, more reliable and a better user experience.


My first impressions are that Windows 7 is not a revolution but an evolution compared with Vista There a not that many innovations; yes it will have multi-touch (for those with a tablet pc), it has a new taskbar (did someone say "dock"?), the Sidebar has been revamped (it's now more like widgets in - yes - Mac OS X), there is the "Jump list (list view from OS X?) and yes, they finally tuned down the f****** irritating UAC (User Account Control).

However, the biggest improvement seems to be the performance. Even though I ran Windows 7 in a Virtual PC, it was more responsive than Vista and it comes damn near what I am used to get from Windows XP SP3. And this within Virtual PC! I just hope that Microsoft does not f*** this up. ZDnet's Adrian Kingsley-Hughes even did a preliminary performance test and concluded Windows 7 is up to par with XP. Off course problems have emerged - as usual. Without the right patch it kills your MP3's and there are some hardware problems, which is to be expected from a beta.

Now, if you are trying to get your hands on a copy of the public beta, you're out of luck at the moment: Windows had to shut down it's servers due to massive response. However: many copies circulate the net already. So you should not have that much problems finding a copy somewhere. And in case you need a beta license key: just click on the image below and copy it. It's for the 64-bit version, but works on the 32-bit version as well.