Opinions: Why Windows 7 Doesn't Matter

So let's assume that Windows 7 is everything that it is touted to be. In fact, let's go one further – let's assume it's the perfect, nay definitive Windows OS. Does this really change anything?

I've been saying for a while, and still strongly believe that what people need now is a computer that can boot quickly and give them a web browser as soon as possible, almost (but not quite yet) a cloud specific OS.

The operating system doesn't matter any more, it's becoming as high-level as the BIOS – you won't care what's under there as long as you're presented with a browser. So it makes sense that what you're running is cheap, secure and fast. So we'll take Linux then – free is about as cheap as it gets, it's definitely the most secure, and the latest full blown Ubuntu still boots in around 20 seconds. With 15 Million computers affected by the recent Worm attack on Windows, I'm sure glad I've got Linux under my belt.

One of the few reasons you'd use Windows over Linux, is for gaming. Windows 7 hasn't changed that fact. What Windows 7 does give you is an upgrade path for current Windows XP users. So in reality – Windows 7 looking great is in part due to how bad Vista was – is that something to be wowing at?

I don't see manufacturers not offering Linux netbooks in the near future, partly due to price (even XP added £30 on and they practically give it away) and also because people want choice.

So if Windows 7 matters as little as I think it does (although the masses of BBC coverage would argue otherwise), what should we be worrying about? It has been, and still is the issue of browsers. Making cross browser compatible websites is still a pain and holds back the creativity of those trying to make decent Web 2.0 applications. But waiting for everyone to comply to the latest standards is why we're still stuck in the dark ages with no variables in CSS rendering or a standard way of allowing Web 2.0 applications to become desktop resident, as examples.

What really makes one browser different from another is interface, plugins and security. Rendering is such a non-issue that Microsoft may as well give in and just adopt an open-source renderer such as Gecko or Webkit. Hell – that's what Google did and you certainly can't suggest that Chrome is the same as Safari – there is plenty of scope for making it your own. They would be saving themselves a lot of work as the open source community would implement the standards for them. Why re-invent and screw up the wheel?

If internet technology is to move forward, it's the browser war that needs to be taken care of – not the underlying Operating System. I want to sit here and suggest that Microsoft would never make a move like this, and I'm probably right. But occasionally I see something, like the "we're not cool enough to support your operating system" message to Linux users trying to run Photosynth, or the way they have been improving the Windows port of PHP to run with IIS, that makes me wonder if they are starting to think "if you can't beat them, join them". Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that the message was done by a clever PR person trying to get Linux users to like Microsoft more and the PHP compatibility goes very much in Microsoft's favour as it means they don't lose customers over to Apache.

So what do I think of Windows 7? I have Vista running under VirtualBox on my Ubuntu machine and it's dead slow. Windows 7 under the same VM (512MB of RAM) was super fast and I really liked some of the changes they made to the interface – this time for a reason, rather than just for the sake of it. So it's an obvious improvement over Vista. But it's not going to win me over and I would say the same for most Linux users, so I would hardly call it a “Linux Killer”. Most people like the idea of a free, open, secure operating system but are put off by the transition. If you have made that transition, why turn back? So Windows 7 will at worse impede uptake of Linux.

Windows 7 isn't a bad operating system, and that can only mean good things for the industry as a whole. So if you haven't done already, go and crap a copy - you've only got until February 10th

Adopting web2.0 solutions over an installed application is a practice close to my heart, having undertaken my "Digital Nomad" project last year. I proved that it was possible to conduct regular computing operations entirely through your browser.

@mbites said it today, checking off his to do list: "Twitter, RSS feeds, Yammer, Email all read" - all these activities are possible through a browser, whilst three out of the four could have been done through an installed client. One could argue that he's different to the average computer user: working in tech journalism he might be more aware of the power of a browser.

However, this morning I sat behind a Macbook user, and couldn't help but watch his habits. I'm not a Mac person, but I once helped set up a brand new Mac Mini, so I recognise how Mac OSX looks and behaves out of the box. This guy had not customised anything, aside from putting a sports car as his wallpaper. He was using Google Docs to take notes, but toggled to various other tabs in Safari - Facebook, Hotmail and BBC Sport. The only installed application he was running was MSN Messenger. This guy later pulled a Nokia N95 from his pocket - definitely not a fanboy.

Just to be sure this browser based behaviour wasn't a one-off, I called the least technically minded person I could think of. I asked her what she does on her computer, on an average day. "I only click the "e" on my desktop and check my Hotmail and Facebook". After a couple of further questions, I figured out she uses Windows XP on her 4 year old laptop.

Cloud computing offers a reliable base to build a homogeneous experience that also enables sharing of information yet preserves our choice for privacy. Based on my end user findings I'd say that the power of a browser has already penetrated the consumer space and is recognised and adopted by multiple tiers of user.

The areas not yet developed by the web2.0 space are mostly specialist and corporate/business focused. For example, there are still no viable alternatives for audio and video editing; and as for company in house ERP / EDI systems, databasing and back end operations, I think both a web2.0 solution and its adoption are a long time from coming. Be encouraged by the work of firms like Swirrl, who will hopefully gain adoption and with that the attention of other programmers and developers willing to give this sort of work a try.

By the way, should anyone close to Apple read this - a suggestion that came from an innovation seminar I attended was to build a way for iTunes to work through any web browser. That came before the question - if Apple pride themselves in being specialists in graphics and touch, why was it Microsoft that released Surface?

If it didn't matter, why does the Linux community worry so much about it that several articles appear every day saying that it does not matter and Linux is already better than Windows 7 blah blah. I'm not a Windows fanboy but this Windows-Linux war is starting to get (if not years ago) a little too much kindergarden.

M$ is a multi-millonaire company that is supposed to release only high quiality software, but WTF was Vista? It should be ilegal to release such type of crap!
And if Win7 is still the same kernell as Vista, then in the inside, it's the same bullshit

If it didn't matter, why does the Linux community worry so much about it that several articles appear every day saying that it does not matter and Linux is already better than Windows 7 blah blah. I'm not a Windows fanboy but this Windows-Linux war is starting to get (if not years ago) a little too much kindergarden.

Actually, if you look around, the "Windows 7 as Linux on netbook killer" posts on various blogs are mostly by Microsoft shills, and yes Microsoft is very worried.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/microsoft_layoffs_netbooks_sales_are_killing_us

Microsoft bashing gets nobody anywhere, and just damages the Linux name. But it feels like looking at some of the comments that you haven't even read what I've had to say, and rather used this as an opportunity to mouth off.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28039226/?pg=7#Tech_JerkGadgets

Fair amount of truth in this.

I don't want cloud computing. I want *my* data to be on *my* computer and/or *my* USB key. I want *my* data to run on *my* software on *my* computer. I don't want getting things done to be dependent on my internet connection and some server a thousand miles away. I don't want my data to be in someone else's hands. Cloud computing solves a problem I don't have while handing me new ones. I'm far from the only person with this perspective.
Plus, it has to either cost me in money or cost the economy as a whole in still more drag by too many $$$ spent on advertising.
The only reason for server-oriented computing is if my bosses want all the employees to have a standardized setup for ease of administration. This is a reasonable reason for an administrator, but there's no reason for a home user to want such a thing, and there's very little reason for an administrator to outsource to the "cloud" instead of retaining local control with a local server.
There *are* reasons for *vendors* to want cloud computing. Ask me if I care.

Windows 7 is probably fairly irrelevant. But cloud computing isn't why.

I think it does matter, if Windows 7 & Vista with it's DRM gets a large installed base they will try to leverage that.

"Making cross browser compatible websites is still a pain and holds back the creativity" - I don't see that; I've been (hand)writing HTML that works across browsers for years. (A bigger pain is sites that do something that _won't_ work except in just one browser, just so that some gimmick they don't need - a mouseover button-press, or something similar - will work.)

As for the browser becoming the interface to everything - Gues 28 Jan put it very well: "I don't want cloud computing. I want *my* data to be on *my* computer and/or *my* USB key. I want *my* data to run on *my* software on *my* computer. I don't want getting things done to be dependent on my internet connection and some server a thousand miles away. I don't want my data to be in someone else's hands. Cloud computing solves a problem I don't have while handing me new ones." I want to use my own email prog.; I also want to use ye olde usenet, which "forums" are killing.

I don't know anyone who is a fan of Vista. They made a very bad mistake. It is the newer Windows Millennium: everyone knows it existed, but who cared about it? The difference ist that Millennium (WinMe) at least was not so hard on the users' eyes, ran very fast and used the same hardware. Vista does not crash as much, but you must change basically all the hardware you are used to using, and they are expensive stuff sometimes. When WinMe ran on 256 Mb of RAM, Vista needs 4 GB to run as smoothly. And the confirmations, oh, God, those stupid user confirmations!!!! And setting the rights (user/admin) became just as complicated as the file management structure. Where XP made simple adn secure Vista screwed up. What about the XP file/folder structure that lays as hidden files/folders underneath Vista? You cannot access it. But what are they doing there in the first place? MS people could not be creative enough to be able to remove them? C'mon, Vista is an improvement?????