In the minds of many, Windows, the operating system, has often been associated with some notion of inevitability:that it was inevitable that one upgrades to the most recent release of Windows. Or that Windows was inevitably going to be rendered unnecessary thanks to free or much cheaper alternatives. As is often the case, reality lies somewhere between these two extremes.
There is reason, though, to revisit the "inevitability debate" as Microsoft releases, with relatively uncharacteristic advertising restraint, the seventh in its Windows dynasty.
First, Vista, the embattled predecessor of Windows 7 (henceforth Win-7) was skipped altogether by
myriad companies and individual users. The negative reviews and far-from-flattering word-of-mouth convinced many to nurture fresh appreciation for the Vista predecessor, Windows XP. This was the first time in Microsoft’s thirty-four-year history that many (or probably most) Windows-only users turn their backs to a new version of Windows.
myriad companies and individual users. The negative reviews and far-from-flattering word-of-mouth convinced many to nurture fresh appreciation for the Vista predecessor, Windows XP. This was the first time in Microsoft’s thirty-four-year history that many (or probably most) Windows-only users turn their backs to a new version of Windows.
The Vista debacle, therefore, defied and refuted the inevitability of having to upgrade the the latest Windows.
It was a failure by Microsoft, but not equally a success by, or for, its detractors and competitors.
After all, those who didn’t adopt Vista did not exactly flock to another operating system. Rather, they just did not have enough incentive to buy a new computer with a new Windows given all that was written about Vista’s sluggishness and compatibility issues.
After all, those who didn’t adopt Vista did not exactly flock to another operating system. Rather, they just did not have enough incentive to buy a new computer with a new Windows given all that was written about Vista’s sluggishness and compatibility issues.
The other extreme of the debate is that Windows (or probably all operating systems) will eventually
turn into a commodity that supports the (mostly) Web applications we run through the Web browser — in a manner similar to the electricity grid invisibly feeding our electric appliances and gadgets.
turn into a commodity that supports the (mostly) Web applications we run through the Web browser — in a manner similar to the electricity grid invisibly feeding our electric appliances and gadgets.
This vision has been the "future" for many years. But it did not happen — yet. Still, it’s probably closer to reality today than ever before. Consider, for instance, how the range of what you can do through the Web browser has expanded over the past four years. Web-based mail that is mostly better than hard-drive-hosted email clients. Documents that you can compose, save, search within, retrieve, and share almost infinitely. An ever-increasing amount of free online storage to save all kinds of content. In a word, you can have your whole digital life hosted online and accessible (given you keep your “password soup” in your head) via the browser.
The Value Question
Into this world comes Windows 7. As many have pointed out (see here and here), Win-7 could be the best Windows yet — faster and more user-friendly than its nightmarish predecessor. But to limit ourselves to a comparison of the different versions of a piece of software is just a recipe for the wrong questions about its real value.
Instead, we should explore what specific features in the new Windows could be indispensable or alternative-less in a way that would justify spending a fair amount of money on the upgrade (and possibly an "unfair" amount on a new computer).
For companies, because of practical issues related to maintenance and compatibility, Windows 7 is probably a worthwhile investment. And many have indeed announced that they were going to make the upgrade in the near future.
As for the rest of us, the proud denizens of end-userdom, jumping onto the Win-7 bandwagon should be made more carefully.
| |
Here is why. First, unlike the beta versions of Win-7, which could run on relatively modest hardware, the final version (polished, unsurprisingly, with graphics eye-candy) is more demanding. You will probably need, for instance, at least 2 GB of RAM.
That probably means a new computer or at least some $100 in a RAM upgrade. Second, Win-7 is probably faster, more stable, and more economical in battery consumption, but it does hardly add new features compared with Vista (except, notably, for touch-screens). Thus, if you’ve managed to put up with Vista for the past two or three years, there probably is no reason you can’t do this awhile longer, especially if the value expected (faster computer) may come at a disproportionately high price.
That probably means a new computer or at least some $100 in a RAM upgrade. Second, Win-7 is probably faster, more stable, and more economical in battery consumption, but it does hardly add new features compared with Vista (except, notably, for touch-screens). Thus, if you’ve managed to put up with Vista for the past two or three years, there probably is no reason you can’t do this awhile longer, especially if the value expected (faster computer) may come at a disproportionately high price.
Most importantly, the world into which Win-7 arrives is different from that of Vista. Late in 2006 when
Windows Vista came out, Web 2.0 was just finding its way and desktop Linux was still not user-friendly enough. Today’s picture in both areas is unlike that of early 2007. Web 2.0 (meaning, broadly, applications running on a Web browser) has gained a wide acceptance — so much so that the American government is moving its bureaucracy into the realm of Web 2.0.
On the Linux side, distributions like Ubuntu have made remarkable progress in terms of ease of use, beauty of visuals, and variety of features.
Windows Vista came out, Web 2.0 was just finding its way and desktop Linux was still not user-friendly enough. Today’s picture in both areas is unlike that of early 2007. Web 2.0 (meaning, broadly, applications running on a Web browser) has gained a wide acceptance — so much so that the American government is moving its bureaucracy into the realm of Web 2.0.
On the Linux side, distributions like Ubuntu have made remarkable progress in terms of ease of use, beauty of visuals, and variety of features.
When I bought a Vista computer in 2007, and like many was not happy with it, I tried Ubuntu 7.04. And I was not happy with that either. But lately I’ve tried Ubuntu 9.04 and was very pleased with how easy it was to install it and get it running and recognizing the hardware (including the wireless Internet
battery that Vista considered long dead).
battery that Vista considered long dead).
On top of that there is the name now always looming whenever Microsoft is mentioned: Google. The search engine giant has already announced in July its plan to release an operating system (based on a Linux "kernel" or core). If Google follows its "model", most likely the operating system will be free of charge (like all other Linux distributions), and with built-in capabilities that further blur the line between online and offline. For instance, one will likely be able to compose a document and have it saved simultaneously on both the hard disk and online on the computers of a host company (Google or others). Google’s operating system, dubbed Chrome OS, will make its debut in the second half of
2010.
2010.
One advantage, though, remains almost exclusively a Windows thing: familiarity. Hundreds of millions of us have had their first keyboard pecking experience on a Windows machine. We know our way around Windows — most of us. That will continue to serve Microsoft and Windows well into the future. But aside from familiarity, one is better served by taking the question of upgrading to Win-7 as a "thinkable" rather than a slam-dunk issue.
In other words, when you think of buying a new operating system or a new computer, consider the
expected value, not release dates.
expected value, not release dates.
No comments:
Post a Comment